|
Post by itssoeasy23 on Dec 26, 2010 20:21:09 GMT -5
It's still for us, the wrestling fans, who enjoy it no matter what the rating is.
I mean seriously, some people make it seems like Vince making it PG is like sacrilege and it's the wrost thing ever. I disagree becuase this year has been one hell of a year. And also, it's geared towards kids, but just not for kids.
Some people act like it's only for kids, it's not. If can be for teenager and even adults. You just have to enjoy the product.
Don't whine, yeall and complain becuase it's not what you want to happen. Sure, some things may be stupid (the Edge/Kane/Bearer storyline), but I just did'nt watch. If you don't like it, don't watch it. It's like me with TNA, it's been getting really boring and quite frankly, unwatchable, so I haven't watched it for the last 3 weeks.
Wrestling meant to be enjoyed, not analyzed. Don't anyalyze evey little thing that's happening because it's not what you wanted.
WWE has now a growing fanbase that will be with the company for the next ten or so years. Most of the have started watching when they were young and, just like most of us, will keep watchig until we get bored of it.
|
|
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 20:34:28 GMT -5
It's still for us, the wrestling fans, who enjoy it no matter what the rating is. I mean seriously, some people make it seems like Vince making it PG is like sacrilege and it's the wrost thing ever. I disagree becuase this year has been one hell of a year. And also, it's geared towards kids, but just not for kids. Some people act like it's only for kids, it's not. If can be for teenager and even adults. You just have to enjoy the product. Don't whine, yeall and complain becuase it's not what you want to happen. Sure, some things may be stupid (the Edge/Kane/Bearer storyline), but I just did'nt watch. If you don't like it, don't watch it. It's like me with TNA, it's been getting really boring and quite frankly, unwatchable, so I haven't watched it for the last 3 weeks. Wrestling meant to be enjoyed, not analyzed. Don't anyalyze evey little thing that's happening because it's not what you wanted. WWE has now a growing fanbase that will be with the company for the next ten or so years. Most of the have started watching when they were young and, just like most of us, will keep watchig until we get bored of it. On one hand you're right, on the other hand we as fans know what we want from the product right? So what's wrong with expecting a better, more exciting, and coherent product that caters to everyone? Vince turning the product PG isn't the full problem. The major problem is how it waters down certain wrestlers, how feuds aren't as intense/realistic, and the emotionality within the stories isn't there anymore and that's what fans(like myself) have a problem with. For example, with the way that the WWE hasn't been building any new stars do you think wrestlers like Rock, Austin, Hunter, or even Foley would get over in this current era?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2010 20:57:33 GMT -5
It's still for us, the wrestling fans, who enjoy it no matter what the rating is. I mean seriously, some people make it seems like Vince making it PG is like sacrilege and it's the wrost thing ever. I disagree becuase this year has been one hell of a year. And also, it's geared towards kids, but just not for kids. Some people act like it's only for kids, it's not. If can be for teenager and even adults. You just have to enjoy the product. Don't whine, yeall and complain becuase it's not what you want to happen. Sure, some things may be stupid (the Edge/Kane/Bearer storyline), but I just did'nt watch. If you don't like it, don't watch it. It's like me with TNA, it's been getting really boring and quite frankly, unwatchable, so I haven't watched it for the last 3 weeks. Wrestling meant to be enjoyed, not analyzed. Don't anyalyze evey little thing that's happening because it's not what you wanted. WWE has now a growing fanbase that will be with the company for the next ten or so years. Most of the have started watching when they were young and, just like most of us, will keep watchig until we get bored of it. On one hand you're right, on the other hand we as fans know what we want from the product right? So what's wrong with expecting a better, more exciting, and coherent product that caters to everyone? Vince turning the product PG isn't the full problem. The major problem is how it waters down certain wrestlers, how feuds aren't as intense/realistic, and the emotionality within the stories isn't there anymore and that's what fans(like myself) have a problem with. For example, with the way that the WWE hasn't been building any new stars do you think wrestlers like Rock, Austin, Hunter, or even Foley would get over in this current era? Foley - no. And honestly - I never understood how he got over in the first place. HHH - of course. Hooking up with the bosses daughter will always get you somewhere. Rock - 3rd generation superstars are uber common in WWE right now. Austin - I think if someone as counter culture as punk can still make it in WWE than Austin would have been able to as well.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Dec 26, 2010 23:14:56 GMT -5
I think the problem is that the WWE product is disorganized, unfocused, and convoluted. It haphazardly tries to appeal to two demographics, and <i>that's</i> the problem IMO.
I believe that wrestling should appeal to kids because kids are easier marks (as cynical as the phrase may be), but I don't think it should also turn its nose at fans who passed their target age demographic.
My solution (as if anyone asked or would listen)? The "brand split" is the key. Why can't one brand appeal to children while another appeals to the older fans? I figure that a low-budget, back to basics program for older, better informed fans would suffice versus a higher budget program for younger viewers.
That said, just because a program is aimed at kids doesn't mean that it has to be insultingly stupid and insipid. Give kids more credit than that.
|
|
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 23:48:55 GMT -5
I think the problem is that the WWE product is disorganized, unfocused, and convoluted. It haphazardly tries to appeal to two demographics, and <i>that's</i> the problem IMO. I believe that wrestling should appeal to kids because kids are easier marks (as cynical as the phrase may be), but I don't think it should also turn its nose at fans who passed their target age demographic. My solution (as if anyone asked or would listen)? The "brand split" is the key. Why can't one brand appeal to children while another appeals to the older fans? I figure that a low-budget, back to basics program for older, better informed fans would suffice versus a higher budget program for younger viewers. That said, just because a program is aimed at kids doesn't mean that it has to be insultingly stupid and insipid. Give kids more credit than that. Your solution is very interesting and I think it could work. It just needs the right wrestlers, writers, and bookers in general in order to make it seem interesting. I'd say since Raw is the "A Show" I'd say have it be the show that talent like Miz, Punk, Danielson, Morrison, Kofi, Bourne, Del Rio, Edge, Swagger, Orton, and Christian as the future of the business and let them be the faces of the company. Fans like us who are interested in coherent storylines and talented wrestlers will watch that show. Let Smackdown be the show for the kids that way Cena, Hunter, Taker, and whoever can see their favorite wrestlers presented in the way that makes them happy.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerRoomBrawler on Dec 27, 2010 0:12:38 GMT -5
I think the problem is that the WWE product is disorganized, unfocused, and convoluted. It haphazardly tries to appeal to two demographics, and <i>that's</i> the problem IMO. I believe that wrestling should appeal to kids because kids are easier marks (as cynical as the phrase may be), but I don't think it should also turn its nose at fans who passed their target age demographic. My solution (as if anyone asked or would listen)? The "brand split" is the key. Why can't one brand appeal to children while another appeals to the older fans? I figure that a low-budget, back to basics program for older, better informed fans would suffice versus a higher budget program for younger viewers. That said, just because a program is aimed at kids doesn't mean that it has to be insultingly stupid and insipid. Give kids more credit than that. Your solution is very interesting and I think it could work. It just needs the right wrestlers, writers, and bookers in general in order to make it seem interesting. I'd say since Raw is the "A Show" I'd say have it be the show that talent like Miz, Punk, Danielson, Morrison, Kofi, Bourne, Del Rio, Edge, Swagger, Orton, and Christian as the future of the business and let them be the faces of the company. Fans like us who are interested in coherent storylines and talented wrestlers will watch that show. Let Smackdown be the show for the kids that way Cena, Hunter, Taker, and whoever can see their favorite wrestlers presented in the way that makes them happy. Well, I figure the "A show" under such a solution would be the show that earns more money from their demographic. I have a feeling that the "kids' show" would win out there. I think that different wrestlers would be promoted on different shows at different times to see who they appeal to i.e. who pays to see them. I wonder if either older or younger fans give a crap about whether a wrestling TV show is live...
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Dec 27, 2010 1:29:08 GMT -5
The major flaw with this topic is that the topic poster assumes everyone here is just like him.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Zero on Dec 27, 2010 1:40:37 GMT -5
It's not the PG rating that bugs me, honestly that was the part of the Attitude Era that I couldn't stand in the first place. It's the incoherency and the misuse of talent.
Why is Michael Cole, a freaking play-by-play announcer, being shoved in our faces when talented *wrestlers* like Christian and Swagger could get far more mileage out of the face time?
Why're we expected to cheer for Edge when he's kidnapping and tormenting someone's father (granted it's Paul Bearer, but Edge is no saint himself)?
Why did they pretty much remove almost everything about John Morrison's character that made the guy over in the first place?
Why did they build of Nexus to the point that they did only to have them accomplish essentially nothing?
And quite frankly the 'It's for kids!' excuse doesn't fly. Just because something's for kids doesn't mean it has to be nonsensical gibberish that helps no-one and hurts talented workers.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Dec 27, 2010 1:43:37 GMT -5
The major flaw with this topic is that the topic poster assumes everyone here is just like him. Not really. I mean, something is wrong with wrestling in general or else so many fans wouldn't be turning away from it. Buyrates are declining, ratings aren't consistent, and attendance is down as well. The WWE is clearly doing something wrong and the thread isn't based on what one person wants. I think his/her views represents a huge majority of our views.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 27, 2010 2:02:53 GMT -5
Not that I've watched much WWE in the past six years or so (and I haven't watched any wrestling at all since this past July or so), but I highly doubt that the problem with the product now is that it's "too PG". I grew up during the Hulkamania days, I can still watch my old tapes just fine, and hell, even my parents got a slight kick in the old days out of watching the pay per views with me. Those days were infinitely more cartoony than today's wrestling scene.
The problems have already been stated; for one, the Attitude Era turned wrestling into an every week supershow, and, frankly, that gets boring. There isn't enough material in any company to keep a show interesting for 52 weeks straight along with trying to put together 12+ pay per views, you'll just end up rehashing all the same feuds and storylines and quickly run out of creative fuel.
Secondly, and this is more WWE specific, but WWE is dull (to me). I haven't watched WWE consistently since I watched for a full year back in 2004, but I recently caught an episode of Raw, and outside of a couple nice moments (it was kind of cool seeing Regal vs. Danielson), I might as well have been watching an episode from 2004, just with some of the names swapped out and with slightly less swearing. Cheesy skits, main event featuring upper card guys in a tag team match, random Divas match, etc. etc. etc.
Also, seeing backstage skits instead of promos made my stomach turn. Awful, awful, awful.
I've said it before, but the need to always create "must see TV" is what's killed wrestling today. 52 weekly shows a year, 12-15 pay per views, prime time specials...have you begun counting how often you've seen the same matches, feuds, how little build these things receive, how very often you don't even realize that a feud that's been going just had a blow off match? Give a company some time to build a feud, and it becomes better. The Jake Roberts/Randy Savage feud of 1991-1992 was built on ONE segment: Roberts getting his cobra to bite Savage's arm. That moment alone set the ball rolling, and there was little to not interaction between the two guys until the Tuesday in Texas pay per view, where Roberts hit Elizabeth.
So on the one hand, the shows, on the whole, were less exciting: you didn't watch Superstars, Wrestling Challenge, or Prime Time Wrestling expecting to see major twists and turns in whatever feuds were going on. However, in a way they were more exciting, because your expectations weren't artificially ballooned up by the fact that all the shows are on at prime time and we've all been spoiled to expect main event level guys to face each other every single week.
PG, Attitude, whatever, all that stuff is secondary. The show could be completely aimed at 10 year olds for all I care, if it's well written, it'll be good. If it isn't creative, if it faces unrealistic creative demands (too many shows featuring main eventers), if it just feels like the same show over and over again on a loop, then it won't necessarily be good.
|
|
|
Post by Jacob Lee on Dec 27, 2010 11:20:02 GMT -5
I am 27 years old and have been watching wrestling off and on for about 20 of those years. I may be in the minority, but 2010 was the best year I've ever seen out of WWE. Was the Attitude Era more popular? Yeah, but since when does making the most money make something the best? If that is true then those awful Transformers movies would have won Oscars.
The truth is that internet wrestling fans have become the lowest of the low in the last few years. At times they come off as man-children who are so afraid to admit that they like wrestling that they have to bash it all the time. Part of me feels bad for grown adults who claim to hate something yet somehow find the time to post in depth about it on a website dedicated to wrestling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2010 11:26:37 GMT -5
The major flaw with this topic is that the topic poster assumes everyone here is just like him. Not really. I mean, something is wrong with wrestling in general or else so many fans wouldn't be turning away from it. Buyrates are declining, ratings aren't consistent, and attendance is down as well. The WWE is clearly doing something wrong and the thread isn't based on what one person wants. I think his/her views represents a huge majority of our views. Judging from the number of posts in opposition to the OP - I'd say you're wrong sir. I think his/her views represent his/her views and nothing more. People who post here need to realize that is always the case - no matter what side of the discussion you're on. Don't try to speak for other people - it is disrespectful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2010 11:28:00 GMT -5
Was the Attitude Era more popular? Yeah, but since when does making the most money make something the best? If that is true then those awful Transformers movies would have won Oscars. I have to agree. The Attitude Era was not my favorite Era by any stretch of the imagination. There were a handful of things that were great, but the majority was garbage that I did not enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Jacob Lee on Dec 27, 2010 11:34:55 GMT -5
Was the Attitude Era more popular? Yeah, but since when does making the most money make something the best? If that is true then those awful Transformers movies would have won Oscars. I have to agree. The Attitude Era was not my favorite Era by any stretch of the imagination. There were a handful of things that were great, but the majority was garbage that I did not enjoy. I found a lot of it to be juvenile. So much of that era seems like it was written by 14 year old boys.
|
|
Ian Austin
Don Corleone
All will be well
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Ian Austin on Dec 27, 2010 11:35:17 GMT -5
Okay, let's clear this up.
In 1996 - late 1997, no-one in the WWF drew. And you had Bret Hart, Undertaker, Michaels and Austin as Main Eventers. Top quality wrestlers and personalities. Now while Austin did draw in 1998, I think he was already a star during the 1996 - 1997 period. He just needed that boost.
In fact, I'd say Orton/Cena/Edge/Mysterio are at the same level Hart/Taker/Michaels and Austin were between 1996 and 1997. All four are top-flight superstars, and I don't think the ratings (or lack thereof) are entirely their fault. The business is just in a general decline from the absurd peaks it hit between 1998 and 2001. And the WWE is trying to create new stars: you've got The Miz and Sheamus as two examples, with John Morrison being built up and Alberto Del Rio doing brilliantly for his first WWE year.
But let's be honest, this is a long-term project. Ratings will take years to rise again. And we won't be responsible. It's the casual fans who bring wrestling into mainstream attention. Do you really think the 33 million who watched Andre-Hogan II are wrestling fans? They watched because it was a marquee attraction.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Galt on Dec 27, 2010 11:38:22 GMT -5
This past year, with some occasional bumps, has been a great year in WWE.
|
|
Taupy
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,336
|
Post by Taupy on Dec 27, 2010 11:46:26 GMT -5
I don't think ratings/ppv buys will ever rise again because of the internet. Stream and torrents are taking a lot of viewers/money away from WWE. Back in the days, you HAD to buy PPV if you wanted to view it, you HAD to tune in at 9pm on TSN (for me) to listen to RAW, there wasn't 20394 specialized channels too. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Jacob Lee on Dec 27, 2010 12:22:45 GMT -5
I don't think ratings/ppv buys will ever rise again because of the internet. Stream and torrents are taking a lot of viewers/money away from WWE. Back in the days, you HAD to buy PPV if you wanted to view it, you HAD to tune in at 9pm on TSN (for me) to listen to RAW, there wasn't 20394 specialized channels too. Just my 2 cents. This is another good point. The stream sites and the torrents probably take away a big chunk of WWE business these days.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Dec 27, 2010 14:34:47 GMT -5
I don't think ratings/ppv buys will ever rise again because of the internet. Stream and torrents are taking a lot of viewers/money away from WWE. Back in the days, you HAD to buy PPV if you wanted to view it, you HAD to tune in at 9pm on TSN (for me) to listen to RAW, there wasn't 20394 specialized channels too. Just my 2 cents. This is another good point. The stream sites and the torrents probably take away a big chunk of WWE business these days. But if the product is good/great then regardless of stream sites or torrents, people will buy the pay-per-views so you can't blame stream sites or torrents. It's the same way with films. If the film is great people are going to go see it despite bootlegs, steam sites, or torrents that have theatrical films early.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Dec 27, 2010 14:40:09 GMT -5
Okay, let's clear this up. In 1996 - late 1997, no-one in the WWF drew. And you had Bret Hart, Undertaker, Michaels and Austin as Main Eventers. Top quality wrestlers and personalities. Now while Austin did draw in 1998, I think he was already a star during the 1996 - 1997 period. He just needed that boost. In fact, I'd say Orton/Cena/Edge/Mysterio are at the same level Hart/Taker/Michaels and Austin were between 1996 and 1997. All four are top-flight superstars, and I don't think the ratings (or lack thereof) are entirely their fault. The business is just in a general decline from the absurd peaks it hit between 1998 and 2001. And the WWE is trying to create new stars: you've got The Miz and Sheamus as two examples, with John Morrison being built up and Alberto Del Rio doing brilliantly for his first WWE year. But let's be honest, this is a long-term project. Ratings will take years to rise again. And we won't be responsible. It's the casual fans who bring wrestling into mainstream attention. Do you really think the 33 million who watched Andre-Hogan II are wrestling fans? They watched because it was a marquee attraction. But how can you compare Andre/Hogan to this particular era? You're talking about two different wrestlings era. Yes, the aura of the marquee attraction made it exciting. However, at the same time, it was a different period and fans actually cared about the product, Vince actually listened to the fans, and it resulted in a lot of exciting moments. Fans like myself want to see excitement, originality, and unpredictability when it comes to wrestling. Don't get me wrong though, the WWE has potential and I don't want to say all hope is lost. However, we see how they've been with building up new stars and keeping the audience interested. If guys like the Miz, Ziggler, Christian, Morrison, Sheamus, Kofi, Swagger, Bourne, Barrett, and etc are going to lead the company and be the future then they need to be invested in. I mean those are the guys that should or will be around when Taker, Hunter, Kane, Show, and Mysterio are retired. And you know all of them are nearing retirement. So they need to be pushing the youth movement and creating a better product before that time comes.
|
|