|
Post by darkjourney on Dec 8, 2015 21:35:46 GMT -5
Most of all the big stars that came into WWE were already big stars in other territories for years before they even got to WWE Vince just had the best marketing and vehicle to showcase them. They managed to create a few stars (Taker) but most of the WWE superstars were already big or very big names in other territories before Vince got ahold of them.
As another poster said, The MCmahons aren't that great at making stars from the ground up... Today should be proof of that. They're still relying on the class of 2002 for f**** sakes to get them out of ratings purgatory.
If WWE were great at making stars they wouldn't to rely on Cena, Orton, Lesnar every year . And even them, they were all developed very well way back in OVW with Danny Davis and Jim Cornette. They were the ones who really seasoned guys like Cena, Orton, and Lesnar.
When you put WWE in charge, you don't have ANYONE coming out of NXT who are as big of stars as the guys they were pumping out of OVW back in the early 00's and that was mainly thanks to Davis and Cornette. WWE didn't have their hands in that pot like they did NXT now and it shows.
Say what you want about NXT being better than OVW. They were better at grooming and creating guys for that top main event spot than NXT is as proven with their reluctance to continuing going back to the Class of 2002 every other guy
|
|
TWERKIN' MAGGLE
Crow T. Robot
Black Lives Matter
Posts: 46,399
Member is Online
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Dec 8, 2015 21:37:01 GMT -5
I dunno about them never knowing how to make a megastar.
I'd say they certainly don't give the guys with the potential the chance or outlet to.
|
|
|
Post by bootytea on Dec 8, 2015 22:06:46 GMT -5
Spot on agree. To play Devils Advocate, Baristas build was phenomenal but the pay out was taking a backseat to Cenas forced push. No way Dave was on those fours level. but that reinforces OPs point. He made a damn good latte though.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 8, 2015 23:26:24 GMT -5
I think people are interpreting the OP in different ways.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the overall point is that Vince has never created a megastar wholesale; he has PROMOTED a lot of people into big stars, but he hasn't CREATED them. When Vince attempts to make a new top star via his own creative ideas, they tend to do quite poorly (e.g. putting Lex Luger into the Hulk Hogan role, now trying to put Roman into the Cena/Rock mould, etc.).
That point, to me, is entirely fair. Hulkamania was a really big deal before Hogan returned to New York, Austin and Rock had to make their own characters that took off with audiences, etc., while the Luger and now maybe the Reigns pushes couldn't work with Vince's creative ideas fueling them.
End of the day, it just isn't a promoters job to create the characters from the ground up; it's the promoter's job to find the best talent, and work out the best and more effective ways to push that talent. On THAT front, Vince has had plenty of successes. Creatively? Not quite as much, at least in this particular area.
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,299
|
Post by Fade on Dec 9, 2015 0:51:13 GMT -5
I think people are interpreting the OP in different ways. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the overall point is that Vince has never created a megastar wholesale; he has PROMOTED a lot of people into big stars, but he hasn't CREATED them. When Vince attempts to make a new top star via his own creative ideas, they tend to do quite poorly (e.g. putting Lex Luger into the Hulk Hogan role, now trying to put Roman into the Cena/Rock mould, etc.). That point, to me, is entirely fair. Hulkamania was a really big deal before Hogan returned to New York, Austin and Rock had to make their own characters that took off with audiences, etc., while the Luger and now maybe the Reigns pushes couldn't work with Vince's creative ideas fueling them. End of the day, it just isn't a promoters job to create the characters from the ground up; it's the promoter's job to find the best talent, and work out the best and more effective ways to push that talent. On THAT front, Vince has had plenty of successes. Creatively? Not quite as much, at least in this particular area. Exactly. And creatively, far more unsuccessful promoters, have been successful at that one aspect. It's quite the conundrum.
|
|
|
Post by "Mr Wonderdick" Dick Dastardly on Dec 9, 2015 1:05:46 GMT -5
"WWE doesn't create stars! Except those times that they did, but those don't count!"
Sounds about right.
That is also the reason why people don't take internet marks seriously.
|
|
TWERKIN' MAGGLE
Crow T. Robot
Black Lives Matter
Posts: 46,399
Member is Online
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Dec 9, 2015 1:10:51 GMT -5
"WWE doesn't create stars! Except those times that they did, but those don't count!" Sounds about right. That is also the reason why people don't take internet marks seriously. Or about as seriously as people who use the term "internet marks". It's 2015, the majority of fans are on the internet to some degree. Yes, the idea of this thread is silly. But attacking "internet marks" on a wrestling discussion bored, on the internet? Yeah, okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 1:13:50 GMT -5
Lorne Michaels has never known how to make a star. All the comedians he "created" did it on their own. Will Ferrell was already a successful, professional comedian when he was hired; Lorne just gave him the biggest platform. Kristen Wiig created Gilly on her own, Lorne wanted her to do a character called Wilson McGavinz and didn't contribute anything to the character that worked. He wanted to call the character Schmilly. Lorne wanted Tina Fey to not wear glasses, and then Tina Fey decided to start being true to her own self and started wearing glasses on her own and the crowd loved it. So if SNL wants Kate Mckinnon to succeed, they need to stop writing characters for her and let her find her own voice. I only enjoy performers when they're playing versions of themselves, and so if I enjoy something, it means the performer came up with it on their own, and if I don't enjoy something it means it was forced upon them, that's just logic. Well that's more of a personal preference thing. SNL is still something of a star making machine though, so whether or not Lorne Michaels is a master sketch writer or not, there's something to be said for a guy who runs a show that makes movie stars as consistently as SNL does. It's pretty simple, if Kate McKinnon gets the most laughs on a weekly basis then you start to see more of her on the show. Leslie Jones is a great example of someone who made the most of a small part and blew up almost overnight, which is a complete contrast to Vince McMahon who actively simmers down acts that are getting reactions because he doesn't like their face or whatever. Vince may not have created most of his stars from the ground up, but I think it's unrealistic to think that any promoter is that good that they can build stars from scratch, you need a guy like Stone Cold who is assertive enough to tell them no to names like Chilly McFreeze and have a greater vision for himself than to settle for being under Ted Dibase's shadow. It's debatable whether Vince is a genius but I think the way he rolled with the punches from the New Generation to the Attitude Era was quite a ballsy thing and I'll always respect that and the transition between those eras was about as seamless as it could have been. The complete insanity of WWE now doesn't erase the fact that Vince did some great work in the past.
|
|
|
Post by "Mr Wonderdick" Dick Dastardly on Dec 9, 2015 1:18:45 GMT -5
"WWE doesn't create stars! Except those times that they did, but those don't count!" Sounds about right. That is also the reason why people don't take internet marks seriously. Or about as seriously as people who use the term "internet marks". It's 2015, the majority of fans are on the internet to some degree. Yes, the idea of this thread is silly. But attacking "internet marks" on a wrestling discussion bored, on the internet? Yeah, okay. Well, we're all marks and we're on the internet discussing wrestling. So, we're internet marks. We get the rep we get because of topics like this or acting like if we booked Raw, we would be getting them back in the 4.0s in the ratings, when in reality we would just be booking to cater what we like, instead of something that appeals to the masses or for silly stuff like "#CANCELWWENETWORK" (yeah that went over like an Alberto Del Rio push) just because they didn't book someone to win a match. Let's not forget all of the YouTubers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 1:23:14 GMT -5
I think people are interpreting the OP in different ways. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the overall point is that Vince has never created a megastar wholesale; he has PROMOTED a lot of people into big stars, but he hasn't CREATED them. When Vince attempts to make a new top star via his own creative ideas, they tend to do quite poorly (e.g. putting Lex Luger into the Hulk Hogan role, now trying to put Roman into the Cena/Rock mould, etc.). That point, to me, is entirely fair. Hulkamania was a really big deal before Hogan returned to New York, Austin and Rock had to make their own characters that took off with audiences, etc., while the Luger and now maybe the Reigns pushes couldn't work with Vince's creative ideas fueling them. End of the day, it just isn't a promoters job to create the characters from the ground up; it's the promoter's job to find the best talent, and work out the best and more effective ways to push that talent. On THAT front, Vince has had plenty of successes. Creatively? Not quite as much, at least in this particular area. I completely agree with this. It just makes you wonder where this whole Reigns thing is going. It's been in the works for years and yet it's still bombing decently.
|
|
TWERKIN' MAGGLE
Crow T. Robot
Black Lives Matter
Posts: 46,399
Member is Online
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Dec 9, 2015 1:27:44 GMT -5
We get the rep we get because of topics like this or acting like if we booked Raw, we would be getting them back in the 4.0s in the ratings, when in reality we would just be booking to cater what we like, instead of something that appeals to the masses Yeah, the stuff we like doesn't appeal the masses at all. How about just not going around ragging on others on the board.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Dec 9, 2015 2:36:58 GMT -5
Well that's more of a personal preference thing. SNL is still something of a star making machine though, so whether or not Lorne Michaels is a master sketch writer or not, there's something to be said for a guy who runs a show that makes movie stars as consistently as SNL does. It's pretty simple, if Kate McKinnon gets the most laughs on a weekly basis then you start to see more of her on the show. Leslie Jones is a great example of someone who made the most of a small part and blew up almost overnight, which is a complete contrast to Vince McMahon who actively simmers down acts that are getting reactions because he doesn't like their face or whatever. Vince may not have created most of his stars from the ground up, but I think it's unrealistic to think that any promoter is that good that they can build stars from scratch, you need a guy like Stone Cold who is assertive enough to tell them no to names like Chilly McFreeze and have a greater vision for himself than to settle for being under Ted Dibase's shadow. It's debatable whether Vince is a genius but I think the way he rolled with the punches from the New Generation to the Attitude Era was quite a ballsy thing and I'll always respect that and the transition between those eras was about as seamless as it could have been. The complete insanity of WWE now doesn't erase the fact that Vince did some great work in the past. But Kate Mckinnon getting laughs is a function of many things, only some of which she has control over. And it's NOT a matter of just getting laughs, it's dependability, complementing the other cast members, looks, and so on. And everyone knows that. If you're hired on SNL, you're probably good enough to have a successful comedy career; there is no ridiculous pretense that we still need to separate the stars from the also-rans, like the WWE insists on having. (at least on screen; backstage apparently it's a nightmare) It's setting a ridiculously high bar that a promoter build a star "from the ground up," whatever that even means: obviously the performer deserves SOME credit, and no one would ever say otherwise. But the real problem with the OP is this very odd belief that the way for wrestlers to succeed is to "be themselves," which is not really borne out by history. And it gets twisted into this weird heuristic: "If I enjoyed something, the performer came up with it and is 'being himself!' If I didn't enjoy something, it was fed to him by the mean writers!" I mean, do we really think Rocky wrote his own heel turn, here?
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 9, 2015 4:28:43 GMT -5
It's not that WWE doesn't know how to make *megastars*,but rather that *MEGA*stars CAN'T BE MADE.
WWE can make a wrestler, and make them a top star in a wrestling ring, or a main eventer. But making someone a megastar is, quite frankly, random and out of everyone's hands. The class of 2002 is a good example for that.
Orton, Batista, Lesnar, and Cena were pushed as hard as possible for 13 years, with WWE moving heaven and earth to make them megastars...but none of them could rise above "good main eventer and top wrestling star" to become bonafide MEGASTARS. It took Brock Lesnar leaving the WWE, going to UFC, and becoming a top star there seen as one of the baddest men on the planet before Lesnar broke into being a megastar, and it took Batista getting into "Guardians of the Galaxy" to make him a megastar. WWE gave movie lead after movie lead to John Cena, built the whole of WWE around him for 10 years- and a supporting role in "Trainwreck" was what finally got him to a point where he could sniff at "MEGASTAR". Even Randy Orton had it, where he could be a top wrestling star for a decade, but it took him being part of a dank meme last year to make people see him as more than just another main event 'rassler.
All of those things made them legit megastars, but WWE built around them as pro wrestlers as much as you could possibly build around a wrestler. It's just that becoming a MEGAstar is so random, and has nothing to do with anything in a pro wrestling ring, that you can't hold it against WWE, or the audience, or the wrestlers not having IT, as much as you have to just accept that mainstream celebrities can't be MADE, they just HAPPEN, and getting a megastar basically comes down to sheer dumb luck.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,204
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 9, 2015 4:52:57 GMT -5
I don't know who can reliably make a megastar. I also disagree with the notion that megastars make themselves.
Obviously, you need talent, honed skill, or some other factor to draw from, but you also need to be seen and heard. You do not do that on your own, you need a platform. Beyond that, you need luck and for the climate to be right to even gain traction with people.
WWE and Vince cannot make everything out of nothing. They can make something out of nothing, sometimes, taking someone without much going for them and get them somewhere, but they can't do more than that. Neither could Verne, neither could Crockett, or Baba and Inoki, or any other promoter. They all have bombs on their resume, but WWE can, however, give them the most viewers. Second place isn't even close.
|
|
wgdj
AC Slater
Posts: 189
|
Post by wgdj on Dec 9, 2015 5:20:50 GMT -5
Not that he's on the level of Hogan, Austin, Rock, or even Cena or The Undertaker, but wasn't the Million Dollar Man character entirely created by the WWF (specifically Vince)?
He's not a household name, but that's one example of them creating a character that got super over really quickly.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 9, 2015 5:35:38 GMT -5
Not that he's on the level of Hogan, Austin, Rock, or even Cena or The Undertaker, but wasn't the Million Dollar Man character entirely created by the WWF (specifically Vince)? He's not a household name, but that's one example of them creating a character that got super over really quickly. I think The Million Dollar Man is a household name.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 9, 2015 7:22:38 GMT -5
For the most part WWE only creates stars when their initial plan fails and they have to change direction, usually with the input of the star in question themselves.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Dec 9, 2015 7:38:33 GMT -5
I agree that Vince's ideas never seem to be the ones that reached megastar status and he somewhat "fluked" a lot of success but I think the credit he can take was letting the talented people express themselves using their own ideas and visions, and then once people latched onto it they were promoted appropriately. These days everything is so micromanages and everyone (including Vince) is afraid to take risks. Everything is so safe and formulaic that nobody has the framework for becoming a break out star because they're so hamstrung by modern day WWE boundaries that they can't create their own character.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2015 10:29:26 GMT -5
Well that's more of a personal preference thing. SNL is still something of a star making machine though, so whether or not Lorne Michaels is a master sketch writer or not, there's something to be said for a guy who runs a show that makes movie stars as consistently as SNL does. It's pretty simple, if Kate McKinnon gets the most laughs on a weekly basis then you start to see more of her on the show. Leslie Jones is a great example of someone who made the most of a small part and blew up almost overnight, which is a complete contrast to Vince McMahon who actively simmers down acts that are getting reactions because he doesn't like their face or whatever. Vince may not have created most of his stars from the ground up, but I think it's unrealistic to think that any promoter is that good that they can build stars from scratch, you need a guy like Stone Cold who is assertive enough to tell them no to names like Chilly McFreeze and have a greater vision for himself than to settle for being under Ted Dibase's shadow. It's debatable whether Vince is a genius but I think the way he rolled with the punches from the New Generation to the Attitude Era was quite a ballsy thing and I'll always respect that and the transition between those eras was about as seamless as it could have been. The complete insanity of WWE now doesn't erase the fact that Vince did some great work in the past. But Kate Mckinnon getting laughs is a function of many things, only some of which she has control over. And it's NOT a matter of just getting laughs, it's dependability, complementing the other cast members, looks, and so on. And everyone knows that. If you're hired on SNL, you're probably good enough to have a successful comedy career; there is no ridiculous pretense that we still need to separate the stars from the also-rans, like the WWE insists on having. (at least on screen; backstage apparently it's a nightmare) It's setting a ridiculously high bar that a promoter build a star "from the ground up," whatever that even means: obviously the performer deserves SOME credit, and no one would ever say otherwise. But the real problem with the OP is this very odd belief that the way for wrestlers to succeed is to "be themselves," which is not really borne out by history. And it gets twisted into this weird heuristic: "If I enjoyed something, the performer came up with it and is 'being himself!' If I didn't enjoy something, it was fed to him by the mean writers!" I mean, do we really think Rocky wrote his own heel turn, here? I agree with you there. Chris Jericho's most successful run was when he was doing straight character work against Shawn Michaels. Hulk Hogan was a cartoon character, Ultimate Warrior too, authenticity is important but a wrestler can come across as authentic even if the character they're portraying is simply just a character, it's all on the strength of the performance. It's the same reason I find myself at odds with people who see a wrestler do something quirky on twitter and get mad that they can't do what they're doing on screen. I mean they're booking Becky Lynch to be a dunderhead on Raw right now so anything's better than what they're doing now but I'm not too thrilled of the idea of making her kooky pun girl either. I can see the OP's point in that Vince seems to be handling Roman Reigns like creating marquee stars is a formula where all you need is a guy with good looks, a sense of humor who wins all the time and there you have it. Vince can't take full credit for the big stars that came through but I still don't think it can be taken away from him that he fostered an environment where those stars could flourish. He's out of touch now for sure, and it wouldn't be the first time he's found himself out of touch, but people have the tendency now to say Vince never had it and I don't agree with that. He made millions of dollars fixing the broken ideas of a complete twit in the late 90s and convinced the world that Vince Russo knew shit which is an accomplishment all of its own.
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Dec 9, 2015 13:42:07 GMT -5
Spot on agree. To play Devils Advocate, Baristas build was phenomenal but the pay out was taking a backseat to Cenas forced push. No way Dave was on those fours level. but that reinforces OPs point. I now imagine Batista photoshops involving Starbucks.
|
|