Ian Austin
Don Corleone
All will be well
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Ian Austin on Dec 25, 2010 12:28:28 GMT -5
I'm going to repost this again as it should be. PG isn't the problem at all. Nitro was able to kick RAW's ass in the ratings for a year and a half with a PG product. The thing is, WCW did PG the right way. They didn't have bad language or excessive blood or sexual content, but they did have serious angles with interesting characters that were aimed at adults. WWE's problem these days is that they're doing exactly what Vince always badmouthed ECW for, which is trying to only appeal to a portion of their fanbase rather than the entire fanbase. WWE is so concerned with little kids that they're neglecting the large adult section of fans. Again going back to Nitro, little kids and adults alike loved things like the NWO vs. Sting angle, just further proving that PG isn't the problem. Trying to be a kids show is the problem. ' Except this isn't remotely true. Do you think Daniel Bryan appeals to kids? He has solid wrestling matches that lack any trace of sports entertainment. And his gimmick, according to people here, is a nerd virgin. How does that appeal to kids? Not to mention Edge trying to kill Paul Bearer and Randy Orton acting psychotic. It's PG, but it's not pandering solely to kids. If it was, do you really think we'd have as much wrestling as there is on Raw? It'd be full of goofy characters.
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Dec 25, 2010 12:37:53 GMT -5
I'm going to repost this again as it should be. PG isn't the problem at all. Nitro was able to kick RAW's ass in the ratings for a year and a half with a PG product. The thing is, WCW did PG the right way. They didn't have bad language or excessive blood or sexual content, but they did have serious angles with interesting characters that were aimed at adults. WWE's problem these days is that they're doing exactly what Vince always badmouthed ECW for, which is trying to only appeal to a portion of their fanbase rather than the entire fanbase. WWE is so concerned with little kids that they're neglecting the large adult section of fans. Again going back to Nitro, little kids and adults alike loved things like the NWO vs. Sting angle, just further proving that PG isn't the problem. Trying to be a kids show is the problem. ' Agreed. Couldnt have said it any better myself.
|
|
Fiddleford H. McGucket
El Dandy
My Mind's been gone for 30-odd years! Can't Break what's already broken!
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by Fiddleford H. McGucket on Dec 25, 2010 12:52:09 GMT -5
Allow me to clarify/reiterate, WWE dosn't produce a show for "smarks". It's not in thier best interest to do so. Why try to appeal to the demographic that in no small part exists soleley to tear you down? Why not build the show around Cena, Rey, Orton, Nexus, and Miz?
It's a simple cycle, Push=>Merch=>$$$ =>Back to Push, simply put....they push whoever they think is going to make them the most money. The Cenas/Reys/Nexi are thier cash cows....Mark made merch machines that I'd venture supply them with a good bit of their working capital. Then you have your Zigglers, ADRs and Daniel Bryans, they're in there every week putting on good to great matches to get the "Workrate" crowd excited, but have little to no Merch to quantify the fan support.
Then you have the Kofis & JoMos.....the exception that in my mind cements the rule. TONS of Merch for a midcarder.....but lacking something that transitions from merch sales to sustained push.
Yeah.....The Product may not be for "smarks", but why should it be? Vince is in the Entertainment business for the same reason that anyone should be in ANY business...."To Make Money". If he can make more money with kiddy pandering and a noticible lack of effort than by giving 110% then what exactly is he doing wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2010 13:16:30 GMT -5
I'm going to repost this again as it should be. ' Except this isn't remotely true. Do you think Daniel Bryan appeals to kids? He has solid wrestling matches that lack any trace of sports entertainment. And his gimmick, according to people here, is a nerd virgin. How does that appeal to kids? Not to mention Edge trying to kill Paul Bearer and Randy Orton acting psychotic. It's PG, but it's not pandering solely to kids. If it was, do you really think we'd have as much wrestling as there is on Raw? It'd be full of goofy characters. I agree. Everything CM Punk has done since his heel turn, Jericho's SRS character and feud with HBK, Albert del Rio is definitely not aimed at kids and these are all characters with some depth and storylines that are much more intriguing that appeal to adults. Same with HBK/Taker feud to end out Michael's career or even the Miz. Do you really think little kids are interested in the Miz? And he's the world champ right now. Are there some aspects of WWE that appeal to kids? Of course, it makes sense as a lot of kids like wrestling, but the whole show isn't some kiddie-friendly romp on the playground like people make it out to be. The show is balanced, which is something different than most feds have done in the past (including WWE(F)). You look at a show like TNA at its very geared towards kids (by that I mean teens) when you think about it. They try to be edgy or extreme and sacrifice character development and continuity, but that kind of stuff appeals much more to teenagers than it does to adults.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 25, 2010 13:29:02 GMT -5
I still love it, but if you look at the amount of time Vince has marketed towards kids, since he bought the company versus when it was plainly an adult product, I think it's pretty plain that he does prefer a young audience and believes that's where the money is.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Dec 25, 2010 17:45:10 GMT -5
Vince is going after an audience that is willing to spend money not the one who won't.
|
|
|
Post by texaswhopper on Dec 25, 2010 21:19:02 GMT -5
It's not pandering solely to kids. If you watch that TLC pay per view you could probably tell at least a little of what was aimed at us. That ladder match between Sheamus and John Morrison that many enjoyed was probably for us.
Maybe I can assume at this moment that any angle with John Cena is never aimed at me or anyone here. You can tell at times when his feuds seem intelligent at first but then become simplified to please a younger kids and the occasional inept adult. The way he seems to overcome the odds so much is an obvious example.
I may get flamed for this next part but oh well...
Why not just have all the dumbed down angles for John Cena and his fans? Really some of them aren't that smart. John Cena gave some fake speech and they were crying in minutes. Minutes I say! If all it takes to get their money is have to him beat the crap out of some bad guys every night, well we don't need to waste good ideas to get to that point.
I would love to do an experiment in an attempt to prove that you don't always need to put John Cena in some big feud to get money from his fans. Every Monday Night for a month well pay some random local jobber cash, have him come out there as some made up bad guy i.e. Billy Crooked Nose, make him bad mouth/call out John Cena and have John beat the **** out of him.
I'll bet you would get close to the same amount money from his fans in that month.
|
|
|
Post by Clarence "Showstealer" Mason on Dec 25, 2010 21:27:18 GMT -5
While I don't think it's terrible I personally think a lot of WWE programming is just plain boring. Smackdown especially for me is unwatchable and a lot of the time on Raw I just watch the clock wondering if the show's over yet. As much as it irritates me most of the time I can't say that about Impact, which is some ways is a good thing.
Not that WWE doesn't have its moments. I loved Old School Raw, the buildup to Undertaker and Shawn was great and the first few weeks of the Nexus angle, leading up to Summerslam were tremendous. I guess for me the problem is the "Great" at the moment doesn't outweigh the "Just Plain Boring"
|
|
|
Post by Indifference Abounds on Dec 25, 2010 21:59:15 GMT -5
I think I can ,fairly definitively, say that WWE programming isn't designed with me in mind. I don't know if it's a result of their booking, my becoming more "smart" or, more likely, some combination of the two but I've essentially flipped to being in the opposite position to the audience they aim for.
I can't just get behind a face because they're the designated good guy, even less so when the heel has actually developed a character I can engage with and find entertaining. I'm far more likely to like a face if he puts on entertaining matches, than by any measure of how dastardly the heel he faces off against is. Nobody likes seeing their favourites lose, except when the match is enjoyable, and my favourites are almost exclusively heels.
I don't hate the shows at all, I can find them really enjoyable, but it just doesn't feel like I'm in the audience they're catering to - most of the time.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Dec 25, 2010 21:59:21 GMT -5
While I don't think it's terrible I personally think a lot of WWE programming is just plain boring. Smackdown especially for me is unwatchable and a lot of the time on Raw I just watch the clock wondering if the show's over yet. As much as it irritates me most of the time I can't say that about Impact, which is some ways is a good thing. Not that WWE doesn't have its moments. I loved Old School Raw, the buildup to Undertaker and Shawn was great and the first few weeks of the Nexus angle, leading up to Summerslam were tremendous. I guess for me the problem is the "Great" at the moment doesn't outweigh the "Just Plain Boring" Smackdown has like 8 guys (and Alberto Del Rio) doing the same stuff we've seen for a while. It's a bore.
|
|
Jimmy
Grimlock
Posts: 13,317
|
Post by Jimmy on Dec 25, 2010 22:00:26 GMT -5
Conor O'Brian believes he's part rat.
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Dec 25, 2010 22:43:54 GMT -5
I just miss coherent stories. I think a lot of guys are being wasted right now on meaningless feuds, and it's kind of... well, I think about Shawn's last two years. The guy had a story with Flair, a story with Batista, an epic with Jericho, a story with JBL, and two stories with Taker. They varied in quality. But they were all comprehensible, fairly memorable, they all involved some sort of meaningful issue between the participants, and they were enhanced by a fair number of meaty promos, some compelling backstage segments, and matches that furthered the stories... where the acting was as critical a component as the wrestling. There is absolutely no reason why people shouldn't be getting the opportunities to tell stories like that right now. I know the folks involved in those feuds were veterans, and probably had a lot more freedom than most to get what they wanted. But I feel like there are so many talented guys on the roster right now who could easily run with meaty stories if they were given the chance, and instead, their stories are, like, one thing (for example, "Seamus is a bully. JoMo fights the bully. The end."), or their story is a character trait ("Daniel Bryan is a nerd and the Bellas want him"), or the story starts out amazingly and then fizzles ("Nexus is going to remake the entire WWE with their higher purpose and their dominance... oh, wait, until they just decide to make Cena their errand boy. Oh, he won the match. Guess that's over."). Honestly, the ONLY thing working for me in WWE right now is Miz, and it's pretty much by force of personality. (Same for ADR, when I watch Smackdown. Which isn't often.) I'm intrigued about Punk-Cena, but I'm not holding my breath. I just think they need to think more about the stories that they're trying to tell, BECAUSE they're PG. They can't skate by on holding people's attention with blood and sex anymore, and when you don't have blood or sex OR good stories, why the heck am I watching? Matches? There aren't so many amazingly high-quality matches on my teevee every week that it could make up for what's missing.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Dec 25, 2010 23:04:43 GMT -5
Conor O'Brian believes he's part rat. He's not kayfabin', that's just truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2010 23:15:56 GMT -5
For me I'm in one of the periods where my interest is really waning, so when that happens I do what I always do, bail on shows that I'm either finding kinda dull or actively disliking, and tuning in later when I feel like it. It works well to 'recharge' my interest. I just recently took about a 4 month or so break from watching. Wasn't really intentional...just missed a few shows and never did bother tuning in again. When I did start watching again I liked it a lot more...unfortunately that only lasted a few weeks. =P
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Dec 26, 2010 18:29:31 GMT -5
I don't want to be a dick or anything...but if you're looking for "critical analysis of character development", might I suggest not watching pro wrestling? Perhaps a Milan Kundera novel or a Alain Resnais film?
Take some of the all-time great moments of wrestling and see how sophisticated they are: -Snuka on Piper's Pit (one guy smashes a coconut over another's head) -Hogan slamming Andre (strong guy picks up really big guy) -Austin vs McMahon (drunken redneck doesn't like his millionaire boss)
I watch wrestling because of the inherent simplicity to its themes. Find a vaguely compelling reason for two guys to fight, then have them fight.
Again, not to be a jerk or anything...but when you're trying to elevate pro wrestling to some high, misunderstood art form, it just comes across as being pretentious for pretentious sake. It's wrestling. Is there a difference between good wrestling/booking and bad? Clearly. But if you can't see that the way WWE panders to a younger/"mark" demographic is pretty much the same way ECW and ROH pander to the "smark" demographic, you need to step back and examine both the product and your own interpretations of it a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 26, 2010 18:53:43 GMT -5
I don't want to be a dick or anything...but if you're looking for "critical analysis of character development", might I suggest not watching pro wrestling? Perhaps a Milan Kundera novel or a Alain Resnais film? Take some of the all-time great moments of wrestling and see how sophisticated they are: -Snuka on Piper's Pit (one guy smashes a coconut over another's head) -Hogan slamming Andre (strong guy picks up really big guy) -Austin vs McMahon (drunken redneck doesn't like his millionaire boss) I watch wrestling because of the inherent simplicity to its themes. Find a vaguely compelling reason for two guys to fight, then have them fight. Again, not to be a jerk or anything...but when you're trying to elevate pro wrestling to some high, misunderstood art form, it just comes across as being pretentious for pretentious sake. It's wrestling. Is there a difference between good wrestling/booking and bad? Clearly. But if you can't see that the way WWE panders to a younger/"mark" demographic is pretty much the same way ECW and ROH pander to the "smark" demographic, you need to step back and examine both the product and your own interpretations of it a bit more. I don't know what I did with them, but I did a couple of posts maybe years back diving into a wrestler's character, mostly heels. I went in depth in JBL's character, Mickie James' character and I forget who else. I can go in depth with Edge. The best characters in wrestling are those with depth to them, as they're more interesting to watch, and put subconscious cues into people. Edge is a good example of someone who is a good heel, as his character has insecurity issues, so it's easy to see why he does certain things, and it's easy to taunt him for those issues that he has. Jericho was a great heel because he was a true babyface at heart, he came across as someone who wanted to preach to people and point out their little flaws. You certainly want to go too in depth or whatever, as you want to try and keep it simple, but just doing things to get people to react on an emotional level. And, wrestling is a great artform, because that's exactly what it does, in the ring. The backstage stuff is incredibly overrated, because the stage is in the ring. That's where people get into the show, that's what hooks people, that's where people can become emotionally connected. The characters and the promos are simply a way to build to what happens in the ring. When it's done well, it's one of the most incredible artforms going. But when it's done bad, it rates up their with the worst movies, bands, music and whatever you can think of, maybe even worse.
|
|
Phil Parent
El Dandy
Your Favourite Teacher
Posts: 8,508
|
Post by Phil Parent on Dec 26, 2010 19:02:02 GMT -5
You know, I've been watching my collection of WCW Nitros/WCW PPVs, I got all of them, and I am up to SuperBrawl 1996.
And that's the proof to me that yes, I can still be a wrestling fan, and no, the current WWE product is not for me.
I find myself CARING about a product that is 15 years old more than I do modern stuff.
WWE is so damn homogenized, pasteurized, sanitized, polished, closed and predictable it's NAUSEATING.
WCW 95-96, even with its EVIDENT tangent in booking the old boys club (Hogan, Savage, Flair, Sullivan, Luger & Sting) higher on the card than the youth they had (Benoit/Guerrero/Pillman/Badd/Wright/DDP in a way), was strangely compelling. I like how open WCW was to working with international partners and how I saw pretty neat matches that had Nakano/Hokuto VS Ozaki/Suzuki, and something as random as Randy Savage VS Hiroyoshi Tenzan, you know, not a Wrestlemania main event but a NEAT match nonetheless. I like how they had many many different types, shapes, races, styles of workers.
And the stories are clear as day! Do-Gooders Hogan, Savage & Sting fight evil-doers The Four Horsemen & The Dungeon Of Doom. Wrinkles thrown in include the friendship between Sting & tweener-leaning-evil Lex Luger, latent tension between Hogan & Savage, Sullivan's distrust of Pillman and Anderson's subsequent disciplining of the same, and all the top names' hunger for the world championship.
Underneath, you have Johnny B. Badd and DDP fighting over Kimberly and money, Konnan coming in with his latino pride gimmick, good-natured Eddie Guerrero being damn near unbeatable as long as he doesn't face main-eventers, The Public Enemy break tables, Sherri & Colonel Parker are getting married, Harlem Heat & The Road Warriors feud over the tag team titles or the right to take on Sting/Luger for them, Sgt. Craig Pittman wants a manager....lots of things to follow.
WWE is so damn cookie cutter. They all wrestle pretty much the same, they all look pretty much the same, and everybody on there is a WWE product. Would it hurt WWE that much to work international deals with say CMLL and New Japan and bring in some new guys once in a while? It would HELP their workers if they did, because some of them could pick up moves from those new guys and use them! And you know, while Orton works, say, Shinsuke Nakamura, he's not working one of the guys he's worked repeatedly the last few years!
WCW up to the point I'm watching was an awesome product. I know the sheet will hit the fan eventually, but right now it is way better than WWE is now.
Alberto Del Rio is a good start for WWE, let's see if they can look outside their training camp in Florida for talent some more.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Dec 26, 2010 19:04:07 GMT -5
I view the WWE a lot like the Disney channel. On the surface, the cartoony good guys and bad guys appeal to kids, but adults that pay attention take away more such as ringwork, promos etc.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Dec 26, 2010 20:01:56 GMT -5
I brought this up on a message forum once and was banned for stating an opinion. However, I feel the WWE is afraid of risks and the problem is they don't have any legitimate competition.
PG is just a small portion of it really and the reality is with no competition Vince feels no need to change. The best message to send to Vince is not not watching, buying, or going to any WWE related websites that gives him ratings or money.
All of their problems could've been avoided if they actually built up new stars and made them credible. Guys like MVP(before he requested his release), Carlito(before his release), Shelton(before his releae), Morrison, Kofi, Bourne, Christian, Del Rio, Punk, Danielson, Ziggler, and The Hart Dynasty are the future of the business. They're the ones who can and will carry the company when guys like Hunter, Taker, Kane, Edge, and Mysterio are retired.
As of right now the faces of the WWE should be Cena and Orton. Cena needs to be booked as a flawed wrestler and needs to stopped being booked as superman. The constant overcoming the odds turned lots of fans away from the product.
Imagine if WCW was too scared to turn Hogan heel.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 26, 2010 20:18:16 GMT -5
As of right now the faces of the WWE should be Cena and Orton. Cena needs to be booked as a flawed wrestler and needs to stopped being booked as superman. The constant overcoming the odds turned lots of fans away from the product. Imagine if WCW was too scared to turn Hogan heel. Hogan had been a face for about 16 years and three companies. WWE's bread and butter is supermen who can overcome any odds.
|
|