|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 26, 2014 20:47:23 GMT -5
Daniel Bryan's climb to the WWE title mattered because they were forced to make it matter. As for the former SHIELD members, I don't think Rollins' turn was done particularly well, and time will tell how all three of their pushes will end up. Experience suggests there's every chance of the pushes being botched.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 21:05:44 GMT -5
Daniel Bryan's climb to the WWE title mattered because they were forced to make it matter. As for the former SHIELD members, I don't think Rollins' turn was done particularly well, and time will tell how all three of their pushes will end up. Experience suggests there's every chance of the pushes being botched. I'm talking about the moment a geeky Daniel Bryan introducing himself to the moment he held the titles over his head. Even then, his Weakest Link angle is what endure him to the crowd as a scrappy underdog. And sure WWE might screw it up but if you go in thinking that before the first time an angle is played out, why bothered watching it through? So you can brag about it failing?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jul 26, 2014 21:11:08 GMT -5
Yeah, it's almost like Vince pretty much made the right move there.
WCW was killed by the buffoons who ran it into the ground in 1999 and 2000. I guarantee you that nobody would have been dropping WCW from the schedule if they didn't lose so much money, the ratings went down, attendance went down, and everything went to shit. People blame Jamie Kellner for killing WCW, but he was laying to rest a rotting corpse. He was right to get rid of WCW, any sane person seeing what happened with WCW would have done the same thing.
As for ECW, they went into bankruptcy on their own accord before WCW went under, and WWE picked up the library and such after it went through the bankruptcy court. I think that's one reason why they went with the Alliance name and downplayed ECW in that angle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 21:34:27 GMT -5
The variety show aspect was not nearly as prevalent in the 80's, though. Not even close actually. They did have their moments, sure, but for the most part even the cartoony characters were presented as athletes trying to win a wrestling match, and that there were consequences to losing those matches. The WWE today is almost entirely a variety show where nothing matters week to week. Guess Tuesday Night Titans didn't exist. Guys in 80's WWF were treated as larger than life first and athletes second. They had the sports atmosphere with Jack Tunney showing up to take the blame whenever WWF booked themselves into a corner. Gorilla Monsoon saying things he memorized from a medical journal. Announcers treating most of the things happening in the ring as a life or death. But let's not forget it wasn't that all of time. As I said before, the NWA was the company that treated wrestling as a sport. They rarely had comedy or skits. Blood wasn't a rarity. The action was more smashmouth than WWF. People keep saying nothing matters nowadays. So the build of Roman Reigns doesn't matter? Daniel Bryan's climb to the WWE title didn't matter? Or Seth betraying his comrades and eventual feud with Ambrose? The announcers should do a better job of calling the matches. Angles could be structured better. Payoffs should be better. But they do treat things as they matter. Tuesday Night Titans was not Saturday Night's Main Event, nor was it the show that built feuds, made money, etc. It was what it was. While SNME did have some themed episodes that fit the entertainment umbrella, the main crux of the show was what happened in the ring. Same with Superstars of Wrestling, Prime Time (with some Gorilla/Heenan humor mixed in), etc. You seem to think I am suggesting that the WWF was all wrestling at the time. They were not and I never said they were. I'm saying they did not format the shows to look like a variety show as the shows are presented today. They presented the matches like real events, even if it was Red Rooster against the Brooklyn Brawler, and their weekly shows focused entirely on storylines and building the characters up. Yes, it was characters first, but that was their selling point. Ultimately, the characters were humanized by the way announcers would rationalize their motives and call the matches as if the result mattered (and back then, it did). Variety shows do not have story arcs. They are meaningless fluff to appease the audience and have no relevance week to week. That's what the WWE is today, more or less. Hence why Roman Reigns doesn't give two shits about Seth Rollins, even though he was the first guy Rollins hit with a chair in their break-up. They have an agenda with Reigns, and no amount of common sense is going to deter what they want to do with him. The Authority is the evil heel authority group that can easily manipulate situations to fit their agenda, but they decide to put Roman Reigns in the title match for no reason, even though he's one of their biggest threats. There is no rhyme or reason for the majority of the shows. They throw wrestlers out there for the sake of throwing them out there. Compare that to Summerslam 1988, at the peak of the Mega Powers, Hogan hugged Elizabeth, and Savage gave him a puzzled look for what amounted to probably 5-10 seconds, but it started an amazing story that eventually lead to the break-up. There was a reason Savage turned on Hulk. It was built over time and logically explained. He didn't do it "just because". Now it's probably unfair to compare any angle to that one because, IMO, that's the prototype for wrestling angles from start to finish, but you get the idea. I watched wrestling (well, the WWF, I didn't get the NWA in my area) since 1987 so I realize it wasn't the blood feud driven show that the NWA was. However, it wasn't what the WWE is today either. Not even close. The Attitude Era was similar to this era, except the characters were over back then (really over).
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 26, 2014 21:45:40 GMT -5
Daniel Bryan's climb to the WWE title mattered because they were forced to make it matter. As for the former SHIELD members, I don't think Rollins' turn was done particularly well, and time will tell how all three of their pushes will end up. Experience suggests there's every chance of the pushes being botched. I'm talking about the moment a geeky Daniel Bryan introducing himself to the moment he held the titles over his head. Even then, his Weakest Link angle is what endure him to the crowd as a scrappy underdog. That's how it should have been, but it wasn't. Had they followed a logical arc where Daniel Bryan rises from underdog to champion it would have been fine. The route they took was a mess, and probably wouldn't even followed that path had they not been forced to deviate from their preferred booking. No, but WWE have created that expectation of failure themselves.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 26, 2014 22:15:55 GMT -5
Talking about pro wrestling and "competition" is tough because, really, there's nothing out there like pro wrestling. It isn't a legitimate sport, it isn't a typical episodic TV show, and it's not even set up like a regular sports league where there's on large umbrella group (e.g. MLB, NHL, NFL, Premiership, etc.) with individual members who are large, money-making entities in and of themselves.
Vince was the ambitious promoter (and the wealthy one...after all, he WAS starting out in NYC, the nation's media mecca) who pounced on cable TV and thus destroyed the territory system, which, as people have said, would not have survived in its older form once cable became ubiquitous. Still...does that mean there wouldn't be room for multiple wrestling promotions? For awhile, the WWF would air on networks like USA while the AWA was on ESPN; why not a landscape where multiple promotions exist across different networks? Look at daytime TV, where each network has a different soap opera on, or prime time when they're all airing dramas or sitcoms depending on the night; does this mean they're going to drive one another out of business? Yes, they compete, but no, CBS isn't looking to wipe NBC off the map or something.
What I think some people resent Vince for is that his way of doing things made it nearly impossible for any other company to rise up, at least until Bischoff started beating him at his own game, when the whole concept of "drive your opponents out of business!" was a mindset that, to this day, doesn't really seem necessary. Vince didn't create that mindset, I'd wager, but since he's the guy who followed through on it and succeeded, he gets a lot of the blame. Yet because wrestling feels like both a sport and a regular fictional TV show, and since it's so unique compared to other offerings on most TV networks, it's easy to fall into a mindset of "there can be only one".
|
|
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Jul 26, 2014 23:23:06 GMT -5
I think Vince killed wrestling the moment the InVasion was botched. I know it's a broken record, but the WWF vs. WCW storyline should have been a huge financial success. Even if the WWF took their time and waited for the Time Warner deals to end before they brought in the big names (Hogan, Outsiders, Flair, Bischoff, Goldberg, etc), they still would have benefitted as business was still doing well in 2001 prior to the Invasion angle (and even in the Invasion PPV did well despite Vince botching it). The moment wrestling fans were robbed of a completely doable WWF vs. WCW card is when pretty much the only original storyline left to be made was thrown out the window. It's no coincidence business got worse in 2002-beyond. That's the first I heard about the Heyman thing. It surprises me he is still so well liked by smarks after reading that. I think that's because people appreciate Heyman as a manager and booker. There's nothing the average wrestling fan can do about the way Paul treated his talent. We were not there. It is appalling but when you think of it, Heyman has been humiliated enough times on TV to "get it" regarding that treatment.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjames on Jul 26, 2014 23:47:13 GMT -5
Yeah, it's almost like Vince pretty much made the right move there. WCW was killed by the buffoons who ran it into the ground in 1999 and 2000. I guarantee you that nobody would have been dropping WCW from the schedule if they didn't lose so much money, the ratings went down, attendance went down, and everything went to shit. People blame Jamie Kellner for killing WCW, but he was laying to rest a rotting corpse. He was right to get rid of WCW, any sane person seeing what happened with WCW would have done the same thing. As for ECW, they went into bankruptcy on their own accord before WCW went under, and WWE picked up the library and such after it went through the bankruptcy court. I think that's one reason why they went with the Alliance name and downplayed ECW in that angle. I think Jamie Keller would've still canceled Nitro even if it was still doing good in the ratings. Unless it was doing 1996-early 1998 ratings, it was dead. Keller wanted a new direction for TNT, and in addition to Nitro, he also canceled other succesful shows around that time,i.e. MonsterVision. You're still right, WCW was already dead. If it been in any way successful, another network might have picked it up.
|
|
|
Post by PsychoGoatee on Jul 27, 2014 2:12:28 GMT -5
I disagree that ECW had run itself into the ground and whatnot. Plus Heyman says the reason it went under is because of a thing where a pay-per-view company owed them about 4 or 5 million dollars. If they had been given the millions they were owed, Heyman says he could've kept ECW open for another couple years at least.
I saw ECW on a local Spanish station at night, even if smaller scale I do think ECW could've survived through stuff like finding a new TV deal and whatnot.
And creatively speaking, ECW was still quite good towards the end I'd say, at least the Pay-Per-Views usually delivered for me.
Random note, I dig ROH and sometimes have enjoyed TNA, but I don't think it's comparable to WCW and ECW. I love ROH, I've gone to their shows, but they are to me still more niche and indie than ECW pretty much ever was. And of course, TNA doesn't get anything close to the rating WCW got. It's nice that there are still other options, but there is nothing on WWE's level in America at the moment, success wise. And I do think it's true that the current climate might not produce as many superstars as the older days.
That said, I do still dig WWE, but it would be nice to have more successful competition. And since WWE got a lot of it's best stuff by being influenced by ECW and WCW's better stuff at one time, it's possible another new great promotion could positively influence them again.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Jul 27, 2014 20:54:44 GMT -5
Vince wasn't responsible for the death of WCW, but he was responsible for driving off its significant fanbase. No, he didn't have a responsibility to keep its nearly 3 million fans or uphold WCW's legacy, but as a businessman he was a goddman idiot for not immediately treating WCW with respect the second he owned its trademarks and footage. Hey Vince, the company is your's! You can stop fighting the Monday Night War now.
|
|
|
Post by Pillman's Pencil on Jul 27, 2014 21:14:59 GMT -5
The reasons WCW went out of business, it was owned by Ted Turner's TV Networks, who then hired an Executive Producer to be in charge of it, then AOL/Time Warner bought Turner out and wanted nothing to do with wrestling on their networks and they sold it to Vince McMahon, if if they had decided to keep WCW under its umbrella of operations and on TBS or TNT, then WCW could have ran the shittiest storylines possible, it would still be around today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 8:48:19 GMT -5
The reason wrestling is "dead" is more because of the change of the way media and the entertainment industry works. Wrestling used to be cheap programming that could fill time and get ratings. Now it's more profitable to just show reruns of The Real World or Seinfeld. If a TV network gave a deal to ROH, Chikara or Dragongate, realistically it would fail really fast.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 28, 2014 9:32:22 GMT -5
Vince McMahon didn't destroy wrestling, he picked up the pieces of it that were left once it destroyed itself and has tried to hold it together ever since with varying degrees of success.
WCW committed suicide and ECW basically ODed in an alley after the bank foreclosed on its house. Vince just stuffed the corpses and put them on display.
|
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Jul 28, 2014 11:18:55 GMT -5
I'm definitely one of those who believe that Vince went a long way in putting the death knell in American professional wrestling when he killed off the territories and bought WCW. While WCW is responsible for their own demise, when they ended, it hurt the wrestling business big time and it has never recovered. It's also unfortunate that Vince bought out WCW due to his brand of revisionist history.
As for ECW, I don't think it's death was a huge deal. Though I'm no ECW/Paul Heyman fan, so I'm probably just blinded by my hate.
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Jul 28, 2014 14:04:20 GMT -5
I'm definitely one of those who believe that Vince went a long way in putting the death knell in American professional wrestling when he killed off the territories and bought WCW. . But but but the evil and corrupt territories destroyed themselves, not the Awesomely Crazy Genetic Jackhammer!
|
|
|
Post by Just call me D.j.m. on Jul 28, 2014 14:09:03 GMT -5
The OP said this.
Well, I'm not sure what you're saying that isn't any different from the WWE mantra of being "the only game in town". Vince McMahon has had 13 years worth of time to tell the world that his vision of the pro wrestling genre is not only the correct way, but literally the only version of it that exists in the world that is worth a damn.
Yes, he won, but did he have to wipe everyone's minds and rewrite history in the process?
|
|
|
Post by greenhelmet on Jul 28, 2014 16:23:57 GMT -5
I'm talking about the moment a geeky Daniel Bryan introducing himself to the moment he held the titles over his head. Even then, his Weakest Link angle is what endure him to the crowd as a scrappy underdog. That's how it should have been, but it wasn't. Had they followed a logical arc where Daniel Bryan rises from underdog to champion it would have been fine. The route they took was a mess, and probably wouldn't even followed that path had they not been forced to deviate from their preferred booking. No, but WWE have created that expectation of failure themselves. Some times its the fault of the fans who either dream up a story and convince themselves that its going to play that way or just simply aren't going to be happy regardless of what WWE does.
|
|
NOwave
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,735
|
Post by NOwave on Jul 28, 2014 17:25:43 GMT -5
No, not everyone was making tons of money in the business during those days. But, a lot more guys were making a living at it then. The Memphis promotion alone had a full-time payroll of about 50 including my dad, who worked as a jobber-to-low mid card guy from the early 60s to 1979. We weren’t rich, but we owned a home, had 2 cars, and i went to private school. I certainly didn’t feel poor. My dad had steady, reliable work and was confident of being paid every week. I guess you could say he “hustled,” but I would say he worked hard-not unlike most other professionals at the time.
So, even if you believe that Memphis was one of the bigger, more successful promotions, Id bet the “average” in 1970-1985 had 30 or more full-time positions. Assume there were about 25 promotions around the country then, that’s 750 guys making a living at wrestling in that era. The business was able to support that level of employment because the number of fans who paid to see live events was much larger then than now. Most of the territories ran 20+ shows per month, including a weekly bigger event that drew in the thousands. Memphis drew 9000 on average from 1975-1985. (the absolute peak was 1981-84, with >10,000 tickets sold, 50 weeks of the year.)
And the TV audience was larger in absolute numbers also. Most of those promotions had weekly TV shows, and many of them were among the highest rated programs in their market. In Memphis, wrestling was the highest rated show by far for many years, peaking at 350,000 viewers/week in the early 80s.
So, yes the business as a whole was bigger then than it is now.
|
|