|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on May 11, 2013 9:50:35 GMT -5
wasn't that basically CM Punk's gimmick?
in all seriousness, though, this would be a terrible idea. it'd fly over most people's heads and come off as nonsensical like a lot of Vince Russo's worked shoots in WCW. it's better to just make the occassional shout-out to the hardcores by doing stuff like John Cena's "heel turn", because that's a small thing and is actually entertaining. plus insulting your hardcore audience is never a good idea. they might decide "well if this is how you see me maybe I won't watch you anymore". ask Mark Millar what constantly insulting his audience got him.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 11, 2013 9:53:25 GMT -5
A smark gimmick will only be a stereotype and strawman. He'd be a fat guy with a neck beard, living in a basement with a faded NWO or DX t-shirt who came up with stupid ideas
A proper smark gimmick would identify WWE's real problems, so of course it would never be done.
|
|
Lila
El Dandy
Slip N Slide World Champion 1997
Posts: 8,905
|
Post by Lila on May 11, 2013 9:54:34 GMT -5
Isn't that CM Punk's gimmick? Pretty much what I was thinking coming in this thread.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on May 11, 2013 9:57:14 GMT -5
A proper smark gimmick would identify WWE's real problems, so of course it would never be done. Would it really though? Or would it just identify "perceived problems" that are essentially opinions.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on May 11, 2013 10:10:04 GMT -5
Only if it's a one night only gimmick and HHH comes out to Pedigree the guy back to his mom's basement. I'd want the guy to take a brouge kick and sell it like Charlie Brown on the pitcher's mound. Except that he explodes with signed 8x10s, indy dvds and 40 dollar lucha masks.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on May 11, 2013 10:11:40 GMT -5
Only if they also do a mark character and have them feud while treating their fight like it's a completely over the top cold war, Rocky IV style. Mark and Smark would fight violently for their ideologies against each other, bleeding but not giving up. Burning Hearts by Survivor would inexplicably play in the background during their match.
Two worlds collide Rival nations It's a primitive clash Venting years of frustrations Bravely we hope Against all hope There is so much at stake Seems our freedom's up Against the ropes Does the crowd understand? Is it East versus West Or man against man Can any nation stand alone
After they fought each other to an understanding, they would go on to form the Mark-Smark connection and win the tag team titles.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 11, 2013 10:53:59 GMT -5
A proper smark gimmick would identify WWE's real problems, so of course it would never be done. Would it really though? Or would it just identify "perceived problems" that are essentially opinions. It would identify opinions about WWE's actual problems that are based on factual observations based on the material presented by the company every week.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2013 10:55:14 GMT -5
God no.
Am I EVER sick of people acting like I'm an elitist because I've followed wrestlers for a while and have enjoyed them everywhere they've gone.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on May 11, 2013 11:21:41 GMT -5
God no. Am I EVER sick of people acting like I'm an elitist because I've followed wrestlers for a while and have enjoyed them everywhere they've gone. There's that sensitivityyyyyyy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2013 11:26:40 GMT -5
A proper smark gimmick would identify WWE's real problems, so of course it would never be done. That's essentially what Punk's pipe bomb promo's were, so it has already been done.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on May 11, 2013 11:40:34 GMT -5
Would it really though? Or would it just identify "perceived problems" that are essentially opinions. It would identify opinions about WWE's actual problems that are based on factual observations based on the material presented by the company every week. Define 'actual problems'? Unless we're talking about guaranteed money or company success here, most 'problems' are opinions based on what a certain individual wants from a WWE show. Even Punk's promos were largely that. Yes, there are things we all wish WWE would do differently, that would make us enjoy it more. But how much of that is just preference on how WWE should go? Can you really tangibly identify a 'problem' and prove that if it changed it would certainly benefit WWE from something more than a personal perspective?
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 11, 2013 11:41:27 GMT -5
A proper smark gimmick would identify WWE's real problems, so of course it would never be done. That's essentially what Punk's pipe bomb promo's were, so it has already been done. They were to a certain extent. They were primarily self-serving and Punk pretty much dropped that line of argument once his demands had been met. Identifying WWE's problems such as stop-start booking, neglected mid-card titles, a piss poor women's divison and a barely extant tag team division for example, goes beyond just personal preferences like for example....someone who would like the ropes to be red, white and blue.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on May 11, 2013 11:50:31 GMT -5
Identifying WWE's problems such as stop-start booking, neglected mid-card titles, a piss poor women's divison and a barely extant tag team division for example, goes beyond just personal preferences like for example....someone who would like the ropes to be red, white and blue. Its still all opinion and personal preference. There could be some who don't even care about a tag division or womens division or even the IC/US titles. Even if they did all of that right, there's nothing to prove that it would make a big difference in any area other than "My enjoyment watching the show". Which is what we're all worried about while watching since since we're fans. Thats my point. The notion that "Smarks identify the problems" is incredibly flawed because at the end of the day they're (or we're), just another subset of fans that really isn't any more wrong or right than any other group of fans. To think that we can see all the problems, or even worse, have the answers to said problems is ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2013 11:56:07 GMT -5
That's essentially what Punk's pipe bomb promo's were, so it has already been done. They were to a certain extent. They were primarily self-serving and Punk pretty much dropped that line of argument once his demands had been met. Identifying WWE's problems such as stop-start booking, neglected mid-card titles, a piss poor women's divison and a barely extant tag team division for example, goes beyond just personal preferences like for example....someone who would like the ropes to be red, white and blue. For such a gimmick to be done seriously it would have to ultimately bring about change and the E obviously has little desire to change their ways of doing things, so the gimmick would either a) have to be done somewhat selfishly to further a heels agenda(i.e. Punk) or it would have to be done comically (i.e. a stereotypical smark) and that's why it won't work in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 11, 2013 12:00:27 GMT -5
Nope. There is another option.
It isn't. There are some elements of wrestling which are simply obvious common sense things to do, that would not be detrimental to the WWE and only can help it. Personally I doubt there would be anything more than a tiny minority who would really show apathy to tag team, mid-card and women's wrestling (which would be around 3/4 of the roster) and even if they did, they are a tiny minority and there's more to be gained by focusing on the majority of the fanbase. There's no significant downside to improving those parts of the card and the company. Also, a "smark gimmick" does not equate to "smarks identifying the problem". WWE are probably aware of these issues. A smark gimmick wouldn't have to be for example a know-it-all fan. They could address the problems they face with the roster while still keeping those reforms within their corporate/authority figure context. So in essence, WWE themselves would be the smark gimmick
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on May 11, 2013 12:05:52 GMT -5
It isn't. There are some elements of wrestling which are simply obvious common sense things to do, that would not be detrimental to the WWE and only can help it. Personally I doubt there would be anything more than a tiny minority who would really show apathy to tag team, mid-card and women's wrestling (which would be around 3/4 of the roster) and even if they did, they are a tiny minority and there's more to be gained by focusing on the majority of the fanbase. There's no significant downside to improving those parts of the card and the company. Also, a "smark gimmick" does not equate to "smarks identifying the problem". WWE are probably aware of these issues. A smark gimmick wouldn't have to be for example a know-it-all fan. They could address the problems they face with the roster while still keeping those reforms within their corporate/authority figure context. So in essence, WWE themselves would be the smark gimmick And there is still absolutely no proof that it would help. Again, it still all comes down to "This is what I want to see" or "This is what we want to see". Thats the perspective we as fans think about the most for obvious reasons, but everything changes when you're on the other side, as there are factors we're not even aware of influencing decisions in the company. I could book the build up for the entire summer to my liking, or rather this forums liking, use who I want, give the entire card solid build, but there's nothing to say that those PPVs wouldn't completely bomb. Thats the reality, and we've seen it happen before. Thats not even accounting for the fact that opinions even between 'smarks' varies wildly.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 11, 2013 12:17:45 GMT -5
There's no proof that having strong competitive mid-card, women's and tag team divisions would help the company? They've had the first two before and it did no damage to the company whatsoever. I would argue that they've had stronger women's wrestling in the past and that did no harm either. Like I said, there's no downside.
That's a different point. This is more along the lines of personal preference. What you personally would want could indeed be a bomb. It's distinct from addressing elements of the company that could be strengthened with no damage done to the company by doing it, and only positives to gain from it. If it was attempted and failed and indeed the fanbase sent the message to the company that they'd prefer to see most of the roster treatedly meaninglessly in brief throwaway matches that do little else but simply fill time, stop-start booking, blown off angles, and with most of the focus on a relatively small group of main eventers month after month, then I would stand corrected.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on May 11, 2013 12:22:27 GMT -5
There's no proof that having strong competitive mid-card, women's and tag team divisions would help the company? They've had the first two before and it did no damage to the company whatsoever. I would argue that they've had stronger women's wrestling in the past and that did no harm either. Like I said, there's no downside. They've also had huge success when women were wrestling in gravy, so there's that. And the last few Wrestlemanias have gotten tons of buys but its not like we're saying those were models of success to use going forward. Its just not that simple. There's just so many other factors and grey areas involved that it still just boils down to what we want. It could be the number of belts, the usage of shows, etc. it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on May 11, 2013 12:30:32 GMT -5
That's a different matter if WWE feels that cutting the more explicit and vulgar elements of their programming had the benefit of being able to attract a broader younger/family orientated audience and would be more palatable to corporate partners.
If so, then these are all issues that could be addressed too. If there are too many belts, get rid of some. If there are too few, add more.
|
|
|
Post by keepinitreal365 on May 11, 2013 12:52:22 GMT -5
"pooping" on the guys that "smarks" hate and praising the darlings...isn't this why wrestling forums exist.
|
|