DECEMBER 2015 WRESTLING - Try 2

[mattdangerously]

 

You boys are trying to get this sucker locked down again, I see.

I was being partly sarcastic, but some people do believe that last night was the start of a "Kevin Owens is a maniac" push that will lead to Brock/KO at WM.

Not me. However, others do have hope!

I don't know if it's leading to a Brock match. But I think it's leading to something better than whatever the hell he's been doing lately.

 

 

It was likely just an excuse to have Ambrose and Owens brawl with each other for a night. Next week, they probably won't even mention Neville getting the win.

[JRGoldman]

You know what I haven't heard much in 13 years reading about Raw; "that was a good/great/entertaining show." It has been nothing but a constant stream of there was this one good segment, and then a bunch of crap. So what do I do, if that one segment sounds good, Ill google it, and then not need to watch the rest of the 2 hours and 50 minutes of junk. If a bunch of friends said a movie was crap, would you really go out of your way to watch it and confirm it for yourself, or would you just take their opinion and move on?

 

 

I might take their opinion, but I wouldn't use it as my own. If I had friends that told me a movie sucked, I wouldn't tell other people that movie sucked. I'd say "I've heard that movie sucked". If I wanted to tell someone that something sucked for certain, I'd watch it myself so that I could cite examples and and actually have an opinion of my own. There are a ton of people out there who have garbage opinions. A ton of my friends have garbage opinions. I have garbage opinions about a lot of shit, but they are based on my watching/listening and forming my own conclusions, not parroting back what someone wrote on reddit.

 

Also, citing the overall negativity of online wrestling fans as proof positive of something being bad is a bit misleading. Negative reactions are basically the currency of online fandom at this point. 

[Bustronaut]

The easiest way to keep up with Raw/Smackdown without watching (Banky's gf aside) is to scroll through Jay's screencaps.

[caley]

 

"It is entitlement if you haven't even watched for 13 years and still expect them to do what you want to see."

Do you even understand what I am asking? If a popular comedy show started throwing out heavy drama, people would stop watching in droves. I'm asking for what every other movie and tv show through the course of history has tried to do, deliver what they say they are and try and be entertaining by telling a story. Why is it entitlement to ask for WRESTLING on a WRESTLING show? 

There is probably more wrestling on Raw now than there has been at any point in the last 15-20 years.  

Why is it shows like Breaking Bad, with smaller budgets and crew, can make compelling tv and interesting characters and have story arcs with endings, yet the WWE, with it's near infinite resources, can't seemingly do that anymore?

Because you're comparing a drama aimed at adults with a pro wrestling show aimed at children?! 

[DTTW]

 

You know what I haven't heard much in 13 years reading about Raw; "that was a good/great/entertaining show." It has been nothing but a constant stream of there was this one good segment, and then a bunch of crap. So what do I do, if that one segment sounds good, Ill google it, and then not need to watch the rest of the 2 hours and 50 minutes of junk. If a bunch of friends said a movie was crap, would you really go out of your way to watch it and confirm it for yourself, or would you just take their opinion and move on?

 

 

I might take their opinion, but I wouldn't use it as my own. If I had friends that told me a movie sucked, I wouldn't tell other people that movie sucked. I'd say "I've heard that movie sucked". If I wanted to tell someone that something sucked for certain, I'd watch it myself so that I could cite examples and and actually have an opinion of my own. There are a ton of people out there who have garbage opinions. A ton of my friends have garbage opinions. I have garbage opinions about a lot of shit, but they are based on my watching/listening and forming my own conclusions, not parroting back what someone wrote on reddit.

 

Also, citing the overall negativity of online wrestling fans as proof positive of something being bad is a bit misleading. Negative reactions are basically the currency of online fandom at this point. 

 

If it was one or two friends, maybe four, ok. But it's been an overwhelming negative from every person I hear about RAW from.

 

The online people, really like wrestling. A lot of us used to really like the show, too. But if their negative view is the minority, why did ratings hit an 18 year low? Why do the people I know who do watch wrestling, only talk about watching the network, and not RAW? I know it's popular to hate online, but this isn't something that sprung up over the last few years, it's been a trend that is seemingly growing. I mean these people are watching the show and saying it's bad, seemingly all of them. The WWE is ignoring this at it's own peril at this point.

 

Just curious to know, I has any live RAW crowd in the last year been as hot/lively as some of the NXT shows?

[DTTW]

 

 

"It is entitlement if you haven't even watched for 13 years and still expect them to do what you want to see."

Do you even understand what I am asking? If a popular comedy show started throwing out heavy drama, people would stop watching in droves. I'm asking for what every other movie and tv show through the course of history has tried to do, deliver what they say they are and try and be entertaining by telling a story. Why is it entitlement to ask for WRESTLING on a WRESTLING show? 

There is probably more wrestling on Raw now than there has been at any point in the last 15-20 years.  

 

 

Why is it shows like Breaking Bad, with smaller budgets and crew, can make compelling tv and interesting characters and have story arcs with endings, yet the WWE, with it's near infinite resources, can't seemingly do that anymore?

Because you're comparing a drama aimed at adults with a pro wrestling show aimed at children?! 

 

Their average viewer is over 35 last I heard. They target kids. And as I pointed out, it doesn't have to be high brow, but but it needs to have some logic to it or something to get people invested. Being mad at authority figure #32584 really isn't compelling.

 

If there is more wrestling, well, what can I say, no one talks about it enough to get me interested enough to watch. Maybe it's the lack of emotional involvement and meaning behind them? It's on me for not watching and everyone talking about all the crap of RAW and not how much good wrestling is going on.

[nofuture]

Why is it shows like Breaking Bad, with smaller budgets and crew, can make compelling tv and interesting characters and have story arcs with endings, yet the WWE, with it's near infinite resources, can't seemingly do that anymore?

Because you're comparing a drama aimed at adults with a pro wrestling show aimed at children?! 

 

 

It's also easier to tell a story in 13 one hour episodes once a year than 7 hours a week for 52 weeks straight.

[DMN]

 

 

"It is entitlement if you haven't even watched for 13 years and still expect them to do what you want to see."

Do you even understand what I am asking? If a popular comedy show started throwing out heavy drama, people would stop watching in droves. I'm asking for what every other movie and tv show through the course of history has tried to do, deliver what they say they are and try and be entertaining by telling a story. Why is it entitlement to ask for WRESTLING on a WRESTLING show? 

There is probably more wrestling on Raw now than there has been at any point in the last 15-20 years.  

 

 

Why is it shows like Breaking Bad, with smaller budgets and crew, can make compelling tv and interesting characters and have story arcs with endings, yet the WWE, with it's near infinite resources, can't seemingly do that anymore?

Because you're comparing a drama aimed at adults with a pro wrestling show aimed at children?! 

 

 

Was just about to say this. I went back and watched the original Brand Split draft episode for a project I'm thinking of doing (it's fantasy booking, you wouldn't care), and I was half-shocked to see the length of the matches. I mean, I watched it at the time, but I didn't remember the matches being so short. Even Rock/Hogan vs. the nWo went no longer than maybe 8 minutes. Same with the main event for the Undisputed Championship, which went maybe 10. The matches a decade ago were stunningly short compared to what you get today, so complaining about the amount of wrestling in WWE shows you aren't really paying as much attention as you think.

 

I'd also point out that the originator of this discussion has been pretty negative about every topic I've seen them post in, though to be fair, that is just wrestling and Star Wars stuff. This is one of the more 'WWE-Positive' boards on the 'net, which isn't saying much, but you're going to get called on it.

[SirSmUgly]

The narratives are less complex in wrestling, though. They are broad narratives based on a few universal tropes and plots. It should still be harder to write thirteen episodes of something like Breaking Bad because the narrative is harder to put together, even if you have 39 fewer shows to write. 

 

I'm going through '85-'86 JCP right now, and it basically runs two types of narrative based on class (rich cheaters/cocky dudes vs. working class honest guys) and ethnicity (American vs. foreign outsider or white guy vs. other). It's also much more rewarding as a narrative than current-day WWE for many reasons that we've talked about. No matter why it is that WWE can't do this sort of broad storytelling properly, I don't know if "they have too much TV" really should count as an argument. '80s JCP and WWE both had multiple hours of weekly TV via syndication as well - maybe not as much as current-day WWE, but enough that I think at least some comparison can be fairly made. 

 

Re: Wrestling on current shows. The matches are definitely longer, but as MORELOCK astutely pointed out in some other thread awhile ago, the matches are all structured exactly the same to the point that it doesn't feel like a big step up from the days of six-minute matches that still at least looked a bit different from one another. Then again, I find it much easier to watch a show full of three minute squashes than I do a show full of twelve-minute "face outburst leading to commercial break ----> long, drawn-out heel control segment ------> face comeback leading to some sort of fuck finish, most likely," so I suppose that it just comes down to personal preference. 

[DTTW]

 

Why is it shows like Breaking Bad, with smaller budgets and crew, can make compelling tv and interesting characters and have story arcs with endings, yet the WWE, with it's near infinite resources, can't seemingly do that anymore?

Because you're comparing a drama aimed at adults with a pro wrestling show aimed at children?! 

 

 

It's also easier to tell a story in 13 one hour episodes once a year than 7 hours a week for 52 weeks straight.

 

So why not treating it like three one hour shows? It's scripted tv and they have multiple writers and tons of talent to work with and they used to have zero problems getting people over with their storylines. I don't buy that answer that things are more difficult because they have more time when they can hire as many people as needed to do the job. Is it still true they pretty much book week to week?

 

 

 

 

"It is entitlement if you haven't even watched for 13 years and still expect them to do what you want to see."

Do you even understand what I am asking? If a popular comedy show started throwing out heavy drama, people would stop watching in droves. I'm asking for what every other movie and tv show through the course of history has tried to do, deliver what they say they are and try and be entertaining by telling a story. Why is it entitlement to ask for WRESTLING on a WRESTLING show? 

There is probably more wrestling on Raw now than there has been at any point in the last 15-20 years.  

 

 

Why is it shows like Breaking Bad, with smaller budgets and crew, can make compelling tv and interesting characters and have story arcs with endings, yet the WWE, with it's near infinite resources, can't seemingly do that anymore?

Because you're comparing a drama aimed at adults with a pro wrestling show aimed at children?! 

 

 

Was just about to say this. I went back and watched the original Brand Split draft episode for a project I'm thinking of doing (it's fantasy booking, you wouldn't care), and I was half-shocked to see the length of the matches. I mean, I watched it at the time, but I didn't remember the matches being so short. Even Rock/Hogan vs. the nWo went no longer than maybe 8 minutes. Same with the main event for the Undisputed Championship, which went maybe 10. The matches a decade ago were stunningly short compared to what you get today, so complaining about the amount of wrestling in WWE shows you aren't really paying as much attention as you think.

 

I'd also point out that the originator of this discussion has been pretty negative about every topic I've seen them post in, though to be fair, that is just wrestling and Star Wars stuff. This is one of the more 'WWE-Positive' boards on the 'net, which isn't saying much, but you're going to get called on it.

 

 

I love Mikey Nicholls and The Mighty Don't Kneel. I love that WWE is turning NXT into something interesting. Baley and that Japanese lady are awesome. I love that Steen fought John Cena in WWE ring. Cesaro is awesome. Ditto Brock and Heyman. I love'd CM Punk getting a chance to shine in the WWE. I love the WWE is finally putting all the footage they own into a format that people can access and it's really cheap. I love that the WWE at least recognize what they do has consequences on the human body and psyche and they at least create an illusion they are trying to do something about it.

 

But ya know what, given their track record, they're going to not do crap with Nicholls, Baley and the Japanese lady won't be understood by the higher ups and they'll get ruined, Steens already a mid carder again and not the star he could be, Cesaro is a nonfactor, they chased Punk out, if the network doesn't become more profitable it probably won't last or at least the price will just keep going up,and at some point they'll probably balk at Brocks' asking price. I'm also suspecting at some point a scandal over their wellness policies and knowledge about concussions. I'm not cynical because it's hip, I've just watched this company time and time again screw up things to the point I have zero faith in them. Please, someone explain, how is a 70+ year old man supposed to be a trend setter for tv in 2015 when we knew in the 90's he was already a decade or so already behind with the times?

 

This place used to hate the crap out of HHH, super mad Benoit wasn't being used properly, and numerous other anti-WWE stances. For as much as this place likes the WWE, there has been some serious backlash against it here.

[steve]

Too bad you missed all that cool stuff with Punk you "love'd".

[SorceressKnight]

 

 

You know what I haven't heard much in 13 years reading about Raw; "that was a good/great/entertaining show." It has been nothing but a constant stream of there was this one good segment, and then a bunch of crap. So what do I do, if that one segment sounds good, Ill google it, and then not need to watch the rest of the 2 hours and 50 minutes of junk. If a bunch of friends said a movie was crap, would you really go out of your way to watch it and confirm it for yourself, or would you just take their opinion and move on?

 

 

I might take their opinion, but I wouldn't use it as my own. If I had friends that told me a movie sucked, I wouldn't tell other people that movie sucked. I'd say "I've heard that movie sucked". If I wanted to tell someone that something sucked for certain, I'd watch it myself so that I could cite examples and and actually have an opinion of my own. There are a ton of people out there who have garbage opinions. A ton of my friends have garbage opinions. I have garbage opinions about a lot of shit, but they are based on my watching/listening and forming my own conclusions, not parroting back what someone wrote on reddit.

 

Also, citing the overall negativity of online wrestling fans as proof positive of something being bad is a bit misleading. Negative reactions are basically the currency of online fandom at this point. 

 

If it was one or two friends, maybe four, ok. But it's been an overwhelming negative from every person I hear about RAW from.

 

The online people, really like wrestling. A lot of us used to really like the show, too. But if their negative view is the minority, why did ratings hit an 18 year low? Why do the people I know who do watch wrestling, only talk about watching the network, and not RAW? I know it's popular to hate online, but this isn't something that sprung up over the last few years, it's been a trend that is seemingly growing. I mean these people are watching the show and saying it's bad, seemingly all of them. The WWE is ignoring this at it's own peril at this point.

 

Just curious to know, I has any live RAW crowd in the last year been as hot/lively as some of the NXT shows?

 

 

On the other side of those questions: If the show is so bad and so miserable outside the Network, then why is it that the Network is a rousing success and second only to MLB.TV for "niche" streaming services? Why are the comparisons falling to the point where 3 million people watch Raw a week, and the vast majority of those people pay for the Network? Outside of this- why are shows getting similar 3 million viewers- even on the networks, not just cable- seen as rousing successes and huge hits?  I know that if you're stuck thirteen years ago for your WWE viewpoint, you may be looking at the cable landscape in 2002 when you last watched WWE, but people are cutting the cord at huge rates, and so these low ratings are part and parcel with the decline of cable viewers. Even then, enough WWE viewers want the Network to make it work. 

[SirSmUgly]

NXT! NXT! NXT!

 

Well, I have the Network for NXT and old shows from past promotions. 

 

I actually do wonder how much NXT is a driver for Network subs. I know we'll never know that, but I'd love that bit of information to be collected and shared. 

[The Nature Boy]

I'll say this:

 

If you're into watching good wrestling for the sake of good wrestling, WWE is what you should be watching. If you want a show where you're expected to care about the people wrestling, you should look elsewhere. WWE at times approaches 2002 ROH level with "THESE TWO GUYS LOVE TO WRESTLE! LET'S WATCH THEM DO THAT!" Dolph, for example, seemingly has no character other than "THIS GUY LIKES TO HAVE FUN" and it makes for terrible television. I'm a wrestling fan but I want a reason to care about the characters I'm watching and WWE does a terrible job at doing that.

 

Even 10 years ago, we had storylines in the midcard and reasons to care about people involved. Paul London and Kidman feuded over a Shooting Star Press, for crying out loud. In today's WWE, Kidman and London would just have a bunch of matches and trade victories with no real story behind it. Today's WWE is so mediocre at telling stories that it's pathetic. They should just fire their team of writers and hire Gabe Sapolsky, they'd save money and probably get something better than what they already have. They have no interest in telling stories for 90% of the roster anyway. 

[DTTW]

I tried to respond, but the coding went wonky again and screwed up everything. I really wish there was a guide for how this all works so I could deal with these problems when they happen. Sorry.

[Web Conn]

Sometimes less is more

[The Nature Boy]

Sometimes less is more

 

In WWE's case, it just results in a bunch of interchangeable people aimlessly wandering in the midcard. 

[ivpvideos]

One of WWEs biggest problem is they don't turn over the roster nearly enough. It leads to guys being around for a decade just wandering around doing everything that they could possibly do.

 

A guy like Jack Swagger has been around for eight years. He has done everything he can. Time to move on and fill the spot with a fresh face.

[cool arrow]

Swagger would've been a big star in the territory days, provided he had a mouthpiece and maybe a mask.

[The Nature Boy]

Bill Watts would've pushed the shit out of Jack Swagger, even without the mask. 

[steve]

Swagger in Mid-South would have been good stuff.

[Josh Mann]

Snootchie Bootchies isn't a drug reference.

It means "I'm just kidding don't kick my ass"

Actually, that's what "schnoogins" meant.

I'll show myself out.

[Nice Guy Eddie]

One of WWEs biggest problem is they don't turn over the roster nearly enough. It leads to guys being around for a decade just wandering around doing everything that they could possibly do.

A guy like Jack Swagger has been around for eight years. He has done everything he can. Time to move on and fill the spot with a fresh face.

Shit, Swagger is newcomer compared to Big Show and Kane.

[The Nature Boy]

 

One of WWEs biggest problem is they don't turn over the roster nearly enough. It leads to guys being around for a decade just wandering around doing everything that they could possibly do.

A guy like Jack Swagger has been around for eight years. He has done everything he can. Time to move on and fill the spot with a fresh face.

Shit, Swagger is newcomer compared to Big Show and Kane.

 

 

Glenn Jacobs deserves his own wing of the Hall of Fame for getting almost 20 years out of the Kane character. 

[The Man Known as Dan]

Realizing Swagger vs. Christian match, and thus Christians fucking awesome ECW run, took place 8 years ago makes me sad.