Heyman demoted as head writer of Smackdown

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

McMahon and Dunn are idiots. This is what happens when you have no competiton at all. You begin to put out what you want to see, instead of what the majority of the audience wants to see.

[Guest Brian]

ECW. You said it yourself.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Supposedly Heyman was a motivating factor in HLA, Katie Vick, and Al Wilson...

 

More Good than Bad?

[Guest deadbeater]

I think it was more Dreamer's work that helped ECW become ECW. His 'don't care how you wrestle' attitude worked in ECW, as they got a variety of wrestlers, and introduced lucha and Malenko's metamat style to the states.

 

Heyman does a good job writing buildups of characters. But his perchant for outside interference sometimes mars the product.

[Guest Brian]

He was writing with both RAW and SmackDown. One show ended up with better wrestlers and they got time to wretsle. And guess where the credit mainly fell, while the rest hit deaf ears.

[Guest Brian]

Like I said, he's good and getting guys on and letting them do their thing. But in terms of building for the future, building up money angles, and creating long term-plans, not really. And you'd think a guy who had his talent raided regularly would have figured something out.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

"Dave, I'm tellin ya, it was Johnny Ace who wanted to push Albert. That damn Brian Gerwitz, he's so zany! And Kevin Dunn, that guy just wants to keep on pushin the lesbians!"

 

RRR: My first name *is* John

[Guest RedJed]

Supposedly Heyman was a motivating factor in HLA, Katie Vick, and Al Wilson...

 

More Good than Bad?

Funny, I heard Kevin Dunn was behind those ideas......

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Funny, I heard that Paul likes to blame things on Kevin Dunn

[Guest Brian]

HLA's a Paul concept. He tried it in ECW.

[Guest Downhome]

Wow, nothing on a message board has ever altered my opinion on anything, untill now Brian. I was totally ready to bash WWE for what has happened here, untill I read your reasoning.

 

When you first think about it, it looks like Heyman has done a lot, but when you look at the big picture, and take everything into account, it's really not all that big of a change. Other than Smackdown having better matches than RAW, there really isn't any difference, not at all. Then again, that could stem from Smackdown having so much better talent.

 

As long as the new people taking over doesn't totally start trash booking, and as long as Heyman actually DOES still have input for SD, and now for RAW, then I'm pleased. Hell, RAW can take all the help they can get now. On a side note...

 

...as I watched Taker/TBS, and then Albert came in and got that huge rub from Taker, I KNEW something behind the scenes was going on, especially after Albert had jobbed to Benoit for the past two weeks, CLEAN, heh.

[Guest EN090]

Like I said, he's good and getting guys on and letting them do their thing. But in terms of building for the future, building up money angles, and creating long term-plans, not really. And you'd think a guy who had his talent raided regularly would have figured something out.

 

I agree that he hasn't really had a money feud or stuff like that. But bottom line is that he made the show better than it was before. There was the good Guerreros vs. Edge/Rey vs. Angle/Benoit storyline. Rock vs. Brock was good. And I said that a change was needed because ratings have been in the toilet. But my main gripe is them putting Bruce Pritchard as one of the head writers. That's just BS.

[Guest Downhome]

But my main gripe is them putting Bruce Pritchard as one of the head writers. That's just BS.

How do you know it is BS with him getting a shot? Other than having Heyman being gone, how is Bruce Pritchard a bad thing?

[Guest EN090]

My main reasoning is the fact that what he put on TV in 96 was the dumbest crap I've ever seen.

[Guest JMFabiano524]

Wow, nothing on a message board has ever altered my opinion on anything, untill now Brian. I was totally ready to bash WWE for what has happened here, untill I read your reasoning.

 

When you first think about it, it looks like Heyman has done a lot, but when you look at the big picture, and take everything into account, it's really not all that big of a change. Other than Smackdown having better matches than RAW, there really isn't any difference, not at all. Then again, that could stem from Smackdown having so much better talent.

 

As long as the new people taking over doesn't totally start trash booking, and as long as Heyman actually DOES still have input for SD, and now for RAW, then I'm pleased. Hell, RAW can take all the help they can get now. On a side note...

 

...as I watched Taker/TBS, and then Albert came in and got that huge rub from Taker, I KNEW something behind the scenes was going on, especially after Albert had jobbed to Benoit for the past two weeks, CLEAN, heh.

Yeah, when I read Downhome's post, it got me to thinking...the other day, my brother, who knows about my reluctance these past months to watch anything WWE all the way through, showed a little surprise that I wouldn't even watch Smackdown. Well, outside from the better matches, yes, it really isn't a godsend. Especially when you have crap like UT, A-Train, and the Al Wilson debacle clogging the show. And I was thinking about it...even if certain wrestlers do have those good matches, is it a guarantee that they will go anywhere? As we know too well, even if something's good, sooner or later, politics or some other BS will hamper it. Sadly, when I read rave reviews for a good match or such, I've been conditioned to think, "Oh, they'll get held back sooner or later." That's why I want to follow more indies, and NWA's TNA (did you hear AJ Styles is a WORLD TITLE CONTENDER there?) and Wildside (anyone have any tapes to trade? PLEASE?????). Not only do you get better chances for good matches, but the political nonsense isn't really a factor, and if it is, as far as I know it's real subtle.

 

And that is, in a nutshell, why I'm all "fuck the WWE, the sooner they go under the better." Hated that it came down to that, but you know, that's life and all.

[Guest Downhome]

And that is, in a nutshell, why I'm all "fuck the WWE, the sooner they go under the better."

Wow, I agreed with you untill that.

 

I in NO WAY wish for WWE to go under, instead, I still hope out for their getting better. If they were to go under (which, realisticly, isn't even close to happening, unless Vince just "decided" to close shop out of the blue), it would be horrible for Pro. Wrestling. It would be an almost restart of the industry main stream, and could take years to ever mean anything again. I'd rather what we have now get better, than have to restart all over again.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Thanks Brian for showing everyone the other side of the coin.

 

Yes, the SD 6 matches were all good, but when people start getting sick of the repetitiveness, then there's a problem. I also agree with Brian's assessment that Heyman was more concerned with booking show-to-show than anything long-term. As for those he supposedly elevated, putting forth the argument that "he was hampered by politics thus he couldn't elevate as much as he wished" and then saying things like Dunn (whom I despise) or Pritchard will get full control is remarkably obtuse. As is the "you can't create main eventers overnight" argument. Heyman was writing Smackdown shows for more than half a year - how long could it possibly take? Oh wait, he was constantly held back by politics. Right.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I don't really get the Dunn hate. One of the best things about the WWE is their production. Which he controls.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I don't really get the Dunn hate. One of the best things about the WWE is their production. Which he controls.

 

You're right, and if he were to just stick to production, I don't think anyone would have a problem with him. But he's the one who's been pushing for less wrestling and more vignettes, wanting to make it more of an entertainment show, and weren't there reports that he was the one pushing for the whole Katie Vick debacle???

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I'll point to the "Paul Heyman likes to blame things on Kevin Dunn" post to answer that one.

[Guest RedJed]

What I'm seeing now in this discussion though is the fact that in all honesty, none of us will apparently know the entire truth of how it is behind the scenes, so we shouldn't jump to conclusions on what was prevented to happen, what wasn't, what was this persons idea, and what wasn't this person idea, etc. We are just going by what we think about the situation is true. I'm going from what I know from the sheets and apparently there is people here and everywhere though that think that sources lie or make up things (which very well could be true). Also curious how there is any evidence that Heyman is a source for the news in the first place, where did this come from? I would think though that before a story is reported, the folks from the Torch and Observer would doublecheck with someone else in the company though too, correct? So I think its a lil unjust to just say that Heyman is reporting on everything or everyone that is against him, IMO. Its not just as cut and dry as that. As isn't any of the politics in this company.

 

I will say this much though, I don't see anyone getting full control of either of the shows and that is a major problem with creative right now and I've heard it from everywhere.......the writers specifically write to please Vince's likes and not neccesarily the fans. They know if they do, that it won't go anywhere or will be changed anyway.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I, and I am assuming Brian as well, are getting the info from TOA, and specifically John D. Williams. Williams personally knows both Wade and Dave (or at least knew) so he has some credibility in that area. It has been said that some people who work within the WWE have posted on the board as well saying that Heyman pushed for HLA.

[Guest Vitamin X]

It's happened before. Fully Loaded 2000. King of the Ring 2001. Benoit was just put in there as fodder for Angle; placeholder for wrestling with no intent to give Benoit anything for the future. He's been shoved way back down now, to Team Angle.

Damn that bastard Kurt Angle. He's always holding people down.

[Guest JMFabiano524]

And that is, in a nutshell, why I'm all "fuck the WWE, the sooner they go under the better."

Wow, I agreed with you untill that.

 

I in NO WAY wish for WWE to go under,

Well, that comment was a kind of exaggeration/caricature of my feelings. Though there are times when I hear that something so hopeless happens, and I give a WCW-2000ish, "Oh for God's sake, put it out of its misery!"

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I want the WWE to die.

 

Moreso becauseI want Vince McMahon to watch the WWE die.

 

They treat their fans like shit, they deserve to die.

[Guest RedJed]

I, and I am assuming Brian as well, are getting the info from TOA, and specifically John D. Williams.  Williams personally knows both Wade and Dave (or at least knew) so he has some credibility in that area.  It has been said that some people who work within the WWE have posted on the board as well saying that Heyman pushed for HLA.

I would take a viewpoint of a guy who claims to know both Keller and Meltzer "personally" with a grain of salt, as well as anonymous posters who claim to work with WWE, but thats just me maybe. Just seems like someone who has major beef with Heyman or just generally doesn't like his work, so he stirs up shit about stuff he probably doesn't know shit about in the first place. I think this is the same guy that has claimed that Heyman has actually been head writing both shows since mid year of last year.

 

Like I said before, I would like to think that Keller, Meltzer and the rest would have more sources than just a few within the company. Thats why making the claim that Heyman is just blaming everyone else for mistakes in the product is kind of out there to say the least. If that was the case, you would have conflicting viewpoints from other sources within the company, and sooner or later those claims (apparently from Heyman) would be disputed and debunked from these major reporters. All I know this much, and this is just from a simplistic perspective, nothing too in depth or anything. I don't think it can be doubted that Smackdown is/was by far the more solidly put together and logical weekly show the WWE has put out in, hell, years. I can't see how anyone who considers themself a wrestling fan can't see that, much less dispute that. And it wasn't just the actual wrestling, the storylines were there and things just flowed right. Stories were told in the ring, not by ridiculous crash TV segments every 10 minutes.

 

This is what baffles me with someone saying Heyman did nothing for the Smackdown product, because it should be obvious that there were some positive changes that were implimented (be it coincidence or not) when Heyman was put in charge. Just the fact that ANY positives were accomplished in his booking run is saying alot given the companies current status. Politics are also at an all time high in the company, so I think its ridiculous to not think that there was not people standing in the way of some things happening on the show either.

 

Regarding the topic of long term elevation or even long term booking, I guess you all haven't noticed with the changing viewpoints and idea by head management, that is simply not possible to book ahead of time. The only situations of such we've seen is the booking to Mania matches like Jericho-HBK, Angle/Lesnar, etc. If you think about it more though, think about the character development and general elevation (not necessarily to a main event level but just anywhere) of the Smackdown roster to the Raw roster. Again, I can't see how there is an issue when it comes to this, it should be obvious that there was much more positives done for this roster compared to the crap over on Raw. I guess what pisses me off about this decision more than anything is that if you're going to be realistic and logical about dealing with problems that Raw have (which at least SHOULD be the issue that management needs to deal with) they should get rid of Brian Gerwitz. But he still is all safe and protected, which makes no fucking sense whatsover to me. Its an ass backwards way to deal with this problem. Plus Heyman and Gerwitz don't get along so how is them working together supposed to help anything out? Just a huge mess.

 

I could go on and on about this but like I said in that other posts, its gotten down to a situation where some people are believing the sheets and some arent and then making assumptions from such.

[Guest NoCalMike]

HLA's a Paul concept. He tried it in ECW.

Ummm, I hope you aren't referring to the Beulah/Kimona incident, which was a one time thing and just a small part to a bigger angle that was just about never visited or brought up again. HLA was a totally different entity.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Heyman has good and bad ideas about a lot of things, like most writers. However the missing link in all of this is Vince McMahon. We are kidding ourselves if we think Vince still doesn't have the BIGGEST hand in what we see come out on tv. Plus who knows what workers(workers, meaning, wrestlers, writers, producers, shane, steph etc....) in the WWE are whispering into McMahon's ears every other minute about some crazy idea they have. It really isn't as simple a process as, "Heyman get idea, Heyman write down, Heyman show Vince, Heyman put into show" IMO, it is probably more Vince approaching the writers about what VINCE MCMAHON wants to see, and it is up to the writers to present VINCE MCMAHON's vision on TV. We have all seen Beyond the Mat, did you see the joy and glee on Vince's face when he told Droz that he had come up with the "puke" gimmick....he looked like a kind in a candy store. So I am almost positive that the same type of meetings happen with the writers. I think Heyman is a good choice as head writer because he will offer something against the "wwe" grain, that may not ALWAYS work, but at least he is throwing DIFFERENT ideas out there, rather than having a mindless McMahon-esque drone in there.

[Guest NoSelfWorth]

Kevin Dunn was indeed behind the necrophillia angle.

[Guest Brian]

John D. Williams is a former Torch reporter (for the Newsletter) who has at least contacts in the WWE. He was the first to break a lot of stories, like Triple H and Steph's affair.

 

Heyman has talked about doing a lesbian angle in the past, on a bigger front than Beulah/Kimona.