Last thread has well over 10,000 replies. Its body is breaking down like The Undertaker's. Seeing as we might have crossed the threshold into a new era in the business, here's a fresh new thread.
Originally Posted by New World Order:
How about we discuss talent in general:
The Rock, Stone Cold, Prime Undertaker, Masked Kane etc..
vs
Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton, John Cena, 45 year old Undertaker
Honestly, who wins? There is a reason why television ratings in the late 90's were 7-8 vs. what we have now:
"The final rating came in at a 3.7, meaning WWE has had its most successful Raw since the 1,000th special episode on July 23rd 2012."
I'm not knocking you, I just wish the product was better.
The Rock & Stone Cold are two of the most exciting promos in history, and they came alive during a sea change in what was possible in the industry. Right talent during the right time.
My argument was in-the-ring, though. I agree that the current roster doesn't have the personalities that the Attitude Era had, but the in-ring talent is extraordinary. Your comparisons were disingenuous (chiefly implying that old-ass 'Taker is a cornerstone of the product), but Daniel Bryan, since you mentioned him, is far more talented in the ring than any of the Attitude Era wrestlers you named.
Go back and watch some Attitude Era episodes of Raw. The mid- and lower-cards are not exactly stocked with talent. Goofy gimmicks, yes. But not nearly the talent that even jobbers today have. Bryan, Cena (you heard me), Wyatt, Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose, Harper, CESARO, Sheamus, Del Rio, Henry, Big E, Paige, Summer Rae, Emma, AJ, and on and on and on and I could go on forever about the top-level workers this company has right now. It is SO stacked.
I don't know what you want out of a wrestling program that WWE isn't able to provide you on any given night. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Reaper16:
The Rock & Stone Cold are two of the most exciting promos in history, and they came alive during a sea change in what was possible in the industry. Right talent during the right time.
My argument was in-the-ring, though. I agree that the current roster doesn't have the personalities that the Attitude Era had, but the in-ring talent is extraordinary. Your comparisons were disingenuous (chiefly implying that old-ass 'Taker is a cornerstone of the product), but Daniel Bryan, since you mentioned him, is far more talented in the ring than any of the Attitude Era wrestlers you named.
Go back and watch some Attitude Era episodes of Raw. The mid- and lower-cards are not exactly stocked with talent. Goofy gimmicks, yes. But not nearly the talent that even jobbers today have. Bryan, Cena (you heard me), Wyatt, Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose, Harper, CESARO, Sheamus, Del Rio, Henry, Big E, Paige, Summer Rae, Emma, AJ, and on and on and on and I could go on forever about the top-level workers this company has right now. It is SO stacked.
I don't know what you want out of a wrestling program that WWE isn't able to provide you on any given night.
This! The Attitude Era was about promos and personality with in-ring work taking a backseat (with the exception of a few guys like Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels--the Rock and Stone Cold have great mic skills and good gimmicks, but are very limited in the ring). A good part of what made the WCW beat the WWE for so long in the Monday Night Wars was their good storylines (early NWO, etc.) and great in-ring work from top to bottom. What killed WCW was when the egos of the top stars got in the way and the younger talent was getting buried so they all left for the WWE. HHH, Jericho, and Stone Cold all started out in WCW---and later stars like King Booker, Rey Mysterio, Chris Benoit, and Eddie Guerrero were all WCW stars too (though Benoit really belongs in the same class as Jericho, but he did win the WCW title right before he left the company). [Reply]
Originally Posted by New World Order:
How about we discuss talent in general:
The Rock, Stone Cold, Prime Undertaker, Masked Kane etc..
vs
Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton, John Cena, 45 year old Undertaker
Honestly, who wins? There is a reason why television ratings in the late 90's were 7-8 vs. what we have now:
"The final rating came in at a 3.7, meaning WWE has had its most successful Raw since the 1,000th special episode on July 23rd 2012."
I'm not knocking you, I just wish the product was better.
Ratings are not a good comparison. Nowadays you have dvr's, lots more channels and a boatload of other streaming options. Live tv is almost obsolete except for sporting events. It's like saying the Seinfeld ratings sucked compared to the MASH ratings. Two totally different eras. [Reply]
The fact that they are bringing back Evolution shows how weak the roster is. There are no true villains or bad guys left in the WWE. You can't find a good heel anymore, it's become "cool" to like the bad guy. the Shield, the Wyatts, these guys get cheers when they fight any face where it's bad for business to the point where the WWE has to make them face with no choice in the matter. The Wyatts gimmick is losing it's character because they are cheered as good guys over the #1 guy in the company.
If they wanted a heat magnet or a true bad guy they would make Cena heel.
Even pairing Cesaro with Heyman and Cesaro is still pleasing and waving to the ****ing fans to big pops. It makes NO SENSE. [Reply]
The reason why the attitude era was so awesome was because they had to step out of their boundaries to compete w/ Bischoff and the WCW, whom for a long time, was kicking the WWF's ass in ratings.
The worst thing to happen to WWE was when Vince bought out his competition, and the WWE got too big for their own good and the product started to become stale, and the show suffered because of it. They got complacent within the past 10 yrs because there's nothing that can compete with it...not even close...WWE is like the MLB NBA and NFL...it's the top dog league in it's own profession/sport. So what's there to worry about when you have no competition?
This is when the problem started. Combine that w/ shitty writers, Vince's terrible decisions and stubbornness over the past decade, and sub-par talent/charisma/no huge superstar appeal. This past generation has zero talent...no matter how hard WWE tried to shove Cena down everyone's throats...he's no Hogan, Rock or Austin. And when it comes to actual talent (and not based on how the company/pushes uses the character), I'd say Cena is a tier 3 talent. So in a sense (at least IMO) WWE is trying to use a tier 3 talent, and they're trying to hitch the company horse to that wagon...and what you get is a stale rinse wash repeat product.
Combine that w/ a PG rating show and you take out all of the crazy beer drinkin ass kicking blood and the tits and ass, and you get shitty program no one wants to watch. The people that liked and watched the attitude era have gone to watching the UFC now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by CoMoChief:
The reason why the attitude era was so awesome was because they had to step out of their boundaries to compete w/ Bischoff and the WCW, whom for a long time, was kicking the WWF's ass in ratings.
The worst thing to happen to WWE was when Vince bought out his competition, and the WWE got too big for their own good and the product started to become stale, and the show suffered because of it. They got complacent within the past 10 yrs because there's nothing that can compete with it...not even close...WWE is like the MLB NBA and NFL...it's the top dog league in it's own profession/sport. So what's there to worry about when you have no competition?
This is when the problem started. Combine that w/ shitty writers, Vince's terrible decisions and stubbornness over the past decade, and sub-par talent/charisma/no huge superstar appeal. This past generation has zero talent...no matter how hard WWE tried to shove Cena down everyone's throats...he's no Hogan, Rock or Austin. And when it comes to actual talent (and not based on how the company/pushes uses the character), I'd say Cena is a tier 3 talent. So in a sense (at least IMO) WWE is trying to use a tier 3 talent, and they're trying to hitch the company horse to that wagon...and what you get is a stale rinse wash repeat product.
Combine that w/ a PG rating show and you take out all of the crazy beer drinkin ass kicking blood and the tits and ass, and you get shitty program no one wants to watch. The people that liked and watched the attitude era have gone to watching the UFC now.
UFC doesn't have the kind of t&a that Attitude Era WWE had (thank god; that sexism is so fucking boring looking back as someone who is no longer a hormonal teen). Beer drinking? Absent. Ass kicking? Sometimes. Seems to me UFC only reliably offers entertainment for fans of the sport itself. Similarly, WWE offers a lot to fans of pro wrestling itself. It's re-discovering tag teams &, importantly, managers. The match quality is INSANE. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mcaj22:
The fact that they are bringing back Evolution shows how weak the roster is. There are no true villains or bad guys left in the WWE. You can't find a good heel anymore, it's become "cool" to like the bad guy. the Shield, the Wyatts, these guys get cheers when they fight any face where it's bad for business to the point where the WWE has to make them face with no choice in the matter. The Wyatts gimmick is losing it's character because they are cheered as good guys over the #1 guy in the company.
If they wanted a heat magnet or a true bad guy they would make Cena heel.
Even pairing Cesaro with Heyman and Cesaro is still pleasing and waving to the ****ing fans to big pops. It makes NO SENSE.
The roster is not weak. Batista is weak, yes, but he was only brought back because of his role in Guardians of the Galaxy (the company hopes a "movie star" will help in their upcoming contract negotiations with NBC/Universal).
I'm with you in that I'm not crazy about the WWE house style regarding faces & heels. Seems like they want heels to be cowards and faces to be unbeatable. For the most part. HHH is making some of that go away. HHH is making better a lot of what Vince had hard-ons for.
The real problem with the face/heel dynamic in WWE is that faces don't often have fully formed characters. People cheer the heels because they are their own people. You know who they are and what they stand for. WWE faces over the last five years have intentionally been made nondescript: a more-or-less blank canvas to appeal VERY broadly. Therefore, Cena is vaguely urban Superman. Sheamus is Irish-fighter-guy. Rey Mysterio/Kofi Kingston = jump dudes. Even CM Punk, in WWE babyface style, is Mr. Rebel and nothing more; whereas his heel characters have been true, round characters.
TL;DR? WWE's idea that faces need to be flat characters to appeal to the broadest possible demographics is what's causing heels to get cheered so much. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Reaper16:
It's everything that people do [and should] hate Cena for. Terrible stuff.
They do shit like that for the 6 year olds in the audience and wonder why everybody teenage and above hates him.
He's also one of the most heelish 'babyfaces' in history. I've never understood why they refuse to just outright turn him. It won't hurt his merch sales a bit and he can keep visiting make-a-wish kids. I mean, it's not like he hasn't been an asshole on TV for the last decade anyway. [Reply]