Quote:
Originally Posted by Dastardly Dale Newstead
Chris Kreski I believe was the guy in 2000. The last year with consistently good writing and it showed in the ratings. Wrestling wasn't even a "fad" anymore in 2000, it was just so fucking good and the writing so cohesive that people watched it.
Smackdown Six was good for the length it lasted (too fucking short) because it was Heyman. And he ran in with Stephanie and she is literally one of the worst wrestling minds around. I get she's a "good" performed but the bad FAR outweighs the good.
*awaits CyNick to tell me I'm a Meltzer sheep*
|
Ratings would suggest the 2000 time period was still part of the boom period, so yeah, ratings were good. But it would be easy enough to look up week by week ratings to see how the storylines did in terms of retaining or growing the audience.
The big problem with your statement is about Stephanie. This is where you reveal that you are a Meltzer sheep because it's the type of ill informed rhetoric that comes out of his rag of a publication. My guess is you've never drawn a paycheque from WWE, much less been in the inner circle where the real creative decisions are made. You may have read or heard some glorified errand boy claim to know who made the major calls, and you may believe where so called journalists recount this stuff as fact, but I know that most of the stuff reported related to creative is without factual evidence.
What we do know from people in the know (guys like Bruce Pritchard) is that creatively the buck stops with Vince. It did in 1990, in 2000, in 2010, and likely in 2020. So everything good with the creative should be credited to Vince, and everything wrong creatively should be blamed on Vince.