saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 22, 2013 0:44:22 GMT -5
I never got why 'creative has nothing for you' isn't a good enough excuse. It's the best one there is. Characters get written out of TV shows all the time for similar reasons. You can't keep everyone or give everyone TV time. Nor should you want to. It's not so much as it's not a good excuse, as that it's usually complete bullshit. It's corporate-speak used to pacify someone while firing them. "Creative has nothing for you" is the equivalent of the dating line, "it's not you, it's me". I like you as a friend. A friend who is not on the roster anymore. Buh-bye.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Nov 22, 2013 0:48:40 GMT -5
I'm sure creative could come up with something for everyone on the roster, but at the end of the day it still has to please the McMahons at the end of the line. So to me, "creative has nothing for you" is more or less just codespeak for "The McMahon's don't think you can make money."
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Nov 22, 2013 0:49:17 GMT -5
It's not so much as it's not a good excuse, as that it's usually complete bullshit. It's corporate-speak used to pacify someone while firing them. "Creative has nothing for you" is the equivalent of the dating line, "it's not you, it's me". Why is it bullshit? It's a TV show and sometimes the writers don't have something for someone to do. What other reasons do you think people leave TV shows? Because it's always more than just the writers not having something for that person to do. If that were the case, it'd be more likely the writer would be fired for not being competent at their job.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Nov 22, 2013 0:51:38 GMT -5
Why is it bullshit? It's a TV show and sometimes the writers don't have something for someone to do. What other reasons do you think people leave TV shows? Because it's always more than just the writers not having something for that person to do. If that were the case, it'd be more likely the writer would be fired for not being competent at their job. That doesn't make sense at all. So they should find something for everyone to do else the writers are incompetent? Does that apply to TV shows as well. Will every long running show have to find space on TV for 130 characters each week or else it proves the writing is shit? There's only a finite number of hours they have. You simply cannot showcase more than about 15 people a week to any great degree and it'll mean a lot of people end up with nothing to do, doesn't mean the writers are incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 22, 2013 1:01:05 GMT -5
The problem is that the main roster talents are used exclusively as jobbers and made out to be a laughingstock and mocked by the general wrestling audience. No wrestler should be made to look worthless. Most of the time a good chunk of these guys are losing too many times that a victory over them doesn't mean anything, because all they did was beat a loser. Guys like JTG. Zack Ryder, Curt Hawkins, Yoshi Tatsu, Alex Riley, 3MB, Tons of Funk, PTPs need to win as often as they lose, so that when they do put over the up and coming talent it means more. This year, Quite a large chunk of guys took extended time off for whatever reason, and WWE never elevated anyone to fill those spots, even on a temporary basis. They just stretched the screen time of everyone who were being featured anyway. Those are the jobbers he was referring to. I know that. But then he made the football comparison about how certain guys don't get on the field unless someone gets hurt. Between Cena's mutant elbow, Sheamus' injuries, Miz's multiple write-offs like the Movie and the Orton attacks, Dolph's concussion, Kofi's injury, Henry's injuries, Cody's wedding, Kane taking time off, etc. everyone should've been getting bumped up a level in the pecking order on a temporary basis during that rough patch until all those stars returned. THAT should've been the time for everyone to get the chance to step their game up and prove themselves. It's easy to find screen time for the majority of the roster if you don't have guys needlessly pulling double duty at tapings. Or only having Kofi, 3MB or Ryder doing 95% of the jobbing.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Nov 22, 2013 1:13:39 GMT -5
Because it's always more than just the writers not having something for that person to do. If that were the case, it'd be more likely the writer would be fired for not being competent at their job. That doesn't make sense at all. So they should find something for everyone to do else the writers are incompetent? Does that apply to TV shows as well. Will every long running show have to find space on TV for 130 characters each week or else it proves the writing is shit? There's only a finite number of hours they have. You simply cannot showcase more than about 15 people a week to any great degree and it'll mean a lot of people end up with nothing to do, doesn't mean the writers are incompetent. I don't know why you're trying to put words into my mouth, when what I actually said was fairly easy to understand. I'm too tired to try and explain it any further, so you go on ahead and believe what you want.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Nov 22, 2013 1:19:34 GMT -5
That doesn't make sense at all. So they should find something for everyone to do else the writers are incompetent? Does that apply to TV shows as well. Will every long running show have to find space on TV for 130 characters each week or else it proves the writing is shit? There's only a finite number of hours they have. You simply cannot showcase more than about 15 people a week to any great degree and it'll mean a lot of people end up with nothing to do, doesn't mean the writers are incompetent. I don't know why you're trying to put words into my mouth, when what I actually said was fairly easy to understand. I'm too tired to try and explain it any further, so you go on ahead and believe what you want. It may have been simple to understand but it made little sense. You implied if TV character was written out because the writers didn't have anythig for them then it's incompetence on the writers part but it isn't. There's only a finite amount of time available, you should need nor want everyone to have a storyline. In those cases you likely say "We've got nothing for you, sorry we cannot justify your salary at the moment" I don't get why that's a poor excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 22, 2013 1:23:18 GMT -5
"We have nothing for you" can often mean a problem with creative rather than the people they are releasing.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Nov 22, 2013 1:31:32 GMT -5
I would say that if a guy isn't doing anything to improve an aspect of himself (ring talent, physique, promo skills) that isn't where it should be, it's fair to release him. I suppose if there's been a particularly rough year for business, it's even fair to say "We just can't afford to keep you right now, but the door is always open" if there's someone lower on the card that you can afford to let go. "Creative has nothing for you" is complete bullshit, though.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 22, 2013 1:32:26 GMT -5
"We have nothing for you" can often mean a problem with creative rather than the people they are releasing. Sure it could. But unless the wrestler straight up asks for his release, a release often reflects badly on the talent and carries a connotation of being "not good enough". That wrestler is ridiculed by the fan base and is unfairly stuck with the stigma of being a "failure" who "couldn't make it in the major leagues" and now has to flip burgers for the rest of his life or something. We the fans perpetuate this further with things like "What's x Doing in the Impact Zone" jokes and the "How Long Has JTG Been Employed" counter, or "Spring Cleaning" speculation threads that pop up and everyone just writes off every low card wrestler as being on their way out the door.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 22, 2013 1:32:50 GMT -5
"We have nothing for you" can often mean a problem with creative rather than the people they are releasing. I can't imagine a scenario where VKM or HHH or Stephanie or whoever went to the writers and said, "We want to push ______. Come up with something for them." And the writers sat in a room for hours and came back and said, "Just can't think of a single thing. Sorry."
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 22, 2013 1:36:59 GMT -5
"We have nothing for you" can often mean a problem with creative rather than the people they are releasing. Sure it could. But unless the wrestler straight up asks for his release, a release often reflects badly on the talent and carries a connotation of being "not good enough". That wrestler is ridiculed by the fan base and is unfairly stuck with the stigma of being a "failure". I'm not sure it does. I think those who are clued into knowing that WWE creative consists of vindictive carnies, sycophants, clueless soap writers and a woman who owes her entire position in the company to fortunate birth, know that a released wrestler isn't a failure, but rather they've been failed by the people who are supposed to be helping them.
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Scrotum on Nov 22, 2013 8:53:37 GMT -5
When management's tired of paying / employing you, your release is justified.
|
|
|
Post by Bootista on Nov 22, 2013 10:21:28 GMT -5
Hey those what's so and so doing in the impact zone jokes are funny
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Nov 22, 2013 10:28:44 GMT -5
Telling someone they are fired because WWE doesn't see money in them or that they suck probably wouldn't go over as easy as saying we got nothing for you creatively.
|
|