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

[Teh_Showtime]

Morrison has a fairly good amount of psychology if I say so myself.

 

All while being a product of tough enough.

[PeterHilton]

That's pretty much it.

 

 

Now, I will say ONE positive thing about WWE's development... they have managed to have guys, at the very least, to be safe and understanding the basics in the ring. I have no issue with that.

 

What I do have an issue with, though, is these guys aren't very good at anything else. Yes, I know WWE isn't about ring-work, but even by their own standards, some of the guys they have are rather thin by modern standards when it comes to having more ring work. It's WWE 80's anymore.

 

And at the very least, if they don't have ring, their selling and psychology (not all cases) are subpar. Before anyone says there is no such thing as "psychology", watch a Jake Roberts vs. Ted Dibiase match, and then watch a Ted Dibiase Jr. match against John Morrision. Jake Roberts vs. Ted Dibiase is a much better match.

 

Both Ted Jr. and Morrison know more moves than Dibiase and Roberts do, so ringwork isn't the issue here. One may cite experience, but both Ted Jr. and Morrison have been wrestling for a while, so it's not a good excuse. The difference in the match is... psychology. Plain and simple.

 

I agree and disagree on parts of this, but I side with the direction you're coming from

 

Over-all, I just think the talent process has eliminated alot of individuality and true originality.

 

It's a cookie cutter structure that creates cookie cutter workers.

[Teh_Showtime]

I wouldn't say cookie cutter as much as less exposure to other styles.

 

That was why it was different. The crowds in Texas, and the crowds in Philly are what could mold wrestlers.

 

Now everyone it's all the same style everyone coming up goes through

[ampulator]

Morrison has a fairly good amount of psychology if I say so myself.

 

All while being a product of tough enough.

Actually, he's decent by today's standards... but it's still nowhere Ted Dibiase Sr's, or Jake Roberts. To be fair,

 

I agree and disagree on parts of this, but I side with the direction you're coming from

 

Over-all, I just think the talent process has eliminated alot of individuality and true originality.

 

It's a cookie cutter structure that creates cookie cutter workers.

 

I wouldn't say cookie cutter as much as less exposure to other styles.

 

That was why it was different. The crowds in Texas, and the crowds in Philly are what could mold wrestlers.

 

Now everyone it's all the same style everyone coming up goes through

 

I think it's both. A lack of exposure and a cookie cutter style... a lack of exposure to different styles leads to the cookie cutter style, which leads to everyone having the same style.

[Teh_Showtime]

Actually, he's decent by today's standards... but it's still nowhere Ted Dibiase Sr's, or Jake Roberts. To be fair,

 

That would be an unfair comparison. They are by far two of the best EVER. You can't compare Morrison to those likes from a psychology standpoint

[ampulator]

That would be an unfair comparison. They are by far two of the best EVER. You can't compare Morrison to those likes from a psychology standpoint

It is. But that only illustrates my point further. There is no one today with that level. Not even one. Undertaker comes pretty close, but he's retiring soon.

 

there is NO fair comparison, simply because there IS no one at that level today.

[PeterHilton]

I wouldn't say cookie cutter as much as less exposure to other styles.

 

That was why it was different. The crowds in Texas, and the crowds in Philly are what could mold wrestlers.

 

Now everyone it's all the same style everyone coming up goes through

 

How is that definition different than 'cookie cutter'?

[Teh_Showtime]

because stone cold said so?

[Hive]

I understand why the WWE would want a high profile match like Triple H vs. The Undertaker, career vs. streak... and it does make sense in regards to Triple H seeking revenge for Shawn Michaels. Maybe throw in Michaels as special referee, and it would be a very interesting setup.

 

However... it makes little storyline sense that neither Triple H nor The Undertaker wants to gun for the guys who took them out of action long time ago in the first place, before anything else. A king vs. king Triple H vs. Sheamus match would have been obvious, and could have gotten amble heat if not for the illogical jobbing of Sheamus (while not exactly one of the greatest performers of all time, I could see Sheamus being much more than he currently is). And The Undertaker should want revenge against either Barret or at the very least Kane, perhaps even both in a triple threat match, as it could be argued that Barrett is not (yet) a worthy Wrestlemania opponent for Undertaker.

 

I think both Sheamus and Barrett could get much needed rubs from this, and if Triple H is as high on Sheamus as rumours say, he could let him end his carreer.

 

But eh... maybe it will all make sense in the end.

[Linsolv]

I still don't see it. Michaels made a bet and lost it, fair and square. Where's the revenge?

 

Incidentally, I'd rather see a Barrett/Taker match, if only because I like the **** out of Barrett. I like his nose. I like his voice. I like his hair. He cuts a good figure and to an extent I'm happy with just that. As far as his in-ring work, eh. Everyone seems to be kinda the same these days. They seemed more or less the same back in the day, from what I've seen, so I'm not trying to be insulting. It's always been, to me, that your in-ring work was an extension of your persona, and I like Barrett as a character.

[PeterHilton]

I think both Sheamus and Barrett could get much needed rubs from this, and if Triple H is as high on Sheamus as rumours say, he could let him end his carreer.

 

But eh... maybe it will all make sense in the end.

 

Probably not.

 

Your idea makes sense and would be a logical extension of the current and past storylines. Unfortunately it would also leave two of the company's biggest names facing off against two realitively unknown commodities on the biggest show of the year.

 

So throw out storyline consideration; this is a grab for ratings and buy rates and nothing more.

[Linsolv]

But Peter, I mean... the thing is... like... lazy storyline booking has been what we've been complaining about for the past few pages with Sheamus' push so far. Why should we criticize it with creating new stars, but not with selling PPVs? I am sick of people (WWE staff writers included) looking at the nose in front of their face instead of the road ahead.

[Fantabulous]

I still don't see it. Michaels made a bet and lost it, fair and square. Where's the revenge?

 

Because when it's your best friend reason and/or logic sometimes goes out the window.

[ampulator]

I understand why the WWE would want a high profile match like Triple H vs. The Undertaker, career vs. streak... and it does make sense in regards to Triple H seeking revenge for Shawn Michaels. Maybe throw in Michaels as special referee, and it would be a very interesting setup.

 

However... it makes little storyline sense that neither Triple H nor The Undertaker wants to gun for the guys who took them out of action long time ago in the first place, before anything else. A king vs. king Triple H vs. Sheamus match would have been obvious, and could have gotten amble heat if not for the illogical jobbing of Sheamus (while not exactly one of the greatest performers of all time, I could see Sheamus being much more than he currently is). And The Undertaker should want revenge against either Barret or at the very least Kane, perhaps even both in a triple threat match, as it could be argued that Barrett is not (yet) a worthy Wrestlemania opponent for Undertaker.

 

I think both Sheamus and Barrett could get much needed rubs from this, and if Triple H is as high on Sheamus as rumours say, he could let him end his carreer.

 

But eh... maybe it will all make sense in the end.

There is one very simple answer for this.

 

Neither Barrett nor Sheamus has panned out on how they hoped they will pan out.

 

Long Answer: Barrett is clearly not ready in the ring, even though e has good mic skills and charisma, and Sheamus is coming along nicely along the mic, but the fans just don't seem to care about him. Well, I shouldn't say that... he's more misbooked than anything.

[PeterHilton]

But Peter, I mean... the thing is... like... lazy storyline booking has been what we've been complaining about for the past few pages with Sheamus' push so far. Why should we criticize it with creating new stars, but not with selling PPVs? I am sick of people (WWE staff writers included) looking at the nose in front of their face instead of the road ahead.

 

Feel free to criticize. I think it's totally fair.

 

And for all we know plans leading into tis years WM was for Triple H to face Sheamus in a bloody brawl and for Taker to make Barrett look like a million bucks ala Randy Orton a few years back.

 

But the WWE is responding to a string of bad financial reports, they've brought back some Attitude Era stars to help boost viewers, and WM is the one PPV that absolutely NEEDS to be a giant success and Taker/Triple H at the top of the card would help

 

(plus..as amp pointed out...Barrett and Sheamus haven't exactly blown up)

 

IMO grabbing Sting would've been about 100 times better because I personally have zero interes in Hunter/Taker but that's the logic.

 

Because when it's your best friend reason and/or logic sometimes goes out the window.

 

I thnk it's a reach but I'm sure that's how it'll be written

[ampulator]

And for all we know plans leading into tis years WM was for Triple H to face Sheamus in a bloody brawl and for Taker to make Barrett look like a million bucks ala Randy Orton a few years back.

 

I think WWE's trying to build stars too fast... or at the very least, at the wrong pace. Look what happened to Swagger. Hot-Shotting clearly works rarely.

 

But the WWE is responding to a string of bad financial reports, they've brought back some Attitude Era stars to help boost viewers, and WM is the one PPV that absolutely NEEDS to be a giant success and Taker/Triple H at the top of the card would help.

I want to see these financial reports. Where are they?

[Bigpapa42]

I want to see these financial reports. Where are they?

 

http://corporate.wwe.com/

[Slim Jim]

IMO grabbing Sting would've been about 100 times better because I personally have zero interes in Hunter/Taker but that's the logic.

 

Not a Sting fan?

[ampulator]

http://corporate.wwe.com/

I'm looking at it, and profits are down in "Live and Televised Entertainment", "Consumer Products", and "Digital Media", but up in "WWE Studios". They actually made a profit year 2010.

 

Oh... maybe it's the PPV revenues. I KNEW IT! But there isn't much they can do about it. That's one area where I can say there are going to lose money either way.

[PeterHilton]

Not a Sting fan?

 

wocka wocka wocka

[PeterHilton]

I'm looking at it, and profits are down in "Live and Televised Entertainment", "Consumer Products", and "Digital Media", but up in "WWE Studios". They actually made a profit year 2010.

 

Oh... maybe it's the PPV revenues. I KNEW IT! But there isn't much they can do about it. That's one area where I can say there are going to lose money either way.

 

"We're going to lose money either way" probaby isn't the kind of financial analysis that the shareholders are looking for.

 

It's probably just a smoke screen, but when you have three bad quarters in a row, it's fairly reasonable that you respond by doing everything possible to hit a homerun with your biggest, most profitable, most visible, and most well known PPV

[ampulator]

"We're going to lose money either way" probaby isn't the kind of financial analysis that the shareholders are looking for.

 

It's probably just a smoke screen, but when you have three bad quarters in a row, it's fairly reasonable that you respond by doing everything possible to hit a homerun with your biggest, most profitable, most visible, and most well known PPV

Fair point... but there isn't much they can do about it. PPV's are dying, especially for entertainment. Guess what PPV's are competing with? Free TV, the Internet, DVD's, Blu-ray... It's the same reasons why theaters aren't doing too well these days.

 

Plus, raising the price, making the PPVs gimmicky (HIAC PPV?!), having pointless PPVs (too many to name), isn't going to help. They can't CUT the price, because that would not likely riase profits. They can't have LESS PPV's, because it will also mean less profits. As for less gimmicky PPV's... they can do something about that, but they might lose about it.

 

Either way, they are darned if they, darned if they don't. PPV's are going the way of the dinosaur for pre-scripted entertainment.

 

I'll wait for their annual report for 2010. Probably won't be good, though, especially on the PPV front.

[PeterHilton]

Either way, they are darned if they, darned if they don't. PPV's are going the way of the dinosaur for pre-scripted entertainment.

 

I can't disagree with anything youve said. Spot on, basically.

 

But because the E is publicly traded, because they got into the nasty habit of paying out dividends even when they didn't need to (which created certain expectations in their fanbase), and because they've been slow to take advantage of media outside of TV, they're tied to the PPV model for the foreseeable future.

[Jaysin]

G Rilla was safe and now Hutter goes home. I now have zero interest in NXT's outcome. Hutter was by far the most entertaining person in that group and his pairing with Danielson was great.

[djthefunkchris]

Wow... I just caught Cena's promo on Rock from Monday on youtube....

 

I don't really care what anyone says... He burned him pretty good. Can't wait to see Rock try to top it, lol. This could be pretty entertaining if they keep it up (never have to have a match, just do these promo's on each other).