Ambiguous Turd
Mid-Card Championship Winner
I was going to let the thread go, because we take the time to have a nice little debate in the Bar Room with lengthier posts (which ironically enough defeats the purpose of the Bar Room with the leeway on spamming) and yet nobody gets any credit for it in their post count.
Btw, sorry I didn't come back in here last night, as after I was done eating and doing a couple other things, I just wasn't in the mood.
But anyway, I guess we can keep this going, but as suggested, there is a wrestling forum out there if you want to talk about Gimmicks vs Personalities and Feuds vs Storylines ... and all that stuff, and that way we can all get credit for it in our post counts. So keep that in mind and if you want to keep it going after this post, that is my best advice.
I would disagree that JBL was not a gimmick. TL Hopper was a gimmick. JBL was also a gimmick. Self-made Millionaire Texan, who moved to New York, who adopted a more modern day Million Dollar Man gimmick. Hell, Ted Dibiase even acknowledged that at the Hall of Fame when Dibiase inducted Sherri ... stating something to the effect of "Top that, JBL!", after he handed out all the money to the crowd.
There are good gimmicks and there are bad gimmicks, and people who are against gimmicks frequently pick out the worst gimmicks in wrestling history, in an attempt to try to get everyone think that ALL gimmicks are bad for wrestling. That isn't the case at all.
Because there isn't as much talking in WWE in year's past, which allows wrestlers to help get over with the audience, it would be to WWE's benefit to instill more of their talent to have gimmicks so they can actually fall back on them for cheers or heat from the crowd, since these guys aren't given the opportunity to talk at length.
Speaking of gimmicks, I was wondering if you could tell me the following. What is:
Charlie Haas' gimmick?
Ricky Ortiz' gimmick?
Jamie Noble's gimmick?
Batista's gimmick (don't say "The Animal" either, as that is just a nickname)?
Shelton Benjamin's gimmick (again, don't say "The Gold Standard")
Triple H's gimmick ("The Game" doesn't count)?
John Cena's gimmick?
Paul Burchill's gimmick?
All the hours of studying you've done DOES NOT compare to actually living through the Eras in question. And that isn't a knock on you. It's just reality. In order to get the full understanding of the Hogan Era, the New Generation Era, or the Attitude Era, you really have to live through that period of time, to understand what got over, what did not, what gimmicks worked well for that time period and what did not, to get a better feel for all the storylines or feuds that were executed, the enthusiasm level from the crowd and the types of things the crowd reacted to then compared to today, the in-ring styles, how one could get over with their character without being that great in the ring, what the ratings were like week in and week out, the PPV buyrates and attendance, etc. I give you credit for studying up on things, but it absolutely does not compare to actually living through the Era by physically attending House Shows, TV tapings, and watching the shows LIVE as they happened. Again, that does not mean you are any less of a fan. We simply all start somewhere at some point in time. I simply started back in 1990 and have absorbed a lot more stuff in my time then you have. Few are going to disagree that people who actually lived through and participated in those Eras are going to simply have a better feel for each of those things, after experiencing it first-hand.
And again, I am going to have to disagree.
Just because Wrestler X may threaten (whoops, I forgot. We can't threaten anyone anymore according to Linda McMahon) Wrestler Y by telling them that they are going to "take their title at SummerSlam", that does not make it a storyline. That simply is a feud or "program".
Storylines are much more complex than a simple feud. Storylines can be best described as having an actual plot, with a beginning, middle, or end. You also get the feeling you are actually progressing towards something, with a storyline.
I listed some examples over the years in another thread, but I'll do so again ....
Who tried to kill Mr. McMahon?
Who ran over Stone Cold Steve Austin?
Who is Mr. McMahon's Illegitimate son?
Stone Cold Steve Austin takes over as the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment
Who is the Higher Power of the Ministry of Darkness
JBL hires Shawn Michaels due to Shawn Michaels financial woes, and forces him to do his bidding
For some reason, the Undertaker sold his soul to the Million Dollar Man, and is working for him. Is it the Real Undertaker or not?
Eddie Guerrero propositioning Chyna to be his Mamacita
Dawn Marie taking a romantic love interest in Al Wilson, Torrie Wilson's father, and planning a wedding
The Gay wedding being planned for Billy and Chuck ... the wedding planning for Teddy Long and Kristal Marshall
Vickie Guerrero cheating on Edge with the Big Show
Mae Young being impregnated by "Sexual Chocolate" Mark Henry
Compare those actual storylines to the stuff you have listed below ...
A feud, not a storyline.
Basically, yeah. When you compare the amount of actual storylines today, to the number of actual storylines done at the same time in the Attitude Era and Post Attitude Era, there simply is no comparison. And again, that is primarily because the storylines have mostly disappeared with very few exceptions, and have simply been replaced with feuds/programs.
I don't have a problem with that as long as the guys can get over with their gimmicks, since they aren't being placed in storylines. But since we don't really have that many gimmicks in use anymore, they have a lot more difficulty getting over with the audience.
People want to know "what is wrong with today's crowds" with respect to why they aren't as enthusiastic and energetic compared to what they used to be .... well, I am telling you the reason why. It's simply a matter of whether you actually want to listen or if you would rather mope around, poke your head in the sand, and say "Gee, I just don't know why the fans sit there like their bored, and I can't come up with an intelligent explanation as to why".
Agreed. Why do people go to events if they don't enjoy it? Why do people go, yet give the impression at the live events and on TV like they would rather be elsewhere?
Why do people watch WWE television, yet clearly aren't happy about the product? Which clearly, you can tell a lot of people still do.
Some things are inexplicable. Wrestling is simply something that is sentimental to a lot of people and very difficult to quit watching altogether, even though you may not be happy with the current product.
However, a good question I would pose is that WWE is already running smaller buildings for many of their shows, compared to what they used to. But are today's crowds also even more papered than before? I think that is a fair question I would love to see the answer to.
It is odd that PPV buyrates are down, ratings are down, yet attendance supposedly has gone up very, very slightly over the years. Very baffling.
I'm not calling you stupid. Unlike some other posters, I don't insult people. I simply made a true statement, that you are still a relatively new fan, and no amount of studying you may do will equal living through 10 or 20 years that other people actually followed the business, and experienced it first-hand at the arenas. That's just a fact, not an insult.
As far as the product being "good or bad", that really is in the eyes of the beholder. What may be "good" in your eyes, may be "awful" in another person's eyes.
Clearly whatever the situation, the action on TV today DOES NOT inspire the audience to be enthused about the product as much as it did 10 years ago. That is also a fact.
Nobody's pops today are anything like they were 10 years ago, or I would even say 6 or 7 years ago, either. Not even Cena's.
Kofi Kingston gets okay pops for this particular Era, but they aren't particularly impressive compared to other years. And that has nothing to do with Kofi, as much as it has to do with WWE doing it's job (or NOT doing it's job) to get the audience to actually be more enthused about the performers. Don't blame the audience. WWE has to do a better job to get them to care about the matches, and my contention is that they simply are not doing enough. As older stars begin to retire, this should absolutely be Priority #1 for Vince and company right now ... because I simply am not even seeing as much enthusiasm for the new crowd of soon-to-be Main Eventers as I am seeing for the current crop.
I do admit that I haven't watched ECW in months. I catch Superstars occasionally, after I am done watching TNA on the replay. Smackdown, I watch about the same ... rarely. And I painstakingly watch Raw, the marquee show, each week simply to keep my awareness level up on what is going on.
I have caught a couple segments of ECW on YouTube when I hear anything new or of interest happening, though ... like the Abraham Washington show. I will make a point to watch ECW this Tuesday though, to see if any improvements have been made to the show, and I'll let you know my thoughts.
I simply think our biggest difference is what constitutes a storyline vs a feud/program ... and what constitutes a gimmick vs a personality.
Btw, sorry I didn't come back in here last night, as after I was done eating and doing a couple other things, I just wasn't in the mood.
But anyway, I guess we can keep this going, but as suggested, there is a wrestling forum out there if you want to talk about Gimmicks vs Personalities and Feuds vs Storylines ... and all that stuff, and that way we can all get credit for it in our post counts. So keep that in mind and if you want to keep it going after this post, that is my best advice.
I would disagree that JBL was not a gimmick. TL Hopper was a gimmick. JBL was also a gimmick. Self-made Millionaire Texan, who moved to New York, who adopted a more modern day Million Dollar Man gimmick. Hell, Ted Dibiase even acknowledged that at the Hall of Fame when Dibiase inducted Sherri ... stating something to the effect of "Top that, JBL!", after he handed out all the money to the crowd.
There are good gimmicks and there are bad gimmicks, and people who are against gimmicks frequently pick out the worst gimmicks in wrestling history, in an attempt to try to get everyone think that ALL gimmicks are bad for wrestling. That isn't the case at all.
Because there isn't as much talking in WWE in year's past, which allows wrestlers to help get over with the audience, it would be to WWE's benefit to instill more of their talent to have gimmicks so they can actually fall back on them for cheers or heat from the crowd, since these guys aren't given the opportunity to talk at length.
Speaking of gimmicks, I was wondering if you could tell me the following. What is:
Charlie Haas' gimmick?
Ricky Ortiz' gimmick?
Jamie Noble's gimmick?
Batista's gimmick (don't say "The Animal" either, as that is just a nickname)?
Shelton Benjamin's gimmick (again, don't say "The Gold Standard")
Triple H's gimmick ("The Game" doesn't count)?
John Cena's gimmick?
Paul Burchill's gimmick?
All the hours of studying you've done DOES NOT compare to actually living through the Eras in question. And that isn't a knock on you. It's just reality. In order to get the full understanding of the Hogan Era, the New Generation Era, or the Attitude Era, you really have to live through that period of time, to understand what got over, what did not, what gimmicks worked well for that time period and what did not, to get a better feel for all the storylines or feuds that were executed, the enthusiasm level from the crowd and the types of things the crowd reacted to then compared to today, the in-ring styles, how one could get over with their character without being that great in the ring, what the ratings were like week in and week out, the PPV buyrates and attendance, etc. I give you credit for studying up on things, but it absolutely does not compare to actually living through the Era by physically attending House Shows, TV tapings, and watching the shows LIVE as they happened. Again, that does not mean you are any less of a fan. We simply all start somewhere at some point in time. I simply started back in 1990 and have absorbed a lot more stuff in my time then you have. Few are going to disagree that people who actually lived through and participated in those Eras are going to simply have a better feel for each of those things, after experiencing it first-hand.
And again, I am going to have to disagree.
Just because Wrestler X may threaten (whoops, I forgot. We can't threaten anyone anymore according to Linda McMahon) Wrestler Y by telling them that they are going to "take their title at SummerSlam", that does not make it a storyline. That simply is a feud or "program".
Storylines are much more complex than a simple feud. Storylines can be best described as having an actual plot, with a beginning, middle, or end. You also get the feeling you are actually progressing towards something, with a storyline.
I listed some examples over the years in another thread, but I'll do so again ....
Who tried to kill Mr. McMahon?
Who ran over Stone Cold Steve Austin?
Who is Mr. McMahon's Illegitimate son?
Stone Cold Steve Austin takes over as the CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment
Who is the Higher Power of the Ministry of Darkness
JBL hires Shawn Michaels due to Shawn Michaels financial woes, and forces him to do his bidding
For some reason, the Undertaker sold his soul to the Million Dollar Man, and is working for him. Is it the Real Undertaker or not?
Eddie Guerrero propositioning Chyna to be his Mamacita
Dawn Marie taking a romantic love interest in Al Wilson, Torrie Wilson's father, and planning a wedding
The Gay wedding being planned for Billy and Chuck ... the wedding planning for Teddy Long and Kristal Marshall
Vickie Guerrero cheating on Edge with the Big Show
Mae Young being impregnated by "Sexual Chocolate" Mark Henry
Compare those actual storylines to the stuff you have listed below ...
A feud. Not a storyline.
I can agree with you on that one.
.
A feud, not a storyline.
???. A feud, not a storyline.
That's very borderline between a storyline and simply a gimmick change.
That is simply developing one's character. He isn't involved in a storyline.
A feud, not a storyline.
Basically, yeah. When you compare the amount of actual storylines today, to the number of actual storylines done at the same time in the Attitude Era and Post Attitude Era, there simply is no comparison. And again, that is primarily because the storylines have mostly disappeared with very few exceptions, and have simply been replaced with feuds/programs.
I don't have a problem with that as long as the guys can get over with their gimmicks, since they aren't being placed in storylines. But since we don't really have that many gimmicks in use anymore, they have a lot more difficulty getting over with the audience.
People want to know "what is wrong with today's crowds" with respect to why they aren't as enthusiastic and energetic compared to what they used to be .... well, I am telling you the reason why. It's simply a matter of whether you actually want to listen or if you would rather mope around, poke your head in the sand, and say "Gee, I just don't know why the fans sit there like their bored, and I can't come up with an intelligent explanation as to why".
Agreed. Why do people go to events if they don't enjoy it? Why do people go, yet give the impression at the live events and on TV like they would rather be elsewhere?
Why do people watch WWE television, yet clearly aren't happy about the product? Which clearly, you can tell a lot of people still do.
Some things are inexplicable. Wrestling is simply something that is sentimental to a lot of people and very difficult to quit watching altogether, even though you may not be happy with the current product.
However, a good question I would pose is that WWE is already running smaller buildings for many of their shows, compared to what they used to. But are today's crowds also even more papered than before? I think that is a fair question I would love to see the answer to.
It is odd that PPV buyrates are down, ratings are down, yet attendance supposedly has gone up very, very slightly over the years. Very baffling.
I'm not calling you stupid. Unlike some other posters, I don't insult people. I simply made a true statement, that you are still a relatively new fan, and no amount of studying you may do will equal living through 10 or 20 years that other people actually followed the business, and experienced it first-hand at the arenas. That's just a fact, not an insult.
As far as the product being "good or bad", that really is in the eyes of the beholder. What may be "good" in your eyes, may be "awful" in another person's eyes.
Clearly whatever the situation, the action on TV today DOES NOT inspire the audience to be enthused about the product as much as it did 10 years ago. That is also a fact.
Nobody's pops today are anything like they were 10 years ago, or I would even say 6 or 7 years ago, either. Not even Cena's.
Kofi Kingston gets okay pops for this particular Era, but they aren't particularly impressive compared to other years. And that has nothing to do with Kofi, as much as it has to do with WWE doing it's job (or NOT doing it's job) to get the audience to actually be more enthused about the performers. Don't blame the audience. WWE has to do a better job to get them to care about the matches, and my contention is that they simply are not doing enough. As older stars begin to retire, this should absolutely be Priority #1 for Vince and company right now ... because I simply am not even seeing as much enthusiasm for the new crowd of soon-to-be Main Eventers as I am seeing for the current crop.
I do admit that I haven't watched ECW in months. I catch Superstars occasionally, after I am done watching TNA on the replay. Smackdown, I watch about the same ... rarely. And I painstakingly watch Raw, the marquee show, each week simply to keep my awareness level up on what is going on.
I have caught a couple segments of ECW on YouTube when I hear anything new or of interest happening, though ... like the Abraham Washington show. I will make a point to watch ECW this Tuesday though, to see if any improvements have been made to the show, and I'll let you know my thoughts.
I simply think our biggest difference is what constitutes a storyline vs a feud/program ... and what constitutes a gimmick vs a personality.
