Guest bob_barron Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Wrestling promotions have been screwing fans for years. I don't know anyone (except for Goldberg) who lost a retirement match and didn't come back. Nash and Flair lost TWO.
Guest TestKick Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 I agree that it's good to finally see some positive, constructive comments on this board. Smackdown was alright tonight, but it will get worse in the future. I don't care about stipulations that Stephanie shouldn't be back on TV... the fact is, she is a terrible actress that hogs all the attention from the wrestlers... and that's why I won't watch unless the spoilers indicate very much the opposite. Steph was only on a few minutes tonight.. she didn't directly affect any other wrestlers tonight. That will change, as she will steal all heat from them, hog over 20 minutes of show, and be the center of attention yet again... and that I will not watch.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Also, Ric Flair has done false retirement angles and you know what? Each one decreases in value every time he does it. Just look at Terry Funk. I guarentee you the emotional value of the first retirement was much more than the 22nd. I know, I know, I know, I am just some closet mark for wanting value and meaning in a 'fake' sport.
Guest massivHEDtrauma Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 I don't care about stipulations that Stephanie shouldn't be back on TV... the fact is, she is a terrible actress that hogs all the attention from the wrestlers... and that's why I won't watch unless the spoilers indicate very much the opposite. Steph was only on a few minutes tonight.. she didn't directly affect any other wrestlers tonight. That will change, as she will steal all heat from them, hog over 20 minutes of show, and be the center of attention yet again... and that I will not watch. You don't know for sure that will happen. If it does, I'll be the first to congratulate you on your stunning foresight, but seriously, the logic of seeing something happen correctly tonight (as you stated, even if she shouldn't be back on TV, she didn't hog the spotlight and she didn't effect any other wrestlers too much) and then just assuming it will all fuck up immediately is beyond me. How can you criticize them for doing something properly by saying "you're going to screw it up!" That's like saying to a C average kid when he finally studies hard and gets an A+ "ah, you're dumb, you'll screw up so I don't care." Of course, you could say the WWE is actually just so stupid that they would screw themselves over, but I digress. Anyways, if Stephanie is on TV, of COURSE she's going to effect other wrestlers. Otherwise, what would be the point?
Guest papacita Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 As long as Steph doesn't start putting herself over the talent like she did before, I'm fine with the decision. As for Smackdown itself...I liked the show, especially the ending with Eric in the limo, but DAMN I can't stand HHH. I never realized how much I hate him until tonight. Oh well. Good show.
Guest evenflowDDT Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 My insiders are telling me that Downhome has been drugged and there is an impersonator posting on his nick-name. Also, in regards to Stephanie re-appearing, it's simple, the stip was her to never appear on WWF TV again, but this is WWE! Get the F out!
Guest RickyChosyu Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Again, how does it make it right? The Wwf cannot afford to screw their fans right now. How did they screw their fans? They are furthering an angle, and that I feel is what the fans want. You are a naive individual if you truly felt she'd never be on TV. Are you a closet "mark"? Anyone who claims that the return of Stephanie is "what the fans want" really shouldn't be calling others naive, and I think you know that, too. The problem is, frankly, that not only is the return of Stephanie not wanted, but was promised by the WWE to never happen again! I can't think of a more efficient way to drive away fans than by pretending to listen to them by promising to take something they don't like off of their TV forever and then laughing in their face by bringing it back on TV anyway. This goes way back to the Russo act of "swerves for the sake of swerves" where a promotion decides to do something unexpected, even if the fans clearly don't want it, and would have been perfectly happy with what they expected to happen. This theory that "fans will be so shocked that the GM is Stephanie that they'll forget how they hate seeing her on TV" attitude is the kind of thing that kills ratings. Yes it does.
Guest Downhome Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 My insiders are telling me that Downhome has been drugged and there is an impersonator posting on his nick-name. Nope, it's me it's me, it's D-o-w-n-h-o-m-e! I just really loved the show tonight, so sue me! Also, in regards to Stephanie re-appearing, it's simple, the stip was her to never appear on WWF TV again, but this is WWE! Get the F out! That, is one hell of an explanation and I do wish they would mention that. Good thinking there on your part, now if only Vince & Co. will do the same!
Guest evenflowDDT Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Also, in regards to Stephanie re-appearing, it's simple, the stip was her to never appear on WWF TV again, but this is WWE! Get the F out! That, is one hell of an explanation and I do wish they would mention that. Good thinking there on your part, now if only Vince & Co. will do the same! Yea, but I don't think it would work as an official explanation because of the WWE "re-writing" their entire history so that they always were the WWE. Plus I don't think they'd give us an official explanation anyway
Guest Downhome Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Again, how does it make it right? The Wwf cannot afford to screw their fans right now. How did they screw their fans? They are furthering an angle, and that I feel is what the fans want. You are a naive individual if you truly felt she'd never be on TV. Are you a closet "mark"? Anyone who claims that the return of Stephanie is "what the fans want" really shouldn't be calling others naive, and I think you know that, too. The problem is, frankly, that not only is the return of Stephanie not wanted, but was promised by the WWE to never happen again! I can't think of a more efficient way to drive away fans than by pretending to listen to them by promising to take something they don't like off of their TV forever and then laughing in their face by bringing it back on TV anyway. This goes way back to the Russo act of "swerves for the sake of swerves" where a promotion decides to do something unexpected, even if the fans clearly don't want it, and would have been perfectly happy with what they expected to happen. This theory that "fans will be so shocked that the GM is Stephanie that they'll forget how they hate seeing her on TV" attitude is the kind of thing that kills ratings. Yes it does. If ratings begin to tumble, I'll agree with you. I do not however feel that is going to happen. I didn't mean that Steph is what the fans wanted, but instead, they want an angle to be furthered, and believe it or not, her showing up tonight did further said angle. So if ratings go up for SD this week and then next week, will you think differently? I assure you that her showing up will do nothing to hurt the ratings and the fans perception of WWE.
Guest RickyChosyu Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 If ratings begin to tumble, I'll agree with you. I do not however feel that is going to happen. I didn't mean that Steph is what the fans wanted, but instead, they want an angle to be furthered, and believe it or not, her showing up tonight did further said angle. So if ratings go up for SD this week and then next week, will you think differently? I assure you that her showing up will do nothing to hurt the ratings and the fans perception of WWE. First, who says anyone wants this angle to be furthered? Not only do most WWE fans just hate Eric Bischoff to the point that they don't want him on their TV, but this angle is essentially the same one they've been running all year, and have been ussing for three years before that. If anything, the fans have been screaming for something new and origninial, not the same angle with new faces tacked on. Second, it furthers an angle in a direction they clearly did not want. The fan's reactions to Stephanie has already been that of negative, and I don't mean that as in heel heat. Thing is, Steph has always been a ratings killer. And I assure you, there's nothing that hurt's the perception of something more than when it fails to deliver. Breaking their promis to keep Steph off TV falls under this category, and it does hurt the way the fans percieve the company. If Rock can't pop a good rating on his return, what makes you think Steph can? Like I said before, the idea that her return was unexpected does not change the fact that it is also unwanted.
Guest Downhome Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 If ratings begin to tumble, I'll agree with you. I do not however feel that is going to happen. I didn't mean that Steph is what the fans wanted, but instead, they want an angle to be furthered, and believe it or not, her showing up tonight did further said angle. So if ratings go up for SD this week and then next week, will you think differently? I assure you that her showing up will do nothing to hurt the ratings and the fans perception of WWE. First, who says anyone wants this angle to be furthered? Not only do most WWE fans just hate Eric Bischoff to the point that they don't want him on their TV, but this angle is essentially the same one they've been running all year, and have been ussing for three years before that. If anything, the fans have been screaming for something new and origninial, not the same angle with new faces tacked on. Second, it furthers an angle in a direction they clearly did not want. The fan's reactions to Stephanie has already been that of negative, and I don't mean that as in heel heat. Thing is, Steph has always been a ratings killer. And I assure you, there's nothing that hurt's the perception of something more than when it fails to deliver. Breaking their promis to keep Steph off TV falls under this category, and it does hurt the way the fans percieve the company. If Rock can't pop a good rating on his return, what makes you think Steph can? Like I said before, the idea that her return was unexpected does not change the fact that it is also unwanted. Like I said, let's watch the ratings for the next few weeks and then we'll get back to this.
Guest Downhome Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Thing is, Steph has always been a ratings killer. Not to sound like an ass, but ever since Steph was forced off of TV, the ratings have consistantly fallen. If they begin to go back up, it's going to be funny as hell. Don't get me wrong, I hated Steph in her previous roles, but I loved what I saw tonight. I'm just playing devils advocate now, but it is true about the ratings falling since she left!
Guest RickyChosyu Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Not to sound like an ass, but ever since Steph was forced off of TV, the ratings have consistantly fallen. If they begin to go back up, it's going to be funny as hell. Don't get me wrong, I hated Steph in her previous roles, but I loved what I saw tonight. I'm just playing devils advocate now, but it is true about the ratings falling since she left! You're right, you are playing devils advocate, and I don't see how any corrilation between Steph leaving and ratings dropping has any meaning. I mean, if you can present proof, like say, if the weak after Steph left TV, the ratings dropped significantly, well, then I would listen to you. However, I happen to have proof that other things, such as Hogan winning the world title, and HHH failing to draw as a babyface, among other things, were the reason for the ratings drop, not Stephanie's departure. Yeah, that would be funny. And that's why it won't happen.
Guest pinnacleofallthingsmanly Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 I didn't watch Smackdown, and it looks like I won't watch it anymore. I had a much better time playing basketball tonight and talking with my roommates than I would have had watching Smackdown. I am done with Smackdown not because Stephanie McMahon is annoying on screen, I'm done with it because she is going to try to get herself over at any cost. The hype around the Smackdown GM was biger than the announcement of the RAW GM. Which GM was the bigger surprise, Vince's daughter or Vince's one time arch enemy? Now she's booking herself as a face, and she's going to try to get herself over no matter what it takes. The fact that she is the headwriter, and also Vince's daughter pisses me off when I see her inserting herself into prominent roles in the storylines. The arrival of the ECW last year was ruined for me when they announced her as the owner. It seems like she always has to make sure that there's something for her to do and somewhere for her to be seen. I really can't stand that. I thought they took a step in the right direction when she was off of tv before, but it seems like they will never learn. Nepotism will live on in the WWF, and that pisses me off to no end. People hated when Dusty Rhodes did that shit back in the 80's but he didn't get the job as booker by being anyone's son. I don't want to slight the wrestlers on Smackdown because I honestly thought it was on the rise, but the stuff that is going on now is the stuff that put WCW out of business.
Guest Olympic Slam Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 I'm amazed people are overlooking this...... While I'm not excited in the least to see Stephie back so soon (Shane would be better as the face GM), it shouldn't matter who the GM is until we know what the hell a WWE GM is. As it is right now it's just Eric and Stephanie arguing over who gets what talent on what show. Yet has the WWE given us any reason to care if HHH goes to RAW or stays on Smackdown? Nope, because they've given us no reason to care why one particual GM signs the Rock or Jericho or HHH or Rico or Orton or whomever. Unless you're name is UPN or TNN why should any fan care if HHH moves from one show to the next? Before going through with this evil GM vs. good GM angle, shouldn't they have made an effort at creating the illusion that being on RAW matters rather than being on Smackdown?
Guest Vitamin X Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 I take anything I devote hours, nay, years, of my life to seriously. And that's not the WWF's fault now is it?
Guest Raven_Effect01 Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 I don't care about stipulations that Stephanie shouldn't be back on TV... the fact is, she is a terrible actress that hogs all the attention from the wrestlers... and that's why I won't watch unless the spoilers indicate very much the opposite. Steph was only on a few minutes tonight.. she didn't directly affect any other wrestlers tonight. That will change, as she will steal all heat from them, hog over 20 minutes of show, and be the center of attention yet again... and that I will not watch. I was thinking the same thing. Remember the last time Stephanie returned to WWE TV in December of 2001? Sure, for maybe one or two weeks, she only was on TV for a few minutes(only stayed a face for one night), but eventually started hogging the spotlight from wrestlers again and giving herself A LOT of airtime and mic time on TV with her squealing voice as she pissed viewers like me off with it every week, was responsible along with HHH for hurting Jericho's main-event credibility due to that feud being centered around her bickerings with HHH and Lucy's dog shit and her making Jericho her slave boy, and if you think I want to see that again, you're dead wrong, which is why I didn't watch Smackdown last night, because I know eventually she's going to do the same thing she did like in her last return to WWE: Be a face for a short time without the squealy voice and not being on TV too much. Then, after that, turning heel, taking up wrestlers' airtime and mic time, bringing back the squealy voice(fortunately it could take her longer to do so since I've read she might have a cold right now, or maybe laryngitis), and making herself the focal point of the show again. Maybe even having another deserving wrestler as her slave boy again, and until she gets out of this major storyline and off TV again, I still may not be watching Smackdown for a while.
Guest AM The Kid Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 You da man, Downhome. You da man! I agree with what Downhome has said 100%. Smackdown was one of the most entertaining WWF shows I've watched in a long time. The mark in my truly came out and I felt like I was a seven year old mark again watching the show. Clearly Stephanie is not going to be the annoying slut anymore and please start realising that it was a gimmick. I also felt that Steph was finnally portrayed right last night, the way she is in real life. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in the Steph/Bischoff storyline, because, longterm, it could really turn the product around.
Guest RickyChosyu Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 You da man, Downhome. You da man! I agree with what Downhome has said 100%. Smackdown was one of the most entertaining WWF shows I've watched in a long time. The mark in my truly came out and I felt like I was a seven year old mark again watching the show. Clearly Stephanie is not going to be the annoying slut anymore and please start realising that it was a gimmick. I also felt that Steph was finnally portrayed right last night, the way she is in real life. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in the Steph/Bischoff storyline, because, longterm, it could really turn the product around. Oh, this is too much. It's all fine and good that you felt like a seven year old mark when watching the show, but can you present one reasonable explanantion as to why? This is just like the Raw last year with ECW invading and joining with WCW where everyone was marking out like crazy but couldn't actually present one reason why it would be good for business. Tonight's Smackdown saw the return of someone they said would never be on TV again; someone the fans don't want on TV again, and certainly someone they will refuse to actually cheer (but I guess that's what canned heat is for). So what did her return accomplish other than breaking another promise to the fans and providing a slight shock to the un-jaded ones? It set up another "owner Vs. owner" storyline that the fans have seen way too many times to be interesting, and managed to make HHH the focus again despite how little interest there is in him as a babyface. Furthermore, as Olympic Slam pointed out, why should anyone even care who goes on what show? What has the WWE done to establish that being on one show or the other even matters to the fans at all? Fact is, they lost the illusion of "Two diferent brands" a long time ago, and this attempt at making it seem important is really just the same angle they've been using for the last three years or so, which is not the anser right now. If Steph and the writers would just book a wrestling show, and do things wrestling fans want, instead of trying to do every possible thing they don't want in hopes of saving their asses, they might have a decent product. As of now, it's a tired spin on a failed concept on a show that has lots and lots of promising talent but absolutely no good wrestling. Stephanie promised she would be gone from TV twice, broke her promise a second time last night, and then managed to work in "I'll give you what you, the fans, want" into her promo. That probably is "Stephanie how she is in real life", and that's why she's a horrible writer.
Guest bob_barron Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Well excuse me for enjoying a show with a great main event and two good cruiser matches. So when Ric Flair came back I was supposed to dislike it since he had lost a Loser Leaves Town Match?
Guest AM The Kid Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Stephanie promised she would be gone from TV twice, broke her promise a second time last night Oh fuck, thats a good one. You are sad.
Guest Your Olympic Hero Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 We need the greatest three man team to do on RAW- Tony, Dusty and Brain. God those guys cracked me up Off the subject, but here's the announce trio from Hell.... Dusty Rhodes, Stevie Ray, & Steve McMichael AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 And that's not the WWF's fault now is it? WTF does this mean? You know, I'd like to think any one who devotes a great sum of their time to something would that that something seriously. Fuck, the Wwfs problem right now is not enough fans care about the product. I seriously doubt Steph will help the ratings. The Invasion bombed and she was the head of it. That, more than anything, killed fan interest. Now that fans are seeing that the Wwf is not willing to CHANGE, the hope that they once had is dying faster and faster each day. Can ANYONE justify to me Steph being GM? I mean, fuck, 'it furthers a storyline', NO IT DOESN'T!!! Her Storyline was dead when she lost that match to HHH! Now this is just beating a dead horse.
Guest RickyChosyu Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Well excuse me for enjoying a show with a great main event and two good cruiser matches. So when Ric Flair came back I was supposed to dislike it since he had lost a Loser Leaves Town Match? The main event wasn't what I would call great. They just did the usual Pay Per View Build-Up Match they usually do with the typical run-in finish. As for the Cruisers, seeing Chavo get a win was quite fufilling...until they revealed it's just so he can job to Rey next week. Kidman/Taj I've seen too many times to care, and I don't think I'm alone on that one. And the Flair reference doesn't really make sense because he lost that match as a wrestler and was brought back as an owner. I know I'm using WWE logic here, but come on, lossing a "Loser Leaves Town match" as a wrestler and being brought back in a comisioner-type role is hardly the same thing as Stephanie's return. Not to mention that leaving a promotion for eight years and then returning is quite different from leaving for five months and returing. But then again, I think you know that. Also, I think everyone dam well knows that when Flair left it was because he wanted to return to WCW while Stephanie's departure from TV was because the fans couldn't stand her, which really is all that needs to be said about the matter.
Guest RickyChosyu Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 Stephanie promised she would be gone from TV twice, broke her promise a second time last night Oh fuck, thats a good one. You are sad. Sad because I question a the use of Steph? She was thrown off of TV twice, once in the Invasion period, and once in the HHH period. Durring both times, she was head writer, so by booking an angle like that, she was promising her departure from TV, and both times, she broke it by appearing on TV again. Then again, it sounds like you're happier being ignorant about the whole matter, so I should probably just leave it at that.
Guest AM The Kid Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 It's a wrestling angle, don't take it so seriously!
Guest RickyChosyu Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 It's a wrestling angle, don't take it so seriously! You know, I'm sure a lot of the die-hard WCW fans said the same thing on a weekly basis. Yep.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 It's a wrestling angle that is indicative of the direction of this company. We all should take it seriously. There is a problem backstage, and it shows on-screen. They are booking from day to day and they are just not putting thought into their storylines. If they did we wouldn't have this nice lil logic gap. I find it insulting that the Wwf would assume that their fans are so stupid as not to realize that Steph isn't supposed to be there. I find it disturbing that they think they can get away with it, and even more disturbing that we have people saying 'it's a wrestling angle, don't take it so seriously'.
Guest Downhome Posted July 19, 2002 Report Posted July 19, 2002 You're right, you are playing devils advocate, and I don't see how any corrilation between Steph leaving and ratings dropping has any meaning. I mean, if you can present proof, like say, if the weak after Steph left TV, the ratings dropped significantly, well, then I would listen to you. However, I happen to have proof that other things, such as Hogan winning the world title, and HHH failing to draw as a babyface, among other things, were the reason for the ratings drop, not Stephanie's departure. Didn't you say...what...I think earlier you...ummm...oh yeah, you said this... Thing is, Steph has always been a ratings killer. Now if you can build a case that she soley killed ratings, then I can just as well build a case that she kept them up for a while and that they went down after she left, which they did. Don't get me wrong, as I never feel that ANY one angle hurts the show, it's the entire show from top to bottom, each angle, each match, everything that dictates ratings for an overall show. I only brought up what I said because of that one quote from above that you used to start with. Like I said just now... ...if you are going to say that she has always killed ratings, I can bring up that they fell even worse and consistantly, after she left TV. By the way, the overnight rating for this Smackdown was a 4.4. Now obviously the final will not be that high, but it will be at least what it was last week, which was a 3.3, and possibly even higher than that. Now if everyone as you say hate her so much that she "kills ratings" shouldn't this weeks rating be lower than last week, as all of these people as you say would have turned off the show once she came on. I'm sorry, but her being on Smackdown is going to do NOTHING to lower the ratings... ...if anything, it will now intrigue the fans, as it is now something new, something fresh, and a new dirrection, and come on, don't play that "but Steph has been here before, this is NOT fresh" card, as she has NEVER been on the air in this current angle before, it IS new, it IS fresh, and it IS a new dirrection. If anything hurts the ratings, it will be because that they fail to follow up with this GM angle correctly, and NOT just by her being on the TV program.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now