|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 31, 2011 18:24:24 GMT -5
I say "trend era" as opposed to "boom period" because I think it's a more apt description of what Rock'n Wrestling and Attitude really were. Those weren't just up periods for wrestling, those were phenomenons. It was still kinda looked down on by a lot of people, but it was all the rage with kids.
The product is in flux right now, so one can't say Punk's not getting his change. But if he doesn't spearhead it and/or become a Rock/Austin-esque crossover success, it won't be WWE's fault. Now they've missed the boat on their fair share of superstars, but they're pushing Punk to the moon, decorating him and showcasing him like crazy. There isn't much left for him to do except pin HHH or end Undertaker's streak.
I'm not trying to argue for the "status quo", but what if Punk just isn't the right man for the ambassador spot? Yes, Cena gets mixed reactions, but he also seems to have fewer...personality flaws. Compare their Twitter accounts.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 31, 2011 18:32:24 GMT -5
Cena been the top guy for what 6 years now? If he hasn't brought about a "trend era" by now, he never will, so why would it be such a big deal if Punk doesn't either? Even if Punk doesn't bring about a huge change within the WWE, it was still the right choice to give him this big push. He's an amazing superstar and deserves it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2011 18:39:00 GMT -5
Personally, I don't get why people want so badly for wrestling to be an enormous, everyone watching thing. What's it matter?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 31, 2011 18:46:16 GMT -5
Personally, I don't get why people want so badly for wrestling to be an enormous, everyone watching thing. What's it matter? I dunno. It's always cool seeing something you like gain more fans and visibility, so I'm not opposed to it, but it's not as if I've ever felt like a leper for being a wrestling fan either. |
|
|
|
Post by Djm Doesn't Find You Funny on Dec 31, 2011 18:46:29 GMT -5
Personally, I don't get why people want so badly for wrestling to be an enormous, everyone watching thing. What's it matter? It means that wrestling isn't cool, which means we aren't cool and we're relegated to forums like this one. Anyway, hasn't Punk even said this himself in interviews? Something about being in his 30s and being old and beat up? Hasn't he even intimated that he may not be "the guy"? |
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,273 
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 31, 2011 18:50:32 GMT -5
For the love of god, no-one is leading WWE into any kind of boom perioid/new era. It hasn't happened since 1998.
I find it beyond unfair that people are ready to call Punk a failure for not being able to do what no-one else has for 13 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Dec 31, 2011 19:02:37 GMT -5
For the love of god, no-one is leading WWE into any kind of boom perioid/new era. It hasn't happened since 1998. I find it beyond unfair that people are ready to call Punk a failure for not being able to do what no-one else has for 13 years. At least some of the "failure" talk has to do with Punk's own incredibly overzealous fans reacting like his "shoot" was a combination of Austin 3:16 and Hogan slamming Andre, only way better. He has failed to live up to the rather lofty and unreasonable expectations of some people. That said, I agree. If you look at the LONG history of wrestling, less than a handful of guys were able to make it a mainstream attraction for a brief period of time. Gorgeous George, Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold...that's basically it. It's not a knock on Punk, Cena, Taker, HBK, Bret hart, etc that they couldn't reach these levels. Hogan and Stone Cold, for all their faults, were incredibly special talents that also had great promotion and a ton of luck. It's like criticizing Nirvana for not being as popular as The Beatles. |
|
Efren
Dennis Stamp
?Andale! ?Andale!
Posts: 3,674
|
Post by Efren on Dec 31, 2011 19:06:10 GMT -5
Personally, I don't get why people want so badly for wrestling to be an enormous, everyone watching thing. What's it matter? Right there with you, I dont care one bit if people dont like it, as long as it exists and I do like it I really could care less. |
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Dec 31, 2011 19:11:25 GMT -5
If Punk's a failure, I blame WWE's handling of his character after Money In The Bank more than anything else. Tons of people who hadn't watched wrestling in years were buzzing about it after his first "pipe bomb" promos, then they had him come back way too soon and he became "just another babyface" and most of his momentum was lost. Personally, I don't get why people want so badly for wrestling to be an enormous, everyone watching thing. What's it matter? Personally, I want everything I enjoy to be massively successful. And if Raw's ratings keep staying so low, there's a good chance they'll be canned from USA if Bonnie Hammer ever leaves her position. Hell, when it comes to ratings they're not doing much better than Nitro in it's dying days right now. And most cable channels look down upon pro wrestling and wouldn't want to pick it up. From what I've heard so far, I'm not counting on WWE's network to be much more than an XFL-like disaster so that probably won't be an option (and due to my sucky cable company I wouldn't be able to watch it anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 31, 2011 19:43:42 GMT -5
For the love of god, no-one is leading WWE into any kind of boom perioid/new era. It hasn't happened since 1998. I find it beyond unfair that people are ready to call Punk a failure for not being able to do what no-one else has for 13 years. I think it's more unfair to the main eventers that came before him. I like Punk as a main eventer and I think Cena's days as The Man are numbered- but I hate how on a lot of other forums, people think that Punk has "rescued" WWE from whatever horrible thing that Cena had apparently done to it during his time on top. Yeah, how dare he put on exciting matches, stir up crowds and represent the company to the best of his ability. |
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Jan 1, 2012 0:47:55 GMT -5
Here's the way I look at things and I am sure people will disagree with me on this. The WWE as of late has been demostrating short term thinking, yo yo booking, and forcing certain storylines and wrestlers down the throats of the fans. There have been many storylines that could've ushered in a new, unique, and exciting form of wrestling that has been lacking since the last boom period.
The Nexus debut had great potential and reminded me of how the nWo first started and caused anarchy, what happened with them? Rather than build them up as a strong, organized, hungry, and talented youth they buried them with Cena constantly overcoming the odds with them.
The Punk promo was fresh, exciting, and something that the WWE hadn't experimented with for quite sometime. It was literally the first times fans questioned "Was this a real shoot?" It evolved into the whole corporate conspiracy angle, which had a lot of promise, when all it turned into was the let's rub Hunter's ego show instead of focusing on the new talent and building up new stars in the process.
My point? Perhaps if the WWE showcased a stronger product and gave people a reason to tune in, then there's a chance the ratings wouldn't be down and buyrates would be up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjames on Jan 2, 2012 0:47:06 GMT -5
Agree completely. WWE is suffering from some of the same issues TNA is, mainly, unfulfilled potential. For the most part, they scrap the most promising story lines, plots, and characters, and continue with the worst that people do not care about. occasionally, you get gold, like Mark Henry's recent run, but that is becoming the exception, rather than the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by VenomFang on Jan 2, 2012 1:18:23 GMT -5
The old boom periods happened when Vince was hungry, sharp, and at the top of his game. Doesnt matter who they have carrying the company since Vince's creative spark isnt what it used to be. You really think its a coinsidence there's been no boom since Vince killed WCW ?
|
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Jan 2, 2012 1:20:07 GMT -5
To be honest, I think WWE has blown their chance at turning Punk into a major Austin-esque face. They had that chance this Summer but I think it's passed. That's not to say that Punk can't be a top star and contribute to another big boom period, but at this point I think his future will be best if he's a heel. WWE really needs a strong, Triple H-esque heel that can work with the top babyfaces. Punk's face run is fine for right now, but IMO heel Punk is where the money is.
|
|
