Un-named Successful booker speaks out about various shit

[tiger_rick]

As for the angle itself? Russo was booking this kind of shit in 2000 and it didn't work then. Insider-smarky-shoot-internet pandering storylines never work in the long run. When Goldberg deviated from the "script" and Kevin Nash had to "improvise" in 2000, that was a bag of wank too.

The Punk stuff didn't compare to that at all. Russo's stuff was all breaking from the script stuff or insider references that no-one got. A lot of Punk's stuff aimed at Vinny Mac, Trips and John Cena is common knowledge so it was aimed at a sizeable chunk of the existing audience. It wasn't stuff that only the 5% of the audience who log on the internet would get, like WCW, it would stuff that the adults in the audience who boo Cena would understand and get behind. If the idea was to creat a buzz about punk and split the fans between him and Cena, then it worked. At that point, the rest of the audience needed a reason to love Punk. That follow up never happened. The Nash/Trips shit distracted from it.

[Magnum]

As for the angle itself? Russo was booking this kind of shit in 2000 and it didn't work then. Insider-smarky-shoot-internet pandering storylines never work in the long run. When Goldberg deviated from the "script" and Kevin Nash had to "improvise" in 2000, that was a bag of wank too.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. The Russo stuff in 2000 was a step beyond because it brought in terms like 'script' and 'improvise', and expected us to treat every other match on the card as a legitimate sporting contest while telling us on the other hand that wrestlers have scripts and booking instructions. It was too contradictory and counter-productive for words.The CM Punk/Nash/Triple H stuff has been bungled in the follow-up to MITB, but that's no reason to write off reality-based storylines altogether. Some of the best angles ever, like the Outsiders invading WCW from 'New York', Bischoff turning out to be the power behind the nWo, the Montreal Screwjob and Austin/McMahon could all have been labelled as 'Insider' or 'smarky'-pandering storylines because they relied on viewers having knowledge of things that weren't openly acknowledged on-screen. The trick is to blend just enough reality with the sort of overblown drama and action that hooks casual viewers.

[ColinBollocks]

Didnt Punk get a massive push in 2008/9? I wasn't watching those years but I heard him and Jeff were the main guys on SD!, so in that case its not the first time they gave him the ball and for whatever reason it didnt work (again I heard he pissed taker off somehow).I wish RVD and BookerT could have got a crap push like CM Punk did, yet at their peaks they were still more over than Punk.While I agree WWE shouldn't just give up on stuff, I dont think you can really fault WWE for not having much faith in CM Punk.Their Nexus idea from last year was far better imo and they should not have fed them to Cena.

Yeah, it's a fallacy that Punk was never pushed prior to June. He won his first world title three years before all the "pipe bombs." He'd won Money in the Bank twice before going on about ice cream bars. He'd feuded with and had victories over JBL, Jeff Hardy, Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, John Cena and Randy Orton. He'd led two factions that were often focal points of the TV shows.

Did I say he wasn't pushed? He was pushed to a level. There are varying degrees of pushes and what the WWE choose to give the pushee during it. Jack Fucking Swagger was a World champion and MITB winner, when has winning MITB or the World title meant super push? They did a grand job with the Jeff Hardy feud but Punk was then moved on to a feud with Undertaker where he was made to look like a knob (punishment for not wearing a suit). He was then pushed as a level below the top talent until his feud with Cena, before which he was getting jobbed out on Raw because he was leaving.It takes more than a month of a proper main event push to get a talent over. Yes, Punk was pushed before but aside from his Jeff Hardy feud (a SD feud, a million years ago) he wasn't made to look like anything other than a bloke that can't hang with the real stars. Why is the average fan supposed to suddenly take a bloke like Punk seriously, as previously Cena had beaten him handily on Raw several times before.It's not the whole puzzle but it's a very big piece that gets largely ignored.

[Kenny McBride]

WWE were 100% justified to lose interest in any angle if it isnt working

Justified in what way? Numbers for the past 10 years say fuck off to that. They've booked inconsistently for the past 10 years, they've lost interest in angle after angle and wrestler after wrestler because *Holy Shit* they didn't catch fire immediately. It takes work. It's not on the same level but it took work to get Rock and Wrestling where they wanted it. it took work to overhaul WCW. Numbers don't change overnight. They don't even change in a few weeks. It takes months and months of consistent, compelling TV to change people's perception and draw in new viewers. If CM Punk isn't drawing people in, fix the flaws in the act. Change up the bits that don't appeal to everyone. Don't cut his legs off. Don't punish him by making him work with Kevin Nash. That's fucking over your own product. Punk has got everything, it just needs drawing out. Don't waste 6 weeks work, make the next 6 weeks even better.Otherwise, it's exactly what you said. It's throwing shit at a wall to see if it sticks.

Forget it, Rick. The rules of modern wrestling discussion clearly state that if you're old enough to remember and understand why things were successful when there were multiple companies producing popular shows and making a shit-ton of money, you cannot possibly have anything to add to a discussion about why wrestling today can't find an audience and is slowly but surely bleeding to death. You just don't understand how the industry works if you criticise WWE's habitual misfires and aborted pushes and angles and the resultant sluggish business and complete lack of trust from the audience which translates into apathy and unwillingness to get behind a new star because you know he'll get his legs cut off a month from now. Either you grab the brass ring and turn the entire industry around single-handedly or you're a fucking failure who should fuck off back to ROH where the fappers can enjoy your small-time bullshit. New ideas? Not here, thanks. Sustained pushes? No sir. Picking a direction and sticking with it even when the returns aren't immediate? No way. If those things worked, you'd have evidence to prove it. Nope, the only way to do things is how they're done right now. Can't you see the money rolling in?Anyone remember the bit in 1984 about the chocolate rations?

[Wrasslin]

I'm reminded of the part in the RF Jim Cornette shoot where they were asking him for ways WCW could start drawing better numbers and money next month. He said something along the lines of:"Well I can't draw you money next month . . . but if we do this, this and this, I think that could really draw some money four, five months from now."Bottom line they'd end up dismissing those ideas and go for some sort of quick fix that would never work. It just seems that's how WWE are booking right now, they want an immediate return and if that doesn't work they quickly move onto something else. Alex Riley for example, beat the Miz and has been giving nothing of note to do since.

[King Pitcos]

It takes more than a month of a proper main event push to get a talent over.

Which main eventers had Edge beaten clean (since that seems to be the magic formula that people bang on about for why Punk hasn't done too well) before he cashed in Money in the Bank and upped the ratings immediately?How is it that The Rock got absolutely leathered by Austin every time they fought and had to be given the Intercontinental title, yet excelled when he became world champion less than a year later (and a month after losing to then-nobody Mark Henry on pay-per-view at that)?Punk has been a featured character long enough and had ample screentime that expectations were far higher for his summer run. Both internally and from the people on here who thought he'd be bigger than Cena and have now decided it didn't have the desired impact because he wasn't squashing Cena and Orton every week for the last twelve months. And the people who moan about "clean wins" and Punk not being treated like Cena prior to this summer are forgetting that if he had been, he wouldn't have been able to do those memorable promos in the first place. The voice of the voiceless stuff doesn't go down too well if you are tantamount to Cena."I should be on the promotional cups and programs.""You are, mate. You've been presented as Cena's equal for years now.""Well that's the rest of the speech fucked up then. Who's ready for ice cream?"

[Richie Freebird]

Hats off to that post right there Mr. Kenny McBride.

[King Pitcos]

I'm reminded of the part in the RF Jim Cornette shoot where they were asking him for ways WCW could start drawing better numbers and money next month. He said something along the lines of:"Well I can't draw you money next month . . . but if we do this, this and this, I think that could really draw some money four, five months from now."

When his ideas are shite like Hulk Hogan vs Dusty Rhodes for WrestleMania 18 though, the only way it's drawing money is if he's booking it in a time machine.

Bottom line they'd end up dismissing those ideas and go for some sort of quick fix that would never work. It just seems that's how WWE are booking right now, they want an immediate return and if that doesn't work they quickly move onto something else. Alex Riley for example, beat the Miz and has been giving nothing of note to do since.

Absolutely. I think it's fair enough to move people around up at the main event level when money isn't being drawn, but they've fucked up a lot of the homegrown prospects (McIntyre, Riley, Morrison, loads of others) in the midcard with the stop-start. I don't know what kind of returns they're expecting at that level, even. Part of it's down to the talent being shit or not growing as expected with the push, but the company should put a lot more care into the way they're handled. It's not even a matter of wins or losses, they should just be doing something with a story. There's never really any excuse for how Riley went from destroying Miz to having absolutely no purpose. Did the ratings fall off a cliff during Riley's TV time?

[Dr.PeterVenkman]

I can understand why people are saying Punk shouldn't be judged on a month's build up (to the MITB PPV) and I can understand why people are saying that he should've at least improved the ratings seeing as they gave him freedom in his promo's etc. however I do think the blame for it not catching on as expected (if it hasn't) does lie squarely at WWE's feetI don't mean just in the case of Punk, people are making comparisons to different era's such as the Attitude era but the chances are if they were using the booking mentality they have now in 96/97/98, Austin would've won his first title the month before Survivor Series '96, dropped it back to HBK at SS, then floundered around for ages, WWE should no better than anyone the importance of looking at the long term, it's what helped them beat WCW after allThat being said, I can understand why they're more bothered about ratings nowadays with the revenue it obviously brings in but it's not like half the audience stopped watching after MITBI suppose my point (if I actually have one) is that there's no quick fix to the booking problems and long term fixes are far from guaranteed to succeed as well

[Dirty Eddie]

Which main eventers had Edge beaten clean (since that seems to be the magic formula that people bang on about for why Punk hasn't done too well) before he cashed in Money in the Bank and upped the ratings immediately?How is it that The Rock got absolutely leathered by Austin every time they fought and had to be given the Intercontinental title, yet excelled when he became world champion less than a year later (and a month after losing to then-nobody Mark Henry on pay-per-view at that)?

You are comparing things that are not the same.When Punk received his half-arsed first title win he was a Face, so getting clean wins would be the right way to build him. They didn't do that. He was treated as an out of his depth midcarder. Edge was a Heel, so winning via MITB made sense. Sneaky heels don't really need clean wins, they just need wins. Yeah, Edge upped the ratings, because he beat Cena (during Cena's most hated phase) and promised a "Live Sex Celebration". Sexually provocative controversy was Edge's deal at the time, so yeah, it brought in viewers. Short term, cheap-heat tactics can do that. Also, he was just off the push of his career, with the whole hooking up with Lita and the huge Matt Hardy "fired" storyline. Edge was red-hot then. Unlike Punk who had been floating around in an upper-midcard heel faction before his sudden push.Why was The rock able to be Austin's bitch one year and a megastar the next? Because...A) Rock is possibly the most talented man to wear wrestling pants and pretend to fight people, ever. andB) The writing was fucking awesome during that period. Virtually everyone got over and angles/feuds were red hot.I don't really know what points you are making?Edge should have been pushed harder after that ratings jump, but wasn't. Another example of WWE dropping the ball. Edge was often a guy that people claimed they didn't see as a "proper" main eventer at times. He should have been pushed as the top heel in the company, but triple H held that spot instead. Edge never really became a money-heel, because he was always just below someone else.Everyone is shit compared to The Rock. It doesn't really indicate anything.

[King Pitcos]

You are comparing things that are not the same.

So who is it fair to compare Punk to then? Bob Backlund? Rikishi? Kevin Nash? Or is it a case of the Punk situation being unique?

Edge was often a guy that people claimed they didn't see as a "proper" main eventer at times.

Only people who either have learning disabilities or have barely watched in the last six years, though.

[The Cum Doctor]

So who is it fair to compare Punk to then? Bob Backlund? Rikishi? Kevin Nash? Or is it a case of the Punk situation being unique?

Depends which one of them was around when the writing was as desperate and erratic as it is now. Of course, every single case is unique anyways, whether it be Austin, Rock, Punk, Riley, Funaki or Gail Kim. I personally think that CM Punk's natural arrogance is just too much for me. It was good in a short term push, but with more and more of him, I can't ever see myself buying into him. That's what seperates him from most other big babyfaces in my opinion. Many of them were cocky, sure, but there's a difference between cockyness and arrogance.

[Dirty Eddie]

You are comparing things that are not the same.

So who is it fair to compare Punk to then? Bob Backlund? Rikishi? Kevin Nash? Or is it a case of the Punk situation being unique?

Edge was often a guy that people claimed they didn't see as a "proper" main eventer at times.

Only people who either have learning disabilities or have barely watched in the last six years, though.

You compared Punk to Edge, right? Even though Edge was supposed to be a woman-stealing, cheap-tactics using, scumbag heel. Of course he didn't need clean wins over Stars to get that type of gimmick over. Punk is supposed to be a Face, but when a Face can't beat people they are pretty much screwed.Magnum, Blackson and Kenny have all looked at things a bit more reasonably and agreed that up until MITB Punk's character was shit hot, but the booking since then has been very muddled.If you insist on having a comparison, then Diesel in 95 is a reasonable one. Pushed as a heel (but a cool as fuck, bad-ass one) for the build-up to his face turn and split from Michaels, but then as soon as they pulled the trigger, they got rid of the coolness that people actually liked, and turned him into a smiley douche. He was a failure World Champ in 95, then the hottest thing in all of Pro Wrestling a year later in '96. That's the difference between great booking/writing and shit booking/writing.I said "at times" Edge wasn't seen as a proper main eventer and I feel thats true. Not by the end of his career certainly, but early in his top flight run, he was often the second string Heel, behind others.

[tiger_rick]

Think Dirty Eddie must have me on ignore

[Dirty Eddie]

Think Dirty Eddie must have me on ignore

Sorry man, indeed you are one of the other peeps who i completely agree with in this thread. (Or maybe I thought I'd just join in with some people and ignore your valid points)