Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Is WWE redeemable?


FMKK

Recommended Posts

I'm somewhat sympathetic toward Bischoff here...

3 a.m. meetings are absolute bullshit, especially when the product is still this bad. There's no excuse for it, and no one should be expected to work in those conditions. No wonder Bruce was a cokehead.

WWE wants to be "corporate" but has no idea what that actually means or how that actually works.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

WWE has gotten too big to concentrate on the actual show. They mass produce so you get McDonalds level food but there sure is a lot of it.  It's reliably subpar.  They would have to significantly contract in order to reverse to a more specialized, well thought out product. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I'm watching the AAA Immortales show, I just pictured WWE putting giant portrait of Vince and dragging his ashes on every show like AAA does with Pena's. And they could also have an hologram of Vince cutting promos and firing people. Yeah, I think I just saw he future !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Microstatistics said:

This place is starting to sound like reddit's squaredcircle. WWE bad, AEW good;)

I guess it's selection bias for us because I see Squared Circle being full of WWE apologists and trolls.

There are a bunch of WWE loyalists on there who think it is a betrayal to even watch AEW for a minute. The majority of posts are about WWE videos, tweets, how to make it better, and calling out AEW. They truly believe Seth Rollins and Bruce Prichard's company lines about WWE being the only act in town/the big leagues.

I guess our online subculture full of toxicity, skepticism, or just prone to being critical, but IMHO fans ought to give AEW a chance if one wants to have a legit #2 company to chisel away at the silly sports entertainment monolith. I'm really not sure why some podcasters or posters get their panties in a bunch criticizing AEW so early in its life when so far everything they have touched has turned into gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, War is Raw said:

I guess it's selection bias for us because I see Squared Circle being full of WWE apologists and trolls.

There are a bunch of WWE loyalists on there who think it is a betrayal to even watch AEW for a minute. The majority of posts are about WWE videos, tweets, how to make it better, and calling out AEW. They truly believe Seth Rollins and Bruce Prichard's company lines about WWE being the only act in town/the big leagues.

I guess our online subculture full of toxicity, skepticism, or just prone to being critical, but IMHO fans ought to give AEW a chance if one wants to have a legit #2 company to chisel away at the silly sports entertainment monolith. I'm really not sure why some podcasters or posters get their panties in a bunch criticizing AEW so early in its life when so far everything they have touched has turned into gold.

I've noticed specifically in there the first two weeks with NXT/AEW that AEW would have like 8 times the comments in the threads but there would be gifs and stuff for every little thing that happened on NXT vs. AEW.

But even if it was getting that way, WWE has been brutally bad the last year. I'm on a podcast and we just stopped talking about WWE for the most part after Mania because it became almost impossible to be positive about it and we don't like mindlessly bashing things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, War is Raw said:

I guess it's selection bias for us because I see Squared Circle being full of WWE apologists and trolls.

There are a bunch of WWE loyalists on there who think it is a betrayal to even watch AEW for a minute. The majority of posts are about WWE videos, tweets, how to make it better, and calling out AEW. They truly believe Seth Rollins and Bruce Prichard's company lines about WWE being the only act in town/the big leagues.

I guess our online subculture full of toxicity, skepticism, or just prone to being critical, but IMHO fans ought to give AEW a chance if one wants to have a legit #2 company to chisel away at the silly sports entertainment monolith. I'm really not sure why some podcasters or posters get their panties in a bunch criticizing AEW so early in its life when so far everything they have touched has turned into gold.

I think this description fits reddit's scjerk better. They are a shitpost subreddit that makes fun of the hivemind discussions of square circle (e.g. non-stop pro-AEW threads). A lot of it is accurate and funny but they go overboard and dismiss any legitimate criticism against WWE while mocking AEW constantly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Needs far less live television. Even the best writing teams would struggle with 7 hours worth of TV to produce, nevermind the shower of shit that write these shows. 

I think a lot of stuff plays into this too - a lot of the vignettes and angles would be a lot more cohesive if there were multiple takes, most of the interviews could do with 3/4 goes, the in-ring meandering promo could disappear. 

There is plenty of talent there for them but it's just oversaturated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about scheduling and television. If we accept that a company can book a two-hour weekly A show and a one-hour weekly B show, then why is WWE struggling?

RAW and Smackdown should be booked like separate entities, with their own feuds and angles and so on. The only major hurdle after that is RAW's third hour but that should've been fixed with the cruiserweights (who could've been booked like a miniature third brand, by their own "writing" team). Then, when the PPVs come around, you should be struggling to find time rather than fill it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what no one talks about (or at least I dont think I have ever seen this complaint) is WWE does angles way too fast and way too slow at the same time. This to me is the #1 problem with the show. There is no reason to watch every show because 3 times out of 4 nothing happens! There is no continuity.  

They shoot three weeks worth of angles in one 15 minute segment and that dont have shit to do for the next three weeks of TV. People wonder why what nothing happens it is because everything happens all at once and nothing of consequence after it happens. 

Easy Case Study is Sasha Banks' return. Using the parameters they set up with Sasha interrupting Nattie after Summerslam. She returned, turned heel, beat up Nattie and fought Becky in 15 minutes! You need to spread that shit out over three weeks and here you go.

Week One: She returns, she is sympathetic to Nattie, but she is also kind of self-centered. She talks about her own problems and how that makes her relate to Nattie, but really all she cares about herself and she comes off disingenuous. She wants to partner with Nattie to go for the tag titles.

Week Two: Sasha is far too selfish in the tag match and when the going gets tough, she walks out on Nattie. This plays into the Sasha "takes her ball and goes home" gimmick. Nattie calls her out in a backstage segment. Sets up the match for next week. Becky notices the return of Sasha in her promo on the episode and hints at wanting a match because it would be a big time match. 

Week Three: Sasha instead calls Nattie to the ring to apologize for last week, but instead turns heel and brutally attacks Nattie. Becky Lynch now saves and runs off Sasha. Becky now really wants the match and challenges Sasha for the PPV. 

Week Four: Go home show, The Boss vs The Man Dueling Promo. "The Man will be the Boss' Bitch" was a good line and this where the trash talk goes. 

This is JUST ONE EXAMPLE! They do this shit all the time. They run the angle in one 15 segment and then there is ZERO Plot or Character Development in the three following weeks. To me this is the biggest problem. Think about what you want to do. Break it down into THREE steps and play those three steps over three weeks. Fourth week is go home and dueling promos. It is NOT rocket science. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edwin said:

This is the impression I'm getting and a lot of replies seem to be in the same sense as Meltzer's which is an overreaction.

WWE shows have been provably bad and AEW has been a breath of fresh air by making booking choices that used to be commonplace but haven't been in 20 years.

Saying it's a matter of "WWE bad, AEW good" just diluting a legit discussion to absurd extremes to cover for the fact WWE has problems that need to be addressed.

NXT was really good last night. I have no faith anyone on that show has a chance in hell at succeeding on the main roster for obvious reasons. That is not a "WWE bad, AEW good" argument. There's letting things play out and then there's expecting the scorpion not to sting you when it's been known to do so for decades, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, sek69 said:

Saying it's a matter of "WWE bad, AEW good" just diluting a legit discussion to absurd extremes to cover for the fact WWE has problems that need to be addressed.

NXT was really good last night.

I agree.  I have tried watching Raw and Smackdown off and on over the past few years, and I just can't do it. Same goes with the monthly WWE Pay Per Views.  I just can't sit through that crap anymore, it's just too crappy.  But since NXT debuted on USA, I have caught every episode, and I think they have presented an excellent product (with the exception of their play-by-play announcer). AEW was unquestionably even better than NXT the first couple of weeks, but that doesn't mean NXT wasn't also good.  I honestly don't get the mentality of some fans that if you like one thing, you should somehow automatically not also like the competing product.  I'm not going to ignore the fact that (in my opinion) NXT is really good right now, just because the rest of the WWE product really isn't.  I agree that the so-called "Main Roster" shows in WWE are putrid, but for whatever reason right now NXT really isn't.  If NXT was airing as a standalone show and wasn't WWE's developmental territory and owned by the McMahon family, I am betting a lot of people would be viewing the show a lot more favorably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mad Dog said:

Raw got 3,000 viewers in the UK this week. Ouch... 

I’ll admit to not knowing when they show it these days (used to be a Friday night on Sky Sports) but is that the ratings for the live showing which we get at 2AM? They show it live and then repeat it later in the week so if it’s the live broadcast, it’s understandable. Who on earth would stay up that late to watch that shower of shit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stiva said:

I’ll admit to not knowing when they show it these days (used to be a Friday night on Sky Sports) but is that the ratings for the live showing which we get at 2AM? They show it live and then repeat it later in the week so if it’s the live broadcast, it’s understandable. Who on earth would stay up that late to watch that shower of shit?

He didn't say but he posted the numbers for a lot of the recent shows and they have all been sub 50k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...