Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 8:55:27 GMT -5
I plan on taking a break once my current Network subscription expires. That way when I come back, my mindset is fresh. I'm purging all the negativity from my body and mind. Come back with a fresh set of eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Urfarkendarf on Apr 1, 2017 8:57:00 GMT -5
JBL is a company shill atrabilious asshole. Its obvious that the company does not care. It's been obvious since the Cena backlash began. People still watch. People still go to shows. They know they can do whatever they want. Vince showed his true colors when he LITERALLY pissed away potentially the greatest possible angle in the history of the business (the Invasion) and did so completely out of spite. He's right, we're wrong. The only time they've changed course is with Bryan, and thats largely because they realized how much money they could make off of him.
|
|
ssdrivin
ALF
Claims to be squishy, has yet to be proven.
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ssdrivin on Apr 1, 2017 9:55:37 GMT -5
I think people have to reframe what the expect when they stop watching the WWE. It's harder to really distance yourself from it if you break away with the expectation that it'll get better. That's fine, even I had that at first. If you really want to stop watching it, you've got to disavow yourself of the notion they'll ever get better. Thing is, the product has always changed and evolved, though admittedly in different circumstances. Originally you have WWWF which evolved into the big 80s era, which moved into New Generation, which got amped up into the Attitude Era and InVasion when WCW/ECW died. Then Ruthless Aggression, which I wasn't a huge fan of, and I think around that time (and the PG era) it lost something for me, they were treading water and everyone seemed like disposable jobbers. But my general point is that for nearly 40 years there's always been that churn and change, things have grown and evolved, aesthetics and styles have changed, storytelling has changed. So is it really so weird to think it'll change again? Maybe it'll change towards what's perceived to be a worse product, I don't know, but we're used to seeing things move forward, even when times seem bleak and the product seems stale, something happens to spark off a new and better outlook. I think there's something in the current trend of sucking in giants from other feds and trying to build new great stars in NXT, and in some ways I'd consider that to be indicative of a new era, a new approach, and a realisation that there have to be new big names and that they've failed at building a whole lot of those in the last 15 years so they had to buy them in or start from scratch. The problem is that they need to be able to capitalise on that, make good use of those new guys. For a long time we had untouchable champions with nobody worthwhile to chase them, there needs to be a smoother gradient to the roster(s), not just Lesnar > Cena/Roman > everyone else. The upper levels of "everyone else" need to be believable, they can't just be as (in)effective as your bottom level joke guys, they need to be working towards grasping distance of the titles.
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Apr 1, 2017 11:36:09 GMT -5
It's trending the highest it's been that big spike in 2014, which I think was the first release of Network subscription numbers, the renegotiating of the TV deal or some combination of both. The elephants in the living room here is the company's stock portfolio and the film production division, neither of which are outlined specifically in the report. How much of WWE's income is now derived from its own holdings of other companies' stock? How much of it is coming from its films? I'm willing to wager that a growing proportion of the company's income and profits is coming from those two areas rather than the primary product. This gives the company far more leeway to disregard the audience, its nominal customer base. It's become the way of a lot of businesses, from manufacturers to service providers. The side income from stock holdings has become higher-value, and higher-profit, than actually conducting the business for which the company came into being in the first place. The problem with such a strategy, of course, is that it ultimately fails in the long-term because a company's reputation comes from its initial purpose and, if a company fails to deliver in that area, its marketability as a holding company will start to flounder as well (see Sears, Roebuck.) They release those numbers every year. WWE Films is usually one of the least profitable areas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 12:32:47 GMT -5
I think you guys can personalize this stuff too much sometimes. When it comes down to it they're just TV shows like anything else, and all TV shows ebb and flow in terms of quality and casts. Roman Reigns isn't "our guy" but I'm not gonna pretend I know a more equitable solution from a business perspective. I have my preferences, the Reigns experiment has been a blunder a lot of the time because of their lack of adaptability with audience reactions and presenting Reigns as a babyface everyone loves even though he gets booed routinely.
But the thing is I don't think WWE really owes me, or us, anything. They present television that sometimes is good and sometimes is bad like any other show, if things get off the rails too much the onus is on us to decide whether it's worth our time. It's not on them to bend to our will, and how do you determine which fans are the ones to listen to, especially if what you're doing is making a profit?
Like @keijikage said, at some point you have to accept what WWE is. WWE have spent the last ten years building this reputation that they have now, it's corporate wrestling that's mostly gonna do what it's going to do whether we like it or not, and that's fine. Any filmmaker or TV producer is going to make the show they want to make, and if it doesn't jive with what I like then I'm not gonna pay it any mind. If they wanna put Roman Reigns out there as a top babyface that every arena hates that's their prerogative. These are their toys to play with, it's not a personal affront to me that they're not using them the way that I want them to.
|
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507
|
Post by Shai on Apr 1, 2017 22:24:49 GMT -5
Personally I picked Seth.
|
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507
|
Post by Shai on Apr 1, 2017 22:28:32 GMT -5
I just wish wrestling fans can vote with there wallets or remotes better. Like if the main event is Roman Reigns vs. Kevin Owens for the billionth time and there's only about 10 minutes left the show just change the channel and turn off the TV and read the results an hour later to see if you missed something and if you did watch it later. Or people in the crowd start leaving earlier so they can get some last minute merch and beat the traffic. Or go in droves for a bathroom/merch/food break during a Reigns match or promo if's in the middle of the card. turning off the show doesn't really matter unless you have a ratings box. Leaving early would work though. That said I haven't watched any main roster WWE related stuff in like a month... not out of active protest or anything... I just haven't cared. When I went to Raw last year in KC, people got up and left when Roman's music hit.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 1, 2017 22:55:14 GMT -5
I think people have to reframe what the expect when they stop watching the WWE. It's harder to really distance yourself from it if you break away with the expectation that it'll get better. That's fine, even I had that at first. If you really want to stop watching it, you've got to disavow yourself of the notion they'll ever get better. You have to stop watching because **** them. They'll never get better regardless of what you do. Spend time watching things where the people who make it at least don't outwardly hate you for it. Your free time and money is more valuable than their shit. The responsibility is upon them to entice you to spend your time watching them when you literally could be doing anything else. No, seriously. If you want to stop watching them, step one is to stop expecting that to have any effect on what they'll do. In a way, it's like after you break up with someone--you don't better yourself to have any effect on your ex, you do it just to better yourself. It's a clumsy analogy, and WWE as relationship is a little weird, but y'all get what I'm saying.
|
|
Shai
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,507
|
Post by Shai on Apr 1, 2017 23:07:18 GMT -5
They actually put this clip on they're YT page?! Thats some balls. Anybody venture into the comments yet?
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Apr 1, 2017 23:13:01 GMT -5
They actually put this clip on they're YT page?! Thats some balls. Anybody venture into the comments yet? NOOOOPE. Not subjecting myself to that.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Apr 1, 2017 23:27:59 GMT -5
WWE pushing reigns as the next big baby face is like a guy asking for a girl's phone number 2000 times, thinking pushing it more would work. They have to turn him heel to make the eventual transition to babyface more organic Nah, WWE is just going to Cosby people into accepting Roman.
|
|
Urethra Franklin
King Koopa
When Toronto sports teams lose, Alison Brie is sad
Posts: 11,090
|
Post by Urethra Franklin on Apr 1, 2017 23:55:39 GMT -5
Let's say you write for a scripted drama. I'll use Riverdale as an example.
Let's say you've got a 12-episode season. You've decided on a relationship between Betty and Jughead, but by Episode 4, fans and critics hate the pairing.
Well, shit, you think, because you've already written and shot the rest of the season. Now that you know people hate it, you're gonna go in a different direction in Season 2, but that comes out several months later and that might be too late to win your audience back.
The WWE is also a scripted drama, but has the benefit of receiving and the ability to use instant audience feedback, something every other show on TV would kill for. Something isn't working? You can kill it immediately. Crowd loves a lower-card guy? Give him a higher profile.
But instead of using this amazing advantage, the WWE turns up its nose at this feedback and convinces itself that they're right and the audience - you know, the people the show is actually supposed to be for - doesn't know what it wants.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Apr 2, 2017 7:23:59 GMT -5
Let's say you write for a scripted drama. I'll use Riverdale as an example. Let's say you've got a 12-episode season. You've decided on a relationship between Betty and Jughead, but by Episode 4, fans and critics hate the pairing. Well, shit, you think, because you've already written and shot the rest of the season. Now that you know people hate it, you're gonna go in a different direction in Season 2, but that comes out several months later and that might be too late to win your audience back. The WWE is also a scripted drama, but has the benefit of receiving and the ability to use instant audience feedback, something every other show on TV would kill for. Something isn't working? You can kill it immediately. Crowd loves a lower-card guy? Give him a higher profile. But instead of using this amazing advantage, the WWE turns up its nose at this feedback and convinces itself that they're right and the audience - you know, the people the show is actually supposed to be for - doesn't know what it wants. I've been saying this for YEARS. Even live theatre is only allowe a certain amount of leeway and change before they have to keep definitively to something for the run of the show. Wrestling promoters have an advantage no other creative medium does, they have a test audience who can react and show them what works and what doesn't and they can mouldy a storyline or a character to make it connect to the audience. Sure, you have different states to think about but, to be honest, that is mattering less and less throughout the last few years. And throughout history, there have been promoters so stubborn that they don't realise how truly flexible the medium can be, not just WWE.
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Apr 2, 2017 7:44:58 GMT -5
Some of the Internet wrestling fans really liked Roman Reigns when the Shield was together (I did), but he was a different character then. At the Royal Rumble in 2014, he was this cold badass that was mowing people down and didn't care. That's a good role for him. I don't like Reigns anymore because they tried to force him into the same mold as John Cena and it just doesn't fit. Don't write cringe worthy promos for the guy. If they had kept him as a silent antihero that was out there to destroy people in the ring, more fans would get behind him I think. He's a pretty good wrestler, I think it's the way he's presented that isn't working.
Also, I still think that Rusev was pretty much the face during their feud last summer/fall. He was sticking up for his wife when she was being harassed by Reigns. Then again, Hogan was a poor sport back in the day too, so WWE has always had faces behaving badly, it's just that Austin was at least not a hypocrite about it.
|
|
|
Post by Mid-Carder on Apr 2, 2017 7:55:51 GMT -5
Obviously the boos don't mean anything to them so there's only two ways to send a message to WWE about Roman and his superpush
1- stop watching and paying altogether 2- show apathy towards Roman. Nothing would bother them more than every single person looking at their phones or reading a book during Roman's matches
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2017 8:03:33 GMT -5
I think people have to reframe what the expect when they stop watching the WWE. It's harder to really distance yourself from it if you break away with the expectation that it'll get better. That's fine, even I had that at first. If you really want to stop watching it, you've got to disavow yourself of the notion they'll ever get better. Thing is, the product has always changed and evolved, though admittedly in different circumstances. Originally you have WWWF which evolved into the big 80s era, which moved into New Generation, which got amped up into the Attitude Era and InVasion when WCW/ECW died. Then Ruthless Aggression, which I wasn't a huge fan of, and I think around that time (and the PG era) it lost something for me, they were treading water and everyone seemed like disposable jobbers. But my general point is that for nearly 40 years there's always been that churn and change, things have grown and evolved, aesthetics and styles have changed, storytelling has changed. So is it really so weird to think it'll change again? Maybe it'll change towards what's perceived to be a worse product, I don't know, but we're used to seeing things move forward, even when times seem bleak and the product seems stale, something happens to spark off a new and better outlook. I think there's something in the current trend of sucking in giants from other feds and trying to build new great stars in NXT, and in some ways I'd consider that to be indicative of a new era, a new approach, and a realisation that there have to be new big names and that they've failed at building a whole lot of those in the last 15 years so they had to buy them in or start from scratch. The problem is that they need to be able to capitalise on that, make good use of those new guys. For a long time we had untouchable champions with nobody worthwhile to chase them, there needs to be a smoother gradient to the roster(s), not just Lesnar > Cena/Roman > everyone else. The upper levels of "everyone else" need to be believable, they can't just be as (in)effective as your bottom level joke guys, they need to be working towards grasping distance of the titles. I agree with pretty much all of that and people have been saying the WWE should stop doing that top-heavy booking for years now. This was back when you had MVP flirting with an Orton feud, Ziggler and Kofi on the rise, people still cared about Swagger, maybe WWE could give that Daniel Bryan kid a shot, etc. People were saying all that then, but now it seems even worse since the WWE is mining the "actual stars" to prop up their Wrestlemania. And hey, it may be growing pains from them evolving. But you can't expect anyone to sit here and sink multiple hours of their lives in to watching a show made by people who couldn't give less of a shit about even pretending to acknowledge valid criticism. Like, nah. What you're saying makes sense and if that's what some people truly believe, then it is what it is. It's just I don't see the point in continuing to watch the shit splatter all over the walls and ceiling, waiting for the off chance it'll finally hit the toilet. If you're going to watch that, you can at least watch different ones that could have more accuracy in the meantime. ...and no, I don't know why I involved poo. Quit judging me.
|
|
|
Post by ANuclearError on Apr 2, 2017 8:12:00 GMT -5
It's petty as f***, but I would love it if everyone just walked out on Regins cutting a promo or in the inevitable Brock rematch. There's no way WWE could spin that surely.
|
|
|
Post by Big Bad Kahuna on Apr 2, 2017 8:15:18 GMT -5
Bring It To The Table has gotta be one of the worst things they've produced in ages. Like, if there's anything I want to spend my time watching, it's totally 10+ minutes of old men whingeing about the internet. nah maybe 5 minutes of it is actual IWC bashing, don't exaggerate
|
|
Woo
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,312
|
Post by Woo on Apr 2, 2017 8:15:58 GMT -5
Let's say you write for a scripted drama. I'll use Riverdale as an example. Let's say you've got a 12-episode season. You've decided on a relationship between Betty and Jughead, but by Episode 4, fans and critics hate the pairing. Well, shit, you think, because you've already written and shot the rest of the season. Now that you know people hate it, you're gonna go in a different direction in Season 2, but that comes out several months later and that might be too late to win your audience back. The WWE is also a scripted drama, but has the benefit of receiving and the ability to use instant audience feedback, something every other show on TV would kill for. Something isn't working? You can kill it immediately. Crowd loves a lower-card guy? Give him a higher profile. But instead of using this amazing advantage, the WWE turns up its nose at this feedback and convinces itself that they're right and the audience - you know, the people the show is actually supposed to be for - doesn't know what it wants. I have also mentioned similar points. They have a fovus group of millions and have no idea how lucky they are.
|
|
|
Post by Big Bad Kahuna on Apr 2, 2017 8:20:53 GMT -5
In my eyes IWC/smarks ARE the stupid ones in this scenario
Instead of meeting him with indifference/non-reaction and cancelling their Network subscriptions and not attending shows and not buying WWE merch, they just moan and complain but still give Vince their money
WWE has more to offer than Reigns. Tons of great workers/characters. Focus on the stuff you like, be indifferent (go to the toilet, do sth else) on the stuff you don't like! Pretty hard huh?
|
|