Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 20, 2014 16:22:18 GMT -5
RE: "Creative has nothing for you" That is an outright lie and numerous wrestlers and creative have talked about it. The issue is simply the balding, want to be alpha male owner not wanting anyone but his chosen few getting significant TV time. He has no patience, no memory and a severe case of adhd on top of a warped view of what society is into preventing guys and gals from gaining any traction. This is the same guy that when challenged about still being touch with people, said he was because he could still out work people in the f***ing gym. So blaming creative is wrong. Blame Vincent Kennedy McMahon and realize nothing is changing until he's dead or incapacitated. But this still implies that ever letting anyone go is somehow wrong. Why is "we've got nothing for you" not a perfectly legitimate reason for a TV production to dispose of a television character? It must happen on most TV shows with a cast size anywhere near comparable in size. It's what happens, you have a core of 'cast members' who are there long-term and their turnover is lower, then you have guys who come in for specific story-lines and then when that's finished - they go. It seems odd that people see that as WWE failing as opposed to being like every single show on TV and only having space to tell a finite number of stories. No show keeps everyone around for ever and no other show has fans who see not doing that as some kind of disgrace. Also the the whole "the problem won't change until Vince dies" argument always seems like a cop-out to me. It's such an easy thing to say like "blame creative". "when Vince dies and creative goes people will find me much more interesting as a performer" - really? So it's all on them, then? Vince has never been 'with it', he's someone who has spent his entire adult working life cocooned in a strange world of wrestling. That hasn't suddenly changed in the last few years. Of course he's partly to blame for any stagnation or decline but he'll also take credit for anything that works or succeeds. There are guys who are over and his TV show does get quite decent ratings in comparison to its competition. But you never hear any of the credit for that.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 20, 2014 16:26:03 GMT -5
It's not that they can't do their job properly. Sometimes, you just run out of ideas for a character/actor. Hence why actors leave tv shows, and characters get written off of tv shows. If you never got rid of a wrestler because "it's your job to keep coming up with stuff for them to do" we'd never cycle new wrestlers in and old wrestlers out. You can't equate pro wrestling with regular TV writing; outside of a show like SNL, the vast majority of fictional programming is written, acted, and shot well in advance of airtime, and for most shows you're not worried about which one of your characters drives the most ticket or merchandise sales. Totally different ballgame, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Your job when you act as a creative figure in pro wrestling is to do whatever you can to get people over so that they make you, themselves, and the company the most money possible. If you just throw your hands up and say "We've got nothing for you", you've failed, full stop. You either failed by not writing a solid story/character/feud, or you failed by hiring somebody who couldn't hack it in the first place (the writer or the wrestler, or both), etc. It's not an apples to oranges comparison at all. How would anyone new ever get on the roster if they weren't allowed to move people along to make room? The criticism is ridiculous when you think about it, isn't it? You can't keep everyone around until they either die or quit, that'd be ridiculous. Sometimes "we've nothing for you" is a perfectly legitimate reason for getting rid of people. It happened in the territories too. If a promoter couldn't use you - he didn't. He didn't think it some kind of failure if he didn't give a spot on the card to every wrestler who wanted to work it. It really isn't a serious complaint. This maybe is the problem with criticism of the company. They have to balance between "Where are the new faces? I'm tired of the same old tired people on TV every week" and "You've let someone go? What a disgrace, you've failed at doing your job"
|
|
|
Post by Digital Witness on Dec 20, 2014 16:26:18 GMT -5
Some of the liability does fall on the wrestlers, and some of it falls on Vince.
Creative however plays a huge hand in the downfall of many a sports entertainer.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 20, 2014 16:27:05 GMT -5
It's not that they can't do their job properly. Sometimes, you just run out of ideas for a character/actor. Hence why actors leave tv shows, and characters get written off of tv shows. If you never got rid of a wrestler because "it's your job to keep coming up with stuff for them to do" we'd never cycle new wrestlers in and old wrestlers out. You can't equate pro wrestling with regular TV writing; outside of a show like SNL, the vast majority of fictional programming is written, acted, and shot well in advance of airtime, and for most shows you're not worried about which one of your characters drives the most ticket or merchandise sales. Totally different ballgame, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. To expound on that a little too, generally there's one over-arcing story that plays out over the course of the season, if not the entire show. You're not reacting to the audience with regular fiction as your story plays out---for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Dec 20, 2014 16:37:16 GMT -5
The reason wrestlers didn't complain about "creative" in the 80s was because there wasn't creative. You didn't have a team of writers, you had a booker. And I've heard countless guys blame the booker for things not working out for them.
Jim Cornette said it best when he said "If creative has nothing for a wrestler then don't fire the wrestler, fire the f***ing creative team!". It's their job to come up with storylines and characters. Sure the wrestlers have to pull it off but if they're given dogshit to work with, dogshit is what you're going to get.
If you want to compare wrestling to any other television show, then let's look at it this way. If a showrunner for a TV show goes into his writers room and says "What have you got for this character?" and they say "We've got no stories for him" then guess who's in trouble. The writers, not the actor. If they can't come up with storylines and gimmicks than they shouldn't be writing for a wrestling show. Hell, they shouldn't be writing a TV show full stop.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 20, 2014 16:44:01 GMT -5
RE: "Creative has nothing for you" That is an outright lie and numerous wrestlers and creative have talked about it. The issue is simply the balding, want to be alpha male owner not wanting anyone but his chosen few getting significant TV time. He has no patience, no memory and a severe case of adhd on top of a warped view of what society is into preventing guys and gals from gaining any traction. This is the same guy that when challenged about still being touch with people, said he was because he could still out work people in the f***ing gym. So blaming creative is wrong. Blame Vincent Kennedy McMahon and realize nothing is changing until he's dead or incapacitated. But this still implies that ever letting anyone go is somehow wrong. Why is "we've got nothing for you" not a perfectly legitimate reason for a TV production to dispose of a television character? It must happen on most TV shows with a cast size anywhere near comparable in size. It's what happens, you have a core of 'cast members' who are there long-term and their turnover is lower, then you have guys who come in for specific story-lines and then when that's finished - they go. It seems odd that people see that as WWE failing as opposed to being like every single show on TV and only having space to tell a finite number of stories. No show keeps everyone around for ever and no other show has fans who see not doing that as some kind of disgrace. Also the the whole "the problem won't change until Vince dies" argument always seems like a cop-out to me. It's such an easy thing to say like "blame creative". "when Vince dies and creative goes people will find me much more interesting as a performer" - really? So it's all on them, then? Vince has never been 'with it', he's someone who has spent his entire adult working life cocooned in a strange world of wrestling. That hasn't suddenly changed in the last few years. Of course he's partly to blame for any stagnation or decline but he'll also take credit for anything that works or succeeds. There are guys who are over and his TV show does get quite decent ratings in comparison to its competition. But you never hear any of the credit for that. If you're going to quote me, at least bother to read what I wrote, you didn't come close to anything. Tossing people aside and saying that creative failed to have a spot for you is a lie and a bad one. People are getting fired because Vince does not want to to use anyone but his chosen few. Secondly, how many times does it need to be pointed out that WWE is not a TV production? That is not a good comparison at all. You cannot just put time, money and effort into the non main event programs and throw them away when done. That is stupid and leads to the problems we see today where they cannot even fill a 3 hour show or take advantage of Brock Lesnar in a new way that would actually draw money and interest. The fact is these people could be entertaining if they got a steady opportunity, something they are not getting and will not get with Vince in control. Maybe some would work, maybe some would not, they never got a fair shake because the boss has no idea what he is doing. Creative has plans for people that get dropped or shot down because it takes TV time away from whatever Vince is high on that week and whatever that was gets dropped the next week because Vince changed his mind again. Vince ran off everyone around him that had some idea of what they were doing It is a cop out when it is one or two times, not when it is the pattern of failure that has become the norm in WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Heinz Doofenschmirtz on Dec 20, 2014 16:47:29 GMT -5
Also, people are hilariously all over the fundamental attribution error with this stuff. I remember back when the Wyatts first debuted, people were falling all over themselves to credit Bray with coming up with a great character! (it was assigned to him) and writing such great promos! (he doesn't write most of them). . None of that is true. The idea for the character was Dusty's but Bray added all the little touches. And his promos are all him. He talks about it on Autin's podcast.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 20, 2014 16:49:45 GMT -5
Op has a point. CM Punk is someone who battled with the office to get to where he is and succeeded, he used to ignore his scripts and say what he wanted and never got in trouble for it because he always focused on selling whatever it was he needed to sell. Basically he knew what he was doing and showed initiative and got to a higher level, if he was still with the company I can assure you Vince would have included him as one who "reached for the brass ring" Punk did remarkably well in the WWE really and he did it by not taking shit, you can see where he stopped caring and just went along with what creative was giving him and he became all the worse for it. Austin is another prime example, he diddn't get over as the ring master it sucked, they came up with this Stone Cold character who was originally from what I can gather basically going to be a sort of dead eyed hitman, Austin took it a completely different direction, Vince saw the dollar signs and ran with it. Exactly. Of course the company takes the blame, even maybe the lion's share of it, but I think one of the reasons why so few guys are now breaking through is because they rely on this idea that it's down to someone else to get themselves over. The "not my fault" generation and that once Vince dies or the writer goes, or Raw goes back to two hours or they get the main event spot chance or they go to Japan or wherever - that they'll be the biggest thing ever. WWE has ALWAYS been a cesspit of backstabbing and politicking - worse than it is today, but you've got to cut through that and take the bull by the horns. The most successful characters come with input from the wrestler, a hard-headed determination exemplified by Punk and Austin as per your examples. Today there seems none of that, they just have a "yeh whatever" attitude. The guys that don't, the guys that take a keen interest in their characters are probably the ones who get TV time. Wyatt, Ambrose, Cena being three examples of guys who probably never got handed a script and were told "this is what your character is, this is what he says, this is what he does." Listen to any Ambrose promo and you know that guy's scripts aren't been written by the same people who write the others because the language is different and the delivery and style is different. Not saying that they don't give Ambrose a script but if they do he seems to ignore it or only take the bullet points and takes it where he wants to - just like Punk did. Everyone else seems to have an "i'll do exactly what they say so when it doesn't work it's their fault" attitude. It's why I think as much as the internet outraged the comment, as much as they outrage about anything Vince "still not Paul Heyman" McMahon does, I think there's a kernel of truth to what he says, there seems to be far more passivity than in the past. Great storylines were never creative entirely by creative, they were created as a collaborative effort. The guys would have the balls to say "That sucks, but why don't we keep this idea and try..." Now it's a one-way street. And I disagree with people who insinuate it was easier to do that back in the day when you had alternative avenues for employment. For some-extent yes but there was no guarantee anyone else would want to use you and I think getting fired and having a guaranteed income for at least the duration of your 'no compete' period gives more flexibility than "the cheques stop immediately" risks that guys back in 'the day' had to run for pissing off the office.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Dec 20, 2014 16:55:07 GMT -5
But this still implies that ever letting anyone go is somehow wrong. Why is "we've got nothing for you" not a perfectly legitimate reason for a TV production to dispose of a television character? It must happen on most TV shows with a cast size anywhere near comparable in size. It's what happens, you have a core of 'cast members' who are there long-term and their turnover is lower, then you have guys who come in for specific story-lines and then when that's finished - they go. It seems odd that people see that as WWE failing as opposed to being like every single show on TV and only having space to tell a finite number of stories. No show keeps everyone around for ever and no other show has fans who see not doing that as some kind of disgrace. Also the the whole "the problem won't change until Vince dies" argument always seems like a cop-out to me. It's such an easy thing to say like "blame creative". "when Vince dies and creative goes people will find me much more interesting as a performer" - really? So it's all on them, then? Vince has never been 'with it', he's someone who has spent his entire adult working life cocooned in a strange world of wrestling. That hasn't suddenly changed in the last few years. Of course he's partly to blame for any stagnation or decline but he'll also take credit for anything that works or succeeds. There are guys who are over and his TV show does get quite decent ratings in comparison to its competition. But you never hear any of the credit for that. If you're going to quote me, at least bother to read what I wrote, you didn't come close to anything. Tossing people aside and saying that creative failed to have a spot for you is a lie and a bad one. People are getting fired because Vince does not want to to use anyone but his chosen few. Secondly, how many times does it need to be pointed out that WWE is not a TV production? That is not a good comparison at all. You cannot just put time, money and effort into the non main event programs and throw them away when done. That is stupid and leads to the problems we see today where they cannot even fill a 3 hour show or take advantage of Brock Lesnar in a new way that would actually draw money and interest. The fact is these people could be entertaining if they got a steady opportunity, something they are not getting and will not get with Vince in control. Maybe some would work, maybe some would not, they never got a fair shake because the boss has no idea what he is doing. Creative has plans for people that get dropped or shot down because it takes TV time away from whatever Vince is high on that week and whatever that was gets dropped the next week because Vince changed his mind again. Vince ran off everyone around him that had some idea of what they were doing It is a cop out when it is one or two times, not when it is the pattern of failure that has become the norm in WWE. If you look back and arbitrarily start the year 2005 how big would the roster be today if you still had everyone who came in since then in a slot and also everyone who was there at the time. The fact WWE isn't a 'normal production' TV show, doesn't mean the argument that somehow everyone must always have something entertaining to do otherwise it's a 'failure' works. The logical extension of that argument would see roster swelling so large that there'd be barely enough time on weekly television for their names to be read out and for each guy to wave to the crowd. Ignore TV, promoters have always moved guys on when there's nothing else for them in the territory. I really don't understand what the opposite argument is. Yes often it is a failing of creative but it seems to be implied that it's a failing of creative that Raw isn't packed with 70 different characters each week. Also I quoted you as part of a long-line of people who had made similar points. The fact you disagreed with my intended disagreement with you, surely shows I wasn't that far away from what you were getting at?
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 20, 2014 17:09:51 GMT -5
"We've got nothing for you" would be a justifiable reason for releasing guys if the creative team had a good track record of booking strong material, which they don't.
A question that should be asked of creative is "Do you have anything for anyone?"
Doesn't seem like it.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 20, 2014 17:17:54 GMT -5
If you're going to quote me, at least bother to read what I wrote, you didn't come close to anything. Tossing people aside and saying that creative failed to have a spot for you is a lie and a bad one. People are getting fired because Vince does not want to to use anyone but his chosen few. Secondly, how many times does it need to be pointed out that WWE is not a TV production? That is not a good comparison at all. You cannot just put time, money and effort into the non main event programs and throw them away when done. That is stupid and leads to the problems we see today where they cannot even fill a 3 hour show or take advantage of Brock Lesnar in a new way that would actually draw money and interest. The fact is these people could be entertaining if they got a steady opportunity, something they are not getting and will not get with Vince in control. Maybe some would work, maybe some would not, they never got a fair shake because the boss has no idea what he is doing. Creative has plans for people that get dropped or shot down because it takes TV time away from whatever Vince is high on that week and whatever that was gets dropped the next week because Vince changed his mind again. Vince ran off everyone around him that had some idea of what they were doing It is a cop out when it is one or two times, not when it is the pattern of failure that has become the norm in WWE. If you look back and arbitrarily start the year 2005 how big would the roster be today if you still had everyone who came in since then in a slot and also everyone who was there at the time. The fact WWE isn't a 'normal production' TV show, doesn't mean the argument that somehow everyone must always have something entertaining to do otherwise it's a 'failure' works. The logical extension of that argument would see roster swelling so large that there'd be barely enough time on weekly television for their names to be read out and for each guy to wave to the crowd. Ignore TV, promoters have always moved guys on when there's nothing else for them in the territory. I really don't understand what the opposite argument is. Yes often it is a failing of creative but it seems to be implied that it's a failing of creative that Raw isn't packed with 70 different characters each week. Also I quoted you as part of a long-line of people who had made similar points. The fact you disagreed with my intended disagreement with you, surely shows I wasn't that far away from what you were getting at? Here is the last I'll say because you are completely ignoring what people are saying. You can fire them, there is nothing saying you cannot. However, to blame the talent for not getting over when they are not given a chance or actively sabotaged is bullshit. To claim that blaming creative is a cop out when the person in charge refuses to give people a chance is wrong. The excuse of "creative has nothing for you" is just them firing a guy Vince doesn't like without blaming Vince. Most of these people were never given a chance. Of course there is going to be turn over but to say certain people didn't have it when they were never given a shot to show anything is all on Vince McMahon and his stupidity. He is completely out of touch and has been for nearly a decade and it actively drags the product down.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 20, 2014 17:22:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't have a problem with WWE releasing people because "Creative Has nothing for you" if that was what they actually did. A lot of these talents would be better off if they were released in 2011-2012, rather than in 2014-2015. But instead they hoard wrestlers they see no value in just so other companies can't have them and waste 3-5 years of these performers' careers having them sit at home and unable to wrestle elsewhere. Then they release them because their contract runs out or they're forced to cut costs, leaving the performer with little name value and bargaining power to get indy bookings (in promotions people actually care about/know exist) and wasting so many of the wrestler's prime years that they may be at an age where they're too old to make anything of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Dec 20, 2014 17:34:23 GMT -5
Too Swiss.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 20, 2014 18:22:17 GMT -5
The comparisons to other TV shows are non applicable. Soap characters often last for decades. If the writers are out of ideas, they bring in new writers. If the writers of DALLAS couldn't think of an idea for JR, they didn't fire Larry Hagman. They'd find a writer who did have ideas.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Dec 20, 2014 18:28:34 GMT -5
Actually it's "Blame Vince and Dunn" than "Blame Creative" currently.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Dec 20, 2014 18:54:55 GMT -5
Op has a point. CM Punk is someone who battled with the office to get to where he is and succeeded, he used to ignore his scripts and say what he wanted and never got in trouble for it because he always focused on selling whatever it was he needed to sell. Basically he knew what he was doing and showed initiative and got to a higher level, if he was still with the company I can assure you Vince would have included him as one who "reached for the brass ring" Punk did remarkably well in the WWE really and he did it by not taking shit, you can see where he stopped caring and just went along with what creative was giving him and he became all the worse for it. Austin is another prime example, he diddn't get over as the ring master it sucked, they came up with this Stone Cold character who was originally from what I can gather basically going to be a sort of dead eyed hitman, Austin took it a completely different direction, Vince saw the dollar signs and ran with it. Exactly. Of course the company takes the blame, even maybe the lion's share of it, but I think one of the reasons why so few guys are now breaking through is because they rely on this idea that it's down to someone else to get themselves over. The "not my fault" generation and that once Vince dies or the writer goes, or Raw goes back to two hours or they get the main event spot chance or they go to Japan or wherever - that they'll be the biggest thing ever. WWE has ALWAYS been a cesspit of backstabbing and politicking - worse than it is today, but you've got to cut through that and take the bull by the horns. The most successful characters come with input from the wrestler, a hard-headed determination exemplified by Punk and Austin as per your examples. Today there seems none of that, they just have a "yeh whatever" attitude. The guys that don't, the guys that take a keen interest in their characters are probably the ones who get TV time. Wyatt, Ambrose, Cena being three examples of guys who probably never got handed a script and were told "this is what your character is, this is what he says, this is what he does." Listen to any Ambrose promo and you know that guy's scripts aren't been written by the same people who write the others because the language is different and the delivery and style is different. Not saying that they don't give Ambrose a script but if they do he seems to ignore it or only take the bullet points and takes it where he wants to - just like Punk did. Everyone else seems to have an "i'll do exactly what they say so when it doesn't work it's their fault" attitude. It's why I think as much as the internet outraged the comment, as much as they outrage about anything Vince "still not Paul Heyman" McMahon does, I think there's a kernel of truth to what he says, there seems to be far more passivity than in the past. Great storylines were never creative entirely by creative, they were created as a collaborative effort. The guys would have the balls to say "That sucks, but why don't we keep this idea and try..." Now it's a one-way street. And I disagree with people who insinuate it was easier to do that back in the day when you had alternative avenues for employment. For some-extent yes but there was no guarantee anyone else would want to use you and I think getting fired and having a guaranteed income for at least the duration of your 'no compete' period gives more flexibility than "the cheques stop immediately" risks that guys back in 'the day' had to run for pissing off the office. The problem with chalking it up to guys having a "yeah whatever" attitude is that Vince's mindset on that seems so hypocritical. Remember the Steve Austin podcast with Vince? He actually says "Don't piss people off" and then he says that the younger guys aren't willing to "grab the brass ring" when it comes to getting over with crowds. So you're supposed to put yourself out there and do things that make people remember you, but you're not to upset anyone in the back office that control how much TV time you get. It's so backwards that it's a wonder anyone gets over aside from John Cena.
|
|
schma
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,806
|
Post by schma on Dec 20, 2014 18:58:27 GMT -5
I think the idea that if people weren't fired because "creative has nothing for you" would suddenly lead to no one leaving the company ever is ignoring something huge. When was the last time a Soap Opera actor was asked to be body slammed, or to suicide dive or to be hit with ladders or chairs or steel steps or to be slammed through a table? Yes the wrestlers do what they can to minimize the impact but wrestling is physically intensive. People get hurt, some get career ending injuries, others just break down from general wear and tear. While there are wrestlers that maintain a great deal of longevity, few can keep themselves at the level required for more than 5-10 years. A natural turnover results as people decide to spare their bodies any further punishment and move on, perhaps to backstage jobs, perhaps to other careers.
The thing is, "creative has nothing for you" is a cop out. There are wrestlers released that few people will ever point to as wrongfully dismissed because they didn't have the skills to perform. However, people take issue with 'creative has nothing for you' when there are guys who are clearly talented, who clearly have interesting personalities, who clearly want to be there and put on a great show and they're told 'creative has nothing for you'. Meanwhile, they could have pitched any number of ideas. Not all will be perfect but many will.
You talk about grabbing a bull by the horns and ignoring scripts and doing your own thing. That's nice and it's worked for some but 15 years ago it wasn't "memorize this script and perform it" so people who could take bullet points and run with them would succeed more than someone who can act out a script. Now 85% of the guys would probably be in deep crap if they tried to take some bullet points and run with them instead of sticking to the script. Also, these days it is rare that someone outside of upper card gets a decent amount of promo time. Back in the day that wasn't so much the case. Even low-carders had a chance to further their stories.
As for collaborative efforts, which of the 26 guys do you approach? When there was one or two bookers, yeah there were politics and backstabbing but if there was an issue with your gimmick or story you knew who to approach. Here you can try to get a meeting with Vince and some do but do you have to go through 26 writers first? Will they screw you over if you step past them? What order do you approach them? Do they have their own hierarchy?
Saying 'creative has nothing for you' is kind of like firing an extra in a tv show because they didn't have enough presence in their scene where they have no lines and are told to stand in the background and be unobtrusive.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 20, 2014 19:10:11 GMT -5
]Exactly. Of course the company takes the blame, even maybe the lion's share of it, but I think one of the reasons why so few guys are now breaking through is because they rely on this idea that it's down to someone else to get themselves over. The "not my fault" generation and that once Vince dies or the writer goes, or Raw goes back to two hours or they get the main event spot chance or they go to Japan or wherever - that they'll be the biggest thing ever. WWE has ALWAYS been a cesspit of backstabbing and politicking - worse than it is today, but you've got to cut through that and take the bull by the horns. The most successful characters come with input from the wrestler, a hard-headed determination exemplified by Punk and Austin as per your examples. Today there seems none of that, they just have a "yeh whatever" attitude. The guys that don't, the guys that take a keen interest in their characters are probably the ones who get TV time. Wyatt, Ambrose, Cena being three examples of guys who probably never got handed a script and were told "this is what your character is, this is what he says, this is what he does." Listen to any Ambrose promo and you know that guy's scripts aren't been written by the same people who write the others because the language is different and the delivery and style is different. Not saying that they don't give Ambrose a script but if they do he seems to ignore it or only take the bullet points and takes it where he wants to - just like Punk did. Everyone else seems to have an "i'll do exactly what they say so when it doesn't work it's their fault" attitude. It's why I think as much as the internet outraged the comment, as much as they outrage about anything Vince "still not Paul Heyman" McMahon does, I think there's a kernel of truth to what he says, there seems to be far more passivity than in the past. Great storylines were never creative entirely by creative, they were created as a collaborative effort. The guys would have the balls to say "That sucks, but why don't we keep this idea and try..." Now it's a one-way street. And I disagree with people who insinuate it was easier to do that back in the day when you had alternative avenues for employment. For some-extent yes but there was no guarantee anyone else would want to use you and I think getting fired and having a guaranteed income for at least the duration of your 'no compete' period gives more flexibility than "the cheques stop immediately" risks that guys back in 'the day' had to run for pissing off the office. This discounts the fact that, a lot of people who "do" have plans for thsemselves, who "do" take a keen interest in their characters in an attempt to get TV time, usually tend to find the ideas they have taken from them and given to someone who the WWE wanted to push instead, remaining on the outside looking in. This is also part of creative- former writers have talked a lot about having a good storyline for someone lower on the totem pole, and the response by Stephanie or Vince "Great storyline. Rewrite it for John Cena." Even if people have that attitude to take the bull by the horns, it's slowly made clear that in WWE right now, there's gods and there's clods, and you have no chance to advance if you're not already there- even if you try for the brass ring or attempt to make something of yourself.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 20, 2014 19:19:45 GMT -5
You can't equate pro wrestling with regular TV writing; outside of a show like SNL, the vast majority of fictional programming is written, acted, and shot well in advance of airtime, and for most shows you're not worried about which one of your characters drives the most ticket or merchandise sales. Totally different ballgame, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Your job when you act as a creative figure in pro wrestling is to do whatever you can to get people over so that they make you, themselves, and the company the most money possible. If you just throw your hands up and say "We've got nothing for you", you've failed, full stop. You either failed by not writing a solid story/character/feud, or you failed by hiring somebody who couldn't hack it in the first place (the writer or the wrestler, or both), etc. It's not an apples to oranges comparison at all. How would anyone new ever get on the roster if they weren't allowed to move people along to make room? The criticism is ridiculous when you think about it, isn't it? You can't keep everyone around until they either die or quit, that'd be ridiculous. Sometimes "we've nothing for you" is a perfectly legitimate reason for getting rid of people. It happened in the territories too. If a promoter couldn't use you - he didn't. He didn't think it some kind of failure if he didn't give a spot on the card to every wrestler who wanted to work it. It really isn't a serious complaint. This maybe is the problem with criticism of the company. They have to balance between "Where are the new faces? I'm tired of the same old tired people on TV every week" and "You've let someone go? What a disgrace, you've failed at doing your job" Who ever said they're not allowed to let somebody go? Sometimes there are wrestlers who don't quite cut it at the big stage, and sometimes there are guys who've been around for a million years and the roster needs to be freshened up. I don't think anybody would deny that. But you've certainly failed at your job if the reason you've let a talent go is that you didn't give them anything to work with and then magically expected them to get over. It's the booker/writers' sole responsibility to ensure that all parts of the card are making money for the company; to not do that is a failure and a dereliction of duty. And you basically took my point about how you can't compare pro wrestling with regular scripted fictional TV shows and countered with "nuh-uh".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 19:20:24 GMT -5
Everybody deserves blame. The difference is that those higher in influence should get a bigger share.
It's up to the wrestler to hone his craft, work on his weaknesses, and do the best he can. But, the WWE wants everybody to be a Jack-of-all-trades. Very few performers can be technical, charismatic, and cut promos all at once. Some people are technical, but have the personality of a telephone pole, while a charismatic guy can stink it up in the ring. It doesn't help that, in the developmental department, today's performer can spend his entire pro wrestling career in the WWE. What I mean by that is that ig a guy wants to get better, but is either given bad advice or is afraid to do anything out of being punished. This doesn't apply to everybody, as you will have your lazy workers, no matter what.
Creative makes horrendous ideas, and sometimes ask people who are limited to do impossible actions, but all of them have to report to a superior. A writer can spend weeks on an angle, talk to the workers, do research, and present it to Vince... only to be shot down and told to come up with 10 more ideas.
Let's make it clear; guys that got over on their own tend to become job talent than box office draws. Creative tends to be responsible for the burial, but often as a demand on behalf of the guy in charge. Vince McMahon has proved for years that he'll make decisions not because they make sense or they help the company, but because he has power and wants to demonstrate it. He's also out of touch, because while he complains about people not going for the brass ring, many of them are afraid of trying out of those fears of being destroyed for commiting a cardinal sin. Saying millenials are lazy is being shortsighted, because many guys can do wonders for the company if they are presented in a way in which people would care. Guys who always lose are looked upon as goofballs, and goofballs never can draw.
I'm really pessimistic about WWE in 2015 because of the fact people that got nothing for them appear to be on cruise control, leaving the actual product to be carried by a combination of stale talent and overpushed newcomers.
That's how I feel.
|
|