|
Post by celtics543 on Jan 29, 2013 14:03:26 GMT -5
Let me preface this by first saying that I love seeing some of the older guys coming in as much as the next guy. Everyone from the Rock to the Godfather to Goldust and Roddy Piper gets a pop out of me when I see them. I love watching the guys I grew up on, but....
This is why the WWE is failing right now. There is WAY too much nostalgia going on. Every big show it seems features tons of spots where old guys come back and are constantly put over the younger guys. The same thing happened in the early 90's when Bret and Yoko were fighting for the title and then Hogan came back and was handed it. It's not just the guys coming back to wrestle though, it's the hall of famers being on the show all the time and guys that just keep coming back and getting put over everyone else.
Look at the attitude era, the older guys were shown the door and the younger guys got the spotlight and no one was coming in every couple weeks to one up them on the mic or play a part in story lines. It just seems that no matter how far someone gets they keep bringing out older guys who will out-pop everyone now. Their appearances should be kept to a minimum, things like Raw 1000 or the 20th anniversary are fine but when you have guys that come in for one or two matches a year it makes it seem like no one else is important.
Just look at what we're probably getting for Wrestlemania this year. The top matches will most likely be Cena vs Rock, Undertaker vs Punk, and HHH vs Lesnar. We know that Jericho will figure in prominently to that as well. Of the top six or 7 guys on the Wrestlemania card, only two wrestle a full schedule all year. Things like this didn't happen before. Wrestlemania was for people that wrestled all year and had actual feuds to blow off, not for guys who were big stars and came in during the Royal Rumble to start feuds. The biggest show of the year should be used to showcase new talent, not retired talent that only comes out once a year.
Again, I love seeing the old guys and I pop every time but it's a problem. It would be like in 1997 if instead of Bret facing Austin he was wrestling a returning Superstar Graham or Bob Backlund. Guys who were super-over back in their day and still got cheered. Would've been a great event but Austin never would've had that signature moment that led him to being the greatest of all time. Guys today aren't getting the chance for that moment. No matter how well a guy like Kofi Kingston or Wade Barrett or Cody Rhodes performed this year, they aren't getting the shot to have that moment because most of the time at Wrestlemania is going to be allotted to Undertakers match, Rock's match, and Lesnar's match. So instead the midcard future gets thrown into a huge tag match that lasts 4 minutes or some type of multi-man match that is short. The lower card gets relegated to backstage "comedy" skits.
Maybe I'm wrong and I'm sure that the buy rates tell me I am, but how long can they keep wheeling out Rock, Lesnar, HHH, Undertaker, and Cena before those guys are done and they have no one left because they never allowed anyone to be built up on the grandest stage?
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 29, 2013 14:07:04 GMT -5
I don't know, I think ultimately the burden lies on WWE to want to produce the show that that most people want to see the most. And that's The Rock, that's The Undertaker, that's Brock Lesnar, that's HHH, that's John Cena. It might not be the most exciting show creatively, but I can't blame them for doing the biggest show they can possibly do. I can't blame them for wanting to avoid the business doldrums of 1993-1996 until it's absolutely necessary and getting all the big paydays they can get.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jan 29, 2013 15:08:29 GMT -5
I completely agree with you, and I think this is one of the bigger problems facing the WWE right now.
I'm not an Attitude Era rose-colored glasses guy, hell, I wasn't even allowed to watch back in the day - but when you think of the Attitude Era you think of its original stars. I know that guys like Jake Roberts were kicking around right before the Attitude Era officially kicked off, but you think of Stone Cold, The Undertaker, etc. etc. way before you think of Roberts.
I just feel that this era and the crop of original superstars now aren't getting a chance to really craft their own era, because of the E's reliance on nostalgia and "hey, I remember that guy!". I mean, Cena I'm fine with as I don't think he's that old, but The Rock is WWE Champion in 2013. I like Rocky, but that's a problem.
Some may say that the current roster isn't strong enough to stand on its own two legs, and that's why we get the old guys that come back and get put into feuds - but I just don't think they're being given the chance to prove themselves. I don't know if it's that the WWE can't fully let the Attitude Era go, or if they're trying to bring back people that used to watch by having the old guys still out there to lure them in - but they need to let the past go and let the current crop shine on their own.
I hope this topic gets a lot of posts in it, as I think it's important and I would love to hear more thoughts on it. Great thread, OP.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jan 29, 2013 15:13:33 GMT -5
For all the talk about how things will be once those guys leave, PPVs all around did better last year, even those without the part timers.
As far as I'm concerned, if Lesnar and Rock are open to wrestling, which is something most thought impossible in 2006-10 then it'd be foolish not to have them do it.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 29, 2013 15:13:37 GMT -5
I feel that when guys like The Rock or Brock Lesnar come around, they're big enough stars that they can draw on their names alone. The Rock will draw because he's The Rock. Brock Lesnar will draw because he's Brock Lesnar. BUT they don't need to have them all over the show. Just use their drawing power to spotlight attention on the rest of the card. They're special attractions, and should be treated as special attractions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 15:16:01 GMT -5
I have to agree.
I mean, what REALLY made the Attitude Era what it was? IMO, a lot of the "established" superstars jumping ship to WCW leaving a vacuum for the next generation/unused talent to fill and really stepping up. WWE was forced to allow this young talent to step up - it was a HUGE gamble that paid off.
Now, there's no vacuum as WWE can tempt back many of their former workers since there's no real other place to go (TNA notwithstanding). They don't have to gamble so they won't.
But yeah - I'm pretty sick of it myself. I think a hiatus from WWE is a good idea at this point for me. I'll check back in after the WM noise.
When Brock and the Rock were on top of the game back in the early 2000's was the first time I stopped watching WWE so this seems like as good as time as any to do it again.
|
|
paywindah
Dennis Stamp
He's goin' to da paywindah here on da muddaship TBS.
Posts: 3,678
|
Post by paywindah on Jan 29, 2013 15:34:58 GMT -5
Going along with this, I hate when the current guys mark out for the old timers on TV. Off camera it's fine, but it makes them look like ordinary fans. Now the old guys marking for the current guys helps, but not the other way around.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 15:44:08 GMT -5
I don't get this whole thing against older name. Talent is talent, I don't care how old someone is or how long he's been wrestling. I care about whether or not he can entertain me. If you decide to build for the future, and NOT give me the product I want to see, then why the hell would I tune in to see the new guys? They're not who I want. And I'm not paying $55 for a WrestleMania full of people I don't care about in the main event. I feel that when guys like The Rock or Brock Lesnar come around, they're big enough stars that they can draw on their names alone. The Rock will draw because he's The Rock. Brock Lesnar will draw because he's Brock Lesnar. BUT they don't need to have them all over the show. Just use their drawing power to spotlight attention on the rest of the card. They're special attractions, and should be treated as special attractions. If you have a special attraction on your show, then you're going to want everybody to know. That means that they get the lion's share of the advertising, and the best television spots, and you pound into the audience's heads that they're going to be there so that they remember to tune in, and they actually do something worth tuning in for (which means interacting with the top guys, not low carders). They are treated like special attractions, that's why it's so special that they're on Raw, and why WWE wants everyone to know it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 15:59:48 GMT -5
I don't get this whole thing against older name. Talent is talent, I don't care how old someone is or how long he's been wrestling. I care about whether or not he can entertain me. I think the implied message there is that they aren't entertained by certain older names.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 16:02:42 GMT -5
I know that guys like Jake Roberts were kicking around right before the Attitude Era officially kicked off, but you think of Stone Cold, The Undertaker, etc. etc. way before you think of Roberts. Not to mention that Roberts almost exclusively put guys over during his last run. There wouldn't be an "Austin 3:16" without Jake's Cinderella story going into King of the Ring. The Patriot was another veteran midcarder who came in around that time, but he was working mostly as a jobber to the stars as well. I think that Vince really just understood at the time that he had to make new stars with serious drawing power. The roster was really threadbare at that time, and the WWF was very lucky to even have upper midcarders come in and pass the torch. You certainly have a point in WWE relying on the "hey; it's that guy!" approach. I understand that both Rock and Brock have big backgrounds with the company, but that the WWE is simply paying them multimillion dollar contracts for a few dates a year instead of developing a new generation is a really bad sign for the future. What's all the more frustrating is that they have the talent, they just don't seem to have to faith to let them run with the ball.
|
|
|
Post by PTBartman on Jan 29, 2013 16:04:04 GMT -5
Going along with this, I hate when the current guys mark out for the old timers on TV. Off camera it's fine, but it makes them look like ordinary fans. Now the old guys marking for the current guys helps, but not the other way around. Totally disagree with this. I think there's nothing wrong with Wrestlers being wrestling fans, how do you think they wanted to be wrestlers in the first place Little Edge at Wrestlemani Hulkamaniacing out. Foley at MSG watching Superfly fly and saying I'm gonna do that someday. And the "young guys"do get a rub off it. I don't eve like Brett that much and I was getting all caught up in Riccardo's excitement. Same with the Edge/Hogan spots they did. To use an example from another sport, ever hear Albert Puljos talk about Stan Musial?
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 16:10:19 GMT -5
I don't get this whole thing against older name. Talent is talent, I don't care how old someone is or how long he's been wrestling. I care about whether or not he can entertain me. I think the implied message there is that they aren't entertained by certain older names. That's not what's being said in the OP. It's the usual, "old names are taking up too much space, it's why WWE is failing, etc." stuff. Not being entertained by the older names is one thing and valid enough opinion, but saying they're an issue for any other reason other than you not finding them entertaining is another.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 29, 2013 16:24:07 GMT -5
I don't get this whole thing against older name. Talent is talent, I don't care how old someone is or how long he's been wrestling. I care about whether or not he can entertain me. If you decide to build for the future, and NOT give me the product I want to see, then why the hell would I tune in to see the new guys? They're not who I want. And I'm not paying $55 for a WrestleMania full of people I don't care about in the main event. I feel that when guys like The Rock or Brock Lesnar come around, they're big enough stars that they can draw on their names alone. The Rock will draw because he's The Rock. Brock Lesnar will draw because he's Brock Lesnar. BUT they don't need to have them all over the show. Just use their drawing power to spotlight attention on the rest of the card. They're special attractions, and should be treated as special attractions. If you have a special attraction on your show, then you're going to want everybody to know. That means that they get the lion's share of the advertising, and the best television spots, and you pound into the audience's heads that they're going to be there so that they remember to tune in, and they actually do something worth tuning in for (which means interacting with the top guys, not low carders). They are treated like special attractions, that's why it's so special that they're on Raw, and why WWE wants everyone to know it. But then it does nothing for the product in the long run. The fans are supposed to tune in to see Rock or Brock, but stay for everyone else once they're gone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 16:30:38 GMT -5
I'll be happy when this trend is over, but honestly in 2018 it'll be Cena/Punk/Orton doing the exact same shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 16:33:29 GMT -5
It's cool every now and then, but WWE runs it into the ground like they do most things. I mean, they don't even give you a chance to miss certain guys, but then expect it to be exciting when in reality the same guys show up every 3 months
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 16:37:21 GMT -5
I think the implied message there is that they aren't entertained by certain older names. That's not what's being said in the OP. It's the usual, "old names are taking up too much space, it's why WWE is failing, etc." stuff. Not being entertained by the older names is one thing and valid enough opinion, but saying they're an issue for any other reason other than you not finding them entertaining is another. It is an issue because they're in the way. It's perfectly spelled out in the OP. I've watched Undertaker/Rock/HHH wrestle for f***ing EVER, seriously since Ninteen Ninety-god-damn six, at least. That's 17 years! I get it from a business standpoint but it is beyond frustrating as a fan that wants to see the new shape of WWE take hold, and their presence simply does not allow that to full happen. So far that shape is John Cena, couple other guys that are allowed on his level-ish, and these old guys that have done everything 12 times over. Enough already!
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 16:39:50 GMT -5
But then it does nothing for the product in the long run. The fans are supposed to tune in to see Rock or Brock, but stay for everyone else once they're gone. But the present has to be thought about, too - just as much as the future, because if you're not putting on a product people want to watch now, they might not see a reason to come back in the future - especially when you realize that you're paying Rock and Brock plenty of $$$ and in order to make good on that they need to be used to their full potential.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 29, 2013 16:42:33 GMT -5
But then it does nothing for the product in the long run. The fans are supposed to tune in to see Rock or Brock, but stay for everyone else once they're gone. But the present has to be thought about, too - just as much as the future, because if you're not putting on a product people want to watch now, they might not see a reason to come back in the future - especially when you realize that you're paying Rock and Brock plenty of $$$ and in order to make good on that they need to be used to their full potential. I agree with you on that. But the problem is that they just KEEP bringing back the old names because they're trying to avoid or delay having to push anyone new. And I don't like the "Everyone gets bumped down a level" effect that it has on the roster as well. Over the past month we've seen Miz on Superstars, and Kofi pulling Superstars duty three weeks in a row, which means a spot on Superstars is taken from someone on the lower end as well.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 16:43:56 GMT -5
It is an issue because they're in the way. It's perfectly spelled out in the OP. I've watched Undertaker/Rock/HHH wrestle for f***ing EVER, seriously since Ninteen Ninety-god-damn six, at least. That's 17 years! I get it from a business standpoint but it is beyond frustrating as a fan that wants to see the new shape of WWE take hold, and their presence simply does not allow that to full happen. So far that shape is John Cena, couple other guys that are allowed on his level-ish, and these old guys that have done everything 12 times over. Enough already! Did you miss the part where I responded to that by saying that it's a different thing if the problem is that you're just not entertained by the older names? That's not at all what I care about. The OP stated they're (the nostalgia acts) why WWE is failing. That's not true at all. You may not enjoy them, but they're not doing any substantial harm besides decreasing your personal enjoyment of WWE while increasing others' (mine, for example).
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 29, 2013 16:52:15 GMT -5
I agree with you on that. But the problem is that they just KEEP bringing back the old names because they're trying to avoid or delay having to push anyone new. Not really. They bring back the older names because they always want to make more money. For the most part, WWE has done well with pay-per-view buys even without the attractions (I assume the recovering economy has helped a little), but Rock and Brock represent the ability to make MORE money. Things could be at Attitude Era levels, and Rock/Brock would still be there as long as they were willing.
|
|