Is "nothing matters anymore" generally accepted as truth here?

[FMKK]

To me, the more apt term to sum this period of history up would be 'The Content Era.'

 

That's what this is. They produce endless hours of programming across TV, Network, Youtube, Facebook. They're a content mill that's just concerned about filling up hour after endless hour with content to tick a pile of demographic boxes and satisfy stakeholder demands. This is corporate wrestling in 2018.

 

What's really disappointing is that, in a scenario when they basically have fuck you money and it doesn't matter all that much what you put on TV, this could actually be creatively liberating in a way. If it doesn't matter how good or bad your booking is, why not take a risk and try out creative things? People love following on with prestige TV shows and getting obsessed with what's going to happen next, so why not build story arcs and characters that make sense so there's an actual sense of development in your television product? It must be a very stifling environment when you know that you can basically do whatever you want but you're still creatively shackled. Surely some of those writers, and even someone with pretensions like Stephanie McMahon, must look at the big Netflix shows and think that there's a way that they could present their wrestling show in a more creative way to create a similar type of buzz. 

 

It's similar to Hollywood in a way. They want the easy safe-bet money so we get endless re-runs, sequels, franchises, remakes and extended universes of previously existing products. Not that different to dragging back Shawn Michaels to fight Undertaker yet again for the Saudi dictatorship propaganda show. I once read a book arguing that there was a formula to making sure a blockbuster film was a guaranteed success. And in the book, he argued that there was no reason that the film industry couldn't be way more creative in what movies get sanctioned given the almost guaranteed success that could be attained through following a few simple steps. WWE is similar. The money is there, so why not take more risks in who you push and how you book them? The answer is that the corporate model is inherently conservative and homogenizing.

[AstroBoy]

I think things like the Saudi show and Australian show might hurt any kind of consistency and long term planning in the company.  We've seen them shift into WrestleMania mode and shelf logical/hot storylines in favor of attractions for awhile now.  The same thing is creeping into the current booking.  Why settle anything at a ppv when you need to keep filling up these supercards?  So we get even more rematches and placeholder nonfinish matches in between.  It's only going to get worse.  

[fakeplastictrees]

2 hours ago, FMKK said:

To me, the more apt term to sum this period of history up would be 'The Content Era.'

 

That's what this is. They produce endless hours of programming across TV, Network, Youtube, Facebook. They're a content mill that's just concerned about filling up hour after endless hour with content to tick a pile of demographic boxes and satisfy stakeholder demands. This is corporate wrestling in 2018.

 

What's really disappointing is that, in a scenario when they basically have fuck you money and it doesn't matter all that much what you put on TV, this could actually be creatively liberating in a way. If it doesn't matter how good or bad your booking is, why not take a risk and try out creative things? People love following on with prestige TV shows and getting obsessed with what's going to happen next, so why not build story arcs and characters that make sense so there's an actual sense of development in your television product? It must be a very stifling environment when you know that you can basically do whatever you want but you're still creatively shackled. Surely some of those writers, and even someone with pretensions like Stephanie McMahon, must look at the big Netflix shows and think that there's a way that they could present their wrestling show in a more creative way to create a similar type of buzz. 

 

It's similar to Hollywood in a way. They want the easy safe-bet money so we get endless re-runs, sequels, franchises, remakes and extended universes of previously existing products. Not that different to dragging back Shawn Michaels to fight Undertaker yet again for the Saudi dictatorship propaganda show. I once read a book arguing that there was a formula to making sure a blockbuster film was a guaranteed success. And in the book, he argued that there was no reason that the film industry couldn't be way more creative in what movies get sanctioned given the almost guaranteed success that could be attained through following a few simple steps. WWE is similar. The money is there, so why not take more risks in who you push and how you book them? The answer is that the corporate model is inherently conservative and homogenizing.

I agree and tend to believe the new definition of success in WWE, in any measure, isn't really based on whether someone or something gets over. Its not even about whether an angle or wrestle makes WWE any money. Its just about getting to the finish line and turning it in. With the goal being a sprint to the finish with no regard of how one gets there, the viewers are treated to a seemingly mis-managed yet methodical product.

[Stiva]

I think, in general, WWE is now much, much worse at establishing a modern "canon" for lack of a better word. They often dig into the past so much because they've made a terrible effort at making their recent history matter. This is definitely a consequence of more TV but that's no reason for them not to emphasise certain angles and moments instead of, for example, Mick Foley being trotted out to talk about his HIAC bump for the trillionth time. Do many people even remember Sasha and Charlotte main eventing a PPV in the cell? How often do they mention Bray Wyatt's magical appearance as an apparition to make funny faces at Dean Ambrose? One of those things is much better than the other but they were both treated as largely disposable moments instead of there being a conscious effort to immortalise them. Like, a lot of the big Attitude moments that they reflect on are bad but they still canonise them as something great. If they won't remember or mention things that are designed to be memorable then why should anyone else?

What are the big moments of the decade that they actually reference? The Nexus Debut, the "Yes Movement" invading Raw (which wasn't the best moment of Bryan's ascension at all) and The Shield debut? You could argue they're hamstrung by certain guys not being in the company (Punk's Pipebomb) but something like the Heath Slater and Rhyno becoming tag champs story, for one example, seemed like a memorable, midcard story that the crowd bought into big time but I don't think I've ever seen it treated with any reverence or importance since. Maybe it's different in those WWE Top tens that they post to Youtube but they, by their very nature, are disposable time wasters.

Maybe my point has been muddied but if they want Reigns to be a memorable top guy and all-round babyface, you'd think they'd remember the night he got past Sheamus and Vince McMahon to a roaring crowd to win the WWE Title, complete with McMahon getting arrested the next week but I guess not. 

[SPS]

3 hours ago, FMKK said:

I once read a book arguing that there was a formula to making sure a blockbuster film was a guaranteed success.

What book?

[Mad Dog]

6 hours ago, AstroBoy said:

I think things like the Saudi show and Australian show might hurt any kind of consistency and long term planning in the company.  We've seen them shift into WrestleMania mode and shelf logical/hot storylines in favor of attractions for awhile now.  The same thing is creeping into the current booking.  Why settle anything at a ppv when you need to keep filling up these supercards?  So we get even more rematches and placeholder nonfinish matches in between.  It's only going to get worse.  

It feels like everything now is just filler but that they never get to what they are using the filler for.

[FMKK]

7 hours ago, SPS said:

What book?

The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex by Mark Kermode

[Loss]

10 hours ago, Stiva said:

I think, in general, WWE is now much, much worse at establishing a modern "canon" for lack of a better word. They often dig into the past so much because they've made a terrible effort at making their recent history matter. This is definitely a consequence of more TV but that's no reason for them not to emphasise certain angles and moments instead of, for example, Mick Foley being trotted out to talk about his HIAC bump for the trillionth time. Do many people even remember Sasha and Charlotte main eventing a PPV in the cell? How often do they mention Bray Wyatt's magical appearance as an apparition to make funny faces at Dean Ambrose? One of those things is much better than the other but they were both treated as largely disposable moments instead of there being a conscious effort to immortalise them. Like, a lot of the big Attitude moments that they reflect on are bad but they still canonise them as something great. If they won't remember or mention things that are designed to be memorable then why should anyone else?

What are the big moments of the decade that they actually reference? The Nexus Debut, the "Yes Movement" invading Raw (which wasn't the best moment of Bryan's ascension at all) and The Shield debut? You could argue they're hamstrung by certain guys not being in the company (Punk's Pipebomb) but something like the Heath Slater and Rhyno becoming tag champs story, for one example, seemed like a memorable, midcard story that the crowd bought into big time but I don't think I've ever seen it treated with any reverence or importance since. Maybe it's different in those WWE Top tens that they post to Youtube but they, by their very nature, are disposable time wasters.

Maybe my point has been muddied but if they want Reigns to be a memorable top guy and all-round babyface, you'd think they'd remember the night he got past Sheamus and Vince McMahon to a roaring crowd to win the WWE Title, complete with McMahon getting arrested the next week but I guess not. 

This rings true to something I mentioned in another thread, which is that I think I probably asked the wrong question. There are things that matter. I think it matters who wins certain matches and who holds the top titles, if for no other reason than because fans care about that. However, what's missing is consequence -- meaning, if something happens, it's remembered and has a real, lasting impact on the future creative direction. Not everything has to meet that standard, nor has it ever really, but the big stuff should and often doesn't.

[SPS]

5 hours ago, FMKK said:

The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex by Mark Kermode

Thanks

[BigBadMick]

16 hours ago, FMKK said:

The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex by Mark Kermode

Wow, never thought he'd pop up on pwo.

 

And hello to jason Isaacs.