Bigpapa42 Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Look over the entire WWE roster and look at how many wrestlers currently work under their own names. Throw out the ones who do so far "second generation" reasons, and then throw out the ones that have been used for 7+ years. You are left with very very few, at least amongst the males. The WWE rebrands people because they can't trademark and own the intellectual rights to someone's real name. But they can and do with a fake name that they give a wrestler. I'm honestly surprised that anyone is surprised by this. Its one thing to not like the new name... its another to have not expected it. I'm not a huge fan of what they've picked, but its at least very close to Danielson's actual name... Interestlingly, quite a few Divas work under their real names, or just their first name. I guess the WWE just doesn't worry about holding their name rights nearly as much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesterx7769 Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Probably b/c the won't get as popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomfreeze Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Hmmm...well, my brief current day real mod playing when I sign Danielson I always rename him Daniel "The Global Dragon" Bryanson. So I'm just as bad as the WWE I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 I think the E can trademark just the first name though just as TNA has done with Daniels. And yeah it's no surprise and smart business sense to change it to something you can trademark so I never get why people gripe over it other then the quality of the name itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astil Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Daniel "the Dragon" Bryan has a ring to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazorbeak Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Interestlingly, quite a few Divas work under their real names, or just their first name. I guess the WWE just doesn't worry about holding their name rights nearly as much... A lot of the divas that work under their own names were introduced under their own names as diva search contestants or otherwise appeared as themselves first. Maria, Maryse, and Eve were brought in through the diva search, while Melina Perez's first exposure on WWE TV was through Tough Enough. For divas that come up through the indys, they do tend to re-brand them: Mickie James is probably the biggest exception where they used her real name instead of her old indy ring-name. Beth Phoenix, Katie Lea, and Jilian Hall are all indy signings that didn't keep their real names when they were brought in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensai of Mattitude Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 I know I'm a page or so late, but is there an explanation as to why WWE are making every single event a specialised, concept event? I fail to see the point. I'd get a lot more excited if a Hell in a Cell match was spontaneously announced in the run-up to a Pay Per View, rather than knowing that I won't see one until a specific event. Also, while I know it was a concept event itself, stopping a prestigious event like Survivor Series seems stupid. I haven't seen it since 2007, I think, but I used to enjoy the five versus five matches (well, I enjoyed the ones when it was the result of good storylines banding together; not Raw superstars randomly attacking Smackdown superstars for a month, with the only reason being that Survivor Series was coming up). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterded Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 Just a random thing. They Live is the best movie to ever star a wrestler. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shamelessposer Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 I know I'm a page or so late, but is there an explanation as to why WWE are making every single event a specialised, concept event? I fail to see the point. I'd get a lot more excited if a Hell in a Cell match was spontaneously announced in the run-up to a Pay Per View, rather than knowing that I won't see one until a specific event. It is a strange thing. It's almost like they're making an active attempt to destroy the ability of trademark matches to draw money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prophet Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 Just a random thing. They Live is the best movie to ever star a wrestler. That is all. I wanted to argue that yours was a close second to Hell Comes to Frogtown ... But I'm all out of chewing gum. Er ... I mean I can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comradebot Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 I wanted to argue that yours was a close second to Hell Comes to Frogtown ... But I'm all out of chewing gum. Er ... I mean I can't. So... The moral of the story is, we need more movies starring Roddy Piper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterded Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 So... The moral of the story is, we need more movies starring Roddy Piper? The moral of the story is now after looking up what Hell Comes to Frogtown is I must find this movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prophet Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 So... The moral of the story is, we need more movies starring Roddy Piper? Heck yeah. He even made Bodyslam better. Quick Rick Roberts + Tonga Tom = awesomeness! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 I know I'm a page or so late, but is there an explanation as to why WWE are making every single event a specialised, concept event? I fail to see the point. I'd get a lot more excited if a Hell in a Cell match was spontaneously announced in the run-up to a Pay Per View, rather than knowing that I won't see one until a specific event. Also, while I know it was a concept event itself, stopping a prestigious event like Survivor Series seems stupid. I haven't seen it since 2007, I think, but I used to enjoy the five versus five matches (well, I enjoyed the ones when it was the result of good storylines banding together; not Raw superstars randomly attacking Smackdown superstars for a month, with the only reason being that Survivor Series was coming up). The reason is because they saw that Pay-per-views with gimmick matches did better than ones without them. A Problem with what they are doing, though, is they forget the reason WHY people like these gimmick matches - because they are suppose to be for special occasions. Making them a routine thing destroys their special nature. On one hand, it's no longer a special occasion, but on the other hand, the WWE makes a bit more money for these gimmick pay-pay-views (for now). It's not exactly a good long term strategy, but it's not like WWE gives a damn about long-term booking these days - they believe they don't have to do so, because they are at the top, and will remain at the top, so they can do whatever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningHamster Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 Just a random thing. They Live is the best movie to ever star a wrestler. That is all. That is true. I was just watching it again the other day and man it's a fun movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djthefunkchris Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 The reason is because they saw that Pay-per-views with gimmick matches did better than ones without them. A Problem with what they are doing, though, is they forget the reason WHY people like these gimmick matches - because they are suppose to be for special occasions. Making them a routine thing destroys their special nature. On one hand, it's no longer a special occasion, but on the other hand, the WWE makes a bit more money for these gimmick pay-pay-views (for now). It's not exactly a good long term strategy, but it's not like WWE gives a damn about long-term booking these days - they believe they don't have to do so, because they are at the top, and will remain at the top, so they can do whatever they want. If what you say is true, I don't think they will over-do the specialness, as most of the PPV's are only once a year. So every month you get a "Special" PPV that has a certain gimmick match theme to it. What would make your statements 100% right (and I'm not sure I dissagree the way you said it already), would be if they were to do the same gimmick match PPV's several times a year. There is the fact that after a while a gimmick match is a gimmick match..> Meaning that even if it's a different gimmick match, people will probably still burn out on gimmick match's period if they do this for more then a year or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHK1978 Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 Late to the party as always but I just wanted to put my 2 cents in about Survivor Series: Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble were and are my two favorite events that the WWF hold each year. However, once they started to take away the actual Survivor Series matches and give us one-on-one matches, it sort of hurt the event in my eyes. So I am not all that angry that they took it away but part of me wish they had not. And I really do not want them to do War Games. They would manage to screw it up some how and make me hate my favorite theme match of all time. Because I really do not want to see Mark Henry in War Games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alden Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 I was a huge war games fan. I don't see how it would work in wwe now though. The war games was a match made because the horsemen. You have a heel stable that can't be kept down. You have five faces that have had enough and try to take them down. You would have to have a dominate heel stable to make it work. you can't just have five faces vs five heels. Plus war games was one of the most violent matches around. wwe pg would not be able to pull off a war games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvdWarrior Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 If what you say is true, I don't think they will over-do the specialness, as most of the PPV's are only once a year. So every month you get a "Special" PPV that has a certain gimmick match theme to it. What would make your statements 100% right (and I'm not sure I dissagree the way you said it already), would be if they were to do the same gimmick match PPV's several times a year. Personally, I think 'over-doing the specialness of things' has become a staple of today's wrestling product, and is one of the main reason for any declining interest we see. I was a huge war games fan. I don't see how it would work in wwe now though. The war games was a match made because the horsemen. You have a heel stable that can't be kept down. You have five faces that have had enough and try to take them down. You would have to have a dominate heel stable to make it work. you can't just have five faces vs five heels. Plus war games was one of the most violent matches around. wwe pg would not be able to pull off a war games. I agree with this comment quite a bit, but to be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing them bring the War Games back. Sure, they wouldn't do it as good as they used to, but near as I can tell, they're not doing much of anything as good as they used to. Besides, if they brought back the War Games match, they might put out a War Games DVD, and I'd be all for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Casey Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 War Games is on PPV, so not as controlled as the TV environment. Besides, violence =/= blood necessarily. In any case, it's nine months until the show, so if they do go with War Games then the Hart Dynasty, Straight Edge Society, Legacy or whoever have plenty of time to get built up to be the heel side. Heck, Undertaker could reform the Ministry in that time. As for They Live, it's good, but Princess Bride is better. With regard to gimmick match PPVs, I agree they're not a great idea, but so long as you limit the gimmicks elsewhere I don't have a problem with it especially. TLC (or even just ladder or table) matches taking place outside the TLC show is pointless, for example. On Danielson, literally the first thing that sprang to mind when I saw his new name was "Hmmm... Daniel 'the Dragon' Bryan... Could work." As for renaming workers, it happened in WWF right the way up until 1993 or so and the arrival of Lex Luger, who was too big a name to change. Roughly speaking, we notice it more because workers are being renamed to normal names. Workers less and less get given gimmick names now (Mr. Perfect, British Bulldog, Grandmaster Sexy, Scotty Too Hotty, Mankind, The Rock, even Stone Cold Steve Austin and Hunter Hearst Helmsley) but they still get renamed. All so Vince can rebuild them from scratch, as he ever has done. You only keep your name if there's no other way - the Radicals, Goldberg, the nWo and WCW/ECW invaders were reliant on that name recognition. Evan Bourne wasn't. Braden Walker wasn't. Punk is a rare exception, AJ Styles might be another - but probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampulator Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 My problem isn't so muh their renaming - it's giving them crappy ones. Seriously, Daniel Bryan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterded Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 As for They Live, it's good, but Princess Bride is better. I said staring a wrestler not with a wrestler in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappyboy Posted February 15, 2010 Share Posted February 15, 2010 My problem isn't so muh their renaming - it's giving them crappy ones. Seriously, Daniel Bryan? I know. I mean I get why they went that way. This way they have a name for him that they can control but yet is still close enough that those who are already familar with him still know it's him. The thing I don't get is Bryan as a last name. Why not add the T at the end? Bryant has always sounded better as a last name to me than just Bryan or Bryans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Black Phenom Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Anyone watched Raw? All I'll say is, the blonde chick totally did it for The Rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaySo Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Anyone watched Raw? All I'll say is, the blonde chick totally did it for The Rock. The blonde chick gimmick is that of Nick Hogan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.