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

[praguepride]

I wish they had more crazy characters over the "real" characters but whatever.

 

This. The neat thing about the Attitude era was that you still had your "characters" but also mixed in some real "badass/no gimmick needed" type of characters as well.

 

Now, it's swung completely over to the other end where everyone is just wrestling under their name (or their stage name etc.). It was a lot easier to keep track of wrestlers as a casual fan then it is now. Now everything is so...bland. You can have characters that fit into modern market, take Kane and Undertaker. Sure their gimmicks might be "dated" (i.e. Deadman, Demon etc.) but at least you could tell them apart and knew what they stood for

[shawn michaels]

This. The neat thing about the Attitude era was that you still had your "characters" but also mixed in some real "badass/no gimmick needed" type of characters as well.

 

Now, it's swung completely over to the other end where everyone is just wrestling under their name (or their stage name etc.). It was a lot easier to keep track of wrestlers as a casual fan then it is now. Now everything is so...bland. You can have characters that fit into modern market, take Kane and Undertaker. Sure their gimmicks might be "dated" (i.e. Deadman, Demon etc.) but at least you could tell them apart and knew what they stood for

 

Would the old taker with the special lights and all that supernatural parafernalia be a crazy character tou you guys? If so, i rather see the blandness of nowadays, At least it's realistic. I like realistic wrestling, without soul seeking supernatural creatures, like the old taker. I mean, don't get me wrong, i like Taker and his dead man gimmick...but we have to draw the line somewhere.

[lazorbeak]

But what do you do with the 75% of the roster that isn't ever going to be on the poster without the occasional silly gimmick? You end up with a roster of 20 ****y young heels and 20 wholesome, nice-guy babyfaces, and none of them get over because they're completely interchangeable.

[milamber]

Since the draft I've been enjoying Smackdown as much if not more than Raw. And the fact that they're keeping guys like Christian and Bryan strong means I have much more faith in the creative team.

[djthefunkchris]

But what do you do with the 75% of the roster that isn't ever going to be on the poster without the occasional silly gimmick? You end up with a roster of 20 ****y young heels and 20 wholesome, nice-guy babyfaces, and none of them get over because they're completely interchangeable.

 

I really don't remember (outside of the obvious/WCWera) a time period when any promotion had more then a handfull of truly unique people on it, with the rest just being extra's. Hmm... Maybe that's not coming out like I mean it.

 

Back in the early 80's, there was a handfull of people I cared about (Snuka, Piper, Flair etc.), and a few I knew other's cared about (Macho Man, Hogan, etc.). That's what made Wrestlemania so special, FIRST TIME under one roof several of my favorites (and everyone else's) had huge match's. I mean, there were the NWA supercards, but Wrestlemania, the way they presented it, felt like these were the biggest names in Wrestling. Never were on the same show though, not before anyways.

 

However, even then, there were like five maybe six people (after Wrestlemania) that I cared about. The rest just kind of merged together... good guys and bad guys. I'm talking about on one show.... Not all together (One promotion at a time).

 

EVEN if I liked half a dozen on their roster, I don't think I ever got to see them all on the same show.

 

So really, I don't see a huge change there. To me your statement is just a fact I never thought about, but has been the way since the 70's (when I started watching).

 

It's not hard to see why though, your either a fan and will watch just for the wrestling aspects, or your not and only watch for your favorites. Kind of like boxing.... or maybe even MMA. I might not like the guys in the ring, but I can appreciate a good match. IF I like them, it's a pluss. Same with wrestling (only that it's pretend fights). Kind of like any actual show though... You have your main stars, then you have the rest of the crew. Not everyone can be "the man".

[20LEgend]

Never noticed before but just started watching sackdown and is the referee usual this audible during (Christian vs. Mark Henry) He just keeps saying "now come on Mark" and "What do you say"

 

Edit: Wait I've just noticed what is is no commentary in my left ear, it is coming through the right headphone lol, that's pretty cool, I can here what the referee says without he right ear and I can watch the wrestling and hear the wrestler and the ref without Cole and Booker in my ear

 

Edit 2: It is sooooo much better w/o commentators!

[lazorbeak]

I really don't remember (outside of the obvious/WCWera) a time period when any promotion had more then a handfull of truly unique people on it, with the rest just being extra's. Hmm... Maybe that's not coming out like I mean it.

 

Back in the early 80's, there was a handfull of people I cared about (Snuka, Piper, Flair etc.), and a few I knew other's cared about (Macho Man, Hogan, etc.). That's what made Wrestlemania so special, FIRST TIME under one roof several of my favorites (and everyone else's) had huge match's. I mean, there were the NWA supercards, but Wrestlemania, the way they presented it, felt like these were the biggest names in Wrestling. Never were on the same show though, not before anyways.

 

However, even then, there were like five maybe six people (after Wrestlemania) that I cared about. The rest just kind of merged together... good guys and bad guys. I'm talking about on one show.... Not all together (One promotion at a time).

 

EVEN if I liked half a dozen on their roster, I don't think I ever got to see them all on the same show.

 

So really, I don't see a huge change there. To me your statement is just a fact I never thought about, but has been the way since the 70's (when I started watching).

 

It's not hard to see why though, your either a fan and will watch just for the wrestling aspects, or your not and only watch for your favorites. Kind of like boxing.... or maybe even MMA. I might not like the guys in the ring, but I can appreciate a good match. IF I like them, it's a pluss. Same with wrestling (only that it's pretend fights). Kind of like any actual show though... You have your main stars, then you have the rest of the crew. Not everyone can be "the man".

 

But everybody has favorites, even kids, even people who barely pay attention. And those favorites are often not based on any kind of wrestling skill. But how does somebody look at Primo Colon and say "he's my favorite wrestler"? I mean he's basically Hispanic Evan Bourne. They're completely interchangeable underdog high-flying babyfaces. And when you have a dozen guys that basically do the same shtick, how does one stand-out from another? In the Attitude era, midcarders who were never going to draw big money like D'Lo Brown, Al Snow, Val Venis, and others had characters that weren't duplicated by five more guys. And they all got over as a result.

 

Basically you completely misunderstood what I said. I'm not saying the problem is that there's only a limited number of "big name" guys or anything like that: I'm saying that the people who aren't big names are given less that makes them stand out and get over in their own right. I think it's great that Santino is so successful at doing what he does, but it's because he's the only guy doing those comedy babyface bits: if we had four more goofy babyfaces going on after him, all miming instruments in an invisible band, they'd all blend together and nobody would get over. And right now, these "extras" as you call them are really bland. I mean Koko B. Ware was somebody's favorite wrestler. He had a big silly gimmick and he lost all the time, so nobody was ever going to confuse him with a main eventer, but he was still over with the crowd. But Kofi Kingston has won the IC and US titles about 5 times each, but what's his character beyond "athletic guy who kicks people a lot"? Rob Van Dam did basically the same bit, but you knew more about his character then "he likes to kick people."

[Zeel1]

Ryder's been making a lot of tweets about how the next RAW's in Long Island, and it's gotten me kind of curious. I've been thinking a bit of a reemergence for him has been in the works for the last couple of weeks, starting it off in the LI would make sense...

[djthefunkchris]

But everybody has favorites, even kids, even people who barely pay attention. And those favorites are often not based on any kind of wrestling skill. But how does somebody look at Primo Colon and say "he's my favorite wrestler"? I mean he's basically Hispanic Evan Bourne. They're completely interchangeable underdog high-flying babyfaces. And when you have a dozen guys that basically do the same shtick, how does one stand-out from another? In the Attitude era, midcarders who were never going to draw big money like D'Lo Brown, Al Snow, Val Venis, and others had characters that weren't duplicated by five more guys. And they all got over as a result.

 

Basically you completely misunderstood what I said. I'm not saying the problem is that there's only a limited number of "big name" guys or anything like that: I'm saying that the people who aren't big names are given less that makes them stand out and get over in their own right. I think it's great that Santino is so successful at doing what he does, but it's because he's the only guy doing those comedy babyface bits: if we had four more goofy babyfaces going on after him, all miming instruments in an invisible band, they'd all blend together and nobody would get over. And right now, these "extras" as you call them are really bland. I mean Koko B. Ware was somebody's favorite wrestler. He had a big silly gimmick and he lost all the time, so nobody was ever going to confuse him with a main eventer, but he was still over with the crowd. But Kofi Kingston has won the IC and US titles about 5 times each, but what's his character beyond "athletic guy who kicks people a lot"? Rob Van Dam did basically the same bit, but you knew more about his character then "he likes to kick people."

I think I understand you, and I said outside of the WCW era (like before and after the attitude era... which is over, and only a very small piece of wrestling history in the grand scheme of things.

 

Even so, let's look at WWF's 2001 roster, and tell me you don't see alot of the same 'ol same 'ol even during that time..... and never thought Al Snow was very interesting, but I know other's have so that's just me.

 

Al Snow

Faarooq - WCW World Tag Team Champion

Bradshaw - WCW World Tag Team Champion

Big Boss Man - Out

"The One" Billy Gunn

Bull Buchanan

Chris Benoit - WWF Champion

Chris Jericho

Chyna

Crash Holly

Dean Malenko

Debra

D-Von Dudley

Bubba Ray Dudley

Eddy Guerrero

Edge

Christian

Essa Rios

Gangrel - Out

Goodfather

Hardcore Holly

Matt Hardy

Jeff Hardy

Haku

Ivory

Jacqueline

Jerry Lynn

Jim Ross - WWF Announcer

Taka Michinoku

Kane

K-Kwik

Kurt Angle - WWF Tag Team Champion

Lilian Garcia - Ring Announcer

Linda McMahon - CEO of WWFE

Lita

Mick Foley

Molly Holly

Paul Heyman - CEO of ECW

Perry Saturn

Raven

Rhyno

Rikishi

Scotty 2 Hotty

Shane McMahon - WCW Chairman

Shawn Michaels -(Visiting)

Spike Dudley

Stephanie McMahon - ECW Chairman, WWF Women Champion

Stone Cold Steve Austin - WWF Tag Team Champion

Steve Blackman

Steven Richards

Tajiri

Tazz

Terri Runnels

Test

The Big Show

The Rock - suspended

The Undertaker

Tori

Triple H- Out with an injuried

Trish Stratus

Val Venis

Vince McMahon - WWF Chairman

William Regal - Commissioner of the WWF

Albert

Justin Credible

X-Pac

R.J. - out

 

 

I think more then a few if given the same criticism back then, would fall into the same category, don't you? If not, why? I mean, there were some clean cut good guys, some not so clean cut good guys, some bad guys, some not so bad/bad guys, etc... Lots of similar character's although their gimmick might have been a little different, the same underneath.

 

Lots of future hall of famers (or already inducted Hall of Famers) on that list, and I believe their uniqueness (above the norm) is the reason as to why. But there was still alot of talent that didn't really get seen much, and some of them were wasted, etc.

 

EDIT: My point though, was that outside of the Rock and Wrestling (Hogan era) and the Attitude era, this seems normal to me. We can't have an era all the time, or it wouldn't really be an era, nor would it stand out, as it would be the "Standard". Comparing the company now, to a highlight in the companies history... at least to me is a little harsh. I would look at all the times they were around (which is more then 90% of their history), as well as other promotions, and compare it to that.... Attitude era stood out because it was different and had it's own shine. IF they tried that stuff now, they would probably lose money.

[lazorbeak]

I think I understand you, and I said outside of the WCW era (like before and after the attitude era... which is over, and only a very small piece of wrestling history in the grand scheme of things.

 

It's not looking like you do.

 

Even so, let's look at WWF's 2001 roster, and tell me you don't see alot of the same 'ol same 'ol even during that time..... and never thought Al Snow was very interesting, but I know other's have so that's just me.

 

Did you actually read what I said? The point isn't who your favorites are, the point is they have enough character that they're somebody's favorite.

 

 

I think more then a few if given the same criticism back then, would fall into the same category, don't you? If not, why? I mean, there were some clean cut good guys, some not so clean cut good guys, some bad guys, some not so bad/bad guys, etc... Lots of similar character's although their gimmick might have been a little different, the same underneath.

 

Lots of future hall of famers (or already inducted Hall of Famers) on that list, and I believe their uniqueness (above the norm) is the reason as to why. But there was still alot of talent that didn't really get seen much, and some of them were wasted, etc.

 

EDIT: My point though, was that outside of the Rock and Wrestling (Hogan era) and the Attitude era, this seems normal to me. We can't have an era all the time, or it wouldn't really be an era, nor would it stand out, as it would be the "Standard". Comparing the company now, to a highlight in the companies history... at least to me is a little harsh. I would look at all the times they were around (which is more then 90% of their history), as well as other promotions, and compare it to that.... Attitude era stood out because it was different and had it's own shine. IF they tried that stuff now, they would probably lose money.

 

Do you really not see the difference between the roster you posted and the WWE's current roster? Maybe I need to explain it using the specific roster you gave me (which is not even in the Attitude era).

 

Farooq and Bradshaw- a midcard babyface act featuring two old guys who weren't in great shape, but the APA gimmick was over. Bradshaw also improved tremendously as a talker by having a real character that wasn't "Stan Henson-ish cowboy." Pretty much directly led into his run as a major heel.

 

Steven Richards- too small to be taken seriously as a serious threat, he still managed to generate real heat with RTC. Is there a midcard heel in WWE right now with a look as bad as his that gets the sort of heat he got? Rico was the last guy I can think of who did.

 

Gangrel- his gimmick was that he thought he was a vampire. That's a stupid gimmick, right? But he had a really cool entrance and the crowd loved it, even if in the ring he was a middling worker with a gut.

 

The point is, these guys who were clearly never going to draw huge money were still given identifiable gimmicks and characters that the crowds could either get behind or rally against. I mean think about how much work they put into getting the Tajiri character over, from his interactions with William Regal to his run with Torrie Wilson as his manager: and this was a guy who was about 5'9" and worked a super junior type style; obviously he was never getting out of the midcard. Compare that to Yoshi Tatsu, who is capable of putting on great matches on Superstars, but have they made any effort to explain who this guy is? Does he have a character? Does he have any friends or enemies? Why should anybody be a Yoshi Tatsu fan?

 

And as far as the "if they tried that, they would probably lose money" statement you stick on at the end. Huh? How on earth is building an undercard with recognizable characters that people might care about going to cost WWE money? I'm not saying they need outrageously dumb gimmicks, but at they obviously need more variety in their roster if they want to build guys up. You can have a "****y young heel" gimmick get over only if there's not six more on the roster. I mean CM Punk and the Miz have been so successful because they have built up unique characters based on their real lives that crowds respond to, and they don't look exactly like the last six guys that debuted out of OVW/DSW/FCW/whatever.

 

To see the whole thing in the micro, look at 2001's women division vs. now. You had Ivory as a prudish "anti-diva," Lita as the "alternative" chick who didn't look like a traditional diva but got super over, Trish re-built from her run as Vince's love interest into an underdog babyface, etc. Today, you've got about a half dozen heels whose gimmick is they're conceited and good-looking (the Bellas, Maryse, Lay-Cool until just recently, Alicia Fox), and babyfaces whose gimmick is... they're good-looking and nice (Kelly X2, Gail Kim, Eve). Who gets over in that set-up? It's not surprising that Beth Phoenix gets a bigger reaction than the rest of the division even when she's floating around in character limbo, just because she's unique and the crowd knows who she is, or why Kong got major reactions despite very few people wanting to see her in a magazine. Also, Steph wasn't women's champion during this time: it was vacant after Chyna left.

 

But my point is and has been that the current roster has way too many guys who have no real gimmick: why should I root for anybody not in the top 25% of the card? It's why people on the net get excited about Zach Ryder and a gimmick that is about as far from the main event as it gets: because he's one of the rare guys that has enough character that he stands out. I think they've improved, with guys like Khali providing a fun little midcard distraction, and Wade Barrett, even in his diminished role still has more of a character than most, but there's still plenty of guys who don't really have a character at all.

[djthefunkchris]

We're stumbling over each other's statements, and not really in dissagreement with each other.

 

For the record: I get that WWE doesn't have the character progression they had during the attitude era.... I get that, I really do. I agree with you.

 

I said it's not fair to compare that era with now though. At least not to me. Same with the Hogan (80's) era. These are two distinctly high points, and not the norm of the company. I then explained that back before and in between these era's, it was much like it is now.

 

For example, before PPV's were very popular, the time would be split between the biggest names... Ussually maybe four people per hour. The rest was just match filler's. Was a unique thing to actually get to see the one's talking wrestle.

 

An example would be today.... You might have Cena do a promo, a couple other top stars and a few from Smackdown as "what happened last week on smackdown" etc.... the rest is filled with filler match's, with only one or two meant to really generate any interest.

 

And I dissagree that it's that big, although I agree you have a point (just don't think your point is that big). Plenty have been pushed, and tried to get people's interest.

 

Alberto Del Rio, Punk, Rhodes, Bryan, The Hart Foundation, Otunga, Ziggler, McIntyre, Bourne, Jackson... Even Heath Slater was focused on.... Swagger, the Uso's somewhat, Mason Ryan, Tarver somewhat, R-Truth again, Sheamus, Sin Cara, Skip Sheffield was a bit entertaining, Dibiase, of course you can't forget about The Miz, Wade Barrett or Vladimir Kozlov.... and I hate to use him, but Zack Ryder is unique (although I don't personally get his appeal).

 

It's like you take two or three, and say "Hey, 20 and 20!" These people are all different, but if you want to generalize like you are, you could do that with any roster from any era.... Vampire/deadman, Angry man/Backwoodsman/Man with an Axe, man with a Hammer, Man with a wooden stick saying "USA!", etc. I just don't remember any of them being so much distinctive, outside of their looks, from each other. You do. So we will just dissagree.

[Linsolv]

Yeah, times have changed. However, using the old style of Cena promoing and then mostly filler, given their talent pool could easily put on matches like...

 

Borne v. Ziggler (Mid, UMid)

Riley (W/Miz, until recently; that'd be how you'd mix Miz in) v. Danielson (Mid, Mid)

DiBiase v. Riley (now that's he's face)

 

etc. There's a lot of potential quality there. If you start ignoring disposition, you have a TON of room for storyline potential without touching the main event (one that I really wanted to put above is DiBiase v R-Truth, with DiBiase looking down on Truth both for his race and for his rapper gimmick—Racism is srs bidness—but now Truth is a Conspiracy Theorist instead of a rapper of the people). Then you could occasionally have a squash match (Miz v. Masters, to prove that Miz v. Danielson or Miz v. Del Rio, Miz could beat their ultimate submission) or a no-contest between superstars (Miz v. Cena, with Riley attacking Miz after 5 minutes and getting match cancelled, to use a current idea)

[ewanite]

Miz isn't a unique character. He plays Chris Jericho 90% of the time.

 

We don't know how much say the superstar themselves has in the development of their character, but I'd imagine they make quite a lot of character decisions themselves seeing as they are always being told to 'grab the brass ring' and make themselves superstars.

 

With that in mind a lot of them will want to be taken seriously rather than be gimmicky and will have grown up on the Shawn Michaels/Bret Hart era. End result? A thousand ****y heels and cool faces with very small variations in character and a decidedly realistic edge. The attitude era people on the other hand grew up on Randy Savage, Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan and so they drew inspiration from larger than life caricatures. When going larger than life you get a lot more opportunities for unique personalities to shine through.

 

The workers being churned out now will draw their inspiration from guys like The Rock, Steve Austin and Undertaker and so we'll get another round of more over the top superstars (which are indeed cropping up all over the indy scene now). The generation after that will draw inspiration from Orton and Cena and we'll get another batch of serious guys. It's a cycle.

[Zeel1]

Miz isn't a unique character. He plays Chris Jericho 90% of the time.

 

I think he was referring to specific promos where he brings up how everyone doubted him and thought he was just a joke that'd never amount to anything and how he's proven everyone wrong. I do think that's added to his character, because it gave me the feeling that that's precisely WHY he acts like such a massive *******, like a kid who becomes a bully after years of being bullied themselves. It's kind of nice to have believable motivations for a heel.

 

By the way, according to Ryder's twitter, he'll be wrestling Kofi Kingston tonight. Don't really like his chances, but I'm staying hopeful...

 

Really liking the feel of this final Tough Enough episode, by the way.

 

Ha, they're actually showing a Superstars match during this. I find that amusing.

[Zeel1]

DeMott and Skidmarks interaction was rather amusing... loved the pop Jeremiah got, sorta figured he'd be the most popular.

[Eisen-verse]

I don't see it with Andy. Yea, he's a big guy but he looks like a fumbling one at that...

 

Cheers.

 

E-V

[Zeel1]

Man, I gotta say, I'm kind of surprised at this, Luke was pretty much the favorite from the start and Andy didn't even really stand out much until near the end...

[Eisen-verse]

Way to further sell the stunner, Andy.... (Sarcasm)

[Zeel1]

I like how the crowd was chanting along with Miz' "Really?"'s. Another good reaction for A-Ry.

[ECW 2.0]

I'm glad Andy won he reminds me of a more talented Kevin Nash

[Eisen-verse]

I'm glad Andy won he reminds me of a more talented Kevin Nash

 

I'm sorry to question but REALLY?

 

Nash may not have been a well-versed technition BUT he is, far and away, better than Andy.

 

On the mic... Nash wins.

Power as a big man... Nash wins.

Athleticism... Andy; I guess.

Look... Nash wins.

 

Honestly, from what I've seen of Andy, he seems like a botch-fest waiting to happen. Not to mention, I squirm whenever he opens his mouth... sadly.

 

Cheers.

 

E-V

[The Celt]

If you're not watching RAW I feel bad for ya son, I got 99 options but RAW is the only one.

[nucleardonkey]

I'm glad Andy won he reminds me of a more talented Kevin Nash

 

I gotta agree with you...although it should also be said that I've seen lamp-posts that were more talented than Kevin Nash. The only problem I have with Andy is the same problem I'd have with anyone who won except for Matt Cross and that's aside from Tough Enough I've never heard of any of them and you can't really know how they are in a real full match in front of a WWE-size audience.

 

 

That being said I really hope either later tonight or next week at the earliest they let Andy get his heat back and gain some strength back after that burial immediately after his victory.

[BloodyKnuckles]

Watching Raw, and wondering if the TUF Winner will be sent to FCW to improve? I didn't watch the show so I don't really know how good he is.

[Zeel1]

"If that happens, my account will have been hacked!" Ahhhhahaha...