The "blame creative" culture

[Boo!]

I'm not saying bad writing and character direction doesn't play a huge part in the success or failure of a superstar - but it seems to me as if all the ills are now blamed on them and none on the wrestler themselves. Shoot interviews from ratchety old-timers with axes to grind can cover many things and they bitch about every subject under the sun but rarely do you ever hear the blame creative (or equivalent) there always seemed to be the acknowledgement that ultimately the success or failure of your character depended on you. Yes they blame being held back by Hogan, usually, and whatnot but it seems as if old-timers were less passive in taking responsibility for the success of the character.

One creative ill-fitting idea for one guy is the money-spinner for the next. Not all gimmicks fit all men but maybe some try harder than others to make theirs work. Even in the early 90s a zombie 'dead man' gimmick sounded hookie and could have gone one of two ways - either bombed completely and we'd all be looking back on it now holding our nose and laughing at the two disasters of Survivor Series 1990 (the other being that..THING that danced with Mean Gene), or been successful. Give that gimmick to someone else and it could be wrestlecrap fodder from that point forward.

It always annoys me when creative are blamed exclusively and I sympathise a bit Vince's comments - it seems as if superstars these days have a "nothing to do with me" attitude towards their characters as if they should all be complete, ready made, market-researched gimmicks but there's few gimmicks that ever start out as anything other as a gradual work in progress. There's never been a Steve Ausitn or Hulk Hogan pixie dust where you flick a switch and there's a brilliant character ready to go from the off. But to me at least, it seems as if that's what many of this generation want. There are exceptions of course but whilst creative shares responsibility this generation of superstars do feel the need to be spoonfed and if they don't get over it's never their fault and I think a lot have a half-arsed, arms-length involvement with their character that none of the top guys of the past had.

[MrBRulzOK]

It's creative's job to help get wrestlers over.

Henceforth, if they are doing things detrimental to that task then they are doing badly at their job.

Unfortunately at the end of the day Creative is where Vince's word is law. Until that changes then we're not gonna see any major changes anytime soon.

While I do agree that some of the responsibility of getting over does fall on the shoulders of the talent, it should be a collaborative effort between them and the bookers in charge. When you have one side purposely trying to sabotage the other then I don't care who you are: you're not gonna have an easy time getting over. Not everybody is The Rock or Stone Cold, and until someone like that shows up then you need to work with what you have.

[Rave]

We blame Creative because, for ages, a legit excuse used to fire wrestlers was "Creative has nothing for you". Professional wrestling is the only business I have ever seen that, when someone can't do their job properly, they're not replaced with someone who can, and someone else is fired instead.

[Boo!]

Dec 20, 2014 3:06:30 GMT -5 Rave said:

We blame Creative because, for ages, a legit excuse used to fire wrestlers was "Creative has nothing for you". Professional wrestling is the only business I have ever seen that, when someone can't do their job properly, they're not replaced with someone who can, and someone else is fired instead.

But its a TV show. In TV characters who they've no purpose for are let go all the time. Wrestling is the only TV show I know (with a comparable cast size) where if everyone isn't given a role it's considered a 'failure'. 

Long-running TV dramas and soap-operas usually have a high turnover of cast members who reach the end of their usefulness. Success cannot be defined as keeping everyone around and on screen and entertaining for eternity until they quit or die.

[Ryback on a Pole!]

I blame creative because it's their job to write, develop characters and storylines and most of the time they do a shit job at it.

Their idea for a logical solution to a storyline spanning months was Hornswoggle as the anonymous gm. Their solution to Wade's and the Nexus' "bigger picture" was to bury it in the desert somewhere and never speak of it again.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Creative isn't even bothering to actually put certain guys in matches to begin with. With so many hours of programming, it pisses me off that the Creative Team can't be bothered to pencil Guys like Alex Riley, Zack Ryder or the guys who were booted out in the Red Endeavoring in for a five minute match where they can look semi-competent and maybe win sometimes.

Not all Wrestlers need gimmicks. They just need chances to showcase their personalities and they get more chances to do that on App/YouTube videos than on actual WWE programming

[kidglov3s]

Creative as exists in WWE is inherently useless. The last thing you need for great pro wrestling is 26 writers cobbling together lifeless material that athletes are then held to recite by the letter.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

Dec 20, 2014 3:12:03 GMT -5 Boo! said:

Dec 20, 2014 3:06:30 GMT -5 Rave said:

We blame Creative because, for ages, a legit excuse used to fire wrestlers was "Creative has nothing for you". Professional wrestling is the only business I have ever seen that, when someone can't do their job properly, they're not replaced with someone who can, and someone else is fired instead.

But its a TV show. In TV characters who they've no purpose for are let go all the time. Wrestling is the only TV show I know (with a comparable cast size) where if everyone isn't given a role it's considered a 'failure'. 

Long-running TV dramas and soap-operas usually have a high turnover of cast members who reach the end of their usefulness. Success cannot be defined as keeping everyone around and on screen and entertaining for eternity until they quit or die.

Long running TV dramas and soap operas do not force their cast members to be entirely exclusive to them while simultaneously not featuring them. Soap operas place actors portraying characters that they aren't using (as) much on recurring status and they are paid per appearance. Also in TV dramas and soap operas, actors' careers don't basically live and die on that single show. They're free to move on to the next project without feeling like or without the general public's perception that they "failed" at acting.

[Rave]

Dec 20, 2014 3:12:03 GMT -5 Boo! said:

Dec 20, 2014 3:06:30 GMT -5 Rave said:

We blame Creative because, for ages, a legit excuse used to fire wrestlers was "Creative has nothing for you". Professional wrestling is the only business I have ever seen that, when someone can't do their job properly, they're not replaced with someone who can, and someone else is fired instead.

But its a TV show. In TV characters who they've no purpose for are let go all the time. Wrestling is the only TV show I know (with a comparable cast size) where if everyone isn't given a role it's considered a 'failure'. 

Long-running TV dramas and soap-operas usually have a high turnover of cast members who reach the end of their usefulness. Success cannot be defined as keeping everyone around and on screen and entertaining for eternity until they quit or die.

You're comparing programming where much, if not all, of an ensemble cast has a storyline, television time, and character development regardless of their acting abilities and regardless of the turnover (and where writers and showrunners are routinely replaced if the networks feel that they can't do their jobs, if the shows themselves aren't outright canceled) to one where the narrative seems to be deliberately focused on only a few characters and a good portion of the ensemble cast can't even get on television in the first place, much less have a storyline and/or character development. Who's to judge who is still useful if they're not being given the chance to be still useful in the first place?

I mean, yes, some of the blame is on the wrestlers, but when much of them are being given jack shit to work with, no TV time to try anything in the first place, and/or in some cases are outright getting the rug pulled out from under them, it only fosters that apathy that Vince was complaining about.

[lockedontarget]

How anyone can see the company routinely hamstring their own talent's ability to get over and think blaming creative doesn't make sense, I can't understand.

There are tons of examples of a wrestler getting over despite little to no support from creative, only to be held back by creative on a whim.

Ryder alone exposes what a farce the creative team is, and I didn't even like the guy. Here's someone who did everything he could to grab the brass ring and he was buried mercilessly.

Creative has been failing Cesaro for months. Doing the exact opposite things they should have been doing with him.

How could you blame a wrestler when he gets over, and then is suddenly turned heel and gets his coolest move taken away and never wins?

[thegame415]

Time's have changed
Storylines are getting worse
They don't adhere to fans
It's not Attitude, with blood and curse

Should we blame Vince?
Or blame Stephanie?
Or should we blame the amount of things to watch on TV?

No, blame creative, blame creative
With all their beady little eyes
And flappin' heads so full of lies

Blame creative, blame creative
We need to form a full assault
It's creatives fault

Don't blame bad ratings for botching Punk and Daniel Bryan, the Yes Man
They just serve to be Vince's yes man

And my boy Fandango, Made fans dance and duh duh
Creative got a hold, and they went uh uh

Well, blame creative, blame creative
It seems that everything's gone wrong
Since creative grew and came along

Blame creative, blame creative
WWE's not even a real sport anyway

Ryback could've been the top face, rich and true
Instead he burned up like a piggy on a barbecue

Should we blame the matches?
Should we blame the workrate?
Or the the workers who said he was a steroid freak?
Heck no

Blame creative, blame creative
With all their pyro and ballyhoo
And that bitch Brian Gewirtz too
Blame creative, shame on creative

The smut we must stop, the trash we must smash
Bad gimmicks and pushes must all be undone
We must blame them and cause a fuss
Before someone thinks of blaming us

[Mozenrath]

Every sport
Has its back and forths
Sometimes the gold
Is caught by the sift
But not with Creative

They're inclined to believe
It's their fault they're down
They'd grab that ring
They'd grab that ring and fly if they had wings for flyin'
Can't you see that they've been tryin'?
Can't there be long term pushes for them?
Not with Creative

[schma]

I suspect the reason you don't hear old timers complaining about creative is that many of them came up through the territory system where there were numerous places they could work that had similar levels of prestige and fame available. When you could say screw you I'm going to NWA or WCW or whereever else you had a bit more bargaining power. The simple fact that other options that were seen as completely viable existed meant that management would interact with talent in a different way.

Also, the companies were smaller in the day. Back then creative might be a few guys. Maybe a booker or two. Now you have 26 or so guys and they all have to get everything okayed by a man who is increasingly out of touch with everything to the point where he seems to wish his company's product was anything other than wrestling? Others have mentioned people having the rug pulled out from under them, yo-yo pushes or creative simply not caring enough to come up with something for a performer. Look at people like Ron Simmons and Bradshaw. Both were close to being released because creative had nothing for them. Meanwhile, Simmons was a former WCW world champ and Bradshaw was a future world champ. Neither particularly strikes me as a guy who'd be afraid to speak up or try to get something going. But creative had nothing for them until one person decided to make them the acolytes.

When all it takes for you to lose a job is for a few writers to have trouble coming up with an idea for you, that's pretty scary. When your options are basically WWE, indies or move to another continent entirely the idea of being released is probably pretty scary. The wrestling world today is nothing like it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. Comparing the oldies to current day wrestlers is apples and oranges. Their situations are totally different.

[Reflecto]

The wrestler does have to shoulder a lot of the blame if they succeed or fail as well- but having said that, it's far, far easier for a limited wrestler who has poor matches, but has the backing of creative giving them things to do, to succeed than it is for a wrestler who is putting on very good matches, but has creative ignoring them and giving them nothing to do to succeed.

[Futureraven: Beelzebruv]

Dec 20, 2014 2:39:56 GMT -5 Boo! said:

I'm not saying bad writing and character direction doesn't play a huge part in the success or failure of a superstar - but it seems to me as if all the ills are now blamed on them and none on the wrestler themselves. Shoot interviews from ratchety old-timers with axes to grind can cover many things and they bitch about every subject under the sun but rarely do you ever hear the blame creative (or equivalent) there always seemed to be the acknowledgement that ultimately the success or failure of your character depended on you. Yes they blame being held back by Hogan, usually, and whatnot but it seems as if old-timers were less passive in taking responsibility for the success of the character.

One creative ill-fitting idea for one guy is the money-spinner for the next. Not all gimmicks fit all men but maybe some try harder than others to make theirs work. Even in the early 90s a zombie 'dead man' gimmick sounded hookie and could have gone one of two ways - either bombed completely and we'd all be looking back on it now holding our nose and laughing at the two disasters of Survivor Series 1990 (the other being that..THING that danced with Mean Gene), or been successful. Give that gimmick to someone else and it could be wrestlecrap fodder from that point forward.

It always annoys me when creative are blamed exclusively and I sympathise a bit Vince's comments - it seems as if superstars these days have a "nothing to do with me" attitude towards their characters as if they should all be complete, ready made, market-researched gimmicks but there's few gimmicks that ever start out as anything other as a gradual work in progress. There's never been a Steve Ausitn or Hulk Hogan pixie dust where you flick a switch and there's a brilliant character ready to go from the off. But to me at least, it seems as if that's what many of this generation want. There are exceptions of course but whilst creative shares responsibility this generation of superstars do feel the need to be spoonfed and if they don't get over it's never their fault and I think a lot have a half-arsed, arms-length involvement with their character that none of the top guys of the past had.

I'm pretty sure I've heard plenty of old timers complain about the equivalent, the bookers. Ole, Dusty, Flair, Bill Watts, those guys have had many complaints thrown their way over the years.

In addition to other points made in this thread, there's a different environment now so creative is more important. It used to be you'd get some bullet points, go off, make your own promo. Now it's all scripted word for word, there's no room to improvise and make that killer promo. Austin 3:16 wouldn't happen today, some midcarder getting to say his own words? He'd know he'd be screwed before he started and be less likely to to do it.

The biggest promo of the last few years, the pipebomb, CM Punk had to already be a multiple time world champion and be in a contractual position where he had some leverage before they'd let him run free. These days, even when you're someone they're behind, they'll give you dull written promos with some lame catchphrase you have to get over. Believe that.

[Deleted]

Op has a point.


CM Punk is someone who battled with the office to get to where he is and succeeded, he used to ignore his scripts and say what he wanted and never got in trouble for it because he always focused on selling whatever it was he needed to sell. Basically he knew what he was doing and showed initiative and got to a higher level, if he was still with the company I can assure you Vince would have included him as one who "reached for the brass ring"

Punk did remarkably well in the WWE really and he did it by not taking shit, you can see where he stopped caring and just went along with what creative was giving him and he became all the worse for it.

Austin is another prime example, he diddn't get over as the ring master it sucked, they came up with this Stone Cold character who was originally from what I can gather basically going to be a sort of dead eyed hitman, Austin took it a completely different direction, Vince saw the dollar signs and ran with it.

I don't agree with Vinces opinions on millenials, it's an attitude that alot of those with money have thinking this generations lazier whereas in reality we're a generation who have far more conveniences so can get more in our day to day lives done with less effort which we have to when the majority of us either work long hours in a barely existant job market where there are so many unemployed a company won't bat an eyelid about firing you if you question how they do business.

People also forget the WWE aren't looking primarily at wrestling skill, they are looking for marketable characters that they can merchindise the shit out of, realistically even if Cesaro got over as a main eventer without a larger than life persona he's not going to sell many toys, bobbleheads, hats with his face on or whatever.

And a cashcow who has a gimmick that resonates with the fans of that era, good psychology and understanding of how to play their character, a good work ethic and all the other parts of the puzzle to be huge comes along once a decade if the WWE are lucky (apart from the Attitude era where they managed to luck upon 2 of the 3 biggest stars of all time at the exact same time). Cena is the closest thing they have had recently until the rise of The Shield and he's nowhere near having all the pieces of the puzzle.

You could argue that The Shields booking is what got them over, but in my opinion they were only booked that well in the first place because WWE knew what they had with them. WWE aren't daft if you are someone they can make money off they will protect and push you.

I just don't see the Dolph Zigglers of the world ever really being that marketable no matter how over they get. Bryan on the other hand is someone the WWE can make alot of money off and this is why they have booked him so well following on from 18 seconds (they spent the last few years slowly building and grooming him to become a main eventer, they've just done such a superb job of it people haven't realised thats what happened)

Daniel Bryan would have got his moment as a big star too eventually just later on, they were booking him strongly yet still convincing people he was being burried, keeping him out of the rumble was done on purpose (vince is not deaf he heard how over Bryan was and realised the key was to present him as the underdog whilst actually pushing him), I think he would have got his big title win eventually and they would have had better plans for the run instead of shoving him in something with Kane because whoever he was planned to work with was doing something else.

[HMARK Center]

Dec 20, 2014 6:11:35 GMT -5 schma said:

I suspect the reason you don't hear old timers complaining about creative is that many of them came up through the territory system where there were numerous places they could work that had similar levels of prestige and fame available. When you could say screw you I'm going to NWA or WCW or whereever else you had a bit more bargaining power. The simple fact that other options that were seen as completely viable existed meant that management would interact with talent in a different way.

...

When all it takes for you to lose a job is for a few writers to have trouble coming up with an idea for you, that's pretty scary. When your options are basically WWE, indies or move to another continent entirely the idea of being released is probably pretty scary. The wrestling world today is nothing like it was 10, 15, 20 years ago. Comparing the oldies to current day wrestlers is apples and oranges. Their situations are totally different.

You beat me to it: this is one of the absolute biggest factors.

Old school wrestlers were booked like crap plenty of times, yet in many cases those guys were able to argue "I don't have to put up with this crap, there's other places to make a living", and could use that as bargaining leverage. Vince owning the only big game in town completely transforms that, and removes just about all leverage the wrestlers could get.

Beyond even just the lack of competition, though, it's also the fact that WWE now tries to rear its wrestlers entirely within its company-wide system. Back in the day you honed your craft in multiple companies, in multiple states/countries, and you were often signed by WWF, WCW, or whomever with the assumption that you'd bring that refined expertise with you and be capable of getting yourself over. These days, many wrestlers are basically developed from the Performance Center all the way to Raw; if you're going to make that level of investment in your talent, then just wind up saying "Meh, the writers have nothing for you", then you're completely failing as a creative team. You can't profess to have this sound system in place, get your young talent to buy into it and believe that it works, and then routinely botch their characters, feuds, and promos and then try and turn the blame around on them for it. That's like saying you must attend public school in the United States from grades K-12, but that by grade 8 we just stop providing you with any guidance or in-class instruction whatsoever. It's self-defeating.

A huge problem WWE has had for awhile now is that it still operates in an 80s territory mindset on a number of fronts, yet wants to change its corporate structure to look more 21st century. You can't do the latter until you realize that you've already changed the standards that make the former obsolete. Either give these guys and gals a hell of a lot more freedom if you want to do the territory style, or take care of them a hell of a lot better if you want to do this whole "cradle to grave" system of development.

[Super Nintenjoe KBD]

You say "culture" as if it's something people just latch on to but I dont think that's giving people credit, we're mostly (somewhat) intelligent adults on here and alot of us hate the sort of stuff WWE "creative" comes up with or are told to come up with not because it's cool but because it's nonsensical or just completely lame. I cant remember who it was but it might have been Dr. Tom on AOW talking about how Stephanie in 2003 decided that everything had to been completely scripted by their new Hollywood writers. As wrestling fans it's not surprising that we dont like alot of the stuff these non wrestling fans come up with who do it just as a job, not an art form.

[Jiren]

How can we not blame (Un)creative when this is the current WWE Booking/Creative team

[Heinz Doofenschmirtz]

The big issue with creative is the Hollywood writers. Not that they aren't good but they're used to writing in 3 act structure. It's incredibly difficult to plan out a story in 3 acts when the boss keeps changing his mind in Act 2.

Imagine if over the course of Die Hard John McClain went through as many character changes as Cesaro went through in his first year in the E. The audience wouldn't care. They'd lose interest in him right quick.

It's not that these guys aren't good writers it's that they have no chance to complete story lines that get started. Zayn/Neville and Bryan/Authority are the only two recently that went through their three acts unchanged. Or, if they were changed, they incorporated those changes pretty smoothly.

Also, as fans, we need to get over this idea that every one needs to be a main event star. Yes, I want to see Cesaro and guys like him become huge stars but they don't have to be. Not everyone has to be a huge star like Bruce Willis. It's okay to be Alan Rickman.