|
Post by Cyno on Dec 16, 2020 21:16:36 GMT -5
I think one feeds into the other. If WWE had a better on-screen product, it'd be a lot easier for people to make excuses for their shitty off-screen actions and justify keep watching. Likewise, I think it'd be easier to continue justify watching them, even through the product is such a creative slump, if Vince McMahon wasn't approaching cartoon supervillain levels of badness.
But hell, we have people who acknowledge the product is awful and that the company is evil and still watch because... reasons? Product is not awful, but Raw can be a bit stale/boring at times. Smackdown is fantastic. NXT is usually at least solid. Cool, then my statement doesn't apply to you. I'm talking about the people who consistently trash the product (except maybe NXT) and also deride them as morally bankrupt. Yet they continue to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Killah Ray on Dec 16, 2020 21:35:35 GMT -5
I have a big ass backlog of Raws on the dvr that I'll probably never watch....conversely, I go out of my way to watch both NXT and Dynamite (and even then less so NXT lately) on Wednesday nights....
The show just felt like a chore the last time I watched live which was maybe in the summer? Through no fault of their own, the thunderdome just straight sucks to me and irritates me more than anything....
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Dec 16, 2020 23:48:55 GMT -5
I have a big ass backlog of Raws on the dvr that I'll probably never watch....conversely, I go out of my way to watch both NXT and Dynamite (and even then less so NXT lately) on Wednesday nights.... The show just felt like a chore the last time I watched live which was maybe in the summer? Through no fault of their own, the thunderdome just straight sucks to me and irritates me more than anything.... For me, everything feels so repetitive. Like right now, one of the main storylines is Orton vs the Fiend. While the Alexis Bliss angle and they switched alignments, it's still a feud they had a year ago on Smackdown. I don't care about Orton in almost anything, but this is reheated leftovers to me. The shimmering tension between Macintyre vs Sheamus? Don't care about Drew and Sheamus has been midcard for so long I have trouble believing he would be champion except as a beltwarmer until Wrestlemania. I drift in and out on Raw so I have trouble remembering the rest. R-Truth has been doing the 24/7 champion thing for a while now so it's not funny anymore.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Dec 17, 2020 0:12:01 GMT -5
All of the music for the PPVs will be coming off of this album:
|
|
|
Post by theironyuppie on Dec 17, 2020 1:02:40 GMT -5
Blame Baron Corbin again and promise changes but don't do anything. That always works.
The ironic thing about that speech is that WWE did give fans what they wanted, with Seth/Kofi/Becky all winning at WM 35.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 17, 2020 17:46:30 GMT -5
Blame Baron Corbin again and promise changes but don't do anything. That always works. The ironic thing about that speech is that WWE did give fans what they wanted, with Seth/Kofi/Becky all winning at WM 35.
I always find outcomes like those fascinating; in most promotions, "fan favorite is an underdog, but makes a run to the top and wins on the promotion's grandest stage" is something to celebrate and be happy about. And yeah, obviously a lot of people were happy with the outcomes at WM 35, same as being happy for Bryan having such a huge night at WM 30. But with WWE there's a huge difference, and it's something I remember from my days watching late-era WCW and many stretches of time in TNA: it feels like a lot of fans aren't watching those outcomes with the thought "this potential outcome is going to make me happy and I want to watch it as the culmination of a story I've enjoyed following and want to see through to completion; I want to see the hero triumph/villain fail/rivalry climax/etc.", but rather "oh man, so-and-so needs to win at Mania, because otherwise this show is going to continue to suck." Like, Bryan had to win at Mania XXX, and Becky and Seth had to win at WM XXXV, because the alternatives were "Orton and Batista main event the biggest show of the year while the most popular wrestler does nothing of importance" or "WWE continues to book Rhonda and Charlotte as their chosen champions and continue to ignore the women who get more fan support", or "Brock will keep spending time away and the belt will never be on the show and it'll be more repetitive Suplex City promos", that kind of thing. It wasn't "Oh wow, I'm just happy my favorite won!", or "Oh man, I'm upset my favorite lost/the other wrestler won, I need to see where this story goes next", it was "if these matches have the wrong outcomes, it'll just drive home and reinforce my negative feelings about this show"... and WWE actively fed into that perception to hype the matches.That is absolutely insane booking. "Buy our pay per view and see if we intentionally sabotage our show and our fan support!" is NOT a reason to pay money for a show, I'm sorry. Worse, you can only get away with it once: you can tell your fans "Hey, we're sorry the show's been bad, let's put on a show with a lot of outcomes you'll like and use it to usher in an improved era you'll enjoy a lot more", but then you actually have to follow through on that and deliver. When you don't? When you give Bryan the belt at Mania and then immediately shuffle him into a midcard title feud with Kane? When you have Seth go over Lesnar but then book him like a weirdo and do the dumb Fiend cell match? When Becky does come out on top but there's no real improvement made to the booking of the overall women's division? People begin to notice, and after you do that more than once they'll start saying "No, @#$% you, you're not going to fool me again, even a good outcome at WM doesn't guarantee anything will change or improve on the show as a whole." Just...man, that's a rough way to book. Just try making your fans happy or satisfied, the returns and reception will always be better.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Dec 17, 2020 23:21:35 GMT -5
The ironic thing about that speech is that WWE did give fans what they wanted, with Seth/Kofi/Becky all winning at WM 35.
I always find outcomes like those fascinating; in most promotions, "fan favorite is an underdog, but makes a run to the top and wins on the promotion's grandest stage" is something to celebrate and be happy about. And yeah, obviously a lot of people were happy with the outcomes at WM 35, same as being happy for Bryan having such a huge night at WM 30. But with WWE there's a huge difference, and it's something I remember from my days watching late-era WCW and many stretches of time in TNA: it feels like a lot of fans aren't watching those outcomes with the thought "this potential outcome is going to make me happy and I want to watch it as the culmination of a story I've enjoyed following and want to see through to completion; I want to see the hero triumph/villain fail/rivalry climax/etc.", but rather "oh man, so-and-so needs to win at Mania, because otherwise this show is going to continue to suck." Like, Bryan had to win at Mania XXX, and Becky and Seth had to win at WM XXXV, because the alternatives were "Orton and Batista main event the biggest show of the year while the most popular wrestler does nothing of importance" or "WWE continues to book Rhonda and Charlotte as their chosen champions and continue to ignore the women who get more fan support", or "Brock will keep spending time away and the belt will never be on the show and it'll be more repetitive Suplex City promos", that kind of thing. It wasn't "Oh wow, I'm just happy my favorite won!", or "Oh man, I'm upset my favorite lost/the other wrestler won, I need to see where this story goes next", it was "if these matches have the wrong outcomes, it'll just drive home and reinforce my negative feelings about this show"... and WWE actively fed into that perception to hype the matches.That is absolutely insane booking. "Buy our pay per view and see if we intentionally sabotage our show and our fan support!" is NOT a reason to pay money for a show, I'm sorry. Worse, you can only get away with it once: you can tell your fans "Hey, we're sorry the show's been bad, let's put on a show with a lot of outcomes you'll like and use it to usher in an improved era you'll enjoy a lot more", but then you actually have to follow through on that and deliver. When you don't? When you give Bryan the belt at Mania and then immediately shuffle him into a midcard title feud with Kane? When you have Seth go over Lesnar but then book him like a weirdo and do the dumb Fiend cell match? When Becky does come out on top but there's no real improvement made to the booking of the overall women's division? People begin to notice, and after you do that more than once they'll start saying "No, @#$% you, you're not going to fool me again, even a good outcome at WM doesn't guarantee anything will change or improve on the show as a whole." Just...man, that's a rough way to book. Just try making your fans happy or satisfied, the returns and reception will always be better. Part of what killed WCW was that WCW the company became not cool. In this case, the company, WWE has been the biggest heel, and the opposite of cool, and the biggest moments in recent memory was people overcoming the company which had held them down one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Dec 18, 2020 0:20:57 GMT -5
WWE, the company as it is represented on TV, have been kayfabe heels for all intents and purposes, since November 1997. 23 years, nearly a quarter of a century. More importantly, WWE, the company in real life, have never been bigger heels than they are right now, and that element has never been more of a factor to the fanbase than it is now.
|
|
|
Post by theironyuppie on Dec 18, 2020 7:23:12 GMT -5
The ironic thing about that speech is that WWE did give fans what they wanted, with Seth/Kofi/Becky all winning at WM 35.
I always find outcomes like those fascinating; in most promotions, "fan favorite is an underdog, but makes a run to the top and wins on the promotion's grandest stage" is something to celebrate and be happy about. And yeah, obviously a lot of people were happy with the outcomes at WM 35, same as being happy for Bryan having such a huge night at WM 30. But with WWE there's a huge difference, and it's something I remember from my days watching late-era WCW and many stretches of time in TNA: it feels like a lot of fans aren't watching those outcomes with the thought "this potential outcome is going to make me happy and I want to watch it as the culmination of a story I've enjoyed following and want to see through to completion; I want to see the hero triumph/villain fail/rivalry climax/etc.", but rather "oh man, so-and-so needs to win at Mania, because otherwise this show is going to continue to suck." Like, Bryan had to win at Mania XXX, and Becky and Seth had to win at WM XXXV, because the alternatives were "Orton and Batista main event the biggest show of the year while the most popular wrestler does nothing of importance" or "WWE continues to book Rhonda and Charlotte as their chosen champions and continue to ignore the women who get more fan support", or "Brock will keep spending time away and the belt will never be on the show and it'll be more repetitive Suplex City promos", that kind of thing. It wasn't "Oh wow, I'm just happy my favorite won!", or "Oh man, I'm upset my favorite lost/the other wrestler won, I need to see where this story goes next", it was "if these matches have the wrong outcomes, it'll just drive home and reinforce my negative feelings about this show"... and WWE actively fed into that perception to hype the matches.That is absolutely insane booking. "Buy our pay per view and see if we intentionally sabotage our show and our fan support!" is NOT a reason to pay money for a show, I'm sorry. Worse, you can only get away with it once: you can tell your fans "Hey, we're sorry the show's been bad, let's put on a show with a lot of outcomes you'll like and use it to usher in an improved era you'll enjoy a lot more", but then you actually have to follow through on that and deliver. When you don't? When you give Bryan the belt at Mania and then immediately shuffle him into a midcard title feud with Kane? When you have Seth go over Lesnar but then book him like a weirdo and do the dumb Fiend cell match? When Becky does come out on top but there's no real improvement made to the booking of the overall women's division? People begin to notice, and after you do that more than once they'll start saying "No, @#$% you, you're not going to fool me again, even a good outcome at WM doesn't guarantee anything will change or improve on the show as a whole." Just...man, that's a rough way to book. Just try making your fans happy or satisfied, the returns and reception will always be better.
I agree that part of it is the way the company books, intentionally appealing to that meta level (and it gets even more meta when you see wrestlers doing the same thing, Becky in 2018-19 being a strong example) though I also feel part of it is trends in fandom itself. I'm thinking in particular of the way writers like Meltzer or Alvarez will push the idea that there's only one correct way to book a match, and anything else is inherently wrong. It's usually seen in regard to outcomes, but even aspects like the Women's Wargames not following the 'classic' Wargames match structure were harshly judged by some.
|
|
|
Post by celtics543 on Dec 18, 2020 11:29:35 GMT -5
WWE's ratings are falling because they've gotten stale and boring. Truly they've been stale and boring for quite a while with a few small moments of fun. I think that's what the show is really missing, it's just not fun. The low ratings don't surprise me at all. I've watched WWE since I was a small child back in 1991. Some of my first memories are seeing the Ultimate Warrior wrestling on tv. I don't think I missed a Raw from 1997 to 2010. I had to tape them because my parents wouldn't let me stay up that late so I could watch them the next day after school.
At this point the only wrestling I watch with any consistency is AEW. The show is just fun. They use legends to enhance the new talent, not to beat them down and win titles. Look at the difference in the two companies. AEW employs Jake Roberts, Sting, Tully Blanchard, Arn Anderson, Tazz, JR, Tony Schiavone, and I'm sure I'm forgetting others who are living legends and use that status to enhance the present day wrestlers. It's really well done. Sting has barely said two words and he's already made Darby Allin more over. The only older guy who actually wrestles anywhere near the main event is Chris Jericho and he's been incredible in his role. Now compare that with the WWE. They brought in Sting and he was fighting for the world title. Goldberg actually won the world title by squashing Brock who had already squashed the rest of the roster. Most of the time the legends in WWE only interact with other legends which helps no one. AEW seems to make a point of having the legends interact with people all over the card to give some rub to everyone. It's working.
Not only the way they use legends but their world champion is doing the Summer of Punk storyline better than WWE did. He already brought the title to TNA and wrestled with it there. The promotional war that they seem to be starting has me interested.
WWE has issues because storylines and superstars are stale. There's too much tv time every week so guys are getting staler even faster than they should. It's a positive that the guys and girls are staying healthier and having longer careers but it also makes them staler. The WWE midcard has been around forever: Miz, Dolph, Sheamus, Lashley, Rey, Jeff Hardy, they've been around a long time and they really haven't evolved. Why tune in to see the same characters that you've been watching for 15 years?
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 18, 2020 16:52:41 GMT -5
I always find outcomes like those fascinating; in most promotions, "fan favorite is an underdog, but makes a run to the top and wins on the promotion's grandest stage" is something to celebrate and be happy about. And yeah, obviously a lot of people were happy with the outcomes at WM 35, same as being happy for Bryan having such a huge night at WM 30. But with WWE there's a huge difference, and it's something I remember from my days watching late-era WCW and many stretches of time in TNA: it feels like a lot of fans aren't watching those outcomes with the thought "this potential outcome is going to make me happy and I want to watch it as the culmination of a story I've enjoyed following and want to see through to completion; I want to see the hero triumph/villain fail/rivalry climax/etc.", but rather "oh man, so-and-so needs to win at Mania, because otherwise this show is going to continue to suck." Like, Bryan had to win at Mania XXX, and Becky and Seth had to win at WM XXXV, because the alternatives were "Orton and Batista main event the biggest show of the year while the most popular wrestler does nothing of importance" or "WWE continues to book Rhonda and Charlotte as their chosen champions and continue to ignore the women who get more fan support", or "Brock will keep spending time away and the belt will never be on the show and it'll be more repetitive Suplex City promos", that kind of thing. It wasn't "Oh wow, I'm just happy my favorite won!", or "Oh man, I'm upset my favorite lost/the other wrestler won, I need to see where this story goes next", it was "if these matches have the wrong outcomes, it'll just drive home and reinforce my negative feelings about this show"... and WWE actively fed into that perception to hype the matches.That is absolutely insane booking. "Buy our pay per view and see if we intentionally sabotage our show and our fan support!" is NOT a reason to pay money for a show, I'm sorry. Worse, you can only get away with it once: you can tell your fans "Hey, we're sorry the show's been bad, let's put on a show with a lot of outcomes you'll like and use it to usher in an improved era you'll enjoy a lot more", but then you actually have to follow through on that and deliver. When you don't? When you give Bryan the belt at Mania and then immediately shuffle him into a midcard title feud with Kane? When you have Seth go over Lesnar but then book him like a weirdo and do the dumb Fiend cell match? When Becky does come out on top but there's no real improvement made to the booking of the overall women's division? People begin to notice, and after you do that more than once they'll start saying "No, @#$% you, you're not going to fool me again, even a good outcome at WM doesn't guarantee anything will change or improve on the show as a whole." Just...man, that's a rough way to book. Just try making your fans happy or satisfied, the returns and reception will always be better. I agree that part of it is the way the company books, intentionally appealing to that meta level (and it gets even more meta when you see wrestlers doing the same thing, Becky in 2018-19 being a strong example) though I also feel part of it is trends in fandom itself. I'm thinking in particular of the way writers like Meltzer or Alvarez will push the idea that there's only one correct way to book a match, and anything else is inherently wrong. It's usually seen in regard to outcomes, but even aspects like the Women's Wargames not following the 'classic' Wargames match structure were harshly judged by some.
I really wouldn't put it on them too much; the slice of the fanbase that would be actively listening to Meltz's or Alvarez's reviews is minimal, certainly smaller than the slice that actually so much as skims Observer/F4W headlines, which is smaller than the chunk of fans who don't really care about dirt sheets one way or the other. And honestly, they're entitled to their opinions and what they feel constitutes a strong angle or match; I heard Alvarez's justification for why he didn't like the women's War Games booking and I found myself hard pressed to disagree with his rationale; I fully acknowledge I didn't see the show so it's not for me to judge it myself, but I understood his argument, at least. Plus, again I think the big thing to notice right now is that we're really not seeing those same kinds of reactions to other promotions right now across the wider wrestling landscape. There are exceptions: I'm a big NJPW fan and I remember the negative reaction to Naito losing to Okada at Wrestle Kingdom 12, for example. But on the whole there isn't this pervasive sense of, say in the case of NJPW, "Naito needs to beat Okada, or else the show is going to be terrible!" There was plenty of "Naito's my favorite and I'm bummed he lost that match", even some people who went further than that, but not "now NJPW sucks". I noticed this pattern with WWE back in 2004; I had quit watching a few years earlier, really got tired of the Attitude Era (of course, I missed the really strong 2000-early 2001 run, great timing on my part) and hearing about things like the Reign of Terror kept me away, but I started watching Raw again when I heard that Benoit had won the Rumble and that he'd be challenging Triple H. I went out of my way to watch Wrestlemania XX, marked out to Benoit winning and celebrating with Eddy, felt that relief that was palpable in the Garden that it felt like a new era was at hand with two of the best workers in the world at the top of the card...and then Guerrero immediately lost to JBL, who was NOT over at that point, and Benoit instantly took a backseat on Raw to whatever Evolution was doing, as Raw firmly remained The Triple H and Friends Show and was basically unchanged except now Benoit had a shiny thing around his waist. Basically, by the end of '04 I realized "outcomes don't matter: this will be the same exact show no matter who wins at what pay per view." It's what made me give up on them completely by the start of '05 when Triple H won the belt back in the elimination chamber, and then it eventually morphed into WWE acknowledging in storylines "We know you think the show sucks, but watch our PPVs, if RVD beats Cena/Edge retains/CM Punk wins/Bryan comes through/etc. things might get better!", but the show remained almost exactly the same in terms of psychology, promo style, match layout, show layout, etc. And again, I have to emphasize that we just don't really see this in other promotions right now. I get that no other promotion is publicly traded or has as big an audience to appeal to, but in conversations and threads and other places where I hear people talking about other promotions there just isn't this feeling of "God, if so-and-so doesn't win it's gonna be so hard to keep watching this company", there's just more a sense that people are watching those other promotions because they actively enjoy them and not out of a sense of obligation or hope that match outcomes will improve the show.
|
|
Chuck Conry
Dennis Stamp
zombies DON'T Run
Posts: 3,725
|
Post by Chuck Conry on Dec 18, 2020 17:03:40 GMT -5
Saw a report on 411 that usa isn't happy and wants more dark and violent content from Raw.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 18, 2020 17:13:46 GMT -5
Saw a report on 411 that usa isn't happy and wants more dark and violent content from Raw. VINCE MCMAHON AND WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT PRESENT: RAW - THE SNYDER CUT NOW WITH 30% MORE ASUKA YELLING THE F-WORD. SORRY IF SHE SAYS IT IN JAPANESE, TRUST US, IT STILL COUNTS.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 18, 2020 17:19:28 GMT -5
Saw a report on 411 that usa isn't happy and wants more dark and violent content from Raw. Just a brief bit of a hot take here but I’d argue one of the big reasons Raw, and WWE in general, are in the state they are is because USA doesn’t want actual substantial change but ratings spikes every so often that make them look good for a week before going back to the standard.
|
|
|
Post by "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik on Dec 18, 2020 17:21:18 GMT -5
I can understand USA being pissed but I also wouldn't trust their instincts to turn this around. We literally have a demon murder clown on this show. Orton spent the whole summer giving old men concussions. There's plenty of violence within the limits they're given. Just tell good stories and book people in ways that are consistent in make sense. Give us better finishes and make us feel rewarded for paying attention. And get a wider variety of people on the show. At the end of the day, it's always about stars and storytelling. Not "darkness and violence".
|
|
|
Post by Hypnosis on Dec 18, 2020 18:12:17 GMT -5
Saw a report on 411 that usa isn't happy and wants more dark and violent content from Raw. So like the Triad of Darkness segments on NXT?
|
|
|
Post by evilone on Dec 18, 2020 18:38:38 GMT -5
Rating Ninjas showed up once again!
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Dec 18, 2020 18:42:21 GMT -5
Saw a report on 411 that usa isn't happy and wants more dark and violent content from Raw. Just a brief bit of a hot take here but I’d argue one of the big reasons Raw, and WWE in general, are in the state they are is because USA doesn’t want actual substantial change but ratings spikes every so often that make them look good for a week before going back to the standard. I.E. - Raw Underground, the Dark Third Hour, “You Are The Authority”, the NXT 6, No Wrestling During Ads, Retribution, etc.
|
|