|
Post by seamonsters on Nov 4, 2009 22:51:07 GMT -5
WWE definitely arent doing the same things they have always done. Gimmick PPVs, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, King Of The Ring... Always happened. Jericho (for example) doesn't have his promos scripted because he doesn't need to. But some guys have always needed their promos scripted for them. Bret Hart never had a gimmick. After the first few months Diesel had no gimmick. Sid's gimmick was er, what exactly? Eh? The WWE had a hardcore division for what? Two years? The Cruiserweight Division lasted a few years longer, but for the main was generally ignored. Gillberg held the title for over fourteen months, and lost it in his first defence. Back to what it was for the vast majority of the 80s and the early-mid nineties, then. Compare year 1985, 1990, 1995 WWE to now, and the only difference is the number of TV shows and PPVs. The WWE are doing the same things they have always done.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Nov 4, 2009 22:56:24 GMT -5
So, does anyone have a picture of what he looks like?
Since I heard his hair was cut and his beard shaved off, I've got to see what he looks like now.
|
|
|
Post by SickFlipPiledriver on Nov 4, 2009 22:58:11 GMT -5
I personally think he looks more intimidating and "monsterous" with his new look. In TNA he looked like the bassist of every '90's rock band.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 4, 2009 22:58:52 GMT -5
I've never said WWE is infallible. Of course they screw up. They've screw up far more than TNA... they've had 50 more years to do it. I was discussing the past 5 years, not the past 50. Of course, you are just going to keep doing the same rolley eyes face and ignoring any points I made because you obviously hate TNA, so what is the point of arguing with you? You dont want to seem to have a debate, just say things like TNA has no clue how to run a wrestling company then point to ECW as a branding success. Some good that did them, how long did ECW have a national TV show? If TNA was trying to take lessons from ECW on running a wrestling company they would be incredibly stupid to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Nov 4, 2009 23:08:42 GMT -5
Archer! Archer! Archer! Archer! Archer! Archer! Archer! Archer!
Hmm, not nearly as chantable as his old name.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 4, 2009 23:20:52 GMT -5
Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, King Of The Ring... You cant tell the difference between a PPV where one of the matches is a battle royal and a PPV where three of the matches are a Hell in the Cell match, a type of kmatch that typically only happens once a year between two guys? I am not even discussing the positives or negatives of gimmick PPVs for almost the entirety of the year, just saying it is DIFFERENT from their past MO. Always happened. Jericho (for example) doesn't have his promos scripted because he doesn't need to. But some guys have always needed their promos scripted for them. Promos used to be unscripted, I know enough from watching shoots and WWEs own Legends of Wrestling panel to understand that. It wasn't until the early 2000s that almost everyone had their promos prescripted for them, and it shows. Bret Hart never had a gimmick. After the first few months Diesel had no gimmick. Sid's gimmick was er, what exactly? Bret Hart certainly had a gimmick. He was the Hitman. The best in the world at technical wrestling. He always wore pink and black, had logos, wore a leather jacket and sunglasses which he gave to kids in the crowd. That is certainly a gimmick.If you dont think he didnt have a gimmick, I guess Steve Austin never had one either. He was just a beer drinking redneck without a gimmick. Nicknames, ringwear, colors, catchphrases, etc. These all go into your gimmick. Diesel had that, Psycho Sid had that. Vance Archer doesn't. Nor do the majority of guys debuting these days. Its a pretty well known fact which has been repeated time and time again. Anyone I talk to that doesn't watch wrestling anymore? One of their prime reasons is because the guys are basically MMA fighters with generic names and trunks and no personality. Eh? The WWE had a hardcore division for what? Two years? The Cruiserweight Division lasted a few years longer, but for the main was generally ignored. Gillberg held the title for over fourteen months, and lost it in his first defence. It added variety and attracted ratings. This is like saying eh, RAW only attracted 5 and 6 point ratings for a few years. So its okay it doesn't now. The real question would be, WHY did it attract such ratings? Perhaps variety and entertainment instead of some guy beating the crap out of another guy in a minute flat with no direction, character or promo work at all. Back to what it was for the vast majority of the 80s and the early-mid nineties, then.
If the 80s and early nineties still work in any entertainment field, lemme know. Entertainment evolves with the times, man. It doesnt stay mired in what works, because what works 25 years ago will not work today. Compare year 1985, 1990, 1995 WWE to now, and the only difference is the number of TV shows and PPVs. So our argument has gone from WWE shifted to what worked in the year 2000 when they were getting huge ratings and PPV buyrates to WWE haven't changed because they are doing what they did in the 80s? Thats a GOOD thing? I disagree anyway because the 80s didn't have wrestlers trying to blow each other up with fireworks, the 80s had promos in the ring between wrestlers and angles in the ring rather than backstage crap, it also had lots of colorful distinctive characters, and managers. The 80s had an emphasis on tag team wrestling. The 80s had blood. Todays WWE has none of that.
|
|
mcmahonfan85
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 24,002
Member is Online
|
Post by mcmahonfan85 on Nov 4, 2009 23:41:07 GMT -5
WWE definitely arent doing the same things they have always done. Gimmick PPVs, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, King Of The Ring... the only one of those that is a gimmick pay-per-view is Survivor Series. the Royal Rumble isn't since it is named after one match. likewise King of the Ring was not a gimmick ppv, since for the first several years it feature a one-night tournament (which isn't a gimmick match), and then after that only featured the finals of the tournament. compare that to the Hell in a Cell ppv with three HIAC matches, Night of Champions where ever single match is for a title, Extreme Rules were only one match (not including Punk cashing in the MITB) didn't have any stipulation like ladder match or hardcore match, Breaking Point and its submission/"I Quit" matches, Bragging Rights with the Raw vs. Smackdown theme, the upcoming TLC pay-per-view, and the renaming of No Way Out to Elimination Chamber when the last two NWO pay-per-views have featured both a Raw and Smackdown Elimination Chamber match. look at the number of gimmick and themed pay-per-views of 2009 against those of say 1985 to 2008. i'm pretty sure all those "In Your House" shows weren't literally taking place inside someone's actual house. four years. the hardcore title was created in November 1998 and retired in August 2002. it was then brought back by for a short time by Foley and Edge in 2006 leading up to their feud against the "ECW scumbags" Terry Funk & Tommy Dreamer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2009 23:45:17 GMT -5
He looks like Daniel Craig!
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Nov 4, 2009 23:53:11 GMT -5
He looks like Daniel Craig! Huh, he kinda does, now that you mention it.
|
|
Peeetah
Hank Scorpio
BANG
Posts: 5,399
|
Post by Peeetah on Nov 5, 2009 0:09:06 GMT -5
'least he didn't turn up all fat. Also INTENSE.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,123
|
Post by Mozenrath on Nov 5, 2009 0:12:37 GMT -5
New tights and a fresher finisher would be nice, but as far as debuts go, it was pretty standard fair.
I was hoping his theme would be:
"TEST, I am not Test, TEST TEST, I swear that I'm not Test!" *garbled gibberish*
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Nov 5, 2009 1:27:41 GMT -5
I was discussing the past 5 years, not the past 50. Of course, you are just going to keep doing the same rolley eyes face and ignoring any points I made because you obviously hate TNA, so what is the point of arguing with you? I don't obviously hate TNA, I'm just not a fan of their product. I don't think I need to be for the points I'm making here. You dont want to seem to have a debate, just say things like TNA has no clue how to run a wrestling company then point to ECW as a branding success. Some good that did them, how long did ECW have a national TV show? If TNA was trying to take lessons from ECW on running a wrestling company they would be incredibly stupid to do so. OK, you need to understand that you don't get what a "brand" is.. or "branding" or "brand recognition." So just don't worry about arguing with me about this. ECW as a business was not successful. That much is clear to everyone with a brain. ECW as a BRAND was very successful. Incase you hadn't noticed, WWE actually revived the name for that very reason. Because it had legit legs to stand on. TNA doesn't have to take lessons from the old ECW but it could take lessons from HEYMAN in terms of giving the company a distinct identity with a true style that is purely TNA.
|
|
Hanzo
Dennis Stamp
"You want Cena to go to ECW?!"
Posts: 4,666
|
Post by Hanzo on Nov 5, 2009 1:36:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 5, 2009 1:41:16 GMT -5
I was discussing the past 5 years, not the past 50. Of course, you are just going to keep doing the same rolley eyes face and ignoring any points I made because you obviously hate TNA, so what is the point of arguing with you? I don't obviously hate TNA, I'm just not a fan of their product. I don't think I need to be for the points I'm making here. You dont want to seem to have a debate, just say things like TNA has no clue how to run a wrestling company then point to ECW as a branding success. Some good that did them, how long did ECW have a national TV show? If TNA was trying to take lessons from ECW on running a wrestling company they would be incredibly stupid to do so. OK, you need to understand that you don't get what a "brand" is.. or "branding" or "brand recognition." So just don't worry about arguing with me about this. ECW as a business was not successful. That much is clear to everyone with a brain. ECW as a BRAND was very successful. Incase you hadn't noticed, WWE actually revived the name for that very reason. Because it had legit legs to stand on. TNA doesn't have to take lessons from the old ECW but it could take lessons from HEYMAN in terms of giving the company a distinct identity with a true style that is purely TNA. As far as you not needing to be a fan of TNA to comment on their product, it shows, because you really dont seem to have a clue what you are talking about. You criticize them for not being able to make new stars or run a wrestling company even though they have consistently built a fanbase from the ground up for seven years and also built plenty of new stars in that time. So you are just flat out wrong. TNA went from obscurity to a national TV deal. They dont know what they are doing? They arent running a wrestling company properly" As far as giving themselves a style, they have taken the WCW route and given something for everyone. Theres the X Division for fast paced action if you want that, good tag wrestling and a traditional heavyweight division. Any wrestling that relies on one style isn't pro wresting. PW has always been about giving something for everyone. WCW did it, ECW did it, WWE used to do it until they decided to fit everyone into the same mold. Your arguments are pointless anyway because ECW failed. If TNA wants to concern themselves with developing a "recognizable style" over profitability, THAT would mean they dont know how to run a wrestling company. You are the only one hung up over TNA not "developing a brand" over actually turning a profit and getting TV and advertising deals. I am done with this argument because it has nothing to do with Hoyt anyway. Its far past my original argument, which is that TNA can make new stars, has, and that Hoyt circa TNA wasn't good enough to be a main eventer. Maybe he is now. I guess we will see.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Nov 5, 2009 1:45:42 GMT -5
I was going to be done with this argument too but for an entirely different reason.
Agree to disagree.
|
|
Hanzo
Dennis Stamp
"You want Cena to go to ECW?!"
Posts: 4,666
|
Post by Hanzo on Nov 5, 2009 1:55:14 GMT -5
PW has always been about giving something for everyone. And if you want to see a pay per view that has something for everyone, watch WrestleMania 17. Actually, that's probably why it's considered by many to be the best pay per view of all time, because it really does have something for everyone. Big Main Event Match: Austin vs. Rock High Spots: TLC II 'Technical' Wrestling: Angle vs. Benoit A Good Brawl: Undertaker vs. Triple H Fun and Nostalgia: Gimmick Battle Royal Drama: Vince vs. Shane Squash Match: Chyna vs. Ivory Other Good Matches Scattered Throughout: Jericho vs. Regal, Test vs. Eddie, Kane vs. Raven vs. Big Show A 6-Man Tag: APA and Tazz vs. RTC And everything in between! Now that's a good show! ;D
|
|
Tapout
Hank Scorpio
WWE Creative(TM)
W.W.W.Y.K.I.
Posts: 6,919
|
Post by Tapout on Nov 5, 2009 1:57:52 GMT -5
Like others, I didn't care for the debut. All he had going was "big, and in-tins." Not to be a jerk, but with him clean-shaven with all the close-ups on his face and nose, he looked like a Lord of the Rings orc: Didn't get any time to talk or establish any interesting quirks about himself. I'm hoping he gets a better shot at getting himself over next week. That doesn't involve a WWE Mobile show.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2009 2:27:16 GMT -5
Get this man in a feud with T-Reks STAT
|
|
|
Post by David Otunga: Eternian at Law on Nov 5, 2009 2:34:47 GMT -5
Okay I still have no idea who this dude used to be, BUT her's my take on his match. Clearly a soft debut, soft meaning they didn't promote the hell outta him for months before hand, and the match was against a obvious jobber to put him over. His look? Well I have no idea what he previously looked like so I can't say what looked better, but as this look, he looked okay. His 'look' didn't really make him stand out much. His in ring performance REALLY reminded me of JBL. Time will tell on this guy, I think if we can find him a solid tag partner he'll be around for awhile, if not...I'm not too sure we can expect him to be a prize pick for RAW or SD. Sadly I think he's one of these guys who debut and need a repackaging as soon as they come back through the curtain. But I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Nov 5, 2009 2:45:52 GMT -5
His look? Well I have no idea what he previously looked like so I can't say what looked better, but as this look, he looked okay. His 'look' didn't really make him stand out much.
|
|