|
Post by Citizen Zero on Mar 10, 2011 21:41:42 GMT -5
I like Sheamus and Daniel Bryan, but you got to understand what the casual fan was thinking at that moment. "Ok, Austin's gone...what's next?" .... "Who the f*** is this pasty guy and why is he fighting a midget??" *change channel* That's not a casual fan, that's a freaking tourist.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Mar 10, 2011 22:25:07 GMT -5
Teenage boys turned off during the diva match? And people say sex sells right? It DOES sell. It's just that, they don't want to see them WRESTLE. WWE - herp derp - makes their hottest girls wrestle. So, people see the hot girls, but then see the crappy wrestling, and then they change the channel. if someone is only there to see hot women then odds are they don't even know what good wrestling looks like.
|
|
|
Post by derrtaysouth95 on Mar 10, 2011 22:38:27 GMT -5
You know, Austin's appearance did what it was intended to do....give a ratings pop.
It doesn't surprise me that viewing increased up to his appearance....fell off right after....and slowly came back at the end in hopes of him coming out again.
People still love Austin.
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Mar 10, 2011 22:58:34 GMT -5
It DOES sell. It's just that, they don't want to see them WRESTLE. WWE - herp derp - makes their hottest girls wrestle. So, people see the hot girls, but then see the crappy wrestling, and then they change the channel. if someone is only there to see hot women then odds are they don't even know what good wrestling looks like. That's where you are wrong. They DO know. There's proof. The ratings spiked for Tammy Sytch, a hot girl... 20 years ago. Then the ratings tanked during the Divas match. People aren't that naive they will watch a bad match just to see hot girls.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby on Mar 10, 2011 23:01:50 GMT -5
Good wrestling is good because people like watching it.
One of the reasons a lot of people don't get into wrestling is because their first match was two men rolling around in boring fashion. Nobody likes seeing two workers botch and flail pathetically, it's inherently not fun to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Mar 10, 2011 23:02:21 GMT -5
if someone is only there to see hot women then odds are they don't even know what good wrestling looks like. That's where you are wrong. They DO know. There's proof. The ratings spiked for Tammy Sytch, a hot girl... 20 years ago. Then the ratings tanked during the Divas match. People aren't that naive they will watch a bad match just to see hot girls. Again, it was a match that Michael Cole started ranting and raving in the middle of. Not saying that was entirely the reason but people on here claim that he forces them to hit mute and even stop watching altogether. Turn the obnoxious up to 11 and it just gets worse.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Mar 10, 2011 23:05:13 GMT -5
I don't see too many people blaming the Usos. I mean, geez, they got the mic once and didn't suck that much. They're perfectly fine in the ring. They just have NOTHING to work with, no gimmick, no feud, nada. Daniel Bryan and Sheamus both have little things about them that should make them marketable. Sheamus can appeal to the Irish-American population pretty well (as an Irish-descended guy, I think that all of Sheamus's shirts are excellent "Irish pride" apparel), has a marketable look, is a flat-out workhorse in the ring. Daniel Bryan has a built-in section of the fanbase that goes insane for him and is kinda good-looking despite being neither a muscle-toned beast nor an effeminate pretty boy. Everyone in WWE suffers from being booked as bland guys. I remember back in 2000 - even Dean Malenko, holder of the utterly worthless Light Heavyweight Title, had a gimmick (creepy wannabe ladies' man) with an angle to support it (stalking Lita). The guys on Heat had their own angles (Raven's ninja, for example!). Tag teams feuded over things other than the tag titles (Right To Censor miffing the APA and the Dudley Boyz). Nowadays? Zack Ryder has an utterly awesome gimmick, but he has no angles to support it. Trent Baretta is a great-looking worker with talent and absolutely nothing to use it for. WWE has some great personalities right now - Daniel Bryan has a hell of a gimmick when he has the chance to work it (see: NXT 4), but he never gets that chance on Raw. Jack Swagger has a well-rounded heel character who can go in a lot of different directions. But none of these characters get any feuds worth a damn to show off their personality traits. Why haven't the Bella Twins sicced a male wrestler on Bryan? How come Sheamus has lost all of his cred? Why on EARTH does Zack Ryder not have an angle (like the aforementioned Bryan/Bellas issue)? Why do Trent Baretta and the Usos lack gimmicks? How come R-Truth has nothing better to do than lose every week? Creative really is the source of all woes here. WWE's roster is awesome - even the blandest wrestlers (Johnny Curtis, Trent Baretta, Michael McGuillicutty) are good workers, and the worst workers (Brodus Clay, David Otunga) generally have something to make them stand out. Sheamus, John Morrison, Jack Swagger, Kofi Kingston, Sin Cara, Justin Gabriel, Ezekiel Jackson, Wade Barrett, Daniel Bryan, Dolph Ziggler - these are all guys who stand out for some reason, can either wrestle or talk well enough to get heat, and already have enough credibility for bigger pushes. WWE just gives them nothing. I agree with every word of this. Don't blame the wrestlers...blame the company, and specifically the parts of said company that aren't ALLOWING these talented guys and gals to blossom into the stars of tomorrow. As of right now, Vince McMahon HAS no competition (sorry, TNA....you're not there yet), so why the flying fornication wouldn't he take this chance to test out the next generation of stars? Push the older guys to the background, and let these young wrestlers have some characters, mic time, and mat time to PROVE themselves. I mean, what does the WWE have to lose by doing this? Ratings that aren't too hot in the first place? What other company is competing for those ratings? I mean, for God's sake, at least have your mid-card belts defended on EACH show!
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Mar 10, 2011 23:08:51 GMT -5
By the transitive property, next week, a poster of Sunny will beat Daniel for the US title.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Mar 10, 2011 23:09:56 GMT -5
By the transitive property, next week, a poster of Sunny will beat Daniel for the US title. Then a ladder will come in, go nose to nose with the poster, and lean a leg toward the Wrestlemania sign.
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Mar 10, 2011 23:18:21 GMT -5
That's where you are wrong. They DO know. There's proof. The ratings spiked for Tammy Sytch, a hot girl... 20 years ago. Then the ratings tanked during the Divas match. People aren't that naive they will watch a bad match just to see hot girls. Again, it was a match that Michael Cole started ranting and raving in the middle of. Not saying that was entirely the reason but people on here claim that he forces them to hit mute and even stop watching altogether. Turn the obnoxious up to 11 and it just gets worse. Except his segment spiked ratings last week. I know it had Lawler, but still. Last week he spikes rating, this week he doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 10, 2011 23:24:02 GMT -5
Given the nature of how wrestling is written today, I think people need to come to grips with the reality that Rock and Austin were the last of the "mega draw" stars. Barring a tectonic shift in the way writing/booking is done in mainstream pro wrestling in the near future, we're not going to see another for a long, long time.
It's not just the writers' faults, either, it's the entire system. It's giving away big matches every week. It's having feuds where the guys get face to face and get their hands on each other on every show. It's having a show where there's no such thing as dream matches or fresh matchups, because the audience has seen everything three times over within the past few years.
Austin and Rock were the last: they were the right guys in a situation where wrestling went through one of those tectonic shifts I mentioned, the shift from the old school way of booking and presenting the product to the "Crash TV" product of 1997-2000.
The problem is that the Crash TV product's shelf life was extremely limited, because of all the reasons I mentioned above, along with the "we can't shock them any more" factor (topless women, flaming tables, etc., it all loses it's shock value when it happens all the time).
So today, they've gotten rid of the over-the-top/R-rated stuff of that era, yet they keep the same format where you're giving everything away every week and over-exposing all your big stars, where all your big feuds are facing each other for free all the time, etc. You can't create big draws with this system, it can't be done.
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Mar 10, 2011 23:26:35 GMT -5
uncle, you are right. But WWE isn't going to change unless they are forced to change, rather doing any preemptive (if painful) measure.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Mar 10, 2011 23:58:33 GMT -5
By the transitive property, next week, a poster of Sunny will beat Daniel for the US title. Then a ladder will come in, go nose to nose with the poster, and lean a leg toward the Wrestlemania sign. THE IRRESISTIBLE FORCE VERSUS THE IMMOVABLE OBJECT!!
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 11, 2011 11:56:56 GMT -5
uncle, you are right. But WWE isn't going to change unless they are forced to change, rather doing any preemptive (if painful) measure. Oh, absolutely right; as long as WWE can keep drawing a 3.0 rating for it's prime time shows and as long as they can bank on nearly or over one million buys for Wrestlemania, they won't change a thing.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Mar 12, 2011 0:17:21 GMT -5
The numbers are real. You can whine about creative and how they should book Danielson and Sheamus all you want, but MORE THAN ONE MILLION PEOPLE tuned out when they came on -- that's incredible.
What we learned:
1) The IWC is not representative of the actual viewing audience (as evidenced, on this board, by the fact that people here actually watch NXT and put stock in it).
2) That the darling of the Indy scene means nothing to mainstream fans, and that he hasn't caught with his Labell lock or his neato Indy style (and I love DBD, but facts is facts).
3) That the dude who decided to de-push Sheamus had it right. The guy isn't over. He turns viewers away.
4) That freakin' Sunny -- or rather video of her from long, long ago -- is significantly more popular than two of the most popular wrestlers in the IWC.
5) That people would rather watch Broadus Clay than Sheamus and Bryan together.
6) That the IWC doesn't get it, and thinks the solution to this is to give Zach Ryder air time. Yep, I bet Zach would have kept those million viewers.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Mar 12, 2011 0:21:06 GMT -5
The numbers are real. You can whine about creative and how they should book Danielson and Sheamus all you want, but MORE THAN ONE MILLION PEOPLE tuned out when they came on -- that's incredible. What we learned: 1) The IWC is not representative of the actual viewing audience (as evidenced, on this board, by the fact that people here actually watch NXT and put stock in it). 2) That the darling of the Indy scene means nothing to mainstream fans, and that he hasn't caught with his Labell lock or his neato Indy style (and I love DBD, but facts is facts). 3) That the dude who decided to de-push Sheamus had it right. The guy isn't over. He turns viewers away. 4) That freakin' Sunny -- or rather video of her from long, long ago -- is significantly more popular than two of the most popular wrestlers in the IWC. I've certainly learned that you love trolling these kinds of threads with inflammatory nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Mar 12, 2011 0:30:45 GMT -5
The numbers are real. You can whine about creative and how they should book Danielson and Sheamus all you want, but MORE THAN ONE MILLION PEOPLE tuned out when they came on -- that's incredible. What we learned: 1) The IWC is not representative of the actual viewing audience (as evidenced, on this board, by the fact that people here actually watch NXT and put stock in it). 2) That the darling of the Indy scene means nothing to mainstream fans, and that he hasn't caught with his Labell lock or his neato Indy style (and I love DBD, but facts is facts). 3) That the dude who decided to de-push Sheamus had it right. The guy isn't over. He turns viewers away. 4) That freakin' Sunny -- or rather video of her from long, long ago -- is significantly more popular than two of the most popular wrestlers in the IWC. 5) That people would rather watch Broadus Clay than Sheamus and Bryan together. 6) That the IWC doesn't get it, and thinks the solution to this is to give Zach Ryder air time. Yep, I bet Zach would have kept those million viewers. To this, you are only half right. We might have no idea what to do, but we absolutely know what NOT to do. We might not know what's wrong, but defnitely know what's wrong. The IWC may not able to provide a coherent non-contradictory, non-conflictual, plan, but we completely competent in our ability to point out doesn't work and what not to do, something WWE seems unable to understand right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2011 0:40:57 GMT -5
I don't think anyone other than the Rock would have kept the viewers honestly.
The ratings were spiked way above what they usually are then dropped down to about what they usually are. I'd have been surprised if this wasn't the case.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Mar 12, 2011 0:41:46 GMT -5
The numbers are real. You can whine about creative and how they should book Danielson and Sheamus all you want, but MORE THAN ONE MILLION PEOPLE tuned out when they came on -- that's incredible. What we learned: 1) The IWC is not representative of the actual viewing audience (as evidenced, on this board, by the fact that people here actually watch NXT and put stock in it). 2) That the darling of the Indy scene means nothing to mainstream fans, and that he hasn't caught with his Labell lock or his neato Indy style (and I love DBD, but facts is facts). 3) That the dude who decided to de-push Sheamus had it right. The guy isn't over. He turns viewers away. 4) That freakin' Sunny -- or rather video of her from long, long ago -- is significantly more popular than two of the most popular wrestlers in the IWC. 5) That people would rather watch Broadus Clay than Sheamus and Bryan together. 6) That the IWC doesn't get it, and thinks the solution to this is to give Zach Ryder air time. Yep, I bet Zach would have kept those million viewers. To this, you are only half right. We might have no idea what to do, but we absolutely know what NOT to do. We might not know what's wrong, but defnitely know what's wrong. The IWC may not able to provide a coherent non-contradictory, non-conflictual, plan, but we completely competent in our ability to point out doesn't work and what not to do, something WWE seems unable to understand right now. Seems to me WWE understand that bringing the Rock and Steve Austin back -- in any role -- draws viewers and will drive PPVs. If a lot of people on here had their way, the main event of WM27 would be Bryan Danielson vs. Kaval, with John Morrison vs. Christian in the co-main event. When clearly it should be Broadus Clay vs. Sunny.
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Mar 12, 2011 0:45:37 GMT -5
To this, you are only half right. We might have no idea what to do, but we absolutely know what NOT to do. We might not know what's wrong, but defnitely know what's wrong. The IWC may not able to provide a coherent non-contradictory, non-conflictual, plan, but we completely competent in our ability to point out doesn't work and what not to do, something WWE seems unable to understand right now. Seems to me WWE understand that bringing the Rock and Steve Austin back -- in any role -- draws viewers and will drive PPVs. If a lot of people on here had their way, the main event of WM27 would be Bryan Danielson vs. Kaval, with John Morrison vs. Christian in the co-main event. When clearly it should be Broadus Clay vs. Sunny. Look, I repeat myself, I concede that we may not know WHAT to do. But we know what NOT to do.
|
|