|
07-05-2004, 02:03 AM
|
#41 |
|
President of Freedonia
Posts: 58,329
  
|
Damn, no one has the patience to read my big-ass post.
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 03:23 AM
|
#42 | ||
|
Cactus died for your sins
Posts: 1,002
|
Quote:
What would you rather see? 8 minutes of Jericho vs. Benoit, or 15 minutes? Another benefit of long matches on TV is the improvement of less experienced workers. Batista and Orton are thrown in there with two veterans and it helps them. It must be working, because Batista's been really, really fun to watch for me. Quote:
McMahon's played out; Austin, Foley, and Rock are gone; Angle's Professor X; Jericho is stil Jericho, but his midcard face Jericho. Now, their strengths lies in guys who can put out *** matches regularly, so they should play to that, and become more of a wrestling show. They haven't done enough, I feel; we're still only getting about 45 minutes of wrestling, and that usually involves a snoozefest women's match. WWE actually has an assortment of capable undercard workers that can put on entertaining TV matches - especially since there's so much useless crap on the shows right now. |
||
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 05:28 AM
|
#43 |
|
Capcom's Corporate Champ
Posts: 2,571
|
I must be in the extreme minority here, reading the replies.
I don't think so much that the roster split is a failure; in fact, I still think it is a very good thing. The problem is, which has been repeated ad nauseum, that WWE sits on its talent, while going to the wrong side of the well for TV time. For every good thing I see on TV, I see one or two things worse. For example... we have finally seen the elevation of great wrestlers such as Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero. Unfortunately, since WWE's creative has had a bad habit of jumping the gun, we have also been forcefed a few feuds and pushes that just simply aren't believable. The current situation with JBL is perhaps one of the worst examples since the HHH vs. The World (it seemed) sagas of 2002-2004. Since WWE absorbed WCW, and a roster split happened, I like many others, hoped that there would be two quality shows featuring WCW vets, WWE vets, and a bunch of newcomers to keep things fresh, plus some stuff that had never been seen on WWE TV before. WWE finally did the right thing by establishing an upper card belt and a midcard belt for both shows (though, I think the World and US championships should have been on the same show, while the WWE and IC championships should have been on the same show). There is also one specialty belt for each show, which is great. If you wanna see women's wrestling (I don't mind it, but like all WWE wrestling, it would be nice if it weren't so "safe". With the inclusion of Jazz, and Victoria's early matches, I was excited that they might be moving away from that...but alas...) watch Raw. If you like cruiserweights, watch SmackDown. It should be simple as to showcase what you have, have some storytelling here and there, and put on a good show. One thing I was also excited to see happen was that when the likes of Jericho, Benoit, and WWE's homegrown Kurt Angle putting on matches that got great response for the fans, WWE's actual wrestling was about to return. When the "seperate" SmackDown finally was launched, for a good while we got a great picture of that. The way it's put on paper, WWE should be doing at least marginally well. The (pseudo) departure of Rock, the burnout and subsequent departure of Austin, and other great stars just like the departure of the 80s greats to WCW have spelled the same sort of downturn for WWE now as it did then. I don't see the roster split as a failure, rather I just don't see creative -trying- to make it succeed anymore. I don't know who's saying what, or doing what...but it needs to seriously get into gear. Believe me, even if they cut wrestlers, the one thing I don't want to see with the top stars we do have is a combined show all over again. With WWE so anxious to get behind HHH (I hate using him so much as a scapegoat since I liked him back in his greater days, but it's true) and other people who have a tendency to hog the spotlight, it could be some of the most unwatchable wrestling since the early 90s. A unification at Wrestlemania could very well be too soon. (but we all know how WWE loves jumping the gun, so we just might see it) Like I said, it's been said a million times, but they need to stick to keeping the McMahons off TV (they've been doing a pretty good job of doing this)....Stone Cold Steve Austin is gone, and even if he were here, doing the whole "evil owners" bit has long run its course (it's even lame when other feds do it). WWE's biggest weakness is the stubborn ignorance of its past failures, closely followed by trying to repeat past successes in the exact same manner in which they were achieved, to the point of staleness. Why is John Cena in some respects portraying a palette-swap of babyface Rock circa 2000? (Check the great promos, but the predictable match formula. He even has a "taunt" attack like The Rock's!) Why is Randy Orton in some respects portraying a palette-swap of heel Rock circa 1998? Why was HHH trying to be a cheap ripoff of Ric Flair back in 2003? Why does WWE insist that that we want to see ridiculous, soap-operatic nonsense that you know is gonna be aborted (no pun intended) like the Kane/Lita thing all the time (or rather, I should just say the Katie Vick debacle.... Truly, sometimes, it does work (see Stone Cold Steve Austin), but now, it just seems like they're throwing things at the wall to see if it will stick. Why do we have to see gimmicks like Kenzo Suzuki's, that are way misplaced in today's wrestling world? I'll reserve judgement on La Resistance (they have become The New Quebecers, anyway)...but Kenzo, not only does he seem like Tajiri without the SCOPE, but he seems like he's gone through a horrible time machine. Why not take the post-Resistance Rene Dupree route and let him be a modern day Japanese wrestler who has disdain for the USA without all the Sanjuro-wannabeisms? What made WWE great is that in their top superstars, you had never seen them anywhere else. You might see elements of the past in them, but really, they weren't taken from anywhere else. The Rock? Yeah, he's a bit of Hogan, and a LOT of Flair. The name might make you think of Don Muraco. However, before 1997, there was no-one exactly like The Rock. Stone Cold Steve Austin? Sure, he might have been a repackaged version of his ECW self, with the mean streak his WCW self held. We don't even need to go into this... a Shawn Michaels might have been seen as a classic babyface of old, but when he really broke out into his own, one could say one never saw anyone like him before. Bret Hart was the answer to the pure wrestling that was the competition's strength, but few took it to the level he took it. The same goes for every other wrestler worth mentioning. What worked for past wrestlers just may not work with the current ones. I don't think it's really fair to blame the roster split...because believe it or not, it's made watching wrestling as interesting as it can be with the absence of competition. |
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 05:36 AM
|
#44 |
|
Capcom's Corporate Champ
Posts: 2,571
|
Addendum:
As for longer matches, I don't believe they've been too much of a problem. Yes, the commercial breaks are annoying. As mentioned before, this helps the younger wrestlers tighten their technique. Also, to be fair, WWE isn't subjecting us to long matches featuring A-Train or Bob Holly either. They usually reserve them for the main event(-caliber) matches. I think people are seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors when they talk about the need to return to "Crash TV" style matches as WWE had back in the Attitude era. Sure, they got a lot of people TV time...but on the downside... a lot of them, well....sucked. They almost always ended in DQ, and became quite repetitive. Just look at most WWE PPVs in 1998 to see what I'm talking about. When I watch TNA Impact, I think the really fast matches could stand to slow down a little, lest they resemble a spotfest. (Or a really great match in Smackdown! Here Comes The Pain for PS2.... at worst, a match in Smackdown! Know Your Role for PS1.) If a match needs to be fast, it will be. That's what WWE matches seem to reflect nowadays, and that's the way it should be. |
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 06:30 AM
|
#45 |
|
Father of Hinduship
Posts: 21,083
|
Batsu, Big Vito, Wondermouse,
Batsu, Big Vito, Wondermouse, (everyone else who made well thought out responses)......I really appreciate your feedback. I read each and every one of your posts.
When I have the time, I will try and write out a well thought out response. |
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 02:07 PM
|
#46 |
|
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Wondermouse:
I would rather see Jericho-Benoit work 50 minutes if I had the choice. But this isn't about what I would like as a fan. My likes are quite frankly irrelevant because I represent such a small portion of the fanbase that they would go out of business if they only tried to cater to my likes. You have to adjust the product to represent the biggest group of people as possible. I think people prefer to see shorter matches. Just from the people who I know and consider casual fans,t hey get bored when matches go beyond 10 minutes on RAW or SD, and they especially hate it when a match goes to a commercial.
The other problem, like I said, is that when you have 20+ minute matches once or twice every single RAW and SD then what do you do on PPV? At least with the 7-10 minute match formula, you had those matches, usually the big ones end in DQ (which is fine for TV), and thn on PPV you could come back and go 15-20 and it seems special and therefore worth the money. Now they are giving away a 35 minute match between HBK and Benoit, well whats left for PPV? Why would I order a PPV when I can see those matches for free? The TV should be built to draw as many fans as possible and keep them as long as possible, and then the PPVs should cater to the hardcore fans who are likely to enjoy longer matches. In terms of getting experience, well thats why they have house shows. Learn how to work there, not on TV. |
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 02:16 PM
|
#47 | |
|
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
Quote:
The only thing is that you would have to release a lot more guys, because there just wouldn't be enough TV time for them all. Well, check that, they could use them all, but the creative team never utilizes Velocity and Heat to its potential, so. I'd like to see a guy like RVD main event, but it aint gonna happen. He's stuck in the role he's in. The only other guy I really disagreed with was Dupree, I'd keep him as a singles guy, maybe he could form an alliance back up with La Res, but I'd keep him as a solo act. Oh yeah, and Edge and Christian should be reunited as a heel faction, maybe with Angle too. Who, if he had to retire could then act as "Coach" for a bunch of heels. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 07:33 PM
|
#48 |
|
Cactus died for your sins
Posts: 1,002
|
But the WWE rarely gives away a PPV match. For example, HBK/Benoit for the world title ended without a clean finish, and that match would be able to draw - especially since that match was so good.
My "what would you rather?" question was in response to your idiotic statement that a bad match in 8 minutes would be a bad match in 15. (As a side note, I don't think I'd wanna see Benoit/Jericho go 50...). The idea of saving matches for pay per views is a fine one, but many times RAW or SD goes 8 weeks without a pay per view. You can't just withhold good wrestling on TV with that excuse, if there's that long between PPVs. A TV match and a house show match are fundamentally different, because there's that extra IT factor. You're being seen by millions of people, not just 5000. The biggest rule of TV is to not give away big matches. That's fine. But you can cheat a little. For example, Hogan/Goldberg is THE example of blowing your load too early and losing millions. Batista/Jericho is nowhere near that. Like I said before, Batista/Jericho won't be relied upon to draw. That'll really be up to Benoit/HHH and whatever Eugene's up to. Now, if they were giving away Benoit/HHH every week you'd have a point. |
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 08:39 PM
|
#49 |
|
Make the IWC Great Again
Posts: 8,922
|
But on RAW especially, they have far too many long matches. I have no problem putting a big time match on RAW as long as its done sparingly, but when you get more than one 15 minute match every week the fans get burned out to that length of match, regardless of who is in it. The numbers are all the proof that you should need. TV numbers are flat, but house shows and PPVs are going down, and going down fast, thats not good.
And saying a bad 8 minute match will be worse in 15 is not absurd. If you use Benoit and Jericho as an example, they would have a good match in 8 minutes, it wouldn't be as good as a 15 minute one, but it wouldn't be bad either. Whereas a match that is bad in 8 minutes 9 times out 10 will be horrible in 15. This is my last post on the subject, when they used the shorter match formula ratings were better, now they have longer matches and people dont seem as interested in their houses and PPVs. Thats not the only reason, but its also obvious its not working. |
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 08:42 PM
|
#50 |
|
BJ Tomczik
Posts: 21
|
in all honesty, i think the WWE needs something bigger then a Raw vs. SD angle, they need something more crazy, idk what, but it's needed.
SMackdown needs a stable...bad, there is a start |
|
|
|
|
07-05-2004, 08:58 PM
|
#51 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
CAN'T argue the numbers 
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2004, 07:18 AM
|
#52 |
|
Triple A's a bitch
Posts: 1,039
|
I'm kinda undecided on this issue.
I can see where a lot of you guys are coming from on re-uniting the rosters, and I can also see why they should be kept seperated. I think the main reason that people are calling for the rosters to be reunited is because right now RAW > Smackdown. If Smackdown was competing with RAW on an equal basis, then the roster split wouldn't even be discussed. Now this is down to several reasons, namely horrendous writing, loss of talent in a short period, overloading of the roster on RAW, and major bouts of inconsistency. This is a major abbreviation of what is wrong with Smackdown. RAW has been pretty solid for a while now, but they're making their own mistakes all the time too. The transfer of wrestlers on the whole between shows hasn't worked that well either: Benoit on Smackdown = solid technical matches every week Benoit on RAW = tag matches, occasional run-ins, rare singles matches. Edge on Smackdown (pre-injury) = huge pops, rising star Edge on RAW = upper mid-card, little credibility However..... Rico on RAW = weird jobber Rico on Smackdown = Tag Team Gold! Everyone has discussed their problems with Smackdown and RAW, their favourites with both shows, wrestlers, pushes, burials, potential storylines, etc for as long as we've all been posting here. SO..... Here's my take if they decided to re-unify the rosters: If they are going to re-unify the rosters, then they should do so with a difference. Otherwise we could end up with 2 HHH shows, and most of the same talent twice a week. This needs to be avoided like an orgy at Katie Vicks house! Tag Division: Get a list of about 24 wrestlers and make up 12 tag teams. These have to compete in a league. Only the league leaders can challenge the title holders. 4 tag matches per week, and given there is RAW, Smackdown, Velocity, Heat, etc, there will be plenty time to deliver that. Add/Remove tag teams every few months, but any new teams that start have to come in at the bottom of the league. 3 points for a win, -3 points for a loss. They could even have it that if you get above 10 points then you can challenge. That would give them enough mathematical variety to include triple threats, etc. Cruiserweight Division: They need to do some regular solid booking on this, in order to bring back some credibility to the belt. This can be done easily, by establishing a holder as someone credible: Mysterio, Noble, Chavo. Then hold a tournament to get a number one contender at the next PPV. 3-4 CW matches per week, and you only get a shot if you are unbeaten for 3 consecutive matches, or something like that. This will give all the CW's the opportunity to get airtime, opportunity to show what they can do, and provide regular, new, challenges. Title Rules: A pecking order is established on the singles belts. Basically they should be ranked as follows: 1. WWE Heavyweight Title 2. Intercontinental Title 3. US Title A wrestler has to win the US Title, before he can challenge for the IC Title, and he must have won the US Title & the IC Title before he can challenge for the WWE Heavyweight title. What this will do is give everyone who challenges at the top of the card some credibility, as they will have had to hold each of the titles for at least one month without getting beat. In addition, each title should be defended at least once per week, otherwise the belt drops. I'm not even gonna suggest names to go into each of these categories as that should probably be a thread of it's own. The Hardcore title should be brought back and the 24/7 rule brought back, as this is a great way of injecting some action, hilarity or drama into the show at any given moment. The Womens title should be defended at least once per week, with woment being legitimate wresters or Managers/Valets. Not both. WWE Creative The need to do several different things: 1. Fresh ideas from fresh faces - hire some talented creative writers who have had nothing to do with wrestling and see what they come up with. 2. Hire some creative fans like us - again, some new ideas from the melting pot, but from an analytical fans perspective 3. Use the wrestlers to create more of their personas themselves 4. Hire wrestlers who've been their, done that, and know what has and hasn't worked in the past. 5. Brainstorm like mad! 6. Come up with some good, long-term strategies and stick with them! At least the next year should be well planned out, with contingencies for change, so that if changes are required, then they are done smoothly. 7. Take more advantage of the internet. Spread some rumours, draw some interest, leak the occasional bit of truth, leak a load of mis-direction and put up a lot of smokescreens, carry feuds onto the website, etc. There's a whole new forum out there besides television - use it more! The Wrestlers I've thought for a long time now that wrestlers need to be able to run with their characters, more than read from a script. This same point was made in Stone Cold's book. That's how you develop characters like The Rock, Stone Cold, etc. The creative team and agents should be there to assist and help, provide advice, etc, but not tell a wrestler what to do, just guide him. Commentators We need less of the inane mutterings of Jerry 'The King' Lawler, because IMO it's insulting to the intelligence of the fans. I'd like to see more technical commentary along the lines of Tazz or Bill DeMott, along side an announcer like JR. I'd also love to see the end of 'BAH GAWD, HE'S BROKEN IN HALF' whenever a mediocre move is delivered, that you can see has barely connected. Stop insulting our intelligence, and deliver commentary like a regular sports programme. And finally......... Talent Stop wasting talent. Have some good storylines made up and some decent depth to characters developed before ramming someone down the fans throats. If a wrestler is gonna be over with the fans, then it'll be up to the wrestler to be able to carry that. WWE should help that in a big way, but they have to pace it well. Look at Orton and Cena - 2 of the most liked wrestlers in the WWE, getting sensible, slow and steady pushes, gaining credibility, and developing a fan-base. More of this. Less of 'New Guy Squashes Cruiserweight' (Mordecai, Kenzo Suzuki. Let wrestlers get over with their own skills. Anyway, that's my take on if the rosters were re-united. Happy to discuss as always. Well done Heyman - good comeback thread!
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
