[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Its fair to be critical, but when the train is chugging along really well its tough to justify making drastic changes. SNL has used the same formula for their show. They never take big risks. Show has been on the air for 40 years. At the end of the day, thats what WWE TV is closest to. Its a variety show. Not everything is going to appeal to everyone. I used to love SNL, never would miss an episode, but then somewhere in the Tina Fey era, I couldnt take the show anymore (turned into leftist propaganda), so I stopped watching. Haven't watched since. But just because The CyNick isnt enjoying the show, doesn't mean Lorne Michaels should read my complaints to the Variety Show Observer Newsletter and suddenly reverse course on his show. The show is still pretty successful. I look at it like we've decided to go our separate ways, no harm no foul. They can pretend Tina Fey is funny, and I will enjoy my Donald Trump campaign speeches in peace.

I agree once more. My argument is the show doesn't need to suck. The problem is it also doesn't need to be good.

It is largely agreed that SNL isn't very good anymore. It's just not. It's a staple, a lot like WWE, a lot like Simpsons. It's a brand. Business wise, it's GREAT. They sling merch, they are in good standings with advertisers, with network. But when things are around too long they often lose the fire, edge and passion which made them awesome to begin with.

I've made your point about a bajillion times. They don't NEED to change their formula, but all we're saying is dips in the ratings while not a big deal in the grand scheme (since you know, there is no competition) would suggest a deciline in the product. Not always, but often. And 3. some odd ratings just aren't that great. Walking Dead for instance, does a 7.0, what RAW used to do. There is NO REASON that RAW can't do that, other than it doesn't need to and the product just is not that good.

And I love wrestling so I watch new wrestling sometimes (Like Royal Rumble) and in the case of the rumble I enjoyed it because I don't watch too much and all in all it was a decent show though I didn't really care about the Roman/HHH stuff that much... not to say it was poorly done by any means, just it means fuckall. More paint by the numbers corporate style inside the box booking.

But it must be said WWE is more than capable of consistently being good, they just aren't. At it's height as a product, (I would equate this to the 1980s and 1998 and 2000-mid-way through 2001) everything intertwined and everything everyone did the most part (Barring your usual wrestling dreck that's par for the course) mattered. There was always a method to someone's madness. Characters developed.

It was NOT a variety show. The attitude era while fondly remembered for some of the shittier stuff for whatever reason, had the backbone of intricate booking at its height. Survivor Series 1998 was masterful, HHH vs Cactus Jack at royal rumber 2000, masterful. At the same time, there was always dumb shit like Austin dropping HHH from a crane or buried alive matches. But the realness of the characters and their promos was able to break through a dimension where the audience gave leeway to some of the silliness.

Now, guys go out there and they say their lines, do about a bajillion different moves and it doesn't mean anything. Because they aren't allowed to really develop.

I feel terrible for Roman Reigns because he has been mis handled much like Diesel was in 1996. Diesel would have been hella easy to book if Vince could have pulled his head from his ass in that time, but he was stuck in the past, the same as he is with Roman Reigns. People liked Reigns initially because he was a badass and lit dudes up. Now they've made him a "sports entertainer" and he has to do all this stuff that makes no sense and doesn't seem organic.

Mind you, he's a talented enough guy and has made SOME of it work, but jesus christ they literally push this guy out there every week and he's been booed probably 70% of the time (from what I can gather, as I do keep up with reports).

As soon as Vince stuck his grubby little hands into Roman, there has been a disconnect. It's so obvious. Then you have guys like Cesaro, who with all his faults, has remained a crowd favourite through the effort he puts in and is made to look average at best, constantly.

Now Cesaro isn't my choice for THE guy, but you're telling me with the same attention received by Reigns from Vince and the company, he wouldn't be at least equally as successful or moreso than Roman has been thus far?

So you protect SOME guys who maybe aren't worth the protection because you've invested time in them, but other guys who are consistent should just be happy to be part of the team.

I mean this is your usual corporate nonsense at the end of the day. But the pro wrestling I grew up with is dead and is now either Japanese which I don't connect with, ROH which is MEH, TNA which is don't get me started or the corporate brand of WWE.

I love pro wrestling, and I will gripe about its state because I WANT to be able to watch it and it annoys me that I don't have much of an alternative. The group with the resources to produce something compelling every week, chooses to coast.


My point of view is fair and not hard to understand. Your point of view is obtuse and down right insulting and irritating for the most part. You're totally free to your opinion, but we're free to tell you that you're borderline autistic.