Since last post: 4251 days Last activity: 4140 days
#1 Posted on 30.8.04 1253.27 Reposted on: 30.8.11 1256.12
A recent http:/www.PWInsider.com poll showed that fans believe Paul Heyman is the man to turn the WWE creativity problem behind. I think it shows you were a visionary in giving Heyman the book way ahead of Vince or Turner thinking about it. I can imagine Heyman was quite a handful back then, too. I have to ask you, is it true that Heyman used to book out shows on cocktail napkins? Is he like an eccentric genius and just writes the stuff down as it hits him? And, secondly, why do you think Vince and Stephanie and the rest of the McMahons just ignore the obvious, which is not only do the fans think Heyman is the man for the job, but Heyman's track record of building stars demonstrates he really is the man to turn things around? I really am anxious to read your response, and keep up the great work.
He only booked shows on cocktail napkins when we ran out of paper towels. Many times I drove to a show with Paul, usually a small venue show like Jim Thorpe, and watch him grab a napkin from whatever fast food place we stopped at actually say.... "ok, who do we have tonight?".........and then proceed to book a show filled with great angles, appropriate run-ins, and intriguing match-ups. As for the latter question..........can you say EGOS? I would assume that Vince, Pat Patterson, Kevin Dunn, Steph, and even friggin’ Lilian Garcia think they're better bookers than Paul E. Their egos don't permit them to think otherwise. They can question his people skills all they want, but I quote Kevin Sullivan, who once said to me, "This guy is like a mad scientist. He's brilliant! But they oughta lock him in a laboratory somewhere where he never gets to be around people and just let him create.”
Now I think that the name of Lillian was used to emphasise a point or three and make Heyman look good by dissing 'Lillian the ego' but maybe she is a WWE booker on the side now. Well it might explain Trish Stratus being champ again.......
Is Heyman the man to 'save' the E? His Smackdowns were brill and I always wanted to find time to see SD whe nhe was doing it but now he's not RAW seems to be superior, unless it continues like last week.
Heyman wasn't asked to step down because he was doing too good. He couldn't handle the position; writing out the lineup on napkin on the way to the show worked for ECW, but it doesn't for WWE, and he couldn't adjust in his last go around. I don't think anyone of us, maybe even Todd Gordon included, are close enough to the situation to know if anything would be different this time around.
Since last post: 3902 days Last activity: 3902 days
#3 Posted on 30.8.04 1354.02 Reposted on: 30.8.11 1354.04
Heyman marches to the beat of his own drummer so the rigid 'yes man' system of WWE isn't conducive to his creativity. Heyman was used to having the autonomy to go in his own direction, not having to filter it through layers of McMahon's. It just didn't work for either side.
I think he's better off being a talent and feeding his ideas through the wrestlers.
Although if WWE really wants to ever turn things around they're going to have to realize that the creative system they implemented in 2001 just doesn't work. It drove away one of their best writers and its led to consistently declining numbers.
Since last post: 1119 days Last activity: 1119 days
#5 Posted on 30.8.04 1507.16 Reposted on: 30.8.11 1508.25
Heyman would be brilliant. For about 3-4 months, at which point he would have burnt out ideas, and half the roster would be on medical leave. Same thing would probably occur if they gave the book to Cornette, brilliant at first, then he would burn out trying to top himself. 4 Hours of TV a week plus multi-PPV's is too much for either guy. In ECW, Heyman had 1 hour of TV a week (and that was generally just the ECW Arena house show until they went to TNN), plus a PPV every few months. And, the quality of ECW suffered once he was on TNN for multiple months and he couldn't top Awesome/Tanaka, until he sunk into the abyss of having a quarter of the show devoted to mocking RollerJam and Rock 'n Bowl.