Are we too harsh on WWE?

[xCompackx]

So there's been a lot of negative threads here lately, and it has me wondering: Are we too harsh? I mean sure, there are a lot of things that could use some changing in WWE (John Cena in general, using more of the roster in better ways, making their shows less bright and shiny, etc.) but there are a lot of things that WWE does well, also. The Shield has been booked to near perfection, match quality is usually good, and most PPV's have been fun so far this year, aside from WrestleMania 29. What do you guys think?

[Wolf Hurricane]

[MGH]

No. You're never wrong in asking more of an organization that you know can do better. Punk's promo from two years ago always rings true to me. Vince is a millionaire who should be a billionaire. They're content with being comfortable. They could do much more.

That isn't to say a lot of it can't be enjoyable. But they leave an embarrassing amount of potential on the table.

[Sparkybob]

I just think some people tend to more critical of the product because they feel the product can be much better and they are venting their frustrations about it. I am enjoying the product thought I wish some thing improve. It's just some people are more critical than others.

[The Portable Stove]

They have some of the greatest talent in the world. At the top of that is yes, John Cena. The problem is, Cena's getting older. Not too old now, but time is not on his side.

The WWE is currently writing their shows to assume that Cena will be around forever.

It's something that could easily be prevented. Something that could be re-written, something that can use the talent they actually have to their fullest potential. Get in the comedy segments while at the same time, building new stars. But the problem is, they're too focused on now than later. And that will come back to bite them hard later.

[Deleted]

A little bit. But WWE are far too disappointing far too much.

[amaron]

No.

As someone said, they can do better than this.

They just choose not to because the ratings and money still come in.

[Slingshot Suplay]

Not at all. The Wwe has lost a step when it comes to their creative process, resulting in a stale product. I think they've been so distracted by their other endeavors, that they don't devote enough time to proper storytelling or even developing of characters. They change creative directions often, and I think it reflects how unorganized and out of touch management is when it comes to what people really want.

[zeez]

I think WWE deserves to be criticized (so long as the criticism is fair and logical and not just someone pouting because their favorite wrestler hasn't won all the championships simultaneously yet) but it should also be praised when it does something right. WWE does a lot of things I don't agree with in a booking sense but they do manage to get some things right as well. There needs to be a balance but it will tip one way or another constantly based on what the current product is putting out. We do focus on the negative sometimes but did you see that show last night? Completely different from how this board looked last week at this time.

[Deleted]

I don't think people here are too harsh. They're just masochists is all.

[Lancers]

Usually I would say internet wrestling fans are too critical, but whatever that was the WWE decided to put together last night was worthy of criticism. I didn't see one redeemable thing about it. And I usually give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Deleted]

Not really. It doesn't even feel like WWE is trying most of the time.

[543Y2J]

[Rave]

I think that, as people who are part of their viewing audience, we have the right to criticize what we are watching. WWE could do a hell of a lot better than they currently are. That's why people are so pessimistic about the product, because there's so much wasted potential and so many balls being dropped.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

I don't think we're too harsh, maybe too nitpicky, but I think it's pretty obvious that the majority of us (myself included) have no idea what the f*** we're talking about.

[avenger]

Yes.

Which other TV show has at least 6 hours a week of original programming and writes for 30-40 different characters?

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2013 16:27:08 GMT -5 avenger said:

Yes.

Which other TV show has at least 6 hours a week of original programming and writes for 30-40 different characters?

They don't really write 6 hours though, nowhere near that, most the screen time is matches or video packages nowadays which is my major gripe, PPV's should be about matches, Raw and Smacksown should be about storylines and characters and short matches, Raw really doesn't need 2 random midcarders wrestling for 15 minutes for no reason with no progress. Also video packages should be dialled down, as everyone has loads of different ways to catch up with what's going on in WWE any time they want now, maybe show them on Main Event and Superstars but the main shows shouldn't have them so much

[mrjl]

Apr 16, 2013 9:52:15 GMT -5 xCompackx said:

So there's been a lot of negative threads here lately, and it has me wondering: Are we too harsh? I mean sure, there are a lot of things that could use some changing in WWE (John Cena in general, using more of the roster in better ways, making their shows less bright and shiny, etc.) but there are a lot of things that WWE does well, also. The Shield has been booked to near perfection, match quality is usually good, and most PPV's have been fun so far this year, aside from WrestleMania 29. What do you guys think?

WWE does not need to be less bright and shiny.

[Dat Dude]

[rnrk supports BLM]

Isn't this pretty much always the cliche about fanboys for any niche product? Especially on the internet? That the people who most obsessively follow all the latest developments within a genre/franchise are the ones who seemingly don't actually take any enjoyment out of their obsessive interest anymore, and spend all their time complaining about how badly things have gone to shit compared to some rose-tinted golden era that coincidentally coincides with when they were around 12?