|
Post by Loser troll. Please ban me on Nov 23, 2009 16:08:43 GMT -5
Ripped off? waaah, wwe has always come up with there own original idea's, to say the contrary is blapshamy!
|
|
|
Post by GaTechGrad on Nov 23, 2009 17:30:53 GMT -5
I think the biggest one that hasn't been mentioned yet is the monthly ppv format. It was Bischoff's idea to do a ppv every month.
(Sadly) the Blue Blazer rappelling from the ceiling was a ripoff of Sting rappelling from the ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by diegorivera on Nov 23, 2009 23:40:40 GMT -5
They need to loose money. When you've got a bottom line that's beating out what you were pulling in during the years everyone loved you and it seemed like you could do no wrong and you had all the big stars you have to really think twice about changing anything for the sake of a few extra Nealson points. I mean, Microsoft, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, these are companies with a terrible reputation for one reason or another but they still drag in big money. Something about them makes money even when everyone seems to hate them.
WWE is in a simmilar situation. The ratings are tanking, attendance is down and the critical assessment of the company, Raw especially couldn't be lower. But they're making money. Huge amounts. More than the Hogans, Austins and Rocks ever brought in. More than any year of sold out shows, 5.0+ ratings and huge PPV buyrates ever brought in. More than any year the critics were generally appreciative of their efforts. Numbers don't lie and the WWE has a few million of them to sing their praises and celebrate their efforts when no one else will.
Why change that? Why risk losing this big time income to appease these crowds, these viewers, these critics. You're making more dough without them than you ever have. Why change a thing? Why work everyone to the bone for something that in the end was worth a lot less? Why change for something that brought in less money? Is critical acclaim, large numbers of viewers and packed arenas worth it when less makes more?
The quick fixes are there because there's no reason to waste time, effort and especially money on a fix that may put more butts in seats, get more people to tune in and earn more praise when mediocrity is this profitable. Could it hurt the E in the long run? Sure, but changing could hurt them short term and in these economic times no one should be blamed for their unwillingness to take a risk. Especially when you've a lot to loose and comparably less to gain.
Vince will fix things when the money starts talking. Creative will be overhauled. Raws will be better. Smackdown will be on a station that people actually watch. ECW will be taken seriously and treated less like a ugly duckling. PPVs will be worth watching. Matches and storylines will be interesting again. The performers will be entertaining once more. But it won't happen as long as the WWE's bottom line is this fat. For the same reason McDonald's burgers are still mediocre, Wal-Marts customer service still sucks and Microsoft's OSs are still buggy and unreliable. They still sell and you don't fix what isn't broken.
|
|