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

[fakeplastictrees]

WWE has never done anything or gone anywhere substantial with its nostalgia. Look at the Smackdown 1000 show and all the other anniversary shows. One of the most recent Raw anniversary shows featured people, who were paid thousands of dollars a piece, standing on a stage and waving. WWE is completely content in nodding to the past, without any idea of focus on the present. It will not save them this time. Wrestling fans are, for better or worse, evolving. WWE's inertia nostalgia will continue to clash with the paradigm shifts and thus ultimately do more harm than good. If a trip down memory lane is planned with no destination in mind, cancel the trip.

[Mad Dog]

The Cody and Dustin promos for Double or Nothing really hit some things home for me. There was a realism in those that hit you emotionally in certain ways. I can't think of the last time a WWE feud had a promo that stirred anything in me emotionally.

[Herodes]

Changing the set or the commentators won’t do anything or attract new fans as long as you have geeks rather than superstars. I’ve said it before but you need larger than life maniacs up to the eyeballs on steroid and cocaine, you need the likes of hogan piper savage Andre warrior, you need to feel that these are cartoon sociopaths who you can’t imagine existing in the normal world and have it reinforced by these colorful characters destroying mere mortal ham n eggers, you need over the top gimmicks and angles. Turn on the tv and see schlubs like AJ Styles and Kofi and sami and Kevin Owens and Ali and Becky Lynch and Seth etc etc...that’s the problem right there, as long as those are your “stars” nothing will change.

[sek69]

18 minutes ago, Mad Dog said:

The Cody and Dustin promos for Double or Nothing really hit some things home for me. There was a realism in those that hit you emotionally in certain ways. I can't think of the last time a WWE feud had a promo that stirred anything in me emotionally.

 

To think WWE had both those guys under contract, they pitched doing this angle to them (probably very similar to how they are doing it now) and WWE was like "nah, we pass".  Now granted Cody was still a midcard nobody who didn't have a few years to wash the Stardust stink off him, but if AEW turns into something people will probably look back at this like how people look at WCW having Taker, Austin, and Foley under contract and doing nothing with them. 

[Herodes]

In the grand scheme of things Cody is still a nobody and AEW will go nowhere....geeks not superstars

[sek69]

47 minutes ago, Herodes said:

In the grand scheme of things Cody is still a nobody and AEW will go nowhere....geeks not superstars

You say that, yet WWE would kill for any of their guys to be over with their crowds as The Bucks or Omega are with AEW crowds.

[Herodes]

What AEW crowds? They have run less shows than Gordon Scozzaris AWF at this point let alone Paul Alpersteins AWF

[Coffey]

56 minutes ago, Herodes said:

In the grand scheme of things Cody is still a nobody and AEW will go nowhere....geeks not superstars

It's WAY too fucking early to be making this statement. 

[sek69]

2 minutes ago, Herodes said:

What AEW crowds? They have run less shows than Gordon Scozzaris AWF at this point let alone Paul Alpersteins AWF

Considering the attendance they have so far this year, every ROH show from last year.  

[Herodes]

7 minutes ago, Coffey said:

It's WAY too fucking early to be making this statement. 

A money mark and his wrestling promotion are soon parted

[SomethingSavage]

11 hours ago, Charles (Loss) said:

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.

I've seen you say it before a few years back, but I love your take on 90s WCW being the unauthorized fanfic of 80s WWF. That's accurate as hell. It's basically, "Here's all your favorite cartoon characters and action figures. But now they're a little older, bitter, resentful, and darker."

And I get your point about how wrestling is limited in terms of storytelling. Again though, I'm not suggesting they should be The Wire or The Shield here. But they could certainly aim to be better - MUCH BETTER - storytellers in the grand scheme of things.

Nah, we don't need to see children or death involved. (Although they don't seem to mind reaching for that stuff.)

But we could use definitive beginnings & endings. And maybe the antagonists can't die a horrible death befitting their numerous evil acts. But they could certainly canonize a match or a moment when the antagonists meets their big moment of comeuppance.

We get very little of this anymore. Strive to be better storytellers. That's all I'm saying. And I don't think it's some unattainable goal.

You're absolutely right about pro wrestling working best when it's very basic and simple. And both boom periods worked because the characters were so broad and easily defined. They had large personalities, distinct traits, and identifiable features. You barely see ANY of that in today's WWE.

Everyone is a lean, keto-dieting CrossFit geek with gear that looks like it was leftover from a cheap YouTube-exclusive Marvel fan film.

Nobody is really recognizable for any certain thing. I guess they think dying their hair different colors or striking signature poses is enough, but it's no substitute for the classic characters that really resonate and stand out.

They used to put so much effort into that sort of stuff. The characters used to come with logos and fully customized merchandising ideas.

Now they sign a one of a kind athlete like Ricochet and debut him ice cold, as some part of a random three-week tag team with a guy he has no actual connection to or any logical reason to be with. They couldn't possibly seem any more different.

But hey. They need more time-killing matches. And maybe they'll get another "great match" or two along the way. Nevermind that there's ZERO forethought put into his character direction, motivation, backstory, packaging, presentation, or anything else.

People bitch about the silly WWE name generator and the audacity they had to assign new names to indie darlings... But fuck, man. At least they seemed to imply they were invested in a guy. I don't know if it's a positive sign that a guy can get signed and just thrown on TV to be a warm body and possibly have more time-killing matches.

Give me an investment with these characters. Polish them up a bit. Show me some vignettes. Do something other than trot them out there for more of these boring af "great matches" already.

[sek69]

It's a very Vince-like mindset to dismiss something that has proven to get over and  be a draw as "go nowhere".

[El-P]

The issue is that people, including Vince, look at the past. Not the future, not even the present. Anyone dismissing Kenny Omega for instance can pack his bags, the business has passed him by. There's a reason why the guy sold out the fucking Tokyo Dome with Tanahashi and was a big part of NJPW being as hot as it was in 2017/18 and got himself two huge contract offers from both WWE and AEW. These are the workers and characters of the 2020's.

[FMKK]

1 hour ago, El-P said:

The issue is that people, including Vince, look at the past. Not the future, not even the present. Anyone dismissing Kenny Omega for instance can pack his bags, the business has passed him by. There's a reason why the guy sold out the fucking Tokyo Dome with Tanahashi and was a big part of NJPW being as hot as it was in 2017/18 and got himself two huge contract offers from both WWE and AEW. These are the workers and characters of the 2020's.

 Think it's bizarre to think that people shouldn't look to the past to see what's worked in wrestling tbh. I don't think Vince does that particularly well at all either. His vision of wrestling as it exists today is so divorced from previous eras that it's not really as if he's trying to copy what did big business in the 80s or whatever. I mean, the show structure and the heel authority stuff is straight out of the 90s but I don't think that's a concerted effort to recapture the past as much as it's just sheer stagnation. 

It'll be interesting to see how Omega does in a weekly TV format. It could be challenging for him really because imo he's not really a good promo and you need to rely on that more on a week to week basis than on work.

[Herodes]

Omega is exactly the type of lean keto-dieting CrossFit geek that goes against everything wwe needs to make a material difference. They have too many normals doing big moves and “dramatic” two counts already, it’s the most boring and unengaging shit ever. Less Seths and Kennys and Johnnys and AJs, more Machos and Hogans and Warriors and Jakes and Pipers and Andres and Earthquakes. Look to the past and look at what made WWF so over the top and colorful and other worldly rather than bland athletic nerds.

[El-P]

25 minutes ago, FMKK said:

 Think it's bizarre to think that people shouldn't look to the past to see what's worked in wrestling tbh. I don't think Vince does that particularly well at all either. His vision of wrestling as it exists today is so divorced from previous eras that it's not really as if he's trying to copy what did big business in the 80s or whatever.

RAW has been the same for 20 years. The heel authority figure has been there for more than 20 years. The McMahons have been the main characters for the last 20 years. This is the past. 

Funny how Jim Cornette has been called a dinosaur and now everyone is lamenting over the 80's. Guess what, the Golden Age did not exist. Most of wrestling in the 80's sucked. We only cherry pick what was great about it.

What's the most important for AEW as far as looking at the past goes, is learning from the mistakes of WCW and TNA. Like it's been said before in this thread, it doesn't take a lot actually to do a solid good pro-wrestling show. iMPACT is doing it right now. The good, logical stuff is easy. Not doing the stupid stuff of the past seems the hardest. Not doing stuff from the past, actually, seems the hardest. People don't like changes. Older people want their childhood back, basically. But it's 2019, not 1989. Fuck people's childhood, really.

As far as WWE goes, the day Vince dies is the day some change is gonna happen. Or not. Probably will, to some extent.

[DMJ]

I don't think every wrestler in the WWE is a "geek." I think the booking has failed many of them. Becky Lynch, for example, being considered a "geek" is weird to me - she's pretty badass, great look, natural charisma. Her booking has been shit, but you put a picture of Becky Lynch in 2019 next to a picture of Alundra Blayze in 94' and ask who looks cooler, Becky Lynch wins hands down. I'd also say that Sasha Banks, in NXT, had a great character. Charlotte gets over the "Genetically Superior Athlete" gimmick very well. 

In the males department, The New Day got over the "larger than life" gimmick quite well. They have flashy colorful clothes. They march around with trombones and throw pancakes around. Its basically a more nuanced High Energy. I'd argue that the issue isn't that they aren't capital-S Superstars, its that this gimmick, like Koko B. Ware or the boomerang-tossing Lanny Poffo or the fun-loving Bushwhackers, doesn't necessarily work at the top of the card without some serious, serious character development. I think they did a good job with Kofi...but maybe not a full, A+ great job. 

Strowman was booked into being a geek - he wasn't a geek to begin with. Same for Roman Reigns. Bray Wyatt was booked into being a geek but, initially, did have a larger-than-life gimmick and aura. The Miz has loads of charisma, but has been booked up and down the card for so long, he just seems like an aimless character with no motivation. Same with AJ now (and, at one point, the same was true of Jericho and RVD).  

While I agree that the intensity and larger-than-life characters of the 80s/90s is missing today, I'd also point out that not every star of that era was a steroid-fueled psychopath (in the sense that they gave insane promos, not that they weren't on the juice). For example, Rick Rude was calm, composed, but self-possessed. Mr. Perfect was a cocky snob. Jake The Snake had menace, but he wasn't a brute like Warrior or Hercules. Piper's words got him over far more than his larger-than-life look. Bret Hart eventually got over as a hard-working wrestler. I don't think its far-fetched to say that guys like The Miz, Velveteen Dream, and even Dean Ambrose and CM Punk fit in this mold despite not having huge, over-the-top Road Warrior gimmicks.

Now, Owens, Rollins, Ziggler, etc. - yeah, they're geeks. No real gimmick. Fight meaningless matches for the sake of fighting meaningless matches. "Steal the show" bullshit. 

I'd also just add that not every wrestler I described above is someone I personally like. I'm not a massive Wyatt or Ambrose fan, for example, but that's also something people should be clear about. Just because we don't like a worker, or think they suck, doesn't mean we speak for every fan. Ambrose, for example, was, at a time, very over and clearly the number 2-3 babyface on the roster (maybe it was 2015/16?). Then he was booked like a geek. 

 

 

[El-P]

7 minutes ago, DMJ said:

Now, Owens, Rollins, Ziggler, etc. - yeah, they're geeks. No real gimmick. Fight meaningless matches for the sake of fighting meaningless matches. "Steal the show" bullshit. 

That's the issue. No personality. It's not a matter of doing moves. Everybody is doing moves. The issue is that, watching the show cold, you have no idea who the fuck these guys are and why you should care or not. And when you watch more, you certainly are sure you won't care.

The other day I was watching the EP 55 of MLW. And there comes yet another skinny, smaller than me, 19 years old presumably spot machine named Jordan Oliver. Damn. Wrestling ain't what it used to be. Except, the guy showed character almost immediately. Yes, he's doing tons of cool moves. But the main thing : he's a douchebag. It took me a very short time to get he was a young douche, and I already wanted his opponent to kick the shit out of him. Seth Rollins, he's.... there. He's been booked as a geek as a heel, he's been booked as a geek as a face. The production and presentation with awful nickname and generic look hurts him even more. It's all about how people are presented. WWE presents its talent as geek, because that's the way they want them to be perceived, because the #Brand is what matters. And it's true IRL too, as showed but the repulsive Revival treatment. WWE treats people like geeks in and outside the frame of their product.

[Matt D]

Bryan stands out so much in his promos because it's obvious he cares. He portrays investment and belief and stands for something. He cares about whether he wins or loses. He cares about having the belt (or the tag belts) as a platform to be used to get his message across. His backstage promo this week was about how tag wrestling was undervalued and treated as a joke and how he was going to represent and elevate it. Yes, that's naval-gazing and inward-looking and about the "product" but there was so much conviction behind it that it works. There's something real underpinning it and he gets to channel it.

That's the same reason why Becky's push last year generally worked. 

You can make it about the WWE but only if there's something genuine underpinning it.

[Herodes]

The best member of the WWE creative team right now is the crown prince of darkness MBS who seems to get that what draws people to wrestling is characters and the circus. The problem is there isn’t many around any longer and those that are have no necks and knees but as long as they can make their way through the ropes, the athletics don’t matter. Hence hogan, Brock, Goldberg, undertaker and if you tell him that Yoko is dead then fuck it find him a substitute yoko and throw him out there too.

[NintendoLogic]

Replacing all the CrossFit geeks with roided-up cokeheads in tassels won't fix things. A roster full of Ultimate Warriors isn't any better than a roster full of Dean Malenkos. The key is variety. Bret Hart got over in large part by being the straight man in a sea of cartoon characters.

Dave made a really good point in the latest Observer. Roman Reigns said on Raw that he doesn't take orders from Vince, he takes them from the WWE Universe. But the fact that he uses corporate buzzwords like WWE Universe shows that he clearly does take orders from Vince. That speaks to the micromanagement that really is the root of WWE's current problems. Since the move to scripted promos, the only star of significance they've produced is John Cena. People talk about how entertaining Daniel Bryan and Becky Lynch are on the mic, but there's no indication that they've meant a thing for business. And the guaranteed TV money means that they don't have to. I truly believe that the only way to learn how to be a star who connects with the larger public is by being forced to sink or swim based on your ability to put asses in seats.

[SomethingSavage]

11 hours ago, DMJ said:

I don't think every wrestler in the WWE is a "geek." I think the booking has failed many of them. Becky Lynch, for example, being considered a "geek" is weird to me - she's pretty badass, great look, natural charisma. Her booking has been shit, but you put a picture of Becky Lynch in 2019 next to a picture of Alundra Blayze in 94' and ask who looks cooler, Becky Lynch wins hands down. I'd also say that Sasha Banks, in NXT, had a great character. Charlotte gets over the "Genetically Superior Athlete" gimmick very well. 

In the males department, The New Day got over the "larger than life" gimmick quite well. They have flashy colorful clothes. They march around with trombones and throw pancakes around. Its basically a more nuanced High Energy. I'd argue that the issue isn't that they aren't capital-S Superstars, its that this gimmick, like Koko B. Ware or the boomerang-tossing Lanny Poffo or the fun-loving Bushwhackers, doesn't necessarily work at the top of the card without some serious, serious character development. I think they did a good job with Kofi...but maybe not a full, A+ great job. 

Strowman was booked into being a geek - he wasn't a geek to begin with. Same for Roman Reigns. Bray Wyatt was booked into being a geek but, initially, did have a larger-than-life gimmick and aura. The Miz has loads of charisma, but has been booked up and down the card for so long, he just seems like an aimless character with no motivation. Same with AJ now (and, at one point, the same was true of Jericho and RVD).  

While I agree that the intensity and larger-than-life characters of the 80s/90s is missing today, I'd also point out that not every star of that era was a steroid-fueled psychopath (in the sense that they gave insane promos, not that they weren't on the juice). For example, Rick Rude was calm, composed, but self-possessed. Mr. Perfect was a cocky snob. Jake The Snake had menace, but he wasn't a brute like Warrior or Hercules. Piper's words got him over far more than his larger-than-life look. Bret Hart eventually got over as a hard-working wrestler. I don't think its far-fetched to say that guys like The Miz, Velveteen Dream, and even Dean Ambrose and CM Punk fit in this mold despite not having huge, over-the-top Road Warrior gimmicks.

Now, Owens, Rollins, Ziggler, etc. - yeah, they're geeks. No real gimmick. Fight meaningless matches for the sake of fighting meaningless matches. "Steal the show" bullshit. 

I'd also just add that not every wrestler I described above is someone I personally like. I'm not a massive Wyatt or Ambrose fan, for example, but that's also something people should be clear about. Just because we don't like a worker, or think they suck, doesn't mean we speak for every fan. Ambrose, for example, was, at a time, very over and clearly the number 2-3 babyface on the roster (maybe it was 2015/16?). Then he was booked like a geek. 

 

 

Great post. All very good, valid points.

11 hours ago, El-P said:

RAW has been the same for 20 years. The heel authority figure has been there for more than 20 years. The McMahons have been the main characters for the last 20 years. This is the past. 

Funny how Jim Cornette has been called a dinosaur and now everyone is lamenting over the 80's. Guess what, the Golden Age did not exist. Most of wrestling in the 80's sucked. We only cherry pick what was great about it.

What's the most important for AEW as far as looking at the past goes, is learning from the mistakes of WCW and TNA. Like it's been said before in this thread, it doesn't take a lot actually to do a solid good pro-wrestling show. iMPACT is doing it right now. The good, logical stuff is easy. Not doing the stupid stuff of the past seems the hardest. Not doing stuff from the past, actually, seems the hardest. People don't like changes. Older people want their childhood back, basically. But it's 2019, not 1989. Fuck people's childhood, really.

As far as WWE goes, the day Vince dies is the day some change is gonna happen. Or not. Probably will, to some extent.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not yearning for the lumbering 80s ring style to come back anymore than I'm yearning for the sexual deviants of the Attitude Era to come back. But I would like to see things matter again, as they did in those eras. I would like to see characters again. I would like to hear guys speak with conviction in their promos again.

The problem now is all their focus & energy goes into the shit that really doesn't matter much. It's all motion, zero emotion. All the focus is on having "great matches", with next to no emphasis on character development or story progression of any kind. It's working harder when you could be working smarter.

They're having matches without context. Matches without subtext. Matches without meaning. Matches WITHOUT. Period. It's all very pointless. It's busy work, designed to kill time and little else.

There are exceptions, but a lot of these workers just aren't very good - not at the things that matter. Sure. They're incredible athletes. But their understanding and grasp of the how's & why's simply aren't there.

It's like they all admired and idolized the Shawn Michael's and Eddie Guerrero's growing up, but they never bothered to look beyond the surface of WHY those guys were so great in the first place.

It's not just about a soaring crossbody or a spectacular moonsault. It's about the mounted punches you pepper in during a grudge match AS SOON as you pull off that move. It's about fire, urgency, and intensity to separate the moments that matter from the exhibitions you have every usual week on television.

There's none of that variety or separation in today's landscape. Watch one Seth Rollins match and you've seen every Seth Rollins match. His title matches look no different than his grudge matches or his opening matches or his matches that are just thrown together to eat up time on television. They're all worked the exact same way.

I don't care that the in-ring work was worse. Tell me I've got to watch three Saturday Night's Main Events or one episode of today's Raw, and I'm choosing the lumbering stuff from the 80s every single time & twice on Sunday.

Ditto for the Attitude Era. As awful and off-putting as the late 90s looks today, I'd still rather watch a show where something actually happens over whateverthefuck it is they're doing today. And if we're talking 97/98 Raw then yeah. No comparison.

[El-P]

50 minutes ago, SomethingSavage said:

All the focus is on having "great matches", with next to no emphasis on character development or story progression of any kind.

I hear that all the time about WWE, and I don't see it. Baron Corbin has been pushed forever. Brock Lesnar was on top forever. They have been pushing Alexa Bliss (whom I really liked, but she wasn't having "great matches", even by WWE standards), they are now pushing Lacey Evans. Roman Reigns was never about having much in term of great matches either. Braun : not about great matches. And the fucking IIconics.

Yeah, some great workers are having great matches. It's a good thing workers like Daniel Bryan or Charlotte Flair are pushed hard.

This is not the issue. The issue is the booking, the writing and the presentation. The in-ring style of today is what it is, and honestly WWE still is far from the place you're gonna get most of the really *great* matches, because of the limitations put on the workers (and also, apart from Bryan, most of the best top workers today just aren't in the company and that's that, it seems like AJ, as good as he is, is definitely past his prime). Meanwhile, on NXT, you are getting some great matches but also some typically overproduced WWE self-conscious epics (see : the Gargano vs Ciampa feud, which did resonnate with the crowd big time though). But again, the in-ring style overall is not the issue at all.

[SomethingSavage]

The in-ring style becomes the issue when everything looks, feels, and functions the same though. When all their big matches accomplish just as little as their everyday TV matches, then that's an issue.

When their main event is completely indistinguishable from their opening match, then that's an issue.

When the only thing that separates their blood feuds from everything else is horrible dinner theater dialogue tacked on at the end of another indie-riffic superkick-fest, then that's an issue.

Roman Reigns seems like an odd choice, because I mostly love the dude's work. He's one of the few that's excluded from my complaint about not showing enough fire.

But he doesn't dive enough or grapple fuck, so I guess he's seen as a limited worker? Hell if I know.

In any case, Roman is a prime example of being an excellent in-ring babyface but a terrible character babyface. And the booking has failed him immensely. Time after time after time...

And I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying WWE is the place to go for great matches. But it does seem to be their MO lately. Everything is about the matches for the sake of more matches. Every interview is centered around stealing the show and performing and yup. You guessed it. Having great matches.

That's what I'm referring to. They're so lost in the woods when it comes to presenting things.

[goodhelmet]

Quote

While that was a bigger story, the backstage writing story that was the talk of backstage involved Jennifer Pepperman, 50, a member of the writing team who on 5/3 had won a Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Director of a Digital Drama Series, for her work on “After Forever” on Amazon Prime. She had also won another Daytime Emmy yeas back for Outstanding Directing Team and came from the soap opera world, working on shows live One Life to Live and As the World Turns dating back to 1999. So she showed up in Cincinnati with her newly-won Emmy Award, came to the production meeting before the show, and put the Emmy on the table as she came into the room for the meeting. Everyone started looking at her. It was considered amazing naive to do something like that in a room full of wrestling people who has never been considered for such an award, she’s got more than one and it wasn’t the place for it. Michael Hayes told her to put it away. The mood of the room was people thinking that this person traveled on the flight to Cincinnati with her award to show up and put it on the table during the meeting. Vince just laughed it off because he was so busy making so many changes but otherwise it was the talk backstage. The feeling was that wrestling isn’t the soap opera world and she was showing off with something that doesn’t relate to wrestling. Even when Hayes told her, she didn’t take the nice bit of advice seriously. The feeling wasn’t that she was a bad person or a bad writer or anything like that, but that she was completely not understanding the culture of the pro wrestling business and people involved to do that. We were told that she’s been with the company long enough that she should have understood how people would have reacted to that, and that she’s generally well liked and thought of highly otherwise

This is my favorite story in the most recent Observer. A writer for the WWE just won an Emmy and it's considered a bad look to show it off.