What's wrong with current WWE?

[jcmmnx]

Just look at the winners from this year's Mania. Did they really expect Reigns, Rusev, Bray, Ambrose etc to be able to carry the company the rest of the year after coming up short at the biggest show? Make some damn stars FFS.

[WingedEagle]

Lot of talk lately about UFC looking to run AT&T Stadium for McGregor/Also in December, potentially with Rousey's next fight. What boggles my mind is how WWE would commit to the building for Mania without having UFC or anything remotely competitive blocked from the building until a certain period after 32. I thought this was common practice on house shows in the past where they'd make sure competition was locked out of a building for a bit to avoid hurting sales. Who takes the heat for an oversight of this magnitude?

[Goodear]

If I were to pick one thing rather than trying to make a huge list of complaints, I would say that the episodic nature of the shows have significantly decreased. Things seem to be on a treadmill for extended periods so you miss virtually nothing if you don't watch an episode of RAW and less than nothing for a showing of Smackdown. Characters and storylines progress at a crawl with the steps in between plot points devolving to a systematic series of rote story beats like "Player 1 is distracted by Player 2 being on commentary" which have been used to the point of tropes. The last thing that felt like it mattered was Kevin Owen's debut and that was over three specials ago. I don't think I've watched a show since and I don't feel as though I've missed any big moments. This ties into a lack of consequences to the actions of the participants in this revolving narrative but also to the malaise of the writing.

[Timbo Slice]

The biggest thing for me is that everything is micromanaged. Too much. The best parts about wrestling at its peak was that everything was managed, but loosely. Generalized, even. Here, everything is so high-strung and calculated that it screams overly scripted, even to many people who aren't hip to the business, so to speak. It's the new corporate mentality, which has been prevalent at other sports institutions, most notably ESPN. Brand over stars. The problem is that stars improve the brand. The brand doesn't make stars. The one time it worked was with Hogan. Everything else was by chance or by being forced into the situation. Unless they break that down and let people stand out without having to have a rigid structure in place, it's going to slowly erode.

[dawho5]

I think everyone has made great points in this thread, but Loss going off really takes it for me. Great stuff! He touched on something I had noticed for months but nobody else seemed to pick up on. WWE tropes slowly but surely making their way into the NXT booking as Vince & co. took more interest in it. Sure the wrestling in some of the matches is better and has some meaning, but watch NXT from 8 months ago and compare it to now. Tell me that they haven't tried to homogenize it more and more to where it looks like an hour long version of Raw or SD.

[Goodear]

Oh yeah, but RAW is three hours now. How could I forget? It's a three hour show. A THREE HOUR SHOW. They have so much television time to fill. I like how this assumes that when RAW was two hours, WWE Creative was clicking on all cylinders and that these problems are something new, just like it somehow tricks people into thinking NXT is good because it's short, even though it's filled with the same opening dueling promo crap, characters without a strong hook and matches where people just kick out of stuff over and over. These problems have been there for 15 years.

 

Of all the things you talked about, I really don't think these things are actually true about NXT. There are not long opening promos as studio production pieces and contract signings fill those 'talking' roles normally in segment five or six. The characters are a lot better developed with more people in the women's division with a clear direction than in all of the main roster (not using actual math but its probably close) and finisher kick outs are way more infrequent unless they go to a story like Zayn losing the belt to Owens which made sense conceptually.

[Russellmania]

Oh yeah, but RAW is three hours now. How could I forget? It's a three hour show. A THREE HOUR SHOW. They have so much television time to fill. I like how this assumes that when RAW was two hours, WWE Creative was clicking on all cylinders and that these problems are something new, just like it somehow tricks people into thinking NXT is good because it's short, even though it's filled with the same opening dueling promo crap, characters without a strong hook and matches where people just kick out of stuff over and over. These problems have been there for 15 years.

 

Of all the things you talked about, I really don't think these things are actually true about NXT. There are not long opening promos as studio production pieces and contract signings fill those 'talking' roles normally in segment five or six. The characters are a lot better developed with more people in the women's division with a clear direction than in all of the main roster (not using actual math but its probably close) and finisher kick outs are way more infrequent unless they go to a story like Zayn losing the belt to Owens which made sense conceptually.

I think the post you quoted had some awkward wording, but I believe he was talking about RAW when it was 2 hours long when listing all those tropes, not saying that NXT has all those tropes.

 

The point seemed to be that RAW wasn't automatically better at 2 hours just because it was shorter (since it had a lot of the same problems it has now at 3 hours long) and was comparing to NXT which is better not because it's shorter but because it's just better executed.

[LariatMMBOPPO]

Loss...be honest. How much of the product do you actually follow by seeing and not by reading newsletters? That post reminds me of the time you declared that Elimination Chamber match in 2014 as the 2nd greatest match in company history before recanting.

 

Outside of Wrestlemania, how often do they do the "dream" build? Cena is currently fending off people who want to make a name by taking his title, Rollins has been involved in on/off feuds with Reigns and Ambrose over his betrayal over a year ago and is currently being programmed to defend his title against Cena after being defeated in a US title match. The IC title's feud is Big Show simply wanting the it and challenging Ryback for it. Same with the tag titles. Outside of title matches, Rusev wants to hurt Dolph for taking Lana away and Owens/Cesaro seem to be building to a feud over who is better. Not all of it's great and some (like a majority of the Lana stuff) bad. A lot of it simply comes from overexposure. 7/8 hours of programming from the same company is enough to burn anyone out be it watching, performing or writing.

 

Goc has a point of people wanting the company to be something they've never tried being. Yes, we have a teleporting MRA, but as far back as 1990 there's been goofy supernatural shit. Undertaker being an actual zombie, Papa Shango's voodoo magic and Kane shooting fire. The cartoon aspect is there and is likely never going away. WCW got shit on because they were relying on guys that had debuted some 20/25 years prior and dominated the television. The only active, in-ring ones who come close to that are Kane and Big Show and despite being on TV, they're mostly used for putting over the newer guys. The Authority is beyond played out at this point and does need to go away, but overexposure rears it's ugly head and they think they need something to fill three hours with.

 

I actually agree with some of your points. The 50/50 booking is annoying (although it seems like people bitch about it every time someone loses a feud), the reliance on awful nu-metal long past it's expiration date and the marketing/buzzwords are terrible. The lack of actual heels is disheartening. Did you know people were actually upset over Bad News Barrett not being allowed to do his opening shtick anymore because it popped the crowd despite being a heel? Blame it on the agents or whoever for allowing it in the first place, but the fact people were mad that they shouldn't cheer heels is a decent idea of why there's so few little actual bad guys. Tough Enough also needs to go die in a fire.

[Loss]

 

Oh yeah, but RAW is three hours now. How could I forget? It's a three hour show. A THREE HOUR SHOW. They have so much television time to fill. I like how this assumes that when RAW was two hours, WWE Creative was clicking on all cylinders and that these problems are something new, just like it somehow tricks people into thinking NXT is good because it's short, even though it's filled with the same opening dueling promo crap, characters without a strong hook and matches where people just kick out of stuff over and over. These problems have been there for 15 years.

 

Of all the things you talked about, I really don't think these things are actually true about NXT. There are not long opening promos as studio production pieces and contract signings fill those 'talking' roles normally in segment five or six. The characters are a lot better developed with more people in the women's division with a clear direction than in all of the main roster (not using actual math but its probably close) and finisher kick outs are way more infrequent unless they go to a story like Zayn losing the belt to Owens which made sense conceptually.

I think the post you quoted had some awkward wording, but I believe he was talking about RAW when it was 2 hours long when listing all those tropes, not saying that NXT has all those tropes.

 

The point seemed to be that RAW wasn't automatically better at 2 hours just because it was shorter (since it had a lot of the same problems it has now at 3 hours long) and was comparing to NXT which is better not because it's shorter but because it's just better executed.

 

 

Every episode of NXT I have decided to check out has started with an in-ring dueling promo. The most recent involved Neville and Kevin Owens the week after KO turned on Zayn to end the special. So I was actually referring to NXT. I did like Sasha-Becky a lot and that wasn't worked in style, but I was not referring to the finisher kickouts of Cena-Owens as much as I was guys like Zayn doing all these wow spots that never get victories for him, so they mean far less than they should.

[Mad Dog]

This isn't all on WWE. But I despise how social media has crept into promos.

 

The unnatural use of language really bugs me. Their buzzwords never fit. Michael Cole says weird shit that no one ever does. I want to stab him everytime he says WWE Universe.

[Loss]

Loss...be honest. How much of the product do you actually follow by seeing and not by reading newsletters? That post reminds me of the time you declared that Elimination Chamber match in 2014 as the 2nd greatest match in company history before recanting.

 

I watched everything consistently and faithfully until 2005. I've had stretches since then where I've started watching weekly again, usually during stuff like the Jericho-Shawn feud, Bret coming back to set up the Vince match, Nexus, summer of Punk, Brock's return, and most of the stretch from Summerslam to Wrestlemania 30. And I usually catch at least some WWE TV every week even now, but I don't make it a point to watch all of it. There have been other moments where I've tried it out again, but those are the ones that stand out the most thinking about them now. I'm familiar enough with this company to read something and know if there's an improvement or even the possibility of one. But aside from a rotating cast of players and less tasteless angles, it's pretty much the same stuff they were doing a decade ago. They would never have Randy Orton cut a promo about Eddy Guerrero burning in hell now (although Miz made similar comments about Jerry Lawler's mom as late as 2011), but they at least wrote with the idea ten years ago that storylines should hold up week-to-week, which they don't care about now. They didn't always succeed at that, but that was the idea. Plus, they were building up Cena and Batista, so there was a fresh feeling there that is missing now. Still, overall, WWE now is the same WWE it was then -- opportunities to create fresh matchups and run with things that seem to be catching on left and right squandered constantly because of preconceived notions about what works and what doesn't. In fact, that has been the same song and dance much longer than that.

 

I'll respond to the rest of your points in a separate post a little later.

[Mad Dog]

I think time management is another big one for me. Watching old WWF TV it really strikes me how quick and snappy most segments were. Piper's Pit most weeks was maybe 5 minutes tops. And they would usually get more done in those 5 minutes than they get accomplished with the 20 minute openings they have now.

 

The lack of change in the production is an issue to. The look of the shows have barely changed since the late 1990s. Go back and watch an NFL or NHL game from 1999 and watch a game from today. They look nothing alike. Look at an episode of Raw today and look at an episode of Raw in 1999. If you take HD out of the equation, there isn't much of a difference.

[Loss]

Outside of Wrestlemania, how often do they do the "dream" build? Cena is currently fending off people who want to make a name by taking his title, Rollins has been involved in on/off feuds with Reigns and Ambrose over his betrayal over a year ago and is currently being programmed to defend his title against Cena after being defeated in a US title match. The IC title's feud is Big Show simply wanting the it and challenging Ryback for it. Same with the tag titles. Outside of title matches, Rusev wants to hurt Dolph for taking Lana away and Owens/Cesaro seem to be building to a feud over who is better. Not all of it's great and some (like a majority of the Lana stuff) bad. A lot of it simply comes from overexposure. 7/8 hours of programming from the same company is enough to burn anyone out be it watching, performing or writing.

 

The dream build is rare. I meant the general motivation of the characters. They are mostly presented as childhood fans turned superstars who are living the dream. And when I say that, I'm referring to the totality of the WWE experience -- not just what's on Raw or Smackdown, but their "out of character" appearances on Tough Enough and in documentaries on the Network where they are supposedly shooting straight. When fans started rejecting Batista, Vince's ideas for turning it around were for Batista to talk about how much he really wanted to be there. Cena-Rock was built on the idea that Rock didn't love wrestling enough. And remember those arguments between the Bellas and AJ earlier this year? It's a bunch of Kitty Farmers questioning each other's commitment to Sparkle Motion.

 

I just don't buy the number of hours of TV argument as having anything to do with the malaise. History shows that when wrestling is good, fans can't seem to get enough of it. During the last popularity boom, there was way more wrestling on television than there is now, and a healthy part of the combined audience followed both companies. In fact, WCW alone had three hours of Nitro, two hours of Thunder, two hours of Saturday Night and their syndication. Granted, they picked up Thunder and the third hour of Nitro right as it was becoming clear they were eventually going to pay for some bad booking decisions, but that's a case of correlation more than causation.

[Loss]

This isn't all on WWE. But I despise how social media has crept into promos.

 

The unnatural use of language really bugs me. Their buzzwords never fit. Michael Cole says weird shit that no one ever does. I want to stab him everytime he says WWE Universe.

 

Little known fact: When WWE finishes television tapings each week, Vince turns Michael Cole off, disassembles him and places him in his briefcase until the following week's show.

[Mad Dog]

I knew it! I knew Cole was a Muppet!

[donsem43]

He's been there for, what now, 17 years. You would think that being in wrestling for that long you would have to be passionate about it but has anyone ever got that feeling from Michael Cole. Maybe he looks at his got the same way that someone who works in a cubicle and stares at a computer screen for 8 hrs. All he really has to is just say whatever his boss tells to say through his headset. If you compare his job to others in sports broadcasting, Cole probably has better job security and it's less cutthroat on his end. Maybe that's the reason hung on for so long.

[Coffey]

The commentary is awful.

WWE doesn't seem to care about their own history.

WWE treats the fans like they're idiots.

WWE perpetuates stereotypes, even in this day & age.

The constantly camera cuts & bouncing camera effects are nausea inducing.

 

The shows feel like commercials more than shows - as WWE is constantly trying to get anything and everything other that wrestling over at the expense of their wrestling show. Be it Twitter, YouTube, WWE App, whatever.

 

Too many replays & commercial breaks mid-match on their TV shows.

 

The show doesn't feel like it's changed in twenty years. Always opening with a 20 minute promo. Set still looking the same. Same colors, same ring, same everything. It just feels dated.

 

WWE tries to manufacture organic feel at the expense of genuinely organic moments. I.E. trying to uber push Roman Reigns by killing Daniel Bryan. It just feels like they stopped listening to the fans.

 

WAY too much bad acting, a lot of which coming from people higher-up (like Stephanie McMahon).

Even-stevens booking just makes everyone look mediocre.

 

Whenever the fans latch onto something, WWE beats you over the head with it until it's not cool anymore. I.E. "Fandangoing."

 

I don't know how many things I can name if I were to keep going but yeah, there's a lot. Little things add-up.

[Mad Dog]

He's been there for, what now, 17 years. You would think that being in wrestling for that long you would have to be passionate about it but has anyone ever got that feeling from Michael Cole. Maybe he looks at his got the same way that someone who works in a cubicle and stares at a computer screen for 8 hrs. All he really has to is just say whatever his boss tells to say through his headset. If you compare his job to others in sports broadcasting, Cole probably has better job security and it's less cutthroat on his end. Maybe that's the reason hung on for so long.

 

They beat it out of him. They mocked him when he was younger for studying wrestling and wanting to learn about it.

[Bierschwale]

Cole and Tazz were a great team in the first part of the decade. It really just has been beaten out of him, though he shows flashes of the excitement when he can get away with it like at Survivor Series last year.

[Mad Dog]

I would be curious to see how many fans heel Cole chased away from the product for good. I know I got the wrestling itch right in the middle of that and lasted 5 minutes before tuning out again.

[Laz]

WWE is an '80s band. It's Metallica, it's Aerosmith, it's Motley Crüe, etc. They were the different upstart who stood out because they had the perfect look, sound, and feel of their era. They were such a huge part of the '80s that the sudden shift in '91/'92 of the culture in general rocked it so hard that it was reeling back for most of the decade nursing its hangover and trying desperately to find a way to stay relevant.

 

Enter Austin. Enter ECW. Enter Attitude.

 

For a while post-Attitude, the product was still very much trying to be edgy and insane. It wasn't until the rise of Cena in '07 and Benoit that they decided to be children's entertainment again, but that's ultimately not even the problem.

 

Look at the box office for the last 5 years. Look at popular music. What's hip and cool? Reboots of '80s properties, sequels to series that don't need them, artists treading well paved roads, and a lack of art and authenticity abroad. During Dubya's second term we saw a rise in very cynical and sarcastic outlooks and voices where the only way to be "cool" is to self-deprecate and mock tropes of things you love.

 

There's no urgency or legitimacy in any mainstream entertainment. What makes you think WWE is going to lead that charge?

 

Vince chose the larger than life cartoon characters in the '80s because that's what we wanted as a market. We didn't want studies of human psyche, we wanted AHNOLD and SLY blowing bad guys away with the biggest guns they could carry. We didn't want introspective songwriters, we wanted "Girls Girls Girls." The WWF gave us what the culture wanted a few years after it became the norm.

 

Attitude didn't develop until the '90s were almost over. We were sick of Reaganomics-laden machismo and wanted Quentin Tarantino. We were sick of hairspray and makeup and wanted legitimacy and earnestness. Then came beer drinkin', beer swillin', hell raisin' Steve Austin in 1997 and we ate it the fuck up.

 

Right now we're in a creative dirge across the board. The few novel ideas out there are hidden behind walls of mediocrity disguised as meta dissections written and developed by people who don't understand what made everything work but remember certain moments without bar clue as to why they remember them.

 

Maybe it'll get better. It probably will. Just don't expect WWE to do it for another 3-4 years after the rest of the culture does.

[fakeplastictrees]

The biggest problem for me is the overall presentation. WWE needs a reboot. No more authority figures, all new commentators, new set for Raw & Smackdown, new color scheme and theme for both shows, no more magic camera man, no more show openings with 20 minutes promos, etc. If they do this and set a hierarchy things should (hopefully) work itself out from there.

[DMJ]

During the last conference call, Vince and Barrios (maybe?) reported that the Beast in the East Special was a huge success. To me, that show featured a bunch of things that we don't typically get, which may be one reason why it was not only a success in terms of viewership but critically.

[Coffey]

The biggest problem for me is the overall presentation. WWE needs a reboot. No more authority figures, all new commentators, new set for Raw & Smackdown, new color scheme and theme for both shows, no more magic camera man, no more show openings with 20 minutes promos, etc. If they do this and set a hierarchy things should (hopefully) work itself out from there.

 

I would honestly be fine with just shit-canning Smackdown, but I know WWE would never do that. The show just seems so pointless & unimportant. I mean, you can literally skip it every single week & not miss a single segment that matters.

[Loss]

Stephanie travels home before they tape the show, so WWE sort of loses their will to live until she's back on Monday.