I got a good 5-10 down... i'd appreciate it, if some people would share there thoughts with me. Thanks.
I'm doing a compostion on why the WWE sucks... need some reasons on why it does.
- Thread starter nyeturo989
- Start date
what do you have already ? Also were you a fan at one point or are you one who knocks it without watching it ?
I finished brainstorming and my outline.
This is the three main topics i focused on:
a. fighting technique
b. effect on the fans
c. consequences
d. The "fakeness" details
This is the three main topics i focused on:
a. fighting technique
b. effect on the fans
c. consequences
d. The "fakeness" details
Well reguarding the fakeness if you watch the matches closely you can see all the fake hits that they try to make real but the camera guys get it and you see how the persons fist is 5 ft away from the other person.
consequences:
Kids watch it and have backyard wrestling matches and someone alwasy gets hurt. Then the media and WWE get blamed and its a huge cycle of lawsuits and upset parents.
some kids just dont know that its all fake and they think they can dive 20 ft off a window and land on his friend and both will be able to get up before a 10 count. If i think of any more Ill let ya know.
consequences:
Kids watch it and have backyard wrestling matches and someone alwasy gets hurt. Then the media and WWE get blamed and its a huge cycle of lawsuits and upset parents.
some kids just dont know that its all fake and they think they can dive 20 ft off a window and land on his friend and both will be able to get up before a 10 count. If i think of any more Ill let ya know.
I think one of the major problem with WWE is it's too repetitive... The storyline kinda repeat themselves over and over again, so it gets quite boring after a while...
nyeturo989, your reasons are incorrect:
Look at what Meltzer wrote on his website today:
First off, Raw drew a 3.4 rating last night, which would be its lowest rating since early 1998 for a live show. There is a lot to say about that number, and in many ways a lot is moot by now anyway. As mentioned yesterday, TNN (and sources also indicate TSN in Canada) were less than thrilled with the content of the show. TNN was flooded with negative reaction, as was this web site. In wrestling, we all know there are two kinds of "heel heat," so to say. A ton of reaction negative is not always bad. However, when the reaction comes from your broadcast partners, it is bad, no matter what the rating. It would be nice to read into that number that the HLA segment was a disaster. It wouldn't be fair, but if the network and WWE evaluate it as such, I wouldn't mind because it was an embarrassment, not that there haven't been plenty of times in the past being a wrestling fan can be embarrassing when you're not watching the show by yourself. However, that poor rating was delivered because of the quality of the shows from the previous few weeks, combined with the debut of Monday Night Football. The show opened weak, before anyone knew that angle was coming (although it has opened weaker in the past and grown more). All that can be said about the HLA segment is that it didn't save a losing week from losing bad, which no doubt was its purpose. The show was not a success as far as growth for the most part, but if you look at how "over" the personalities on the Raw side are and the line-up of the show, take that segment out and if the company presented just a wrestling show and threw in another match in that slot, the rating would have probably been about the same.
In the early summer, we knew the summer would be largely a throwaway and time to develop new stars. In those months, they have created exactly one new star. The problem is over the summer, they lost three (Rock, Austin and Hogan). Another was overexposed in the wrong ways and went from being the guy who moved the ratings more than anyone in the company for most of the year (Flair) to a character that people feel sad when they watch him, which is not an emotion you want to deliver in that manner on wrestling. It's a star-driven business, but one that constantly needs new stars in the top mix or it grows stale. As mentioned before, the big problems occurred when the company was hot, just like in WCW, as the next generation of stars were pegged as mid carders and that's a purgatory that isn't easy to rise from, especially when the business is so structured. And there is a business history of territories that hotshot extreme angles, and leave the territory burned out for years. There was a lot of stuff in 1996-2000 that happened so quickly, and wrestling went from being fake sport to predominately a television show, and the life expectancy of those two categories varies greatly. Still, "fake sport with good workrate," while it will satisfy a certain segment of the most hardcore of fans, will not do any better without the storylines and personalities.
The Smackdown rating will be more interesting because Smackdown will be the beneficiary of more mainstream media hype than any WWE TV show in a long time. But it's hyping a segment which involves characters who weren't over and a storyline that nobody cared about. Whether the payoff is good or not (and more accounts I've heard from last night said it was good than not), the average viewer doesn't know that. To them, Billy & Chuck are wrestlers who were largely relegated to early on the card at house shows and often worked Velocity instead of Smackdown. All things considered, I'd consider a 3.4 the level where you wouldn't react. Anything lower (because last week would have been a 3.4 if there wasn't a New York pre-emption) would show the angle and mainstream failed because it was an angle people didn't care about. Anything more, and you can credit it to the angle, because there sure isn't a lot else going on.
If, and this hasn't happened yet, there becomes a consistent pattern where Smackdown's numbers don't decline while Raw's do, it should (don't know if it will, because this is a funny industry) send a pattern that at least the audience there now is more interested in good in-ring action over bad non-wrestling. At this point, the difference in Monday and Thursday from a realistic ratings (percentage of people who actually have access to the show that watch) is negligible. There are many reasons for that, but what it says is, no matter what we think right now, nobody just yet has the ratings proof of what the viewers want or don't want to see.
Thus, here are the major reasons:
1. Didn't promote young stars as legitimate contenders when the promotion was hot. (Jericho, Benoit, Angle among others)
2. Internal politics from the top stars. (HHH, Undertaker not putting over anybody.)
3. Bad writing. (How can you blow the biggest angle in the business, twice?)
4. Overexposure of stars. (How many times have you seen the same wrestlers such as Austin, HHH, and Undertaker against each other in the main event?)
5. Stephanie McMahon (Bad acting, bad boob-job, bad writing)
6. Vince McMachon (Lets Stephanie become head booker, approves of the crappy scripts you see every week)
7. Angles that go nowhere and have no purpose. (Billy and Chuck, Lesbian skit happened just this week)
8. Hot-shotting money making angles to try to get ratings at the expense of future ppv revenue. (Flair v. McMahon for control of RAW, handing a new title on Monday night without a tournament, bring in "new" stars such as Hogan and having him wrestle on tv BEFORE a ppv.
9. XFL effect. (Mainstream fans have pretty much considered the WWF/WWE a joke after the XFL was laughed out of the sports world.)
10. Loss of "bigger names" stars in a short period of time. (Austin, Rock, even Hogan)
Edit:
I almost forgot the biggest reason: No f'in competition. If WCW or ECW were still in business and/or on Monday or Thursday nights, Vince and company would be forced to be creative.
Look at what Meltzer wrote on his website today:
First off, Raw drew a 3.4 rating last night, which would be its lowest rating since early 1998 for a live show. There is a lot to say about that number, and in many ways a lot is moot by now anyway. As mentioned yesterday, TNN (and sources also indicate TSN in Canada) were less than thrilled with the content of the show. TNN was flooded with negative reaction, as was this web site. In wrestling, we all know there are two kinds of "heel heat," so to say. A ton of reaction negative is not always bad. However, when the reaction comes from your broadcast partners, it is bad, no matter what the rating. It would be nice to read into that number that the HLA segment was a disaster. It wouldn't be fair, but if the network and WWE evaluate it as such, I wouldn't mind because it was an embarrassment, not that there haven't been plenty of times in the past being a wrestling fan can be embarrassing when you're not watching the show by yourself. However, that poor rating was delivered because of the quality of the shows from the previous few weeks, combined with the debut of Monday Night Football. The show opened weak, before anyone knew that angle was coming (although it has opened weaker in the past and grown more). All that can be said about the HLA segment is that it didn't save a losing week from losing bad, which no doubt was its purpose. The show was not a success as far as growth for the most part, but if you look at how "over" the personalities on the Raw side are and the line-up of the show, take that segment out and if the company presented just a wrestling show and threw in another match in that slot, the rating would have probably been about the same.
In the early summer, we knew the summer would be largely a throwaway and time to develop new stars. In those months, they have created exactly one new star. The problem is over the summer, they lost three (Rock, Austin and Hogan). Another was overexposed in the wrong ways and went from being the guy who moved the ratings more than anyone in the company for most of the year (Flair) to a character that people feel sad when they watch him, which is not an emotion you want to deliver in that manner on wrestling. It's a star-driven business, but one that constantly needs new stars in the top mix or it grows stale. As mentioned before, the big problems occurred when the company was hot, just like in WCW, as the next generation of stars were pegged as mid carders and that's a purgatory that isn't easy to rise from, especially when the business is so structured. And there is a business history of territories that hotshot extreme angles, and leave the territory burned out for years. There was a lot of stuff in 1996-2000 that happened so quickly, and wrestling went from being fake sport to predominately a television show, and the life expectancy of those two categories varies greatly. Still, "fake sport with good workrate," while it will satisfy a certain segment of the most hardcore of fans, will not do any better without the storylines and personalities.
The Smackdown rating will be more interesting because Smackdown will be the beneficiary of more mainstream media hype than any WWE TV show in a long time. But it's hyping a segment which involves characters who weren't over and a storyline that nobody cared about. Whether the payoff is good or not (and more accounts I've heard from last night said it was good than not), the average viewer doesn't know that. To them, Billy & Chuck are wrestlers who were largely relegated to early on the card at house shows and often worked Velocity instead of Smackdown. All things considered, I'd consider a 3.4 the level where you wouldn't react. Anything lower (because last week would have been a 3.4 if there wasn't a New York pre-emption) would show the angle and mainstream failed because it was an angle people didn't care about. Anything more, and you can credit it to the angle, because there sure isn't a lot else going on.
If, and this hasn't happened yet, there becomes a consistent pattern where Smackdown's numbers don't decline while Raw's do, it should (don't know if it will, because this is a funny industry) send a pattern that at least the audience there now is more interested in good in-ring action over bad non-wrestling. At this point, the difference in Monday and Thursday from a realistic ratings (percentage of people who actually have access to the show that watch) is negligible. There are many reasons for that, but what it says is, no matter what we think right now, nobody just yet has the ratings proof of what the viewers want or don't want to see.
Thus, here are the major reasons:
1. Didn't promote young stars as legitimate contenders when the promotion was hot. (Jericho, Benoit, Angle among others)
2. Internal politics from the top stars. (HHH, Undertaker not putting over anybody.)
3. Bad writing. (How can you blow the biggest angle in the business, twice?)
4. Overexposure of stars. (How many times have you seen the same wrestlers such as Austin, HHH, and Undertaker against each other in the main event?)
5. Stephanie McMahon (Bad acting, bad boob-job, bad writing)
6. Vince McMachon (Lets Stephanie become head booker, approves of the crappy scripts you see every week)
7. Angles that go nowhere and have no purpose. (Billy and Chuck, Lesbian skit happened just this week)
8. Hot-shotting money making angles to try to get ratings at the expense of future ppv revenue. (Flair v. McMahon for control of RAW, handing a new title on Monday night without a tournament, bring in "new" stars such as Hogan and having him wrestle on tv BEFORE a ppv.
9. XFL effect. (Mainstream fans have pretty much considered the WWF/WWE a joke after the XFL was laughed out of the sports world.)
10. Loss of "bigger names" stars in a short period of time. (Austin, Rock, even Hogan)
Edit:
I almost forgot the biggest reason: No f'in competition. If WCW or ECW were still in business and/or on Monday or Thursday nights, Vince and company would be forced to be creative.
Heres a reason for you....only reason I need....
IT SUCKS!
Good lord I stopped watching that level of programming when I was 6....
IT SUCKS!
Good lord I stopped watching that level of programming when I was 6....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter