The mid 90s, when they nearly went out of business. You've pretty much hit the nail on your head with why you are wrong in one sentence there. If it was so easy to make a super popular star, they'd have done it in 1995 and nipped WCW in the bud, but they didn't.
But did it really have to do with not being able to make stars? That point in time was a transitional period and people had lost interest because of the departure of the stars they had been used to. Nonetheless they still made Bret Hart, they still made Shawn Michaels, and Razor, and Diesel. They all had their strengths and weaknesses, but they also got the exposure and the push necessary to make them.
I'm willing to bet my spleen that nobody has ever bought a WWE ticket to see Dwayne Gill.
And you would win that bet. The thing is, Gillberg wasn't meant to be a big star or anything that wasn't his purpose. It was a comedy routine, and all they did was put him out there and it worked, people thought it was funny. Did Dwayne Gill have any of the intangibles of a Hogan or Cena? No, but just putting him out there got the job done.
That's the point though isn't it?! It's Hulk Hogan, he was better than anyone else, so he was mega popular ina month! How do you cram someone down people's throats in a month with no PPV, no weekly episodic television and no internet? You don't.
That whole "Hogan down the throat" thing is in reference to his whole tenure more so than his introduction and rise to fame. Once he was at the top, he never left and you could always bank on him winning much like with Cena. That didn't leave a lot of room at the top for anyone else, and a lot of people then looked at it the same as they do now with Cena. The "down the throat" thing applies moreso to Cena than Hogan, but regardless you get the point. Still, you are using Hogan/Cena like that kind of stardom is the status quo, and we both know these two are exceptions to the rule as far as them getting over goes, these two just have "IT".
Fine then, why did nobody give a shit about, say, Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels?
I don't think it's at all fair to say that no one gave a shit about Bret and Shawn, as I mentioned earlier this was a transitional period in wrestling. There were so many other factors to the decline in the mid-90's that you can't really blame either of those guys, or say that no one cared about them, especially since they kept the company afloat after taking major losses.
[/QUOTE]Why do main event pushes given to people like Billy Gunn totally fail?[/QUOTE]
As for Billy Gunn, you ask why pushes like the one given to him fail? Maybe because like with him they often times don't stick with it if it's not an instant success. There is also the fact that not everybody gets the best of the creative end as well. Again, there are a lot of other factors that go into those decisions, most of which are only mysteries to people like you and I.
[/QUOTE] How is it possible that the WWE lost three quarters of their audience when Hart and Michaels took over from Hogan as the face of the company and half of it when Lesnar took over from Rock and Austin? All had similar exposure to the audience, and nobody gave a shit. Hart and Austin got given more time at WrestleMania than anyone before or since, and nobody bought it. Why? Because they aren't as big a draw to the mainstream market as Cena and Hogan.[/QUOTE]
Looking at the first loss of audience, that was all due to the departure of the late 80's stars like Hogan, Warrior, and Mach. Not to mention at that time they came out with some horrible horrible characters. Creative was not at their best at that time. You can't blame that on Michaels or Hart. Then, when you get to the loss from The Rock- Austin, take a look again at the landscape of the business at the time, again this was a period of transition from the attitude era to the current one. If anything, all that shows is that people don't take well to change once they get used to something.
Yeah, like when everyone reacted positively when CM Punk first won the title. Or Swagger. Oh wait, they didn't.
That's not the point though. Looking at situations like that when someone first gets put up, sure, people might not respond with elation. Why? Because up to that point all you know them as or perceive them as is "mid-carders" until they get a little more main event experience under their belt. The point is though, once they get that exposure, and they are put up there the deed is done, they're there. The initial response isn't the point, it's the fact that they are there simply because they are put there and that changes your perception of them, and this can be done with a lot of the guys who currently aren't where a lot of the IWC feels they should be.
Seeing as he had been wrestling as Hulk Hogan for four years and McMahon's own father gave him that moniker, I think it's fairly likely that McMahon intended him to be Hulk Hogan. He was popular in AWA despite being absolutely nothing like their normal kind of wrestler. Did Verne Gagne also cram him down people's throats?
Again, This is Hulk Hogan you're talking about. Someone who was obviously destined to be a star. I did forget about the previous time he spent as Hulk Hogan and that it was Vince Sr. not Jr. who named him Hulk Hogan, so thanks for reminding me of that. I was thinking earlier back to the "Sterling Golden" days before that, sorry memory lapse. I was saying though that with the same machine behind someone with the same gimmick and whatnot, it's not completely unfeasible that it could have still worked. I think the fact that Hogan was different than the typical wrestlers of those days probably had something to do with that success as well i.e. his physical presence.
You can spot injury proneness, it's an obvious trait. Edge is injury prone, Undertaker is injury prone, Jericho isn't.
Yeah, that's after the fact, it's not like you know which eggs are going to break before you put them in the basket.
[/QUOTE] But if it was easy to cram someone down the throats until they were popular, wouldn't they do it with at least one other guy, in case he got injured? Why would they let their ratings drop by 0.5 every time the guy is injured?[/QUOTE]
Good question. I'd have to say that all depends on how well you plan ahead. I don't think people plan injuries so there is no telling whether or not or when that would be necessary. One of my original points was that often times the most logical answer is the one that is right in front of our faces, and is often times the one we overlook which was meant to point to the very irony you are speaking of. Why don't they just do that? There have been cases where that has worked and if it worked once, surely it would work again if done the right way right?
Jeff Hardy isn't a megastar though is he? He's not even TNA's most popular wrestler. John Cena is a megastar. And again, if WWE could pick anyone to be their next huge deal, would they pick the guy with drug problems?
He was a megastar in WWE when they finally decided to make him one, and that's all it came down to, putting him up there. This supports my argument even better too because Hardy is a guy who lacked in certain areas, but that didn't matter. They put him in the main event, pushed him to the moon, and it worked simply by doing it. As for your question about whether the WWE would pick a guy with drug problems, they already did with Hardy so that answers your question. He just happened to have things under control at the time.
But you can't. If you could, TNA would have done it, but haven't. If you could, there would be more than one person in the WWE right now whose presence changes the ratings? If you could make anyone a superstar, why not make one on each brand?
Good Question again, why not? I am asking the same question. It has been shown in the past that you can do that. TNA is a whole other story, they've got to figure out how to run themselves and get the viewer-ship they need to do it first. Remember as well I didn't say that you could do it with ANYBODY, but that it could and would work with a lot of the talent they have that is just missing the mark.
There is though. There isn't anyone who has made it to the top without good mic skills and charisma.
Do we really need to go down this road? We were just talking about Jeff Hardy who has never had mic skills, and who's charisma is questionable. Bret Hart wasn't exactly a mic genius either, nor was Ultimate Warrior, or Brock Lesnar, or Goldberg, or Batista, or Rey Mysterio, or The Rock. Just kidding about The Rock, I just wanted to mess with you a bit, lol. The point is that it doesn't take a total package(speaking of Total Package, Lex was never good on the mic either) to make a superstar, you can lack certain things as long as you make up for them in other areas which a lot of the guys waiting to go up can and do.
There's nobody who's done it without being able to tell a story in the ring.
And yet a lot of people give John Cena heat for not being able to do that very thing. That's not so much the case now IMHO, but others definitely give him heat for that, even though that was probably more the case earlier on in his WWE run. I like Cena so I don't get that, I think he does great but I also let myself get sucked in because I like the drama and the storytelling.
Not one of Dean Malenko's thousand holds is as remotely engaging as Hulk Hogan, standing in the middle of the ring with sweat pouring out of him shaking and making the comeback to 99% of the human population.The IWC may see a technical masterpiece, the average person is seeing some in a fake headlock. Hogan and Cena's matches are formulaic, but the manner in which they do it takes the crowd with them. The difference between Hogan and Cena is slight, but it is why Hogan is the best ever and Cena is only the best now, and it is basically that Cena undersells his comeback. Seriously. Austin, Hogan, Cena, Warrior. Watch them all, watch how they all come back in exactly the same way and realise that it is the ability to do that believably that makes main eventers megastars.
Woah Woah Woah, starting to trail off here, but I totally agree on the Cena/Hogan point. And, maybe you are right about none of Dean Malenko's 1000 holds being as engaging as Hogan being Hogan, but again that's the case comparing almost anyone to Hogan.
Technical proficiency, whatever that is, isn't essential. The ability to entertain people, a lot of people, is, and that's why Cena is a better superstar than John Morrison.
True, being a technical genius isn't essential but the ability to entertain is. I am saying though, that if you just put people in the right situations to do so, you CAN squeeze an apple and get applesauce, and you can get blood from a turnip. If they were consistently putting John Morrison in main event matches, he would then be viewed as a main event caliber superstar. Take a look at the little push they gave him last year and the year before. When they had him winning matches and beating the likes of C.M. Punk, Rey Mysterio, and Chris Jericho people were for sure that he was a main event guy just about to launch. Now, since that hasn't been the case recently people have quit on him, the perception has changed.
I think that in the case of someone like him with some good assets, maybe missing a few, that is the whole key "Perception", and I think that perception can be changed as I said by just putting them up there and actually getting behind the person. You put the kind of resources behind a guys like him that you put behind the main eventers, and they will be a main eventer too. You have to book them right, and you have to support them though. Few do it on their own.
