|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Dec 13, 2013 9:51:12 GMT -5
Following on from ratetankmark's heel turn, the question is above. Which do you prefer? On any level, creatively or business wise.
No cheating and saying 'neither.' WWE is doing a mix of both right now (as well as actually pushing some genuinely over new guys who are actually worth a damn), which is better?
Personally, I prefer relying on the old guys, because they have on occasion been able to pop a buyrate and very few of the guys they've brought back have been ones I don't want to see. There is potential in terrible new guys that aren't over actually getting there, but I feel like that has been even less successful than bringing back guys like Brock or Rock every now and then as far as creative is concerned. Bringing back the old guys has definitely been more profitable, albeit often only for hot-shot buyrates like Wrestlemania.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 9:53:58 GMT -5
New guys. If I want to see the best of *insert old guy* Shawn Michaels I always can Youtube hours upon hours of him in his prime instead of watching a broken down shell of his former self on TV every week pretending he still got it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Dec 13, 2013 9:56:13 GMT -5
The old guys.
Not that it matters because the company will be dead soon if those are my only two options.
|
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Dec 13, 2013 10:00:52 GMT -5
Building new stars.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone.
Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 24,163
Member is Online
|
Post by Bo Rida on Dec 13, 2013 10:12:23 GMT -5
Er...? Old guys?
However I'm confused by this, I think the only guy that currently fits into the first category is Del Rio.
Edit: Oh, I suppose you mean Axel and Ryback? I'll still take the old guys over them in their current form.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Dec 13, 2013 10:32:05 GMT -5
new guys because there's a chance something will click at some point and they become a star down the road.
old guys just keep things spinning in place until they're too old and there's no one left to replace them because the time that could have been spent on building the new guys was taken up by working with the old guard.
|
|
Bad Moon
Unicron
for reasons known only to the goblins that live in my brain
Posts: 3,091 
|
Post by Bad Moon on Dec 13, 2013 10:32:20 GMT -5
You can have your old guys, but they can't carry the biggest part of the show and definately not the main event, because guess what, they're old! They're not gonna be there in 10 years, hell, with Cena it's questionable whether he'll be around in 5 years. If you have nobody to fill that spot when the time comes, you're gonna stand there with your pants down. WWE is in the position to be the ONLY truly international mainstream wrestling promotion in the world today, they have a loyal fanbase (even if that fanbase keeps bitching and moaning at everything they do) they have all the room they need to experiment, see what works for what talent and what doesn't, maybe it'll hurt them short term but in the long run it's the only way to save their business.
Yeah creatively it's gonna be a big clusterf*** if you introduce a hot new powerhouse babyface and the biggest reaction he gets is a sarcastic Goldberg chant, but on the plus side that's an organic reaction that the writers can work with if they're allowed to.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,650
Member is Online
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 13, 2013 10:49:18 GMT -5
ratetankmark turned heel?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 13, 2013 10:54:45 GMT -5
The presumption of the first poll question is a little flawed, because it's making the case that new guys that suck and/or aren't over always will be so. That's the whole point of building them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 11:49:00 GMT -5
Building new stars that suck ass and aren't over
They have time to improve. The old guys are only going to deteriorate further
|
|
|
|
Post by Bravo Echo November on Dec 13, 2013 12:08:02 GMT -5
New guys, because at least they have a chance of improving. Drew Mcintyre is proof of this.
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,639
|
Post by PKO on Dec 13, 2013 12:12:07 GMT -5
There's only one way to find out....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 12:17:16 GMT -5
There's only one way to find out.... A Spinaroonie contest where everyone ends up in their underwear? |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 13, 2013 13:08:16 GMT -5
New guys. They'll always suck ass if they're never given the proper chance gain experience to improve their craft and they'll never get over if they aren't given a real chance to get over.
Veteran talents may have their place, but they shouldn't be overshadowing the new guys or given that weird "above the entire roster" demigod status.
|
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Dec 13, 2013 15:08:56 GMT -5
I picked old guys but I want to change my answer to new guys who aren't over. I realized I liked a lot of new guys that weren't over.
|
|
