Over the past couple of weeks I've been watching some old WWF Videos (well not that old , mostly 2001 stuff , and some before) and thinking back to some of those old , but really good storylines.
When you say that 2001 or the Attitude era is "old" stuff...you make me feel really bad.
But when was the last time the WWE really surprised you.
When Mr. McMahon's limo blew up.
For me it probably was the bringing back of Jeff Hardy , I didn't know of WZ.com at that time , so I suppose it could have been reported on here before. But that was the last time I went wow , and I suppose the Fake Kane storyline , which could have been so good , but just wasn't.
If you would quit getting on the Internet, quit posting at wrestling sites, quit having anything to do with wrestling news and rumors, I promise you your level of interest will go way up, as when the number of times something surprises you.
But Raw and Smackdown have been hit by both Injuries and well in Smackdowns case getting completely raped in the Draft. This will improve over the next few months But Smackdown lacks Wrestling Talent from the PoV of being able to cut a Promo, and able to string a coherent match that can go longer than 30 minutes without resorting to a tonne of Rest holds that don't advance the story.
Why would the WWE want to put on a bunch of wrestling matches that go longer than 30 minutes? When have they EVERY consistently put on matches that went longer than 30 minutes?
And in this age of digital recorders people will also record which also would account for the low TV ratings these days. this is only to an extent.
Yes, and this is only one aspect of it. Don't forget people who download the shows from the Internet. Don't forget people who get on the Internet to check results or to know what's happening before it happens, or people who join live discussion threads WHILE Raw is happening because they can't see Raw. Don't forget that there are THREE TV shows on now, and that means that Raw is no longer must-see TV because you can just watch ECW the very next night. There are a lot of reasons why ratings go down.
Have someone like Shelton Benjamin or Carlito do something extremely crazy like viciously attack one of the top Faces, and I mean, make it look vicious, maybe have them attack Cena so that when he leaves to make whatever movie it is, they can say it's an injury. Then you have a ready made feud and you have a "monster" heel that isn't forced. Fans will "hate" the guy that puts Cena on the shelf, figuratively speaking. Of course there are guys that would love to Cena put on the shelf for real, but that's a different story.
The problem with either one of those guys is that they don't have the charisma and/or the in-ring ability to hold such a push.
What people don't understand is that true overness can't happen normally in a year. TRUE overness builds up over a career, which is why most wrestlers historically don't reach their prime until their early to mid 30s, and don't get the title until then. The best way to get someone over is years. But, when a guy like Carlito has only been around for less than 5 years, the chance of him being truly over with the crowd on a long-term basis just isn't very high.
Honestly, Michael Fucking Hayes. Wasn't this the same guy that earlier this year said Chris Benoit shouldn't have been world champion because he didn't have Charisma? The man knows shit about the sport of wrestling, and only remembers a few highlights of his career, like wearing a robe with the confederate flag on it to garner cheap pops, and back it up with zero in ring ability. This is the kind of stuff that keeps the WWE held down, because of nonsense like that.
I'm sorry, but did you just say that Michael Hayes had zero in-ring ability?
Another problem is that they need to get rid of the idea that they can force things on the fans cough*Santino Marella*cough. Just because you want us to like something doesn't mean we will. Look at Cena. You have some people that think he's the greatest and an equal representation that think he's horrible. He gets booed and cheered at the same time, lately it seems the boos are winning. Underdogs can be useful but only if you care enough to root for him. The 1-2-3 Kid was a great underdog because he was over with the crowd and entertained them. Santino blows because nobody gives a shit if he loses his belt. Give us more to work with and we'll give you more of a reception.
Santino Mozarella wasn't forced onto the fans. He was just given a memorable debut. Like I mentioned earlier, the WWE has guys they feel can be stars and they give them time on their show to allow people to get accustomed to them. Most pushes are slow and deliberate and work over time. Along the way, the WWE will give guys mini-pushes to constantly remind people that a guy can be good, and to gain more fans.
Pushing guys and getting guys over goes a lot deeper than some people realize.
Well we need a complete 180 kinda of like what wcw use to set up bing main event only to have a complete wtf moment. like hogan and nash feud only to have them rejoin nwo. I posted this on another post and not to be redundent but think it could work here it is.
Yes, because that whole Fingerpoke of Doom moment really worked out for WCW.
I'm gonna say people post on her are about 16-17 and older. Some of you saw the Hulkamania era, The HBK and Bret Hart era, it sounds like we've all seen the Attitude era, and post WCW era, and the present.
I'm almost 23 years old and went through Hulkamania.
I bet a lot of you got into when you were young too. Maybe it's not so much as it needs a change but more so, that's the way wrestling is now. Maybe wrestling is geared more to attract the younger kids. I don't think Hogan was telling 20 year olds to eat their vitamins and say their prayers. I also believe that is why WWE/F has always bought old wrestlers, to try and keep some of the older fans that they do have. So IMO maybe WWE doesn't have to change b/c it's getting the audience that it wants.
You are partly on the right track. People like to remember the "good old days" of wrestling, and the current will never match up, but only in their mind.
For example, people LOVE to wave the Attitude era around and say "THIS is how wrestling should be". But, honestly, the Attitude era quality was probably inferior to the current brand in a lot of ways. First of all, there were almost ZERO heels during the Attitude era. Mr. McMahon, Triple H, and the Undertaker. Those were the only real heels with any heat. Second of all, the wrestling quality was far inferior to the current product. People complain about not getting good matches on Raw...hell, was there EVER a good Attitude era match on Raw? Finally, there were TONS of bad storylines in the Attitude era. The Brawl For All? Anything to do with The Kat? The storyline where Terri and Jacquelyn made D'Lo buy them tampons?
There were a ton of bad storylines in the Attitude era.
The point I'm trying to make, is that everything in the past seems so much greater. People should quit trying to hold the WWE to the standards of their nostalgic memory, and just appreciate what is being put out by the WWE now. I enjoy the WWE an awful lot.
I agree about the creative teams , they've gone totally stale over , even the last few months. There hasn't been any long term storylines , and this has really caused a problem , no real fueds have been able to develop.
Injuries are a big reason for that.
The levels of promo have been pretty terrible this year aswell. Again the lack of Triple H doesn't help.
How do you figure? I've thought that the promos this year have been just fine. As long as the WWE can keep a microphone out of Matt Hardy's hands, they are fine.
I think that the biggest problem with the current product is the overexposure factor. With 5 hours of TV a week, the WWE product is on way too much. I mean if you looks back when the WWE was getting its biggest ratings ever, in 1999, RAW was THEE show. The reason it got such good ratings was because if you wanted to see the WWE, you watched RAW and it was great because the anticipation was there.
Bingo! This is exactly right. If you wanted to watch the WWF, Raw was your only chance. There wasn't TiVos back then. There wasn't easy access to download shows. There weren't two other shows on later in the week to watch. Monday night was it. You watched WCW and WWF, and waited a full week to do so again.
Take the Mr. McMahon death angle. In 1998, you would have had to wait a WHOLE WEEK before you got the latest bit of news on it. By that time, anticipation built dramatically, and it became a must watch event. Now, you just turn on wrestling the very next night to get an update.
Overexposure kills the WWE's ratings.
... and so was the RVD feud (but that was mostly because of the whole ECW vs WWE thing)...