Creative Changes Coming to Raw?

[OYDK]

In a hurry so I'll be brief.

Main site is reporting that according to Meltzer, big creative changes MAY be coming to WWE starting tonight on Raw. What the hell that could possibly mean is unknown, but at least I'm looking forward to Raw tonight. Of course, this should be taken with a grain of salt considering the source and the fact that WWE hasn't seemed to make any big changes to their creative team recently, but there have been a number of reports lately that would seem to back this up.

1. WWE sent out a fan survey asking them what they think could be done to improve the product.

2. USA is apparently unhappy with WWE's numbers and have been pushing for a different creative direction.

3. Vince has been very unhappy with his ratings.

If this is true, I'm mostly interested in what a different "creative direction" means at this point. WWE has been stuck in the same creative format for nearly a decade now, and I doubt they have any plans to change the TV rating. Hopefully tonight sheds some light on this.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Their usual plan involves featuring HHH and Stephanie more. I really hope that isn't the case. The Authority is so played out. Like you, I take all reports with a huge grain of salt, but I definitely wouldn't complain if this is really the case.

Even if it is the case, I doubt everything is bound to change in one night. I would imagine any major changes would take place over the next few weeks to months. Turning an entire show upside down as some kind of knee-jerk reaction is not good business.

 

[BillAlfonsos_Whistle]

Honestly...I hate to be a broken record....but until they lose the PG rating it's all down hill from here. They need to allow SOME graphic violence and dirty language to sell a wrestling product in 2015.

Nothing rings truer than a newer meme I just saw that had Sables tits, Austin giving someone two middle fingers, and DX doing crotch chops saying "This WAS wrestling" and then a photo of the Sesame Street cast and says "This IS wrestling"

Until Vince and E gets back to what became their bread and butter in the Attitude Era they will have a stinking product.

 

[The Fabulous Rougeau's]

Does anyone have a copy of the survey that WWE sent out? Seeing that could give some sort of idea as to what direction we may see tonight.

How cool would it be if they just replayed the message Vince gave on Raw back in 97? Not that it would mean the 2nd coming of the attitude era, but just a way to let the viewers know that things will be changing and becoming more life like and adult in nature.

 

[YatesA]

The characters on the show need to be geared more like Kevin Owens instead of John Cena. No more cookie cutter personas, have characters with depth, ones we can buy into, let guys go out and do their own thing, sink or swim, separate the naturals from the chosen ones. Drop gimmick PPV's and save them for feud culminations or once a year situations like the Royal Rumble. Stop sending genuine talent to NXT, James Storm and Samoa Joe would freshen things up and add intrigue to a largely dull roster. You've also got so many legit main event talents out there that Vince is too stubborn to call upon because he had no hand in creating them. WWE is it's own worst enemy.

 

[BringThePain834]

WCW Monday Nitro was PG all the way through the nWo's heyday. There wasn't a single profanity uttered, drop of blood spilled, or slipped nipple all throughout that company's stretch of dominance in the Monday Night Wars. And yet it was some of the most entertaining, thrilling, captivating wrestling television ever.

It might also shock people to realize that WWF still had the TV-PG rating logo on the beginning of shows in 1997 (when the Attitude Era started and was, in my opinion and that of many others, the best all-around year the company ever had in terms of quality) and even well into 1998.

Now contrast this with TNA, which has been TV-14 for years, full of all the sex and swearing and violence everyone wants, and yet the product has been mostly shit because it's badly written and badly booked.

Besides, WWE started going downhill way before it technically turned PG. The product had started a sharp turn south by mid-2004, which was years before PG.

Indeed, a multitude of problems with WWE, but is "PG" one of them? No. You can have a fantastic wrestling show with a PG rating - we know this because we've seen it before in the midst of the glory days that everyone is constantly pining for. A good example is the summer of 2013, where WWE proved exactly that they are more than capable of putting out a perfectly good product in the current environment. So for me, the issue is creative.

 

[BillAlfonsos_Whistle]

Great post BringThePain.
Because I disagree with your conclusion but your argument is spot in.
IT CAN be done with a PG rating. But the stars have to align perfectly. Even with a great stretch it fades back quickly.

What a PG-13 rating does is make EVERY segment watchable.
The great performers can put on a sick match no matter what the specifications. It's the nonsense in between matches that could be improved drastically with a PG-13 uptick. The last backstage storyline that was funny was the Daniel Bryan/Kane anger management schtick. What's that...three years ago already?

 

[YatesA]

In terms of ratings, I think the reason people blame PG is because WWE have done many many skits that are actually more U ( Universal, pretty much animated Disney ratings ) rated so then attribute that to PG. Things can stay PG and become more serious and relate more to adults under PG, just need to cut out the cookie cutter stuff and stop gearing heavily towards children. Daniel Bryan's babyface character should be the closest to cookie cutter WWE gets.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Honestly...I hate to be a broken record....but until they lose the PG rating it's all down hill from here. They need to allow SOME graphic violence and dirty language to sell a wrestling product in 2015.

Nothing rings truer than a newer meme I just saw that had Sables tits, Austin giving someone two middle fingers, and DX doing crotch chops saying "This WAS wrestling" and then a photo of the Sesame Street cast and says "This IS wrestling"

Until Vince and E gets back to what became their bread and butter in the Attitude Era they will have a stinking product.

So you can only enjoy a show that is full of smut, then.

I hope that you don't watch TV with your children, then. The things that you would deem "appropriate viewing" for them scares me, if you are unable to enjoy a show without swearing, excessive violence and sex.

You're probably the type who refuses to put the parental lock on WWE Network.

Someone like "Stone Cold" Steve Austin is the last person I would ever want as my kids' role model. His onscreen behaviour was appalling, and his actions (especially towards women) off-screen are even worse. If my child ever ended like SCSA, I would be very disappointed. And if you as a parent have such poor values that you think it is normal to act that way, then you're not far behind in the "poor parenting" stakes.

Maybe it says more about you than the wrestling industry.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Their usual plan involves featuring HHH and Stephanie more. I really hope that isn't the case.

Yeah, really.....because if the braintrust at WWE thinks the company's problems can be solved by bringing us more Authority skits, things are worse than they seem.

At the same time, i would say more 'controversial' content is what they have in mind (if they have anything in mind) because it can be easily implemented......and it's worked before.

If there's something else they think they can do.....that could be brought about in one episode of Raw.....I would surely love to see it.

As to the survey sent out to viewers, my initial thought is that if the company expects to get anything useful out of it, they've really run out of ideas.

Then again, I can see some people looking at the survey and saying: "Yeah, man. Like....wow! I'm gonna tell them what I think they should do with Raw....and they're gonna do everything I say......and Raw is gonna be getting 8.5 ratings again. I mean, like....shit, yeah!"


Looking forward to watching Raw tonight.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Show me where it says that RAW ratings are bad. Everyone says it, but I want to see a ratings sheet that actually says it.

Or is this just another fib from the catalogue of lies from Dave Meltzer, whose credibility should be questioned many times over, considering how much he has got wrong over the years. Meltzer is a known hater of WWE, so he will say anything that makes them look bad.

Besides, ratings for all TV across the board has never been lower, since streaming and watching on Iphones, Ipads and other devices (which ratings don't take account of). It also doesn't account for those who may have to work, and watch it later when they get home.

Ratings are done for advertisers, so it only counts what the TV stations think that the advertisers are interested in.

RAW will always have peaks and troughs, being on as long as it has. Hell, if "Game Of Thrones" was on for 25 seasons, it too would sag in the ratings.

I am pretty confident that the "show that just won't die" and has been horrible for years, the Simpsons, will end before "Raw" does, which is sure to disappoint a lot of you.

 

[That N Word]

So you can only enjoy a show that is full of smut, then.

I hope that you don't watch TV with your children, then. The things that you would deem "appropriate viewing" for them scares me, if you are unable to enjoy a show without swearing, excessive violence and sex.

You're probably the type who refuses to put the parental lock on WWE Network.

Someone like "Stone Cold" Steve Austin is the last person I would ever want as my kids' role model. His onscreen behaviour was appalling, and his actions (especially towards women) off-screen are even worse. If my child ever ended like SCSA, I would be very disappointed. And if you as a parent have such poor values that you think it is normal to act that way, then you're not far behind in the "poor parenting" stakes.

Maybe it says more about you than the wrestling industry.

Well in all fairness wrestling was created for entertainment not to raise peoples kids. The stuff he was describing is entertainment. The stuff WWE has been giving us is not. In my opinion if the kids don't know right from wrong and don't know how to watch the show without picking up habits then they really shouldn't be watching. If the kids are raised right we don't have to worry about it. But having the show be basically the wrestling version of PBS Kids is not entertainment.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Creative changes usually means some sort of shake up where someone is fired, Vince is raving mad and puts the entire blame on anyone else he can while accepting no responsibility for himself even though he's the one who makes the final creative decision decisions; it doesn't go on TV unless Vince says so.

Several times I've said that WWE's creative team is tasked primarily with pleasing Vince McMahon, which means coming up with things they know he'll like, getting feedback from those very close to him so they have some insight to come up with ideas they're pretty sure he'll like, Vince sometimes flat out tells them what he wants to see or, in rare cases, will take it upon himself to essentially write the entire show himself. Vince himself may be pleased but the problem is that quite a few viewers aren't; sometimes, you get the notion that he simply can't fathom that just because he likes it doesn't mean that fans are gonna eat it up.

WWE has done just fine with PG in the past, it's just that Vince's limits on WWE's creative team are so extremely...well...limiting. He won't allow talent to do their own promos because he's worried about someone going off the reservation, he likes this cornball style of comedy that's frequently found in most of the "sports entertainment" themed segments, women are portrayed as naïve and/or catty bitches who have the emotional maturity of your average 16 year old high school mean girl and it almost seems like he's reluctant to push others into top spots on a permanent basis. Vince can't just design shows around all the wants of the fans because it's impossible, as some fans want the impossible. However, easing up on restrictions, portraying the wrestlers as competitors, nixing the outdated view of women, be willing to give those that fans are really interested in some actual time to prove themselves without pulling the plug the instant things don't go exactly the way he hopes, etc. are great places to start.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Does anyone have a copy of the survey that WWE sent out? Seeing that could give some sort of idea as to what direction we may see tonight.

The survey was done to get feeback on both the main roster and NXT brands. It asked various questions about what fans liked and disliked about the products and left spaces so that fans could write feedback. One question asked fans to select various terms, out of a number given, that they felt best described the NXT and main rosters. These terms were:
Energy, Authentic, Hardcore, Fantastical, Unique, Hokey, Excitement, Dangerous, Wrestling, PG-rated, Shocking, Quality, Technique, Wholesome, Fun, Unpredictable, In-Ring Action-Driven, Social, Action, Nostalgic, Mindless, Giving Promos, Intense, Passion, Old School, Imaginative, Safe, Success, Family friendly, Potential, Story-Driven, Younger, Cutting Edge, Real, Simple, Fast Paced, Mainstream, Traditional, Gritty.

It was also asked whether the main or NXT rosters did a better job or equal job on various points consisting of:

* Being amazed
* Being amused
* Being entertained
* Feeling part of a large group of passionate fans
* Getting an appropriate amount of surprises
* Getting the right mix of unique characters
* Having a great show to watch with family
* Having a great show to watch with friends
* Hearing compelling dialogue/promos
* Seeing a wide variety of Divas
* Seeing a wide variety of Superstars
* Seeing enough of my favorite Divas
* Seeing enough of my favorite Superstars
* Seeing good rivalries/match-ups
* Seeing the quality of in-ring wrestling I want
* Watching athletic moves and maneuvers
* Watching interesting stories play out

Now, to my knowledge, the results of these surveys haven't been released, though various wrestling sites are giving the impression that NXT blew away the main roster in the vast majority of these questions.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Well in all fairness wrestling was created for entertainment not to raise peoples kids. The stuff he was describing is entertainment. The stuff WWE has been giving us is not. In my opinion if the kids don't know right from wrong and don't know how to watch the show without picking up habits then they really shouldn't be watching. If the kids are raised right we don't have to worry about it. But having the show be basically the wrestling version of PBS Kids is not entertainment.

But there can be entertainment to entertain, parents and children. It's called "family entertainment".

Children find "Thomas The Tank Engine" or "Sesame Street" entertaining. Does that mean it isn't, just because it caters to children.

So you don't think that TV should show values, because kids should be raised right. Okay, then I hope that you never criticise some sportsperson for being a "bad role model". Since it is not up to outside forces to enforce "morals", according to you, then it makes me wonder if you would have your children watch porn, since it is up to the children to know right from wrong.

Obviously, you don't want your children to follow your interest in wrestling, otherwise you would want wrestling entertainment that caters to both you and them, not just yourself.

Again, if you need that sort of smut to enjoy something, then it says more about the individual then the product. How about saving your PPV money then, and using it on some PPV adult movies instead, oh, and let your kids watch too, since you see nothing wrong with it.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Creative changes usually means some sort of shake up where someone is fired, Vince is raving mad and puts the entire blame on anyone else he can while accepting no responsibility for himself even though he's the one who makes the final creative decision decisions; it doesn't go on TV unless Vince says so.

Several times I've said that WWE's creative team is tasked primarily with pleasing Vince McMahon, which means coming up with things they know he'll like, getting feedback from those very close to him so they have some insight to come up with ideas they're pretty sure he'll like, Vince sometimes flat out tells them what he wants to see or, in rare cases, will take it upon himself to essentially write the entire show himself. Vince himself may be pleased but the problem is that quite a few viewers aren't; sometimes, you get the notion that he simply can't fathom that just because he likes it doesn't mean that fans are gonna eat it up.

WWE has done just fine with PG in the past, it's just that Vince's limits on WWE's creative team are so extremely...well...limiting. He won't allow talent to do their own promos because he's worried about someone going off the reservation, he likes this cornball style of comedy that's frequently found in most of the "sports entertainment" themed segments, women are portrayed as naïve and/or catty bitches who have the emotional maturity of your average 16 year old high school mean girl and it almost seems like he's reluctant to push others into top spots on a permanent basis. Vince can't just design shows around all the wants of the fans because it's impossible, as some fans want the impossible. However, easing up on restrictions, portraying the wrestlers as competitors, nixing the outdated view of women, be willing to give those that fans are really interested in some actual time to prove themselves without pulling the plug the instant things don't go exactly the way he hopes, etc. are great places to start.

Why does the buck stop at the top only when it comes to what goes wrong?

If Vince McMahon is 100% responsible for all that is wrong in WWE, then is he not also 100% the reason that the Attitude Era succeeded. You can't have it both ways.

So either you apportion success or blame, or put it on one person, but if one person is totally at fault, does that mean that they get ALL the credit if it works?

Wasn't Vince also over the creative team who wrote the Attitude Era? So, does he get the praise for that then?

 

[That N Word]

But there can be entertainment to entertain, parents and children. It's called "family entertainment".

Children find "Thomas The Tank Engine" or "Sesame Street" entertaining. Does that mean it isn't, just because it caters to children.

So you don't think that TV should show values, because kids should be raised right. Okay, then I hope that you never criticise some sportsperson for being a "bad role model". Since it is not up to outside forces to enforce "morals", according to you, then it makes me wonder if you would have your children watch porn, since it is up to the children to know right from wrong.

Obviously, you don't want your children to follow your interest in wrestling, otherwise you would want wrestling entertainment that caters to both you and them, not just yourself.

Again, if you need that sort of smut to enjoy something, then it says more about the individual then the product. How about saving your PPV money then, and using it on some PPV adult movies instead, oh, and let your kids watch too, since you see nothing wrong with it.

That is not at all what I'm saying. Its called raising your kids right. And I'm not some sick porn watching pervert. I never said i wanted sex on tv, i said i want entertainment and beatdowns. What I'm saying is let your kids watch the show. But if they don't have the maturity to handle the content then they shouldn't be watching. For Christ sakes how can anyone who beats people up for a living be considered a role modek, by your logic.

Majority of this site including myself grew up in the Attitude/Ruthless Aggression Era and turned out just fine.

 

[MERPER]

Show me where it says that RAW ratings are bad. Everyone says it, but I want to see a ratings sheet that actually says it.

Or is this just another fib from the catalogue of lies from Dave Meltzer, whose credibility should be questioned many times over, considering how much he has got wrong over the years. Meltzer is a known hater of WWE, so he will say anything that makes them look bad.

Besides, ratings for all TV across the board has never been lower, since streaming and watching on Iphones, Ipads and other devices (which ratings don't take account of). It also doesn't account for those who may have to work, and watch it later when they get home.

Ratings are done for advertisers, so it only counts what the TV stations think that the advertisers are interested in.

RAW will always have peaks and troughs, being on as long as it has. Hell, if "Game Of Thrones" was on for 25 seasons, it too would sag in the ratings.

I am pretty confident that the "show that just won't die" and has been horrible for years, the Simpsons, will end before "Raw" does, which is sure to disappoint a lot of you.

It has been all over the entertainment news. I highly doubt they are lying seeing as they have no reason to do so.

WWE officials have commented on it, they're well aware.

By all means, do some research and quit being lazy. And just because you don't want to believe something doesn't make it not true.

 

[baufan2025]

The thing is though they could replace the whole writing team from top to bottom and it wouldn't make a hairs difference if Vince keeps vetoing ideas and throwing his own mess in there. You can't have people rewriting Raw shows 15 minutes before it goes on air and expect it to be done well.

 

[Azane]

Better luck next week, This weeks RAW kept the same feel, Confused heels and faces (We had faces attacking heels randomly?), Roman Reigns getting long talking promos, where his lack of mic work really shows PAINFULLY, I don't want to turn this into a RAW review, I'm just trying to figure out if there is something coming out brand new.

To the above post that Vince is 100% responsible for the Attitude Era, if he's responsible now, part of what made the AE succeed was that Vince wasn't saying No to things, HBK + HHH had to beg him to let them keep doing DX, The Rock was given almost complete freedom with how his promos were cut (Some of Rocky's hard scripted promos when he was fresh were awful, the freedom let him shine). Vince didnt want to take the WWE to the Attitude Era, he was really against the style that put RAW over. (This is actually well documented in the Monday Night Wars series, with Vince himself saying he hated it, but needed the ratings).

I'm thinking we won't see any major changes until the PPV Cycle ends. Vince has always said he listens to the audience, it's obvious with Roman Reigns that he can't hear boos very well, but hopefully USA pushes him (The best irony of course, is that USA were really upset about the Attitude Era, and DX specifically for the antics during the early Attitude era, and now they're upset towards WWE being too tame).

And we don't need to go back to massive swearing and inuendos to make Wrestling better, we just need to go beyond "IM GONNA BEAT YOU UP FOR YOUR BELT" booking, which has been 90% of booking for the past decade.

 

[achromat666]

Admittedly the WWE is in a bad way due in part to a depleted main event roster, the booking for tonight was abysmal.

A massive tag match featuring all of the players in the main event and more as your first match? A non main event after a Dreamer/ Strowman match (was that the main event? it was booked so badly I couldn't tell)? The confusing booking of Rusev, Del Rio and most others?

Bringing back the Attitude era is the least of the WWE's problems if Vince thought any of this was a good idea. It was a terrible show with maybe one good match, lots of talking heads and a mediocre build up to what will be a forgettable PPV.

Attitude, PG, Reality...whatever name you give is meaningless, whatever gimmick you impose equally so. What we need are characters worth watching and a building of the middle and upper card, as well as a rebuilding of the main event. We need to have performers that can talk without scripts and have ambition to move up to the main event. That's what made the Attitude era what it was, and what kept things interesting until most of those talents retired or left. The WWE stopped building talent and started building complacency.

Barrett came into the business at the top in a feud with Cena and got buried. Hasn't even come close since. Rusev had an undefeated streak the got him nowhere, had Cena beat him and he hasn't been relevant since. Kevin Owens hits Raw with great promos and a hot feud with Cena that ends in him getting nowhere. Sheamus has been lost in the midcard forever (like Orton) and no one takes Del Rio seriously to hit the main event again. And the Divas Revolution was stillborn the moment they decided that 9 women needed to have all the TV time and that Nikki Bella beating AJ's title reign was more important than good booking.

Swearing doesn't replace bad booking. Bringing back stars won't replace bad booking. Saying they will 'make changes' is meaningless if decisions like those mentioned above are commonplace. There's a lot of great talent being squandered and the WWE only has itself to blame.

 

[enviousdominous]

I'm so glad the WWE came to their senses and didn't send out their original draft, written by Vince McMahon and proofread by his pet human HHH. I'm pretty sure it went something like this:

Dear WWE Universe,

I'm Vince McMahon, and I feel that you're sick of having your intelligence insulted!

Please complete this brief survey, which will help us provide a much more enlightening product for you to enjoy.

Attached is a photo of my ass.

When staring at my ass, what emotions are inspired?

Do you feel that my ass is making you smarter? Please explain why or why not.

Also attached is a photo of Hunter Hearst Bananafana Furst's ass.

Which ass makes you feel smarter, mine or Homely Hearst Hunter's?

Please send a picture of your bare ass so we at WWE can use ass-phrenology to determine what types of asses prefer our product (asses).

Thank you for completing this survey.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Why does the buck stop at the top only when it comes to what goes wrong?

If Vince McMahon is 100% responsible for all that is wrong in WWE, then is he not also 100% the reason that the Attitude Era succeeded. You can't have it both ways.

So either you apportion success or blame, or put it on one person, but if one person is totally at fault, does that mean that they get ALL the credit if it works?

Wasn't Vince also over the creative team who wrote the Attitude Era? So, does he get the praise for that then?

I never claimed otherwise. The buck does stop with Vince and I've been among the first to defend him when WWE's product wasn't so far in the dumps. I've defended the PG rating, I've defended decisions to push wrestlers who aren't internet darlings if they've been good draws, I've defended Vince's decision to use part timers for the purpose of helping to jack up ppv buys or ratings, but not to use at the expense of the roster as a whole, I've given him credit loads of times for the good decisions he's made both in the last 12 years or so and during the Attitude Era. However, I've also said lots of times that contrary to what some would say, not everything during the Attitude Era was this paragon of quality and greatness. For every time Austin beat up Vince, there was garbage like Val Venis getting his sausage chopped off by Kai-En-Tai. For every great Rock promo, there was stuff like Mae Young giving birth to a hand.

The buck ultimately does stop with Vince McMahon and I'm not trying to have it both ways. When I see something that I find entertaining, whether it's a promo, overall segment, match, someone getting pushed, etc. then I've never had any issues stating so or giving WWE credit. I thought there were parts of last night's Raw that I found quite entertaining just as I thought there were some that were nonsensical wastes of time. I just happen to do the same when the product isn't so great because, like you alluded to, the door swings both ways and the problem is that Vince's decisions are quite a bit more crap than quality these days.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Main site is reporting that according to Meltzer, big creative changes MAY be coming to WWE starting tonight on Raw.

Well, whatever 'it' was, it didn't happen last night.

Fair enough. If we're talking about changing the direction of the entire company, it's something that probably couldn't be implemented in one ordinary Raw.....more likely, we'd see it at the next PPV.....or maybe even the Royal Rumble. That is, if there's anything at all to what was being reported on the main site.

I'll say one thing: reading the stepped-up complaints about the last few weeks, it sure seems the company is missing Seth Rollins & John Cena, no?

It makes sense, too. They were the two biggest performers in the company, and they're suddenly both gone. It would be strange if they weren't missed.

'Course, it will be even more interesting to have some good folks on this forum explain to us why missing Cena has nothing to do with it.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I didn't watch much Raw last night but it looked to me that Paige, Charlotte, and Lana all had their hair and make up done a little bit differently than what I remember.

Baby steps.