"Must-See Television"

[bk555]

A lot of people have been criticizing the WWE product as of late, and although it isn't unwarranted given the lackluster quality of TV we have seen, I've always been interested by the subjectivity of a certain term that keeps getting thrown into the mix when discussing how to improve the product and that is "Must-See Television."

Now obviously, this can mean a different thing to any separate viewer of WWE but what it can essentially be defined as is content/matches/superstars that you attach yourself to and get actively excited for. We don't see a whole lot of that anymore and people that's the problem. So the question is:

What exactly is "Must-See TV" for wrestling and what examples of it are there in the current product today?

also

What examples of "Must-See TV" could WWE add in the future in order to invoke more interest in their shows and events?

Just my two cents here but I think that anything Brock Lesnar does is obviously a spectacle. I hear his music and I am invested into whatever is on my TV screen until the time he leaves. I feel a similar quality brewing in the young Dean Ambrose as well. He just has a certain charisma I guess.

 

[Headman]

A lot of people have been criticizing the WWE product as of late, and although it isn't unwarranted given the lackluster quality of TV we have seen, I've always been interested by the subjectivity of a certain term that keeps getting thrown into the mix when discussing how to improve the product and that is "Must-See Television."

Now obviously, this can mean a different thing to any separate viewer of WWE but what it can essentially be defined as is content/matches/superstars that you attach yourself to and get actively excited for. We don't see a whole lot of that anymore and people that's the problem. So the question is:

What exactly is "Must-See TV" for wrestling and what examples of it are there in the current product today?

also

What examples of "Must-See TV" could WWE add in the future in order to invoke more interest in their shows and events?

Just my two cents here but I think that anything Brock Lesnar does is obviously a spectacle. I hear his music and I am invested into whatever is on my TV screen until the time he leaves. I feel a similar quality brewing in the young Dean Ambrose as well. He just has a certain charisma I guess.

I would define must see tv as a water cooler show. Ever try avoiding Walking Dead spoilers at work? It's tough. That's because it's must see tv. RAW hasn't fit into this category since the late 90's. It doesn't mean it was good either, because it wasn't. It was just popular. Right now the WWE has saturated the audience with a seemingly endless amount of weekly programming. They'd probably be able to make a kick ass one hour show, an ok two hour show, but no they've got a shitty 3 hour show and a 2 hour show that most people delete off their DVRs before watching it.

 

[bioshock]

Must see tv would be when you have no idea what your going to see happen next. Austin showing up with a beer truck, that is must see tv. We just don't see that anymore.

 

[Radical]

A few things to point out here.

For one, people get very nostalgic about what 'was so great about wrestling in the past' and easily forget how much in between the 'great times' there was a lot of VERY MEDIOCRE and bad stuff there was that they forget to mention.

The Oddities were on Raw about the same time The Rock, Stone Cold and DX were running wild. The Oddities were a bunch of misfits put in joke matches. People complain about The Great Khali, Slator Gator, Adam Rose and The Bunny but are they forgetting there were pointless joke characters and matches back in the beloved Attitude Era? Probably.

The brings up the second point. What is "Must-See TV"? Well, I'd say it's TV that makes you want to tell somebody about it and say "OMG, did you see what happened last night?" or just say to yourself "OMG that was crazy! or cool!" So some might say something like Steve Austin bringing a beer truck into the arena and spraying down The Rock and The Corporation. Ok, fine. But when did that happen? IIRC that happened the Raw before WRESTLEMANIA! How many times did it happen before that? NONE that I know of. So, this big huge 'must-see' moment happened the week before the BIG SHOW. Yes, it was great. But it wasn't like it was happening every week. Sure, Austin usually was doing something hardcore and renegade each week but it wasn't as elaborate as a beer truck so people have to realize it can't always be huge things happening every week.

Sometimes I think people have to give WWE a bit of a break because they are pumping out enormous amounts of new content each week. I say "a bit" of a break because a the WWE does bring it on themselves. Like, do they really need a 3rd hour of Raw? They couldn't even get their US champion on the Raw after NoC yet they made time for TWO Divas matches AND a promo? So I still think they could be smarter with their time, but on the other hand, they can't be expected to put out ground breaking episodes every single week.

Just like any of you who watch late night TV. Those shows are the closest to the WWE in terms of their demand for new content. They do have a longer 'off-season' but when they are on they are trying to pump out an new hour of TV for 4 or 5 days of the week. And guess what? Not every episode is good. A lot of them actually suck. Doesn't matter how charismatic or funny the host is or how good one segment may be. If the bulk of the show felt 'bleh' then the episode gets an overall bad rating. That's the same challenge WWE has.

So, to get more to the point at hand:

What exactly is "Must-See TV" for wrestling and what examples of it are there in the current product today?

- Hardcore matches/segments. I know they don't happen often and are called "No DQ" or "Falls Count Anywhere" matches or something else but anytime they happen it is fun to watch. Dolph Ziggler vs Sandow in that "Hamptons Match" or some other match with a bunch of instruments a while back was fun to watch because it was different and fun chaos. Some of my favorite stuff from the Attitude Era was The Rock vs Mankind in an Empty Arena and Stone Cold brawling Booker T in a supermarket. Just fun to watch. If WWE could do something even CLOSE to that these days they could see the positive response.

- Dean Ambrose. He is an intriguing character. He does things against the grain and that's fun to watch. The stuff he did distracting Rollins at ring side with the soda, popcorn and hat in the briefcase is stuff that makes a Pro Wrestling show FUN to watch. To me, on Pro Wrestling shows I like to watch stuff that would be fun to do but you don't really get to do in real life. That's why Dean is popular and gets Austin comparisons because Austin was interesting in his time because he went against the grain and you never knew what he was going to do next.

- Title Tournaments & Challenges. I love when the titles are the focus of a show. I love when there is a tournament to be the #1 Contender for a title or even a Battle Royal or a Qualifying Match for a spot IN a title match. Anything that makes Pro Wrestling more SPORTS-LIKE than just "entertainment." Because to me, that's why Sports are popular. When you get to playoffs people love to see the best of the best battle it out down to a single spot. WWE needs more of that, and when it happens, it is good TV.

- Unique matches. Yes, a good one on one traditional match can be GREAT but I love a match where it is different from what you normally see if you flip to a boxing or UFC match. Stuff like a 6 Pack Challenge Elimination Match or a Triple Threat Tornado Tag Team match or a Ladder match make TV "Must-See".

- New rivalries/matches. Surprise to hear that we aren't going to be that excited about John Cena vs Randy Orton for the millionth time? Well we aren't. How about Randy Orton vs Ryback (a face and built up to look STRONG Ryback)? Or Cesaro vs John Cena where Cena loses clean AND THEN shakes Cesaro's hand? Or Tyson Kidd vs Daniel Bryan when he has returned and the match goes 15 minutes to show how both competitors are good? NEW rivalries and matches we haven't seen very often make it must-see!


Basically my answers to the first question answer the second question as well because the stuff I said are things WWE have done in the past but not as much as I would like. There isn't really anything I can think of that WWE has never done that I think they could do to make it 'must-see' TV.

 

[Navi]

Seriously don't even think the phrase "Must See TV" exists anymore. With DVR's, and timeshifting, people watch programmes at their own pace now, not when the networks would like us too. A friend of mine in Oklahoma DVR's everything. Her husband drives a truck and they spend the weekend catching up on the shows they missed. They're not the only ones who I know do that. With people working longer hours, and weird shifts. it not unnatural anymore, to watch TV shows when you're able too.

With wrestling though, it has it's fan base, and it's an everchanging one. People start and stop watching all the time, and I don't think there is anything that the WWE could do to bring people in. They tried the guest host route, and that went nowhere and all the gimmicks in the world aren't going to work. Either you're a fan of wrestling or you're not. If you're a fan you'll watch, if you're not then you're watching something else, that's the fact of the matter.

They could put whatever they want on RAW but the bottom line is, it's still a wrestling show, and nothing is going to change that.

 

[MartialHorror]

I honestly think the legacy of the Attitude Era is primarily driven by nostalgia...Yeah, there were some awesome wrestlers and feuds during that time, but there were also a lot of letdowns and stupid ideas too. 10 years later, we simply have forgotten about them. 10 years from now, people might look upon the current product with some fondness.

Since I started watching wrestling again, WWE has had its ups and downs, but I think its biggest failure is that it doesn't know what to do with all of its talent. Looking back during the Attitude Era days, I liked D-Lo Brown and Van Venis enough, but I always felt that their place was secure in the midcards. The people who usually deserved to be placed higher were usually at least close to the top spot.

So it becomes frustrating when I see Bray, Cesaro, Swagger, Barrett and other potential greats being underused so WWE can either push stars fans are tired of seeing in the spotlight (all the time) or pushing guys like Reigns who is a big "maybe". I didn't list Ziggler, like everyone else would've, because I think Ziggler belongs firmly in the midcard...lol...pleasedon'thurtme.

If the stars can align and all these guys can be used effectively, even if it does technically keep them amongst the midcarders, then it's great television. I have to admit that Bryan forcing his way into Wrestlemania was pretty specular. The Shield had some awesome moments too against the Wyatts and Evolution- if if the former was underdeveloped.

 

[MERPER]

"Must-see TV" for wrestling involves turns you never see coming. It involves ridiculous things that leave you shaking your head for their absurdity.

WWE is a fantasy world where anything and everything goes, that's they the Attitude Era was so great. That's why today's TV is so boring.

It's not UFC or boxing where results of matches truly matter. You want to see the crazy and unpredictable because the actual matches/records/champions don't really matter.

While I understand their turn towards the family-friendly product, it has actually hurt them quite a bit because it completely limits what they can write and do. Parents can not let their kids watch if they don't like something but by trying to appease concerned parents and families they have made long-time, older fans pretty bored.