|
Post by Been burned too many times on Nov 28, 2013 12:28:08 GMT -5
they gave him everything they could and the fans realized he wasn't actually all that great. he's exactly where he should be on the card these days. and I say that as a fan of the guy. He's nowhere on the card these days. The fans didn't just suddenly stop caring about Ryder, the WWE booked him in such a way that it didn't make sense to cheer for him anymore because he was constantly getting destroyed. Nobody really pretended like Ryder was 'great' but he could be a good midcard babyface. They took someone who was over with the fans and destroyed him over and over and over and over again of course eventually the fans are gonna stop caring. WWE made them stop caring about him.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Nov 28, 2013 13:00:43 GMT -5
resent most likely no but what others have said the WWE really don't like it when people who they don't want to get over get over by themselves .
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Nov 28, 2013 13:07:47 GMT -5
WWE resents certain crowds... They'll prefer crowds which have the expected reactions and react loudly. Any international crowd work here. They don't particularly care for areas that don't react that much, as long as they pop for the main eventers. This is basically Anytown, USA; outside the big wrestling markets. They probably don't like "smart" crowds.(See, Orton/Cena/Nipple H promo on monday) They hate running in Toronto. Backward contrarian f***s... but running big stadium shows there is no problem, the locals get buried by tourists. They REALLY hate running in Montreal. Smart, contrarian, vulgar, French-chanting crowd which WILL start to get rumbunctious if they get bored. Which usually happens by the time the first promo is happening, or the first diva match. Then, all bets are off, crowd reactions get completely random! Plus, you have a solid 20% of the audience that are either workers for local promotions or diehard fans of those promotions who pretty much are there to f*** with the show. Running Montreal is a guarantee to produce a memorable show, there has never been a boring TV show in Montreal. But they can't control it, they don't understand it, so they run TV here once every two or three year when they feel like having a bizzaro episode of RAW, which has become their way of telling the TV audience "Hmmmm... don't follow after these people okay?" While Toronto just tries to be smart, Montreal is actively HOSTILE to the WWE and WILL pay tickets for the privilege to mess with them. Then why do the commentators constantly call attention to the "bizarro world" crowds in those cities, and on RAW the night after Mania? It seems like the reveled in the Cena hate when it really got going, they acknowledged it, made it part of storylines (including booking Cena v. RVD at the Hammerstein Ballroom, and Cena v. Punk in Chicago).
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Nov 28, 2013 13:12:07 GMT -5
they gave him everything they could and the fans realized he wasn't actually all that great. he's exactly where he should be on the card these days. and I say that as a fan of the guy. He's nowhere on the card these days. The fans didn't just suddenly stop caring about Ryder, the WWE booked him in such a way that it didn't make sense to cheer for him anymore because he was constantly getting destroyed. Nobody really pretended like Ryder was 'great' but he could be a good midcard babyface. They took someone who was over with the fans and destroyed him over and over and over and over again of course eventually the fans are gonna stop caring. WWE made them stop caring about him. but having said that, the problem with Zack Ryder was- the Ryder fanbase knew what they "WANTED" (Push Zack Ryder!), but they didn't know just what what they wanted MEANT (Great. How hard do you want Zack Ryder pushed? Do you want him to be in Santino's freakshow of comedy guys? Do you want Ryder to have some feuds and be in the midcard? Do you want Ryder fighting for the US or IC championship? Do you want Ryder to be an uppercard player? Do you want Ryder in the main events? Do you want Ryder as a world-beater? What spot, EXACTLY, did you want Zack Ryder in?) If anything, this is the problem with both the fans who want A change, and the WWE when they GIVE them that change: -Fans don't know exactly what the change entails, but they know they want one. -WWE has no clue how much of something is too much. If WWE was making the Thanksgiving feast you'd be eating today, they would cook the turkey by making a big pot of gravy and throwing the whole turkey in. -When WWE gives the fans too much of something, the fans get emboldened to the point where they demand even more of it (whether they got the level they wanted or not). End result, the wrestler ends up overexposed, fans turn on the wrestler, and everyone is unhappy.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 28, 2013 13:18:22 GMT -5
If the next "indy darling" (hate that term, but I give) that gets elevated can have a main event program that, win or lose, winds up NOT involving Triple H or an Attitude Era star being inserted as the "real star" then I'll concede that they've changed.
"These young guys don't have "it", they can't get over". Well how in the hell are they supposed to when creative pulls the ADD, "This guy is ama - hey look it's an Attitude Era star, those guys are the ones you should pay attention to!"
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Nov 28, 2013 13:19:12 GMT -5
Another interesting topic, maybe for another thread, is how much so many WWE fans detest the WWE. That's a weird dynamic. As a poster said last page, some fans will give the WWE money and buy tickets "for the privilege to mess with them." Does this happen in any other part of the entertainment industry? The only thing that I think comes close is sports fans in certain northeast cities, who can develop a bitter, angry, loathing about the teams they "love".
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 28, 2013 13:33:50 GMT -5
Another interesting topic, maybe for another thread, is how much so many WWE fans detest the WWE. That's a weird dynamic. As a poster said last page, some fans will give the WWE money and buy tickets "for the privilege to mess with them." Does this happen in any other part of the entertainment industry? The only thing that I think comes close is sports fans in certain northeast cities, who can develop a bitter, angry, loathing about the teams they "love". That's actually a good comparison. Generally those fans, while you see it often in the New York/Boston rivalry, will "hate" the team because of a perceived wrong. Releasing or trading a beloved player, bad moves by management, prolonged losing streak or something like that. It's not just "I'm gonna buy season tickets because I hate those bums" it's more like "I'm gonna keep going because I love this team, but I hate the owners and management". Most of fans your talking about, I'm going to make assumptions since, well, that's the only way I can make this point. I'd say most are people who are wrestling fans, people who loved the WWF product in a past time period, who may not like the current product or may want something that looks more like what they were used to. If I am a longtime fan of a TV drama, heavily invested in the characters, and I buy every DVD set that comes out and even watch the episodes they put on pay per view, only to see the show change from a gritty drama to a bright and colorful musical comedy, then I am going to, most likely, react in some way. However, if I am invested emotionally in the characters, then I am more likely to still watch out of some consumer loyalty to the character and the actors who portray them that drew me in regardless of if the surroundings have changed to something I no longer enjoy. I personally have done that with book series. If six books in it changes direction drastically but the characters I like are still there, then I will keep reading to see what happens to them.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 28, 2013 14:24:30 GMT -5
This is the post I was looking for in this thread. And while I think there are some more complexities to be discussed, I think it describes the current WWE more than anything so far. This is my interpretation of WWE's booking style when it comes to indy favourites. 1- Hire standout on the independent scene. 2- Give him a terrible name that sounds so generic and lifeless that he already starts his WWE career with an obstacle in front of him 3- If they don't do #2, grudgingly use the name or a similar one to the one he built the fame and persona upon that attracted WWE to sign him in the first instance. Antonio Cesaro is a generic name? Sami Zayn is a generic name? I've never heard the name Zayn in my life. Daniel Bryan is little more than flipping his real name around. Kassius Ohno wasn't a generic name. Scotty Goldman is the only indy with a genric name I can think of. If anything WWE's "random name generator" is to random, coming up with combos no one would use.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 28, 2013 14:27:48 GMT -5
I honestly think it all starts and ends with Vince himself.
So I think Vince makes them eat shit for a little while at the start to feel them out. Then when they get bigger and start to gain some popularity, they get the ominous losing streak (see MVP, Ziggler, Sandow) to keep that popularity in check. Now when you get to the top, it gets better. Because guys like Orton and Big Show and Cena? They're company guys to the core. No way they'd ever go against the WWE because they were MADE there (not so much Show, but you know what I mean). Guys like Punk or Bryan could go back to the indys in a moment and instantly raise the credibility/visibility of any promotion they wanted to, thanks in part to the exposure they've gotten on the WWE level. So when somebody like Bryan gets big and gets an Austin-like following, he gets put in his place by the WWE or HHH directly as a means of re-establishing the system.
I disagree. I think the losing streak is to make sure they can handle losing sometimes because unless you're at the very top there's going to be some periods where you're used to put over other guys
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 28, 2013 14:29:11 GMT -5
they gave him everything they could and the fans realized he wasn't actually all that great. he's exactly where he should be on the card these days. and I say that as a fan of the guy. He's nowhere on the card these days. The fans didn't just suddenly stop caring about Ryder, the WWE booked him in such a way that it didn't make sense to cheer for him anymore because he was constantly getting destroyed. Nobody really pretended like Ryder was 'great' but he could be a good midcard babyface. They took someone who was over with the fans and destroyed him over and over and over and over again of course eventually the fans are gonna stop caring. WWE made them stop caring about him. if I like a guy I'm cheering him until he does something I dislike. And losing is not something that I dislike. I don't boo losers for being losers. Others should try it.
|
|
Rave
El Dandy
Perpetually Bored
Posts: 8,373
|
Post by Rave on Nov 28, 2013 14:35:38 GMT -5
I honestly think there's some merit to the idea that WWE resents certain crowds. I don't think they've run the Hammerstein Ballroom since the Big Show/Batista incident, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 28, 2013 15:11:29 GMT -5
This is my interpretation of WWE's booking style when it comes to indy favourites. 1- Hire standout on the independent scene. 2- Give him a terrible name that sounds so generic and lifeless that he already starts his WWE career with an obstacle in front of him 3- If they don't do #2, grudgingly use the name or a similar one to the one he built the fame and persona upon that attracted WWE to sign him in the first instance. Antonio Cesaro is a generic name? Sami Zayn is a generic name? I've never heard the name Zayn in my life. Daniel Bryan is little more than flipping his real name around. Kassius Ohno wasn't a generic name. Scotty Goldman is the only indy with a genric name I can think of. If anything WWE's "random name generator" is to random, coming up with combos no one would use. "Generic" in the sense of being either meaningless or non-descript, with no star appeal whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 28, 2013 15:19:40 GMT -5
There's nothing in my post which proves this collection of strawmen arguments to be true. There's 21,000 other posts I'd have to sift through in order to produce a compelling proof to feeling that way, but I digress. I've noticed your post patterns the same way I noticed a lot of posters here. You can count on certain people to have certain viewpoints and to fill their designated niche bit part in WWE current almost as if it was on que. I enjoy your attention to explaining why you dislike WWE, a lot, but also find it off-putting the dismissive demeanor in posts questioning claims that WWE is as terrible as you say. I can account for my post in saying I just wish someone in WWE would call out a smart mark and put them in their place (to which they'll probably mark anyways) because the loudest and longest viewpoints that come off as obnoxious are always the best to see put down. And there's nothing more obnoxious than consistently bashing and berating something that doesn't even take itself seriously. I'm not sure to what this post is replying to My post referred to strawmen arguments, specifically... 1- "Nothing WWE does would be good enough" Which is false. They've done plenty of good things throughout their history which have been good enough for fans. Which is why people get so frustrated at their ineptness, because they know WWE can do better. 2- "People want WWE to let the fans book the product" I doubt many people have been seriously calling for that. Although to be fair, I don't think it would be that difficult to improve upon some of the garbage that WWE does book. When WWE booked that midget to be cruiserweight champion, if a fan said "that's a stupid idea", then that's 1-0 to the fan. That being said, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for WWE to adopt some sort of fan-based submission policy with the proviso that all submissions become WWE's property.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Nov 28, 2013 15:24:28 GMT -5
I'm going to try to summarize what seems to be a prevailing thought:
WWE doesn't resent fans, but sometimes it thinks they're stupid and need to be taught what is good instead of listening to what the fans think is good?
|
|
|
Post by bootytea on Nov 28, 2013 17:25:55 GMT -5
It is not so much resentment than it is knowing they can get away with it.
As long as people are still paying tickets to watch shows or buy merchandise, WWE does not have to worry about those with a little more standards.
I could make the argument that it is silly to watch sporting events because they are boring and lack the entertainment value, but there are people who are mainly there for the athleticism or to see a show.
WWE is putting out mediocre programming, but people will still come because it is not deplorable. People love to go to big events that have been hyped to be important and like the feeling of being surrounded by like minded people. With professional wrestling, there is nothing more hyped than the WWE. Its the same as having a talented musician play in a subway and get quarters and having that same musician have an affluent marketing team behind him to help him make millions for the same content.
It does suck that we can not get our way and get the best possible program, but when that does not have to happen, you can not blame a huge corporation for playing it safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2013 17:32:53 GMT -5
He's nowhere on the card these days. The fans didn't just suddenly stop caring about Ryder, the WWE booked him in such a way that it didn't make sense to cheer for him anymore because he was constantly getting destroyed. Nobody really pretended like Ryder was 'great' but he could be a good midcard babyface. They took someone who was over with the fans and destroyed him over and over and over and over again of course eventually the fans are gonna stop caring. WWE made them stop caring about him. if I like a guy I'm cheering him until he does something I dislike. And losing is not something that I dislike. I don't boo losers for being losers. Others should try it. It's hard for most fans to care about a wrestler for long when they see them wrestle for 2 minutes once every three weeks. It'd have to be some remarkably amazing talent to hold any sort of interest. Especially when those matches do nothing but reinforce "This guy has no chance, he's here to make the other guy look good. Nothing of interest will happen here and he'll lose the same way he always does, quickly and decisively. In fact you can WOO WOO WOO with him all you want, he's not even going to hit his spots". People don't need their guy to win every match for them to enjoy watching, but if the guy not only consistently loses but also does nothing that made them like him in the first place for an extended period, is there any reason to keep liking him?
|
|
|
Post by tekkenguy on Nov 28, 2013 18:10:09 GMT -5
This is my interpretation of WWE's booking style when it comes to indy favourites. 1- Hire standout on the independent scene. 2- Give him a terrible name that sounds so generic and lifeless that he already starts his WWE career with an obstacle in front of him 3- If they don't do #2, grudgingly use the name or a similar one to the one he built the fame and persona upon that attracted WWE to sign him in the first instance. Antonio Cesaro is a generic name? Sami Zayn is a generic name? I've never heard the name Zayn in my life. Daniel Bryan is little more than flipping his real name around. Kassius Ohno wasn't a generic name. Scotty Goldman is the only indy with a genric name I can think of. If anything WWE's "random name generator" is to random, coming up with combos no one would use. You've never heard the name Zayn in your life? A horde of One Direction fans would like to have a word with you.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Nov 28, 2013 18:16:49 GMT -5
Bryan's "NO"gimmick is proof of that. Instead of running with something the fans were enjoying, they yanked it away because it wasn't what they (WWE) wanted. I completely disagree. I felt that whole gimmick was to make the fans chant "yes" even more, and it was the heel tactic of "don't chant this, it makes me angry" and then you get the opposite from the fans. Zack Ryder is a really good example, like, he got himself over, and he's still slightly over with little chants when he wrestles, but they really suffocated him pretty badly. I can't think of any reason though besides being punished for getting himself over. It's not his ability, at worst he's not as good as many of the other talents in WWE, but he's definitely competent. Oh, I remember the Prime Time Players were on commentary one time, and Titus O'Neil really went nuts and pushed this whole washcloth deal, and it was really entertaining, and then afterwards, him and Darren were in jobber heaven until Darren came out as gay, and they got some wins back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2013 18:23:49 GMT -5
Vince and the WWE does not resent crowds...they resent anyone that goes against what they put out there.
I have no doubt If WCW was not royally kicking WWEs ass at the time that Vince would have never given Stone Cold the oppurunity to be anything more than a midcard hand , but Vince was in a no win situation...so his hand was forced and well history speaks for its self.
Now a days we are witnessing what probably would have happened if WWE back then was not threatened by competiton even though their product is on a decline.
So IMO to repeat I don't think the WWE resents crowds specifically they resent anyone with a different view on how they do things.
|
|
|
Post by tekkenguy on Nov 28, 2013 18:24:16 GMT -5
How about Paige? It's quite obvious that the smarks want Paige on their TV more than any other Diva in WWE, aside from AJ of course.
Speaking of AJ, the fans don't want to boo her. Why don't they just turn her face, especially after her fainting a few weeks ago.
|
|