Where will wrestling be 10 years from now?

[Vito]

I honestly just think the problem with wrestling is that we've seen everything. You only have to be a fan for a couple of years and you've seen every decent wrestler, every possible match, every gimmick, every angle and every interview, some many times. Only sad diehards like us want to stick around to see it all over again.

 

They've done everything. The nWo invasion and the Boss vs. Babyface angles were the last truly fresh ideas. You'll never recapture that feeling.

It's not that we've "seen everything", it's that nobody's trying to show us anything new. Pro Wrestling is the greatest storytelling medium in the world bar none, the problem is that everyone's copying successful ideas and concepts from the past instead of creating new ones.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

The reason they are copying successful ideas is because we've seen everything. The WWF in 1984-1991 copied successful ideas from Memphis, the AWA and other territories. Very little in wrestling is ever originial. ECW ripped off ideas from FMW and Memphis as well. If WWE tried something new, some gonk will say "thats shite, I'm never watching this again". Wrestling is supposed to be simple. Piper vs Hogan, Andre vs Hogan, Austin vs McMahon, Triple H vs Rock and Rock vs Austin weren't anything special as far as innovation goes. They were fairly simple concepts that had been done a million times before. Wrestling shouldnt need to think outside the box. Its a bunch of blokes going "fuck off, I won that match/no I won it" or "I wouldnt mind shagging her ... actually I think I'll piledrive her instead".

 

The Monday Night Wars killed wrestling. It was fun at the time, but once the fad ended and you gave away money angles for free, where was there to go after that?

[ColinBollocks]

Ian is correct. Story telling doesn't need to be complicated - if anything wrestling has made it too complicated, at times. It also doesn't help wrestling has pretty much done away with build and anticipation. There is that story that they wanted to do Batista v Triple H the month after Batista got that that pop, before his swerve - they were lucky Triple H has stroke.

 

I think WWE needs to start taking stuff away from us for a few years and then use it sparingly, to mean something again. Like blood, if they were to do a first blood match (they won't) it will mean something, as they don't do blood anymore.

[Rosler28]

I think people take wrestling too seriosuly. Thats the problem, stop analysing everything and just take it for what it is. And thats something you can watch on tv and have a laugh and be entertained. Thats what wrestling is afterall these days. In 10 yrs time if wrestling or this fan forum is still around people will be asking this qs then too

[herbie747]

Your post was so pointless & irrelevant I had to dissect each part separately. It's so annoying when some goon wades in with a dismissive "simple summary" style post.

 

I think people take wrestling too seriosuly. Thats the problem

People "taking it too seriously" is the problem?

 

stop analysing everything and just take it for what it is.

We're discussing a topic - that's what happens during discussions - analysis.

 

And thats something you can watch on tv and have a laugh and be entertained.

And I'll watch it when it's good, and I won't when it's not.

 

Thats what wrestling is afterall these days.

That's what it's always been.

 

In 10 yrs time if wrestling or this fan forum is still around people will be asking this qs then too

So let's never discuss a question that may arise again?

[Loki]

Spot on Herbie. That post contained no contribution at all.

[Jason Mayhem]

People watch TV shows for one main reason, that being the characters. Whether it is Lost, Sex in the City, X factor, Dancing on Ice, Eastenders or Masterchef, we watch because we have gotten to know the characters and want to know what is gonna happen to them. The setting that these characters are based in, although relatively important really is secondary to the characters.

 

WWE is nothing more than a soap opera. Instead of Albert Square, Wetherfield or Ramsay Street, the setting for this on-going story is the fictional world of WWE wrestling.

 

Just like Eastenders or Corrie or any other soap, we watch because of the characters that are involved and the relationships between the characters. The fact is in the attitude era there were a larger number of interesting characters, so it was more popular. The individual performers are probably at a better athletic level now than ever before, but WWE(F) was far more interesting in the 80s than now, 1 because the concept was fairly new to the majority, but 2 because there were more interesting characters.

 

Much like any other soap, the concept and setting can stay the same and many stories will repeat but to remain interesting the characters must change.

 

Happy Days introduced us to the term

[Rosler28]

Your post was so pointless & irrelevant I had to dissect each part separately. It's so annoying when some goon wades in with a dismissive "simple summary" style post.

 

I think people take wrestling too seriosuly. Thats the problem

People "taking it too seriously" is the problem?

 

stop analysing everything and just take it for what it is.

We're discussing a topic - that's what happens during discussions - analysis.

 

And thats something you can watch on tv and have a laugh and be entertained.

And I'll watch it when it's good, and I won't when it's not.

 

Thats what wrestling is afterall these days.

That's what it's always been.

 

In 10 yrs time if wrestling or this fan forum is still around people will be asking this qs then too

So let's never discuss a question that may arise again?

 

 

LOLLLLL ur just jealous cos i thought of it first

[Vito]

Wrestling is supposed to be simple. Piper vs Hogan, Andre vs Hogan, Austin vs McMahon, Triple H vs Rock and Rock vs Austin weren't anything special as far as innovation goes. They were fairly simple concepts that had been done a million times before. Wrestling shouldnt need to think outside the box. Its a bunch of blokes going "fuck off, I won that match/no I won it" or "I wouldnt mind shagging her ... actually I think I'll piledrive her instead".

It's also about giving the audience a reason to become emotionally invested, isn't it? How many people on the current WWE roster have an emotional connection with the audience and can make them react in the same way that the Hogans, Austins and Rocks once did? Austin ignited peoples passions because he was the guy that everyone wanted to be, he drank beer, swore and beat the shit out of his boss on a nightly basis, everyone can relate to that on some level and that's why people were drawn to him and, most importantly, would pay money to watch him. When you watch the current WWE product how many of the wrestlers on the show have that genuine bond with the audience? If the Monday Nights Wars taught us anything it's that a match is just a match until you give the give the audience a reason to care, then you have a spectacle.

[King Pitcos]

Just like Eastenders or Corrie or any other soap, we watch because of the characters that are involved and the relationships between the characters. The fact is in the attitude era there were a larger number of interesting characters, so it was more popular. The individual performers are probably at a better athletic level now than ever before, but WWE(F) was far more interesting in the 80s than now, 1 because the concept was fairly new to the majority, but 2 because there were more interesting characters.

The 1980s model doesn't really compare, because you don't get an episode of Eastenders where Phil goes and threatens someone we've never seen before, then Grant does the same thing, then Nigel does an interview with mad-hair Polly from the Walford Gazette, and the show ends with Lenny and Huw going for a drink with Frankie and her mate who nobody had ever heard of... And to see Phil and Grant have a chat, you have to buy a pay-per-view.

 

The soap opera comparison became apt in the attitude era when you'd see top characters interact every week, but it still doesn't jive with the fact that wrestling asks for money every month to see the climax of storylines, whereas Corrie just asks more people to watch for free. And occasionally sells a DVD of a holiday to Tenerife or something.

 

It's also about giving the audience a reason to become emotionally invested, isn't it? How many people on the current WWE roster have an emotional connection with the audience and can make them react in the same way that the Hogans, Austins and Rocks once did?

Loads, you should give it a watch, Vito.

 

How many people on the WWE roster of any era had an emotional connection with the audience and could make them react in the same way that the Hogans, Austins and Rocks did?

[Jason Mayhem]

Just like Eastenders or Corrie or any other soap, we watch because of the characters that are involved and the relationships between the characters. The fact is in the attitude era there were a larger number of interesting characters, so it was more popular. The individual performers are probably at a better athletic level now than ever before, but WWE(F) was far more interesting in the 80s than now, 1 because the concept was fairly new to the majority, but 2 because there were more interesting characters.

The 1980s model doesn't really compare, because you don't get an episode of Eastenders where Phil goes and threatens someone we've never seen before, then Grant does the same thing, then Nigel does an interview with mad-hair Polly from the Walford Gazette, and the show ends with Lenny and Huw going for a drink with Frankie and her mate who nobody had ever heard of... And to see Phil and Grant have a chat, you have to buy a pay-per-view.

 

The soap opera comparison became apt in the attitude era when you'd see top characters interact every week, but it still doesn't jive with the fact that wrestling asks for money every month to see the climax of storylines, whereas Corrie just asks more people to watch for free. And occasionally sells a DVD of a holiday to Tenerife or something.

 

 

I'm not sure what point you're making in your first paragraph.

 

Regardless of the business model whether it is PPV or just the next episode on TV, people will watch to find out what happens to the characters next.

[King Pitcos]

I'm not sure what point you're making in your first paragraph.

That "it's free, mate" and "that'll be fifty dollars, please" aren't the same thing. Odd that you can't grasp that. And that soap operas have main characters interacting constantly in every episode, whereas 1980s WWF certainly didn't.

[Jason Mayhem]

I'm not sure what point you're making in your first paragraph.

That "it's free, mate" and "that'll be fifty dollars, please" aren't the same thing. Odd that you can't grasp that.

 

What's that gotta do with the point I was making?

 

I was comparing the TV soap and WWE in terms of why I beleive people watch it, not the actual business model.

 

Odd that you can't grasp that.

[King Pitcos]

I'm not sure what point you're making in your first paragraph.

That "it's free, mate" and "that'll be fifty dollars, please" aren't the same thing. Odd that you can't grasp that.

 

What's that gotta do with the point I was making?

 

You said "WWE is nothing more than a soap opera" and then named loads of soap operas that don't build storylines to pay-per-views. Can you name any that do?

[Jason Mayhem]

I'm not sure what point you're making in your first paragraph.

That "it's free, mate" and "that'll be fifty dollars, please" aren't the same thing. Odd that you can't grasp that.

 

What's that gotta do with the point I was making?

 

You said "WWE is nothing more than a soap opera" and then named loads of soap operas that don't build storylines to pay-per-views. Can you name any that do?

 

I'll say it again, slowly this time ......

 

I ... was ... com-par-ing ... the ... T-V ... soap ... and ... WWE ... in ... terms ... of ... why ... I ... beleive ... people ... watch ... it ..., not ... the ... act-u-al ... business... model.

 

Do... you... under...stand????