FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,410
|
Post by FinalGwen on Jan 7, 2013 15:32:15 GMT -5
Except... Wasn't there a whole big thing about how the midcard got really poor payouts last Wrestlemania compared to normal, leading to twitter rants?
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jan 7, 2013 15:41:23 GMT -5
Except... Wasn't there a whole big thing about how the midcard got really poor payouts last Wrestlemania compared to normal, leading to twitter rants? Wasn't it people that weren't even on the card complaining?
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on Jan 7, 2013 15:44:07 GMT -5
Because some people in here act like they are above feeling upset about somebody leaving WWE. It was justifiable to be upset when Dwayne left, and it is entirely justifiable to be upset that he's only returning for one or two insta-main-events a year. I'd rather see the talent that I regularly see on television get the spotlight. I respect the man. I mean, more power to him. He can do whatever he wants to do. But I don't have to be happy about it. Now, one might say "He'll make WWE more money", to which I'll say "So what?" More people will see the talent you regularly see now because of Rock. WWE's lucky to break 225,000 worldwide buys for any PPV these days, bar WrestleMania and Rumble. Rock helped expose an extra 800,000+ fans to their product with his involvement these last two years; meaning that more people --that aren't part of the usual WWE general make-up-- now know who current WWE talent are. Plus said talent makes more money on WM payouts because of his involvement. And in theory, that's a great idea. However, in practice, this has yet to work. It always follows the same pattern: Ratings spike whenever Rock/Lesnar/other Attitude Era star is promoted to return, then they plummet with all deliberate speed once they leave. Reason being, it's not enough to get guys more coverage by bringing back legends; you need to give those people who tune in a reason to stay, and they have yet to do that because whenever they bring back a legend, the pool all their resources into them, their reserves go to their main eventers, and the midcard gets the shaft. It's basically trickle-down booking, except (to no one's surprise) nothing ever trickles down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2013 15:48:49 GMT -5
I fully expect Cena to get the win back at WM29, because I truly believe that Rock's win at WM28 was putting the rematch in place. That, and Rock was the one the vast majority of the audience was paying to see win that night. Well said. I skimmed over and was hoping you'd put "win" in there. They didn't just want to see him, they wanted that win. Though now I wonder 2 things.... 1) will Cena really get the win this year - especially in a decidedly cruel NYC/NJ area (which cheered the hell outta MSG when he returned at Rumble 2008 and was booing him by match's end) - and risk pissing off the casual fans who're coming back (perhaps against their better judgment) who wanna see Rock win again? 2) would those "casuals" even bother to come back for WM29, now that they've seen Rock already get that win? If not, they're pandering to their own crowd and possibly using the same mainstream stage as last year to hype something no one outside the fanbase will even care about?
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jan 7, 2013 15:50:37 GMT -5
I frankly don't see how any of this is Rock's problem, or fault. The vast majority of the midcard has been booked as afterthought jokes for the better part of a decade now. Little surprise that most fans see them as little better than worthless. I blame Vince & the writers for the sad state of the midcard ,and WWE as a whole. If guys like Brock & Rock didn't come back when asked, you can bet ratings & buyrates would even be lower than the dismal level they are currently hovering around.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,410
|
Post by FinalGwen on Jan 7, 2013 15:52:15 GMT -5
Except... Wasn't there a whole big thing about how the midcard got really poor payouts last Wrestlemania compared to normal, leading to twitter rants? Wasn't it people that weren't even on the card complaining? Looking back at the thread from that time, it was JTG. But according to Meltzer: Considering the amount of money WWE made from that Mania, $2000 minus travel expenses is... Pretty awful, even for those not on the card itself. (And let's face it, the regular roster wasn't represented that well incomparison to previous Manias, what with the amount of time taken up by part-timers, so it's hardly their fault.)
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jan 7, 2013 15:54:00 GMT -5
Wasn't it people that weren't even on the card complaining? Looking back at the thread from that time, it was JTG. But according to Meltzer: Considering the amount of money WWE made from that Mania, $2000 minus travel expenses is... Pretty awful, even for those not on the card itself. (And let's face it, the regular roster wasn't represented that well incomparison to previous Manias, what with the amount of time taken up by part-timers, so it's hardly their fault.) That's their bonuses, they still were making their downside that week. If you didn't even work Mania, then I don't see much to complain about. It's not like tons of deserving undercarders were left off of Mania. I'm surprised people not on the card even get PPV bonuses at all.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Jan 7, 2013 15:57:00 GMT -5
I got that, which is why I asked, "so what"? It really doesn't matter if anyone here is supportive or not. Because some people in here act like they are above feeling upset about somebody leaving WWE. It was justifiable to be upset when Dwayne left, and it is entirely justifiable to be upset that he's only returning for one or two insta-main-events a year. I'd rather see the talent that I regularly see on television get the spotlight. I respect the man. I mean, more power to him. He can do whatever he wants to do. But I don't have to be happy about it. Now, one might say "He'll make WWE more money", to which I'll say "So what?" I don't see it as being ''above'' anything, but I do think I don't feel upset when people leave the industry. Like say, John Morrison left and I'm not upset that he did. I miss him, but hey. Same with Rock.
|
|
|
Post by gnr123 on Jan 7, 2013 15:57:55 GMT -5
That, and Rock was the one the vast majority of the audience was paying to see win that night. Well said. I skimmed over and was hoping you'd put "win" in there. They didn't just want to see him, they wanted that win. Though now I wonder 2 things.... 1) will Cena really get the win this year - especially in a decidedly cruel NYC/NJ area (which cheered the hell outta MSG when he returned at Rumble 2008 and was booing him by match's end) - and risk pissing off the casual fans who're coming back (perhaps against their better judgment) who wanna see Rock win again? 2) would those "casuals" even bother to come back for WM29, now that they've seen Rock already get that win? If not, they're pandering to their own crowd and possibly using the same mainstream stage as last year to hype something no one outside the fanbase will even care about? WWE booked John Cena over Triple H, Shawn Michaels, and Edge when he was getting booed out of the building. If WWE cared about the fans booing Cena, they would have turned Cena heel in 2007, but they didn't. They continued to push him as the top face because they know that's where the money is. The Rock won't be around all year, Cena will. If they decided to put The Rock over Cena again, than that's the biggest load of s*** that will ever happen to the WWE. They already gave The Rock his win over Cena (which didn't make sense) so Cena SHOULD win the rematch (if there is one.)
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jan 7, 2013 16:00:18 GMT -5
More people will see the talent you regularly see now because of Rock. WWE's lucky to break 225,000 worldwide buys for any PPV these days, bar WrestleMania and Rumble. Rock helped expose an extra 800,000+ fans to their product with his involvement these last two years; meaning that more people --that aren't part of the usual WWE general make-up-- now know who current WWE talent are. Plus said talent makes more money on WM payouts because of his involvement. And in theory, that's a great idea. However, in practice, this has yet to work. It always follows the same pattern: Ratings spike whenever Rock/Lesnar/other Attitude Era star is promoted to return, then they plummet with all deliberate speed once they leave. Reason being, it's not enough to get guys more coverage by bringing back legends; you need to give those people who tune in a reason to stay, and they have yet to do that because whenever they bring back a legend, the pool all their resources into them, their reserves go to their main eventers, and the midcard gets the shaft. It's basically trickle-down booking, except (to no one's surprise) nothing ever trickles down. I blame the fact that WWE goes back to their same status quo guys right after an Attraction leaves. Brock Lesnar loses to Cena, gets written out, and Cena feuds with Johnny Ace in a cartoon. This then segues into a feud everyone's seen a billion times with Big Show. Then he gets a Title match. However, Ryback gets a 6 week build, builds some monentum, and he and Punk draw the best no-bells and whistles B-show buyrate in years. No attractions (no one bought that match for the Cell; it was meaningless). No Cena. Just a new, powerful character that had to win or finally lose. They created something different -- and even though I was wishy-washy on it at the time, I now stand corrected in seeing it as what it was: a success. WWE doesn't need more Poochie John Cena. They need newer guys (who get protected) on top, doing new things. Once Cena was added to the mix, Survivor Series bombed. He creates a strange dichotomy. He's TV's biggest draw; but outside of mega matches, he's irrelevant to PPV.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 7, 2013 16:12:19 GMT -5
Well said. I skimmed over and was hoping you'd put "win" in there. They didn't just want to see him, they wanted that win. Though now I wonder 2 things.... 1) will Cena really get the win this year - especially in a decidedly cruel NYC/NJ area (which cheered the hell outta MSG when he returned at Rumble 2008 and was booing him by match's end) - and risk pissing off the casual fans who're coming back (perhaps against their better judgment) who wanna see Rock win again? 2) would those "casuals" even bother to come back for WM29, now that they've seen Rock already get that win? If not, they're pandering to their own crowd and possibly using the same mainstream stage as last year to hype something no one outside the fanbase will even care about? WWE booked John Cena over Triple H, Shawn Michaels, and Edge when he was getting booed out of the building. If WWE cared about the fans booing Cena, they would have turned Cena heel in 2007, but they didn't. They continued to push him as the top face because they know that's where the money is. The Rock won't be around all year, Cena will. If they decided to put The Rock over Cena again, than that's the biggest load of s*** that will ever happen to the WWE. They already gave The Rock his win over Cena (which didn't make sense) so Cena SHOULD win the rematch (if there is one.) I thought Rock winning made sense, personally. For their entire buildup Cena has been made to be "youngish guy who thinks the part-timer can't hang anymore and is only there for a paycheck" and always just pushed Rock off whenever he tried getting some good promos going (aside from the notes on his wrist, that WAS stupid if it was part of the storyline). My opinion, but I think Rock winning was the perfect ending to that match/feud.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 7, 2013 16:24:22 GMT -5
Because some people in here act like they are above feeling upset about somebody leaving WWE. There's a difference between being disappointed because someone you like left, and holding it against him as if he's a sellout because he did. Similarly - there's a difference between rather seeing newer guys, and acting as if Rock doesn't deserve to main event when he comes around (he does, and the reason why is precisely because of his money-making potential ).
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jan 7, 2013 16:25:30 GMT -5
WWE booked John Cena over Triple H, Shawn Michaels, and Edge when he was getting booed out of the building. If WWE cared about the fans booing Cena, they would have turned Cena heel in 2007, but they didn't. They continued to push him as the top face because they know that's where the money is. The Rock won't be around all year, Cena will. If they decided to put The Rock over Cena again, than that's the biggest load of s*** that will ever happen to the WWE. They already gave The Rock his win over Cena (which didn't make sense) so Cena SHOULD win the rematch (if there is one.) I thought Rock winning made sense, personally. For their entire buildup Cena has been made to be "youngish guy who thinks the part-timer can't hang anymore and is only there for a paycheck" and always just pushed Rock off whenever he tried getting some good promos going (aside from the notes on his wrist, that WAS stupid if it was part of the storyline). My opinion, but I think Rock winning was the perfect ending to that match/feud. It kills me that to this day there are still people who honestly think the notes thing was a shoot, and that Rock had really lost it, disregarding the fact that every time prior to that Rock was on fire, having ad-libbed for years, and even gave a one hour unscripted Hall Fame induction speech for his Dad & grand-dad a few years back. It was contrived. WWE purposely asked Rock to do that, so Cena would come off better and more equal for Stephanie's Jacob vs Edward wet-dream. And it wasn't because Cena wasn't as good or as engaging. It was because the audience had already decided that Cena was terrible in comparison, so the company decided the best way to even it out was to drop Rock a few pegs, and make him look human.
|
|
|
Post by Urfarkendarf on Jan 7, 2013 16:29:58 GMT -5
The Rock has always shown himself to be a company guy and willing to put people over. There is not one instance or even newz saying otherwise.
The Rock coming back is good for both sides. The fact he's coming back for pretty much the first 2+ months of the year shows his commitment. It's WWE's choice how they choose to use him and in some cases in his recent appearances (ahem, WM28) they've overbooked him and given him the "shove down your throat" vibe. I'm also not going to blame him for "via satellite". I'd rather have a Rock promo via tape than a Vickie Guerrero promo.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 7, 2013 16:32:07 GMT -5
The Rock has always shown himself to be a company guy and willing to put people over. There is not one instance or even newz saying otherwise. The Rock coming back is good for both sides. The fact he's coming back for pretty much the first 2+ months of the year shows his commitment. It's WWE's choice how they choose to use him and in some cases in his recent appearances (ahem, WM28) they've overbooked him and given him the "shove down your throat" vibe. I'm also not going to blame him for "via satellite". I'd rather have a Rock promo via tape than a Vickie Guerrero promo. I think The Rock should have some control over how he's used. Like he should ask not to be "shoved down your throat".
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Jan 7, 2013 16:47:52 GMT -5
The Rock has always shown himself to be a company guy and willing to put people over. There is not one instance or even newz saying otherwise. The Rock coming back is good for both sides. The fact he's coming back for pretty much the first 2+ months of the year shows his commitment. It's WWE's choice how they choose to use him and in some cases in his recent appearances (ahem, WM28) they've overbooked him and given him the "shove down your throat" vibe. I'm also not going to blame him for "via satellite". I'd rather have a Rock promo via tape than a Vickie Guerrero promo. I think The Rock should have some control over how he's used. Like he should ask not to be "shoved down your throat". You may not like Rock being hyped up and endless recaps and videos about him and whatever feud he was in (like with Cena) but the reason they do stuff like that is because it works (see WM 28 buyrates). And again, he's not the reason that Ryder and Curtis won't be working a 5-minute match. The 3 hour Raws are long enough that they could put anyone they want on there with barely any tweaking.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 7, 2013 16:55:14 GMT -5
I think The Rock should have some control over how he's used. Like he should ask not to be "shoved down your throat". You may not like Rock being hyped up and endless recaps and videos about him and whatever feud he was in (like with Cena) but the reason they do stuff like that is because it works (see WM 28 buyrates). And again, he's not the reason that Ryder and Curtis won't be working a 5-minute match. The 3 hour Raws are long enough that they could put anyone they want on there with barely any tweaking. The Rock has huge drawing power. He will put butts in seats simply because...he's The Rock. He needs no more hype than that.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 7, 2013 17:06:49 GMT -5
I got that, which is why I asked, "so what"? It really doesn't matter if anyone here is supportive or not. Because some people in here act like they are above feeling upset about somebody leaving WWE. It was justifiable to be upset when Dwayne left, and it is entirely justifiable to be upset that he's only returning for one or two insta-main-events a year. I'd rather see the talent that I regularly see on television get the spotlight. I respect the man. I mean, more power to him. He can do whatever he wants to do. But I don't have to be happy about it. Now, one might say "He'll make WWE more money", to which I'll say "So what?" There's a difference between being disappointed that you won't see a guy anymore and trashing a dude for leaving, which there was plenty of, and was also the basis behind Cena's entire argument against him.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 7, 2013 19:57:40 GMT -5
I thought Rock winning made sense, personally. For their entire buildup Cena has been made to be "youngish guy who thinks the part-timer can't hang anymore and is only there for a paycheck" and always just pushed Rock off whenever he tried getting some good promos going (aside from the notes on his wrist, that WAS stupid if it was part of the storyline). My opinion, but I think Rock winning was the perfect ending to that match/feud. It kills me that to this day there are still people who honestly think the notes thing was a shoot, and that Rock had really lost it, disregarding the fact that every time prior to that Rock was on fire, having ad-libbed for years, and even gave a one hour unscripted Hall Fame induction speech for his Dad & grand-dad a few years back. It was contrived. WWE purposely asked Rock to do that, so Cena would come off better and more equal for Stephanie's Jacob vs Edward wet-dream. And it wasn't because Cena wasn't as good or as engaging. It was because the audience had already decided that Cena was terrible in comparison, so the company decided the best way to even it out was to drop Rock a few pegs, and make him look human. Agreed. It was pretty funny seeing the Bleacherreport stories "speculating" on the notes thing though.
|
|
|
Post by frogsplash45 on Jan 8, 2013 1:23:15 GMT -5
Because some people in here act like they are above feeling upset about somebody leaving WWE. There's a difference between being disappointed because someone you like left, and holding it against him as if he's a sellout because he did. Similarly - there's a difference between rather seeing newer guys, and acting as if Rock doesn't deserve to main event when he comes around (he does, and the reason why is precisely because of his money-making potential ). "So what?"
|
|