Cracked's Latest WWE Article...

[Vern]

...is a bit of an interesting read:
www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-wwe-dying-and-how-to-fix-it/

Thoughts? Opinions?

[Vern]

I don't agree with all of the article, but...

This is why people have a hard time accepting guys like The Big Show, Roman Reigns, and John Cena as babyfaces. When they're playing heels (or at least thugs), all three of those guys can pull off "scary ass-kicker." We know that when they enter the ring, someone's getting skull-f***ed. But when they switch roles and become babyfaces, they turn into smiling, thumbs-up, pandering jackasses, and it's embarrassing. It's not that the audience doesn't believe in them as good guys. It's that we don't want them representing us.

...is pretty spot on.

[alexwrightspackage]

Jan 2, 2016 8:29:57 GMT -5 Vern said:

I don't agree with all of the article, but...

This is why people have a hard time accepting guys like The Big Show, Roman Reigns, and John Cena as babyfaces. When they're playing heels (or at least thugs), all three of those guys can pull off "scary ass-kicker." We know that when they enter the ring, someone's getting skull-f***ed. But when they switch roles and become babyfaces, they turn into smiling, thumbs-up, pandering jackasses, and it's embarrassing. It's not that the audience doesn't believe in them as good guys. It's that we don't want them representing us.

...is pretty spot on.

I feel the exact same way. I didn't buy all of it, but this exact point stood out to me.

Here's hoping against hope we don't get 'you can't smile enough' face Kevin Owens.

[DJ Maniak]

Read it, read the comments. Left a reply defending the Divas division (at least the ones not being used properly).

[nisidhe]

I think there's quite a bit of meat there to chew on. Micromanaging every aspect of the product is killing it by stripping it of its reality.

[Jiren]

Honestly there's quite a bit there I agree with.

[Ryback on a Pole!]

#5: I somewhat agree, I don't agree that Wyatts vs Kane was the last good story but overall it's a fair point. Most of the storys do suck and a lot of them have no logical ending.

#4: Agreed. I've mentioned this in the past, everything is too predictable. Not just the matches but the whole formula. Like a tag match. You know it will start off with a bit of back and forth, heels take control and isolate a babyface until he gets a hot-tag. Happens every single time. Or in a regular match. A guy goes outside, you know it will be a break and we'll return to see the heel working a rest-hold for a minute after hitting something like a toss to the steps during the commercial break until the babyface powers back. Predictable.

#3: Agreed. WWE faces mostly are dreadful. I often find myself cheering for the heels because why, exactly, should we cheer for the dull-as-shit, extremely annoying Usos over the lively, fun and entertaining New Day. I disagree that a face needs to be a badass... they just need to be fun, interesting or relateable.

#2: Agreed. The divas division has always being shit. There's a kid in my class who watches wrestling and asked me a few days ago why the female wrestlers are so boring and not very good. I struggled to defend the division because, let's face it... most of them are. Even the "talented" divas are dreadful... like Charlotte. She's shite.

#1: Yeah, spot on. One of my major complaints is the WWE not listening to the fans. It's like they think "Everybodies chanting Please Retire to Big Show. Let's put him in a Rumble storyline! f*** those marks."


I'll also add to the list being afraid to make changes, take risks and switch up from the status quo. They had a chance with Punk and Bryan... two guys who WOULD and DID connect with a mainstream audience outside of wrestling to make a new duo as the face of the WWE and possibly attract new fans and the WWE blew it by having them play second fiddle to the status quo. Baffling decision. Punk and Bryan were good representations of the modern generation and connected with people because of that. Have Cena as the #3 guy because kids love a superman but Punk and Bryan should have become the new faces of the company at the peak of their popularity.

Another I'll add is toning down wrestlers. Is there any reasonable reason it took Cesaro like 2 years before he used the crowd-popping big swing? Or why Drew wasn't allowed to use a move until he became a jobber and was allowed to wrestle (and so became awesome)?

[mrbananagrabber]

I agree with some, but there's nothing good about a title changing hands 11 times in a year.

[Ryback on a Pole!]

Jan 2, 2016 10:18:28 GMT -5 mrbananagrabber said:

I agree with some, but there's nothing good about a title changing hands 11 times in a year.

True, but there's other ways to make the main event matter than just title matches. Nothing kills my interest quicker than a forgettable tag match main event where main event face #1 teams with random main event face #2 to face their respective opponents in a tag match.


Winner picks the stipulation, Winner picks the special ref, if the heel loses his bodyguards are banned from ringside, #1 contenders matches, beat the clock challenges etc. All would give a main event with something at stake. Raw had a run a few weeks ago where it was fun and exciting because it was that World Title tournament so the matches and main event where actually interesting because they mattered.

Now, if Sheamus and the League of Jobbers lose to Reigns and Ambrose... so what, it doesn't effect anything at all. Nothing is at stake so the loss doesn't matter

Now make it so that in their next tag match if the League lose, Rusev, ADR and Barrett are banned from ringside when Sheamus faces Reigns then their tag match actually matters. Or if LoN win Sheamus picks the stipulation of their match; again, the match actually matters because something is at stake. Or if LoN lose Sheamus loses his title shot or whoever gets the pin in the match gets a world title shot... just something to make the main event actually matter.

[Just call me D.j.m.]

Jan 2, 2016 10:18:28 GMT -5 mrbananagrabber said:

I agree with some, but there's nothing good about a title changing hands 11 times in a year.

I think it's more about the point that the weekly TV is formulaic and completely devoid of surprise, so that when a title change does happen, it's so unbelievable that it causes everyone to lose their minds.

There's a balance between 11 times a year, and once every 3 or 4 years, coupled with weekly TV that literally means nothing.

[cabbageboy]

I didn't much care for the article. Some of his points work better than others but I can't help but think his solution is basically "Rehire Vince Russo." After all, he wants a bunch of zany storylines and hot potato being played with the belts, and Russo would be the guy for it. A part of me just wonders if the whole "2-3 hour soap opera/action adventure" style of wrestling TV is just over with. NXT has blown some people's minds by simply being a throwback to a 1 hour ho hum wrestling program, because at least there aren't constant swerves and foolishness.

The amusing thing about his divas commentary is that the stuff he is thinking about was before there was a division at all, maybe some skeleton of it but that's about it. Lita's antics with the Hardys were memorable, but was any women's title stuff she did especially notable (other than beating Steph on Raw)? Not that much. Trish's antics with Vince were memorable, the amusing feud with Steph, but by and large most of her actual title reigns were met with crickets. But what is the solution? I'm not sure. Personally I'd just get rid of women's wrestling on the main shows entirely because I don't think it is a draw and most of it sucks. If they wanted to have a divas only show on the network, those interested could watch. I have zero interest in watching Sasha/Becky on Raw for nearly 20 minutes, especially when Owens/Neville got like 1 minute. That match on Raw was so damning of WWE's agents/producers. Those two given the same time on an NXT Takeover would have had a good match, mainly because NXT's agents can heavily rehearse and lay out a match with these ladies. Put them on Raw with only a vaguely booked skeleton of a match and you see that they really can't put together a decent match on a regular basis.

His commentary on the Attitude Era was interesting because it speaks to something I have wondered about for a while. That was the one time WWE went out of its way to appeal to that ultra redneck, beer guzzling demographic (you know, wrestling fans). Right now it seems like WWE wants to appeal to a totally mainstream audience, while also having wrestlers designed to appeal to a certain demographic or country/region. Even in the 80s you could argue that WWE still appealed to the redneck fans while also attracting a mainstream kids audience. Right now who exactly is there in WWE that appeals to that blue collar, redneck wrestling fan? Maybe Dean Ambrose?

[ERON]

It's a typical "things that are wrong with ______ and how to fix them" article. It does a good job of pointing out the obvious things that are wrong, but the proposed solutions are lame. In this particular article, the guy is spot-on as far as what's wrong with current WWE goes, but his solution is basically the same tired "Bring back the Attitude Era" mantra we've all been hearing for 15 years now.

[horseface]

Quite a few things on point here--especially with regard to the unappealing face characters. That is such a huge issue. Remember this is the sort of thing that almost killed the Rock's career before it got started.

also this:

"Brad Maddox was working an untelevised match, and his job was to get heat from the audience. He made one minor change to his trash talk ... he replaced the word "losers" with the word "pricks." He finished his match, walked backstage, and was fired on the spot. That sends a pretty clear message to other people who are looking to let loose and be themselves: "There are consequences now. We have strict rules on what you can say and do, and if you decide to take liberties in the ring, be prepared to start selling crack for a living."

Is a good thing to look at to see why wrestlers are often so hesitant to "stand up for themselves". If Vince or Stephanie is in a bad mood the day you mess something up you're done. So then guys are too safe and conservative. But then they're criticized for doing that. And they have no leverage because for most guys WWE is the best they can do as a wrestler unless they literally move out of the country. Back then in the attitude era there was always the threat a guy might jump to the other promotion if he felt he was treated unfairly. So you get less guys like Stone Cold who will tell Vince to get it together or he's just gonna leave and he did it too! And CM Punk as well, he's a guy who was a big enough name without WWE and had set himself up well enough that he had leverage to tell Vince and HHH they were full of it.

[HMARK Center]

I agree with some points this guy makes more than others, but I don't think his argument is just "re-do the Attitude Era"...at least not entirely.

Make no mistake, the swerves, the swearing, the blood, and the faux-nudity of the Attitude Era did a lot to contribute to the WWF's success at that time; after all, it meshed very well with the media landscape for 13-35 year old men in that era, and plenty of people tuned in to Raw just to see Austin flip the bird and Sable take her shirt off. But the swerves and profanity in and of itself wasn't the totality of that era's success; after all, you can't keep going to the "shock the audience at any cost!" well so frequently without there being diminishing returns, which is a big reason why the pure Russo-style Attitude Era only really existed for about, what, 2 1/2 years? So when that aspect of things is gone, what's left, and what gets people to keep coming back?

Upthread, somebody mentioned NXT being a revelation to many people because it's just a straight up, old school 1 hour wrestling program; not too many major surprises, nothing past a TV-PG rating, and lots of matches that may or may not directly tie into feuds going on at the time. ROH TV is quite similar in that way. Maybe that format wouldn't work entirely with Raw, but what sets NXT and ROH apart so much from a typical Raw is that just about everything done on the former two shows has a purpose. Raw, very often, has no point.

Back when I was a really big ROH fan in the mid 00s, I recall a number of people ragging on ROH by saying "it's just pure wrestling, there's no hook beyond that, it's boring". I never understood that feeling; yeah, some feuds or performers were better or more exciting than others, but even the most seemingly random ROH midcard match was often booked with a purpose. The announcers would go out of their way to point out that most matches had title shot implications, or the match would be booked and laid out in such a way that the wrestlers involved got to show off aspects of their personalities, maybe new wrinkles in their characters, there could be a post-match angle or promo to set something new up, or the match was just a solid contest because both guys involved might have new feuds or marquee matches on the horizon. So yeah, I'm not saying a random Chad Collyer vs. John Walters match from 2004 gripped me the same way as, say, Samoa Joe vs. Homicide, but it certainly did have a point and a reason for existing.

Then you've got Vince McMahon saying recently "we don't do wrestling for wrestling's sake", which is what those folks accused ROH of back in the day (and sometimes still do today)...except, honestly, I can't think of a major promotion that does more "wrestling for the sake of wrestling" than WWE. So often their matches don't have a point, their storylines don't go anywhere, their characters remain incredibly static, and the consequences for various match outcomes and actions are all bot nonexistent. If you aren't going to have a point in your wrestling, then it's precisely "wrestling for wrestling's sake", and in an era where everybody knows wrestling's not real, nobody wants to watch that.

To put it bluntly: job #1 when booking wrestling is asking "will this make money at some point?", but job #1A is to simply ask "does this have a point?" You can have a simple one hour wrestling show like NXT or ROH with matches that seem largely unrelated to ongoing feuds and storylines, but you can still book those matches to get personalities over, to have two or more characters interact in unique ways, to play up "title implications", etc. Any and everything can have a point.

WWE's single biggest flaw is that all too often, what happens on Raw has no point. If Rusev and Ryback keep having matches and never further their storyline, what's the point? If Neville beats Kevin Owens in 12 seconds, but you don't follow up with a fresh feud/storyline, then what's the point? If John Cena loses a big match and calls it "the worst night of his career", but then comes out within a week or two acting like exactly the same character, no new wrinkles in his demeanor, what's the point?

Swerves and shocks can draw viewers, but it's not what keeps them hanging around. What keeps an audience hooked is consequences. "A happened, therefore B will happen as a result". It doesn't have to be anything enormous, doesn't have to be Earth shattering, but viewers need catharsis and progress with stories and characters. Viewers can tell if they're on a hamster wheel, and eventually they'll jump off.

[MichaelMartini]

I read the article and most of the points did read like "bring back Attitude era!" but that wouldn't work anymore because companies like TNA have been trying to do that to no success. To fix it they need to identify the problems without personal biases or preferences. I'd say the main problems are-
1. Too much content. This is the biggest problem. There is such a glut of WWE programming that it creates unavoidable problems like repetition. Maybe there are good storylines happening but you'd have to watch hours of programming every week to follow it. And you don't even know how to follow it, meaning some of it happens on WWE.com, some of it happens on the Network, some of it happens in the magazine, etc. I think even creative can't keep track of everything that's going on. It reminds me of when Marvel started to milk their popular titles in the early nineties by spreading out every storyline into multiple titles. I was fan of Uncanny X-men but all of a sudden I had to buy X-Factor, X-Force, New Mutants, X-Men and others just to follow one story. It was too much. They almost went bankrupt.
2. Kevin Dunn's rigid influence. I'm not sure if this is all on him but everything is too formulaic. Raw should be RAW. Less rigidly controlled and more spontaneous. A lot of the matches are the same (performance center style), a lot of the promos are the same, (babyface comedians), a lot of the camera work is the same (pin towards hard camera, cut to break when the wrestlers go outside). Marketing buzzwords need to go. No one wants to hear WWE Universe when you can just say "fans". If wrestlers are independent contractors, then they should have more control over their characters like they did during the boom periods.
3. Out of touch owner who insists on micro-managing everything. Speaks for itself.

I could go on and on but I think those are the three main points.

[The Ichi]

Though he did lose me when he claims ADR makes a great heel.

[Hit Girl]

For the most part it's generally right. It's nothing new. Most people know what's wrong with WWE except Vince McMahon.

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2016 14:02:06 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

I agree with some points this guy makes more than others, but I don't think his argument is just "re-do the Attitude Era"...at least not entirely.

Make no mistake, the swerves, the swearing, the blood, and the faux-nudity of the Attitude Era did a lot to contribute to the WWF's success at that time; after all, it meshed very well with the media landscape for 13-35 year old men in that era, and plenty of people tuned in to Raw just to see Austin flip the bird and Sable take her shirt off. But the swerves and profanity in and of itself wasn't the totality of that era's success; after all, you can't keep going to the "shock the audience at any cost!" well so frequently without there being diminishing returns, which is a big reason why the pure Russo-style Attitude Era only really existed for about, what, 2 1/2 years? So when that aspect of things is gone, what's left, and what gets people to keep coming back?

Upthread, somebody mentioned NXT being a revelation to many people because it's just a straight up, old school 1 hour wrestling program; not too many major surprises, nothing past a TV-PG rating, and lots of matches that may or may not directly tie into feuds going on at the time. ROH TV is quite similar in that way. Maybe that format wouldn't work entirely with Raw, but what sets NXT and ROH apart so much from a typical Raw is that just about everything done on the former two shows has a purpose. Raw, very often, has no point.

Back when I was a really big ROH fan in the mid 00s, I recall a number of people ragging on ROH by saying "it's just pure wrestling, there's no hook beyond that, it's boring". I never understood that feeling; yeah, some feuds or performers were better or more exciting than others, but even the most seemingly random ROH midcard match was often booked with a purpose. The announcers would go out of their way to point out that most matches had title shot implications, or the match would be booked and laid out in such a way that the wrestlers involved got to show off aspects of their personalities, maybe new wrinkles in their characters, there could be a post-match angle or promo to set something new up, or the match was just a solid contest because both guys involved might have new feuds or marquee matches on the horizon. So yeah, I'm not saying a random Chad Collyer vs. John Walters match from 2004 gripped me the same way as, say, Samoa Joe vs. Homicide, but it certainly did have a point and a reason for existing.

Then you've got Vince McMahon saying recently "we don't do wrestling for wrestling's sake", which is what those folks accused ROH of back in the day (and sometimes still do today)...except, honestly, I can't think of a major promotion that does more "wrestling for the sake of wrestling" than WWE. So often their matches don't have a point, their storylines don't go anywhere, their characters remain incredibly static, and the consequences for various match outcomes and actions are all bot nonexistent. If you aren't going to have a point in your wrestling, then it's precisely "wrestling for wrestling's sake", and in an era where everybody knows wrestling's not real, nobody wants to watch that.

To put it bluntly: job #1 when booking wrestling is asking "will this make money at some point?", but job #1A is to simply ask "does this have a point?" You can have a simple one hour wrestling show like NXT or ROH with matches that seem largely unrelated to ongoing feuds and storylines, but you can still book those matches to get personalities over, to have two or more characters interact in unique ways, to play up "title implications", etc. Any and everything can have a point.

WWE's single biggest flaw is that all too often, what happens on Raw has no point. If Rusev and Ryback keep having matches and never further their storyline, what's the point? If Neville beats Kevin Owens in 12 seconds, but you don't follow up with a fresh feud/storyline, then what's the point? If John Cena loses a big match and calls it "the worst night of his career", but then comes out within a week or two acting like exactly the same character, no new wrinkles in his demeanor, what's the point?

Swerves and shocks can draw viewers, but it's not what keeps them hanging around. What keeps an audience hooked is consequences. "A happened, therefore B will happen as a result". It doesn't have to be anything enormous, doesn't have to be Earth shattering, but viewers need catharsis and progress with stories and characters. Viewers can tell if they're on a hamster wheel, and eventually they'll jump off.

Well said.

I think in simplest terms that's all it comes down to. It doesn't matter how PG the show is, it doesn't matter how much or how little wrestling there is, it's just about having a show where things happen for a reason. Like the constant rematches are fine, WWE has a lot of time to fill and they gotta do something, but if Dolph Ziggler beat Kofi Kingston one week, went on to wrestle someone with more acclaim like Kevin Owens, beats Kevin Owens, tries his hand at Ambrose for the title, loses, and goes back to wrestling Kofi Kingston and it's just illustrated to us that Dolph is in the process of trying to climb that ladder. It just doesn't feel like it would take that much effort. You can fill 30 minutes of a show with promos to hype a match, recaps for the backstory of how we got here, a winner, a loser, maybe a winning promo or some kind of post-match segment. The way it is now, with frequent champions wrestling non-title matches, who might lose to one person one week, then wrestle someone else for the title the next week with no explanation, as often as it happens makes no sense. WWE doesn't ask themselves why enough.

I think the biggest problem is that WWE's trying to be a jack of all trades and they spread themselves too thin, they have a check list of things that need to happen on a show and without any quality control they make sure they check every box. Comedy? Check. Show opening promo? Check. Wrestling? Check. Philanthropic pat on the back segment? Check. WWE wants to be this all encompassing thing, a walking talking PR machine, a variety show masquerading as pro wrestling, we'll pander to kids here and there, someone will call somebody a "bitch" here, we'll have Bubba Ray attempt to put someone through a flaming table, but it's 2015 so of course we won't actually set anything on fire. They are so uncommitted to any particular theme that you just have to watch for hours and hours and maybe they'll have a segment that attracts you. Every segment is presented as if to say "it's okay if you don't like this, something you like will happen later" instead of just having the backbone to say "this is who we are, this is what we do and these guys are the best at it."

When I was a kid the New Generation was what I grew up with and that was fine for me. As an adult you can look back and see how goofy it was most of the time, but it had an identity, it was Saturday Morning Cartoon wrestling and either you were in or you were out. WWE today doesn't want to risk losing you by going out on a limb and having an identity so they want to do it all, they are scrambling to retain an Attitude Era audience, while being palatable to children, while not pissing off any bloggers or critics, and be enticing to celebrities. WWE Divas are fighting for who are the bestest of best friends one week, then Paige is mocking Charlotte's dead Brother the next. Maybe in a lot of ways that is what's keeping WWE's audience in that people will actually hang on for something that matters to them because WWE hasn't closed the door on anything, but I feel like their lives would be so much easier if they just established some kind of identity for themselves with a stance of "take it or leave it."

[Mighty Attack Tribble]

Jan 2, 2016 16:05:41 GMT -5 The Ichi said:

Though he did lose me when he claims ADR makes a great heel.

ADR has had some great heel moments, they've just been far too few and far between.

[Hit Girl]

The only time I liked Alberto as a heel was when he killed Hornswoggle.