mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 8, 2011 5:16:32 GMT -5
The thing with this angle is, it already peaked. Realistically, nothing that happens will top that original 3-4 week build to MITB capped off with that awesome match and Punk blowing the kiss to Vince while leaving with the title. That was the payoff. Everything else afterwards is just icing on the cake. We're expecting these 'shoot-ish' promos every week now. I think that's wrong; there were positive directions to go after Punk ran off that likely could've continued the buzz the angle had around it. Instead, they killed it two weeks later. This is one of WWE's biggest failures in ages. It's not that they've created a totally crappy angle, its that they took a dynamite angle that was generating legitimate excitement and just completely defused it. I'm not saying Punk was the key to the next "boom", but at the very least they could've continued the level of buzz and mystery that surrounded the angle. no, there weren't. The idea of Punk walking around not under a WWE contract callling himself the champion is d-u-m-b
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 5:30:59 GMT -5
I think that's wrong; there were positive directions to go after Punk ran off that likely could've continued the buzz the angle had around it. Instead, they killed it two weeks later. This is one of WWE's biggest failures in ages. It's not that they've created a totally crappy angle, its that they took a dynamite angle that was generating legitimate excitement and just completely defused it. I'm not saying Punk was the key to the next "boom", but at the very least they could've continued the level of buzz and mystery that surrounded the angle. no, there weren't. The idea of Punk walking around not under a WWE contract callling himself the champion is d-u-m-b Not really, since he had an actual claim to it. If nothing else, they should have done Cena / Mysterio at SummerSlam and waited for Night of Champions - a fitting show for it - to do the whole Punk / Cena rematch thing. They could have played up in the interim maybe that no one on the roster sees Mysterio as having really won the title, while people could object to Cena getting a shot because the whole situation is his fault. And sure, you could bring up Montreal comparison, but at least there, it was an actual match, there was no real winner, and Michaels was the guy who had the upper hand when things went south. Cena though outright lost the title to a guy heading out the door.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 5:37:23 GMT -5
The first Raw of September 2010 got a 3.00 rating. The first Raw of September 2011 got a 3.00 rating.
The average Raw rating in 2010 was a 3.29. The average Raw rating in 2011 is a 3.28.
Interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 8:28:08 GMT -5
Punk spent weeks talking about how Vince McMahon never appreciated him and how Vince fired his friends because the company had lost touch with what people want in 2011. That was the whole point of the "shoot". He mentioned Johnny Ace, HHH, Stephanie, etc, just continuing with the bad management once Vince died. Nothing was ever going to change in his mind, so once he won the title, he held the WWE up for money and took the world title with him when his contract expired. Perfect set-up. We have a rebel tweener who just sent shockwaves through the entire company by doing something that no one else (from a storyline standpoint) had ever done. Why would they ruin that whole build-up by having him come back two weeks later with new music and a t-shirt? That was all he wanted? All that build-up so he could get a bigger contract and have Cult of Personality as his new theme?
The angle absolutely needed Punk to be "off the roster" for a while. Not in the John Cena "show up in the crowd" kind of way, but have him appear sporadically in random places without officially being part of the roster. Comic con was a good start.
One of my favorites angles of all-time was the nWo angle in WCW (the 1996-97 version). Look how much work Bischoff and co. put into that angle, and then compare it to the writing the WWE has done with Punk and other big angles. It puts it to shame. The Punk thing was a storyline that had me interested (and I haven't watched WWE since 2002). Now I am back to not caring. They had an opportunity to throw a bone to the casual fan and they blew it.
|
|
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: 41,801
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Sept 8, 2011 8:34:43 GMT -5
The angle absolutely needed Punk to be "off the roster" for a while. Not in the John Cena "show up in the crowd" kind of way, but have him appear sporadically in random places without officially being part of the roster. Comic con was a good start. The only issue is: How long do you keep him off before people inevitably lose patience with it? Fans in general dont seem able to wait things out. I think that was the fear with sitting Punk out
|
|
Steveweiser
Dalek
Mickie Mickie You're So Fine... Hey Mickie!
THE GRAPS
Posts: 50,249
|
Post by Steveweiser on Sept 8, 2011 9:09:32 GMT -5
The angle absolutely needed Punk to be "off the roster" for a while. Not in the John Cena "show up in the crowd" kind of way, but have him appear sporadically in random places without officially being part of the roster. Comic con was a good start. The only issue is: How long do you keep him off before people inevitably lose patience with it? Fans in general dont seem able to wait things out. I think that was the fear with sitting Punk out WCW kept Sting out of matches for around 15 months. That worked alright... until he had his match.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Sept 8, 2011 9:19:14 GMT -5
I don't think it needs to be pointed out how different 2011 is from 1996, especially in regards to the patience of fans.
|
|
|
Post by FUNK_US/BRODUS on Sept 8, 2011 9:48:31 GMT -5
Yeah, we live in this stupid culture of "I WANT IT NOW". Fans today couldnt hold off for an angle that long.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Sept 8, 2011 10:14:17 GMT -5
Punk spent weeks talking about how Vince McMahon never appreciated him and how Vince fired his friends because the company had lost touch with what people want in 2011. That was the whole point of the "shoot". He mentioned Johnny Ace, HHH, Stephanie, etc, just continuing with the bad management once Vince died. Nothing was ever going to change in his mind, so once he won the title, he held the WWE up for money and took the world title with him when his contract expired. Perfect set-up. We have a rebel tweener who just sent shockwaves through the entire company by doing something that no one else (from a storyline standpoint) had ever done. Why would they ruin that whole build-up by having him come back two weeks later with new music and a t-shirt? That was all he wanted? All that build-up so he could get a bigger contract and have Cult of Personality as his new theme? The angle absolutely needed Punk to be "off the roster" for a while. Not in the John Cena "show up in the crowd" kind of way, but have him appear sporadically in random places without officially being part of the roster. Comic con was a good start. One of my favorites angles of all-time was the nWo angle in WCW (the 1996-97 version). Look how much work Bischoff and co. put into that angle, and then compare it to the writing the WWE has done with Punk and other big angles. It puts it to shame. The Punk thing was a storyline that had me interested (and I haven't watched WWE since 2002). Now I am back to not caring. They had an opportunity to throw a bone to the casual fan and they blew it. Not to come off too abrasive, but booking it the way we wanted or expected wouldn't have been "throwing a bone to the casual fan," it would have been throwing a bone to the smarks. This whole "CM Punk shaking up the system" booking, the "CM Punk as Poochie" booking, maybe casual fans would come around, but it'd be more for hardcore fans, don't you think? You know, people who've watched Ring of Honor, let alone know what ROH is; people who actually know who Colt Cabana and the Kings of Wrestling are. Speaking of which, the more I think of it, the more Punk comes of as disingenuous. He threatened to leave the company because they fired such "great workers" as Colt Cabana and Luke Gallows. Never mentioned Serena, never mentioned Jay Bradley, never mentioned Low Ki; just his friends. Doesn't sound like the voice of the voiceless to me; sounds more like the voice of his friends. Then in following weeks, holding up the company for "CM Punk the movie;" basically an admission that he was willing to go along with the status quo if the number was high enough. Again, through all of this, he called himself some kind of voice for the people, when the truth is, he seemed to be in it only for CM Punk. Even if he did get his friend signed, how would it be any different from the Kliq getting other Kliq members signed: he'd basically be coming in with a sign on his chest, saying "I'm here because of Punk's stroke." And all this talk about chaos and shake-ups and all of that, it's just not realistic. There wouldn't be any "pirate broadcasts," or Punk run-in's. Either they can book it as a shoot or they can work it. If they work it to hell, just re-kayfabe it, then everyone who came in expecting some new age of Shoots-R-US would feel disenfranchised and they'd stop watching. Booked to go with the realism of the Punk/Cena angle, then pretty much what happened immediately after MITB- the interim title, Punk's name becoming mud, even Cena being fired (which I actually would have had happen, for both the storyline and to give him time off)- it would have happened anyway, and it would have been like that for much longer than two weeks; meaning if you were waiting for Punk to preach some sermon from the rafters, you'd be a waitin' ass. Everyone has an idea of how they think it would have worked or should have worked, but one thing, I believe, is for certain; either it'd be booked like a traditional WWE storyline, which means it would be status quo, just with Punk as the lead; or, it'd be booked as much more of a shoot, and that begs the question of whether or not a spoiled WWE audience would be able to tolerate Punk being off TV for possibly months? The problem with things like the nWo, with most of what was booked in the 90's during the Monday Night Wars is that it blurred the lines between shoot and work at first, but as time went on, it made them clearer than they had ever been. Which means it it's too much of a work, viewers would call BS. Too much of a shoot, and the instant gratification that wrestling fans nowadays are used to would not be instant, and those fans waiting for it would not wait too long before they turn on the product and start bellowing "ruined forever." Hell, look at what they're doing now! Punk isn't champion, riding off into the sunset, and people are already calling the angle a failure. Can you imagine what this place'd be like if Punk wasn't even on TV?
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Sept 8, 2011 10:23:30 GMT -5
But that's what you have to do to fully capitalize on the angle. "Status quo" is pretty simple in the WWE: Raw has basically followed the same format and show layout for a decade now, and WWE has been on a consistent run of not highlighting anything but their main eventers for ages. Overturn that, and you create buzz. Am I say having Cena job to a midcarder ever week? Absolutely not, but cause some chaos! Shake it up! People like me watched a couple episodes of Raw because we thought something big was coming, now we see it's just the same show it was when we stopped watching to begin with. It's on the writers to come up with something interesting in this situation, and they flat-out failed to do it. ...he's {Punk's} no Austin, and he's not even another Cena, but he looks set to be able to settle on around Orton's level, which is about right for taking Edge's vacant spot..... My thoughts exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 10:30:28 GMT -5
Yeah, we live in this stupid culture of "I WANT IT NOW". Fans today couldnt hold off for an angle that long. Including fans on this very board. Realistically, there are so many TV shows and PPVs anymore that unless a top guy is injured, there is no way that you can keep them off of the shows. It was the same situation when Cena was "fired."
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Sept 8, 2011 10:35:57 GMT -5
The first Raw of September 2010 got a 3.00 rating. The first Raw of September 2011 got a 3.00 rating. The average Raw rating in 2010 was a 3.29. The average Raw rating in 2011 is a 3.28. Interesting. Exactly, mainstream pro wrestling in North America is currently very stale. There is a hardcore of the audience which will tune in no matter what (3.0 for the E, 1.0 for TNA), but beyond which there has been no sustained growth for years now. This is why I'll be very interested to see what kind of number ROH pulls starting later this month, I honestly can't see them getting above a 0.5 (if that high) in the present environment.
|
|
|
Post by #RUDO Coco Del Rio on Sept 8, 2011 10:50:46 GMT -5
*shrugs* I really don't expect any change in the ratings anymore. But you can see in the crowd Punk's drawing power. His reactions may not be as solid as Cena's or Orton's but you can't go one show without seeing a bunch of fans wearing his shirt and nothing is louder to the WWE than the sound of money rolling in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2011 11:25:39 GMT -5
Punk spent weeks talking about how Vince McMahon never appreciated him and how Vince fired his friends because the company had lost touch with what people want in 2011. That was the whole point of the "shoot". He mentioned Johnny Ace, HHH, Stephanie, etc, just continuing with the bad management once Vince died. Nothing was ever going to change in his mind, so once he won the title, he held the WWE up for money and took the world title with him when his contract expired. Perfect set-up. We have a rebel tweener who just sent shockwaves through the entire company by doing something that no one else (from a storyline standpoint) had ever done. Why would they ruin that whole build-up by having him come back two weeks later with new music and a t-shirt? That was all he wanted? All that build-up so he could get a bigger contract and have Cult of Personality as his new theme? The angle absolutely needed Punk to be "off the roster" for a while. Not in the John Cena "show up in the crowd" kind of way, but have him appear sporadically in random places without officially being part of the roster. Comic con was a good start. One of my favorites angles of all-time was the nWo angle in WCW (the 1996-97 version). Look how much work Bischoff and co. put into that angle, and then compare it to the writing the WWE has done with Punk and other big angles. It puts it to shame. The Punk thing was a storyline that had me interested (and I haven't watched WWE since 2002). Now I am back to not caring. They had an opportunity to throw a bone to the casual fan and they blew it. Not to come off too abrasive, but booking it the way we wanted or expected wouldn't have been "throwing a bone to the casual fan," it would have been throwing a bone to the smarks. This whole "CM Punk shaking up the system" booking, the "CM Punk as Poochie" booking, maybe casual fans would come around, but it'd be more for hardcore fans, don't you think? You know, people who've watched Ring of Honor, let alone know what ROH is; people who actually know who Colt Cabana and the Kings of Wrestling are. I see your point, but here is the thing (speaking for myself only): I wasn't familiar with CM Punk at all prior to this. I knew who he was only because I read this forum, but didn't know his character or his style because I never cared to look him up. I was interested in the angle because of the shoot aspect and also what Punk (allegedly) represented. The WWE has been labeled too soft, too PG, predictable, dull, etc, for years. The domestic market stinks and it is considered uncool in comparison to MMA. We are also in the biggest recession in years. So on TV, a great talker shows up and talks about how uncool the WWE is, how out of touch the product is, and how he is going to leave the company during the biggest recession in years with the title so he can stick it to the boss/company that never appreciated his talents, all while making shootish comments about the company figureheads. I could understand why some think it was catering to the internet exclusively, but I think that type of angle had appeal above and beyond that. Punk was playing a relatable character. How many of us wouldn't love sticking it to our employer, especially now when clinging to a job for dear life is a necessity? How many of us wouldn't love going on TV and talking about how shitty our situation was? He wasn't Austin and was never going to lead a boom period, but the angle itself could have attracted fans who otherwise don't care about Cena or the current product mainly because it was different. Austin did not bring in fans overnight. His character took two years to evolve and needed Mike Tyson's mainstream presence to drive it over the top. Punk was never going to reach those heights, but that doesn't mean the angle had to be cut short from its potential. I know I am referencing the nWo a lot, but look when that happened. It happened at a time where Shawn Michaels was gyrating his way to the top of the WWF, when Goldust was french kissing other men, when TL Hopper, Sal Sincere, Who, etc, were on-screen characters, and when Hogan was still using his outdated character in WCW. One storyline that was different and well executed changed everything. Again, Punk was never going to be Austin or Hogan in this case, but do not underestimate the power of being different, especially now when the WWE and the world in general is PC to extreme levels.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Suntan on Sept 8, 2011 14:12:12 GMT -5
The first Raw of September 2010 got a 3.00 rating. The first Raw of September 2011 got a 3.00 rating. The average Raw rating in 2010 was a 3.29. The average Raw rating in 2011 is a 3.28. Interesting. I was going to ask for someone to post comparisons, so thanks. People trying to spin this to try and say that their favourites draw and the people they don't like don't (because obviously your opinions are the correct ones and if only the WWE would listen to you... etc. etc.), really are way off the point. no, there weren't. The idea of Punk walking around not under a WWE contract callling himself the champion is d-u-m-b Not really, since he had an actual claim to it. If nothing else, they should have done Cena / Mysterio at SummerSlam and waited for Night of Champions - a fitting show for it - to do the whole Punk / Cena rematch thing. They could have played up in the interim maybe that no one on the roster sees Mysterio as having really won the title, while people could object to Cena getting a shot because the whole situation is his fault. And sure, you could bring up Montreal comparison, but at least there, it was an actual match, there was no real winner, and Michaels was the guy who had the upper hand when things went south. Cena though outright lost the title to a guy heading out the door. Why should they have done that? I can understand that they could've done that, but what makes moving what they actually did do back two/three weeks so obviously better? The only difference I can see between that and what they went with is that they likely wouldn't have drawn $1mil+ in gate for a Summerslam main-event for an interim belt, and they'd have had to book weeks of television with everyone sitting around waiting for Punk. There is nothing the WWE could've done that wouldn't have had people calling it ruined, and proclaiming that the way they booked it in their head was obviously the better way to go.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 8, 2011 17:19:33 GMT -5
That's ridiculous: that's basically arguing "Why should WWE ever try to write something interesting? Some people in the Internet will hate it, anyway!"
The point is that what WWE DID wind up doing was utterly stupid. They could've done something, or somethingS, much more interesting, but they didn't.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 8, 2011 17:50:06 GMT -5
no, there weren't. The idea of Punk walking around not under a WWE contract callling himself the champion is d-u-m-b Not really, since he had an actual claim to it. If nothing else, they should have done Cena / Mysterio at SummerSlam and waited for Night of Champions - a fitting show for it - to do the whole Punk / Cena rematch thing. They could have played up in the interim maybe that no one on the roster sees Mysterio as having really won the title, while people could object to Cena getting a shot because the whole situation is his fault. And sure, you could bring up Montreal comparison, but at least there, it was an actual match, there was no real winner, and Michaels was the guy who had the upper hand when things went south. Cena though outright lost the title to a guy heading out the door. he had a claim to it. And he could call himself the undefeated former WWE champion all he wanted. But not signing a contract to continue to work for WWE is logically an act of forfeiture.
|
|