|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Oct 14, 2015 13:07:00 GMT -5
the show is pathetic writing sucks and sorry but they are putting on better matches in nxt than on raw. they need to get rid of the damn pg rating and go back to the style of the attitude era. You mean the NXT weekly show that is mostly full of squashes? Also, it's been said countless times but the PG rating is ABSOLUTELY NOT the issue. |
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Oct 14, 2015 13:14:51 GMT -5
If they don't pick their crap up, I can see them being into 900,000 by the beginning of next year. While the ratings will still fall, there is no way in hell they are going near that low. Hell, Smackdown has never been near that low. They aren't going to lose nearly 4 times their audience in 3-4 months. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 14:00:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 13:43:49 GMT -5
They're making the same mistakes WCW did as far as creating talent. This should br the wake up call to build their superstars instead of relying on cena and "legends".
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 14:00:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 14:55:04 GMT -5
What's the point in "creating new stars" when every time they try, if the typical IWC/live audience (who watch every week regardless of ratings/quality) reject that star, the same people whom once pushed for WWE to invest in Roman Reigns will be screaming out for his main event push to be squashed in favour of a stop-start push for Cesaro/Ziggler etc. Then, Cesaro/Ziggler go out and have an absolute slobber knocker of a match on RAW.. New star gets relegated or loses clean. Ratings decrease. Repeat. I'm certainly not saying a lack of Roman Reigns directly affects ratings. The "hardcore" WWE fans are the only ones whom prevent "new stars", by either complaining or deciding to invest all of their focus on a specific star that blatently isn't going anywhere. Unfortunately, it isn't "hip" for a WWE fan to get excited about their poor product, it's "hip" for them to complain and watch something else and come online and strike comparison. The leading example, WWE tried to make a star out of Roman Reigns, and now the poor guy gets boo'ed regardless of what he's doing or where he is on the card. And for what reason? Because he was built the right way? Because he's young? It's as if the minute the Shield split, the simplicity of Reigns push that his live reactions had prompted offended some fans into ensuring he gets a negative reaction. He's a target for fans discontent towards WWE, the poor dude never did anything himself to cause everyone to turn on him. But unfortunately because he's the preferred "star of the future" on a poorly booked show, he's gunna get abused by the crowd regardless of how solid and improved he's become over the summer. As if anyone is going to pay attention to Reigns improving work rate when they've already decided they don't want him at the top. Blame yourselves, WWE fans. If you'd just cheer the dude, we would have had the long overdue Reigns Vs Rollins for the title instead of Rollins Vs Kane in his 40's. Before you say "create new stars", ask yourself how you felt about Roman Reigns winning the Royal Rumble. The same people who want WWE to change have been nothing but resistant to change for years now. My solution? Bring back Daniel Bryan. You say "every time" when talking about a new star getting rejected but I can really only think of Roman Reigns. The fans rejected it not because it was a new star, but because of the way the push was done. Think about Dean Ambrose in late 2014. The fans absolutely wanted that guy to become a new star. But he was fed to Bray Wyatt before disappearing in the mid-card. It's not about being resistant to change, it was about being resistant to the way it was being done. The fact that some people don't really understand that still baffles me. Not quite like that. Let's not forget the most important part of Ambroses ascension, it was not by design. Fans radiated largely towards Ambrose because it was clear as day that he was not the member of The Shield whom was selected to be the solo babyface. That was obvious for 12 months or so before they split. As awesome as Ambrose is, it's undeniable that he was not the WWEs choice. It was predictable, and the IWC don't like predictable. So, the live audience didn't punish WWE, they punished Reigns through no fault of his own, whilst giving Dean Ambrose the typically predictable already worn-out over-exaggerated face reaction. Now, Reigns is back to treading water as WWE tread eggshells around giving him another push (through fear of THAT reaction on Raw this week). Meanwhile, where's Ambrose? No better off than Reigns, that's where. That is resistance to change, subconceiously it's as if the IWC prefer Cena at the top. "Better the devil you know". In turn, WWEs ratings are now being punished. Whadayaknow. Cheer the guy at the bottom, boo the guy at the top. And when the roles reverse, so do the crowd responses. Est. 2005, it's called the "Cena-Era". Cenas painfully forced (and widely successful) push in 2005 gave wrestling fans anxiety and a fear of common time-old wrestling conventions. So the minute WWE try and make another Cena, we crap ourselves. Or in other words, BOOOOOOOOOOO "WE WANT _____" (insert recently endeavoured midcarder) |
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Oct 14, 2015 15:15:52 GMT -5
You say "every time" when talking about a new star getting rejected but I can really only think of Roman Reigns. The fans rejected it not because it was a new star, but because of the way the push was done. Think about Dean Ambrose in late 2014. The fans absolutely wanted that guy to become a new star. But he was fed to Bray Wyatt before disappearing in the mid-card. It's not about being resistant to change, it was about being resistant to the way it was being done. The fact that some people don't really understand that still baffles me. Not quite like that. Let's not forget the most important part of Ambroses ascension, it was not by design. Fans radiated largely towards Ambrose because it was clear as day that he was not the member of The Shield whom was selected to be the solo babyface. That was obvious for 12 months or so before they split. As awesome as Ambrose is, it's undeniable that he was not the WWEs choice. It was predictable, and the IWC don't like predictable. So, the live audience didn't punish WWE, they punished Reigns through no fault of his own, whilst giving Dean Ambrose the typically predictable already worn-out over-exaggerated face reaction. Now, Reigns is back to treading water as WWE tread eggshells around giving him another push (through fear of THAT reaction on Raw this week). Meanwhile, where's Ambrose? No better off than Reigns, that's where. That is resistance to change, subconceiously it's as if the IWC prefer Cena at the top. "Better the devil you know". In turn, WWEs ratings are now being punished. Whadayaknow. Cheer the guy at the bottom, boo the guy at the top. And when the roles reverse, so do the crowd responses. Est. 2005, it's called the "Cena-Era". Cenas painfully forced (and widely successful) push in 2005 gave wrestling fans anxiety and a fear of common time-old wrestling conventions. So the minute WWE try and make another Cena, we crap ourselves. Or in other words, BOOOOOOOOOOO "WE WANT _____" (insert recently endeavoured midcarder) So, if I'm understanding you correctly, we, the fans, are responsible for the piss poor quality of WWE's product because we rejected Roman Reigns and made it so bad that we (and everyone else) are now tuning out? Vince, is that you? |
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Oct 14, 2015 15:36:02 GMT -5
You say "every time" when talking about a new star getting rejected but I can really only think of Roman Reigns. The fans rejected it not because it was a new star, but because of the way the push was done. Think about Dean Ambrose in late 2014. The fans absolutely wanted that guy to become a new star. But he was fed to Bray Wyatt before disappearing in the mid-card. It's not about being resistant to change, it was about being resistant to the way it was being done. The fact that some people don't really understand that still baffles me. Not quite like that. Let's not forget the most important part of Ambroses ascension, it was not by design. Fans radiated largely towards Ambrose because it was clear as day that he was not the member of The Shield whom was selected to be the solo babyface. That was obvious for 12 months or so before they split. As awesome as Ambrose is, it's undeniable that he was not the WWEs choice. It was predictable, and the IWC don't like predictable. So, the live audience didn't punish WWE, they punished Reigns through no fault of his own, whilst giving Dean Ambrose the typically predictable already worn-out over-exaggerated face reaction. Now, Reigns is back to treading water as WWE tread eggshells around giving him another push (through fear of THAT reaction on Raw this week). Meanwhile, where's Ambrose? No better off than Reigns, that's where. That is resistance to change, subconceiously it's as if the IWC prefer Cena at the top. "Better the devil you know". In turn, WWEs ratings are now being punished. Whadayaknow. Cheer the guy at the bottom, boo the guy at the top. And when the roles reverse, so do the crowd responses. Est. 2005, it's called the "Cena-Era". Cenas painfully forced (and widely successful) push in 2005 gave wrestling fans anxiety and a fear of common time-old wrestling conventions. So the minute WWE try and make another Cena, we crap ourselves. Or in other words, BOOOOOOOOOOO "WE WANT _____" (insert recently endeavoured midcarder) Reigns not being the guy has nothing to do with the poor ratings. Get it through your head, the fans didn't want Reigns as the top guy. There is still no proof they want him to be it currently. He is currently in the upper mid-card. The fans wanted Ambrose because he was the most charismatic of the three members of the Shield. All Reigns is is a pretty boy. He isn't charismatic. He is a decent worker. He is the new Batista/Goldberg/Luger, not the new Stone Cold/Rock/Cena. He isn't material for the face of the company. Ambrose, Bryan, and (non-chicken sh*t) Rollins are material for face of the company. |
|
|
|
Post by Sizzle on Oct 14, 2015 15:54:59 GMT -5
the show is pathetic writing sucks and sorry but they are putting on better matches in nxt than on raw. they need to get rid of the damn pg rating and go back to the style of the attitude era. You mean the NXT weekly show that is mostly full of squashes? Also, it's been said countless times but the PG rating is ABSOLUTELY NOT the issue. But it's cool to say "Oh it's PG, PG sucks, TV-14 was better!" Just be cool like that guy. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 14:00:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 15:57:45 GMT -5
Not quite like that. Let's not forget the most important part of Ambroses ascension, it was not by design. Fans radiated largely towards Ambrose because it was clear as day that he was not the member of The Shield whom was selected to be the solo babyface. That was obvious for 12 months or so before they split. As awesome as Ambrose is, it's undeniable that he was not the WWEs choice. It was predictable, and the IWC don't like predictable. So, the live audience didn't punish WWE, they punished Reigns through no fault of his own, whilst giving Dean Ambrose the typically predictable already worn-out over-exaggerated face reaction. Now, Reigns is back to treading water as WWE tread eggshells around giving him another push (through fear of THAT reaction on Raw this week). Meanwhile, where's Ambrose? No better off than Reigns, that's where. That is resistance to change, subconceiously it's as if the IWC prefer Cena at the top. "Better the devil you know". In turn, WWEs ratings are now being punished. Whadayaknow. Cheer the guy at the bottom, boo the guy at the top. And when the roles reverse, so do the crowd responses. Est. 2005, it's called the "Cena-Era". Cenas painfully forced (and widely successful) push in 2005 gave wrestling fans anxiety and a fear of common time-old wrestling conventions. So the minute WWE try and make another Cena, we crap ourselves. Or in other words, BOOOOOOOOOOO "WE WANT _____" (insert recently endeavoured midcarder) Reigns not being the guy has nothing to do with the poor ratings. Get it through your head, the fans didn't want Reigns as the top guy. There is still no proof they want him to be it currently. He is currently in the upper mid-card. The fans wanted Ambrose because he was the most charismatic of the three members of the Shield. All Reigns is is a pretty boy. He isn't charismatic. He is a decent worker. He is the new Batista/Goldberg/Luger, not the new Stone Cold/Rock/Cena. He isn't material for the face of the company. Ambrose, Bryan, and (non-chicken sh*t) Rollins are material for face of the company. If any reply justified my comments, it's this one. WWE has a formula, it hasn't changed for 15/30 years. Ironic that the 3 you named are the exact 3 that WWE aren't making their number 1 babyface, and the exact 3 which most others feel should be at the top. And THATS why it won't happen. I'm on your guys side, seriously. I'm just not deluded enough to think WWE is going to change, because they never have and never will. Regardless of fan fuelled campaigns and complaints. In January, ratings will peak, and this will all be forgotten. Just like every year. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Oct 14, 2015 16:00:42 GMT -5
Its not really about a specific guy anymore, Its beyond that. The entire product is just terrible. The writing is atrocious, The storylines are atrocious, The booking of individual superstars is laughable. Everything is just  ing bad. |
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Oct 14, 2015 16:27:09 GMT -5
Time to bring the XFL back
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 14:00:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 16:34:32 GMT -5
I also find it mind boggingly frustrating that when somebody disagrees with my opinion regarding "future stars", they start to draw comparisons with stars of the past. Such as Goldberg, Austin, Luger, etc. there will NEVER be another of any of them.
"NEW" stars is what we want, remember? And that means unique and uncomparable with previous generations. Is it that much of a impossibility that the business has simply ran out of original ideas?
Seth Rollins is pushed as a new version of a classic 80s heel, but the booking has been horrendous. It's still worked though, yano why? Because regardless of the booking, we the fans WANT him to succeed almost universally. Can you say that about Reigns? No. And that's the problem.
Hard facts.
|
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Oct 14, 2015 18:14:05 GMT -5
Reigns not being the guy has nothing to do with the poor ratings. Get it through your head, the fans didn't want Reigns as the top guy. There is still no proof they want him to be it currently. He is currently in the upper mid-card. The fans wanted Ambrose because he was the most charismatic of the three members of the Shield. All Reigns is is a pretty boy. He isn't charismatic. He is a decent worker. He is the new Batista/Goldberg/Luger, not the new Stone Cold/Rock/Cena. He isn't material for the face of the company. Ambrose, Bryan, and (non-chicken sh*t) Rollins are material for face of the company. If any reply justified my comments, it's this one. WWE has a formula, it hasn't changed for 15/30 years. Ironic that the 3 you named are the exact 3 that WWE aren't making their number 1 babyface, and the exact 3 which most others feel should be at the top. And THATS why it won't happen. I'm on your guys side, seriously. I'm just not deluded enough to think WWE is going to change, because they never have and never will. Regardless of fan fuelled campaigns and complaints. In January, ratings will peak, and this will all be forgotten. Just like every year. WWE is in the Entertainment industry. The Entertainment industry is a very elastic, consumer market. This means if you don't please the costumers, they will eventually take there business somewhere else as their product isn't a necessity. The only real exception is if your product is socially relevant (i.e. The Walking Dead, The Super Bowl, etc.), which WWE has not been in 13 years. They will eventually have to listen to their consumers if they want to survive and succeed. |
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Oct 14, 2015 18:21:02 GMT -5
the show is pathetic writing sucks and sorry but they are putting on better matches in nxt than on raw. they need to get rid of the damn pg rating and go back to the style of the attitude era. You mean the NXT weekly show that is mostly full of squashes? Also, it's been said countless times but the PG rating is ABSOLUTELY NOT the issue. Here's something funny. WWE wasn't TV-14 until like 2000-2001 for Violence, Language, etc. It was TV-14 for sexual situations from 1998-1999, meaning for Sable, Val Venis, and the Godfather. And remind me, were Val and/or Godfather the big stars of the Attitude Era? |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Oct 14, 2015 20:53:44 GMT -5
 I'm actually happy about this. Learn, WWE, learn! |
|
johnnyaustin21
Main Eventer
Joined on: Nov 21, 2011 14:16:20 GMT -5
Posts: 1,609
|
Post by johnnyaustin21 on Oct 18, 2015 16:13:38 GMT -5
My idea to try and spice things up and to turn the ratings around and bring back the fans to the house shows and arenas would be to do again another brand split.My idea would be for RAW to have the bigger named guys and older talent,guys viewed as real WWE guys like Cena,Orton,Show,Kane,Reigns..ect while Smackdown would be more of the indy talented guys like Rollins,Owens,Joe,Balor,Ambrose...ect and then have the tag team division and women's division also on different brands to give both a very different feel.So RAW would have more of the old school WWE style and tag team stuff and focus more on the characters and storyline kind like back in the old Attitude era while Smackdown would focus more on the younger talent and indy guys also with the women's division.Then finally have two huge named wrestlers as the GM's of both shows guys along the lines of Triple H,Rock,Flair,Sting,Austin,Foley,Edge,Hart,HBK,Taker...ect whomever you can get and build up a real feud between the two.
|
|
johnnyaustin21
Main Eventer
Joined on: Nov 21, 2011 14:16:20 GMT -5
Posts: 1,609
|
Post by johnnyaustin21 on Oct 18, 2015 16:20:38 GMT -5
I still think when sting signed they should have done some sort of wcw angle with sting,big show, jericho, Booker t etc.. I believe that would have brought ratings up a bit that would have been sweet 15 years sgo Why past their primes but that would have been at least somewhat interesting.How about just bring back WCW and having that as a different brand and replacing Smackdown.You could then have the few WCW guys left that still wrestle like Big Show and Jericho over on the show,Booker T on commentary and have Flair or Sting as the GM of the show. |
|
mrassbillygunn
Main Eventer
WF 10+ Year Member
Joined on: Jul 23, 2011 19:35:48 GMT -5
Posts: 4,298
|
Post by mrassbillygunn on Oct 18, 2015 16:50:45 GMT -5
Although this is a cause for concern for WWE, in the grand scheme of things the numbers are still steady and all things considered pretty successful. If you really want to change WWE stop watching and unsubscribe to the network. You might not think you are going to change things but its the first step to voicing your resentment of the current product. Its rubbish guys, I mean seriously it is pathetic.
If you want to keep up with things buy the annual dvd set each year, thats what I do and it saves me sitting through all the nonsense each week.
|
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Oct 18, 2015 17:00:33 GMT -5
You mean the NXT weekly show that is mostly full of squashes? Also, it's been said countless times but the PG rating is ABSOLUTELY NOT the issue. Here's something funny. WWE wasn't TV-14 until like 2000-2001 for Violence, Language, etc. It was TV-14 for sexual situations from 1998-1999, meaning for Sable, Val Venis, and the Godfather. And remind me, were Val and/or Godfather the big stars of the Attitude Era? Godfather was more over than a large majority of the current roster. Some people are very adamant that TV parental ratings mean nothing. Walking Dead is a different TV show completely if it's TV-PG or TV-14, as are a host of other shows that use a looser rating to try new ideas and plot devices. Bringing up the Godfather is not a good example, since you had a generic wrestler no one gave a crap about in the New Generation in Kama, then put a risky gimmick on him and he became massively over. He doesn't get over without that looser TV-14 rating. The TV -14 was a result of DX, who I would think you would agree were huge stars of the AE |
|
Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD
Main Eventer
I need a monster condom for my magnum sized dong.
Joined on: Nov 25, 2011 16:25:54 GMT -5
Posts: 4,713
|
Post by Dr. Mantis Toboggan MD on Oct 18, 2015 19:10:04 GMT -5
Here's something funny. WWE wasn't TV-14 until like 2000-2001 for Violence, Language, etc. It was TV-14 for sexual situations from 1998-1999, meaning for Sable, Val Venis, and the Godfather. And remind me, were Val and/or Godfather the big stars of the Attitude Era? Godfather was more over than a large majority of the current roster. Some people are very adamant that TV parental ratings mean nothing. Walking Dead is a different TV show completely if it's TV-PG or TV-14, as are a host of other shows that use a looser rating to try new ideas and plot devices. Bringing up the Godfather is not a good example, since you had a generic wrestler no one gave a crap about in the New Generation in Kama, then put a risky gimmick on him and he became massively over. He doesn't get over without that looser TV-14 rating. The TV -14 was a result of DX, who I would think you would agree were huge stars of the AE At RAW's highest Ratings, 2 weeks before and one week after OTE 1999, DX had basically disbanded (Both Triple H and Chyna were with the Corporation and Billy was turning soon). After Shawn became inactive, DX became more tame. They weren't constantly flashing people or having the fans flash them. They had about the same amount of cursing. Shows like the Walking Dead need the Mature ratings for the Gore in concept, like how WWE needs at least PG to be a wrestling show. You don't need adult ratings to be a good show. Some of the greatest shows of all time are TV PG: The Twilight Zone, Batman: TAS, The Simpsons, etc. |
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Oct 18, 2015 19:30:50 GMT -5
Godfather was more over than a large majority of the current roster. Some people are very adamant that TV parental ratings mean nothing. Walking Dead is a different TV show completely if it's TV-PG or TV-14, as are a host of other shows that use a looser rating to try new ideas and plot devices. Bringing up the Godfather is not a good example, since you had a generic wrestler no one gave a crap about in the New Generation in Kama, then put a risky gimmick on him and he became massively over. He doesn't get over without that looser TV-14 rating. The TV -14 was a result of DX, who I would think you would agree were huge stars of the AE At RAW's highest Ratings, 2 weeks before and one week after OTE 1999, DX had basically disbanded (Both Triple H and Chyna were with the Corporation and Billy was turning soon). After Shawn became inactive, DX became more tame. They weren't constantly flashing people or having the fans flash them. They had about the same amount of cursing. Shows like the Walking Dead need the Mature ratings for the Gore in concept, like how WWE needs at least PG to be a wrestling show. You don't need adult ratings to be a good show. Some of the greatest shows of all time are TV PG: The Twilight Zone, Batman: TAS, The Simpsons, etc. You've named a lot of older shows. The trend of TV has been to go to more mature content. Last time best Show went to a TV-PG rated show? 21 years ago. Picket Fences was the show and probably wouldn't last 2 episodes if they tried to air it today. Is it a coincidence that the best TV shows of the past decade are almost all TV MA? Now I'm not advocating for Raw to be TVMA but I feel they have greatly constrained themselves by giving themselves a TV PG rating. |
|
