Dave Meltzer stuff

[Dylan Waco]

"Rises to the level of art?" Have you been to MoMA lately?

[Robert S]

I am too lazy to read through the whole discussion but from what I have read my feeling is that you are mixing up Paul Heyman the booker and Paul Heyman the promoter. I was always under the impression that Paul Heyman the ECW booker was a success while Paul Heyman the ECW promoter was a failure. As a booker he created (for what he had to work with) unproportional high interest and buzz in the wrestlers and the product was a whole while as a promoter he did not manage to make being the number 3 promotion in the US profitable.

[Sean Liska]

My main argument is to not confuse Heyman not turning a profit with Heyman not being able to generate interest in his product. He got far more people to pay money to watch ECW than could have been expected given his resources. Since the death of the territories, no one besides Vince and Turner have been able to generate so much interest, not even TNA with all of their money. He started with a random indy running in bars, grew it to where it could do 100,000 PPV buys nationally, and did it on a shoe-string budget with an inability to keep any of his created stars. I think that's a really impressive booking achievement.

 

Unfortunately, the business model of paying for syndicated TV doesn't work, and he was having to pay guys like Taz 6-figures because WCW and WWE were stealing everybody decent in the company, and he didn't have that type of money. He's not necessarily a worse booker than others because he wasn't running a monopoly with free weekly TV, rotating territorial talent, and the ability to blackball anyone who complained too much about payoffs. I think it's a mistake when people just dismiss ECW as a failure. As a business model? Sure. As a product? No, they grew way too much with way too little behind them, they should be very proud of what they accomplished.

[cm funk]

I agree 100% with the last two posts

[jdw]

Yeah, you are annoying and mean-spirited, and no one likes you, and you are banned.

Darn... the type of banning you did wiped the ability to use the advanced search window to search by his user name. Must be a way to "deactivate" his positing ability without turning him into a Guest... and then adding some tag that they're Banned... hmmm... change the avatar to:

 

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/editor/banned-stamp-clipart.png

 

Of something like that.

[jdw]

I think it's the job of both the promoter and booker (and of course wrestlers) to Draw Money. We can not absolve any of them of failure by pointing up the food chain.

 

As far as Heyman generating interest in his product, it's likely vastly overrated. That WE gave a shit about it doesn't mean that a mass of fans did.

 

I also think we get a little too narrow when we think Heyman was just trying to charge the windmill that is Vince to have been successful. Thank of it in these terms:

 

Mad Men doesn't draw what American Idol does. It doesn't draw what Sunday Night NFL does. It frankly doesn't have a drawing pot to piss in relative to TV shows that Really, Really, Really Draw.

 

On the other hand...

 

Mad Men draws a good number of fans relative to it's channel, and relative to cable in general. For AMC, it's a massive hit. It appears to be a massive hit for Lions Gate.

 

There are degrees to being successful.

 

The problem with Heyman as a promoter-booker is that he wasn't even able to reach the Mad Men level of success, let alone say a Burn Notice level of success before we even get to the NFL.

 

I like Firefly. Can stumble upon it anytime and enjoy an episode. It's a really good TV show. But... I couldn't call it the greatest/best SciFi tv program of all time because in the end it failed. A large part of that was the promoter: Fox didn't really know what it had, and for a rare time didn't give it a lot of time to breath. But a large part of it has to go to the booker/creative: Joss, though he and his fans (I'm one of them) probably don't want to admit it. Joss made a massive mistake running the project on Fox rather than WB or UPN where Joss had success. I know UPN turned down the series *after* Fox cancelled it, but by that point it was too late... and the cost wasn't cheap. Which was likely the problem from the beginning: Joss wrote something that was a little pricey from the start, which needed a Fox (or Big 4 network) to back it when only the name Star Trek would get instant production cash from second tier networks at that point.

 

Wonderful, arguably "great" series on some levels. But SciFi GOAT, or even candidate? It really can't be: it failed, to the point that it didn't even finish a season.

 

Heyman... failed. It wasn't just the promoter side. The creative side never drew in enough fans to sustain the product beyond what Paul was able to fleece / steal from people.

[Bix]

ECW/Paul Heyman = Veronica Mars/Rob Thomas? ECW reunion attendees = Veronica Mars Kickstarter contributors? It's not like that show was ever really any kind of ratings success.

[jdw]

And at what point in ECW's run did it hit the equiv of the third season of Veronica Mars?

 

John

[Matt D]

Wait, let me page Fowler.

[cabinboy454]

I like Firefly. Can stumble upon it anytime and enjoy an episode. It's a really good TV show. But... I couldn't call it the greatest/best SciFi tv program of all time because in the end it failed.

 

Wonderful, arguably "great" series on some levels. But SciFi GOAT, or even candidate? It really can't be: it failed, to the point that it didn't even finish a season.

To be fair almost every show "fails". Most TV shows are cancelled; few end on their own terms. Twilight Zone and Star Trek, both typically regarded as the finest Sci-Fi shows ever produced, were both cancelled, were they failures? Twin Peaks was cancelled in season 2 and yet is still regarded as one of the greatest shows of all-time. The Honeymooners was cancelled after one season! I'm not sure your argument about TV shows is valid.

 

That said, Paul Heyman is not the best booker of all-time.

[Bix]

And at what point in ECW's run did it hit the equiv of the third season of Veronica Mars?

 

John

In this analogy, Paul Heyman is also Dawn Ostroff.

 

Seriously though, it's hard to find a close TV show analogy because if it TV show lasted, it was usually successful SOMEWHERE, even if it was international distribution underwriting its broadcasts in its country of origin. The exceptions would be something like 'Til Death where the studio gave the network a sweetheart deal so they could try to get to 100 episodes to sell in syndication.

 

To extend the Veronica Mars analogy: Veronica Mars S3 (opening with a serial rapist arc!) being paired with Gilmore Girls when The CW launched because both shows featured quippy female leads is like TNN picking up ECW because...fuck, why did they do that? I can't remember.

 

(As an aside, what the hell happened to the CW? The WB at least had a bunch of shows that were either good, interesting, memorable, or strangely watchable. The CW is an also ran that arguably never launched a decent show, only inheriting them, and now ABC Family has taken their entire audience while putting on much higher quality shows, to boot)

[Johnny Sorrow]

I like Firefly. Can stumble upon it anytime and enjoy an episode. It's a really good TV show. But... I couldn't call it the greatest/best SciFi tv program of all time because in the end it failed.

 

Wonderful, arguably "great" series on some levels. But SciFi GOAT, or even candidate? It really can't be: it failed, to the point that it didn't even finish a season.

To be fair almost every show "fails". Most TV shows are cancelled; few end on their own terms. Twilight Zone and Star Trek, both typically regarded as the finest Sci-Fi shows ever produced, were both cancelled, were they failures? Twin Peaks was cancelled in season 2 and yet is still regarded as one of the greatest shows of all-time. The Honeymooners was cancelled after one season! I'm not sure your argument about TV shows is valid.

 

 

 

And to go back to the whole "a large part of success and greatness is making money", shows like Firefly, Trek, Twilight Zone, Honeymooners, etc all eventually did make money. The may not have been instant successes, but they did eventually succeed on some level.

Look at Arrested Development, it's a perfect example of eventual success in the field of TV Shows.

 

Now, there's no bigger fan of Twin Peaks than me, but it fucking failed...period. And pissed me off. How that left me hanging, made me so mad I literally threw stuff at my TV.

[cabinboy454]

I like Firefly. Can stumble upon it anytime and enjoy an episode. It's a really good TV show. But... I couldn't call it the greatest/best SciFi tv program of all time because in the end it failed.

 

Wonderful, arguably "great" series on some levels. But SciFi GOAT, or even candidate? It really can't be: it failed, to the point that it didn't even finish a season.

To be fair almost every show "fails". Most TV shows are cancelled; few end on their own terms. Twilight Zone and Star Trek, both typically regarded as the finest Sci-Fi shows ever produced, were both cancelled, were they failures? Twin Peaks was cancelled in season 2 and yet is still regarded as one of the greatest shows of all-time. The Honeymooners was cancelled after one season! I'm not sure your argument about TV shows is valid.

 

 

 

And to go back to the whole "a large part of success and greatness is making money", shows like Firefly, Trek, Twilight Zone, Honeymooners, etc all eventually did make money. The may not have been instant successes, but they did eventually succeed on some level.

Look at Arrested Development, it's a perfect example of eventual success in the field of TV Shows.

 

Now, there's no bigger fan of Twin Peaks than me, but it fucking failed...period. And pissed me off. How that left me hanging, made me so mad I literally threw shit at my TV.

 

Twin Peaks has a pretty sizable fanbase in the Hipster culture. For example, a recent advertising campaign from H&M used Twin Peaks as inspiration. I'm not saying it is a money maker to the extent of Star Trek or Twilight Zone but anything by David Lynch will have a sizable fanbase.

[Bix]

ECW eventually made money, too. Just not for Heyman/HHG.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I had no idea Twin Peaks was cool with hipsters. I still watch it all the time, and whenever I see that final scene of the last episode I still get pissed.

[cabinboy454]

I had no idea Twin Peaks was cool with hipsters. I still watch it all the time, and whenever I see that final scene of the last episode I still get pissed.

My mom and sister watched it when it first aired in 1990-1991. I was only 7 when it first aired but I am a big fan now, so is my wife. The first season is one of the best seasons any TV show ever had.

 

I think it is hard to compare wrestling to other art forms in that artistic merit is actually important in film, music and television while I don't think it is in wrestling. Hollywood studios do in fact make some films just because they think they will be good, if they happen to make money that is a plus. These films are known as Prestige Films, films that give the studio a sense of prestige. Universal gave money to Martin Scorsese to make Last Temptation of Christ because they respected him as an artist, they never thought the film would be a box office hit. Warner Brothers signed Husker Du in 1986 because they felt the band would give their label a "hip" status not due to record sales. I doubt wrestling promoters have ever done angles just because they thought they would be artistically successful but not financially successful.

[Brian Fowler]

I'm somewhat tempted to try and compare VM Season 3 to the final run of WWECW on SyFy, where it was a totally different animal, but still well worth watching. But, even though I like Season 3 more than a lot of people do, I don't think it compares to Christian as ECW champion.

 

Other choice, I guess, would be to equate it to the dying days of the original ECW, which kind of works. Credible as champion never quite clicked, much like the shorter arcs and new characters, but there was still a lot to like, even if some of it was just because it was ECW, and ECW was great, and in the same way, even with the changes and somewhat weaker plots, the characters of Veronica, Keith, and Logan were still great, and made it worth watching, at least to me.

 

This is a very odd discussion Matt summoned me to.

[ohtani's jacket]

Universal gave money to Martin Scorsese to make Last Temptation of Christ because they respected him as an artist, they never thought the film would be a box office hit.

It was a bit more complicated than that. Scorsese's agent was a long time colleague of the head of MCA. MCA had bought close to half of Cineplex Odeon Corporation, who MCA convinced to become equal equity partners in Last Temptation. That guaranteed that it would be shown in theatres, which was the big reason why Gulf+Western canned it in the first place. Despite backing the project, MCA slashed the budget and shooting schedule. Their real intention with Last Temptation was to lock Scorsese into a picture deal since Colour of Money had been successful at the box office.

[Bix]

I'm somewhat tempted to try and compare VM Season 3 to the final run of WWECW on SyFy, where it was a totally different animal, but still well worth watching. But, even though I like Season 3 more than a lot of people do, I don't think it compares to Christian as ECW champion.

 

Other choice, I guess, would be to equate it to the dying days of the original ECW, which kind of works. Credible as champion never quite clicked, much like the shorter arcs and new characters, but there was still a lot to like, even if some of it was just because it was ECW, and ECW was great, and in the same way, even with the changes and somewhat weaker plots, the characters of Veronica, Keith, and Logan were still great, and made it worth watching, at least to me.

 

This is a very odd discussion Matt summoned me to.

I was going to compare Justin Credible to Piz, but I liked Piz....

[cabinboy454]

Universal gave money to Martin Scorsese to make Last Temptation of Christ because they respected him as an artist, they never thought the film would be a box office hit.

It was a bit more complicated than that. Scorsese's agent was a long time colleague of the head of MCA. MCA had bought close to half of Cineplex Odeon Corporation, who MCA convinced to become equal equity partners in Last Temptation. That guaranteed that it would be shown in theatres, which was the big reason why Gulf+Western canned it in the first place. Despite backing the project, MCA slashed the budget and shooting schedule. Their real intention with Last Temptation was to lock Scorsese into a picture deal since Colour of Money had been successful at the box office.

 

I was just using Scorsese and Last Temptation as an example of a time when a studio agreed to do something not for financial gain. A more recent example would be Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master and financier Megan Ellison. She did not put up the money for the Master because she thought it could be a blockbuster hit.

[ohtani's jacket]

She's the daughter of one of the richest men in the world and wants to make art house films. There's one line of thinking that she invested too much money in Anderson's film and that indie films will suffer as a result. By and large, a studio wants its money back even on a project like Anderson's and will budget accordingly, so if Ellison is to continue working in Hollywood she'll need to start producing mainstream fare to cover the losses that her art films make.

[Brian Fowler]

I'm somewhat tempted to try and compare VM Season 3 to the final run of WWECW on SyFy, where it was a totally different animal, but still well worth watching. But, even though I like Season 3 more than a lot of people do, I don't think it compares to Christian as ECW champion.

 

Other choice, I guess, would be to equate it to the dying days of the original ECW, which kind of works. Credible as champion never quite clicked, much like the shorter arcs and new characters, but there was still a lot to like, even if some of it was just because it was ECW, and ECW was great, and in the same way, even with the changes and somewhat weaker plots, the characters of Veronica, Keith, and Logan were still great, and made it worth watching, at least to me.

 

This is a very odd discussion Matt summoned me to.

I was going to compare Justin Credible to Piz, but I liked Piz....

 

There's potential there, though. I didn't want to see Credible be ECW champion much like I didn't want to see Piz date Veronica...

 

Question is, who does this make Parker?

[cabinboy454]

She's the daughter of one of the richest men in the world and wants to make art house films. There's one line of thinking that she invested too much money in Anderson's film and that indie films will suffer as a result. By and large, a studio wants its money back even on a project like Anderson's and will budget accordingly, so if Ellison is to continue working in Hollywood she'll need to start producing mainstream fare to cover the losses that her art films make.

It doesn't matter if she is the daughter of one of the richest men in the world, she is willing to lose money for the sake of art.

 

 

 

To your point about making mainstream fare, she will be producing the next Terminator film. Ellison was able to purchase the rights to make Terminator 5 for $20 million, it goes to show how little value that franchise currently holds.

[ohtani's jacket]

It does matter because it's not the norm and she's paying for it out of her own pocket which is not the way that production companies usually operate. Obviously, she bankrolled Anderson based on his artistic merits but there's no way an ordinary producer would have been able to scrape together that much money and a studio wouldn't have bitten on that type of film. She's a special case and even then they had to have been disappointed in the box office return, though I believe Zero Dark Thirty made back the money they lost on The Master.

 

EDIT: Case in point, she was having trouble funding films until she got her inheritance from dad. And a quick scan of the movie rags reveals that The Master's box office performance was a bone of contention with Weinstein. Seems like she wants to be a player and will learn from her experience on The Master.

[cabinboy454]

It does matter because it's not the norm and she's paying for it out of her own pocket which is not the way that production companies usually operate. Obviously, she bankrolled Anderson based on his artistic merits but there's no way an ordinary producer would have been able to scrape together that much money and a studio wouldn't have bitten on that type of film. She's a special case and even then they had to have been disappointed in the box office return, though I believe Zero Dark Thirty made back the money they lost on The Master.

 

EDIT: Case in point, she was having trouble funding films until she got her inheritance from dad. And a quick scan of the movie rags reveals that The Master's box office performance was a bone of contention with Weinstein. Seems like she wants to be a player and will learn from her experience on The Master.

Ellison will be financing Anderson's next film.

 

 

Hollywood studios are willing to take risks in order to nurture a relationship with someone they wish to continuing working with. Universal had to know Last Temptation would not only lose money but also create religious controversy, they were willing to weather that storm in order to get films like Cape Fear and Casino.