WWE TV 05/06 - 05/13: Let's just cut 30% of all federal universities' budget

[FMKK]

Cornette's comments about that sort of stuff really opened my eyes to it. He watched a couple of Raws in the Mania build-up and really seemed bewildered at how many unidentified announcers were talking over each other at any one time for example.

[Mad Dog]

I will beat that drum to death. They need to kill the three man booth. It fucks up the roles because the third announcer needs to be an expert like Mike Tenay. Not a redundant play by play clone like Byron or Renee. 

[Stiva]

It's also very telling that the women are getting less focus now that Ronda isn't on the roster and following on from stories that WWE are internally unhappy with the ratings they were fetching so I guess it's also Becky Lynch's fault in their eyes?

[Mad Dog]

I don't know what they expect from Becky when they practically had her in an iron lung leading up to Mania and she can't get away from Charlotte. Also the Raw women's roster is a fucking joke. 

[El-P]

Let's face it. The whole "R-Evolution" deal and PPV was simply because of Ronda. And Ronda needed to be pushed as the star to get the FOX deal. That's it. The rest is PR bullshit.

[Jmare007]

The things is, wrestling lends itself to a big angle that would lead to a complete overhaul of the presentation of the product. Like, you can build something up so when the FOX debut happens, you get a whole new different feel for the show that was provided because of a big match/angle.

And in this day and age they've done so little programs with big and real stakes that if they do one that ends with such a big change, it would probably do great in the ratings and business.

[El-P]

They have showed over the last 15 years, at least, that they aren't able to write for shit. I have no idea why anyone would think they are magically gonna book something hot in 4 months when they haven't been able to do so in years, haven't been able to make a star since John Cena and their product is the coldest and shittiest it's been in a long while despite the deepest roster ever. 

[Coffey]

A problem, as it seems to me, is that whenever they do try to run some big angle, it's always about the McMahon family & not about the wrestlers.

So a big angle in their eyes would be like Vince McMahon announcing his retirement & then Triple H & Shane McMahon fighting over who controls the show.

And it wouldn't help anyone on the roster.

[Loss]

Dave is interesting pointing out why nostalgia won't save them this time on the latest WOR. Garrett suggested opening up the wallet for someone like an Austin to be on RAW once a month, but the issue is that most of their decline is happening in viewers under 35 years old. So we should be more specific in how we talk about this decline. What's happening right now is a failure to get young viewers.

[Jmare007]

39 minutes ago, El-P said:

They have showed over the last 15 years, at least, that they aren't able to write for shit. I have no idea why anyone would think they are magically gonna book something hot in 4 months when they haven't been able to do so in years, haven't been able to make a star since John Cena and their product is the coldest and shittiest it's been in a long while despite the deepest roster ever. 

I don't think anyone is arguing that WWE will do it or is realistically capable of pulling that sort of thing right now.

My point was that the task at hand - a big change in presentation - is not that difficult. It's a shame they wont do it when it's right there for them to give their product a nice (and needed) spark that doesn't even require that much effort.

[brocklock]

Another thing in addition to the commentary is the camera zooming during strike exchanges and brawling that has been a constant for a while, but has gotten really bad around 2017 when The Shield reunited. I know a few casuals that complain about how it hurts their eyes.

[El-P]

31 minutes ago, Jmare007 said:

My point was that the task at hand - a big change in presentation - is not that difficult. It's a shame they wont do it when it's right there for them to give their product a nice (and needed) spark that doesn't even require that much effort.

Of course, agreed. They have been able to do it in the past, but they had incentive to do it. They don't have that anymore.

[Stiva]

I'm hoping AEW continue their style as they move to TV but, on the whole, I'm not sure that's really a style that will grab young people's attention. I think it might grab older viewers who don't watch WWE week to week anymore and move them back to a weekly wrestling product but the overall problem of young people not watching wrestling is a question I certainly can't answer. How do you attract people to 6 hours of pro-wrestling a week in an age where young people's media seems to be more easily digestible and disposable than ever? Make Ninja a backstage announcer?

[sek69]

4 hours ago, rovert said:

Trust or don't trust me if you want but Bryan was never injured. He just took a sabbatical. He has time off written into his contract and took it. That's honestly the story. 

Kofi's title win went better than expected and Bryan wanted to be around for the run-up to his daughter's 2nd birthday. 

 

I assumed he was taking a break since it was documented when he re-signed that he had more time off in his new deal.  I was making a joke about how he's been far and away the MVP of the company on promo ability. 

[Migs]

4 hours ago, FMKK said:

Sting as a top babyface was far more engaging than Seth imo. Seth could never pull off as effective an underdog performance as Sting did with Vader.

Agreed. It's not a perfect parallel, but they both seemed to only get shots on the top of the card because other people weren't available.

4 hours ago, El-P said:

Sting also sold record setting merch during the nWo era and his feud with Hogan ended up in with the ridiculous Starrcade 97 buyrate. Seth is not a dot on Sting's career's radar.

Hey, you have no idea how hot Dark Rollins is going to be in 2022! All 350 people still coming to the shows will be wearing shirts with his signature Thanos face paint design.

[El-P]

57 minutes ago, Stiva said:

How do you attract people to 6 hours of pro-wrestling a week

You don't. Ever. Bischoff makes a point in explaining how Thunder began WCW's downward spiral. No one wants to watch 6 hours of bad TV every week just because you might get some "good matches". 

[Mad Dog]

Yeah, I think the most you can expect from casuals is 3 hours a week at most. You can have 6 hours of programming a week but some of that needs to be non-essential B shows that are on the weekends.

[Loss]

Some of the other industries millennials are hurting, or "killing" as this article puts it, although that isn't true of WWE:

- Casual dining chains like Buffalo Wild Wings and Applebees
- Beer
- Napkins
- Cereal
- Golf
- Motorcycles
- Yogurt
- Homeownership
- Diamonds
- Fabric softener
- Department stores
- Designer handbags
- Gyms
- Home improvement stores like Lowe's and Home Depot
- Football
- Oil

[SomethingSavage]

2 hours ago, Charles (Loss) said:

Dave is interesting pointing out why nostalgia won't save them this time on the latest WOR. Garrett suggested opening up the wallet for someone like an Austin to be on RAW once a month, but the issue is that most of their decline is happening in viewers under 35 years old. So we should be more specific in how we talk about this decline. What's happening right now is a failure to get young viewers.

I need to listen to this, but yeah. Their business model is basically a dinosaur. Young viewers today have grown up on prestige/peak TV. This is a post-Sopranos quality TV landscape.

Whether wrestling wants to acknowledge that the bar has been raised or not is irrelevant. Ignoring that or pretending it isn't a factor is just burying your head in the sand at this point.

Young viewers are tuned into shows with actual plot development, character growth, world building, etc.

Pro wrestling doesn't even begin to approach any of these things anymore. They've totally abandoned all forms of storytelling in favor of this lazier, easier path of putting on "great matches" instead.

Young viewers aren't going to be enticed by wrestling matches alone. It doesn't matter how many dives or exciting moves you cram into them. The absolute BEST they can hope for is that a spectacular move goes viral or gets made into a GIF. That's literally the ceiling with their current business model.

Young viewers may watch a fifteen second clip of a great wrestling match they stumble across online. But they aren't sitting through 3-6 hours of disposable, meaningless television to say they saw "great matches."

Nothing is getting fixed until they address these issues. Stories. Stakes. Suspense. Drama. Characters. Conflicts. Real resolution. These are all things young viewers are requiring from today's television.

Something like CW shows used to be a punchline, but even the worst of those runs circles around today's wrestling. In every one of these categories.

[sek69]

3 minutes ago, SomethingSavage said:

Pro wrestling doesn't even begin to approach any of these things anymore. They've totally abandoned all forms of storytelling in favor of this lazier, easier path of putting on "great matches" instead.

I'm not saying I don't do it sometimes too, but we need to train ourselves not to use "pro wrestling" when we really mean to say WWE. I know it gets the dummies going all "HURR DURR FIVE STARS IN THE DOME AMIRTE" to Dave, but New Japan really does do some strong storytelling. There's tons of examples in the indies that do as well. We shouldn't paint the whole business with a broad brush because WWE sucks at it. 

[Mad Dog]

27 minutes ago, sek69 said:

I'm not saying I don't do it sometimes too, but we need to train ourselves not to use "pro wrestling" when we really mean to say WWE. I know it gets the dummies going all "HURR DURR FIVE STARS IN THE DOME AMIRTE" to Dave, but New Japan really does do some strong storytelling. There's tons of examples in the indies that do as well. We shouldn't paint the whole business with a broad brush because WWE sucks at it. 

Also, go to any comic book or anime convention with a Bullet Club shirt and you'll have guys in their 20s/30s wanting to 2 Sweet you all night. 

[Loss]

This won’t get me much love but I don’t think pro wrestling as a medium is capable of storytelling that’s as sophisticated as the best TV. And that’s ok. It is, however, great at delivering satisfying payoffs, and they could do a lot more there.

[SomethingSavage]

I don't mean to suggest that pro wrestling can function or operate like a TV show with 13-episode seasons or anything. Of course it doesn't work that way. But it could aspire to be something similar.

Milestones. Moments. Episodic storytelling, with enticing hooks and twists. Pro wrestling CAN do these things.

And yeah. As you mentioned, satisfying resolutions to mark the end of chapters.

1 hour ago, sek69 said:

I'm not saying I don't do it sometimes too, but we need to train ourselves not to use "pro wrestling" when we really mean to say WWE. I know it gets the dummies going all "HURR DURR FIVE STARS IN THE DOME AMIRTE" to Dave, but New Japan really does do some strong storytelling. There's tons of examples in the indies that do as well. We shouldn't paint the whole business with a broad brush because WWE sucks at it. 

Good call, man. Impact (and NXT at times) have certainly kept me invested with some of their storytelling these past two years. But it's mainly WWE we are addressing here. Think I just got caught up in hitting my main talking points.

I would say there are a lot of other promotions that are influenced by them and follow their lead though, and that's equally worrisome.

The reliance on "great matches" as the end-all, be-all is not a winning business model. Hell, PWG is a dream match promotion at its core - and even there, Super Dragon tells much more engaging, enthralling stories than ANYTHING that's been presented by WWE since at least 2014... Maybe much longer if you really look at it.

[Loss]

I mean less that in more of a sense that you can't do things (well, you can, but you know what I mean) like death. The villain more than likely has to be seen and heard from again. It's also harder to do stories with characters that shouldn't conceivably be having wrestling matches, like children or the elderly. There are limitations to what can be done between men and women. It's just not as wide open a medium as a normal TV show.

There's something positive to be said for wrestling that takes a very straightforward and basic but logical approach. The WWF did this in their 1980s peak and brilliantly paired the simplicity with first-class production values. I'm not the first to say this but they sort of made it the story of a "town" where you had the barber and the warrior and the hammer and the snake and the giant and all these unique personalities, and then they'd mix them up. (And then late 90s WCW was sort of an unauthorized fanfic take on this, where all the people involved moved to a new town and had grown old and cynical). They also experimented a lot -- there were a lot more misses than people generally remember during both of their peak periods, but I think most fans are willing to tolerate some risks, especially if the overall average is more good than bad.

[Coffey]

2 hours ago, sek69 said:

I'm not saying I don't do it sometimes too, but we need to train ourselves not to use "pro wrestling" when we really mean to say WWE. I know it gets the dummies going all "HURR DURR FIVE STARS IN THE DOME AMIRTE" to Dave, but New Japan really does do some strong storytelling. There's tons of examples in the indies that do as well. We shouldn't paint the whole business with a broad brush because WWE sucks at it. 

One of my favorite things going right now is CONTRA in MLW with Simon Gotch, Jacob Fatu & Josef Samael. It's pretty simplistic: an invading stable of heels beats people up... but that still works!