Johnny Sorrow Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Bruno being a result of marketing is the craziest thing I've ever came across, and I've been on enough acid to think the air tasted like peanut butter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronos Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 This thread makes me think about the crowd's chanting "You Still Got It" at Steph on Summerslam. Based on booking, they have no business cheering her. They should be booing her kicking Brie's ass. But I know I was more entertained by Stephanie's performance in that match, too. So is it a case of people just not being able to bring themselves to care about Brie in-ring? Or is that chant a way of amusing themselves at the expense of the story in front of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Stephanie has been a heel that tries to get cheered for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronos Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Stephanie has been a heel that tries to get cheered for a while. Are you saying Steph-the-Character wants to be cheered? [i guess she would, wouldn't she, because the best villains are the ones who believe they are right.] Or that the crowd wants to cheer her, despite her being a heel (because she's so good at it)? Because the latter is how I feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 It's something I've actually heard Dave talk about a lot of times. She was for the most part made to look smarter than Brie, and she also played up "Yes!" chants in her favor. I think Dave overstates it, and people do cheer when she gets her comeuppance, but she also does sometimes try to be cool heel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Stephanie and Hunter have both been acting like cool heels lately. Which is a departure from how they were the first half of the year. Don't know what is happening. They will probably go back when/if Bryan returns. and yeah not to take away anything away from her performances but she outsmarted and got the advantage on Brie for the vast majority of the feud and then beat her at the PPV anyway. Poor Brie might be the worst booked babyface in wrestling history Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Bruno being a result of marketing is the craziest thing I've ever came across, and I've been on enough acid to think the air tasted like peanut butter. If they didn't market him as the champion for so many years, would he be held in such high esteem? The term marketing I think is being misused somewhat as it isnt like there was foam fingers and ice cream bars of Bruno, but they certainly marketed him as the top star based on how he was presented with the championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 One thing they definitely didn't do is publish a book called "WWE's Top 50 Greatest Superstars" and rank Bruno at #1 Another thing they definitely didn't do is call him "Mr. MSG" on air. Another thing they didn't do when he came back after the Pedro run is refer to him on air as "the icon" or "the showstopper". After Backlund becomes champ, Bruno is still just crazy over and his push is essentially "working commentary with the occasional match at Philly or MSG". Or in 1980 it's working a featured feud with Larry Z. But the point is, that since Bruno just was a legit folk hero, they didn't really need to do all that much stuff. Yes, you had magazine articles galore on him (not put out by WWE), you even had TV documentaries on him (again not put out by WWE), because he was a proper star. It was about 10% down to presentation and 90% down to fans connecting with Bruno and legit loving him over many years. Michaels and his entire rep with WWE fans is almost totally manufactured. It's them being TOLD over and over and over again that this guy is an icon and a legend and a "showstopper" and someone who has really great matches. They are TOLD over and over and over again that Michaels's Wrestlemania matches are among the greatest of all time. And then, unsurprisingly, you get 1000s of fans internalising that hype and thinking that yes, surely, HBK is one of your greatest wrestlers of all time. HBK and his rep today are at least 90% down to presentation and about 10% down to fans. It's the WWE literally saying "look, we know he didn't draw in 1994 or 1996, and, in fact, we know as well as anyone that even when he was a babyface you didn't really like this guy BUTTTTTT he's an amazing performer, he's an icon, he's one of the most important people in the history of this company, he's MR WRESTLEMANIA, he's one of the biggest stars of all time, he's actually the number #1 wrestler of all time, you HAVE to love him". And so people do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I don't like the idea you're pushing that "I personally don't buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, therefore nobody else could possibly buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, and if they do it's because they were duped by Vince's marketing machine." Many people think Shawn Michaels is a great wrestler, even if you don't, and they can do so without having been brainwashed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Another way Stephanie would try to play the cool heel is when she would put lesser heels like Miz in their place during backstage segments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Didn't they market Bruno as "the Living Legend?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 They signed Bruno to a lucrative contract before inducting him into the HOF. They are going to try and get their money's worth out of that contract by promoting him as a larger than life legend, as they should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhindsight Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 He's talking about referring to him as The Living Legend back in the late 70s/early 80s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 AH. Then disregard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I don't like the idea you're pushing that "I personally don't buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, therefore nobody else could possibly buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, and if they do it's because they were duped by Vince's marketing machine." Many people think Shawn Michaels is a great wrestler, even if you don't, and they can do so without having been brainwashed. You can agree that Shawn is a good or great wrestler and still think that the WWE's packaging of him is over the top. They treat him like he's as big of a star historically as almost anyone and as if he is the best wrestler to ever be in the company. In the WWE's version of history, the Hogan era transitioned to the Michaels era and then onto Austin and Attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronos Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Another way Stephanie would try to play the cool heel is when she would put lesser heels like Miz in their place during backstage segments. Layers upon layers. Maybe Steph-the-Human, unlike say, Bradshaw, doesn't want to be hated even onscreen. She likes playing a bitch, but still doesn't want to be hated totally. But it looks like I've gotten us off track for this thread. Interesting side discussion, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronos Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I don't like the idea you're pushing that "I personally don't buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, therefore nobody else could possibly buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, and if they do it's because they were duped by Vince's marketing machine." Many people think Shawn Michaels is a great wrestler, even if you don't, and they can do so without having been brainwashed. You can agree that Shawn is a good or great wrestler and still think that the WWE's packaging of him is over the top. They treat him like he's as big of a star historically as almost anyone and as if he is the best wrestler to ever be in the company. In the WWE's version of history, the Hogan era transitioned to the Michaels era and then onto Austin and Attitude. It makes sense from a business standpoint, I have to admit. That version of the mid 90s flows better than the truth, which is that they flailed about for a few years until stumbling upon Steve Austin. So who would've been their other options to latch onto? Bret was estranged for many years. Nash and Hall? Too unpredictable - and of course poster children for the enemy. Shawn came back and declared himself a company man. And he did bring the flash and pizazz, even if it often feels a bit obnoxious to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoS Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Michaels and his entire rep with WWE fans is almost totally manufactured. It's them being TOLD over and over and over again that this guy is an icon and a legend and a "showstopper" and someone who has really great matches. They are TOLD over and over and over again that Michaels's Wrestlemania matches are among the greatest of all time. And then, unsurprisingly, you get 1000s of fans internalising that hype and thinking that yes, surely, HBK is one of your greatest wrestlers of all time. HBK and his rep today are at least 90% down to presentation and about 10% down to fans. It's the WWE literally saying "look, we know he didn't draw in 1994 or 1996, and, in fact, we know as well as anyone that even when he was a babyface you didn't really like this guy BUTTTTTT he's an amazing performer, he's an icon, he's one of the most important people in the history of this company, he's MR WRESTLEMANIA, he's one of the biggest stars of all time, he's actually the number #1 wrestler of all time, you HAVE to love him". And so people do. I am sorry, but I hate it when people condescendingly dismiss someone's popularity as fans being brainwashed and indoctrinated. It is obnoxious and entirely uncalled for. I am not even saying you are completely wrong. Propaganda does play a part in someone's popularity to an extent, but it can never be 90% or anywhere close to that ballpark. I come from India, and wrestling fans here, whom you would describe as the most casual of casuals, genuinely love Michaels. Part of that IS down to being pushed like a legend, but that is only a part of it Otherwise, they would have loved Hunter as much as they love Shawn, but that is not true. Shawn has plenty of fans who love him in an organic, non-doctrinating way, and it is extremely stupid and delusional to think that people think Shawn is great only because that is how WWE markets him. I am sorry I come across as being rude, but this to me, is a very sanctimonious talking point, and not accurate. I do agree, however, that Shawn's marketing has been WAYY over the top, and worthy of a million eye-rolls, for what it is worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I don't like the idea you're pushing that "I personally don't buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, therefore nobody else could possibly buy into Shawn Michaels as a great wrestler, and if they do it's because they were duped by Vince's marketing machine." Many people think Shawn Michaels is a great wrestler, even if you don't, and they can do so without having been brainwashed. You can agree that Shawn is a good or great wrestler and still think that the WWE's packaging of him is over the top. They treat him like he's as big of a star historically as almost anyone and as if he is the best wrestler to ever be in the company. In the WWE's version of history, the Hogan era transitioned to the Michaels era and then onto Austin and Attitude. Sure. But as Kronos pointed out, what is the alternative? "Here's Shawn Michaels, he bombed as an ace! Come pay money to watch him!" ?? I mean, they call Randy Orton one of the biggest stars in history, which is twice as absurd. But they have to, they're trying to promote these guys. That's what you do. And I think Shawn as a big star is a slightly different point than Shawn as GOAT. Both ideas are part of his marketing, but they're different ideas and one is much easier to disprove than the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I wonder how Parv feels about the way Hogan was marketed. The marketing for Michaels makes perfect sense from the company's point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I don't think it's a poor business decision. It's probably a great business decision. The point that I'm making, and that I think parv is getting at, is that this smart business decision warps perception of the man's aesthetic merits as a wrestler. The WWE's hype train has created a world where according to lots and lots of people you're absolutely nuts if you don't think Michaels is a top 3 wrestler ever, let alone a top 100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 And what I'm saying is that you can't blame WWE's hype machine for that, not entirely. Blame people having a different opinion of Shawn's abilities than you or Parv. The idea that people needed to be duped into thinking that is incredibly disrespectful to other people's opinions, and as a Michaels fan I frankly find it insulting. WWE call John Cena "one of the greatest of all time" now as a marketing thing. Think about that, and then look at how vociferously crowds boo when that idea is ever mentioned on television. Because they DONT buy into it, no matter how much WWE tells them to. My point being that they don't just snap their fingers and make scores of people swallow something if they're not willing to believe it. People buy into WWE's marketing of Shawn because they agree with it, they DO think he's that good. You don't have to agree. But I also think you need to give people a bit more credit than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Cena and the WWE have worked the crowd for years at this point on his abilities as a wrestler. They invite the "you can't wrestle" chants and Cena himself probably relishes in them. The WWE also refers to Cena in more of a kayfabe sense, being the 16 or so time champion and their biggest star for a decade now. The way they refer to Michaels is coded for "workrate legend" Shawn Michaels. Settle down on the disrespect card, you don't have to be duped into thinking Michaels is an all-time great. I can see why lots of people think that even if the WWE/F never gave him the referential awe that they do. For what it's worth, they give it to Flair too and have since he came back after WCW's death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 These things absolutely play a role. People will laugh that this is coming from me, but Ric Flair started getting called the best of all time as early as 1988 and that stuck with people. It's not the only reason people consider him at that level, but the number of world titles and marketing of that role is absolutely part of what many people consider, whether they realize it or not. It's not a criticism of WWE business practices to say it. Parv's point is that without WWE doing that, he's skeptical that anyone would think that. There's no way to prove that's true or not true definitively, but it's a valid opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 I'm not denying it plays a role. At all. I just think the "90% - 10%" thing and "oh he had a couple of good matches" and everything came off incredibly out of touch with what a majority of fans actually think about Shawn, just because he's personally not a fan. As if you can't possibly rate Shawn that highly unless you're a victim of WWE marketing. Rating Shawn is also a valid opinion, but he's not treating it as one. You make a good point about Flair, and my point is that Parv isn't coming out and saying that WCW marketing'd its fans into thinking that Flair is the GOAT. And you wouldn't particularly like it or agree with him if he did, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.