|
|
Post by dh03grad on Oct 11, 2009 0:00:42 GMT -5
Society is alot closer to being 1998 than 1988. But it's still not 1998, it's still pretty damn different. Back in the late 80s, Saturday morning cartoons still garnered huge ratings with shows like Garfield and Friends, Muppet Babies and pick your late 80s fad cartoon. At my earliest memory of watching wrestling, Superstars used to come on at 11am Saturday morning on CBS right after Ninja Turtles went off the air. WWF blended right in with highly rated Saturday Morning cartoons. PG was the proper direction then because there was a synergy between the two products. Cable television was still kind of a niche market then and Vince had just recently made deals with syndication driving competitors to be bought out. In the 1980s, Vince was young, and had a clear direction to take his company. Vince had a finger on the pulse of what was going on, and what was popular in society. Rock n Wrestling was planned out perfectly. Vince is well past that stage today, and his yes men seem incompetent to take this company in the right direction. |
|
babyfootball
Don Corleone
At least as good as Ron Garvin!
Posts: 1,320
|
Post by babyfootball on Oct 11, 2009 0:14:28 GMT -5
Is anybody seriously, truly arguing that in a freakin' decade society hasn't changed? Seriously? Is that why Jerry Springer went from beating Oprah in the ratings in 1998 to getting about a quarter of her ratings in 2008? Or why I had 30 channels in 1998 and 230 channels in 2008? And Limp Bizkit was one of the biggest bands in the country! But, seriously. There's a difference between cartoonish, kid-friendly Doink the Clown type stuff, which is only going to appeal to little kids and is going to turn off anyone over the age of, say, 10, and being PG but still having well-written and well-thought out storylines though. But let's not forget, most of us here: A) remember the 1980's nostalgically because we were small children, and didn't mind getting shows of 4 jobber squash matches and an Ultimate Warrior-Barbarian main event. B) remember the Attitude Era fondly because we were pubescent (mostly) boys whose hormones were running wild, so the idea of cussing, boobs and beer on TV was just awesome! C) are now young adults who cling to our childhood love of wrestling, constantly wanting it to be as great as the wrestling of our past looks thoruhg these rose-colored glasses. Fact is, society has changed significantly in the last 10 years, and while there were a lot of universal themes and good writing that made the Attitude Era material click, there was also a TON of shock value-type stuff that was big at the time. Remember when Howard Stern was considered SUPER controversial??? I think society is more jaded now for the most part. So to whom does it make sense for WWE to target, considering their product relies so heavily on suspension of disbelief? Kids!!! They haven't had the chance to become jaded yet, even though most certainly will eventually as they grow older. I mean, can't we all at least agree that if an IWC still exists in 10 MORE years, there likely will be a legion of people roughly the age we're at now aching for characters like HHH, Cena, Mysterio and the like? And men like CM Punk will be heralded like Ricky Steamboat for his consistent ringwork? Shawn Michaels will still be wrestling, way past his prime like his hero Ric Flair, and smarks will be begging for him to stop embarassing himself (while others claim that he was never really all that good to begin with!)? I mean, those are just general predictions, but my point is that any civilization's culture as a whole mirrors that of the individuals who make up said civilization. And if there's one thing that you can say about human beings, it's that we all grow older, every second of every day, until we die. Hence, even though the players may change and the scenery might look a bit different (and more futuristic!), people will still be people, and these conversations will always find ways to pop up. I'm sure there were plenty of old guys smoking cigars in the stands in the 1980's who longed for the days of "real, respectable" champions like Bob Backlund and Bruno Sammartino. Point is, you can never go back, and nostalgia can be a good thing, but only in small doses. I would argue that it was about damn time that they toned down on the man-on-woman violence, tacky sex-related stunts that came off not as sexy or attractive but whorish, and incessant degree of penis jokes (minus DX, of course! Those wacky old pranksters, will they never learn?!). It stopped being edgy at least 5 years ago, I would say the writing was on the wall when Limp Bizkit put out their album Results May Vary to a timid reaction from the marketplace. I'd be willing to bet that one could probably say Springer jumped the shark sometime in that general timeframe, as well. Now, if you want to talk about how to remedy the problems that exist in today's WWE, and how to successfully execute their plan for a new, different direction, that is a whole other topic for a different thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 11, 2009 0:18:56 GMT -5
But it's still not 1998, it's still pretty damn different. Back in the late 80s, Saturday morning cartoons still garnered huge ratings with shows like Garfield and Friends, Muppet Babies and pick your late 80s fad cartoon. At my earliest memory of watching wrestling, Superstars used to come on at 11am Saturday morning on CBS right after Ninja Turtles went off the air. WWF blended right in with highly rated Saturday Morning cartoons. PG was the proper direction then because there was a synergy between the two products. Cable television was still kind of a niche market then and Vince had just recently made deals with syndication driving competitors to be bought out. In the 1980s, Vince was young, and had a clear direction to take his company. Vince had a finger on the pulse of what was going on, and what was popular in society. Rock n Wrestling was planned out perfectly. Vince is well past that stage today, and his yes men seem incompetent to take this company in the right direction. So what? It's not 1998, society is different. For someone to claim that it's not is ridiculous. I'm not arguing that it's closer to 1988, I'm saying that things have changed since the late 90's. Society's tastes are different, societies entertainment options are more numerous, society has more ways of wasting their time. Does he have his finger on the pulse of all things hip? Of course not, but that doesn't mean society is anything near where it was in the late 90's. |
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Oct 11, 2009 2:09:05 GMT -5
Back in the late 80s, Saturday morning cartoons still garnered huge ratings with shows like Garfield and Friends, Muppet Babies and pick your late 80s fad cartoon. At my earliest memory of watching wrestling, Superstars used to come on at 11am Saturday morning on CBS right after Ninja Turtles went off the air. WWF blended right in with highly rated Saturday Morning cartoons. PG was the proper direction then because there was a synergy between the two products. Cable television was still kind of a niche market then and Vince had just recently made deals with syndication driving competitors to be bought out. In the 1980s, Vince was young, and had a clear direction to take his company. Vince had a finger on the pulse of what was going on, and what was popular in society. Rock n Wrestling was planned out perfectly. Vince is well past that stage today, and his yes men seem incompetent to take this company in the right direction. So what? It's not 1998, society is different. For someone to claim that it's not is ridiculous. I'm not arguing that it's closer to 1988, I'm saying that things have changed since the late 90's. Society's tastes are different, societies entertainment options are more numerous, society has more ways of wasting their time. Does he have his finger on the pulse of all things hip? Of course not, but that doesn't mean society is anything near where it was in the late 90's. And to you, so what? So what if it's not 1998? What's your point? That society has changed? What a revelation? Thanks, I didn't know that! (Sorry for sounding crass). You aren't even implicitly recgonizing our point, which is, even though we aren't 1998, we sure are a lot closer to it than we are to 1988. And that's OUR point - Vince is attempting to go back to a product that no longer has any relevance to wrestling, or even mainstream entertainment. Your point is we are no longer in 1998. I concede that. Our point is we are closer to 1998 and are a lot of it is much, much, much more relevant than 1988. You should understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Oct 11, 2009 2:39:02 GMT -5
And I would argue that it's not even the rating really, its the fact that older audiences don't connect to the product at all that's the problem. Until Vince realizes that he needs to give adults something to like as well...or until he gets a dose of competition that wakens him from his stupor, he's still going to give us these crappy shows with horrible finishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Oct 11, 2009 2:59:18 GMT -5
Let's face it: it was better than the current era. And why would that be? Has anyone actually gone back and tried to watch a wrestling TV show from that era? A majority of angles were so short sighted, it was hard to actually enjoy anything. |
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Oct 11, 2009 3:20:45 GMT -5
Let's face it: it was better than the current era. And why would that be? Has anyone actually gone back and tried to watch a wrestling TV show from that era? A majority of angles were so short sighted, it was hard to actually enjoy anything. I have. And I still enjoy it. Yes, the Attitude Era had a lot of crap. But unlike WCW at the time, if it didn't work, they knew when to abandon something. Even the worse was bearable because other pars of the show could "pick up the slack" on the worse parts of the shows. They abandoned the Corporate Ministry because Vince being the Higher Power bombed, and they knew it. I've also tried to go back and watch pre-Attitude Era wrestling. Not all of it I can take, but surprisingly (or maybe not), it's easier for me to watch WCW programming than WWF programming as a whole. I also manage to watch more than I expect sometimes. And on short-sightedness, WWE is very short-sighted right now. It's come down to John Cena vs. Randy Orton almost every other PPV. The fued is played out. Although they don't really clash as opponents, they don't really click either. What makes them think John Cena vs. Randy Orton in a "I Quit" Match would be much different than John Cena vs. Randy Orton in a "Hell in a Cell" match? Or that would be much better if they just change the gimmick of the match? I just don't feel the "heat" between them either. The animosity isn't really there. |
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Walsh is Insane. on Oct 11, 2009 3:25:13 GMT -5
I think that the 80's kids had their attitude time, and in a few years, kids now will have their 'attitude' time.
It's all relative, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Oct 11, 2009 4:59:00 GMT -5
The most annoying thing about this debate to me is anytime I see people complaining about PG WWE, the defenders immediately bring up the Attitude Era an attempt to poke holes in it by mentioning that not everything about it was good.
As if there is anyone out there who thought the Attitude Era was perfect all the time. Of course it wasn't. "Mea Young! Hand! Birth of! Choppy choppy pee pee! Women getting beat up!"
I give you "YOURE AN EEEEEEEENISSSSSSS!" That was another throwaway segment that was as bad as the hand thing. The Chavo vs. Hornswoggle saga, for another. The Diva Battle Royal at WM ending with a crossdresser winning. This era has as much crap as Attitude or any other era for that matter.
They also like to infer that if you dont like PG or the current braindead booking that you must want the product to go back to being ultra violent ECW style, or filled with sex and bad language. I see very few people on here saying that parading naked women around or putting people through flaming tables on a weekly basis is going to instantly improve the product.
Its just that when WWE advertises a Hell in the Cell PPV I expect a little more than a chinlock to John Cena while he is tied up in the ropes. If that is the best WWE can do, there is a problem to me. I grew up on 80s WWF which was much more cartoony and geared towards kids than it is today and there was still blood and a measure of brutality when there needed to be.
Now the product is very sterile and it shows. It takes me out of the product when two guys are fighting in a HIAC and there isn't a drop of blood or really anything that shows me why a HIAC is brutal or something to take seriously.
|
|
spagett
Hank Scorpio
Great Job!
Posts: 5,667
|
Post by spagett on Oct 11, 2009 7:27:04 GMT -5
It has become very cool recently to bash the Attitude era for containing a lot of crap.
Well of course it did, there isn't an era in Professional Wrestling history that wasn't filled with silly gimmicks and wrestlecrap moments.
The fact is this era's low points more than match the low points of the Attitude era as Bubble Lead pointed out. The problem is the high points of this era are so far behind the high points of the Attitude era it is embarassing.
However this isn't about the attitude era. It isn't really to do with them going PG either. It is the do with the fact that the WWE is becoming harder and harder to watch through a mixture of terrible writing, horrible short term booking ie Guest Hosts, and an overall staleness to the show which is impossible to ignore when watching.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Oct 11, 2009 7:32:29 GMT -5
That's kinda true Bubble Lead. 80's style WWF was very kid orientated, yet we had sicko Jake the Snake Roberts interview after hitting miss elizabeth and Macho Mans subsequent breakdown. Macho really 'sold' well during his interview. Watch it and you'll see. (He also didn't go online afterwards describing how he got himself worked up, and there's no clips of him smiling and enjoying a beer with the boys in the back right after finishing his segment. but that's for a different thread). We had Bossman vs Hogan in quite a brutal cage match. We had Earthquake almost killing Hogan.
Early 90's, you got Undertaker putting his opponents in bodybags and Pape Shango making black vomit spew from jobbers.
WWE wouldn't attempt this nowadays, because it'd be too frightning to kiddies. It's quite out of touch tbh. What about the kids then?
I think a part of what hurts wrestling is that they overexpose it as being fake so much. but that's just me. People know actors don't really die in movies, so maybe that's a flawed argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Oct 11, 2009 8:20:55 GMT -5
I actually think that the product is more sophisticated. I actually thought that 2008, from say KOTR onwards, to about No Way Out 2009, the television programming was the best it had been since 2002, maybe 2001 or 2000. They went PG, but they were giving us actual storylines, and had a roster packed with talent. I thought that since they went PG they were going to rely less on raunch and blood and more on developing storylines with a bit more intricacy.
At the end of the day the quality of the programming is going to be determined by the quality of the talent. 2007 was a terrible year for the programming, because the roster was so bare. There was a Kenny Dykstra interview a few weeks back saying how he was always told to go out and face Palumbo each week 'just to fill some time'. And those were dark days. They had nothing else to do. We had a weekly Dykstra/Palumbo match, and we had a weekly Matt Hardy/Finlay match. But they couldn't do anything else apart from maintain the status quo until more talent was ready to be called up. We are seeing it now with there not being many tag teams on Smackdown, CT and the HD will just face each other week after week, but that's what has to happen to give the team's the exposure they need and maintain their places on the card, at least until another tag team of substance comes along.
As I said, the quality of the talent determines the quality of the show. 2008 had a lot, and 2009 has been slightly worse off but we've still seen some great stuff. When your entire roster is getting injured and suspended, the company is going to be severely hampered by it's ability to produce storylines. The formula remains the same and it's a formula that will make the company money regardless, but if they have a roster packed with talent then it gives them a greater ability to produce something that is 'less stale'. For example this year, I'm confident they wouldn't have wanted to keep HHH as the challenger to Orton as long as they did (in a DX skit they even joked about how many shots he had) but there was no-one else. Yes they needed to elevate someone, but what if no-one is ready? What if hotshotting a person to the main event makes them less money? They still have to think about running a business, so it's a massive balancing act.
Last year and this we have had a sophisticated product. Some of the feuds have appealed to adults as well as kids. You can't give the example of Hornswoggle and say 'See, this proves they are targetting only kids!' just as I can't give the example of CM Punk talking about drugs and alcohol and saying they target only adults.
Storylines like HBK/Jericho, Edge/Vickie, HBK/JBL, Jericho/Rey, Orton/HHH (initially), Punk/Jeff all appealed easily to adults as well as kids. Adults could all relate to the issues explained in these feuds. I mean Jericho vs HBK was massively sophisticated. Edge/Vickie basically involveda man sleeping his way to the top. Punk vs Jeff was a feud based on lifestyle choice - that is sophistication. So people moaning about PG have nothing to worry about - when the talent is there, then sophisticated storylines that appeal to the entire family can be created. When talent isn't available, or it's too soon to elevate them, then they have to at least maintain the status quo, so when talent is ready, it means something. I mean they could have had Cena beat Orton at HIAC, then because the feud was apparently 'stale', they could have Swagger win a Beat the Clock challenge and become the number one contender for Bragging Rights. Yeah they could do it, and yeah it would be fresh, but it wouldn't make the company as much money. What they appear to be doing is giving Swagger an undefeated streak, meaning that when he does eventually main event, he won't bomb, because they have taken their time. Again it's all a balancing act when it comes to accusations of stale main eventers.
BTW, I think Vince is right to go PG. As people have mentioned, wrestling will always appeal to kids so why not try and make an effort to get as many of them hooked as possible, before then maturing the product along with the audience they've grabbed? People saying the best choice for business would be to go back to the Attitude Era seem to forget that we got Katie Vick and HLA when ratings had already dropped significantly from boom period numbers. So it's not a magic cure. Maybe there is a time for a return to the Attitude Era, but that time isn't this time.
Let's say that their ideal target is a 10 year old. Let's say they use this 10 year old as the guy they aim to please. So maybe we will get say 6 years of WWE at PG level (which I would be absolutely fine with) before they then deduce that this same 10 year old that they hooked in 2008 as a result of PG is now 16, and requires a new product. Maybe then they'll try and please all the kids they've hooked in this era and go for a bit more of an attitude style. Maybe they won't, and we will get a family orientated product (which this IS) for as long as possible, to keep getting new kids constantly.
But at the end of the day, my point is that ratings will increase based on the quality of the talent. The formula that works will always be the same. It's just if you have The Rock as the face of your company you are going to get higher ratings than if you have John Cena. I'm pretty sure that this will happen - that sometime in the future, someone will become the new face of the company and ratings will increase relatively significantly. The product will still be PG, the formula will still be the same, but for whatever reason this new star will capture audiences better than a lot of guys who have come before him.
PG, blood, sex, violence. None of that matters in terms of ratings as much as the quality of the talent being showcased. It's why 2008 was a much better year than 2007, there was more talent available.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 11, 2009 9:04:24 GMT -5
So what? It's not 1998, society is different. For someone to claim that it's not is ridiculous. I'm not arguing that it's closer to 1988, I'm saying that things have changed since the late 90's. Society's tastes are different, societies entertainment options are more numerous, society has more ways of wasting their time. Does he have his finger on the pulse of all things hip? Of course not, but that doesn't mean society is anything near where it was in the late 90's. And to you, so what? So what if it's not 1998? What's your point? That society has changed? What a revelation? Thanks, I didn't know that! (Sorry for sounding crass). I was responding to something a specific poster said, something that was abjectly ridiculous. Don't try to insert me into a stance I never took, champ. I was responding to one specific point and the implications thereof. The implications is that what worked in 98 would automatically work now. It won't, times change, tastes change, and they do it a hell of a lot faster than every 10 years. Crash TV was a fad that's died down significantly. That's what fueled the era. Options or more abundant, talent is rapidly changing, and I can get my violent fix in more and more ways. That doesn't say the current way is the best way by any means, it's saying that the product has to evolve over time to remain relevant. The statement above indicated that it didn't. I'm not arguing whether or not he's gone a good rout with it, I'm saying he's had to try to change to stay relevant. |
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on Oct 11, 2009 9:15:30 GMT -5
And to you, so what? So what if it's not 1998? What's your point? That society has changed? What a revelation? Thanks, I didn't know that! (Sorry for sounding crass). I was responding to something a specific poster said, something that was abjectly ridiculous. Don't try to insert me into a stance I never took, champ. I was responding to one specific point and the implications thereof. I meant in regards to thier demo. The same age group they hooked in 98 with what they had is still pretty much the same. People in their late teens onward still like the same stuff that age group liked in 98. Sure, they have a lot more ways to access it, but they still like it. That aspect of society hasn't changed. What made wrestling awesome in 98 is still considered awesome today, just with a new group of people. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 11, 2009 9:28:21 GMT -5
I meant in regards to thier demo. The same age group they hooked in 98 with what they had is still pretty much the same. People in their late teens onward still like the same stuff that age group liked in 98. Sure, they have a lot more ways to access it, but they still like it. That aspect of society hasn't changed. What made wrestling awesome in 98 is still considered awesome today, just with a new group of people. But the group that's willing to give wrestling a try in that demographic has decreased significantly. They have more options for their violence and are less tolerant of the "fakeness" aspects of wrestling. That's why you can't rely on them, if you didn't get them hooked at a younger age, you're chances of getting them over MMA, any other violent based sport, video games, movies, etc are shrinking rapidly. Add that to the fact that they know it's not real and you've lost them. There's no more "growing up" with the same group of people, they have to try to do it again. That's why the product has to evolve, that's why they have to try to attract a larger overall audience. The willing portion of the core demographic that they tried to appeal with before has shrunk. Whether or not they're successful at it is another thing entirely, but the fact that they have to should be apparent. It's not a cyclical business, it's like any other entertainment industry, it's prone to crashing and burning. |
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Oct 11, 2009 10:24:03 GMT -5
I meant in regards to thier demo. The same age group they hooked in 98 with what they had is still pretty much the same. People in their late teens onward still like the same stuff that age group liked in 98. Sure, they have a lot more ways to access it, but they still like it. That aspect of society hasn't changed. What made wrestling awesome in 98 is still considered awesome today, just with a new group of people. But the group that's willing to give wrestling a try in that demographic has decreased significantly. They have more options for their violence and are less tolerant of the "fakeness" aspects of wrestling. That's why you can't rely on them, if you didn't get them hooked at a younger age, you're chances of getting them over MMA, any other violent based sport, video games, movies, etc are shrinking rapidly. Add that to the fact that they know it's not real and you've lost them. There's no more "growing up" with the same group of people, they have to try to do it again. You see, that's where I disagree. It's not necessarily the violence that attracts people to MMA. It's that UFC doesn't treat as an idiot. Vince is treating me so badly as a fan, I can't watch his current product. And as for people moving on, it's not BECAUSE they want to watch an increasingly violent product they are moving on, but BECAUSE they are watching an increasing TAMER product in the WWE is why the are moving on. And as for reliability, adults are FAR more reliable than kids. Who holds the money? Not the kids. Who buys the merchandise directly? Not the kids. Who buys the PPV? Not the kids. Who buys the tickets to shows? Not the kids. As UFC has shown, the real money ultimately lies in PPV buyrates and show tickets. WWE's buyrates and ticket sales have been declining for a while now. Vince holds WAY too many PPVs a year. Does he REALLY expect parents to buy ALL his PPV's? Certainly can't really on that. The same goes ticket and merchandise sales. As long as parents hold the key to the cash, Vince won't able to rely on kids. That's why the product has to evolve, that's why they have to try to attract a larger overall audience. The willing portion of the core demographic that they tried to appeal with before has shrunk. Whether or not they're successful at it is another thing entirely, but the fact that they have to should be apparent. It's not a cyclical business, it's like any other entertainment industry, it's prone to crashing and burning. I agree. But what WWE is doing is not evolving. What WWF did to the combat WCW during the Attitude Era? That's evolution. What WWE is doing now to make money? That's de-evolution. Two, you say BECAUSE the market of adults shrunk, WWE is appealing to kids. I disagree. It's the other way around. WWE appealing to kid is the CAUSE of the market of adults shrinking. I'm literally the last holdout among my friends when it comes to watching the WWE, even just once in a while. It's not like they said "I'll stop watching WWE forever!", but rather, one day, they just went, "this sucks. I'm going to watch something else." Some of my friends went to MMA. Some of my friends went to other wrestling promotions. Other's watched other kinds of entertainment. But they all of one thing in common: the product doesn't appeal to them, and they took their money elsewhere. As WWE appealing to a broader audience through PG. I disagree. Like I said before, family entertainment != kid's entertainment. The comparison is easy. Pixar or old-school Disney animated films? Family Entertainment. Modern Disney films? Kid's Entertainment. WWF 80's? Family Entertainment. WWE now? Not so much. Rather than appealing to a bigger audience, they have appealed to a more narrow audience than before. Then, the next point would be "they can't please/appeal to everyone." Of course that's TRUE. No one expects them to do that. But they CAN please a LOT MORE people than they are doing. And while it is impossible can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time, It's still possible to please MOST of the people MOST of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 11, 2009 11:23:54 GMT -5
You see, that's where I disagree. It's not necessarily the violence that attracts people to MMA. It's that UFC doesn't treat as an idiot. Vince is treating me so badly as a fan, I can't watch his current product. And as for people moving on, it's not BECAUSE they want to watch an increasingly violent product they are moving on, but BECAUSE they are watching an increasing TAMER product in the WWE is why the are moving on. And as for reliability, adults are FAR more reliable than kids. Who holds the money? Not the kids. Who buys the merchandise directly? Not the kids. Who buys the PPV? Not the kids. Who buys the tickets to shows? Not the kids. Wrestling doesn't attract the same crowd because tastes have changed in that 10 years. Large quantities of people have grown out of it and moved on. They're not coming back. That crowd is harder and harder to attract, and the number of teens that are going to go for, in their mind, what are two guys in tights fake fighting, is shrinking. Product has a role, but there's a whole hell of a lot more to it than that. Second, yes, adults hold all the money. Adults are also very, very hard to attract to the product. The Attitude Era was the product growing with the audience. When that audience began to shrink, the necessity became to try to draw back a bigger audience. Adults are harder to attract, kids are a lot easier. Part of the strategy is to try to draw them in young so they'll grow up with the product and become adults with disposable income. I agree. But what WWE is doing is not evolving. What WWF did to the combat WCW during the Attitude Era? That's evolution. What WWE is doing now to make money? That's de-evolution. Again, don't attach me to an argument of your creation so you have something to argue. I'm not arguing whether Vince is successful with it, I'm arguing about the necessity to change, the necessity to try to attract the bigger audience and the difficulties presented by changes in options and technology. Adults would leave the product anyways. Tastes change, people grow out of things. The fact that the crash tv style of programming has become much less popular now should be indicative of that. If nothing had changed, WSX on MTV would have probably been a runaway success. Two, you say BECAUSE the market of adults shrunk, WWE is appealing to kids. I disagree. It's the other way around. WWE appealing to kid is the CAUSE of the market of adults shrinking. Nope, I said because the willingness of that particular demographic is shrinking, they have to try to appeal to a larger audience. I never said it has to be a kids show, I said he has to appeal to a larger demographic. There's a big difference there. The business isn't cyclical, it's linear. Wrestling became a lot more of a niche product than it was in the attitude era. That's what they have to fight. Whether they're successful at that is another argument, one I'm not making. But the necessity to change is there. |
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Oct 11, 2009 12:13:53 GMT -5
You see, that's where I disagree. It's not necessarily the violence that attracts people to MMA. It's that UFC doesn't treat as an idiot. Vince is treating me so badly as a fan, I can't watch his current product. And as for people moving on, it's not BECAUSE they want to watch an increasingly violent product they are moving on, but BECAUSE they are watching an increasing TAMER product in the WWE is why the are moving on. And as for reliability, adults are FAR more reliable than kids. Who holds the money? Not the kids. Who buys the merchandise directly? Not the kids. Who buys the PPV? Not the kids. Who buys the tickets to shows? Not the kids. Wrestling doesn't attract the same crowd because tastes have changed in that 10 years. Large quantities of people have grown out of it and moved on. They're not coming back. That crowd is harder and harder to attract, and the number of teens that are going to go for, in their mind, what are two guys in tights fake fighting, is shrinking. Product has a role, but there's a whole hell of a lot more to it than that. Second, yes, adults hold all the money. Adults are also very, very hard to attract to the product. The Attitude Era was the product growing with the audience. When that audience began to shrink, the necessity became to try to draw back a bigger audience. Adults are harder to attract, kids are a lot easier. Part of the strategy is to try to draw them in young so they'll grow up with the product and become adults with disposable income. Again, don't attach me to an argument of your creation so you have something to argue. I'm not arguing whether Vince is successful with it, I'm arguing about the necessity to change, the necessity to try to attract the bigger audience and the difficulties presented by changes in options and technology. Adults would leave the product anyways. Tastes change, people grow out of things. The fact that the crash tv style of programming has become much less popular now should be indicative of that. If nothing had changed, WSX on MTV would have probably been a runaway success. Two, you say BECAUSE the market of adults shrunk, WWE is appealing to kids. I disagree. It's the other way around. WWE appealing to kid is the CAUSE of the market of adults shrinking. Nope, I said because the willingness of that particular demographic is shrinking, they have to try to appeal to a larger audience. I never said it has to be a kids show, I said he has to appeal to a larger demographic. There's a big difference there. The business isn't cyclical, it's linear. Wrestling became a lot more of a niche product than it was in the attitude era. That's what they have to fight. Whether they're successful at that is another argument, one I'm not making. But the necessity to change is there. Here's the problem. They AREN'T attracting a larger demographic. Their "attempt" is attracting a smaller demographic than they had. And two, when these kids grow up, they aren't exactly going to be watching the WWE. I know a lot of friends never watched 80's or early 90's wrestling, but watched the Attitude Era. I also know a lot of people who watched 80's or early 90's wrestling that never watched the Attitude Era. As for adults leaving the product anyway, I can't say I agree. Wrestling fans can take a lot of crap. They tend to try to stick around. Vince has made a concerted effort to push out his old fans because they don't like the same things he does. And no one disagrees on the necessity of change. It's just that Vince isn't really "changing", but rather "regressing" to an ideal, not even he reality, he once had. And what they are doing isn't drawing bigger audience. That's where you are wrong. You claim that you are merely saying they are only trying to, but not necessarily succeeding at it. I'm not so sure WWE cares for a larger audience, or rather Vince wants an audience that cheers for what he wants cheered, boos for what he want booed, and likes what he liks |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 11, 2009 12:51:16 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but seriously? I'm not claiming I'm saying it, I am saying it. You're building a straw man, you're fabricating an argument so you have something to argue against. You're creating a point I never made so you can argue against an argument I never made.
I was arguing against the point that Krimzon was making, that the same things will attract the same audience as they did a decade ago. You claim you're not disagreeing, but you still feel the need to create something that you can disagree with so you can have an argument. Sorry, but I'm not going to argue you on the point you're pretending I'm making, I was responding to a statement made by someone else.
For fans being driven away, if fans were that intent on watching wrestling, they would find a product that suits them. But the fact is, most of that audience didn't flock to TNA, CZW, ROH, Chikara, or any other promotion. They just stopped. That speaks more toward the form of entertainment not appealing to them anymore than the actions of any specific company. Just like what might have been our favorite show as a kid won't necessarily be now.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Deadly Snake on Oct 11, 2009 17:49:29 GMT -5
I'm not so sure I'm doing a straw-man. It's the logical follow-ups to your arguments. You may not not necessarily believe (or not believe) the logical follow-ups, but I can't see where else they would go with your arguments. As I see it, it only leads there, and as Isee it's like saying you think something is not right, but you don't think it's wrong. If you believe in "A", but don't not necessarily believe in "B", but "A" only leads up to "B", how else will you think I see it?
Fine, if you don't to debate me on it, it's fine.
|
|
