|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Jul 22, 2020 11:45:47 GMT -5
My main issues
1. The fighting half of the illusion that is pro wrestling is missing.
If you take the storylines and some of the better gimmicks we currently have and place them in 1998 or 1987 they would probably get a great reaction from the crowds.
I find the problem is I don't believe in the wrestling animosity. In the 80s if we followed Sean Mooney backstage to see The Earthquake and Tito Santana crossing paths there would be beef. In wwe I feel if the New Day and Seth Rollins walked past each other nothing would happen, they might even say hi. This illusion I get still in NJPW, AEW or Impact but not in WWE anymore. Maybe it's too polished / over produced in lovely HD along with all these fancy camera angles. Something has destroyed that grit that gives it a sense of realism.
2. Brand Split
Honestly ever since the brand split began back in the early 2000s it's been a terrible idea and is still a terrible idea.
I don't buy that these two tv shows are separate entities, especially when one of the big four ppvs rolls around and they all get together anyway. It's dumb and contrived.
3. Too many title belts - seriously what is going on here why do they have so many?! Merge these things.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 39,062
|
Post by fw91 on Jul 22, 2020 11:57:24 GMT -5
I think this ties into the "main event or bust" mentality that is shared by both fans and talent. Being a staple of the the upper mid card isn't always failing or being misused. When did this mentality start? Like WWE always had their limited amount of top guys that the main event was exclusive for. Even in more fondly remembered eras.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jul 22, 2020 12:06:31 GMT -5
I think this ties into the "main event or bust" mentality that is shared by both fans and talent. Being a staple of the the upper mid card isn't always failing or being misused. When did this mentality start? Like WWE always had their limited amount of top guys that the main event was exclusive for. Even in more fondly remembered eras. I don’t think it was just fans and talent. When you have people like HHH, who is now in charge of NXT, regularly saying “If you don’t want the WWE championship, why are you here?” It gives the image that all they want in management is people to put the title on and make them loads of money rather than making loads of money up and down the card with a popular figurehead on top like it was back in the 80s.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Jul 22, 2020 12:07:48 GMT -5
I know what you mean. When you have a MEGASTAR like stone cold in his prime, he doesn't lose to a guy like Jeff Jarrett. You just don't do it. The hierarchy is for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 12:19:24 GMT -5
I think this ties into the "main event or bust" mentality that is shared by both fans and talent. Being a staple of the the upper mid card isn't always failing or being misused. When did this mentality start? Like WWE always had their limited amount of top guys that the main event was exclusive for. Even in more fondly remembered eras. My assumption is that Vince has gradually become more brand-focused over time and this is a symptom. Could have been after he bought WCW, or something with Brock, or at any point. But I think that's where his head is. He's developed a belief that the WWE could be such a big overall entertainment brand that it doesn't matter how some top talent is used or showcased, when it reality it does. He thinks that he can make the show great enough to where the wins and losses somehow matter less and people will stay over with crowds, when in truth they won't. And I guess he feels that the Raw, Smackdown and NXT shows can be like their own promotions, but I don't think most fans view them that way. Meltzer's talked about "it's like Vince forgot how to ride a bike". And I wouldn't be that extreme, but everyone doesn't maintain a Midas touch forever. I do think he's lost sight of how important it is to keep a specific order within the shows, so the special moments can actually stand out.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,990
|
Post by Sparkybob on Jul 22, 2020 12:30:39 GMT -5
I do think hierarchies are important so it actually feels important when someone moves up to the main event scene.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 39,062
|
Post by fw91 on Jul 22, 2020 12:37:34 GMT -5
I think this ties into the "main event or bust" mentality that is shared by both fans and talent. Being a staple of the the upper mid card isn't always failing or being misused. When did this mentality start? Like WWE always had their limited amount of top guys that the main event was exclusive for. Even in more fondly remembered eras. I don’t think it was just fans and talent. When you have people like HHH, who is now in charge of NXT, regularly saying “If you don’t want the WWE championship, why are you here?” It gives the image that all they want in management is people to put the title on and make them loads of money rather than making loads of money up and down the card with a popular figurehead on top like it was back in the 80s. That's fair.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 22, 2020 13:05:07 GMT -5
I think this ties into the "main event or bust" mentality that is shared by both fans and talent. Being a staple of the the upper mid card isn't always failing or being misused. When did this mentality start? Like WWE always had their limited amount of top guys that the main event was exclusive for. Even in more fondly remembered eras. I don’t think it was just fans and talent. When you have people like HHH, who is now in charge of NXT, regularly saying “If you don’t want the WWE championship, why are you here?” It gives the image that all they want in management is people to put the title on and make them loads of money rather than making loads of money up and down the card with a popular figurehead on top like it was back in the 80s. Yeah, I said in the past it's like they heard the Midcard hell complaints and decided to double down on it... instead of you know... making it more obvious there isn't anything wrong with being a midcarder...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2020 13:07:10 GMT -5
Here's a quasi-answer, maybe:
You give them something.
A gimmick. A purpose. An individuality. A quirk.
Vince Russo was right in, like, maybe one way: give people something to do, and go from there. If it gets them going and thinking and doing, it could work really well and everyone benefits. If they don't do anything with something, lose 'em.
Having creative types and execs backstage giving people nothing, or giving them something and then yanking them because "we didn't think it was working", helps no one grow.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,511
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Jul 22, 2020 13:19:46 GMT -5
This is my point,you can have successful tomato cans. By successful I mean characters that are interesting and that the fans like.But in WWE such concept doesnt exist anymore.You are only successful if you are a winner which causes the 50/50 issue you bring up. We are basically arguing the same point but from different perspectives No, a tomato can shouldn’t be successful. When I say tomato can, I mean Barry Horowitz, PJ Walker. I mean true jobbers. Most jobbers don’t need characters. A scrub should be a little bland and lamer than the midcard superstar. You can have an occasional gimmicky jobber like No Way Jose or Brooklyn Brawler, but they’re not meant to have compelling, key storylines. They’re there to get beat up. I’d save the interesting storylines for people getting pushed. This also keeps people who are feuding away from each other and as a result, makes your PPVs more important. When we're seeing New Day and Cesaro/Shinsuke interacting every single week, and having a singles match against each other in the weeks leading up, it takes a little something away from seeing them do it on a PPV. As great as the Monday Night Wars were, the star vs star booking philosophy absolutely killed the value of PPVs because big time matches have been pissed away for years
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,077
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Jul 22, 2020 13:32:18 GMT -5
Vince Russo got it right. In 1998, everyone had a storyline and a purpose, regardless of card position- you could be Kai En Tai or you could be Stone Cold. his biggest problem is a lot of the stuff he gave people was crap that either pigeon holed them into one specific thing or was so bad it basically tanked their careers afterwards. It wasn't even just Russo, look at the 1989 Survivor Series card, almost everyone on one team was feuding with someone on the other team all the way through the card.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 22, 2020 13:34:57 GMT -5
No, a tomato can shouldn’t be successful. When I say tomato can, I mean Barry Horowitz, PJ Walker. I mean true jobbers. Most jobbers don’t need characters. A scrub should be a little bland and lamer than the midcard superstar. You can have an occasional gimmicky jobber like No Way Jose or Brooklyn Brawler, but they’re not meant to have compelling, key storylines. They’re there to get beat up. I’d save the interesting storylines for people getting pushed. This also keeps people who are feuding away from each other and as a result, makes your PPVs more important. When we're seeing New Day and Cesaro/Shinsuke interacting every single week, and having a singles match against each other in the weeks leading up, it takes a little something away from seeing them do it on a PPV. As great as the Monday Night Wars were, the star vs star booking philosophy absolutely killed the value of PPVs because big time matches have been pissed away for years And if they don’t want to always fall back on a squash, there’s always the NJPW format of multi-person tags, where it’s often a lower-midcarder who eats the pin or taps out. That makes the crowds pop bigger when a larger star *does* lose for their team.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,511
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Jul 22, 2020 13:43:18 GMT -5
This also keeps people who are feuding away from each other and as a result, makes your PPVs more important. When we're seeing New Day and Cesaro/Shinsuke interacting every single week, and having a singles match against each other in the weeks leading up, it takes a little something away from seeing them do it on a PPV. As great as the Monday Night Wars were, the star vs star booking philosophy absolutely killed the value of PPVs because big time matches have been pissed away for years And if they don’t want to always fall back on a squash, there’s always the NJPW format of multi-person tags, where it’s often a lower-midcarder who eats the pin or taps out. That makes the crowds pop bigger when a larger star *does* lose for their team. Sure and that's were someone like Koko, or latter day Tito Santana always came in handy.
|
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,725
|
Post by nisidhe on Jul 22, 2020 14:51:49 GMT -5
Define "successful".
Not every superstar on your roster needs to be WWE champion. They do, however, need to be presented as "important" and "clearly worthy of praise and attention" or "clearly worthy of ire and contempt."
It starts with how you present the endeavour itself - wrestling needs to be presented as important and worthy of your attention. Watch any match where Gorilla Monsoon is giving play-by-play. Then, watch one where Michael Cole is providing play-by-play (_Beast in the East_ aside). What Gorilla did was make every.match on that card (with few exceptions) feel like the main event - even if they were just jerking the curtain. I get it - Cole doesn't write the script and has to listen to Vince constantly in his ear. Gorilla never tolerated that shizz and Vince knew it.
Then, you bring in the best talents from around the world and _let them do their jobs_. I suspect that Gorilla would have been absolutely full of glee to see a) how good the current crop are in the ring, b) how smoothly the locker room is running, and c) how eager these people are to go above and beyond to entertain, inspire and to improve the business. Instead, these folks are slowly being destroyed by gatekeepers and old midcarders droning on and on about "paying dues". Look at 1987 for a comparison - in addition to Hogan as champion fighting off Heenan's stable, you had the Steamboat-Savage-Honky Tonk Man narrative, ten tag teams all in the tag title hunt (including the absolutely hated Hart Foundation); you had multiple big faces and heels filling the card with grudge matches and longer programs. ALL of them mattered; all of them contributed in their own way to the value of that live event ticket.
What Vince has done since 2001 has been to cut corners with narrative, booking and promotion to the point where most people in the ordinary world couldn't tell you who WWE's world champions are.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,474
|
Post by bob on Jul 23, 2020 18:59:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 24, 2020 17:54:35 GMT -5
The issue with 'deserves' in wrestling is that it is stupid and doesn't really exist.
The Rock's entire wrestling career with comebacks is what, under a decade? He was the world heavyweight champion within two years of his debut. Anybody want to tell me he didn't pay enough dues to main event?
Dues paying is a relative measure used as an excuse for something else, be that particular skills, attitude problems or just personal dislike or prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 24, 2020 19:03:34 GMT -5
Point is, when wrestling resembles how real combat sports work, it draws big money (see that’s another issue, we always discuss what *doesn’t* work too often as opposed to what does). I know some think tiering a roster is too predictable, but there’s proof in the gates- tiers work. Folks always are like “oh it’s like a movie, it’s a soap opera!” Brah, it’s still a show about people fighting in a ring. And real combat sports often don’t have nearly as much parity as modern WWE. Couldn't disagree more with this. Combat sports are BORING AS HELL, and even for people who like them, I seriously doubt it's the fact that there's unofficial tiers that draws them in. It's just the fact that it's real people really fighting, right? That's the draw. The WWE will never have that. There is no getting around the fact that tiers make matches 90% of matches unnecessary and boring, because they just have foregone conclusions. The very rare exceptions aren't exciting enough to make up for this. And the other thing is... they've already ruined this kind of thing with decades of bad booking. The audience totally knows that if someone "rises up the hierarchy," then Vince and co. have just chosen them to rise up the hierarchy: they're the new special chosen one. They're not an underdog anymore. They've run every variation on trying to make it work (usually presenting the booker on-screen as a kayfabe antagonist) and except with very rare exceptions like Kofi Kingston, the audience doesn't buy it. (And they're RIGHT not to buy it: Kingston was an actual underdog, and now he's back where the bookers think he belongs.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting every member of the roster as roughly equal, because if someone wasn't great, they wouldn't be there. This doesn't mean someone can't be killing it at the moment, because they've perfected a finishing move or they're super motivated or defending a championship that really matters to them, or whatever. People rag on 50/50 booking, but that's not because it can't work to present to guys equally... that's because the WWE 1. Has way too much TV time to fill, so they are forced to put two feuding people in the same match over and over again, and 2. Only have like two narrative devices, and trading victories is one of them, and it's gotten really old. And... yeah, it just is a soap opera. It's a serial TV show; the purpose is to tell stories. The matches are part of that. The problem is that, deep down, there's only one story wrestling fans have been taught to expect, and that's "This guy is great" (aka "who's getting a push?"). This whole tiers thing just entrenches that even more... if Mr. X wins a match, then that's part of the storyline that Mr. X is great. If Mr. X wins a championship, more development in the Mr. X is great story! This is, of course, a terrible story (it's very boring and it's just going to get a lot of people to hate Mr. X). But they've gotten to the point that every other story they try to tell is really just seen as fluff underneath the real story: who we're supposed to think is great. And god, we need a break from that. The worst part is that this onscreen kayfabe hierarchy bullshit affects real money and employment security behind the scenes. People like Vince desperately try to make the roster into a bunch of warriors struggling against one another instead of what they are: costars, working together to make good TV. This is, of course, the point. Vince, like, existentially dislikes the idea that the world isn't a hierarchy with the strong on top, and so he desperately needs to pretend his company works that way.
|
|
King Devitt
Grimlock
It gets better the longer you stare at it
Posts: 13,764
|
Post by King Devitt on Jul 24, 2020 19:36:41 GMT -5
Vince Russo got it right. In 1998, everyone had a storyline and a purpose, regardless of card position- you could be Kai En Tai or you could be Stone Cold. This. You can still be a tomato can and be successful. Being successful and being seen as a "winner" are two different things. Hierarchy and success don't equate, and aren't the same thing. There will always be main event, midcard, curtain jerkers. But all of those talents can be successful at their level. Not everyone can be booked as a winner/god tier/main event. Everyone can be booked as successful in some way. And success doesn't mean everyone is Stone Cold. Stone Cold was successful, but so was Kaientai. In different ways. Stone Cold is a winner, I wouldn't say Kaientai were thought of in the same vein, but both were successes in their own right. One of the few things Russo did well in the late 90's. Success is not conducive to equality of where you're booked on the card, or how strong, but just how you're booked in general. No Way Jose could have been a success, just in a different way than Drew is.
|
|
|
Post by TheMediocreWarrior on Jul 25, 2020 1:20:38 GMT -5
One of the issues is two world titles and how long people stay on the roster. A quick count suggests 20 plus guys on the roster have been world champ (depending on which part timers you count). And of course the Jindar problem, if 20 guys including him can win it then why can't literally anyone? Hell for some even their first title win is basically a practice run for the real thing later. Being IC/US champ just doesn't cut it now. It's all or nothing. So you rarely get the HHH Vs Rock, Jericho Vs Benoit style fueds at that level anymore that elevate both guys. Hell it's rguable you now have to be in the Wm main event to be a top guy. There absolutely should not be two world titles at this point. I think the 2000s Heavyweight Championship only got away (now and then) with it because the roster was so fat and the star power was that massive. Now? They really only need one men’s world, one women’s world, one men’s and women’s tag, and one midcard belt each for the girls and dudes. I think they can keep the brand split, but have the championships defended on both brands. Some of the divisions are spread too thin, like the tag teams. I think the championships should be narrowed down to: -WWE World Championship-There's one top guy in WWE. -WWE IC Championship- Upper midcard. A championship for both former main event guys and the rising stars. -WWE US Championship-Make it like AEW's TNT Championship where it's open challenges. A third tier championship that can be the first championship for those starting out on the main roster. -WWE Tag Team Championship-Not enough teams at the moment to justify two championships, which is the problem they had a decade ago because WWE seems to hate tag teams most of the time. For the women: -WWE Women's World Championship: Unify the two singles titles, and replace one with... -Women's Intercontinental Championship: A championship for up and coming midcarders like the purpose of the men's IC title back in the day. -WWE Women's Tag Team Titles I don't think it's just the amount of titles that's a problem. It's that the championships aren't distinct enough. Being world champion doesn't seem as meaningful when there are two. If you fail to win one, just go to the other show and win that one. It takes away from the alleged prestige.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jul 25, 2020 7:42:03 GMT -5
Point is, when wrestling resembles how real combat sports work, it draws big money (see that’s another issue, we always discuss what *doesn’t* work too often as opposed to what does). I know some think tiering a roster is too predictable, but there’s proof in the gates- tiers work. Folks always are like “oh it’s like a movie, it’s a soap opera!” Brah, it’s still a show about people fighting in a ring. And real combat sports often don’t have nearly as much parity as modern WWE. Couldn't disagree more with this. Combat sports are BORING AS HELL, and even for people who like them, I seriously doubt it's the fact that there's unofficial tiers that draws them in. It's just the fact that it's real people really fighting, right? That's the draw. The WWE will never have that. There is no getting around the fact that tiers make matches 90% of matches unnecessary and boring, because they just have foregone conclusions. The very rare exceptions aren't exciting enough to make up for this. And the other thing is... they've already ruined this kind of thing with decades of bad booking. The audience totally knows that if someone "rises up the hierarchy," then Vince and co. have just chosen them to rise up the hierarchy: they're the new special chosen one. They're not an underdog anymore. They've run every variation on trying to make it work (usually presenting the booker on-screen as a kayfabe antagonist) and except with very rare exceptions like Kofi Kingston, the audience doesn't buy it. (And they're RIGHT not to buy it: Kingston was an actual underdog, and now he's back where the bookers think he belongs.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting every member of the roster as roughly equal, because if someone wasn't great, they wouldn't be there. This doesn't mean someone can't be killing it at the moment, because they've perfected a finishing move or they're super motivated or defending a championship that really matters to them, or whatever. People rag on 50/50 booking, but that's not because it can't work to present to guys equally... that's because the WWE 1. Has way too much TV time to fill, so they are forced to put two feuding people in the same match over and over again, and 2. Only have like two narrative devices, and trading victories is one of them, and it's gotten really old. And... yeah, it just is a soap opera. It's a serial TV show; the purpose is to tell stories. The matches are part of that. The problem is that, deep down, there's only one story wrestling fans have been taught to expect, and that's "This guy is great" (aka "who's getting a push?"). This whole tiers thing just entrenches that even more... if Mr. X wins a match, then that's part of the storyline that Mr. X is great. If Mr. X wins a championship, more development in the Mr. X is great story! This is, of course, a terrible story (it's very boring and it's just going to get a lot of people to hate Mr. X). But they've gotten to the point that every other story they try to tell is really just seen as fluff underneath the real story: who we're supposed to think is great. And god, we need a break from that. The worst part is that this onscreen kayfabe hierarchy bullshit affects real money and employment security behind the scenes. People like Vince desperately try to make the roster into a bunch of warriors struggling against one another instead of what they are: costars, working together to make good TV. This is, of course, the point. Vince, like, existentially dislikes the idea that the world isn't a hierarchy with the strong on top, and so he desperately needs to pretend his company works that way. It’s a TV show about a fictional combat sport, so everything I said still counts. And hierarchies are a natural aspect to traditional pro wrestling booking, it’s not just some weird Vince personality quirk. So that why I say some of this excess TV time can be filled up with tune-up matches for people like New Day, who instead of losing on live TV to NakCesaro for a match stip, could be looking stronger by cutting down a couple of ham-and-eggers. Were I in charge, I’d have just had the heels offer a stip, and instead of jobbing the champs again, New Day can just agree because they feel they’re badass enough to overcome it.
|
|