Since Mania XX appears/hopes to be the blow-off of the late 90's era, and with that in mind, a few ideas on how to move forward without using the past as a crutch. And I won't go with the 'Give Benoit and Eddy 10 year world title reigns on RAW and SD' school of thought.
1) Say Bye-Bye McMahon's: It'll never happen, I know. But, why not have the kayfabe death of the McMahon family. Hell, I'll even not complain if they dedicate RAW and SD for a week to McMahon funerals. And, this would include all McMahon's not named Trip. And, the Al Wilson precedent allows for this to occur.
2) Re-establish Kayfabe: True, once its out of the box, it'll be tough to do. However, force the focus of the company to return to the ring, forgetting the double meaning comments that get thrown out there and re-establish the belief that the people in the matches greatly dislike each other. In addition, have the announcers build-up what's occurring in the ring, not babbling for the entire show about a subject not relevant to what is on the screen. It seems to have started already on SD, but its generally not done on RAW. Plus, with kayfabe re-established, it means a McMahon family gets killed angle could be used and not be overturned in the future.
3) Dump Jim Ross: Not just as an announcer, but it seems his time as VP of talent should come to an end as well. JJ Dillon eventually had to go, and Jim Ross should as well. He's been in the position for a decade, and a new vision/direction is necessary.
4) Far less backstage skits, far more building of angles so that suspension of disbelief can be used, rather than treating the customers like they have the IQ of a lobotomized 2 year old.
5) Phase out the old guard: If they want to give Taker and Austin etc. pushes through Mania XX, fine. However, after that point, they should be used to develop new stars. If someone tells Austin he's jobbing to Charles Robinson, he should say fine idea, and, if not, sue him for breach of contract. Same goes for Taker. If they want him to get squashed for 15 minutes with no offense and cleanly job in the middle of the ring to Sean O'Haire, he should just nod his head and go out and do his job. Forget the theory of saving these guys for 'mythical rubs' that they never give.
6) Either your a wrestler or an actor. Don't hold the company hostage for people wanting to jump back and forth.
7) No nostalgia. No Hogan/Savage at SummerSlam 2006. No Kevin Nash on a walker strolling out and giving hand signals every 5 months.
8) Midgets: Hell, bring them back for house show matches. It'll be something enjoyable for kids, and right now they need to develop a new generation of fans. Plus, it would give house shows a novelty that would differentiate itself from TV. If the kids show up, it generally means their parents or an adult are taking them, thus it means multiple seat purchases, and in all likelihood additional concessions.
9) Don't hire low level comedy writers. Comedy rarely works. If they want to go outside the field, get people who know how to write gradual drama, not stuff that will amuse a 3 year old.
10) Develop a philosophy for the company, and follow it. Don't allow the whims of certain people to cause the company to completely have to reshuffle the deck. If people don't like the way things are done, they can breach their contract and get sued.
(edited by redsoxnation on 6.11.03 1656) Why Pro Wrestling proves the INS cannot keep terrorists out of the United States: If a felon like Nathan Jones is allowed into the United States with no special skills (unless being totally inept in the ring counts, but I think there are enough totally inept people in the US to keep that skill from being unique or special), then how the hell can they justify keeping anyone else out?
I wouldn't want to say goodbye Vince or Shane. But something's gotta change. I would like to say goodbye to Linda and Stephanie however. The passing of the torch from Vince to Shane should be happening soon. However, I agree with you, they need to use Vince or Shane in a new and inventive way.
I love J.R. and while the IWC doesn't really agree with me, most of the fanbase does.
I agree with you we should drop the dumbass angles, but I mean, look at when wrestling was popular. Val got his cock chopped off, and May Young gave birth to a hand. At least they weren't as serious about those angles as they are about Kane's.
Basically Vince needs to sit down and realize that his company is in a shithole right now. And then use his genius to bring it mainstream again. You may not like Vince, but he is a genius. He just needs to sit down and do something about it.
You Samoans are all the same. You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture.
I can't explain it, but deep down inside I believe that Vince McMahon will run the WWE until the day he dies.
On on the day he dies, both WWE shows will be dedicated to his with the "Match-Word about Vince-Match-Word about Vince-Match" formula that they did for Owen Hart. But, unfortunatly, it won't seem as classy.
Were I a cynic, I'd say that the Vince dies, they'll "stop the show." But I digress....
1. You can't 'kill the McMahons' since that's just as silly an angle as anything involving Kane. It's going to be pretty dumb to see Vince on TV talking about a new commercial tie-in with WWE when he's supposed to be 'dead.' I say use Linda as the Jack Tunney-esque impartial mouthpiece perma-face, Shane as a 'gifted amateur' whose main role is to bring new guys into the company, Stephanie as a heel manager and Vince as the sleazy owner who occasionally shows up to let himself by beaten by an up-and-coming face. The key is that NONE of them should be regular characters....once every six months at absolute most.
2. Re-establishing kayfabe is impossible at this point, though a halfway measure could be achieved. Instead of pushing angles like "so-and-so hates so-and-so because he killed his pet snake," why not a more mature angle that kind of plays into the end of kayfabe? For example, have some young guy like Cena give an interview with WWE.com and make some offhand remark about how he "doesn't want to be one of those guys that hangs around forever and never does anything like Goldust." The next week, Goldust is pissed off and challenges Cena to a match. The storyline then can be Cena beating Goldy most of the time (because he IS the guy being put over) but with Goldust getting the occasional win to stick it to the cocky punk.
3. I'm torn about JR. When he's on, he's still the best announcer in the business. These good days are fewer and farther between, however.
4. AGREED. Only do backstage skits if they have a definite point (i.e. setting up a match or establishing a character through comedy).
5. I disagree to the point of jobbing out anyone to anyone, since a win over someone like Undertaker is still seen as a big deal in establishing a guy. The trick is that the next week, Undertaker shouldn't be allowed to come right back and single-handedly whip four guys, one of whom was the guy he just lost to. Even-steven booking sucks.
6. It's too early to establish new rules for the Rock, since he's the first real movie star that wrestling has ever had.
7. Nostalgia is GREAT, but in only in a 'hall of fame' sense. WrestleMania should institute a yearly HoF induction ceremony of four people, where they get to come out, get a plaque, maybe cut a short speech/promo, and get a standing O from the crowd. Old-timer matches, however, are not good.
8. YAY MIDGETS!
9. Agreed. I dunno where working for a UPN sitcom makes one qualified to write for a wrestling show.
10. The problem here is that Vince has a philosophy: WWE is a sports entertainment program starring some of the world's largest and most impressive physical specimens. Note the lack of the word 'wrestling' in this philosophy.
It is long and vigorous, like the penis of a jackass."-- Sidney Smith, describing a scholarly piece in the Edinburgh Review
Tiny: Wayne! How you doin'? Wayne: Hey Tiny, who's playing today? Tiny: Jolly Green Giants and the Shitty Beatles. Wayne: Shitty Beatles? Are they any good? Tiny: Man, they suck! Wayne: Then it's not just a clever name --- from Wayne's World
Kirk, crackers are a family food. Happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers...we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.-- Kirk Van Houten's former boss at the cracker factory
Originally posted by Kevintripod> 4) Far less backstage skits, far more building of angles so that suspension of disbelief can be used, rather than treating the customers like they have the IQ of a lobotomized 2 year old. <
I hope you mean't to say: "far less humorous backstage skits". Because you need backstage skits to help build angles.
Actually, I like to see occasional funny backstage skits, but the keyword here is "funny".
How many backstage skits were used back in the 80s? I think backstage skits bore the audience and take them out of the moment, thus it's harder to get them back into the matches. Take all the backstage skits and bring them to the ring. Jericho's Hi-Lite Reel, for example, is a perfect Piper's Pit or Barber Shop or Brother Love to get two guys out there and start a feud. Have Coach interview a guy at the top of the stage or in the ring rather than a set backstage. Move that backstage set to the top of the ramp. Just keep things in front of the paying audience. That keeps them into it.
I think that WWE needs to admit that there's a problem and stop dishing out excuse after excuse. It's to the point where I think they believe their bogus excuses about why business is down.
Admit there's a problem and rebuild! They've got the money to sustain a rebuilding phase. Everything about WWE reeks of short-term. Accept that ratings may go down for awhile, attendance may drop more but stick with the young talent and eventually it'll turn around.
Originally posted by MonteCarlHow many backstage skits were used back in the 80s?
That's all it was! Somebody would be backstage with Mean Gene, then they'd cut to Bobby Heenan looking for women on the streets of New York, cut to Gorilla Monsoon who just shakes his head, and then it's Hillbilly Jim v. Some Jobber. The majority of weekly programing during the wrestling boom in the 80s was skits and squashes. Only the main event or PPV match would be a relatively marquee matchup, and even then it it tended to be more along the lines of Rick Martel v. Tito Santana. During the 90s boom, too, a majority of the program was skits, with some time off to do a match.
As for J.R.'s backstage roll, didn't he lose that a while back to Johnny Ace? And there is still no better big match announcer. Michael Cole may be better week to week, but if I had to pick an announcer for any main event it'd be Jim Ross every time.
Wisconsin Badgers: 6-3 (A Bye Week means you can't lose.)
Minnesota Vikings: 6-2 (Unless your other team is playing piss poor this week.)
I'm talking more in the case of building feuds more than the comedy skits with Bobby or pre-taped interviews with Mean Gene or in front of the blue screen. All major happenings for building a new feud happened in the ring in front of a crowd. Sure, there'd be a "control center update" or the afore mentioned blue screen interviews, but I was pointing out that backstage skits aren't needed to build feuds and angles.
Completely agreed about JR. Getting rid of him would have bad consequences. Two things I always noticed about WCW vs. WWF — WCW always seemed like an indy show because of bad lighting, whereas WWF always had a very professional-looking feel. And Tony Schiavone could never get over a big match, with his whiny delivery, the way JR could.
This will sound smarkish, but I don't give a shit. Here's their problem. Even though there have been some shakeups in the main event, it's still very clear that those with entrenched power positions are clinging to their spots. And the new guys that they're pushing aren't because of fan reactions. That's what is hurting them. I think business would be down anyway, but they almost stubbornly persist in keeping guys like Benoit, Eddy, RVD and Booker away from the main events, despite getting great reactions. They get to flirt with the big time, but are quickly shunted down the card, after getting killed by either UT or HHH, depending on the show. Remember how big things were gonna be in RVD's future after his title feud with HHH last year?
On RAW, the main eventers are HHH and Goldberg. No one else even comes close to getting cred. And the boring thing is, there's no enticing the fans that anyone else could break through. On Smackdown, it's a little bigger - Brock, UT, Angle and sometimes Big Show. That's it. And most of those guys, including sadly Angle, have been disappointing.
I think the most disturbing trend is the new "ruthless agression" policy. I take that to mean that a premium will be placed on size, on big and intense guys. I guess Vince has a fetish with size if he thought something like the WBF could get over, but I don't see the fans sharing the enthusiasm. There is definitely a place for them, but as fans, our tastes are wide ranging, and we can accept a variety in our main events. Why not give Rey Mysterio a title shot? Not to win it, but just to show us something a little different. The fans have clued into the caste system and it's sapped all the spontenaeity out of the shows. And with the wrestling fad dead, they desparately need to keep the hangers-on entertained.
-- Asteroid Boy
Wiener of the day: 23.7.02
"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex "Was he no-selling?" - Me
I'd love to see them build to something like Austin/Undertaker unification retirement match, so that the winner unifies the title and the loser retires. The shocking swerve would be that the winner decides to retire, too, and we get a HUGE tournament for the title. Tournaments RULE.
Any-hoo, I want to see JR & the King off my TV, but there's nobody else to turn to...yet. I say get Joey Styles and bring him onto RAW and make things more edgy and new.
FLAMES: 5-5-0-1; 11 pts; Oilers always suck
SURVIVOR: PEARL ISLANDS: 10 Remain [Tijuana, Andrew, RyanO, Darrah, Jon, Rupert, Christa & Sandra plus 2 ~MYSTERIOUS OUTCASTS~]
One thing I agree with wholeheartedly is that WWE needs to pick a direction and run with it. That will make a lot of difference in terms of long-term planning and continuity between shows.
The read scoop behind the Triple HHH - Stephoney Hearst-Helmsley wedding and an EXCLUSIVE, JAM-PACKED interview with Road Warrior Aminal!!! All this plus an exclusive moves guide for Smack! Down Bring The Pain in the latest Inside The Ropes!!!
Originally posted by redsoxnation5) Phase out the old guard: If they want to give Taker and Austin etc. pushes through Mania XX, fine. However, after that point, they should be used to develop new stars. If someone tells Austin he's jobbing to Charles Robinson, he should say fine idea, and, if not, sue him for breach of contract. Same goes for Taker. If they want him to get squashed for 15 minutes with no offense and cleanly job in the middle of the ring to Sean O'Haire, he should just nod his head and go out and do his job. Forget the theory of saving these guys for 'mythical rubs' that they never give.
6) Either your a wrestler or an actor. Don't hold the company hostage for people wanting to jump back and forth.
Got to take issue with these. First of all, the "old guard" point is nothing but an unrealistic fanboy wet dream. A top guy automatically has creative control whether anyone likes it or not. This cannot be changed or ignored. Losing Undertaker or Steve Austin over a job to some guy who hasn't drawn a dime yet is not going to be worth it long-term. Losing Bret Hart over a job to Shawn Michaels was one thing, those were two established guys, but you can't run a star out of the company if you haven't got another one waiting in the wings.
This is not any different than a movie star getting things he wants, and yes, they sometimes do have scripts changed to suit their desires. It's not common, but it has happened. When someone makes you money, you have to treat them better than the rookies who haven't done shit for you yet. It's just common sense.
For what it's worth, most guys don't flat-out refuse; they give conditions. Austin was saying he's not the first guy you feed to a reckless Brock on free TV in an unadvertised match, and though I passionately loathe Austin, I can't disagree with that. 'Taker eventually did the honors. Stroke their egos if they'll eventually do what you want.
As for the actor/movie thing, I don't see how anything has been "held hostage" for the Rock. They operate (and always have) under the assumption that he isn't coming back. When he is back, they use him (and when he's there he helps give the impression that the product is not complete garbage by being entertaining). Maybe you mean Triple H...but it's too early to tell what's going on there in regards to his movie career.
And killing the McMahons is just ridiculous. They'd still have to do press conferences so that'd be pointless.
Other than that, I agree.
What do you call Albert Einstein beatin' off? Give up? A stroke of genius!