Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

What is stopping former fans from watching WWE?


Niners Fan in CT

Recommended Posts

Punk's initial "pipebomb" promo and leaving with the title were the only things I've seen that got former/non fans talking about wrestling since Brock Lesnar's first run. Well... And Benoit too, but obviously I mean for the right reasons.

 

I'm not really a fan of the "shoot" stuff as I don't think wrestling needs to ever break the fourth wall but:

 

 There needs to be chaos, there needs to be people asking questions like "what the fuck is going on?" or "who the fuck is that!?" or "damn, you think he's OK?" or "was that real?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think WWE is a bit idiotic for trying to appeal to kids all the time. Sure kids are buying merchandise and make up some of the audience but are they watching RAW? The answer is no. The ratings data supports that. It's no surprise, really. The show starts at 8pm ET now so maybe they can watch a little bit but they sure as hell are not up at 11pm or later.

 

I've always thought that they should put the PG characters/angles on at 8pm and then have some edgier content past 10pm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watch matches out of context that I read about here or elsewhere online, plus the Rumble and the Elimination Chamber each year. Other than that, I have fallen off, and I think I can tell why. 

 

I am watching old Nitros from '95/'96, and one thing that strikes me is that those shows are excellent at mixing up matches and segments with lots of variety. For example, I'll get a good high-flying Cruiserweight match between Rey and Psicosis, a damn good big man match between John Tenta and the Giant, a solid garbage match between PE and the Nastys, and a good bomb-throwing tag match between the Steiners and Harlem Heat over two hours. I like the variety there in match styles. 

 

On the other hand, I enjoy WWE style myself, but it is definitely a specific formula that doesn't have much variation on the weekly shows (though guys bust out some cool variations on the style and construction of matches on PPV). 

 

I also think those shows are better at giving most wrestlers something to do, even in the midcard. For example. John Tenta's transformation from The Shark to John "I'm a man!" Tenta is just a little mid-card thing for him to do, but he's had a nice little feud with the Dungeon of Doom that has produced some decent work. Or DDP being a midcard king with his whole "redemption and Battlebowl champ" storyline. I know this has been said ad nauseam, but WWE midcarders need more stuff to do. Just give us an idea of what motivates them and what they are doing to move up the ladder. 

 

I enjoy watching wrestling out of context and can watch any match with D-Bry, Cena, or Mark Henry no matter the background, but to watch a whole show, I need more context to the motivations of the undercard wrestlers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for others, only myself, but most of the shows seem over-produced and formulaic. High production values used to give WWE the edge, now it's a bit of a hindrance.

 

Hey, we have an app. You should get it so you can see the content we're not showing you because we're telling you we have an app instead. Don't forget to Tweet about us. Hey, look at all these trending topics you already know about if you're on Twitter, and if you're not on Twitter, you don't care about them, but we'll tell you what you're missing.

 

I'm not at all knocking them for having an App or pushing Twitter, as it's smart business. But for more mature viewers it's likely to push casuals away because OH STOP TALKING MICHAEL COLE!

 

I agree with what Smelly said...for all of WCW's flaws, they still had something for everyone on most of their shows. Many on WWE seem like they're "just going through the motions." I find myself just disinterested with Raw and even PPVs lately, which is ironic since a lot of guys are putting on some of the best matches WWE's seen in a few years. Unfortunately, they're the exception to the rule, and even a guy like Brock Lesnar is victim to the "do your taunt thing on the entrance ramp every single time before coming to the ring" thing like everyone else. If Brock Lesnar isn't making you believe even for a second, no one's going to.

 

It's not about good wrestling, bad wrestling. It's about believability. Even if we all knew Undertaker wasn't REALLY abducting people, Austin wasn't REALLY beating up his boss, it was still compelling enough to test your limits of suspension of belief. It's not a matter of PG vs 14, either, just a lack of intensity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having something for everyone usually means having a show where no one likes everything.  And that's okay.  Desirable, even. 

 

There's just a sense of entitlement on the part of fans now, where everyone thinks their favorite part of the show has to be pushed hard.  That's not a POV that is isolated to wrestling fans.  Dear God, watching some shippers and anti-shippers have a flame war over some crappy TV show can be worse than watching internet fans argue over the merits of John Cena.

 

Wrestling, because its TV events are either live or very recently taped, give fans a sense of empowerment that they can feed their sense of entitlement by throwing hissy fits at shows or online. 

 

Maybe the next boom will be fueled by giving fans much more significant match-making power than what they currently do through the WWE app.  It will involve finding the right balance in giving fans the matches they want to see without always giving them the outcomes they want to see and without being too predictable about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Being ultra-connected has a lot of pros and cons. The old fans may reject it, but who's to say it's not in the process of creating a swarm of new fans? Maybe not right now, but within the next 5 years wrestling could look pretty different. I mean either way we know it's not going anywhere for a long time.

 

Re: "shippers," reminds me of one thing: tumblr can be a creepy place if you follow a bunch of random people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The commentary is a big problem. Lawler is just terrible. Like the worst announcer on TV. Cole isn't great but I don't think he's egregiously terrible either. But the commentary overall just bugs me. I know that everyone knows wrestling isn't a legitimate sports competition but I miss the days when the announcers treated it as such. The announcers never focus on a wrestler's particular strategy in trying to win the match and that stinks. Announcers have the ability to point out subtle things and help get stuff over that might get missed by the viewer. WWE announcers don't do that.

 

Also, there's nothing wrong with targeting kids. However, you don't have to pander to them. Robin Williams proved this in Mrs. Doubtfire. Seriously. Watch it if you don't believe me. Kids often like adult things because they want to be adults/treated like adults. You can have a kid friendly show without going over the top and alienating anyone over 13 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Lawler is even close to being the worst announcer on TV. Tenay, Taz, and Josh Matthews are all worse IMO, Corino on ROH is horrible too. If anything the quality of announcing has plummeted so much that Lawler looks like peak Schiavone compared to some of these guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, it's hard to really say who's worst. It's sad that we're having this conversation rather than "who's best" right now.

 

If Lawler's ranked worst, it's because he's held to a higher standard, I think. I've never cared for most of his WWF commentary, but he's still at least shown a lot of enthusiasm and effort in past years. He seems really bored lately. I'm not one to wish for someone to lose their job, but if they're not giving it their all, why should they keep it, while others are getting cut?

 

Taz is atrocious, but he was always pretty crappy I thought. Mike Tenay's never been worse. I used to love his commentary in WCW, learned a lot as a kid watching it.

 

I often think that WWE's terrible commentary all-around is a conspiracy designed to make Michael Cole look like gold. He's not horrible, but some of his lines make me want to smash my screen/TV.

 

I'm out of the loop on ROH, do they still have Kevin Kelly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything about the titles sucks.

 

The Miz, Swagger, Ziggler, Christian have won the title before falling back down the card.

 

You could potentially add Henry and Bryan to that list, although I feel like the title elevated them both somewhat. MITB has been fucking killer. Guys like Punk would have made it without the crutch, 3/4 of the above used it and were never seen again at that level. If they had Cena/Punk/Orton/Sheamus rotating the title and one new guy made every year, it would be far more productive than the current set up. And if you look in the past, guys that won it once, would usually win it again.

 

In 1998 Austin, Kane, Rock and Mankind won the title for the first time.

In 1999 Triple H, Vince and Show won the title for the first time.

In 2000 it was Kurt.

In 2001 it was Jericho.

 

Considering the "too many title changes" talking point, one I've never bought into, that's some high level fucking talent right there. Too many shit dudes get a title now. Who cares if it's Ziggler's big moment when there's been so many big moments that meant nothing in the past few years?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, RoH as Kevin Kelly still. He's decent, but feels the need to work certain catch phrases (the obvious being SOARING...ANNNND SCORING) into seemingly every show.

Cole has slightly improved (one would hope so after what, 15 years?) and is far better than when he was a heel, but he can still make a great match almost seem boring because he's a terrible actor and can't feign enthusiasm at all.

The less "jokes" Lawler tells, usually the better off he is. JBL is best when he's reacting to something stupid Cole said. I am glad they've moved away from the constantly bickering team, because they haven't had the right guys since JR & Lawler were in their prime (the PPV where bitter JR keeps getting his mic cut and the '99 Survivor Series after Austin gets run over are hilarious to listen to as Lawler keeps needling JR and pushing his buttons perfectly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taz is atrocious, but he was always pretty crappy I thought. Mike Tenay's never been worse. I used to love his commentary in WCW, learned a lot as a kid watching it.

 

I feel like TNA could have decent commentary if they made Borash the lead announcer and put Tenay back into a role where his job is to educate viewers and not to sell storylines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly, he was always great at that. Now would be the perfect time, too, with the W-1 deal. I mean hearing Tenay explain who Mutoh/Muta is would take a lot of us back. He was always good as "The Professor," whose role wasn't that of a play-by-play man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything about the titles sucks.

 

The Miz, Swagger, Ziggler, Christian have won the title before falling back down the card.

 

You could potentially add Henry and Bryan to that list, although I feel like the title elevated them both somewhat. MITB has been fucking killer. Guys like Punk would have made it without the crutch, 3/4 of the above used it and were never seen again at that level. If they had Cena/Punk/Orton/Sheamus rotating the title and one new guy made every year, it would be far more productive than the current set up. And if you look in the past, guys that won it once, would usually win it again.

 

In 1998 Austin, Kane, Rock and Mankind won the title for the first time.

In 1999 Triple H, Vince and Show won the title for the first time.

In 2000 it was Kurt.

In 2001 it was Jericho.

 

Considering the "too many title changes" talking point, one I've never bought into, that's some high level fucking talent right there. Too many shit dudes get a title now. Who cares if it's Ziggler's big moment when there's been so many big moments that meant nothing in the past few years?

Too many titles is a better talking point than too many title changes.

 

You can have 3 if there's a clear pecking order.  WWE, IC, and then US.  The new guys are always going after the US Title to try and establish themselves.  The IC Title is for your guys who are really good in the ring but not Main Event level yet or maybe ever.  And the WWE Title is for the biggest stars only.  They have to stay strict to it too.  None of this CM Punk wins the title and either isn't in the main feud or doesn't end the show nonsense.

 

It makes it much easier for fans to follow someone's progression and it gives everyone a purpose when they're not doing anything else. 

 

You also wouldn't need the briefcase if the IC Title was really strong.  Have your yearly MITB Ladder Match for the IC Title and fans will catch on that the guy who walks out with the title that night is destined for big things in the next year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell you the exact reason former fans went away because it's probably a combination of factors. 

 

I can tell you if wrestling experiences another boom, it's going to be due to exciting, transcendent characters and/or a hot, compelling storyline.  I'm obviously not saying anything radical here.  Others have already mention it.  Just look at the last two big buzzworthy things to come from the WWE: CM Punk's rant and the beginning of the Nexus storyline. 

 

I don't think the draw of the Attitude and early nWo era was the quality of matches during that time.  It was the characters(Rock, Austin, etc) and storylines (Who is joining the nWo?).  I consider myself more of a casual fan(I know, I know) now.  I'm not heavily invested in following the quality of WWE matches, but I think it's fine if not better now than during Attitude era.  I know people like to see entertaining matches(I do too), especially when they're at live-events, but until they stumble upon or get lucky with a hot character and/or storyline, it's going to stay the way it is for awhile.

 

This, of course, is not taking into account the changes in the tv industry, itself.  It's going to be very difficult to reach the same level of ratings/audience highs in the new media, even with a boom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the hey, this guy (mostly either Cena or everybody who isn't John Cena) is not good enough/the writing's not good enough/Vince is out of touch stuff comes off as kinda just trying find somewhere to put blame. I'm not even saying these things aren't true, I'm just saying even if they WERE better, it still wouldn't make a difference. Comparing today's WWE to any of the other boom periods in wrestling (WCW 1996-1998, Attitude Era, Rock and Roll Era, etc.), there isn't anything stand out that make them actually BETTER. You may prefer some to others, or nostalgia may kick in and you look at a specific time through rose-colored glasses, but watching entire shows of today vs. yesteryear, they're now true superiority on any level for either. Some guys are great, some guys suck. Some guys are great in the ring, some can't work a match. Some are great promos, some are awful. Some angles are awesome, other suck. People may disagree, but just as a lover of pro wrestling, I've never ever felt like "hey, the acting/in-ring" was just better before than now. And even if it is, honestly it doesn't even fucking matter cause most movies and music suck now compared to earlier and it's still much more profitable.

 

The fact is, we live in a world of fads and short attention spans. Always have, it just gets more and more obvious as we start have more and more options to choose from in every part of our lives. If a fan truly loves something, they pay attention to it as much as possible. In wrestling you have the IWC, in sports you have stats nerds, in music you have people who spend their lives roaming the internet for new obsure music. But unless you love something, for the most part, people only pay attention to it if it's something have to know about to not seem completely out of touch and have the water cooler talk. The average fan knows Tom Brady but couldn't give a flying fuck who's the back-up Right Guard for the Panthers is. But they'll still watch Monday Night Football every week cause that'll be what your buddies are talking about the next day. Or not know any songs by Radiohead but know the new Rihanna track by heart so they're not the only person in the club looking awkward when it comes on. Wrestling is no different. The average person will only pay attention when the media and the world compels them to become because they don't want to feel like they're missing out on something. For the average viewer, the details and even the quality of the show doesn't really matter cause it's lost on them regardless. You think 90% of people remember the NWO's first promo from the Bash at the Beach? Fuck no, they just knew the NWO existed and it was cool. Did most people wearing Austin 3:16 shirts in 1999 really remember/know the promo and the backstory from KOTR 96? Doubt it, all they knew was Austin was the shit.

 

Honestly right now, nobody feels like there missing out on anything the WWE has to offer, not because of any lack of quality, but because nothing iconic is going on. It's strange, pretty much true main stream star in wrestling history has been made the same way, yet it's as if the WWE hasn't figured it out. The first stage is getting them over enough to make sure whatever they do on TV comes off as a big fucking deal, and then the second is once they have, give them a moment that truly comes off as though it transcends wrestling. Hogan was way over with crowds for years, but he became a man in the social conscious with Wrestlemania because the event and his match wasn't just another night of wrestling, it was a main stream event. NWO was big from the moment when Nash and Hall came in, but became transcendent when Hogan turned because it was just another turn, to the average person it was the loss of an American Hero. Austin was over, but he became the phenomenon that he was when he wasn't just another wrestler, he was a man who went toe to toe to Mike Tyson and earned the respect of the Baddest Man on the Planet. 

 

Even Punk, he's booked more like an upper-midcarder than a main eventer and alot of people feel like he's not a "good main eventer" cause of his size or indy background or all that bullshit. But he's the only guy on the roster that ESPN wants the interview, or has Cubs fans entering contests to win stuff with is likeness or TMZ follows and give a fuck about what he says on twitter. Because the angle with the WWE Title got him into the mainstream conscious. Not because of the promo, cause even though it was good, the average fan could give a fuck about if he's a Paul Heyman guy or if he wants to work for New Japan or Ring of Honor. But him leaving with the WWE Belt came off as a big deal not just to fans of wrestling, but average people. It was taken by people as he fucking with a huge corporate establishment, not just a 'wrestling angle' level but on a real life level. Having him come back so soon lessened that but to a good extent, but even so his name at least got into their conscious and even if they don't remember that moment, people who payed attention to that at least know his name and in a "hey, that guy's pretty cool kinda way" and not in a "is that a wrestler? You still watch wrestling, why?" kinda way for the most part. Cena is the company ace, but he's never had a moment that transcends wrestling and that's why he can't pull in anybody new that wasn't already a wrestling fan. He can beat Rock and everybody else a million times, it'll never be more than just another wrestling angle to anyone, and therefore no one feels the need to watch with him on the top of the card. I don't even think it's his character that makes him not cool, cause Rock's character isn't really cool anymore either. But Rock's a mainstream icon so when he makes a couple appearances interest peaks and people cheer cause it feels like a huge moment. Cena is just Cena the wrestler, and even if he does movies, he's just that wrestler that got that movie role for some reason. It's not really his fault, but people don't watch simply because there's nobody on the top of the card that people need to pay attention to in order to feel in the know.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cole has slightly improved (one would hope so after what, 15 years?) and is far better than when he was a heel, but he can still make a great match almost seem boring because he's a terrible actor and can't feign enthusiasm at all.

 

What's clear about Cole is that basically every single word he says is a WWE buzzword of some sort and they tend to be really ridiculous. So, you've got Cole bending over backwards to fit this shit in and there's no way it's ever going to sound natural. The guy can't sell enthusiasm at all though, you're right. Eddie Guerrero's ghost could drive down the ramp in a low rider and Cole would only shout "IT'S THE 2 TIME WORLD CHAMPION! OHHHHH MY!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing today's WWE to any of the other boom periods in wrestling (WCW 1996-1998, Attitude Era, Rock and Roll Era, etc.), there isn't anything stand out that make them actually BETTER.<snip>Honestly right now, nobody feels like there missing out on anything the WWE has to offer, not because of any lack of quality, but because nothing iconic is going on. It's strange, pretty much true main stream star in wrestling history has been made the same way, yet it's as if the WWE hasn't figured it out. The first stage is getting them over enough to make sure whatever they do on TV comes off as a big fucking deal, and then the second is once they have, give them a moment that truly comes off as though it transcends wrestling.

The inability to pull this off is directly related to the stagnant creative process that you insist is just as strong as the boom period's. You are wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Comparing today's WWE to any of the other boom periods in wrestling (WCW 1996-1998, Attitude Era, Rock and Roll Era, etc.), there isn't anything stand out that make them actually BETTER.<snip>Honestly right now, nobody feels like there missing out on anything the WWE has to offer, not because of any lack of quality, but because nothing iconic is going on. It's strange, pretty much true main stream star in wrestling history has been made the same way, yet it's as if the WWE hasn't figured it out. The first stage is getting them over enough to make sure whatever they do on TV comes off as a big fucking deal, and then the second is once they have, give them a moment that truly comes off as though it transcends wrestling.

The inability to pull this off is directly related to the stagnant creative process that you insist is just as strong as the boom period's. You are wrong.

 

 

You think TODAY'S booking is stagnant? Go back and watch WCW in 1996-97 after BATB. It's the same thing every week. Every show ends with NWO beatdown and garbage. Every last one. You may get a Lex Luger/Goldberg/Sting moment every three months tops. But other than that it's just "hey, someone new joined the NWO!" and "Dammit, the NWO ruined this great match" every Nitro. And the WWE has more creative angles than WCW did in that period. WCW never really got past absolute booking 101 99% of the time. Big stable dominates! Huge winning streak! X guy is back! But the momentum from the the original NWO formation made everything seem a big deal. Even the Austin Era, the early stuff with Kane/Taker/Vince/Austin in the main event is all pretty awful IMO, and if it happened today would get shit on by most. But the momentum Austin had made everything seem like gold.

 

The current WWE gets guys over. Guys like Hardy, Edge, Punk and Bryan now have had moments where they've about been as over as anyone in the history of the company. It's just a matter of going from over with WWE fans to over with the general public who aren't true wrestling fans to get them interested. No amount of Crash TV or great booking in the midcard or 4+ matches is going to change that. It's not a problem with bad booking or a "stagnant creative process". It's just a lack of larger than live moments, but ultimately those have the be at least semi-organic and have alot to do with luck cause otherwise people will just shit on them. That's why they try to make "classic Cena moments" almost every PPV and he still gets shitted on. Cause they never feel the least bit organic or anything more than just another wrestling. It's also why stuff like Lauper/Piper and Mr. T and Tyson/Austin saved the WWF while Rodman/Malone and Leno and every celebrity WCW ever brought in came off awful. WWF stuff came off as epic and organic, WCW stuff came off as publicity stunts that were super cheesy. Somebody on another forum put it best IMO:

 

Vince has kind of gotten way from this over the years, but the reason I think he was such a brilliant promoter was he distilled wrestling into singular moments that are easily disgestible. Other promotions focused on angles. Other focus on matches. Vince focuses on moments. 

 

 

Cool angles and great matches please the super fan. The average guy only cares about the WWE for the individual moments, cause really that all that sticks in their mind at the end of the day. And the WWE still has super cool moments all the time (the Nexus debut, Punk promo, Rock return, etc). They just don't know how to use these moment correctly to suck people in any more. They're so self-conscious about not being "wrestling" and instead just being "sports and entertainment" they not longer do things with the pure grandeur and loudness that made stuff go from wrestling angle to worldwide phenomenon. But that's not a problem with bad booking, that's a problem with promotional tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You think TODAY'S booking is stagnant? Go back and watch WCW in 1996-97 after BATB. It's the same thing every week. Every show ends with NWO beatdown and garbage. Every last one. You may get a Lex Luger/Goldberg/Sting moment every three months tops. But other than that it's just "hey, someone new joined the NWO!" and "Dammit, the NWO ruined this great match" every Nitro. 

 

 

Oh no, I just finished BATB and I am moving on to the NWO-dominated shows. I am dreading the NWO stuff, to be honest, but what I recall about the undercard is that it was actually booked quite nicely in a lot of ways. Jericho/Malenko must be coming up in the next year or two, and I recall Malenko sneaking a title shot against Jericho by dressing up as a masked wrestler and winning a battle royal getting a mega-pop. Plus most of DDP's undercard stuff (like with Raven) was really good, if I recall. There was quite a bit of fun mid-card booking in that era...or maybe that's all from '98 and I'm mis-remembering my timelines?

 

Anyway, I think WCW had better booking in the midcard than WWE does if you compare '96-'97 WCW to today's WWE. Wasn't the popular thing to say about WCW was that all the shows were fantastic right up until the main events?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...