|
Post by ________ has left the building on Feb 3, 2013 17:37:26 GMT -5
Wrestlemania is suppose the big extravaganza in which the big matches, big names, big moments, and celebrity appearances happen. Wrestlemania is WWE's guaranteed moneymaker and pop culture staple because of this. I know when the first Mania main event was announced, early smarks were complaining about Mr T getting top billing. And guess what? That move paid off greatly. Being on the card is a privilege, not a right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 17:43:54 GMT -5
I liked it when it was a few guys that we hadn't seen in a while vs someone they'd never worked with. Rock vs Cena? HHH vs Brock? I have no interest whatsoever in seeing either one of those matches again.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Feb 3, 2013 18:14:48 GMT -5
They have to milk the big stars while they can still go. HHH, Rock, Lesnar, Taker etc....won't be able to do this forever. That's why they should use their other PPV's to build the next generation of stars, and so far, they are doing a piss poor job of it.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Feb 3, 2013 19:17:42 GMT -5
They have to milk the big stars while they can still go. HHH, Rock, Lesnar, Taker etc....won't be able to do this forever. That's why they should use their other PPV's to build the next generation of stars, and so far, they are doing a piss poor job of it. You put it nicely. When I got back into wrestling I was shocked at how big names like Austin and Rock worked until 2003/2004. When I was going through the PPVs and got to Wrestlemania XX, there was definitely a sense of "this is the end of the really really big names working shows" with The Rock's last match. I still think it's incredibly cool that they got Brock and The Rock back to work some shows.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Feb 3, 2013 19:19:25 GMT -5
The thing is, if they try to make new stars now, ignoring the old guys, and fail, they may lose the chance to ever use those old big names again. At least if you fail to make new stars in the future, the old guys may give you more money to take more chances later on.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Feb 3, 2013 19:21:55 GMT -5
The thing is, if they try to make new stars now, ignoring the old guys, and fail, they may lose the chance to ever use those old big names again. At least if you fail to make new stars in the future, the old guys may give you more money to take more chances later on. Exactly. WWE knows that 1992-1997 pt. 2 or 3 is coming (if you wouldn't consider 2004-2010 to be 1992-1997 part 2 already), and it makes sense that they'd want to delay it for as long as possible while shoring up resources to weather it.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Feb 3, 2013 21:30:19 GMT -5
That's not a fair comparison, simply because in a sports game like the Super Bowl, it's not prepared. The Super Bowl this year is for ultra-casuals who haven't watched a regular season game- but it's between two teams which are both deserving of being in the game- but the only players who really count as a "household name" is Ray Lewis and "maybe" Randy Moss. It's not like the NFL decided "we're going to make Brett Favre QB the 49ers for this game and Tim Tebow QB the Ravens because people know their names the most"- winning in the Super Bowl can MAKE a player a household name instead.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Feb 3, 2013 21:44:31 GMT -5
Lesnar and Rock aren't "old stars," they're mega super-over current stars RIGHT NOW so for the love of all that's holy, they should be front and center and involved in important and significant happenings at wrestlemania. And Lesnar is going to be around for quite a few Manias to come, he's already' contractually obligated for WM 30, and I think he'll be around for quite a while after that, albeit on a limited schedule. Rock is a bigger question mark, though I'm guessing we'll see him from time to time forever, it's just his call whether that involves actual wrestling. But in this moment, when he's willing to do it, he needs to be involved at the biggest show of the year, that's just a no-brainer. HHH will be around here and there forever, he's a star, he can still perform. The Undertaker's a little more tricky - he is an older star, past his prime both in performance and star power, but his appearances at Mania matter, big time, for as long as he's able to do them.
There will be other guys showcased at the show. Punk, Ryback, Sheamus, Del Rio, will all be involved. Any of them have the chance to steal the show and increase their own star power, just like Bret Hart, Steve Austin, Randy Savage, Ricky Steamboat, the Hardys, and a bunch of others have done in the past on wrestlemania undercards. But they're not the guys you sell this show on. It would just be silly and contrived to manufacture "main events" with "new guys", while leaving the real stars in the midcard or off the show entirely.
Bottom line, I think, Cena/Rock generates millions more in revenue than Cena/Miz. And it's not like the latter made Miz a guaranteed draw/star forever afterwards. It's not as simple as putting guys on that show and then watching the money roll in.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Feb 3, 2013 22:19:37 GMT -5
I am fine with it. I stopped watching wwe every week in like 07. Coincidently the quality star power on WM wasn't very high for a few yrs, compared to the last two and this one. Casually I am a fan of wwe. I tend to follow more closely during the road to WM. I am quite interested in this yrs version and I was certainly interested last yr. I knew the one rock hosted would be huge so I was interested then with him as the draw. I am not alone in this. Thusly, the point of having those star power draws at WM works. I don't see the detriment unless you completely ignore the undercard guys all yr. they don't do that. To compare this situation to wcw is unfair, because wcw never spent a dime in marketing anyone who's name didn't end in Ogan, Ash, All, Ing or Berg. Wwe spends hundreds of thousands and in many cases millions, when developing and marketing a young star. Look at the TV spots featuring Punk, Sheamus and Del Rio. If I as the casual follower I am, caught those spots during regular TV and in printed ads or Internet bumpers/banners, than it is evidence of wwe doing the opposite of wcw marketing
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Feb 3, 2013 22:35:23 GMT -5
The problem isn't using them, it's HOW they use them. Bringing in guys like Rock and Lesnar is a good idea, but having them face guys like Cena and Triple H helps no one. If you bring in huge names like that, they should be used to give a rub to guys you want to be the next big stars. For example, Lesnar should be putting over a Sheamus or Ryback rather than Triple H. Sames goes for The Rock.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Feb 3, 2013 22:59:15 GMT -5
when you look at it that way, WWE paying retired guys to come back because they have nobody else who can do the job isn't that different from most companies these days
|
|
|
Post by Nic Nemeth on Feb 3, 2013 23:07:54 GMT -5
WrestleMania must have these special attractions, where else would you put them? They can't main-event an episode of Saturday Morning Slam or headline Over the Limit, they need to be at Mania cause it is the top PPV.
However, if they're going to put them on the show, put them against the current main-eventers not each other. Punk vs Rock works cause it shows Punk can hang and even did beat the #3 name in wrestling.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Feb 3, 2013 23:11:16 GMT -5
Doesn't help anybody, ok I'll try a retort, but you seem quite convinced so it won't do much good. Anyhoo, the money and raised profile of a huge name helps everybody money wise. Bigger the gate bigger the check all the way down the card. Curtain jerker a will see the difference between 900k buys and a mil plus buys. But as you likely meant work wise, I also have a response there too. The point of Punk taking Rock to the limit and losing is, he will get his heat back in some way. Thus he is enhanced. Cena takes Rock to the limit thus he is enhanced. So, later when after a quality build, let's say Sheamus faces an elevated Punk or Cena. Sheamus wins and it is more imp actual that he beat a legend who faced guys like Brock, Rock ect. The event itself(WM) gets a bump in prestige by way of another huge moments(s) to promote future events as big deals. They mentioned hogan beating Rock durning the build for Cena v rock and during the match. The hogan v rock match happened ten yrs ago. Using it elevated Rock and by proxy Cena, for having been his opponent. Wwe are experts in marketing smartly. They know that eleven months is a good amount of time to promote and elevate other talent. The undercard always outshines the main event in execution. See Savage/Steamboat or every singlE Bret Hart match until 1992 for evidence of this.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Feb 3, 2013 23:15:41 GMT -5
However, if they're going to put them on the show, put them against the current main-eventers not each other. Punk vs Rock works cause it shows Punk can hang and even did beat the #3 name in wrestling. I see the appeal of that, and it can work in spots, but you also can't train the fans to expect Rock/HHH/Lesnar/Austin/Undertaker to lose every single match they come back for. That hurts their star power, and the future star power of any other guys you bring back part-time like that. Like when Foley came back for spots - it helped Orton I guess, but then after that, it was just a joke, Foley just showed up to lose every once in a while. Those huge stars should win at least some of the time, and probably most of the time. So I understand why they'd want some of those wins to be against each other.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Feb 4, 2013 0:03:38 GMT -5
That's not a fair comparison, simply because in a sports game like the Super Bowl, it's not prepared. The Super Bowl this year is for ultra-casuals who haven't watched a regular season game- but it's between two teams which are both deserving of being in the game- but the only players who really count as a "household name" is Ray Lewis and "maybe" Randy Moss. It's not like the NFL decided "we're going to make Brett Favre QB the 49ers for this game and Tim Tebow QB the Ravens because people know their names the most"- winning in the Super Bowl can MAKE a player a household name instead. You're going off on a tangent here. Obviously NFL is not in the business of manufacturing stars like the WWE is.The analogy was only in regard to WM being a primarily self contained event. If Cm Punk goes over the Rock, or Sheamus goes over Lesnar, it isn't going to make anyone that watches tune into Raw the next night. It's just going to disappoint the casuals and they might not order WM next year. Besides, it's like Molson5 says, these aren't some old, washed up guys that can't work. It's Rock, who's only 40, the same age when guys like Hogan, Austin and Taker were in their prime and Lesnar who's even younger and more relevant than ever because of UFC. He's signed a new contract and wasn't around long enough to get stale the first time. Ideally I'd like a scenario where an HBK puts over an Austin, but if there's the next Stone Cold on the roster, I have no idea who it is.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Nemeth on Feb 4, 2013 0:42:57 GMT -5
However, if they're going to put them on the show, put them against the current main-eventers not each other. Punk vs Rock works cause it shows Punk can hang and even did beat the #3 name in wrestling. I see the appeal of that, and it can work in spots, but you also can't train the fans to expect Rock/HHH/Lesnar/Austin/Undertaker to lose every single match they come back for. That hurts their star power, and the future star power of any other guys you bring back part-time like that. Like when Foley came back for spots - it helped Orton I guess, but then after that, it was just a joke, Foley just showed up to lose every once in a while. Those huge stars should win at least some of the time, and probably most of the time. So I understand why they'd want some of those wins to be against each other. They don't need to lose to each other, Rock vs Punk was booked properly in that there is a situation where Punk can beat Rock and Rock still won in the end.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Feb 4, 2013 0:44:42 GMT -5
The problem isn't that these guys are coming around. The problem is that these gusy are coming around, and they're booked in a bubble and made to look more important than everything else. If The Rock is such a huge draw, he'll put butts in seats regardless of card placement. That's really all the special attractions should be here to do: put butts in seats.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Feb 4, 2013 0:50:49 GMT -5
The problem isn't that these guys are coming around. The problem is that these gusy are coming around, and they're booked in a bubble and made to look more important than everything else. If The Rock is such a huge draw, he'll put butts in seats regardless of card placement. That's really all the special attractions should be here to do: put butts in seats. Rock maybe would put butts in the seat regardless of card placement but I doubt he bothers with all this just to have a midcard match at Mania against some "up and comer" who may or may not amount to anything. You'd have to pay him main event money either way, even if he was willing to job for fun.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Feb 4, 2013 5:45:02 GMT -5
From the Rumble up to Mania is WWE's time to make money with the rest of the year available to make stars. This last year they have done a great job of using that other time to create new names, and elevate some previous guys form last year's level.
If WWE just used the everyday guys on Mania the buyrate would tank and it would become just another show. Here are the Top-4 PPV's for WWE this year..
1,217,000 for Mania 443,000 for Royal Rumble 358,000 for SummerSlam 263,000 for Extreme Rules
These show's finished 51,000 buys over the next highest PPV this year. 3 of the 4 were sold on non everyday guys with the Rumble established as the #2 PPV with the added hook of seeing which outsider makes a surprise return. Take that fun hook away the rating would suffer and take the non-regulars off these other Cards as just think how bad WWE's 2012 financial year would be doing.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Feb 4, 2013 6:01:47 GMT -5
The problem isn't that these guys are coming around. The problem is that these gusy are coming around, and they're booked in a bubble and made to look more important than everything else. If The Rock is such a huge draw, he'll put butts in seats regardless of card placement. That's really all the special attractions should be here to do: put butts in seats. These guys are more important than everyone else since they are legit mainstream names. Having them do something lower on the card will help the show to a point but when you're invest that kind of money you want more than a slight bump. Dolph vs Rock isn't going to make a massive impact, especially at the cost. But a match like Rock vs Cena will as shown by the first one being the highest grossing Main Event in Pro Wrestling history! It make's no business sense for Vince to spend money on these guys and not to use them to get maximum value returned out of them. It also makes no sense for those guys to comeback and not be used to draw the bigger money since the less the show draws is the less they will make for their time as well.
|
|