[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by mike adamle Why does everything have to be so dramatic with you. Ratings are down so people that like what they're watching are eating shit? Come on. If you don't like it so much spend your time doing something you like instead of coming off so obnoxious like you have been lately. And if you "love wrestling at its core too much" you'd realize the wrestling is better than it's ever been. Your problem is you're still looking for the engaging story driven content on WWE, when you are not going to find on a PG show. Yes the booking is bad, but what do you want? It's a PG show. Breaking Bad, Game Of Thrones, Better Call Saul etc. are all loved for their storytelling, how many of those shows are PG?

Did you just admit the booking was bad? And that the stories aren't engaging? Thank you for proving my point.

The wrestling is not the best it's ever been, in my opinion. This does come down to subjective taste, but the WWE style bugs me. The "everyone kicks out of everything" style ruins the drama for me. The 50/50 booking of winners and losers doesn't help with things, but guys are also very 50/50 in the ring too. I'm sorry, but give me Shawn Michaels over Kevin Owens any day. You might say "unfair comparison," but Kevin Owens is in the top guy position now. It's time for him to be a top guy.

And I completely disagree with you on the PG point. Just because something is aimed at children doesn't mean it has to condescend. The best children's movies are beloved by adults too. If the WWE were a children's movie, it'd be one of those shitty ones with a CGI dog wearing sunglasses and dancing around to a pop hit from the early 2000's.

Also, more children would have been watching when wrestling was "cool." When their older brothers or the rebel kids at school liked it, I bet you it got more attention than John Cena hamming it up to them gets. I know his relationship with charity is very important and he's a great man, but the idea that you need to be the fucking Wiggles to appeal to younger demographics is just wrong.

Originally Posted by KIRA We are also not their target audience anymore what you think of as can't miss tv and what that child who buys John Cena merch considers can't miss TV are going to differ.

This is a very good point, but the WWE doesn't really seem to hit the target demos it is after anyway. Most people watching are people that would have watched during the Rock 'n' Wrestling period, or the "neckbeards that cheer anything" as Gerty hilariously put them.

I rephrase my point about appealing to these demos not necessarily meaning that there needs to be overt pandering. Kids know when that shit is going on. A true enough point about what the WWE is trying to do though.

Originally Posted by Destor The thread title is preposterous, though i have not watched the videp. The WWE is dying to make new stars. The problem is they dont have any on their roster.

I agree that they don't have any on their roster. I also haven't watched the actual video. I will say that I can slightly understand what might be meant behind the idea that the WWE doesn't want to generate stars though.

Well, they want everybody to be a star within the WWE framework. Curtis freakin' Axel got to appear in a movie. They want the brand to be the star, however. After losing a bunch of his top stars full-time, Vince seemed to get a little spooked about guys out-growing the WWE. This seemed to really boil over with Bobby Lashley. Since then, no one has really been given the rocket. AJ Styles might be the only guy since Lashley, but even he had to do duties at WrestleMania.

But with that being said, I was listening to the most recent SCG Radio and Mark Henry beat The Rock at Judgment Day 1998 just prior to The Rock becoming WWF Champion, so maybe it's a thing that Vince has just always liked doing? You're not going to be a star, you're going to be HIS star, dammit!

Originally Posted by Destor Over=/= star

You mean to tell me that Scotty 2 Hotty wasn't a mega-star?!? Damn you, Destor!!!!

Originally Posted by SlickyTrickyDamon I disagree. CWC disproved that. They can make a big impact used the right way.

I do actually get what you're saying here. TJ Perkins felt like a star, I'll give you that much. But that's within that little CWC bubble. He's not about to crossover into the mainstream consciousness or anything though, come on. He'll be an over and critically acclaimed portion of RAW each week, like X-Pac in 1998, but just not watched by as many people.

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ I think you're misunderstanding. We're not enjoying the product and then looking at the numbers and using the numbers as proof that most others aren't enjoying the product either, and as a result the product = shitty currently. We're not looking at the numbers to determine whether or not we're enjoying the product or the quality of it.

I've been looking for a way to articulate why I bring up the ratings. Thank you, BCZ.

If I weren't enjoying the product but ratings were going through the roof, I'd still not be enjoying it, but I could concede that it seems to be working for a larger amount of people. I only bring up the ratings as a counter-measure to "Well, I think it's really good." You're allowed to, but that's not to say that it's evidently compelling television outside your personal opinion. More people watching =\= good, but viewers dropping off makes a very clear statement about what people are thinking.