Hell In a Cell

[Mad Dog]

This PPV was kind of the end of my watching again. I lasted 14 months.

 

My biggest frustration with the modern product is there are all these interesting guys kicking around on the roster. DB, Punk, Ziggler, PTP, Cesaro, etc. and you have to constantly deal with the stop/go pushes and the fact that you live under the constant threat of HHH ruining things.

 

They handled the Orton/DB feud as badly as they could have possibly handled it. I don't see why they couldn't have gone with Orton/Big Show for a couple of months and just have DB destroy HHH's minions on PPV every month. You can't sustain momentum by wrestling a stiff like Orton on a monthly basis. He's not that over and he has a habit of dragging his opponents down with him.

[rovert]

This PPV was kind of the end of my watching again. I lasted 14 months.

In fairness it is the Fall/Winter it is the lowest point of the WWE calender. I'd be more concerned if you gave up six months from now.

[Mad Dog]

I'll still watch NXT because that show is awesome but the regular product stuff I probably won't unless I'm after a specific match.

[vicious&delicious]

The way I see it is the WWE doesn’t know what to do with its very vocal older fan base. The older fan base is made up of diehard fans who buy ppvs, attend shows and will watch the product no matter what.

 

This is the part of the crowd that crowned Punk and Bryan and that briefly made Zack Ryder and Fandango hot.

When we hear someone like Bryan get a massive pop, to us that means you’re a draw. But in WWE land, all it means is you are appealing to the small subset of people (mostly older, diehard fans) who actually attend shows.

 

This is why Bryan lights up the live crowds and Cena lights up the nielsen ratings.

 

The WWE may flirt with the idea of making Punk or Bryan the center of the promotion but will pull the rug out from under them because WWE wants mainstream appeal and the only guy on the roster who has it is Cena.

[Mad Dog]

I don't think Cena is part of the problem. He's stale on top but he doesn't go out of his way to undercut the guys below him.

[Loss]

Cena isn't part of the problem at all. Anyone who thinks he is should recall the recent WON news item that he is learning Mandarin to give WWE a competitive advantage when the Chinese market opens up. John Cena isn't my favorite wrestler, but I think it's awesome that WWE still has a top star with some aura surrounding him who is good for at least a few truly great matches every year and who works way harder than a guy at his level really has to work.

 

I also agree that Neil was being far too dramatic about WWE's woes and overstating the problem.

 

All of that said:

 

- When people don't watch who criticize WWE, they are told they really shouldn't criticize something they don't watch.

- When people who do watch criticize WWE, they are told if they don't like it, they shouldn't watch. I suppose this means when they stop watching, they are no longer in a position to criticize.

 

It seems like an attempt to shut down conversation. Like WWE or shut up, basically. Only positive comments are welcome.

 

I'm happy to go back and watch old stuff. Even watching the best stuff in 2011 was something I couldn't stick with because I don't really like how wrestling has changed. The excitement just isn't there for me anymore. So I spend most of my time watching and talking about wrestling I actually like.

 

But there's a really interesting discussion to be had and I don't understand why people are so averse to it and dismissive of it. How many hardcore football fans don't watch or care about what goes on in the NFL? Wrestling is completely unique in that there is a huge segment of the overall population that is open to watching wrestling and either likes other versions of it now or has liked it in the past that simply doesn't watch because they don't like the way it's presented. People who wish they could watch WWE now but can't get into it because of the creative don't have anything to be blamed for. It's WWE's fault for not creating something with more universal appeal. It's not the audience's fault for caring about things other than the in-ring.

 

At least within the last decade, WWE has never really seemed interested in exploring why there is so much fan turnover and instead doubles down on the way they currently do things. So the end result is that you have a television product that isn't as good as it was in the past and that even presents itself as something that isn't as good as it was in the past, as can be proven on their over reliance on Undertaker, Rock and Lesnar.

 

There is nothing wrong with discussing these topics. Yes, they've come up before and in some cases we've been saying some version of this for years. But it's still as relevant as ever.

[Exposer]

I enjoyed Cena-Sandow as a match until the finish. The Shield 6-man was fun. Rhodes Brothers-Real Americans was solid. Stephanie mocking the crowd with the Shield was funny. The pop for Big Show was fun. I loved David Otunga's reading of Big Show's lawsuit. The rest of the show? Well, it was WWE booking.

[S.L.L.]

Cena isn't part of the problem at all. Anyone who thinks he is should recall the recent WON news item that he is learning Mandarin to give WWE a competitive advantage when the Chinese market opens up. John Cena isn't my favorite wrestler, but I think it's awesome that WWE still has a top star with some aura surrounding him who is good for at least a few truly great matches every year and who works way harder than a guy at his level really has to work.

 

I also agree that Neil was being far too dramatic about WWE's woes and overstating the problem.

 

All of that said:

 

- When people don't watch who criticize WWE, they are told they really shouldn't criticize something they don't watch.

- When people who do watch criticize WWE, they are told if they don't like it, they shouldn't watch. I suppose this means when they stop watching, they are no longer in a position to criticize.

 

It seems like an attempt to shut down conversation. Like WWE or shut up, basically. Only positive comments are welcome.

 

I'm happy to go back and watch old stuff. Even watching the best stuff in 2011 was something I couldn't stick with because I don't really like how wrestling has changed. The excitement just isn't there for me anymore. So I spend most of my time watching and talking about wrestling I actually like.

 

But there's a really interesting discussion to be had and I don't understand why people are so averse to it and dismissive of it. How many hardcore football fans don't watch or care about what goes on in the NFL? Wrestling is completely unique in that there is a huge segment of the overall population that is open to watching wrestling and either likes other versions of it now or has liked it in the past that simply doesn't watch because they don't like the way it's presented. People who wish they could watch WWE now but can't get into it because of the creative don't have anything to be blamed for. It's WWE's fault for not creating something with more universal appeal. It's not the audience's fault for caring about things other than the in-ring.

 

At least within the last decade, WWE has never really seemed interested in exploring why there is so much fan turnover and instead doubles down on the way they currently do things. So the end result is that you have a television product that isn't as good as it was in the past and that even presents itself as something that isn't as good as it was in the past, as can be proven on their over reliance on Undertaker, Rock and Lesnar.

 

There is nothing wrong with discussing these topics. Yes, they've come up before and in some cases we've been saying some version of this for years. But it's still as relevant as ever.

Man, it's deja vu all over again. Just about a year ago, I wrote this....

 

What I'm getting at is that there's something about this topic that makes people squeamish. I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason, people don't want to look too hard at what's wrong with WWE in the past 5-10 years. They don't want to talk about real problems.

 

...

 

So I guess the moral of the story is that we and WWE deserve each other.

As the thread went on, it became pretty clear to me that the big problem was that for a lot of people, their issues with current WWE were trumped by fear of change. You actually pointed this out quite nicely....

 

Both WWF booms were built on a risk of turning off longtime fans. In both cases, they did alienate the old fan base in favor of a new one. So it's a pretty consistent WWF business model.

Old fans were alienated by Rock 'N' Wrestling. Old fans were alienated by Attitude.

 

Most of us on internet wrestling message boards are old fans. If WWE makes a drastic change on the level of Rock 'N' Wrestling or Attitude...what happens to us?

 

Obviously, you welcome this sort of change. I get more enjoyment from low-context/no-context modern WWE than you do, but I wish it didn't have to be that way, and the willingness to make that kind of change is the only thing that will fix that, so I welcome it, too. And you and I are not alone in feeling that way, but it's quite obvious to me that there are a lot of people who, if presented with the choice between a WWE that's stale enough for them to gripe about but stable enough for them to be comfortable with and a WWE that makes radical changes to push forward and risks leaving them behind, they'll pick the former every time. And what's especially stunning in light of recent events is that this is just as true if that radical change is spearheaded by John Cena as it is if that radical change is spearheaded by Daniel Bryan. If arguably the most smark-friendly wrestler who ever lived can't rally the internet to support radical change in WWE, there's really no hope, is there?

[Loss]

That sums it up awfully well.

[NintendoLogic]

The problem a lot of people have with the Bryan storyline is that it represented the exact opposite of radical change.

[Sean Liska]

Is this an unfair statement - since Vince's expansion in 1984, the only time hardcore wrestling fans weren't complaining about the industry turning it's back on them was maybe 1996-1998.

[Loss]

That's probably accurate, but until the last few years, there was typically another promotion out there that was giving those fans something to appreciate. I guess for some people, that would be New Japan Pro Wrestling now.

[Childs]

But isn't the current product less necessarily important to us as hardcore fans that it ever has been? We're able to dive into footage from all sorts of past eras and experience them on week-to-week levels of detail. I could probably be an engaged wrestling fan for the rest of my life without ever watching WWE in real time. So a lot of the time, I don't give a fuck if WWE is good or not. Of course I think it'd be better if the dominant promotion in the world was great. I got excited about Summerslam, just like everybody else. But in reality, I often read these sorts of threads and shrug, because I know I'll be fine either way.

[Timbo Slice]

Yeah, but that's not the same. The subset of old fans not liking this type of wrestling, there's a subset of that subset that even knows what New Japan is, let alone watch it.

 

It's a good point that S.L.L., Loss, and Logic all made. Change means taking a risk, and right now, the WWE doesn't see any reason to take that risk. Not when they're the only game in town.

 

But if Cena goes down, the time they'll have to put in making someone their new top guy will take a while. Then again, I guess that's what the new development center is for.

[KrisZ]

WWE is a TV product now more than ever as they have completely shattered the lines of kayfabe with Total Divas and guys going on Twitter saying that they are just playing a character that's it to get people to quit posting hate tweets.

 

Rovert is right when it comes to Fall/Winter as like most TV shows they start out slow but when it comes time for sweeps season or in WWE's case Mania Season it's time to step their game up.

[Mad Dog]

The WWE is actually putting out the best alternative product to itself in NXT. They've completely stolen the thunder of the indy scene this year with that show.

[tim]

But isn't the current product less necessarily important to us as hardcore fans that it ever has been? We're able to dive into footage from all sorts of past eras and experience them on week-to-week levels of detail. I could probably be an engaged wrestling fan for the rest of my life without ever watching WWE in real time. So a lot of the time, I don't give a fuck if WWE is good or not. Of course I think it'd be better if the dominant promotion in the world was great. I got excited about Summerslam, just like everybody else. But in reality, I often read these sorts of threads and shrug, because I know I'll be fine either way.

Of course this is true but wouldn't it be nice to have a good wrestling product actually happening right now? Watching old stuff is great, God knows I spend a not insignificant amount of time doing it, but sometimes it kind of blows knowing almost all the good stuff you're watching IS old stuff.

[BrickHithouse]

wouldn't it be nice to have a good wrestling product actually happening right now?

Yes it would be great, but at the same time I'm totally relieved that I don't have to bother to keep up with 5+ fresh hours of programming every week!

[Guest Nell Santucci]

But if Cena goes down, the time they'll have to put in making someone their new top guy will take a while. Then again, I guess that's what the new development center is for.

Therein lies the root of the problem. On paper, HHH is smart to push developmental. But sometimes, I have to wonder if he wants "new stars" coming up just so he can pedigree them. Look at how Sheamus and Sandow were treated. He makes his own reputation.

 

My biggest frustration with the modern product is there are all these interesting guys kicking around on the roster. DB, Punk, Ziggler, PTP, Cesaro, etc. and you have to constantly deal with the stop/go pushes and the fact that you live under the constant threat of HHH ruining things.

That's the source of my frustration too. I was being read incorrectly. It's not that Bryan lost the title. That's the business. It's that he dropped it to a stale act whose heat is sucked up by HHH. I'm normally not a HHH obsessive, but his booking over the past two years has given me every reason to believe that in a match against Bryan, it'd be Bryan doing the job. That's just stupid since it'd reinforce everything HHH has said about Bryan since SummerSlam.

 

And you and I are not alone in feeling that way, but it's quite obvious to me that there are a lot of people who, if presented with the choice between a WWE that's stale enough for them to gripe about but stable enough for them to be comfortable with and a WWE that makes radical changes to push forward and risks leaving them behind, they'll pick the former every time.

You're right, but it's not a view I understand. It's pro-wrestling and as such its range is limited in presentation: Either you make it Russo-like, which has proven to be a failure, the nepotistic route as seen by modern WWE and Dusty or Nash booking, or you go the purist route of doing angles, letting guys get over, and running a big show. The only possibility I see is WWE going the purist route and letting guys get themselves over. Why anyone would be upset or annoyed by this is beyond me. In other words, I don't see any "radical change" happening, unless you want to define "radical" in wrestling land as letting younger guys get the spotlight and not having them booked as inferiors to HHH & Pals or anyone else from the Attitude Era.

 

 

Question: Is it true that Attitude alienated fans? On paper, I can understand that being possible, but I've never heard any significant number of fans tuning out because of D-Generation X antics. What appears to be more likely is the old fans welcomed the change and new fans jumped aboard.

 

 

Not to revisit this but felt the need to clarify. I never claimed Vince felt threatened by TNA as much as claiming that he might have a strategic view that by not letting the promotion be defined by a certain set of superstars, their defection won't aid any potential competitor, TNA or otherwise. The best example would be the blow Vince got from Hogan joining WCW. Sans Hogan, WCW would never have been on a competitive plan short of a few successful angles like Savage/Flair. This strategy has precedence as Vince is well known for presenting the sport as "entertainment" to avoid taxes and to dodge issues of PEDs in wrestling that leads to early deaths. Vince has a rep for wanting to have complete control over wrestlers and the product, hence the micromanaging that has caused the fun factor of the promotion to atrophy.

 

Sorry to everyone for losing it earlier, but WWE to me is like the manipulate ex-girlfriend who strings you along and then spits you back out. I'm not the only one who feels this way. This attitude by the company has led to deplorable consumer confidence in the product, and that's probably about half the reason why the angles and matches today get such little heat.

[Loss]

Yes, a lot of longtime fans HATED the Attitude Era because of the short match times, too much shooting, all the backstage stuff, 20-minute dueling promos, etc.

[gingears]

I assume the fans that would've been turned off by D-X and other "attitude era" conventions would have just watched WCW instead. Judging by the number of fans that just disappeared after the buyout, I think it's safe to say the WWF presentation in the late '90s/early '00s did repel a certain segment, albeit one smaller (though possibly more loyal) than the one it attracted.

[Coffey]

All of that said:

 

- When people don't watch who criticize WWE, they are told they really shouldn't criticize something they don't watch.

- When people who do watch criticize WWE, they are told if they don't like it, they shouldn't watch. I suppose this means when they stop watching, they are no longer in a position to criticize.

 

It seems like an attempt to shut down conversation. Like WWE or shut up, basically. Only positive comments are welcome.

I didn't know if I should reply to this thread or the Current WWE thread but what I quoted was here, so I guess I'll reply here:

 

I have not posted here in a long time, about a year, but this quote above by Loss is awesome & right on the money. I know Loss & I haven't seen eye-to-eye in the past on things, but he's a very observant & intelligent guy & he articulated this point in a few sentences with what would have taken me multiple paragraphs to say in a worse way.

 

I don't know Nell Santucci, he's a newer member, but I was enjoying reading what he was saying in the Current WWE megathread & agreeing with a lot of it. Not all of it, mind you as some of it seemed like hyperbole, but I thought he was making some good points. For it to be completely disregarded by cm funk was disheartening to say the least. When it broke down into petty name-calling, I just didn't want to read it anymore. That's the sort of stuff that will run people off & stifle conversation which doesn't really do any of us any good, right? Personally speaking, I want to read the bad just as much as I want to read the good opinions about shows. I thought Hell in a Cell was a one-match show (the tag title match) but found RAW last night pretty good as a lot of unpredictability took place. So reading opinions that are the opposite of that, someone loving Hell in a Cell & hating RAW would be more interesting to me than just reading someone that agreed with me.

 

Telling someone that doesn't like the current product to stop watching is a cop out to me. It's not like we're fair weather wrestling fans that just hop off the bandwagon when everything isn't peachy keen, right? The majority of us here have been watching for over twenty years. Telling someone to just walk away, Lord Humungus style, after that amount of time because they don't share your exact sentiment is being naive.

[cm funk]

- When people don't watch who criticize WWE, they are told they really shouldn't criticize something they don't watch.

- When people who do watch criticize WWE, they are told if they don't like it, they shouldn't watch. I suppose this means when they stop watching, they are no longer in a position to criticize.

 

It seems like an attempt to shut down conversation. Like WWE or shut up, basically. Only positive comments are welcome.

I appreciate objective criticism. And that's why I qualified with "I really hate when people say don't watch it" because it's generally a dumb and reductive thing to say

 

But some people seem incapable of having any sort of objectivity when it comes to WWE, and would be better off for their own health if they just ignored the product

 

Myself, you can go back through my posts on this board and I've certainly criticized WWE for a lot of things. But I enjoy their product as well. If I didn't I wouldn't watch it or follow it. Objective criticism

 

And I think that extends to all mediums, and it's one of my least favorite things on the internet. People just shitting all over stuff that they hate, yet can't turn away from. It's ugly.

[Dylan Waco]

Is complaining about Super Cena objective criticism?

[cm funk]

Yes