PeterHilton
-
Posts
4,281 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by PeterHilton
-
-
<p>Interesting stuff lately in the thread about Taker/Kane and the difference between a bad broadcast network and a decent to good cable channel..</p><p> </p><p>
Just wanted to say that - in this case - the methodical booking and writing of the WWE should really benefit the Nexus/Cena storyline.</p><p> </p><p>
Because if it eventually does lead to a Cena turn (with maybe the fans and WWE roster turning their backs on Cena because of his actions even though he's being 'forced' to do what Nexus orders him to, and Cena's resentment growing) it's going to take a LOOOOONG time to make the turn stick and work effectively. </p><p> </p><p>
No sudden change. They'll need months but it could work well.</p>
-
I'm holding them to higher standards to a point BECAUSE they ARE in the spot light. You say you won't let you kids look at them as role models, but I'm sorry to say that most kids look to celebs as role models. Athletes, actors, actresses, singers, and the like. It happens.
That's society's fault, not the athletes.
And celebrities, actors, singers, and politicians are probably 100 times worse. So where would you like to start?
-
In my eyes, the thing that makes Heyman overrated is the fact that people talk of him as a GOD amongst bookers. Thats not the case. He was good, but people tend to put ECW up on a pedestal sometimes. About 7 years ago I bought a VHS (I know right) lot of every ECW ppv ever produced off of ebay. There is some real crap in there too. The guy didnt turn all the **** into gold. But thats the way people perceive him sometimes.
Saying he's overrated is totally fair, because internet nerds do act like he's some sort of all-knowing demi-god.
But some people take that "he's overrated" thing and turn it into "he's no good" which is incredibly unfair.
He was smart. He paid attention to the undercard. He recognized talent. He got the very most out of a group of guys that no other promotion would touch for the most part (I mean..Sandman? Ball Mahoney? Tommy Dreamer? Those guys were frickin horrible and Heyman turned them into draws)
He booked to and attracted older teens and young adults, something the WWF and WCW were failing at around that time.
He created characters like Taz and Raven that were relevant and accurately reflected the time, something the WWE barely manages to do even now.
Heyman was a really, really good writer and booker. ECW - as a product - completely changed the industry and it was the basis for a lot of the Attitude Era and for what Eric added to WCW to make their undercard so strong.
He's not the be-all, end-all. But he's the last truly "innovative" booker the industry has seen and that says a lot.
-
I'm not kidding myself. I just don't see why it's *oh there pros lets not push it*. Not saying it happens all the time, but it's there.
I'm not taking what they do in the game to what they do out of it. I get the spirit they need IN GAME. Football players above most because without the drive you're not going to do good. I have no problem with that. Hockey players fight. Go for it. It's part of the game, but if the same dude went and tackled a woman and beat her with a hockey stick. I'm not gonna say oh they built his ego so it's ok.
See what I mean?
Yes, but you're holding them to higher standard then that when you say you're 'shocked' by their behavior or that Ben should've been banned for what he did in the club even though no charges were filed.
They're athletes. That's all. I don't see them as deserving any kind of special treatment or expectations because they're in the public eye.
-
As an athlete, there's a difference from being mean on the field/court/whatever and then presenting yourself appropriately otherwise. The fact is, a highly successful athlete IS going to be a role model, whether they want to or not. You're the all-pro, starting QB for the Denver Broncos? Guess what: a bunch of young kids in Colorado freakin' adore you.
Meh..that's not really the athlete's responsibility, though.
it's fine to adore someone for what they do on the field. You just have to know not to look to them for anything else
Or to flip it on it's head: let's look at Tim Tebow. Fantastic guy. Fantastic human being. If he's not a legit NFL QB within 3 seasons, he's a bust.
And no one in the NFL is going to save him because he's a saint.
-
I'm sorry I don't share your logic of *there athletes they can't be nice*
I feel the same way about a random person on the street if they do the same stuff. I don't give anyone anything special because they are a PRO. If anything they ones in the spotlight should be more so held responsible for what they do. Sorry if you think I'm wrong, but that's your opinion.
I don't think you're wrong. I think you're kidding yourself.
We've built a society where gifted athletes are incredibly privileged and entitled.
They're scouted in middle school, recruited in high school, treated lie gods in college, and then given millions of dollars in the pros. And all the while no one at any time rewards them for being a "good person."
School officials cheat to get them good grades and lie to allow them to attend 'private academies.' Women of all ages throw themselves at them for the right to be taken care of for the rest of their lives (and those same women continue to throw themselves at pro jocks even knowing that they're married..even after there have been 'charges' in the past). Sponsors, coaches, and the press rush to get their attention...
Seriously, unless you're hopelessly optimistic there's just no reason to think these guys are going to be well behaved after living a life like that. The truly nice guys (the ones who don't cheat on their wives, don't cheat in school, don't take money from boosters) in professional sports are the exception, not the rule.
-
I understand to a point. Seriously though can you honestly tell me you're ok with him being there and a *role model* to others?
I can't. Sorry I think he's a douche.
I used to manage a club in Hollywood in the early 2000's..believe me, A LOT of these guys are neanderthals who have had their asses kissed for so long that they don't know how to behave and specifically treat women like toys for their amusement.
he's not a role model. I wouldn't let my kids think any athlete is really a role model.
He's a professional athlete. I don't give a crap about what a guy is like, as long as he does his job on the field.
But at the end of the day, that's all he is: a professional athlete
It boggles my mind why people do stupid things to ruin what they have. I mean seriously how many men would love to be out there doing what these guys do each and every week?You hear about it all the time it's horrible. I mean c'mon you have to have some smarts to make it where you are.
sooooo...you've lived under a rock since, what, forever?
These guys don't get their jobs for being nice guys. To be honest, being a nice guy is probably a detriment to their job.
Pro Athlete have been doing this pretty much since pro sports started. (Babe Ruth's womanizing, Micky Mantle's alcoholism, and the 1919 White Sox say hi)
You should maybe just stop expecting them to do anything other than their job.
-
My problem is they suspend him for a few games, wow. Woohoo.
Look at the rest of these people who have had charges against them?
What are you talking about????
Ben had NO charges brought against him. It was an investigation.
Unless you can somehow explain to me how the NFL should take accusations more seriously than actual court cases with actual convictions, then your argument that the NFL should have suspended him for longer than they did is just an emotional reaction.
What he did was (probably) awful. But w/o a case to back it up, the NFL really couldn't have punished him more than they did.
-
oooh...can I throw in some more old timey bookers that would've been sh*t on by any right-thinking modern audience?
Because if we're going to kill Heyman for booking a product that didn't have long-term mainstream appeal, then we should also kill Ole, Dusty, Flair, Jim Crockett, Kevin Sullivan, and anyone who ever had anything to do with that awful, awful Memphis brand of wrestling.
-
Not to overstate the obvious (and I can guess your response) but Ben didn't actually get charged did he? There was no trial...no charges files..the victim didn't sue him and declined to pursue the case...
What exactly did you want the NFL to do? Ban him for life for being an a-hole?
-
Any opinions on most under rated booker?
Kreski (my pick), Stephanie, Dusty, Ole, Flair, WCW Russo, Jarrett, Mantell?
If sabataged comes in and jumps on your head for your "ridiculous TNA bias",you deserve it for this post...
Jarrett
Dusty and Ole weren't terrible, but they also never evolved or changed.
-
I've always been shocked Melo isn't mentioned among the top 5 today in the NBA
Because he's not. He's an extremely efficient scorer and he's money for the most part in the 4th quarter, but beyond that? He's not a great passer or offensive creator..he's an OK rebounder..he's not really special on defense..his FT % is a little low for someone with his type of game...
I mean, Carmelo is a GREAT player but..
..he's not the clutch performer that Kobe is
..he's not filling up the box score the way Lebron or Wade does
..he's not the offensive passer that guys like Chris Paul or Deron Williams is
..he's not the defensive game changer that guys like Dwight or KG are
...and if "all" he is, is a shoot first forward, then the first comparison is with Kevin Durant and Melo doesn't stack up. Not at all, actually
Carmel reminds me of Dominique Wilkins at his heights; a great player and a perennial All Star and possible HOFer who is just one small step below the truly great players in his era.
-
I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
There is no reason to end the Wrestlemania streak. There is absolutely nothing anyone else can gain from it, that couldn't be gained by beating Taker in a regular PPV.
There is no reason to let Undertaker retire, anyways. He can become a "Force" to reckon with once or twice a year, and dissapear into the beyond whenever he is done with whatever evil he needs to right.
There is no reason Shaemus, Punk, or someone else couldn't beat him in a normal PPV, and not get the rub, desired result. IF a clean PPV win doesn't get someone over, ending a streak won't either.
All ending the streak does is tarnish the Undertaker's legacy, one that could be kept around, for even more years to come... even if he is pretty much retired. Just show up in October, Say "I've been watching you from the darkness, I am here to give you your dues. At Wrestlemania there will be a Casket Match...." and so on and so forth.
Undertaker isn't even 50 yet, he could easily get his body back in condition if he was on an annual or semi annual schedule.
EDIT: Right now, one of the draws to Wrestlemania is watching Undertaker "Defend" his streak. IF they end it, then they no longer have that as drawing power. I repeat, there is no reason to end it at all. However, I can come up with dozens of reasons NOT to end it.
The idea that beating Undertaker at a regular PPV would be the same as beating him at WM and ending the streak is patently ridiculous
If you want Taker to retire with the streak in tact, fine. But your comparison is bordering on the stupid.
Undertaker has been beaten on PPVs probably hundreds of times
But the guy who ended the streak? If done correctly, that would absolutely cement a guy's legacy for years to come.
-
Honestly it amazes me how the last two years everyone has said how great the NFC East was and how it's the best. Right now it looks like the NFC North, AFC North, AFC South, and AFC East are by far the best divisions.
The last couple of years, it WAS a strong division. It isn't now.
But I don't think I'd say the NFC North is any better. And - in general - the AFC is just stacked.
-
I agree with that. If I were to put money on it, I'd say Mickie won't bring an influx of fans with her. She wouldn't be a "big signing" in terms of an initial draw, but I'd consider her a potential "big signing" in terms of narrative value and skillset and weight depending on how she is used. I see great potential for fun, effective storylines and better-than-the-norm matches. Whether than translates into ratings, I don't know, but I'll have fun.
Absolutely.
I look at it in terms of "if this were my diary, would I sign her? could I write a storyline here? " and Mickie (or someone like her) is nothing but a plus in that regards...she's a bubbly face who's a solid fan favorite in a division with a bunch of natural heel types.
EDIT: I'd have chase the title for a bit, then win it and defend against a reunited TBP and Tara as the wildcard heel.
-
You're absolutely right that there's no evidence that female wrestling is what people want to see in record numbers. Women wrestling is a niche, and it's probably always going to be that way.
But, the mistake TNA is making, which is the same mistake WCW made 11 years ago, is that there is no pay-off to T&A segments, especially in a situation like the over-run: even if you make short term gains it leads to long-term losses. TNA can say that PPV buys aren't their primary revenue source and that's fine, but nobody watching that TNA over-run you're referring to was more likely to go "gee I better buy the PPV now!" It'd be one thing if they were out there saying "hey there might be nudity at this ppv!" Bizarrely enough, that would sell, albeit to a niche in TNA's already niche audience, but it also runs the risk of costing you sponsorship money and getting a bunch of values ****s after you (see: WWF in 1999 and 2000, and the resulting publicity for the PTC [consequently, this was probably the last time Stevie Richards was over in any real way]). But even if you say "well they don't want to sell the PPV," just having T&A for the sake of T&A is still bad long-term strategy because while you are drawing in casual channel flippers, you're not keeping them and you're not establishing a brand identity. And since TNA's current brand identity is that of WWE's retirement home/ rehab alternative, putting the "T&A" in "TNA" just makes the company look bad. I mean WWF could've had Sable getting her top ripped off in every overrun from 1997 to her trip out the door and it would've drawn ratings equal to or greater to what WWF was doing at the time, but to what end? Instead, WWF would end on big moments featuring their top guy(s) every week, so that Mr. idle channel changer sees Austin stunning 10 guys and he knows "this is what WWF is about: watch next week for more!" over time strong over-runs were one of the many reasons the show steadily increased in viewership.
I mean TNA needing to find an identity that isn't fundamentally derivative is a bigger problem, but high profile T&A segments is a symptom of that problem, and when they had Kong and Kim et al., they could at least point to that and say "this is how we're a wrestling alternative: we do this thing better." Now they can't really say that about anything they do outside of tag team wrestling, a concept WWE has all but abandoned.
Don't disagree with anything you're saying there; just think that there are probably more and better ways to differentiate themselves which WILL draw fans than a 'serious' women's division.
It'd be a bonus...but not essential
-
Also I am not saying that Sex appeal does not have drawing power but that a very good match/angle without sex appeal can have similar drawing power.
If the ending of good match off Kim vs Kong, or to lessen sex appeal, Kong vs bald Roxxi was in said overrun it might have even been higher.
And that's where I think you're nuts. Completely nuts.
If you honestly think that you'll get the same amount of people to watch Roxxi vs Kong as you could a catfight/striptease by someone like LVE or TBP, then you're grossly over valuing the importance of women's wrestling.
There's nothing that's happened in the last 20 years to back that idea up.
Fans of wrestling are a niche audience. Fans of wrestling who care more about the actual wrestling than the sex when it comes to women are a tiny fraction of that niche audience.
-
While it's good to has some idea about "draws" and "ratings" it's not something I want to get hung up on. I'm a wrestling fan. I want to watch (what I consider to be) good wrestling. Good wrestling requires a strong babyface you can get behind. Mickie James may not fix things for the masses, but she may fix it for me. Which is ultimately all I care about. I'm sick of forcing myself to be okay with things I don't like because of "ratingz".
That being said, I'm quite forgiving of hot chicks who don't know a wristlock from that single grape they allowed themselves to eat for lunch. However, I also like the occassional gal who can 'work'. Variety is the spice of life.
You're not wrong, but if I ever let myself believe that I'd probably jump off a cliff
I haveto believe that stories matter. I just have to.That striptease segment was... Hell, I was watching it on the edge of my seat. That was compelling stuff. It's just a shame the pay-off was so disappointing. They promised one thing, then failed to deliver. I don't think I watched the following week's episode.
To take a step back....this conversation isn't (or wasn't) about my own personal beliefs or likes. I would prefer at least some semblance of a storyline to explain what the divas are getting in to. The conv started (as usual) because of the debate on whether or not Mickie is a 'big' signing.
I actually agree that Mickie playing a traditional face could do a lot of that division because -for whatever reason - every well known KO TNA has seems to be better playing the role of a heel. Mickie could straighten that out and give things a focus...TBP united against the 'big name' from up North or whatever...so we can stop this seeminlgy endless Angelina-Velvet-Madison story.
Awesome.
But when people start saying that Mickie has afanbase that will follow her or that there's this audience for women's wrestling that will somehow make a difference for TNA....? No. That's where I disagree.
Does the KO division (when run w/a wrestling first priority) make TNA different than the WWE? Yes.
Does it make a difference in the long run? Who knows?
Does the KO division get better ratings when it's more sexualized? Yes.
Does TNA care more about ratings or differentiating itself? Well...I think we've seen the answer.
-
So you are saying Kong wasn't a draw? If more people where inclined not to watch then people liked seeing her then Ok. I for one liked seeing her as part of the total product.
I'm saying she had no noticeable effect on ratings..so no...she was not a draw in particular
But who WAS featured in one of TNA's highest rated segments ever? Lacey Von Erich. In a strip tease.
-
And once again, there's a key flaw in your argument here. You're assuming that talent vs sex appeal is a zero/sum game. That's why the problem I was posting about exists. Sure you may get the occasional Chyna or Awesome Kong or Toni Rose. But from what I've seen, you look back over the course of women's wrestling down through the years and many of the most successful and talented were also extremely attractive by the standards of their respective time. Too many people want to engage in your limited thought process. They box themselves in by making talent vs sex appeal an either/or issue when it need not be.
No I'm not. I'm saying that sex appeal is the selling point and that talent is an additional - and for the most part, unnecessary - feature.
The people will pay to see sex whether they're talented or not.
-
If a woman is hot + can wrestle = fans like it more.
If a woman is ugly + can really wrestle + Has it factor (Kong) = enough fans like it.
If competitor is only B ( just hot) and you have A (hot and can go) you have extra attraction.
And I am talking base ratings not segment ratings.
Kinda think you're kidding yourself there
-
I appreciate them as workers in the industry, but for the most part I'm there for the eye candy and pleasantly surprised when the women can compete at a high level as well.
That's my point really
If a woman is hot + can wrestle = fans like it
If a woman is hot + can't wrestle for crap = fans pretty much still like it
If a woman is ugly + can wrestle = bad for business
So what's the point in trying so hard to find talented workers if the results is the same, so long as they're hot?
-
And...?
Not to be a jerk, but until someone shows that you can draw significantly more fans with truly talented women's workers than you could with a division full of former models and dancers (like the E has and TNA has moved to) then I have absolutely no reason to argue that a promoter or company should be looking for talent.
Wrestling is a work. It's a business. The women who have generated real money have been women like Sable, Trish, Lita, Stacey Kiebler, Torrie Wilson...they had 'skill' to varying degrees, but they were all also extremely attractive.
Even TNA's biggest successes in the KO division came when TBP were at their height.
Some of the WWE's biggest rated segments ever were during the Diva Search.
The only woman that could be called 'unattractive' that was a success in the WWE in the last 2o years was Chyna.
I understand your point that maybe no one cares because no one has really been exposed to really talented women.But maybe the reason no one has tried putting talented women on a major stage is BECAUSE no one care.
If you can generate the exact same revenue and ratings with bimbos with giant implants as you can putting on a women's wrestling clinic, then what's the point?
-
Mickie James may not bring a whole bunch of fans with her to TNA (maybe she will, maybe she won't, I simply don't know) BUT she could be an integral part of the Knockout's division. Currently, the Knockouts lack that strong babyface character (the old Gail Kim role) I think Angelina Love & Velvet Sky were the main two babyfaces last time I watched, but they really weren't coming across to me all that likeable or over in the role. Mickie James on the other hand is a very bubbly, likable sort, and has somewhat of a reputation as a "good wrestler". She could be the strong babyface character the Knockouts division need right now. You can build a long-term storyline around her and grow your fanbase in that way.
Meh...everything you said is true...but (as someone else pointed out) the division is an absolute wreck right now and they are getting the same ratings for their KO segments as when they had really good storylines going.
Except for a tiny tiny segment of the audience, no one really cares that much about women's wrestling and as long there's a sufficient amount of T&A the results will be the same regardless of storyline
I haveto believe that stories matter. I just have to.
The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*
in The Dog Pound
Posted
Great points which isn't surprising since it *is* your line of work..so here's th question: is there still a possibility that Vince just starts his own cable station?
The ratings aren't there which is most likely the primary obstacle I assume..but with as much programming/footage as they have wouldn't that be an option?
i also read a lot about how eventually the internet will swallow TV as we know it..couldn't the E just create an online library like zulu of all the stuff they own?