Why does the WWE bash it's hardcore fans?

[Kidpolean]

So it’s interesting to note a few contradictory arguments as I read through this. These are statements that I see over and over in these sorts of threads. Let’s start with the fact that the ratings have dropped from 6’s(and higher) to being luck to get 3’s. Supposedly this fact is no longer relevant because a large number of wrestling fans either torrent, live stream, YouTube or read results on sites like this. Theoretically the viewership hasn’t dropped, rather it has become split. Then there is the statement (which is commonly seen) that the IWC is only 10% or a small minority of wrestling fans. Wouldn’t watching wrestling every week either through YouTube, torrents, streaming sites and catching up through summary articles make one a part of the IWC? But this presents a contradiction. Either the ratings were cut in half because the viewers are going online thus meaning that at least half the fans are IWC members or the IWC is in fact a small minority, but the total fan base/viewership has plummeted. So which is it?

Another small thing, which I see as interesting, is the fact the I’ve seen it stated over and over again that people boo/bash Cena because they go online and see that it’s cool to hate him. Well if half the arena is booing him, does that mean they got it from these very sites that only a minority visit? Let’s take the argument that people who don’t care are seeing other people boo him and thus join in to be a part of the crowd. But wait, these people with no vested interest are seeing an equal number of people cheer him, what would be their motive to jump on the booing bandwagon? So we are back to a 50/50 split of cheers and boos. Then you have to consider that there is a certain small percentage of audience members that aren’t really fans of the show. It’s safe to say that most of these are there because they are taking their kids. Kids cheer Cena which means the same group of people that aren’t really fans will go along with their kids. So then, it would stand to reason that a portion of his cheers are from people who aren’t even fans. This means with a 50/50 crowd split, the majority of fans are booing him.

I understand the need to feature Cena because he makes money through selling merchandise. But consider this; most wrestlers have a t-shirt on the merch stand whereas Cena has and entire ensemble. A kid won’t simply want a t-shirt; he will want the matching hat, and matching sweatbands(and in each color available). Would this mean that if other wrestlers had entire ensemble, they would be selling just as well? I don’t know, just something to ponder. You could say that kids will still buy Cena because he is their favorite. Ok, but anytime I’ve asked someone, especially kids, why Cena, they say because he’s the best wrestler. I ask what makes him the best, and they say it’s because he always wins. Well shit, then theoretically anyone can be a top draw and merch seller simply by being booked to win and having more items of merchandise on the stands. Just an observation.

WWE is constantly trying so hard to get fans online with either Twitter, WWE.com, WWE App, Facebook, Tout(that shit still happening?), etc. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that some of these fans connecting online might be trickling into the other wrestling site such as these?

OK, now let’s say that the IWC is a minority, hardcore fans opinions don’t matter because they are a stupid minority, and ratings don’t count. This still leaves us with an arena full of people demanding Daniel Bryan. Going by the logic that most of the crowd are non IWC fans and just casual viewers, that would mean they have no idea that he is an indy darling. Regardless of audience break down, they are all relatively unanimous in their demand for Bryan. This wasn’t the case a couple years ago, which means Bryan got over in the WWE. This has been going on since the summer at least. You can’t tell me that the fans are getting behind these Cena vs Orton matches. You sure as hell can’t tell me that the fans are accepting Batista as a face. And there is absolutely no way you can tell me that if the fans won’t be pissed as hell if Orton vs Batista goes on last at Mania. Ending the biggest wrestling event in the history of wrestling thus far with a very large crowd full of passionate fans (based on the distances and amounts of money they spend) all in a pissed off uproar can’t be best for business. It seems that the WWE is seeing what’s happening but just not applying the information, in MOST cases. They did see the reaction to Shield vs Wyatts and apply that to the Chicago crowd. Kudos on that. It is very clear however, that the crowd at every arena is demanding one thing and getting another.

Now let’s take some of the most popular TV Shows out there right now that were mentioned earlier: Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones. The writers and directors for these shows are mainly concerned in the content of the show being as interesting as possible, keeping fans interested thus maintaining high ratings. Ratings are still good for business. These shows are wildly successful. Raw, Smackdown, PPVs, etc are all just TV shows. WWE makes TV shows. The problem is instead of worrying about keeping the content as interesting, they are worried about being as PC as possible to maintain certain sponsorships, while shelling out a decent enough product to keep a moderate amount of interest. This is like creating a TV Show and being more worried about the commercials than the show itself. We have a show about meth and meth dealers, a show about killing and violence, and another show about killing and violence that includes incest. Huge fan bases, huge successes. Now don’t be ignorant and try to tell me that I’m suggesting WWE start including sex, drugs and intense violence in their shows. I’m just saying that interesting content should come before sponsorship.

There is a reason the Attitude Era had so much viewership. It was so damn interesting. It got all kinds of media attention. Hell, it blew all other wrestling promotions out of the water. Why is this? Because there were stories, plot twists and characters. All of these are essential to a TV show. Mid carders all had some kind of character and storyline. People like to protest the Attitude Era and argue it was all smut, blood, necrophilia and old ladies birthing hands. Hot lesbian action, sex celebration, and basically every bra and panties match happened after the Attitude Era was over. The majority of Divas going to playboy was after the Attitude era. Yes, sure there were girls who were sometimes seen in thongs and what not. But honestly, why the hell would that be a problem. You can’t sit on a wrestling forum and shit on the AE for having women in thongs when in the very next tab you have Xvideos open. Then the whole blood thing. For one, it’s not something that happened every night. Blood, or “color” as referred to it in the industry, was used in certain spots to really emphasize what was happening. It made certain feuds more serious and believable. Blading was heavy back in the 70s and 80s but people don’t like to shit on that. It seems like people on sites like this just like to sound cool and sophisticated by deeming this era trash. The Katey Vick angle(which was never Triple H supposedly molesting a corpse but rather mocking Kane by using a mask and a mannequin to get him even more pissed off) didn’t even take place in the AE. Mae Young birthing a hand was a 5 minute segment that was meant to be light hearted humor, and IMO is funnier than a leprechaun tripping someone. It’s also not an accurate representation of the whole era. The AE was mostly notable for producing what is widely considered the best feud of all time in Austin vs McMahon, bringing talented smaller guys into the main event(Hart and HBK are popular examples), creating the best stable WWE has ever produced(DX), having characters and storylines through out the card, including actual segments backstage. It’s not like today where you just have a GM standing near a bunch of WWE advertisements when suddenly a wrestler approaches them, getting booked in a match. Back then, there was a whole storyline going on backstage for each episode in addition to what was happening in the ring. These segments actually enhanced talent, kept interest, and developed storylines. There was this whole backstage environment that just brought a whole new element of entertainment. Crowds were hot, ratings were high, they were getting recognized by outside media. These sorts of things need to happen again and I think they are doing pretty much this with The Shield and The Wyatts, which is what actually works with the crowd. Go figure.

To say everything is fine is false. Every big PPV, mainly Summer Slam and Wrestlemania, requires part timers to come in and carry the show. Whether it be Taker, HHH, Rock, Jericho, Lesnar or whoever, the big events are never stand alone shows. One of the main events is always from a past era. This wasn’t the case in past eras. This is a clear sign business isn’t great. Not to mention the amount of money they have to shell out for this. I remember they gave $25 million to Mayweather for his WM stint, which is Cena’s total net worth. When coworkers tell me no one watches wrestling and they are surprised to here WWE is still around, I tell them about how they constantly have celebrities involved, and guest hosts, celebrity tweets, how they are getting fans involved with social media and Raw Active, how they are promoting Be A Star and Make a Wish, and that they partner with Susan G. Komen, and the fact that they are even producing movies. The response I got is that it sounds like WWE is really desperately grasping at straws. Make you think. When it was at it’s absolute best it did it with it’s own active roster, little celebrity involvement, no movie studio, no social media networking, and no partnerships with charities. It just listened to it’s fans. Is that not what’s best for business? Couldn’t they still listen to fans and keep all their other side projects going still?

Very last rant…Why is it that any time someone comes onto a wrestling site and criticizes the current product; they are attacked by the other members? Is that not what a forum is for? Also, why do people suggest we stop watching if we are unhappy with the product? What does that solve. Our complaint is that we want a good wrestling show in our lives. To stop watching solves none of that. One does not simply watch wrestling all their life and quit. That’s all. Sorry it’s so long winded and kind of jumps around.

Ok Honestly I didnt read your entire post because it was a bit long but let me clarify some thing that you pointed out.

1. In my personal opinion, the term IWC is referring to wrestling fans that post on wrestling forums on a consistent basis. Youtube and Twitter and things like that are a part of mainstream media and will get attention because of that. Torrents are pretty much the same as getting a dvd or recording Raw so those dont count either. When I say IWC im specifically talking about people that post on wrestling forums consistently and that's all. Now by my definition, which im not saying is the correct one, this would be a very small percentage of wwe fans.

2. Ratings DID plummet but the reason for it has little to do with the wwe itself. If you look at the history of monday night raw and average all the ratings from every era you will see that the current product is pretty much at the average, which is not a bad thing at all. Using AE ratings to compare to the current product is unfair because the AE was a rare one time spike in ratings. Wrestling became a focus of mainstream media and anytime something is a focus of mainstream media the FAKE fans come out. The average is what SHOULD be used to determine success, not the very highest ratings you ever achieved. And quite frankly, there is no way the wwe could have maintained that amount of ratings for the next ten years. People, during the AE, watched wwe because it was COOL, it was a trend, it was what was being talked about everyday at school. The only thing that changed is the trend followers left and the wrestling fans stayed. The same thing happens with clothes, shoes, music, and sports. Its like the difference in ratings that a championship basketball team will get compared to the ratings that the same time got when they were mediocre. As soon as said team starts winning (Miami Heat) there fan base will double maybe even triple, but once they go back to losing, all those new fans will latch on to a different team and they will go back to their original average ratings.

I like your points and respect your opinions but this is what I think about this situation.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I always wonder to myself why the WWE and superstars mock their passionate fan base. I don't understand it really at all. I'm a huge Tennessee Vols football fan. I love my team and I am so passionate about them that even though college football only comes on tv on Saturdays, I am talking, reading, and obsessing until the next game. I'm sure several of you have that sports team that is such a huge part of your life, and you consider yourself a hardcore fan of that team. The same thing applies to television shows, especially in this day and age. How many of you guys love watching Game of Thrones, breaking bad or walking dead? Just like in wrestling, you are so passionate about it that you don't just watch it. It's the one thing that you get all excited about, buy shirts, talk about with your friends, or buy whatever you can related to it. Basically you are very loyal paying customer. Could you imagine if Vince Gilligan (creator of Breaking Bad) bashed the hardcore fans of breaking bad, and called them names and pretty much said Breaking Bad could have made it without it's hardcore fans? Or what about the star player of a sports team saying the fans who bought a ticket to watch him are stupid and don't know a damn thing about the sport they obsess about. I don't like this idea of "well you're not involved in the business so you don't know what you're talking about" or the whole "just sit back and enjoy what they give you." This is laughable to me. If your teams coach calls a stupid play, then it's a stupid play. If the writers of your favorite show do something stupid, then it is stupid. Why bash PAYING CUSTOMERS who help you sell those tickets, sell those shirts, and watch the shows? We critique everything in life. Movies, shows, sports, and especially wrestling. Why is that in Hollywood, acting criticism is welcomed but in wrestling, you can't criticize because you aren't in the business. Why can't people high up in the WWE handle criticism at all on their product. The Wrestlemania XXX card is exactly what I mean when I say they do whatever they want to with no consideration of the hardcore fans. WWE has always thumbed their nose's up at us and after years of doing that, they are honestly at the biggest crossroads in company history. There are more and more casual fans turning into hardcore marks each and every day and the "IWC" has been growing for years and it's finally getting to where shows are getting hijacked, stories and feuds are getting booed out of the building (bootista vs orton) and we are cheering who we want to collectively (Daniel Bryan) instead of who the tell us we should cheer. (batista) I hope WWE finally comes to their senses and gives the fans want they want, because yeah sure they'll say "you guys will watch no matter what" and that's partly true but there will come a day (and it could be soon) where those hardcore fans are tired of being insulted, tired of being letdown, and tired of not getting what they want as a paying customer. Also to those people who say "just enjoy it", you are absolute sheep and have no opinion, backbone, or passion of their own. We know as fans what we want from wrestling and if it's something we don't, The same applies for wrestling. Most of us have been watching for years, we know what we want to see and we know what we don't want to see. (Orton vs Batista)

I ask the question the other way.

If fans are suppousedly so passionate about something, then how come all I ever read is what they do wrong.

Without the producer of "Breaking Bad" there would be no "Breaking Bad". Without Vince McMahon, there would be no WWE or "Wrestlemania".

The fans delude themselves that they are 100% responsible for the success of something, but, funnily enough, then won't take 100% responsiblity when the same thing fails.

Any wrestler who got over, got over DESPITE WWE. Yet if someone doesn't get over, it is all WWE's fault. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin gets all the credit from the fans for the "Attitude Era", yet without Mr McMahon, the feud wouldn't have been as good (as proven when Eric Bischoff tried to do the same thing to SCSA in 2002-03).

It seems that fans will give the creator all the blame, but little of the credit. If it is good, it is attributed to other people.

Daniel Bryan's push is totally credited to Daniel Bryan and the WWE Universe. No matter what WWE do, the fans will give themselves the credit for any success the angle has.

As C.M. Punk once said "You pay to see me. I don't pay to see you." So, fans need to be a bit more grateful and thankful to the person who allows them the opportunity to enjoy that product, and, as the creator, recognise that that person has some right to head their product in the direction that they so choose.

It is a two-way thing. WWE entertains you, and you pay them for the priviledge. Both benefit from the other. So, maybe a recognition that both parties need to be catered for, instead of thinking that WWE owes the fans.
If you don't think you are being entertained, then don't pay or watch anymore. Simple. But don't think you know better than the person who has had proven success in the past, and has actually taken the risks and spent their money to try and put a smile on your face. If you then don't smile, whose fault is that?

 

[Sabutage]

So it’s interesting to note a few contradictory arguments as I read through this. These are statements that I see over and over in these sorts of threads. Let’s start with the fact that the ratings have dropped from 6’s(and higher) to being luck to get 3’s. Supposedly this fact is no longer relevant because a large number of wrestling fans either torrent, live stream, YouTube or read results on sites like this. Theoretically the viewership hasn’t dropped, rather it has become split. Then there is the statement (which is commonly seen) that the IWC is only 10% or a small minority of wrestling fans. Wouldn’t watching wrestling every week either through YouTube, torrents, streaming sites and catching up through summary articles make one a part of the IWC? But this presents a contradiction. Either the ratings were cut in half because the viewers are going online thus meaning that at least half the fans are IWC members or the IWC is in fact a small minority, but the total fan base/viewership has plummeted. So which is it?

Another small thing, which I see as interesting, is the fact the I’ve seen it stated over and over again that people boo/bash Cena because they go online and see that it’s cool to hate him. Well if half the arena is booing him, does that mean they got it from these very sites that only a minority visit? Let’s take the argument that people who don’t care are seeing other people boo him and thus join in to be a part of the crowd. But wait, these people with no vested interest are seeing an equal number of people cheer him, what would be their motive to jump on the booing bandwagon? So we are back to a 50/50 split of cheers and boos. Then you have to consider that there is a certain small percentage of audience members that aren’t really fans of the show. It’s safe to say that most of these are there because they are taking their kids. Kids cheer Cena which means the same group of people that aren’t really fans will go along with their kids. So then, it would stand to reason that a portion of his cheers are from people who aren’t even fans. This means with a 50/50 crowd split, the majority of fans are booing him.

I understand the need to feature Cena because he makes money through selling merchandise. But consider this; most wrestlers have a t-shirt on the merch stand whereas Cena has and entire ensemble. A kid won’t simply want a t-shirt; he will want the matching hat, and matching sweatbands(and in each color available). Would this mean that if other wrestlers had entire ensemble, they would be selling just as well? I don’t know, just something to ponder. You could say that kids will still buy Cena because he is their favorite. Ok, but anytime I’ve asked someone, especially kids, why Cena, they say because he’s the best wrestler. I ask what makes him the best, and they say it’s because he always wins. Well shit, then theoretically anyone can be a top draw and merch seller simply by being booked to win and having more items of merchandise on the stands. Just an observation.

WWE is constantly trying so hard to get fans online with either Twitter, WWE.com, WWE App, Facebook, Tout(that shit still happening?), etc. Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that some of these fans connecting online might be trickling into the other wrestling site such as these?

OK, now let’s say that the IWC is a minority, hardcore fans opinions don’t matter because they are a stupid minority, and ratings don’t count. This still leaves us with an arena full of people demanding Daniel Bryan. Going by the logic that most of the crowd are non IWC fans and just casual viewers, that would mean they have no idea that he is an indy darling. Regardless of audience break down, they are all relatively unanimous in their demand for Bryan. This wasn’t the case a couple years ago, which means Bryan got over in the WWE. This has been going on since the summer at least. You can’t tell me that the fans are getting behind these Cena vs Orton matches. You sure as hell can’t tell me that the fans are accepting Batista as a face. And there is absolutely no way you can tell me that if the fans won’t be pissed as hell if Orton vs Batista goes on last at Mania. Ending the biggest wrestling event in the history of wrestling thus far with a very large crowd full of passionate fans (based on the distances and amounts of money they spend) all in a pissed off uproar can’t be best for business. It seems that the WWE is seeing what’s happening but just not applying the information, in MOST cases. They did see the reaction to Shield vs Wyatts and apply that to the Chicago crowd. Kudos on that. It is very clear however, that the crowd at every arena is demanding one thing and getting another.

Now let’s take some of the most popular TV Shows out there right now that were mentioned earlier: Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, and Game of Thrones. The writers and directors for these shows are mainly concerned in the content of the show being as interesting as possible, keeping fans interested thus maintaining high ratings. Ratings are still good for business. These shows are wildly successful. Raw, Smackdown, PPVs, etc are all just TV shows. WWE makes TV shows. The problem is instead of worrying about keeping the content as interesting, they are worried about being as PC as possible to maintain certain sponsorships, while shelling out a decent enough product to keep a moderate amount of interest. This is like creating a TV Show and being more worried about the commercials than the show itself. We have a show about meth and meth dealers, a show about killing and violence, and another show about killing and violence that includes incest. Huge fan bases, huge successes. Now don’t be ignorant and try to tell me that I’m suggesting WWE start including sex, drugs and intense violence in their shows. I’m just saying that interesting content should come before sponsorship.

There is a reason the Attitude Era had so much viewership. It was so damn interesting. It got all kinds of media attention. Hell, it blew all other wrestling promotions out of the water. Why is this? Because there were stories, plot twists and characters. All of these are essential to a TV show. Mid carders all had some kind of character and storyline. People like to protest the Attitude Era and argue it was all smut, blood, necrophilia and old ladies birthing hands. Hot lesbian action, sex celebration, and basically every bra and panties match happened after the Attitude Era was over. The majority of Divas going to playboy was after the Attitude era. Yes, sure there were girls who were sometimes seen in thongs and what not. But honestly, why the hell would that be a problem. You can’t sit on a wrestling forum and shit on the AE for having women in thongs when in the very next tab you have Xvideos open. Then the whole blood thing. For one, it’s not something that happened every night. Blood, or “color” as referred to it in the industry, was used in certain spots to really emphasize what was happening. It made certain feuds more serious and believable. Blading was heavy back in the 70s and 80s but people don’t like to shit on that. It seems like people on sites like this just like to sound cool and sophisticated by deeming this era trash. The Katey Vick angle(which was never Triple H supposedly molesting a corpse but rather mocking Kane by using a mask and a mannequin to get him even more pissed off) didn’t even take place in the AE. Mae Young birthing a hand was a 5 minute segment that was meant to be light hearted humor, and IMO is funnier than a leprechaun tripping someone. It’s also not an accurate representation of the whole era. The AE was mostly notable for producing what is widely considered the best feud of all time in Austin vs McMahon, bringing talented smaller guys into the main event(Hart and HBK are popular examples), creating the best stable WWE has ever produced(DX), having characters and storylines through out the card, including actual segments backstage. It’s not like today where you just have a GM standing near a bunch of WWE advertisements when suddenly a wrestler approaches them, getting booked in a match. Back then, there was a whole storyline going on backstage for each episode in addition to what was happening in the ring. These segments actually enhanced talent, kept interest, and developed storylines. There was this whole backstage environment that just brought a whole new element of entertainment. Crowds were hot, ratings were high, they were getting recognized by outside media. These sorts of things need to happen again and I think they are doing pretty much this with The Shield and The Wyatts, which is what actually works with the crowd. Go figure.

To say everything is fine is false. Every big PPV, mainly Summer Slam and Wrestlemania, requires part timers to come in and carry the show. Whether it be Taker, HHH, Rock, Jericho, Lesnar or whoever, the big events are never stand alone shows. One of the main events is always from a past era. This wasn’t the case in past eras. This is a clear sign business isn’t great. Not to mention the amount of money they have to shell out for this. I remember they gave $25 million to Mayweather for his WM stint, which is Cena’s total net worth. When coworkers tell me no one watches wrestling and they are surprised to here WWE is still around, I tell them about how they constantly have celebrities involved, and guest hosts, celebrity tweets, how they are getting fans involved with social media and Raw Active, how they are promoting Be A Star and Make a Wish, and that they partner with Susan G. Komen, and the fact that they are even producing movies. The response I got is that it sounds like WWE is really desperately grasping at straws. Make you think. When it was at it’s absolute best it did it with it’s own active roster, little celebrity involvement, no movie studio, no social media networking, and no partnerships with charities. It just listened to it’s fans. Is that not what’s best for business? Couldn’t they still listen to fans and keep all their other side projects going still?

Very last rant…Why is it that any time someone comes onto a wrestling site and criticizes the current product; they are attacked by the other members? Is that not what a forum is for? Also, why do people suggest we stop watching if we are unhappy with the product? What does that solve. Our complaint is that we want a good wrestling show in our lives. To stop watching solves none of that. One does not simply watch wrestling all their life and quit. That’s all. Sorry it’s so long winded and kind of jumps around.

I must say this is a brilliant post. Just to add my thoughts, I think it will be extremely difficult for WWE to recapture the magic of the AE, however I think it will be almost impossible with their current strategy. Right now their general business model is play it safe. No controversial storylines, nothing risque on screen, no blood or swearing etc and I think this hinders the possibility for breakout storylines or characters that can crossover to mainstream. Im not saying its needed on every raw, but sometimes that kind of thing is what can be the watercooler moment, or in this age, the moment that is linked to youtube all over the country or world and brings in new viewers.

You're point about Wrestlemania is something I agree with also, it should be about the wrestlers that are working here day in day out getting their chance to shine on the biggest stage of all. WWE needs to start building and trusting its current stars to headline the big matches on the wrestlemania card, even if its more risky than using a star from the past.

Finally, this is in response to the topic in general, I do feel that hardcore wrestling fans are looked down upon, which is unfair when considered to fans of other TV shows. One of the problems imo is the PG safe aspect of wrestling now. The general response I get from people when trying to discuss wrestling now is that "its for kids", if it had more mature storylines or at least higher concept ideas that went over kids heads but adults could follow, it could be taken more seriously by the general audience.

Unfortunately I dont think WWE will consider that route again, their goal is to be the best PG kids show, expand on thst and have kids all over the world liking WWE, they would prefer an arena full of kids and their parents than one full of teenagers and twenty somethings because they see that as (no pun intended) best for business and the easiest, safest way to make a profit.

 

[tvcolosi]

simple answer... I'm a wrestling fan, I will watch almost regardless...

so will all of you

 

[TheVolFan52]

I ask the question the other way.

If fans are suppousedly so passionate about something, then how come all I ever read is what they do wrong.

Without the producer of "Breaking Bad" there would be no "Breaking Bad". Without Vince McMahon, there would be no WWE or "Wrestlemania".

The fans delude themselves that they are 100% responsible for the success of something, but, funnily enough, then won't take 100% responsiblity when the same thing fails.

Any wrestler who got over, got over DESPITE WWE. Yet if someone doesn't get over, it is all WWE's fault. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin gets all the credit from the fans for the "Attitude Era", yet without Mr McMahon, the feud wouldn't have been as good (as proven when Eric Bischoff tried to do the same thing to SCSA in 2002-03).

It seems that fans will give the creator all the blame, but little of the credit. If it is good, it is attributed to other people.

Daniel Bryan's push is totally credited to Daniel Bryan and the WWE Universe. No matter what WWE do, the fans will give themselves the credit for any success the angle has.

As C.M. Punk once said "You pay to see me. I don't pay to see you." So, fans need to be a bit more grateful and thankful to the person who allows them the opportunity to enjoy that product, and, as the creator, recognise that that person has some right to head their product in the direction that they so choose.

It is a two-way thing. WWE entertains you, and you pay them for the priviledge. Both benefit from the other. So, maybe a recognition that both parties need to be catered for, instead of thinking that WWE owes the fans.
If you don't think you are being entertained, then don't pay or watch anymore. Simple. But don't think you know better than the person who has had proven success in the past, and has actually taken the risks and spent their money to try and put a smile on your face. If you then don't smile, whose fault is that?

Clearly Vince is the reason as to why we are even on this forum right now. Part of the reason as to why we want Bryan to get the title is because the machine that is WWE will be behind him. That same machine pushed Austin, Hogan, Rock, Cena, Taker, and almost every name you can think of. I never said "WWE should listen to my ideas because I know best" like a lot of fans do, I was simply making the point that wwe has made to us on television recently. Batista wins the Rumble so now we're supposed to "deal with it" and "get over it" and I've saw so many former wrestlers tweet stuff out like "you guys don't get it, you're not in the business." Pretty much what I was trying to come around to was that it's really not smart business when you're fan base is telling you what or who they want and you refuse to give them that. I don't shit on the product on a daily basis. The actual wrestling has been great lately but what good is that when in the end (wrestlemania) we are going to be majorly letdown because they just refused to listen to their customers.

 

[Sabutage]

I ask the question the other way.

If fans are suppousedly so passionate about something, then how come all I ever read is what they do wrong.

Without the producer of "Breaking Bad" there would be no "Breaking Bad". Without Vince McMahon, there would be no WWE or "Wrestlemania".

The fans delude themselves that they are 100% responsible for the success of something, but, funnily enough, then won't take 100% responsiblity when the same thing fails.

Any wrestler who got over, got over DESPITE WWE. Yet if someone doesn't get over, it is all WWE's fault. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin gets all the credit from the fans for the "Attitude Era", yet without Mr McMahon, the feud wouldn't have been as good (as proven when Eric Bischoff tried to do the same thing to SCSA in 2002-03).

It seems that fans will give the creator all the blame, but little of the credit. If it is good, it is attributed to other people.

Daniel Bryan's push is totally credited to Daniel Bryan and the WWE Universe. No matter what WWE do, the fans will give themselves the credit for any success the angle has.

As C.M. Punk once said "You pay to see me. I don't pay to see you." So, fans need to be a bit more grateful and thankful to the person who allows them the opportunity to enjoy that product, and, as the creator, recognise that that person has some right to head their product in the direction that they so choose.

It is a two-way thing. WWE entertains you, and you pay them for the priviledge. Both benefit from the other. So, maybe a recognition that both parties need to be catered for, instead of thinking that WWE owes the fans.
If you don't think you are being entertained, then don't pay or watch anymore. Simple. But don't think you know better than the person who has had proven success in the past, and has actually taken the risks and spent their money to try and put a smile on your face. If you then don't smile, whose fault is that?

Well it is the same with any tv show. I enjoyed many characters and storylines in Lost, but towards the end it started to suck. However I still kept watching because I wanted to see how it ended, I was already emotionally invested in the product. Its the same with wrestling except it never ends. It doesnt mean I lose my right to enjoy certain aspects or criticise others.

You are right in that I think people should talk about the positive things more, but I think the things people dislike will always instigate more discussion and debate and so will always be more noticable.

 

[OddManRush]

Awesome thread.

I honestly can't figure it out either. I'm completely dissatisfied with the current product. I haven't missed a Raw since 1997 either and when Smackdown really started to feel like a "B" show, I moved away from that as well. It's really sad too, because I remember making sure I was in front of my TV set even for Sunday Night Heat and that eventually became a "C" level show, but at the time, I was still completely interested.

I'd have to say the biggest reason for this is simply the lack of character development. There was a time when characters became less colorful and much more bland. A ton of wrestlers using their real names and all had the clean cut look and "blue chipper" development. That's not saying people with their real name couldn't get over, which obviously is not the case, but it just seemed like a bunch of the same guys came in and played the cocky young guy or something along those lines.

Long gone were the days of a vampire gimmick such as Gangrel, a porn star like Val Venis, a pimp like the Godfather. I get that these are not PG type characters, but the only reason any of these guys got over wasn't because they were David Heath, Sean Morley and Charles Wright.

Even a little bit later on, one of the most unique characters in the mid-2000's was the Boogeyman for me. It was just so out there like a modern day Papa Shango and I was simply attracted to the character. It made me want to watch. Sure, I can turn on the TV and see some interesting characters like the Wyatt's, the Shield, and Daniel Bryan, but where are the midcarders with the interesting storylines? I literally feel like they have a hat full of babyfaces and a hat full of heels and pull names to make the card. And when you think back to 2000 and 2001, you could have done that then, but the characters that were in these matches made it worth watching.

One other thing for me is the lack of storyline development. This is probably where most "hardcore" WRESTLING fans differ with me, but I'll say it anyway. The thing that drew me most to WWE in the 90's was their ability to play out a story start to finish with a great culmination, no matter what level of the card the feud was on. We used to see wrestlers arriving by limos or whatever means of transportation as a short 10-second segment before cutting to commercial, instead we are stuck with some fugazzi excitement from Michael Cole and Jerry Lawler about the next great interactive experience between the show and the audience. Whatever. I get it that times have changed and there is a need to be filled, but anything that happens backstage promo wise feels very unoriginal and unnatural. The interviews are always done in a massively logo'ed/poster'ed dressing room, which was never the case when you would see The Rock doing his promos in the locker room or outside his locker room door. Why do we not get some more pre-taped segments filmed that can be played during a show to enhance the storyline/feud? One of the funniest things I have ever seen in my life was Booker T and Goldust's pre-taped segments whether it be in the hotel room, fighting Austin in the grocery store, or at the 7-11. It wasn't much, but it made me laugh and completely sold me on those two as a tag team.

Lastly, the element of surprise is completely gone for the mere fact that they need ratings. So, whenever anything major is going to cause a viewer spike, they seem to announce it ahead of time. This trend will never change if everyone knows they don't have to watch for 3 1/2 months, but hear that Stone Cold is coming back on RAW next week, so they will tune in. If you don't know what's coming, I will absolutely watch. Case in point, I haven't watched Smackdown in over 5 years because it just doesn't do it for me anymore, but if I hear the nWo are going to back a comeback this Friday night on Smackdown, you bet I'm going to tune in THIS week, but if I miss it because it went unannounced, I'm going to be made and make a more concerted effort to watch.

I guess this probably sounds like to some that I'm just reminiscing about the good ole days, but in all reality, this is the kind of stuff the product is currently lacking that caught my interest and a ton of other people's back in the 90's when it was at it's peak.

 

[enviousdominous]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that maybe the WWE is *gasp* ego driven.

Being ego driven presents a huge problem when it involves a company that produces episode after episode of its content with the goal of reaching a definite conclusion. If your original idea was to have a guy go from mid-card mainstay to being an absolute beast and the top face of the card, and those damned "fans" suddenly turn on him and refuse to accept him as a viable top face, you find yourself in quite a pickle.

When you're dealing with ego-maniacal dip-shits like HHH and his better three quarters Stephanie, you probably won't get them admitting that they were hasty in convincing themselves that their ideas worked months before they were actually supposed to work.

Using a program like Breaking Bad for example. Episodes of that show have to honor the love that the fans have for the main character, and only has to produce about twenty episodes a year which are usually produced all at one time before the first one has ever aired. They have plenty of time to gauge how well they can manipulate their audience.

In the WWE, they're not just churning out constant episodes that are likely to run over each other and loosely maintain a sense of continuity, they're also trying desperately to create a field of players who have a progressive level of zeal toward their bosses.

It would all be fucking perfect if it weren't for those fucking fans who are, for some reason, allowed to attend shows! (sarcasm)

I remember studying the Nika riots in ancient Rome, the only two chariot racing teams that anybody cared about were the Blues and the Greens. The Blues were represented by emperor Justinian and upper class self identified "true" Romans, the Greens were represented by the Byzantines who were technically Romans except that "true" Romans would never call them Romans. The crowd at one particular race was made up more of Greens, but eventually they stopped chanting for the Greens. They started to chant "NIKA!!" (win) which was that generation's version of "ECW!! ECW!! ECW!!". Everyone got on board because it was such an infectious chant and they stormed the royal palace that was right next to the hippodrome.

My point is, sometimes powerful people are too busy trying to entertain themselves that they lose track of historical examples where an angry fan-base can be the most damning thing they ever caused with their arrogance.

The WWE has the advantage in that they can always re-write a future program to make up for a time they gave paid customers the middle finger, either way if you're going to sell a program by putting your favorite performers at the top, at least make sure that they can out-perform everyone else.

 

[JohnJohnson]

There really aren't many cool characters left. Hell there aren't many characters left at all. I think that's why Shield and Wyatts are so over right now. They resemble the Attitude Era style of wrestling. If you look back, those matches were very fast paced with lot's of hard looking strikes. They have actual characters and great entrances. Bray cut's amazing promos and remains in character always. We need more of this.

We need intense feuds that actually matter. I remember feuds used to get so personal back in the day. When two wrestlers were feuding, you would see them going after each other all the time or cutting great promos that explained the REASON behind the feud. Not just, "You beat me in a randomly paired mid card atch, so now we must continue facing each other". Remember when Shamrock would go after Val Venis for sleeping with his little sister? You can relate to that. Remember when Kane's only friend X-Pac stole his girlfriend away? You had this big evil monster, who wasn't really evil, just a lost tortured soul who knew nothing but torment. He finally finds a friend who accepts him and a girl to show him for the very first time in his life what love was. Then it was all taken from him. You could feel the hatred. Remember the way Bossman tormented Big Show about his dad or kill Al Snow's dog? Al Snow wasn't someone who people gave a damn about in general. But when this evil bully kidnapped and killed his dog it made you really want to see Al Snow beat the shit out of him. Remember when wrestlers would get attacked as soon as they walked into the building? Or after coming back from commercial break, it would cut to a backstage scene that happened over the break involving some wrestler(s) getting attacked? Something would happen constantly throughout the night. Back then you would sit down and never move from your seat when Raw was on.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Clearly Vince is the reason as to why we are even on this forum right now. Part of the reason as to why we want Bryan to get the title is because the machine that is WWE will be behind him. That same machine pushed Austin, Hogan, Rock, Cena, Taker, and almost every name you can think of. I never said "WWE should listen to my ideas because I know best" like a lot of fans do, I was simply making the point that wwe has made to us on television recently. Batista wins the Rumble so now we're supposed to "deal with it" and "get over it" and I've saw so many former wrestlers tweet stuff out like "you guys don't get it, you're not in the business." Pretty much what I was trying to come around to was that it's really not smart business when you're fan base is telling you what or who they want and you refuse to give them that. I don't shit on the product on a daily basis. The actual wrestling has been great lately but what good is that when in the end (wrestlemania) we are going to be majorly letdown because they just refused to listen to their customers.

You mentioning Batista gets me to another point.

Point me to where WWE said anything about Daniel Bryan being in the 2014 Royal Rumble? Go on, show me where it says that he was a participant. Was his face on the poster, surrounded by a bunch of other stars in the Rumble?

Daniel Bryan DID wrestle at the Royal Rumble. He lost to Bray Wyatt. Notice that Wyatt, Big Show, Lesnar and John Cena were also not in the Royal Rumble. You know why? Because they all wrestled previously that night.

At most Rumbles, anyone who has an earlier match on the card, usually doesn't also fight in the Rumble. There is little doubling-up, and when it does happen, it is usually to have two guys in the Rumble start their Wrestlemania feud in that match (one eliminates the other, for example).

Hey, it could have been worse. Maybe Bryan may not have wrestled at the Royal Rumble at all. He still got a match on the card, just not the one you all wanted.

I knew Batista would win the Rumble. Batista showed up on the Raw before the Rumble, and confronted champion Randy Orton. Nine times out of ten, this hints to a match at Wrestlemania. So I saw it coming.

In the end, don't complain because YOUR expectations weren't met. If your expectations aren't met, when they never promised to meet that expectation, then whose fault is that?