Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

JohnnyJ

Members
  • Content Count

    1,252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,017 Excellent

About JohnnyJ

  • Rank
    Lexington Man OF War

Recent Profile Visitors

1,628 profile views
  1. The reason Bryan v. Reigns still gets talked about so much is it was an indicator of what a post-Cena world was going to look like. Forget the discussion of Bryan's marketability, it was really a question of whether WWE would go with what was actually connecting vs. what they wanted. Cena spoiled WWE. He could drum up a program with just about anyone on the roster in a segment and whether people liked him or hated him he always connected. They took for granted that other performers were going to connect in the same way. That has not happened. We're now several years into the post-Cena WWE. They've spent years pushing Lesnar, Reigns and Rollins on the audience. There is almost no interest in the main event programs.
  2. What is interesting about this particular moment in wrestling and I'm sure is what is getting in the way of some of these releases, is traditionally if WWE treated someone like a low-level C-program performer, it would be almost impossible for them to redeem themselves. Yet today due to how Vince values talent and a gigantic roster of enormously talented individuals, a lot of cream is no longer rising to the top. In the past if a lower mid-card guy switches promotions (think Paul Roma or Hercules) you could try shooting them to the top of the card, but it would make the promotion look ridiculous. The rules have changed. So you'll have someone like Luke Harper who can't even get on the main shows who would be near the top of the card in another promotion.
  3. Back in 2012 I decided it was time to be a grownup and start investing. I did what all the “experts” told me to do and put 90% of the money I was investing into index funds. The rest I invested in WWE because it was so cheap, had a healthy dividend and for funsies I wanted to say I was a part owner of WWE. It was the best investment I will ever make. Some random mid-carder who got in at the right time must’ve made a fortune.
  4. I could see the Moxley vid being made by WWE. Who knows. Something doesn't add up about his exit from the company. Regardless, a 2 minutes clip made Ambrose more interesting than he has been in several years. Bringing the discussion back to what troubles WWE, oversaturation is the real killer. Not only does it cause decreased interest, but it makes it that much harder to tell simple stories and WWE is not capable of pulling off anything complex. If there is a multi-faceted storyline (the rise of DBry) it is almost accidental. How simple is the Dustin v. Cody story? They literally sold the match in 5 minutes. No in-ring promo segments where they point to the titan-tron to catch everyone up. No multi-mans where the two wrestlers already face off before the actual match. Yet WWE could not figure out how to run Dustin v. Cody. If ever there was an indictment of how WWE does things, this would be it.
  5. Now that Bayley is implicated can we get a few pages of Bayley bashing too? I’ll start. She dresses like a 5 year old.
  6. Alexa gave an interview (Lillian Garcia pod) about her time in developmental and explained that she was more or less an outcast. She didn't know how to wrestle and the women weren't especially helpful in guiding her along. It must be a very strange dynamic nowadays. I look at it like this. There is only so much room at the top and you have arguably 10 different wrestlers who would be the center of the division in an earlier generation. The office is going to pick their favorites and unless you randomly catch fire your spot is going to be your spot. The real issue to me is with the overflow of female talent and the distance between your top players and everyone else. What makes Sasha unique compared to other disgruntled wrestlers is no matter what they do with her, she remains more over than her push. If they made her the center of the Smackdown women's division tomorrow, the fans would eat it up. So while she may be a mark for herself, if the fans are too, what's the problem?
  7. They are. I feel like when talking about this stuff 4 or 5 separate issues all get jumbled together. (independent contractor status, health care for current and retired talents, collective bargaining (i.e. better benefits, pay, time off) and providing for retired talents.) The only issue that really bothers me is the handling of the retired talents. It was a much different industry in the 80s and 90s. Many of the names of the eras had 3-5 year runs. Even if those were good money years, how long could that money reasonably last? How much money did a King Kong Bundy type ever make as a wrestler? If you're in your 40s or 50s with all sorts of aches and pains, no real income, no insurance and no marketable skills, life is going to be really hard. Does WWE owe these performers anything? No. Would it dramatically improve the quality of life of retired talents to chuck them $50k-$100k per year while barely effecting the bottom line? No question.
  8. Right. I remember Owens being interviewed before he signed. His knees were already gone.
  9. Most journalists don't last in the profession until they hit their 40s because it is extremely difficult to find someone who will pay you a livable wage with benefits. I obviously understand your point, but it takes a special kind of person to advocate for worker's rights in someone elses business while at the same time treating your own employees like crap.
  10. Not trying to start with the whataboutism, but wasnt the observer recently accused of not paying writers and giving out free subs in exchange for content? Would love to see what the pension plan looks like. It’s probably buried somewhere in his shed next to the Magee tape.
  11. But so can most of the current talent. The issue for me are the people who had a lengthy tenure who never made any real money. They worked 100-200 nights a year, got released and now are broken down with all sorts of health issues/complications. Yes, you can argue they knew what they were getting into and WWE doesn't owe them anything, but why not try to make things right by them.
  12. Anyone ever gone to Axxess? Worth it? Is it the type of thing a toddler would have fun at?
  13. If I were talent only earning the downside I’d be pissed. I’d want some of the AEW millions. You know the AEW money is really good when Gallows/Anderson “allegedly” turned down multi-million deals with WWE.
  14. Thinking about some of the topics discussed the last few days (and having recently binge-watched The Good Place), it is important to recognize that the classic wrestling storyline is David v. Goliath. Can the underdog overcome the odds. WWE understands this. Which is why John Cena, a genetically gifted superman, spent his career not mowing people down, but selling, selling and selling some more. Hogan, all 6'7, 302 pounds of him, did the same. Yet these types are not traditional underdogs and are not particularly compelling when positioned is such. When Roman keeps on losing to Brock, he's just a badass who couldn't take down a bigger, stronger badass. When Finn or Bryan give it their all and come up short, it's elicits a different type of reaction. Is it inevitable that fans are drawn to underdogs? Is it fate?
  15. I understand the argument, but why shouldn't wrestling be featuring the performers the diehards find the most compelling? A casual may just want to see Roman win, but Roman is only Roman because the company decided he was. He is a talented wrestler, but the majority of the roster is talented. Someone the fans actually wanted to see could have had his spot. It is is interesting to see where the smark movement has gone. I remember the days when all we wanted was to get our favorites on tv and not have them treated like job guys.
×
×
  • Create New...