The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[Fantabulous]

<p>I'd like to meet the TV executive who would sign off on, much less seriously suggest to his boss, the cancellation of a show doing 4.5's.</p><p> </p><p>

If you want to get rid of a show that's doing strong ratings, pull a Murder She Wrote to kill the ratings and then you can get it canned.</p>

[TheEdgeOfReason]

I'd say Orton threw a tantrum about being shipped to Smackdown and so got the title as a result. Why else would they immediately give it to him.

[Fantabulous]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TheEdgeOfReason" data-cite="TheEdgeOfReason" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Why else would they immediately give it to him.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Because they feel more comfortable building a show around someone they consider one of their two biggest stars?</p>

[TheEdgeOfReason]

<p>And make the rest of the brand look like a joke?</p><p> </p><p>

Its not hard to have a small feud leading up to the ppv and have him win it there. Having your big star gunning for the belt and holding it are the same thing. Either way he's selling the ppv as the participant in the title match.</p>

[Hashasheen]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TheEdgeOfReason" data-cite="TheEdgeOfReason" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'd say Orton threw a tantrum about being shipped to Smackdown and so got the title as a result. Why else would they immediately give it to him.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Doubt it. Orton has to be loving the fact he's the top-dog on Smackdown. Undertaker isn't there every week, Triple H is now the guy in between the talent and Vince, and Cena's dominating Raw. He can't get under Cena's shadow on Raw, but on Smackdown? That's his brand now.</p>

[critical-23]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hashasheen" data-cite="Hashasheen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Doubt it. Orton has to be loving the fact he's the top-dog on Smackdown. Undertaker isn't there every week, Triple H is now the guy in between the talent and Vince, and Cena's dominating Raw. He can't get under Cena's shadow on Raw, but on Smackdown? That's his brand now.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Should be Christian's brand IMHO but oh well. Don't see the title change as anything bad really as this is WWE has been doing for so long so I am not shocked or even mad at this turn of events. Although this could make Christian a heel and fued with Orton over the title.</p>

[Astil]

<p>A day later:</p><p> </p><p>

They did this to Edge too (Not this fast, but still). Maybe it won't be so bad...</p>

[March]

<p>Saw the Smackdown spoilers.</p><p> </p><p> Ugh. Screw Orton. </p><p> </p><p> I hope Christian turns heel and comes back with a vengeance.</p><p> </p><p> Also, from Dave Meltzer today..</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Without giving away the spoiler in this report (it is available elsewhere on the site in the Smackdown review), there is a ton of negative feedback directed to WWE on the decision, to the point it has shocked those in the company the vehemence of it.</div></blockquote>

[ampulator]

A day later:

 

They did this to Edge too (Not this fast, but still). Maybe it won't be so bad...

It's not so much this action itself, as WWE has been pulling this kind of crap for too long. Some have been worse, some have been not as bad, but it's a consistent pattern. I expect better of them, but apparently, they don't really expect better of themselves.

[BHK1978]

It's not so much this action itself, as WWE has been pulling this kind of crap for too long. Some have been worse, some have been not as bad, but it's a consistent pattern. I expect better of them, but apparently, they don't really expect better of themselves.

 

Yes and they have been doing it going back to the 1970's. Look at the rather quick changes they made back then every time they wanted to take the belt from one face and give it to another.

 

You had:

 

Ivan Koloff (Bet some are shocked to see him as a former WWF Champion.) beat Bruno, only to drop the title twenty-one days later to Pedro Morales.

 

Pedro held it for some time until he dropped it to Stan "The Man" Stasiak who held the title for a grand total of nine days until he dropped to Bruno.

 

Then there is the Iron Sheik beating Bob Backlund only to drop the title to Hulk Hongan twenty-eight days later.

 

Out of the pre-Hogan champions the only heel that had a decent run was Superstar Billy Graham. The people who held the title post-Hogan's first run as the champion hardly matters because the title reigns became shorter and shorter.

 

When you look back at that it hardly seems a big deal for everyone to get worked up about. Yes I would rather have Christian as the champion because he was great in that role in TNA. However, the powers that be do not agree and it is their company so they can do what they want. I really do not care anyway because I never watch Smackdown and I hardly watch Raw.

 

Part of me wonders if the Christian thing has something to do with him bolting to TNA. Vince is known for holding a grudge.

[OctoberRaven]

Pedro held it for some time until he dropped it to Stan "The Man" Stasiak who held the title for a grand total of nine days until he dropped to Bruno.

 

And the moral of the story is that little Jimmy Reso will grow up to wrestle in tights made to look like briefs and get fired for recording private conversations.

[Eisen-verse]

I heard about Christian dropping the title; however, to be honest, I understand what the WWE is doing here. They moved Orton for a reason; so he could become the John Cena-figure of Smackdown (so says WWE officials within; from wrestlezone.com). In that case, it's entirely smart and, in no way, has anything to do with Orton flipping out or anything; actually quite the opposite (as he's quickly become a locker room leader on the show I guess).

 

Would I have liked to see him hold onto the title for longer (Christian)? Sure. Did it make sense to give him a run, banking on the Shawn Michaels - "Boyhood dream" scenario? Definitely. Do I HATE the WWE for making the switch? No.

 

I guess, sadly, my 'hopes and dreams' for the WWE have fallen by the wayside long ago. I'd LOVE for all decisions to make sense from a wrestling standpoint but, in all reality, they don't necessarily care about making sure their storylines are the greatest of all-time. While it would drive sales, possibly, in the end, they are looking to further their brand.

 

At the end of the day,

 

Randy Orton = marketable to a larger audience; is going to be the face of smackdown for, at least, the next year.

 

Christian = a serviceable upper-midcarder who can put on a great match; not entirely a person to turn into a 'star' as he's already had his time before the audience (probably best to bring in new names, faces, that we don't have a good decade's worth of experience with).

 

Cheers.

 

E-V

[ampulator]

Yes and they have been doing it going back to the 1970's. Look at the rather quick changes they made back then every time they wanted to take the belt from one face and give it to another.

 

You had:

 

Ivan Koloff (Bet some are shocked to see him as a former WWF Champion.) beat Bruno, only to drop the title twenty-one days later to Pedro Morales.

 

Pedro held it for some time until he dropped it to Stan "The Man" Stasiak who held the title for a grand total of nine days until he dropped to Bruno.

 

Then there is the Iron Sheik beating Bob Backlund only to drop the title to Hulk Hongan twenty-eight days later.

 

Out of the pre-Hogan champions the only heel that had a decent run was Superstar Billy Graham. The people who held the title post-Hogan's first run as the champion hardly matters because the title reigns became shorter and shorter.

 

When you look back at that it hardly seems a big deal for everyone to get worked up about. Yes I would rather have Christian as the champion because he was great in that role in TNA. However, the powers that be do not agree and it is their company so they can do what they want. I really do not care anyway because I never watch Smackdown and I hardly watch Raw.

 

Part of me wonders if the Christian thing has something to do with him bolting to TNA. Vince is known for holding a grudge.

You are absolutely correct-except you missing the part of the point. The point isn't it hasn't happened before-it has, as you demonstrated. The issue is bad booking, and it was unnecessarily quick. They couldn't wait until the next Pay Per View? Really? Even if they plan to turn Christian Heel, this is just the wrong way to do it. You slow-build a change, not force it through. And on top of that, the frquencey where they do this is much, much, much more than back in the 70's.

 

That's the issue-bad booking. I don't disagree with the move, I disagree with the timing and the quickness of the move, and I diagree with the frequency where they book stupidly.

[Eisen-verse]

You are absolutely correct-except you missing the part of the point. The point isn't it hasn't happened before-it has, as you demonstrated. The issue is bad booking, and it was unnecessarily quick. They couldn't wait until the next Pay Per View? Really? Even if they plan to turn Christian Heel, this is just the wrong way to do it. You slow-build a change, not force it through. And on top of that, the frquencey where they do this is much, much, much more than back in the 70's.

 

That's the issue-bad booking. I don't disagree with the move, I disagree with the timing and the quickness of the move, and I diagree with the frequency where they book stupidly.

 

You do raise a good point though. While I agree with the move, from a brand-perspective for Smackdown, it could have been done in a month or two; building the match up in which to make it seems worthy of a victory.

 

Cheers.

 

E-V

[Russo]

I'd like to meet the TV executive who would sign off on, much less seriously suggest to his boss, the cancellation of a show doing 4.5's.

 

If you want to get rid of a show that's doing strong ratings, pull a Murder She Wrote to kill the ratings and then you can get it canned.

 

It's all in the networks direction if WCW was doing 4.5's it would of most likely still have been droped because when aol merged with time warner they didnt want a wrestling show.

[Remianen]

I'd like to meet the TV executive who would sign off on, much less seriously suggest to his boss, the cancellation of a show doing 4.5's.

 

If you want to get rid of a show that's doing strong ratings, pull a Murder She Wrote to kill the ratings and then you can get it canned.

 

I've learned something from working with TV people the last couple years. Ratings don't always translate to profits. If you're pulling 4.5s but the demographics of that audience are not attractive to advertisers (read: they're not 18-35/18-49s. Kinda like the Murder She Wrote you mentioned), you might draw slightly higher ad rates but that won't make up for the lower yield products being advertised. So a show drawing 2.5s but watched primarily by the demos advertisers are fiending to reach, is more valuable than your 4.5 drawing show with Depends ads fueling it. It's why the Daily Show and Colbert Report are the darlings of Comedy Central and why Spike is held so highly by the parent company. Spike doesn't draw ratings like some of the other channels but they draw the right demos to really draw money. Doesn't make much sense to me but it has to do with ad rates being higher for shows that draw a certain demographic audience as opposed to others.

 

It's one reason why Scripps ditched the Fine Living Network and turned it into the Cooking Channel. Fine Living was drawing too many old people that advertisers don't care much about (and it was cannibalizing the Travel Channel, which also draws that less desirable demo). Cooking Channel draws an audience closer to their other property (Food Network) but the upper end of the 18-49 bracket ("35-49 year old established professionals with domestic leanings" was the term used). It's why people like Tyler Florence, Guy Fieri, and Jamie Oliver are being "pushed" now while Emeril (their former Cena-type) takes a step back.

 

Anyway, I hope Kia's being paid well since I'm betting they'll be putting the Barbies over her by year's end.

[djthefunkchris]

If no one beats Kharma by year's end, there isn't no point in having anyone else.... IF someone expects her to go unbeaten that long, that's really pushing for a let down. IF you actually think she's going to turn into a jobber, I can only see that happening if she offends someone important (not that I don't see that happening).

 

I see her losing though, for sure. How would you get heat built up for a feud (if they ever have a legit women's fued) if there is no chance in her being beat?

[ampulator]

I've learned something from working with TV people the last couple years. Ratings don't always translate to profits. If you're pulling 4.5s but the demographics of that audience are not attractive to advertisers (read: they're not 18-35/18-49s. Kinda like the Murder She Wrote you mentioned), you might draw slightly higher ad rates but that won't make up for the lower yield products being advertised. So a show drawing 2.5s but watched primarily by the demos advertisers are fiending to reach, is more valuable than your 4.5 drawing show with Depends ads fueling it. It's why the Daily Show and Colbert Report are the darlings of Comedy Central and why Spike is held so highly by the parent company. Spike doesn't draw ratings like some of the other channels but they draw the right demos to really draw money. Doesn't make much sense to me but it has to do with ad rates being higher for shows that draw a certain demographic audience as opposed to others.

 

It's one reason why Scripps ditched the Fine Living Network and turned it into the Cooking Channel. Fine Living was drawing too many old people that advertisers don't care much about (and it was cannibalizing the Travel Channel, which also draws that less desirable demo). Cooking Channel draws an audience closer to their other property (Food Network) but the upper end of the 18-49 bracket ("35-49 year old established professionals with domestic leanings" was the term used). It's why people like Tyler Florence, Guy Fieri, and Jamie Oliver are being "pushed" now while Emeril (their former Cena-type) takes a step back.

 

Anyway, I hope Kia's being paid well since I'm betting they'll be putting the Barbies over her by year's end.

Interesting, coming from a TV Guy. But from what I heard, the network executives just plain didn't want a wrestling program on their network. It was before the merger, too. And after the merger, after Ted Turner lost power, there were even MORE executives that didn't want it, for various reasons.

 

Honestly, speaking, from their point of view, in this case, they were right to axe Nitro. They were losing money on WCW, and WCW and Nitro weren't performing up to par with their expectations. If you think about it that way, and the fact they didn't want it, and Ted losing all power, it's not a surprise they axed NItro.

[Lexa90]

It seems like Alicia Foxx was injured at the SD tapings. Let's just hope that Kharma wasn't the one who injured her...

[Comradebot]

What a frakking ridiculous decision. Between the sheer stupidity of the Cena draft shenanigans, and now THIS (on top of the whole silliness of their not being wrestling in the company or wrestlers or whatever)... WWE needs to get their crap straightened out. I've been very vocal the last couple years that they've stepped their game up from where it was in the years following the demise of WCW, but right now... ugh.

 

 

Christian is twelves times the worker Randy Orton is. When he got the belt I thought "finally, little Christian's dedication to the job, excellent in-ring work ethic, and supremely awesome charisma has FINALLY paid off!" And what do they do? Spit in his face. Randy Orton blows. GJ WWE on giving the belt to a guy who can't cut a respectable promo to save his life. And it's not like he really NEEDED the title win or anything. And it's not like the WWE needs to keep Christian strong to help keep their Main Event scene strong. Considering his politics backstage in the past, part of me wonders if Blandy Boreton himself is partially to blame for this.

 

Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Get your crap back together WWE, because right now yall clearly have no idea what you're doing.

[Nathers7]

Orton tweeted that Christian will get a rematch lol. Everyone on Facebook and Twitter probably forced them into doing this though, they realised the amount of hatred Orton would get if Christian was shoved back to the midcard. Orton is more over than Christian but even Orton fans think this is stupid, and WWE don't want both of their top babyfaces getting mixed reactions from the crowd.

[juggaloninjalee]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Nathers7" data-cite="Nathers7" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Orton tweeted that Christian will get a rematch lol. Everyone on Facebook and Twitter probably forced them into doing this though, they realised the amount of hatred Orton would get if Christian was shoved back to the midcard. Orton is more over than Christian but even Orton fans think this is stupid, and WWE don't want both of their top babyfaces getting mixed reactions from the crowd.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Even if he does it's not like they will put the belt right back on him though.</p>

[Fantabulous]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> Honestly, speaking, from their point of view, in this case, they were right to axe Nitro. They were losing money on WCW, and WCW and Nitro weren't performing up to par with their expectations. If you think about it that way, and the fact they didn't want it, and Ted losing all power, it's not a surprise they axed NItro.</p></div></blockquote><p> Which they were able to do be because the company was in such poor shape from being booked into the ground.</p><p> </p><p> I'm baffled that people are seriously claiming that a profitable WCW with strong ratings would have got canned, especially when it's a position that's never been a seriously put forward before by anyone. But it's a viewpoint I can see some people are going to stick with so I'll say no more on the matter.</p>

[Nathers7]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="juggaloninjalee" data-cite="juggaloninjalee" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Even if he does it's not like they will put the belt right back on him though.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I would be happy if Christian got a long 2 month main event fued just as long as he's not being buried constantly by Orton (CM Punk suffered this), I don't know why WWE thinks we like seeing Orton bury people more talented than he is.</p>

[ewanite]

Fusient investors began to back out after TNT dropped Nitro, seeing the show as the main asset of the company. With no investors, no network wanted to take the risk of buying the rights to show a promotion with no investors (bringing in modern-day parallels again - this is why Dixie was vital in TNA's rise. Wrestling companies can lose money <em>fast</em>)