|
Post by BatPunk on Aug 6, 2020 22:06:11 GMT -5
I think they do. However, I think they want the talent to do the majority of the work. Not the entirety of the work (eg Zack Ryder), but enough that they can say they had a part in creating a character.
|
|
|
Post by häšhtå.gdālėÿ on Aug 6, 2020 23:40:05 GMT -5
I think so. On their own terms. And they’re not very good at it. But it doesn’t mean they aren’t trying.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Aug 6, 2020 23:53:19 GMT -5
I mean, Smackdown does quite well for itself on Fridays, but there's only 5 networks on American television. It's literally impossible for them to be anything but top 5 relative to their timeslot. And if CW shows were outdrawing them, we'd be having much more dire discussions about WWE's future.
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Aug 7, 2020 0:05:58 GMT -5
they want stars just as long as it's X,Y or Z. A, B and C? sorry pal you're not in the plans- here go job to X our "real" star as punishment for people liking you then come out next week and say what an honor it was to lose to X and that they are the better person.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Aug 7, 2020 8:23:36 GMT -5
I think I'm in the camp of those who think WWE just doesn't know how to make stars anymore. That's not to say there aren't people within the company who can do it, or that none of the wrestlers know how to make it happen, but as an institution it's lost the entire plot when it comes to getting someone well and truly over, and I feel like one of the root causes can be summed up with the meme that's been going around since Moxley gave his big interview after leaving: "It's such good shit."
We bang on a lot here about WWE being too obsessed with "moments" instead of telling stories or developing characters and feuds that fans can watch unfold and feel a cathartic payoff for, but I feel like it goes even deeper than that. Big moments might be flimsier than complete stories, but at least they can still be built to and have some marketing purpose behind them; instead, Vince and WWE are so by-the-seat-of-their-pants with their booking that they only think about eliciting an in the moment crowd response from week to week, rather than thinking anything about the bigger picture.
Have Roman beat up Triple H one week to a massive, positive crowd reaction? "Such good shit!" Follow up? Triple H wins the Royal Rumble and the title in a match that used "Super Roman" booking that the fans had already rejected. Have Dean be heartbroken over Roman's illness and finally lash out at Seth, who despite being hurt still understands why Dean's doing what he feels he must? "Such good shit!" Follow up? Dean is a germaphobe getting shots in his ass and cutting "YOU PEOPLE" promos. Corbin does something that pisses the crowd off and gets heat? "Such good shit!" Follow up? Corbin just draws more heat, eventually directing it towards...pretty much nothing. "Just go get more heat, it's good shit."
It's nice to go out in a given week and get a crowd reaction, but nobody's asking the question "what is this leading to?" Why are you booking certain heat spots, or booking a big spot, or booking a storyline twist if it's not to build to a major card or blowoff match or something that can draw money, but instead it turns into "this happened in a vacuum; it was pretty cool, though, right?" Who's going to care or keep paying money at that point?
Ultimately, that's what's going to kill the ability to make stars. Think about Cena constantly overcoming the odds because, well, "good shit, pal", even though it utterly contradicted his actual standing as the top champion in the company. There was no story being told, no character development, or anything for fans to really get invested in besides a meta "will WWE actually book this guy to lose clean for once?" feeling, which is just a completely ass-backwards way to do things. A reaction in the moment means next to nothing when you constantly reinforce to your audience that the moment or the big reaction goes nowhere, and fans will internalize that as realizing they shouldn't care about the people they're watching, as they're just interchangeable parts who get slotted into "moments" that could literally go to anybody.
|
|
|
Post by MrElijah on Aug 7, 2020 9:35:28 GMT -5
Of course. What IS incompetent booking is showcasing a wrestler, having them win most of the time, and expecting that to inherently transform them into a top star without regards to their performing abilities or the reactions of your audience. I mean, FFS, they got Roman cheered beating Sheamus in Philly, when he got to actually look like a badass. A month later, Roman's doing crappy stand-up comedy promos because Cena could pull them off and the mental midgets writing this material aren't capable of comprehending that taking the exact same scripts they'd been handing the last guy won't magically transform Roman into a merch-moving machine on par with his predecessor. And the fans are back to hating his guts. Oh if we’re talking about square pegs in round holes, that’s a problem Cena had for a long time in my eyes. John Cena the person seems noble, well intentioned and good with a hint of troll and spin sometimes. His character, though? Some weeks he was The Rock, some weeks he was Stone Cold, some weeks he was Hogan, some weeks he was an asshole for no reason, some weeks he didn’t care about what happened to him, one week he cared TOO MUCH about what happened to someone else (Alberto’s cash in on someone not him) and it just came off like he was an avatar for what the writing team needed and not his own character. Ironically, nearer the end of his career with the US title open challenge, the feud with Bray and other stuff that allowed him to be WWE’s Tanahashi was when they got an idea of what Cena was and in some cases could have been with some tweaking. Honestly, in kayfabe, Cena should hate the Money in The Bank. He was the victim of the 1st Cash In, took on RVD but got f***ed over by Edge(who committed said 1st cash in) in a VERY hostile environment, actually won the damn thing buuuut his match ends in a clusterf*** so he became the 1st MiTB holder to NOT succeed their cash in.
|
|