WWE asking fans why they don't WWE programming anymore

[Duke]

what im saying is they haven't got the talent in order to do that

nonsense. Utter nonsense. Theyve got some really talented guys but it's a two way street, they've gotta be booked well for it to work.

[Vito]

I can't wait for Hulk Hogan to appear on Raw because the focus group unanimously agreed that "Wrestling was better in the days of Hogan and Warrior"

 

As a lot of people have said the problem with wrestling in general isn't PG, a lack of talent or the changing attitudes of fickle fans, the fundamental problem is a lack of compelling storylines. I remember the days where Nitro and Raw would end on exciting cliffhangers and you'd spend the entire week wondering what was going to happen next, I've sat and watched old episodes of Raw Is War and Monday Nitro on Justin.TV for literally hours on end recently because it was compelling television that made you want to keep watching, so this clearly isn't a case of "rose tinted glasses" either. I rarely ever feel anything besides apathy towards WWE programming these days, occasionally you'll have something exciting happen like CM Punk's recent exploits or a really good match, but generally speaking it's just not entertaining anymore, nothing feels important or meaningful and I feel as though I could miss the next four or five episodes and jump back in having not missed very much.

 

Bring back meaningful feuds, bring back compelling stories, make EVERY episode "must see" TV, bring back shocks and surprises, bring back cool characters that actually connect with the audience, bring back the days when people couldn't wait to see what would was going to happen next.

[Kenny McBride]

Actually, I don't think the talent is there. There's potential but little of it is even close to being realised, and never will be because how are the production line guys going to learn about main eventing and carrying a load and cutting promos and all the myriad other subtleties when they never get the chance to do any of those things? It used to be that guys would be working full-time for maybe 5-10 years before they'd get much of a sniff at a WWF contract, and few of those would immediately go into main events. Now there are guys near the top of the card with less than 5 years behind them. How can they possibly have the experience necessary to learn the ins and outs of working a main event programme or cutting a money promo? Is Skinner teaching them how to do that in Florida? It seems unlikely, since he's not even teaching guys how to run the ropes.

[Magnum]

Carbomb's post there sums up most of my feelings very eloquently. What I'd add to it is that the PG rating itself isn't a problem, but pushing too hard for the kiddy market to the point of alienating the older viewers is part of the problem. Carbomb touched on this with the comments about the 'poopy gayness' jokes, but on top of this is not crediting your younger viewers with any patience or general attention span. The attitude seems to be that, because the kids love Cena, they can't let a heel get the better of him for more than a month or so, because the kids would get disheartened and stop watching. Hence, you get the Nexus storyline, where Cena has to almost single-handedly squash the entire stable and kill their credibility dead in their very first PPV meeting. Why? Good babyfaces don't need to win every time to stay over. Triple H must have pinned The Rock (with varying degrees of cleanness) at least half a dozen times on TV or PPV in the second half of 1999, and yet people still queued up in their droves to see him get his own back at the 2000 PPVs.

 

The other received wisdom seems to be that you can't turn Cena heel and freshen up his character because the kids will be broken-hearted and never get behind anyone or anything on WWE programming again. Bullshit. If you're so worried about the lack of an established top babyface, ask Triple H to come back full-time for a while to keep things ticking over. In the meantime, as previously mentioned, GET BEHIND SOMEBODY ELSE. They've only really done it half-heartedly in recent years, because they seem to be so terrified of moving away from the tired formula of Cena overcoming the odds to win the world title at every PPV. The kids will get over it and support somebody else when he turns, just like they did when people like Savage turned.

[Vito]

I think the 'E is missing a trick by not having managers to speak for those who lack the ability to speak for themselves, imagine how much better Mason Ryan or Ezekiel Jackson would be if they had a Bobby Heenan, Jim Cornette, Sunny or Clarance Mason in their corner. Vickie Guerrero has done an okay job of getting Ziggler over, although I do sometimes wonder what kind of response Ziggler would get if Vickie decided to take a break.

[sivy]

i would stop the brand split and then rather having 4 shows to rush fueds out they have 8. the main events of shows would be better more mixed not same matches every week. one world title 2 or 3 secondary titles , one woman divison, one tag divison. it makes so much sense now to end the split.

[C-Rock]

If WWE went back to what ever it was during the attitude era in regards to classification it would allow for the talent to become more interesting in regards to storylines that in current WWE seem to be very run of the mill, boring and anti-climatic. It would allow charecters to be more creative and edge as they will be able to push boundries and be less of a clone to one another like I feel WWE wrestlers are at the minute, same boring routine in matches, same depth less gimmicks that are one dimmesional, the difference between heel and face in WWE at the minute is that the face smiles more. Theres no real distiguishing features which divides Heel and Face in WWE currently in my opinion.

 

Matches could be made to be more interesting also instead of the same run of the mill, predictable matches that we are given now. What iv noticed (and even with this previous WrestleMania) PPV matches are very similar to matches you would see for free on Raw and Smackdown. PPV's could be spiced up more if WWE were allowed to push those boundries and be more contriversal, what I mean by that is Hell in a Cell matches could litterally go back to living upto the name HELL in a Cell instead of like I said in a previous post it being currently 2 wrestlers no one cares about wrestling a Raw or Smackdown, style match inside of a cage with very little in the way of drama or cutting edge action that older WWE fans became a custom to in the late 90's e.g. Undertaker v Mankind at King of the Ring...why buy the PPV when your getting pretty much the same quality for free on Raw and Smackdown each week.

 

Current WWE roster does not live upto the standard that WWE once had at its disposal when the likes of the Rock, Stone Cold, Shawn Michaels were knocking around. So with that being said instead of trying to draw people in with the lackluster bland roster they have at the minute, WWE should try to overshadow that and hide the weakness with more exciting storylines that we would see for instance in the attitude era. Not everyone in the WWE/F during the attitude era was a fantastic worker but it didnt matter you werent always tuning in to see a classic wrestling match you were tuning in to see what OMG moments WWE were going to pull out of the bag each week (fair enough that could be accomplised even if WWE remained PG but like Iv said WWE do not have the believeable talent in order to do that in my opinon) a little blood and chair shots to the head amoung other things, used every so often when it counts like a blow off at the end of a fued would in my opinion would make WWE a little more interesting, entertaining and worth watching.

[JNLister]

I think the 'E is missing a trick by not having managers to speak for those who lack the ability to speak for themselves, imagine how much better Mason Ryan or Ezekiel Jackson would be if they had a Bobby Heenan, Jim Cornette, Sunny or Clarance Mason in their corner. Vickie Guerrero has done an okay job of getting Ziggler over, although I do sometimes wonder what kind of response Ziggler would get if Vickie decided to take a break.

 

Watch it, you'll trigger the fapper alert. Any moment now you'll be accused of "push the cruizers".

[Dirty Eddie]

Watch it, you'll trigger the fapper alert. Any moment now you'll be accused of "push the cruizers".

 

It's alright, he's on "holiday" this week.

[PowerButchi]

Aye, he's away. So save it for when he's back instead of having a go now, eh? It's pathetic not to.

 

If WWE went back to what ever it was during the attitude era

 

PG until April '99. When did it start in your eyes?

[Spike Sharpe]

I'd say it's going to be very difficult for them to get back their lost audience with the current mediocre product, as by wrestling's soap-like nature you really need to watch every show to stay "in the loop". I've tried hard to get back into the current WWE product, but there just isn't enough there to hook me. For every good segment I've seen in the last year or so, there has been an endless stream of shite that is just an embarrassment to have on the screen.

 

I can cope with a show where the good stuff to shit stuff ratio is 5:1 or even 4:1, but at the moment the crap ratio is simply way too high. I'm not going to go into a massive rant regarding all the stuff I hate, but at least if they can't make the product any better, they could limit the total and utter dross that makes me want to instantly change the channel.

 

You aren't instantly going to make magical TV, but if you can't make it any better, at least make it less worse.

[Dirty Eddie]

Aye, he's away. So save it for when he's back instead of having a go now, eh? It's pathetic not to.

 

 

Fuck me, it was just a little joke. Chill.

[King Pitcos]

I hope this thread is still going strong when King Pity returns to annihilate the shit out of all the criticisms of current WWE.

No need, really. There are others of sound mind to shoot down the stupid pseudo-criticisms, like how Butch has already destroyed that "PG sux" monkey. And a lot, probably most, of the criticisms in this thread, I agree with and often make myself.

 

But just for you, Rich, your King obliges...

 

i'm a wrestling fan, not a merchandise fan.

Meaningless, awful, generi-tugling statement. lol its all about merch now not like in austin n hogans day lol tshirts 4 kiddies thats why its shit lol DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE YOU TURD.

 

Drew i dont think i've ever seen on a WWE PPV but that guy is so talented. but instead we get months of Cena and Miz.

I hope everyone you've ever met gets donkey punched. And spat on, and covered in leeches. Drew McIntyre has had many pay-per-view matches over the past couple of years, far more than his ability or character warranted. Some of them were good, plenty were mediocre. It's a shame that now he's shown some really good form (albeit inconsistent and he's just a boring fucker some weeks) this year, they do nowt with him. But for ages, he was getting pay-per-view matches he didn't deserve. And picking Miz to whinge about is an odd one, since he's very new to the main event scene and worked his way up after everyone in and out of WWE expected him to amount to nothing.

 

 

Anyway, I hope that'll do you, Rich. Speaking of those generic morons, Kenny McBride's posted:

 

Yeah, he'd be great in a focus group.

Especially if they were giving away free Cena merch.

 

"Why would you change anything?

I wouldn't say that, for starters. Anyone who reads WWE threads is well aware of my own criticisms of WWE television, specifically the rematch culture which I'll come back to with LaGoosh's post. The likes of The Dart and Big Rob often seem annoyed by how much I criticise WWE. I just don't do it for the same reasons as stereotypicals like you, Kenny.

 

So what if business is in the toilet!

Is it? And have you offered any suggestions of how to get it out of the toilet, other than bringing back the Cruiserweight title so smaller wrestlers can become stars, like former Cruiserweight Champion Shawn Michaels?

 

DON'T LISTEN TO THE FAPPERS!

They should already know that. NEWM's post, stellar as the rest of his body of work, pretty much hits the nail on the head of the futility of WWE asking this stuff in the first place. The only people that will answer it will be spastics with the same sort of mindset as Full Mongoloid Kenny McBride saying it needs to be more like ROH/Japan/Insert other obscure wrestling reference. Or people just saying it was better when they were kids and it needs to be the same as the Hogan/Hart/Austin era, depending on their age.

 

Aye, he's away. So save it for when he's back instead of having a go now, eh? It's pathetic not to.

I'm back! To be fair, "pathetic" is Dirty Eddie's forte. For examples, see his shit student films about suicide, or his posts on UKFF.

[King Pitcos]

Other valid points:

 

I was watching a few PPV's from 1998-1999 the other night and what struck me was how every arena looked different. You don't get this anymore which is one of the main reasons I feel like I'm watching the exact same show on repeat most of the time. It seems like the only place that ever looks remotely different is Madison Square Garden. You could have Kingston vs. Ziggler, Uso's vs. Slater & Gabriel, and Cena vs. Orton at MSG and it would be tonnes more interesting just because it looks a bit different.

I don't fully agree with this myself, just because I don't think the set would matter that much if the storylines and characters were compelling. You'd never know what the Unforgiven stage setup was going to look like, for example, but you knew you wanted to see what happened when Austin fought Dude Love. And I don't think making the stage different more often would add that much to the same boring rematches.

 

LaGoosh:

Alot of good points made in this thread, one thing that irks me is people complaining about the same people wrestling eachother over and over again. I don't think this is really fair as the only reason these rematches can get frustrating and boring is because of the lack of storylines attached to them. In 98-2000 the same wrestlers were put against eachother almost endlessly but because the matches usually involved a story, bigger picture or an actual point no one gave a shit. I mean between 98-99 Austin and Stone Cold had about a million matches against eachother, between 98-2000 The Rock and Triple H must have faced eachother every two weeks and remember when The Rock & Mick Foley wrestled pretty much every week from November 98 to March 99. It just bothers me so much tese days that they only seem to bother writing proper storylines for the main event (alot of the time they don't even bother with that) as to me the best thing to get a wrestler over isn't a match but a combination of good angles & promos leading to a good match.

This is my number one criticism of WWE and perfectly expressed there LaGoosh. El Espanacas said similar as well, kudos. The answer to "why is Cody Rhodes fighting Daniel Bryan this week?" is just "because they fought last week." And then "Why did they fight last week?" is "Because they fought the week before." And so on as you go back, until you get about two months back and the answer's just "no reason."

 

Carbomb:

2. Get behind your future stars properly. I've said this plenty of times, and you can see it for yourself: most prospective main-eventers need that elevating, defining, "Welcome To The Main Event" win, and nobody's had one since Cena and Batista at 21. Most of the perennial or bigger guys had it: Undertaker from Hogan at Tuesday In Texas, Triple H against Foley, Austin against Bret, Rock against Foley(?), Lesnar against Hogan, Taker and The Rock FFS, Benoit against Triple H, Eddy against Lesnar, Cena against JBL, Batista against Triple H. Since then, who's actually ever had the trigger pulled on them? Sheamus won the belt by putting Cena through a table by accident, Edge, Swagger, Punk and Miz all cashed in their belts on weakened guys, and lord knows what they're planning with Del Rio or Barratt, but they're not looking strong right now.

Tremendously well said. I'd question some of the particulars, but on the whole, the point is very sound. I don't think I'd put Edge in that category with the others, but I don't really know why I wouldn't. Possibly because when he cashed in on Cena, it was massive. Even though it only lasted three weeks and then went back. Austin's an odd one for you to pick as well, since his star-making performance was a loss against Bret, not a win (he did beat Michaels though). Foley wasn't really a big enough name at the time -- not having won a world title yet himself -- to give Rock that much of a superstar rub, either, in my opinion. Russo, the McMahons and the title itself were as responsible as the Micker on that night.

 

Ultimately, the point is that everyone new that's built up falls pretty easily to Cena and Orton in the end, and that's problematic. If WWE were set on Cena vs Miz at WrestleMania, they should've sacrificed Orton to Miz properly once.

 

 

patdfb:

I dont like or dislike Cena particularly. Dont watch him often enough to get bored senseless or even hate him. I can understand why a lot is built around him and why people are resentful. The best stuff with him is I find when there is chinks in his armour. The Nexus Stuff was great and should have made Wade et al bigger, but then for whatever reason, WWE decided to basically make it null and void. For all the stuff about Cena leaving and such, and the walk around the stadium at Survivor Series was it. He was wrestling as Juan Cena asap after that, and then back to destroy all and sundry not long after.

That's along similar lines to Magnum's post, and it's valid criticism (except the Juan Cena thing, which never made TV and just allowed Cena to make his advertised shows, so it's irrelevant). They struggle to make Cena seem vulnerable, and it makes the storylines a lot harder to invest in. The Nexus firing one was atrocious, I don't think he even had one Raw off. Although the same thing happened with Austin in '98, and WWE completely killed off the fired gimmick earlier this year with Edge, Kelly Kelly, Dolph Ziggler and Vickie. I think stuff like Cena's lack of vulnerability and constantly devaluing plot twists like firings all amounts to the same thing:

 

 

Vito:

As a lot of people have said the problem with wrestling in general isn't PG, a lack of talent or the changing attitudes of fickle fans, the fundamental problem is a lack of compelling storylines. I remember the days where Nitro and Raw would end on exciting cliffhangers and you'd spend the entire week wondering what was going to happen next, I've sat and watched old episodes of Raw Is War and Monday Nitro on Justin.TV for literally hours on end recently because it was compelling television that made you want to keep watching, so this clearly isn't a case of "rose tinted glasses" either. I rarely ever feel anything besides apathy towards WWE programming these days, occasionally you'll have something exciting happen like CM Punk's recent exploits or a really good match, but generally speaking it's just not entertaining anymore, nothing feels important or meaningful and I feel as though I could miss the next four or five episodes and jump back in having not missed very much.

 

Bring back meaningful feuds, bring back compelling stories, make EVERY episode "must see" TV, bring back shocks and surprises, bring back cool characters that actually connect with the audience, bring back the days when people couldn't wait to see what would was going to happen next.

Excellent post.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

And thats why they call him ...