|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 19, 2013 18:42:26 GMT -5
It's because going all the way with big stories would result in change, which would require WWE to actually innovate. WWE prefers to maintain a holding pattern, which means things always resort to the status quo, usually with an establishment guy going over, or assuming the focus of the angle. change is not automatically innovation. Everyone watching these angles hopes they'll result in the next big thing/ next major star popping up. But considering WWE is constantly airing if every major angle resulted in the new next big thing then that means every previous big thing is a choke artist who fails when it's his turn to stand up to pressure and a lot of previous NBTs are put out to pasture with a ton of shelf life on them, Because that's how WWE operates now. With the exception of Xavier Woods and to some extent Curtis Axel, WWE tends to push every new talent with the idea that they become the next big thing/next major star. They've forgotten how to make a good wrestling show from top to bottom, or how to make a strong roster overall, so they've reasoned that the only way a wrestler can get over and be taken seriously is if they're a "star". And what ends up happening is either a wrestler goes on a huge hot streak only to end up hitting a brick wall creatively once the reality that "It's too soon" sets in (Ryback, Cody Rhodes, Damien Sandow, to some extent The Shield), or a solid midcard act ends up getting pushed beyond their abilities only to suffer for it because WWE arbitrarily decided "This guy will be the next Stone Cold Steve Austin or nothing" (Alex Riley, Zack Ryder). And every so often, we have a bunch of threads asking What Happened To This Guy? or Remember When <This Guy> Used to Be a "Thing"?: Alex Riley Drew McIntyre Wade Bad News Barrett The Miz Zack Ryder Dolph Ziggler Ryback Jack Swagger Fandango Damien Sandow Brodus Clay Cody Rhodes
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 19, 2013 18:53:04 GMT -5
When the majority of a message board will hate any angle regardless of how it plays out unledss it conforms to their individual, precise, expectation of how things have to happen, then yes, is they're fault for being miserable and whiny about EVERYTHING. There's people who look at movies and tv the same way, but the attitude is somehow even more prevalent. I honestly believe it is litterally impossible to please that segment of the fanbase. No major wrestling company has done it since maybe 1998 or so, when the internet was a very different place. At the same time, there is right and wrong ways to morally end an angle based on the story being told. People for example could try and justify HHH winning at WrestleMania 19 over Booker T from a story perspective, but it is absolutely impossible based on how the story was told and the moral implications involved. Sometimes, when it comes to stories, things ARE black and white. People can like or dislike what they want, but natural conclusion is obvious in morality tales. Good wins when its belief system is up against the wall and challenged. Evil can win battles, but never be proven correct. as I recall in the Summer of Punk, the complaints were being lodged by a man who was already a multiple time champ, had never lost the belt due to management actions, was not cut off from speaking his mind and had the chairman of WWE bending over backwards to get him to sign a contract extension. the black and white side on this angle came down with the white on WWE's side. A company just trying to put on their product, vs a guy who was trying his hardest to f*** that up because they didn't cater to him.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 19, 2013 19:18:46 GMT -5
I happen to think Punk being proven right would have been far more soul crushing I mean I hate to point this out but of the guys evil boss Mr. mcMahon feuded with who's still around? Austin is forcibly medically retired. So is Foley. Rock walked away. Mr. McMahon is bascially still the boss. A corrupt corporate boss storyline, where you need the corporation to stick around, does not allow for a long term happy ending. You don't need the corporation to stick around. All this evil GM stuff has been done to death over the past fifteen years. An END would be great. Get the Mcmahons sans HHH off tv permanently, or move Vince to the Jack Tunney role, or hell let HHH have the Tunney role of authority figure that shows up to announce major things. Every permutation of the evil boss character has been told, and you don't NEED it. They did gangbusters with it, no question about it, but did fine decades prior as well.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 19, 2013 19:23:09 GMT -5
I think they should concentrate on presenting the next natural arc in the stories they tell, instead of blowing their loads too early or altering organic progression to suit their flawed and broken booking. Star Wars Ep 4 built up toward the big destruction of the death star, with a matured and focused Luke Skywalker putting aside his grief of Obi-Wan's death to take his advice and use the force to accomplish what could not be accomplished by regular means. It built over two hours to lead to that end. WWE's problem is that they'd have had Obi-Wan find Luke, they'd blow up the death star the next week, and somewhere in the middle Han Solo would now be the chosen one fist fighting Vader while Luke was off doing nothing of significance. WWE doesn't let stories build, flow and end properly. They don't follow the fundamental rules of storytelling that any university student taking writing learns in the first lesson. All the recent botched angles had proper endings based on the exposition and players. (like HHH needed to be the heel in the Punk angle. That was the natural and organic direction). But WWE, as Hit Girl said, is too obsessed with status-quo or presenting corporate corruption in the winning light. To write a story properly, you have to know conclusively what your ending is ahead of time. And you build backwards from there. You don't start with an idea, then make it up as you go along. That's how a 5 year old writes. Han Solo fist fighting Darth Vader sounds pretty cool. It does, but that wasn't his role in the story. His arc was being the rogue that realizes he can/does believe in something other than being out for himself. I know ya know that, just backing up the 'storytelling' discussion. Hell, Han was my favorite character. Though they had him get all goofy in Jedi.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 19, 2013 19:23:59 GMT -5
At the same time, there is right and wrong ways to morally end an angle based on the story being told. People for example could try and justify HHH winning at WrestleMania 19 over Booker T from a story perspective, but it is absolutely impossible based on how the story was told and the moral implications involved. Sometimes, when it comes to stories, things ARE black and white. People can like or dislike what they want, but natural conclusion is obvious in morality tales. Good wins when its belief system is up against the wall and challenged. Evil can win battles, but never be proven correct. as I recall in the Summer of Punk, the complaints were being lodged by a man who was already a multiple time champ, had never lost the belt due to management actions, was not cut off from speaking his mind and had the chairman of WWE bending over backwards to get him to sign a contract extension. the black and white side on this angle came down with the white on WWE's side. A company just trying to put on their product, vs a guy who was trying his hardest to f*** that up because they didn't cater to him. They blurred the lines by revealing the company was ran by corporate preference, and that Vince had his favorites and unfairly fired people who were talented or passionate because they did not fit his personal molds. Punk claimed (within the context of story) that he had to work harder than others to make a name for himself against all odds, and succeeded in spite of WWE's preference of others based on look or politics. And that was all grounded in quasi-reality. The McMahons do and have ran their company like a corrupt carny sideshow, rife with bullshit politics and meddling interference, bullyishness and intolerance for things they did not understand or personally want. People bought into Punk as the babyface (so much that Cena endorsed Punk's right to speak his mind and get his deserved shot) and not at all for the corrupt corporate machine. They were the villains from the time that Punk dropped the pipebomb. Vince was a phony and Punk, not a traditional white knight and a dick, rubbed his nose in it. He knew that Vince was backed up against the wall and had to play ball, so he returned the favor and tortured him. The Vince character deserved it. After all the year's of f***ing over superstars, the Vince character deserved to be f***ed over in the end and have a wrestler say to him : "You know what? f*** you. I'm leaving anyway. You had your chance. You played your politics and even tried to cheat me, and I still won." And the fans saw Punk the babyface, regardless. Only a select few weirdos likely thought he was the true villain. If he was intended to be after the pipebomb, they wouldn't have painted Cena as the voice of reason. Punk was the face. Cena was too. Vince was the villain. And if WWE followed the story up correctly, it could have been Punk and Cena vs a corrupt McMahon family and associates, trying to crush them; with Punk being rebel; and Cena being a man of honor, and the McMahons finally being destroyed and retired forever as TV characters. That should have been where that cliched role came to an end.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 19, 2013 19:37:09 GMT -5
I happen to think Punk being proven right would have been far more soul crushing I mean I hate to point this out but of the guys evil boss Mr. mcMahon feuded with who's still around? Austin is forcibly medically retired. So is Foley. Rock walked away. Mr. McMahon is bascially still the boss. A corrupt corporate boss storyline, where you need the corporation to stick around, does not allow for a long term happy ending. You don't need the corporation to stick around. All this evil GM stuff has been done to death over the past fifteen years. An END would be great. Get the Mcmahons sans HHH off tv permanently, or move Vince to the Jack Tunney role, or hell let HHH have the Tunney role of authority figure that shows up to announce major things. Every permutation of the evil boss character has been told, and you don't NEED it. They did gangbusters with it, no question about it, but did fine decades prior as well. the corporation is WWE. It goes away, the matches go away
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 19, 2013 19:41:14 GMT -5
You don't need the corporation to stick around. All this evil GM stuff has been done to death over the past fifteen years. An END would be great. Get the Mcmahons sans HHH off tv permanently, or move Vince to the Jack Tunney role, or hell let HHH have the Tunney role of authority figure that shows up to announce major things. Every permutation of the evil boss character has been told, and you don't NEED it. They did gangbusters with it, no question about it, but did fine decades prior as well. the corporation is WWE. It goes away, the matches go away No, WWE can go on without the McMahons if you write a reasonable explanation as to why. You could have Vince put his stock up. You could have him and the family exiled via stipulation. You could have them change. They are not forever tethered to its hierarchy in the realm of storytelling. This is a company who once had Ric Flair own half of it, after all. Anything is possible with enough creative liberty.
|
|
Emmet Russell
King Koopa
Quieter
The best wrestler on earth.
Posts: 12,526
|
Post by Emmet Russell on Dec 19, 2013 19:52:35 GMT -5
A lot of the time, HHH is involved in the screwing up of an angle. It seems like he sees a angle going well & decides to insert himself in there for no good reason other than "he's the game!".
Summer of Punk for example - there's no way that angle should have ended with a HHH/Nash match; There's no reason that HHH should of defeated Punk at Night of Champions; HHH sucked the heat right out of that angle & it never got the pay off it deserved. The authority angle is similar in a way. HHH started off really well in the angle I thought, it was great to see him as a heel again & it could of been done really well & led to the right pay off to the angle with Bryan becoming WWE Champion (could still happen at Wrestlemania, but i'm doubtful.) Instead HHH basically said Orton was holding the title for him & it turned to a feud between Show & HHH/Stephanie instead of where it should have rightfully gone with Bryan. All that led to what is looking to be - rightfully so - one of the lowest purchased Survivor Series in YEARS!, more people would have cared if Bryan was getting the final chance at the title & that was where he won it back, finally getting a proper victory over Orton & HHH.
I can't blame the writers too much though, I do feel they have one of the most difficult jobs on TV - having to write that much content each & every week of the year & making it all consistent would be quite a challenge for anyone, but then having to deal with a maniac like Vince McMahon wouldn't help too much either.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 19, 2013 22:44:59 GMT -5
When the majority of a message board will hate any angle regardless of how it plays out unledss it conforms to their individual, precise, expectation of how things have to happen, then yes, is they're fault for being miserable and whiny about EVERYTHING. There's people who look at movies and tv the same way, but the attitude is somehow even more prevalent. I honestly believe it is litterally impossible to please that segment of the fanbase. No major wrestling company has done it since maybe 1998 or so, when the internet was a very different place. You're generalizing about a very specific, small portion of wrestling fans attitudes. You're lumping in everyone that has a complaint into a group that complains about everything. From what I've seen it's not people wanting an exact thing to happen so much as it is them envisioning countless other ways a story or push could've been better. I think our impressions are different, from my perspective the portion of the fanbase I'm talking about (which unfortunately constitutes a majority of this message board, and that wasn't always the case), has very specific ideas about the "proper" way an angle should go, or how to book a guy "properly". They don't want to watch the product and see what happens, they want to see the product and result that they've already created expectations for in their mind. How many storylines in the last 5 or 10 years has the majority of this board liked all the way through? I think its fair to question whether it's even possible to hit on something that that portion of the fanbase will approve of. I think if they put the title on Daniel Bryan and fed him new heel challengers in PPV main events every month, there would still be bitching at the execution to explain away the fact that it didn't lead to the greatest boom period ever.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Dec 19, 2013 23:01:14 GMT -5
Because the creative team aren't satisfied with keeping things simple, straight forward and obvious. They always need to throw in needless twists (Nash sexting himself rather than ADR which was the obvious choice and should have been what they went with) or overcomplicate things by hinting at an ulterior motive (The bigger picture). Keep things simple. This isn't The Usual Suspects... it's WWE. There's no need to over complicate everything. ...I thought the obvious route was HHH or Vince texting him? I guessed ADR because it was Del Rio who benefited the most from Nash coming out to attack Punk wasn't it? Didn't he cash he immediately after? Either way, Trips, Vince, ADR... all would have been good choices. Not Nash texting himself for whatever reason WWE gave.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 19, 2013 23:03:57 GMT -5
You're generalizing about a very specific, small portion of wrestling fans attitudes. You're lumping in everyone that has a complaint into a group that complains about everything. From what I've seen it's not people wanting an exact thing to happen so much as it is them envisioning countless other ways a story or push could've been better. I think our impressions are different, from my perspective the portion of the fanbase I'm talking about (which unfortunately constitutes a majority of this message board, and that wasn't always the case), has very specific ideas about the "proper" way an angle should go, or how to book a guy "properly". They don't want to watch the product and see what happens, they want to see the product and result that they've already created expectations for in their mind. How many storylines in the last 5 or 10 years has the majority of this board liked all the way through? I think its fair to question whether it's even possible to hit on something that that portion of the fanbase will approve of. I think if they put the title on Daniel Bryan and fed him new heel challengers in PPV main events every month, there would still be bitching at the execution to explain away the fact that it didn't lead to the greatest boom period ever. Still, there needs to be a separation of opinion expectation from logical conclusion when it comes to storyline endings. I may not have liked how certain stories ended in WWF's past, but they at least built logically and concluded properly within the context of the story they were telling. For example, Randy Savage cost Ultimate Warrior the WWF Title at Rumble '91. And as a result, Warrior challenged him to a match wherein both their careers were on the line. I was a fan of both, but a bigger Macho fan, and was sad to see him lose. But within the context of the story being told (retribution; and reunion for Randy & Liz after Sherri showed her true colors) it made perfect sense. That's the separation I'm talking about. And that's the logical conclusion I mean. Warrior was cheated, and defeated Randy Savage, clean, man to man, and sent him packing as a result. Macho bet the farm and lost to a man he wronged. It was justice. It was the right conclusion. It was the only one. And those same conclusions are not always being met in WWE today. The natural and logical conclusions aren't happening when they should. You know exactly how a morality tale should unfold and end with every single story. The betrayal, the chase, the fall, the rise, the defeat of the evil threat. It's not rocket science. And it's not opinion based. Only whether you enjoyed or not is.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Dec 19, 2013 23:36:07 GMT -5
How many storylines in the last 5 or 10 years has the majority of this board liked all the way through? I think its fair to question whether it's even possible to hit on something that that portion of the fanbase will approve of. I think if they put the title on Daniel Bryan and fed him new heel challengers in PPV main events every month, there would still be bitching at the execution to explain away the fact that it didn't lead to the greatest boom period ever. Not too many and with good reason. Most of them have sucked. There have been a few good ones everyone liked: HBK retiring Flair, the HBK Taker retirement feud, the first Cena/Edge feud, Jeff Hardy/CM Punk feud, and probably a few more I'm forgetting. They were good stories not because of ultra specific reasons. They were simply stories with beginnings, middles and ends. They were heated or emotional feuds that built to a climax or hell, even an ending, something every story, even in wrestling, should do.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Dec 19, 2013 23:47:55 GMT -5
It's because the booking team is made up of failed Hollywood writers. If they could write a good story, they'd still be in Hollywood. basically this. any writer whose actually decent would be out of their mind to put up with the WWE's borderline abusive scheduling when they can be better payed with better working conditions elsewhere. so WWE has to make do with the scraps they do get. ...you could say precisely the same thing about the wrestlers. You'd have to be nuts to be a wrestler, but people do it. They don't even have a union. I'm not sure you're on solid ground saying they're the scraps of the entertainment industry. The writers aren't the problem, and they never were. That soap opera guy was killing it before he left, and part of the reason was they actually let him plan things out. The problem is that the WWE is stuck in half-kayfabe, where the winners of the specific matches are pre-set, but the "winners" of whoever gets to be A Superstar is based on some kind of real competition. It's as fake as Total Divas, of course, but they DESPERATELY hold on to that fantasy. And with that structure, it's impossible to write a long-term story that pays off, because you never know who's going to Get Over. Point is, if you're complaining about the big plotlines never paying off and then turning around and being like BRYAN/PUNK/WHOEVER GOT OVER AND THEY DIDN'T PUSH HIM TO THE TOP, then YOU are the reason the WWE always screws up good angles, and you don't even know it.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 20, 2013 4:16:53 GMT -5
Punk proven right? That HHH was holding people down? But he was right since that's the storyline they've been running with this year. But it would've made more sense in 2011.A face Punk vs Heel HHH simply made the most sense. I know you're always pro-"whatever WWE is right" but do you really think HHH vs Nash was the best way to book that storyline? Your second point is ridiculous. The Mcmahon character was one upped and humiliated time and time again by Austin, Rock, Taker, HHH, HBK, Hogan. Plus, those guys are retired because they got old/injured/went on to other things. Who says the corporation needs to stick around? What are you even arguing? doing something now, does not mean you were doing something then. A Punk vs nash match would have been better, or them not putting Trips job on the line in their match so Punk could logically beat him. That's right, all those guys are retired because of whatever. And who knows how much the stuff Vince threw in their way shortened their careers. But one upped or humiliated he's still the boss and if they want to come back for an appearance, he's still the guy they've got to ask. Why does the corporation need to stick around? How are WCW's face war against Eric Bischoff's corrupt nWo regime going? Oh, right, WCW doesn't exist anymore. For matches against the WWE's storyline corporate structure to happen, WWE's real corporate structure has to exist. Therefore it can never go away which means the faces can never completely win. None of this makes any sense, logically or linguistically. A perfectly neutral and reasonable corporate structure can exist in kayfabe. Jack Tunney seemed to manage fine. I didn't see him slap anyone, or demand they do something sadistic or humiliating in order to keep their job, or randomly decide that he didn't like a certain guy because he didn't look like a star, or any number of nonsensically corrupt things that authority figures have been doing in wrestling for 15 years. The evil corporation angle has been played out. It does not need to stick around. In the pre-Attitude Era days, heels and faces came into conflict perfectly easily without any Chairmans, Commissioners, General Managers, Chief Operating Officers and Junior Executives of Something Shit And Unrelatable To The Audience etc...
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 20, 2013 4:48:21 GMT -5
You don't need the corporation to stick around. All this evil GM stuff has been done to death over the past fifteen years. An END would be great. Get the Mcmahons sans HHH off tv permanently, or move Vince to the Jack Tunney role, or hell let HHH have the Tunney role of authority figure that shows up to announce major things. Every permutation of the evil boss character has been told, and you don't NEED it. They did gangbusters with it, no question about it, but did fine decades prior as well. the corporation is WWE. It goes away, the matches go away For like fifty years they didn't have them in storylines. I'm not talking the actual, real, backstage stuff, I mean kayfabe; you don't need evil corporation anymore, it'd be easy as hell to transition to some amalgam of now and how it was in the Eighties..just have any decisions made by "The Board" and maybe HHH as an occasional figurehead. But no, you don't need played out Corporate characters or Authority figures to make matches.
|
|