|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 17, 2015 10:02:43 GMT -5
"Beating Sting won't make Rollins a star" Losing to Sting won't help either, even if he gets his win back. It's another in the long line of asinine comments about young guys getting the rub from simply "being in the ring" with legends and is a big factor as to why we don't have more stars right now. We don't have more stars now because WWE is too afraid to capitalise on something when the time is right. Look at Ryback in 2012, or Ziggler after SS last year, or Reigns. They've brought back stars to put over talent and that doesn't lead anywhere either. Ziggler went over Jericho and it lead nowhere. I don't care what you say, Wyatt getting a streak match with Undertaker could have easily led to bigger things for him, but it's WWE's unwillingness to commit to anything that led him straight back to midcard hell. I agree that a big reason is WWE's unwillingness to commit. Bray's match with Undertaker was fine, but it also showed that he can't win the big one. He lost to Cena and Taker on the big stage, so why should anyone take him seriously? They pushed Reigns the wrong way, which is what made the fans crap on it, which gave them cold feet. If they would have handled Reigns better, they would not have needed to do this. Rock came back and put over Cena, who didn't need it. That's it. Undertaker put over Brock, who didn't really need it. Then, Bray Wyatt carried an entire program BY HIMSELF, only to job on the big stage. Brock has only put over Cena and Triple H, who don't need it. The New Age Outlaws ended the great run of the Brotherhood, to put over the Usos. Yet most people don't even remember that they're who the Usos beat. Jericho puts people over all of the time, so he's the best example of it being the WWE's fault and not the fault of the part-timer going over. Sting came in and put over Triple H, who didn't need it. Then you have Triple H, who put over Daniel Bryan and the Shield and GASP...Bryan and the Shield were made into stars. It's not rocket science.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 29, 2024 23:50:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 10:12:26 GMT -5
We don't have more stars now because WWE is too afraid to capitalise on something when the time is right. Look at Ryback in 2012, or Ziggler after SS last year, or Reigns. They've brought back stars to put over talent and that doesn't lead anywhere either. Ziggler went over Jericho and it lead nowhere. I don't care what you say, Wyatt getting a streak match with Undertaker could have easily led to bigger things for him, but it's WWE's unwillingness to commit to anything that led him straight back to midcard hell. I agree that a big reason is WWE's unwillingness to commit. Bray's match with Undertaker was fine, but it also showed that he can't win the big one. He lost to Cena and Taker on the big stage, so why should anyone take him seriously? They pushed Reigns the wrong way, which is what made the fans crap on it, which gave them cold feet. If they would have handled Reigns better, they would not have needed to do this. Rock came back and put over Cena, who didn't need it. That's it. Undertaker put over Brock, who didn't really need it. Then, Bray Wyatt carried an entire program BY HIMSELF, only to job on the big stage. Brock has only put over Cena and Triple H, who don't need it. The New Age Outlaws ended the great run of the Brotherhood, to put over the Usos. Yet most people don't even remember that they're who the Usos beat. Jericho puts people over all of the time, so he's the best example of it being the WWE's fault and not the fault of the part-timer going over. Sting came in and put over Triple H, who didn't need it. Then you have Triple H, who put over Daniel Bryan and the Shield and GASP...Bryan and the Shield were made into stars. It's not rocket science. Rock came back to pass the torch. Cena never got to beat Hogan or Austin, so putting him in the biggest match possible for him was the only way to do it. It was also a poor idea to have Usos win the title prior to Wrestlemania, they should have had a hard fought match with the NAO at Wrestlemania. Then people would have remembered it. I could compare Wyatt's situation to HHH's at WM12. They both carried their programs leading up to Wrestlemania, except HHH jobbing to Warrior at WM12 put him on the map and got him noticed above the crowd. It was a huge responsibility for Hunter to carry that program and he did it. A little while later he's one of the biggest rising stars in the company. There are plenty of examples of people becoming stars just by being in the ring with a bigger star. Cena and HHH most notably.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 17, 2015 10:19:41 GMT -5
I agree that a big reason is WWE's unwillingness to commit. Bray's match with Undertaker was fine, but it also showed that he can't win the big one. He lost to Cena and Taker on the big stage, so why should anyone take him seriously? They pushed Reigns the wrong way, which is what made the fans crap on it, which gave them cold feet. If they would have handled Reigns better, they would not have needed to do this. Rock came back and put over Cena, who didn't need it. That's it. Undertaker put over Brock, who didn't really need it. Then, Bray Wyatt carried an entire program BY HIMSELF, only to job on the big stage. Brock has only put over Cena and Triple H, who don't need it. The New Age Outlaws ended the great run of the Brotherhood, to put over the Usos. Yet most people don't even remember that they're who the Usos beat. Jericho puts people over all of the time, so he's the best example of it being the WWE's fault and not the fault of the part-timer going over. Sting came in and put over Triple H, who didn't need it. Then you have Triple H, who put over Daniel Bryan and the Shield and GASP...Bryan and the Shield were made into stars. It's not rocket science. Rock came back to pass the torch. Cena never got to beat Hogan or Austin, so putting him in the biggest match possible for him was the only way to do it. It was also a poor idea to have Usos win the title prior to Wrestlemania, they should have had a hard fought match with the NAO at Wrestlemania. Then people would have remembered it. I could compare Wyatt's situation to HHH's at WM12. They both carried their programs leading up to Wrestlemania, except HHH jobbing to Warrior at WM12 put him on the map and got him noticed above the crowd. It was a huge responsibility for Hunter to carry that program and he did it. A little while later he's one of the biggest rising stars in the company. There are plenty of examples of people becoming stars just by being in the ring with a bigger star. Cena and HHH most notably. Yea, Rock passed the torch but Cena didn't need it. He was already the top guy. I'll give you Hunter, same for Austin with Bret. However, there are are also plenty of examples of guys not becoming stars just by being in the ring with a bigger star. Seth Rollins with Brock Lesnar, Bray Wyatt with the Undertaker, Cody & Goldust with the NAO, Billy Gunn with the Rock, etc. This idea that the old guard should go over the current crop of stars is a very flawed system that has hurt the business. Hell, even this past SummerSlam. Brock and Undertaker is a big match and I get that, but WWE basically said "all of our current stars can't hold these two or compete on their level. Nothing our current roster does can touch these guys". That's very harmful to the product. Imagine if Austin and Undertaker were in the midst of their Highway to Hell program in 1998 only to be thrust into the midcard because Hogan and Warrior had returned and got to headline? How bad would that have been?
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Sept 17, 2015 10:20:03 GMT -5
He's not saying anything new. Also, was this copied word-for-word? Meltzer's grammar is actually pretty poor in that blurb. Maybe he was just venting and didn't take the time to proof read any of what he wrote. Meh.
TRW hit the nail on the head. WWE needs a change in their creative culture. That can't happen until Vince is out of the way. All of what was written has been discussed, ad nauseam, since the mid 2000s, so going on a decade now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 29, 2024 23:50:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 10:23:20 GMT -5
Hit the nail on the head. Dave Meltzer my ing dad.
|
|
Tyler Black
Main Eventer
the former #1 Tyler Black fan/Tyler F'n Black
Joined on: Jul 19, 2009 15:37:40 GMT -5
Posts: 2,544
|
Post by Tyler Black on Sept 17, 2015 10:42:52 GMT -5
No, there is a way for Rollins to benefit without losing. By winning. If he loses, he not only loses to Sting but looks worse than Triple H, who beat Sting. If he wins it back, then he's just even with Sting and still worse than Triple H. The best plan is for Seth to go over Sting. Period. Not really. "Oh he beat the guy Triple H beat". Beating Sting won't make Rollins a star. Giving Sting some credibility and then pinning him clean will so a better job of making him a star. What more crediblity does sting need besides being Sting? He's sting a legend in this bussines, yeah he lost to a younger, in better shape HHH. Rollins is the MAN right now. Losing to Sting only makes him look worse. His whole gimmick right now is being the authority's golden boy and HHH jr. Meanwhile he thinks he's the best ever, even better than triple H. So if he can't beat a man that an older HHH beat, what does that's do for Seth? Nothing. He needs to go over.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Sept 17, 2015 10:50:09 GMT -5
There's a lot of good stuff in there. Wade Keller has been going into most of this at length and brings up a lot of his own very valid and interesting points as well, they're worth listening to/reading.
One of the biggest things that stands out to me is that it no longer feels like WWE is booking Raw for wrestling fans. It feels like they're booking Raw for their own enjoyment, and to generate buzz with whatever cause, topic, or hero/villain saga is hot in mainstream media. They're the only form of entertainment in the world that constantly gets away with looking down on their fans and absolutely refusing to give them what they want.
You know that a company is in trouble creatively when the best angle they've had in over a decade was written largely by the audience.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Martin on Sept 17, 2015 11:52:21 GMT -5
Once Vince is finally gone and the company (hopefully) gets better, we're gonna look back on this period in the company and throw up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 29, 2024 23:50:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 12:11:08 GMT -5
Rock came back to pass the torch. Cena never got to beat Hogan or Austin, so putting him in the biggest match possible for him was the only way to do it. It was also a poor idea to have Usos win the title prior to Wrestlemania, they should have had a hard fought match with the NAO at Wrestlemania. Then people would have remembered it. I could compare Wyatt's situation to HHH's at WM12. They both carried their programs leading up to Wrestlemania, except HHH jobbing to Warrior at WM12 put him on the map and got him noticed above the crowd. It was a huge responsibility for Hunter to carry that program and he did it. A little while later he's one of the biggest rising stars in the company. There are plenty of examples of people becoming stars just by being in the ring with a bigger star. Cena and HHH most notably. Yea, Rock passed the torch but Cena didn't need it. He was already the top guy. I'll give you Hunter, same for Austin with Bret. However, there are are also plenty of examples of guys not becoming stars just by being in the ring with a bigger star. Seth Rollins with Brock Lesnar, Bray Wyatt with the Undertaker, Cody & Goldust with the NAO, Billy Gunn with the Rock, etc. This idea that the old guard should go over the current crop of stars is a very flawed system that has hurt the business. Hell, even this past SummerSlam. Brock and Undertaker is a big match and I get that, but WWE basically said "all of our current stars can't hold these two or compete on their level. Nothing our current roster does can touch these guys". That's very harmful to the product. Imagine if Austin and Undertaker were in the midst of their Highway to Hell program in 1998 only to be thrust into the midcard because Hogan and Warrior had returned and got to headline? How bad would that have been? It completely depends on how things are booked. Seth was booked to look like a chump against Lesnar, whereas the way WM13 was booked, Austin looked better than he would have if he beat Bret. Are you telling me that, (using the Austin match as an example) if Sting were to make Rollins pass out (not tap out), after an extremely hard/back and forth match. But then beat Sting cleanly to get his title back then he wouldn't look FAR better and more credible than he does right now? Of course we have to ignore that Seth already tapped on Raw for that to work.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Sept 17, 2015 12:21:10 GMT -5
Yea, Rock passed the torch but Cena didn't need it. He was already the top guy. I'll give you Hunter, same for Austin with Bret. However, there are are also plenty of examples of guys not becoming stars just by being in the ring with a bigger star. Seth Rollins with Brock Lesnar, Bray Wyatt with the Undertaker, Cody & Goldust with the NAO, Billy Gunn with the Rock, etc. This idea that the old guard should go over the current crop of stars is a very flawed system that has hurt the business. Hell, even this past SummerSlam. Brock and Undertaker is a big match and I get that, but WWE basically said "all of our current stars can't hold these two or compete on their level. Nothing our current roster does can touch these guys". That's very harmful to the product. Imagine if Austin and Undertaker were in the midst of their Highway to Hell program in 1998 only to be thrust into the midcard because Hogan and Warrior had returned and got to headline? How bad would that have been? It completely depends on how things are booked. Seth was booked to look like a chump against Lesnar, whereas the way WM13 was booked, Austin looked better than he would have if he beat Bret. Are you telling me that, (using the Austin match as an example) if Sting were to make Rollins pass out (not tap out), after an extremely hard/back and forth match. But then beat Sting cleanly to get his title back then he wouldn't look FAR better and more credible than he does right now? Of course we have to ignore that Seth already tapped on Raw for that to work. If we ignore that Seth tapped out on Raw, and we take your situation into play, yea, he'd look good. But he would still look more credible if he was to cleanly beat Sting without losing to him. I've admitted that your theory works in some situations, like Austin's. But those are rare and I gave a bunch of examples the other way around. It all comes down to booking but the booking, more often than not, hasn't been done right. Look at Cena/Rusev or Cena/Wyatt. Neither guy came out looking better despite being in the ring with the big star.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazyness on Sept 17, 2015 12:25:04 GMT -5
I'm going to school to become a Marketing Manager, so don't worry. I'll assist the WWE with marketing. JK
Honestly, I hate how much credability people give this guy. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the man. I just don't like how he gets so much people backing him on rumors, things like this, and other crap.
Anyway, WWE has so much stuff wrong right now. We knit pick what is bad and never focus on the good.
I feel like the WWE will be much better once Vince is out of the picture and I don't mean that in a bad way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 29, 2024 23:50:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 12:26:25 GMT -5
It completely depends on how things are booked. Seth was booked to look like a chump against Lesnar, whereas the way WM13 was booked, Austin looked better than he would have if he beat Bret. Are you telling me that, (using the Austin match as an example) if Sting were to make Rollins pass out (not tap out), after an extremely hard/back and forth match. But then beat Sting cleanly to get his title back then he wouldn't look FAR better and more credible than he does right now? Of course we have to ignore that Seth already tapped on Raw for that to work. If we ignore that Seth tapped out on Raw, and we take your situation into play, yea, he'd look good. But he would still look more credible if he was to cleanly beat Sting without losing to him. I've admitted that your theory works in some situations, like Austin's. But those are rare and I gave a bunch of examples the other way around. It all comes down to booking but the booking, more often than not, hasn't been done right. Look at Cena/Rusev or Cena/Wyatt. Neither guy came out looking better despite being in the ring with the big star. If the booking team were more competant, then we'd definitely see a better success rate. But this goes across the board. They've fumbled at every attempt at making a new star in the past few years. Arguably aside from Bryan, but the injury hampered him more than the booking team did.
|
|
ohernan6
Main Eventer
'Cause That's How I Roll!
Joined on: Jan 20, 2009 17:40:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,670
|
Post by ohernan6 on Sept 17, 2015 12:41:31 GMT -5
If we ignore that Seth tapped out on Raw, and we take your situation into play, yea, he'd look good. But he would still look more credible if he was to cleanly beat Sting without losing to him. I've admitted that your theory works in some situations, like Austin's. But those are rare and I gave a bunch of examples the other way around. It all comes down to booking but the booking, more often than not, hasn't been done right. Look at Cena/Rusev or Cena/Wyatt. Neither guy came out looking better despite being in the ring with the big star. If the booking team were more competant, then we'd definitely see a better success rate. But this goes across the board. They've fumbled at every attempt at making a new star in the past few years. Arguably aside from Bryan, but the injury hampered him more than the booking team did. A big problem with the Bret vs Austin - Seth vs. Sting comparison isnt the Bret vs Austin was still believable. Sting's age works against this comparison because both a win OR loss won't do much for Seth against Sting because Sting is way past his prime. Instead we should be talking about Seth vs. Brock; or Rock; or Cena; or Triple H; etc. Those are potential wins that can do big favors for Seth.
|
|
ohernan6
Main Eventer
'Cause That's How I Roll!
Joined on: Jan 20, 2009 17:40:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,670
|
Post by ohernan6 on Sept 17, 2015 12:48:48 GMT -5
Rock came back to pass the torch. Cena never got to beat Hogan or Austin, so putting him in the biggest match possible for him was the only way to do it. It was also a poor idea to have Usos win the title prior to Wrestlemania, they should have had a hard fought match with the NAO at Wrestlemania. Then people would have remembered it. I could compare Wyatt's situation to HHH's at WM12. They both carried their programs leading up to Wrestlemania, except HHH jobbing to Warrior at WM12 put him on the map and got him noticed above the crowd. It was a huge responsibility for Hunter to carry that program and he did it. A little while later he's one of the biggest rising stars in the company. There are plenty of examples of people becoming stars just by being in the ring with a bigger star. Cena and HHH most notably. Yea, Rock passed the torch but Cena didn't need it. He was already the top guy. I'll give you Hunter, same for Austin with Bret. However, there are are also plenty of examples of guys not becoming stars just by being in the ring with a bigger star. Seth Rollins with Brock Lesnar, Bray Wyatt with the Undertaker, Cody & Goldust with the NAO, Billy Gunn with the Rock, etc. This idea that the old guard should go over the current crop of stars is a very flawed system that has hurt the business. Hell, even this past SummerSlam. Brock and Undertaker is a big match and I get that, but WWE basically said "all of our current stars can't hold these two or compete on their level. Nothing our current roster does can touch these guys". That's very harmful to the product.Imagine if Austin and Undertaker were in the midst of their Highway to Hell program in 1998 only to be thrust into the midcard because Hogan and Warrior had returned and got to headline? How bad would that have been? This.... so much this... I've been saying this since the idea of part-timers was starting to be included in WWE. These part-timers (HHH, Rock, Brock, Taker, etc.) just make every current wrestler look like they are beneath them. That's not right. Think about WM17. There were so many matches on there that felt like main events, and everyone was on equal level. Now imagine if at the time, WWE added Hogan vs. Flair and basically promoted them in the same light as Brock and Taker get today? It's sad... I've been saying, guys like Wade Barrett, Sheamus, Swagger, Del Rio, etc. should all be old main-eventers by now. (I don't even like Sheamus!) They should have had their time, and Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose and Wyatt should be having their time now...
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Sept 17, 2015 13:07:37 GMT -5
The "up and comer loses in a hard fought battle" scenario works, on occasion, as Kev has pointed out, but it has to be coupled with logical booking and follow through in the aftermath, neither of which WWE has shown any propensity for doing in this era (or for many years, for that matter.)
Kevin Owens losing to John Cena doesn't ruin Kevin Owens. Kevin Owens losing three times to John Cena, tapping out to John Cena, and immediately being treated as a total afterthought who talks about his weight after the feud is over is very detrimental to Kevin Owens. WWE brought him in and told us we really need to care about this guy, he's unstoppable. He beat John Cena, cleanly. But then, it just turned out to be a fluke. We saw them wrestle three more times and Cena won cleanly in all three of them, so who cares or remembers about the first one? He got lucky. He's not on Cena's level. He can't hang with him. That's the message WWE is sending. That's the message they send every single time someone gets hot and inevitably put in a program with John Cena. They just can't hang.
Every new talent goes through the same steps:
-Comes in hot, star rises -Loses major feud, stock plummets -Trades wins with a variety of opponents who WWE feels are on equal footing, damaging credibility and interest -Becomes a trusty opponent for Cena to beat in a long match on Raw months later
Repeat. It's the same story across the board.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 17, 2015 14:54:19 GMT -5
Could you imagine how bad it would have hurt Austin if he just kept losing to Bret Hart handily week in and week out? When did he beat Bret? When the fans want to love someone, especially as much as they loved Bryan, wouldn't it have made sense to get behind them? But then he'd be "shoved down our throats" and "overpushed" -- he's much more popular being "buried." Therein lies the dilemma and the impossibility of making stars in the current era. WWE could be doing a hell of a lot more to make the midcard interesting, but they're pretty much screwed when it comes to making a new megastar. Right now, their best bet is to invest in some Robocop technology so Cena never retires. They're the only form of entertainment in the world that constantly gets away with looking down on their fans and absolutely refusing to give them what they want. That's definitely not true. Every gaming and movie forum in the world is similarly full of entitled fans lambasting the relevant entertainment providers for refusing to cater to their every whim. It's perhaps even more prominent in the gaming scene than it is in wrestling. The outraged reaction to GTA 5 not getting any single-player DLC prompted some guy on the Eurogamer comments to perfectly sum up modern gamers as such: Studio: "We're doing story DLC!" Fans: "Boo! You greedy ba****ds. It should be in the main game." Studio: "We're not doing story DLC." Fans: "Boo! We wanted more. We are boycotting the sequel." People either change their minds once they're given what they want, or different people want different things. We live in a culture of entitlement, and when different people want different things from WWE/videogame publishers/movie studios/TV networks etc, some people are inevitably disappointed and angrily decide that the provider doesn't listen to fans. WWE has ticked many of the boxes that people said they had to: They brought back The Rock, they brought back Brock, they focused less on storylines and more on workrate, they ended the brand split, they unified the world titles, they allowed blood in matches, they let CM Punk win the belt and do unscripted shoot promos, they let Daniel Bryan win the WrestleMania main event, they let Brock destroy Cena, they let Rollins cash in instead of putting the belt on Reigns, etc etc. But none of it was ever enough, and nothing ever will be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 29, 2024 23:50:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 15:00:54 GMT -5
Could you imagine how bad it would have hurt Austin if he just kept losing to Bret Hart handily week in and week out? When did he beat Bret? When the fans want to love someone, especially as much as they loved Bryan, wouldn't it have made sense to get behind them? But then he'd be "shoved down our throats" and "overpushed" -- he's much more popular being "buried." Therein lies the dilemma and the impossibility of making stars in the current era. WWE could be doing a hell of a lot more to make the midcard interesting, but they're pretty much screwed when it comes to making a new megastar. Right now, their best bet is to invest in some Robocop technology so Cena never retires.They're the only form of entertainment in the world that constantly gets away with looking down on their fans and absolutely refusing to give them what they want. That's definitely not true. Every gaming and movie forum in the world is similarly full of entitled fans lambasting the relevant entertainment providers for refusing to cater to their every whim. It's perhaps even more prominent in the gaming scene than it is in wrestling. The outraged reaction to GTA 5 not getting any single-player DLC prompted some guy on the Eurogamer comments to perfectly sum up modern gamers as such: Studio: "We're doing story DLC!" Fans: "Boo! You greedy ba****ds. It should be in the main game." Studio: "We're not doing story DLC." Fans: "Boo! We wanted more. We are boycotting the sequel." People either change their minds once they're given what they want, or different people want different things. We live in a culture of entitlement, and when different people want different things from WWE/videogame publishers/movie studios/TV networks etc, some people are inevitably disappointed and angrily decide that the provider doesn't listen to fans. WWE has ticked many of the boxes that people said they had to: They brought back The Rock, they brought back Brock, they focused less on storylines and more on workrate, they ended the brand split, they unified the world titles, they allowed blood in matches, they let CM Punk win the belt and do unscripted shoot promos, they let Daniel Bryan win the WrestleMania main event, they let Brock destroy Cena, they let Rollins cash in instead of putting the belt on Reigns, etc etc. But none of it was ever enough, and nothing ever will be. As I've stated to you in the past, there is never going to be a time when the fans are 100% happy with the product. You can trace this back to those early 90's forums we found years ago. There's always going to be different opinions, but my point was that Bryan got over. Really over. It makes logical sense to get behind him as a performer and help make him the best star they can. Will there be people complaining? Of course, there's always going to be people like that, but it shouldn't just completely unravel one of the most organic things to ever happen in pro wrestling. It's pointless anyway. His body is evident that he cannot be trusted in a top star spot again. I'm glad that, as a fan, I got to see him have his WrestleMania moment. I'll never forget it.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Sept 17, 2015 15:08:08 GMT -5
Could you imagine how bad it would have hurt Austin if he just kept losing to Bret Hart handily week in and week out? When did he beat Bret? When the fans want to love someone, especially as much as they loved Bryan, wouldn't it have made sense to get behind them? But then he'd be "shoved down our throats" and "overpushed" -- he's much more popular being "buried." Therein lies the dilemma and the impossibility of making stars in the current era. WWE could be doing a hell of a lot more to make the midcard interesting, but they're pretty much screwed when it comes to making a new megastar. Right now, their best bet is to invest in some Robocop technology so Cena never retires. They're the only form of entertainment in the world that constantly gets away with looking down on their fans and absolutely refusing to give them what they want. That's definitely not true. Every gaming and movie forum in the world is similarly full of entitled fans lambasting the relevant entertainment providers for refusing to cater to their every whim. It's perhaps even more prominent in the gaming scene than it is in wrestling. The outraged reaction to GTA 5 not getting any single-player DLC prompted some guy on the Eurogamer comments to perfectly sum up modern gamers as such: Studio: "We're doing story DLC!" Fans: "Boo! You greedy ba****ds. It should be in the main game." Studio: "We're not doing story DLC." Fans: "Boo! We wanted more. We are boycotting the sequel." People either change their minds once they're given what they want, or different people want different things. We live in a culture of entitlement, and when different people want different things from WWE/videogame publishers/movie studios/TV networks etc, some people are inevitably disappointed and angrily decide that the provider doesn't listen to fans. WWE has ticked many of the boxes that people said they had to: They brought back The Rock, they brought back Brock, they focused less on storylines and more on workrate, they ended the brand split, they unified the world titles, they allowed blood in matches, they let CM Punk win the belt and do unscripted shoot promos, they let Daniel Bryan win the WrestleMania main event, they let Brock destroy Cena, they let Rollins cash in instead of putting the belt on Reigns, etc etc. But none of it was ever enough, and nothing ever will be. There are always going to be strategic business decisions that are worth making in favor of siding with a rabid fanbase, and to me, the gaming example you point to airs more on the side of that. While I think you nailed the general relationship between company and fans, I don't think any other subculture consistently looks down on its audience the way WWE does. It's very clear that WWE has, and still does, consider their audience to be very uneducated and beneath them. I don't know of any other company/customer relationship that works that way. This is a bit of a different point, but WWE has gotten into the habit of constantly putting the brand in front of the product. People love Marvel because they make movies with interesting characters that people are invested in. When you go to see a Marvel movie, you aren't unabashedly slapped in the face every five minutes with a reminder that you're watching a Marvel movie, because that's not the primary selling point. You're invested in the characters and the stories being told, which in turn, creates positive brand awareness. You can't create positive brand association with a mediocre product whose primary purpose is to just tell you how great the brand is. Despite, all of that, though, there is undeniably a serious problem with the way WWE is doing business, I don't think that's debatable. We can all debate what exactly is wrong and who is to blame, but it's not just a segment of the fanbase that wants it their way all the time. Those people are still watching the show. The problem is, other people aren't.
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Sept 17, 2015 15:09:22 GMT -5
It's pointless anyway. His body is evident that he cannot be trusted in a top star spot again. I'm glad that, as a fan, I got to see him have his WrestleMania moment. I'll never forget it. The weird thing is that when he came back, he didn't even try to wrestle a style that he can sustain. His moves that are over are really the Yes kicks, the running knee and the Yes Lock. But he insisted on still doing all the missile dropkicks and the stuff where he lands on his head, even though people wouldn't have cared if he dropped them. I guess he didn't want to water his wrestling down, but it's a shame. The last page of his autobiography is pretty depressing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 29, 2024 23:50:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 15:11:46 GMT -5
It's pointless anyway. His body is evident that he cannot be trusted in a top star spot again. I'm glad that, as a fan, I got to see him have his WrestleMania moment. I'll never forget it. The weird thing is that when he came back, he didn't even try to wrestle a style that he can sustain. His moves that are over are really the Yes kicks, the running knee and the Yes Lock. But he insisted on still doing all the missile dropkicks and the stuff where he lands on his head, even though people wouldn't have cared if he dropped them. I guess he didn't want to water his wrestling down, but it's a shame. The last page of his autobiography is pretty depressing. He just needs to go away for a few years like Michaels did and completely rest and heal. If he is physically able to come back, I'd welcome it, but not at the risk of his health. Dude really does need to turn it down a notch, regardless. No more suicide dives, no more missile dropkicks and etc.
|
|