crownsy Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 anyone think if linda does not win tomarrow that the wwe will go back to a more "adult" product.....atleast blood and a few curse words? Not a chance in hell. When you look at the financial figures, WWE is actually doing better than the "attutude" era from a strictly business standpoint, mostly due to increased sponsor appeal and fees. They aren't going to risk losing big money sponsors so that they can take a shot at catching fire again when money's stable like it is now. Hell they fired a guy they clearly like because his tie choking incident freaked out a sponsor, there not going to go back to PG-13 on a whim post election cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaySo Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Eric Bischoff had said something about it back during the Attitude Era about the kind of programming they were offering would backfire on them. Hopefully can find a direct quote on it...since it made sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juggaloninjalee Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 They gotta stop with the celebrity hosts or whatever. They are terrible spots! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supershot Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Pee Wee Herman is to Me as.. Clowns are to everyone else Not joking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alden Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Not a chance in hell. When you look at the financial figures, WWE is actually doing better than the "attutude" era from a strictly business standpoint, mostly due to increased sponsor appeal and fees. They aren't going to risk losing big money sponsors so that they can take a shot at catching fire again when money's stable like it is now. Hell they fired a guy they clearly like because his tie choking incident freaked out a sponsor, there not going to go back to PG-13 on a whim post election cycle. I have to admit i don't follow the "financial" stuff of the wwe like i use to but does the incressed sponshership make up for the lower ppv and tv ratings? I know they are not tarrible but they are not high as they once were *but then again that just could the times we are in*. I know they are getting many more "fammily friendly" sponsers but they are not getting that much wanted 18 to 35 demographic that alot of sponsers want so badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvdWarrior Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Personally, I loved seeing Pee-Wee on Raw. I was a fan as a kid, I'm kind of a fan now, and, to be honest, the fact that so many wrestling fans I know were... less than thrilled... with the thought of having Pee-Wee on Raw only served to make it that much more fun for me. The Twister segment was bad though, didn't seem like Pee-Wee material to me. The segment with The Miz and The Big P was much better, but there was still something missing. There was some pretty good wrestling on Raw tonight too. Good show in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supershot Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Ya it was a pretty good RAW. Anyone else think R Truth is gonna be turning heel within a few weeks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crownsy Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 I have to admit i don't follow the "financial" stuff of the wwe like i use to but does the incressed sponshership make up for the lower ppv and tv ratings? I know they are not tarrible but they are not high as they once were *but then again that just could the times we are in*. I know they are getting many more "fammily friendly" sponsers but they are not getting that much wanted 18 to 35 demographic that alot of sponsers want so badly. I don't have the numbers on hand, but they are making significantly more than they were back then. It's also much more stable to court the big sponsors and easy fees than being totally dependent on PPV buys, which allows them to expand into things like WWE films and the proposed cable network. and for all the talk of low ratings, they finish top 3 in the 18-35 demo every week. This time of year is tough for them because MNF is a juggernaut, but they still help USA kill it in the cable ratings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crownsy Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Ya it was a pretty good RAW. Anyone else think R Truth is gonna be turning heel within a few weeks? I think someone's turning Spoiler: The leaked new theme song for cena leads me to think it's him, just because that seems like such a heel sounding song. OF course that could be the WWE working us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaySo Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 ^to go along with the spoiler. *WARNING* Click on the line if you read the spoilers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Final Countdown Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Having read the spoiler and clicked the link: that seems like a real possibility. And an interesting one, if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candyman Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 So we can now see Stephs dreams? If they're gonna run those kinda angles, may as well give up all pretense of kayfabe and admit it's all a work. This kind of thinking always confuses me, maybe you can help me out. What makes the WWE different than CSI or The Office or General Hospital? They're all TV shows, aren't they? Why do people expect realism from Raw? It's not a "work," it's FICTION. How is seeing Steph's dreams worse than any other backstage segment where the workers act like the cameras aren't there? Do you expect Steve Carroll to admit The Office is a work? They're not pretending it's real. Everybody knows it's fiction. It makes no sense. Not a chance in hell. When you look at the financial figures, WWE is actually doing better than the "attutude" era from a strictly business standpoint, mostly due to increased sponsor appeal and fees. They aren't going to risk losing big money sponsors so that they can take a shot at catching fire again when money's stable like it is now. Hell they fired a guy they clearly like because his tie choking incident freaked out a sponsor, there not going to go back to PG-13 on a whim post election cycle. Exactly. Contary to popular belief, few (if any) of their decisions are due to Linda's run for office. They'll change from PG when it'll make them more money, and that is definitively not the case today. But...didn't we finally accept that Daniel Bryan being fired was a work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 But...didn't we finally accept that Daniel Bryan being fired was a work? No. That was still just you. Most people think they fired him temporarily and then brought him back when things blew over. Which is far more logical than running a "worked" firing that served no real purpose since it was never really mentioned or acknowledged on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crownsy Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 from hearing his and other's comments post rehiring, i think the truth is in the middle. I think they fired him, but as some speculated at the time it was with a "keep your head down, don't talk about it, and your back in a few months once the sponsor stops complaining" type of firing. He was "fired" as in cut from the company payroll, but given every assurance that if he stayed quite about the whole thing, he'd be back sooner rather than later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Not a chance in hell. When you look at the financial figures, WWE is actually doing better than the "attutude" era from a strictly business standpoint, mostly due to increased sponsor appeal and fees. They aren't going to risk losing big money sponsors so that they can take a shot at catching fire again when money's stable like it is now. Hell they fired a guy they clearly like because his tie choking incident freaked out a sponsor, there not going to go back to PG-13 on a whim post election cycle. I'm not sure "better" is a totally fair term. Hard revenue is down. But they have more revenue streams and are more profitable because they cut spending. But your point is true: they aren't changing a product that it took them years to put in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHilton Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 from hearing his and other's comments post rehiring, i think the truth is in the middle. I think they fired him, but as some speculated at the time it was with a "keep your head down, don't talk about it, and your back in a few months once the sponsor stops complaining" type of firing. He was "fired" as in cut from the company payroll, but given every assurance that if he stayed quite about the whole thing, he'd be back sooner rather than later. Exactly. This happens to pro athletes all the time in all sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Two Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Yeah it was him. That whole segment was ridiculous. Not only was it ridiculous, it missed opportunities to be funny. It would have gone up hugely in my estimation if Vince's response to being told Undertaker had been buried had been "Not again." Just simple things showing a little wit and awareness of past events. Speaking of past events, since when is Vince in a coma? Did I miss the start of this plot or have I just purged it from my memory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Roguey Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Not only was it ridiculous, it missed opportunities to be funny. It would have gone up hugely in my estimation if Vince's response to being told Undertaker had been buried had been "Not again." Just simple things showing a little wit and awareness of past events. Speaking of past events, since when is Vince in a coma? Did I miss the start of this plot or have I just purged it from my memory? I think it is doe to the Nexus. It never did say if he went into a coma though/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoNdOn Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 I marked out big time when I saw Lita. Is she coming back? I haven't heard anything about her returning. If not, what was the point of here being on the show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaySo Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 LoNdOn, Former WWE Women's Champion Lita made an appearance on Monday's episode of WWE RAW in a segment with Pee-Wee Herman, Melina, Mark Henry, Eve Torres and The Bella Twins. Lita's appearance on RAW was a one-time deal and she has not re-signed with World Wrestling Entertainment. Lita is said to be a huge Pee-Wee Herman fan and was called over the weekend to see if she was interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoNdOn Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 LoNdOn, Former WWE Women's Champion Lita made an appearance on Monday's episode of WWE RAW in a segment with Pee-Wee Herman, Melina, Mark Henry, Eve Torres and The Bella Twins. Lita's appearance on RAW was a one-time deal and she has not re-signed with World Wrestling Entertainment. Lita is said to be a huge Pee-Wee Herman fan and was called over the weekend to see if she was interested. Thanks, although I have to say that sucks! I was really hoping she was coming back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20LEgend Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Are the guests always that bad, maybe it's a british thing but I hated seeing that in WWE that I used to enjoy so much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaySo Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 LoL at this GIF http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3489/nat.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakerNGN74 Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Wow...Just wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Two Posted November 3, 2010 Share Posted November 3, 2010 Not technically WWE news, but the BBC just called Linda McMahon the "former Chief Executive of World Championship Wrestling." I chuckled. Also that she "spent 60 million bucks of her own money on her campaign - which could have been better spent otherwise." Anyway, she's gonna lose. *Sigh of Relief* 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.