Heyman demoted as head writer of Smackdown

[Guest Brian]

Question: If Paul's only writing SmackDown, why is he arguing storylines with Gerwitz?

 

Brian, who thinks that Heyman needs to proofread what he leaks next time.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Question: If Paul's only writing SmackDown, why is he arguing storylines with Gerwitz?

 

Brian, who thinks that Heyman needs to proofread what he leaks next time.

Because Evil Brian Gerwitz and his arch-minion Spawn Kevin Dunne are interfering in Smackdown storylines and forceably making Paul do Al Wilson storylines, of course. Duh.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

[Guest NoCalMike]

I think the bottomline is, if Heyman is losing his job, then at least it should be to someone just as qualified with a proven past of success, and I don't see that happening, in fact WWE seems to be going backwards. Oh and as far as feuds and stories having no ending, well there was a nice time in wrestling where feuds weren't blown off after a month or two, where things were built for a much longer time to have a bigger payoff.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

I think the bottomline is, if Heyman is losing his job, then at least it should be to someone just as qualified with a proven past of success, and I don't see that happening, in fact WWE seems to be going backwards. Oh and as far as feuds and stories having no ending, well there was a nice time in wrestling where feuds weren't blown off after a month or two, where things were built for a much longer time to have a bigger payoff.

Yes, because so many of those Heyman long-term feuds and storylines were renowned for their great pay-offs...erm...like Tazz/Sabu! Oh wait, no...OK, RVD becoming top dog!...Shit, that didn't happen either...Wait, wait, wait, Angle-Benoit! What do you mean, that hasn't had a proper pay-off yet? Does it have to build for an even longer time than half a year with numerous face/heel turns? Oh well, long-term it is then.

[Guest EN090]

If you guys want to bash Heyman, that's fine. But the point is that if you're going to replace him, then replace him with someone that's qualified to do the job not Bruce "I have my head buried in Vince's ass" Pritchard.. If it was up to me then I'd go with Terry Taylor. He's proven that he could write quality storylines (with the exception of the cancer stuff) and I think he should be given a shot.

 

Like I said before - Heyman hasn't been doing a picture-perfect job but it's been better then what the Raw writers have been doing and definitly better then what we'll be seeing in the future with Bruce Pritchard at the helm.

 

That being said, whoever said that Smackdown is must-see TV needs their head checked. WWF 1999 was must-see TV as proven by how many people were watching. Smackdown has been getting 3.2's. It's been a solid product but it's been far from must-see TV. I'm convinced that WWE will never get back to the level it was in 1999 so I was content in watching a Smackdown-type product. But must-see-TV? Gimme a break.

[Guest Brian]

Heyman is a RAW writer.

[Guest creativename]

As opposed to Paul "ECW went bankrupt and Smackdown/WWE ratings fell while I was writing" Heyman?

ECW and WWF mid-90's are hardly comparable. One was a fledgling promotion in a bingo hall, the other a massive corporation with decades of history. The fact that WWF almost went bankrupt at all was shocking, and Pritchard was one of the people in charge during this time. And while ECW was a financial disaster, it was a success with the fans--they connected emotionally with the storylines, and it's writing we're discussing here. If Heyman had the faintest clue about business at all, ECW could've become something.

 

That being said, whoever said that Smackdown is must-see TV needs their head checked.

SD! is no longer must-see TV...well, duh. However, there was a stretch of about 2-3 months where the SD! 6 were just on and it was must-see TV (the ratings clearly reflected this--yes they were only mid-3's, but that was stunningly good compared to Raw at the time; SD! and Raw always drew a pretty even number of viewers, but here SD! was drawing 15-20% more than Raw). Some credit must be given to the writers for allowing that to happen.

 

Also, I agree with the Terry Taylor thing--yes, he was supposedly the one responsible for this Albert push and the whole Matt/Rey thing; at least he's had some success in the past, though. He did come up with the nWo after all.

[Guest Brian]

But none of the wrestling did any good for the long-term and eventually the long matches were overdone to a point where they weren't building strength and became a non-factor in the ratings.

[Guest EN090]

SD! is no longer must-see TV...well, duh. However, there was a stretch of about 2-3 months where the SD! 6 were just on and it was must-see TV (the ratings clearly reflected this--yes they were only mid-3's, but that was stunningly good compared to Raw at the time; SD! and Raw always drew a pretty even number of viewers, but here SD! was drawing 15-20% more than Raw). Some credit must be given to the writers for allowing that to happen.

 

The only story those numbers tell is that Smackdown was better then Raw, which isn't saying much because Raw was completely in the shitter back then (not that it's better now). Like I said - when something draws 6.5's it's must-see TV. When it draws 3.2's, it clearly isn't.

 

Smackdown was entertaining me in August/September and it was the best wrestling on free TV. But that kind of product would never be must-see TV because it will never bring in casual fans. We all loved the great matches and solid storytelling but it simply isn't enough to bring in casual viewers. That's why it wasn't must-see TV.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I think the bottomline is, if Heyman is losing his job, then at least it should be to someone just as qualified with a proven past of success, and I don't see that happening, in fact WWE seems to be going backwards.  Oh and as far as feuds and stories having no ending, well there was a nice time in wrestling where feuds weren't blown off after a month or two, where things were built for a much longer time to have a bigger payoff.

Yes, because so many of those Heyman long-term feuds and storylines were renowned for their great pay-offs...erm...like Tazz/Sabu! Oh wait, no...OK, RVD becoming top dog!...Shit, that didn't happen either...Wait, wait, wait, Angle-Benoit! What do you mean, that hasn't had a proper pay-off yet? Does it have to build for an even longer time than half a year with numerous face/heel turns? Oh well, long-term it is then.

Ok, I admit the Taz/Sabu payoff was lackluster, however the buildup was excellent. As far RVD becoming top dog, are you honestly trying to tell me that if ECW wasn't still running shows today, RVD would not be their poster boy? Come on......Angle/Benoit, well that was basically dumped because VINCE MCMAHON wants Angle/Lesnar. As far as Benoit goes seems to be much more over under Heyman than he was before Heyman came in, and it is silly to say it is because of the great wrestling because your typical WWE mark can give a rat's ass about workrate. I dunno why you seem to be getting so worked up. All I am suggesting is that if they are going to replace Heyman, do it with someone better, and don't turn the WWE backwards(Pritchard)

[Guest Brian]

Isn't 'must see' dependant more on the quality of the product rather than how popular it is?

 

Then why didn't Heyman push RVD when he had the chance?

 

Benoit was just fodder. There was no long-term planning going on with him.

[Guest EN090]

Isn't 'must see' dependant more on the quality of the product rather than how popular it is?

 

Doesn't the number of people watching the product reflect on its quality?

[Guest Brian]

Compare Benoit/Austin in Edmonton or Bret/Benoit as segemnts vs. "This is Your Life Rocky". Or Austin/Michaels vs. Bulldog/Owen.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Isn't 'must see' dependant more on the quality of the product rather than how popular it is?

 

Then why didn't Heyman push RVD when he had the chance?

 

Benoit was just fodder. There was no long-term planning going on with him.

First off, I personally never said Smackdown was "must see" in the first place.

 

RVD was very commited to ECW even up to the final days, if Heyman thought he would be around for awhile, I am sure he had big plans for him down the line, or maybe he was secretly afraid RVD was really gonna leave ECW and was afraid to push him to the main event only to have him jump ship a month later.

 

As far as Benoit being fodder, do you honestly feel that was what Heyman wanted or what MCMAHON wanted. Heyman stated many times that if Benoit was ever to return to ECW, he would pretty much instantly be champ and pushed to the moon.(this was stated right when rumors of the "radicals" leaving wcw came about).

 

You still haven't answered why you feel Pritchard will do a better job than Heyman, thus his demotion being reasonable and putting in someone who has ALREADY FAILED, as the replacement.

[Guest Brian]

And Benoit was a star on the verge of main eventing WCW. Of course Heyman would put the title on Benoit. So would Rob Black.

 

The fatc is he didn't have plans for RVD, even as his promotion was in financial trouble years earlier when he first started borrowing money from Vince. He never got him over the hump. How many opportunities did he have?

 

And I think it would at least be Heyman's fault that he didn't have a program ready to harness Benoit's momentum, instead of just using him to segue the major program and then with a green tag team.

 

Don't care much for Pritchard, Lagana is going to be the guy to watch. Pritchard's there to be the veteran.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Just a note: Heyman says a lot of things... Heyman is full of shit.

[Guest Brian]

He's still a main eventer from a major promotion coming to a third rate show trying to expand.

[Guest RedJed]

If I remember correctly, Heyman was ready to push Van Dam into the world title picture and give him the belt from Awesome, but then as that started, he got injured in a match with Rhyno. I remember even seeing a few angles on the old TNN ECW show building this up.

 

And then Van Dam didn't return until Guilty as Charged 2001, which was ECWs last ppv. Even then though he was given a run in on the new champ at the time, Rhyno, and then beat Lynn in what was seemingly the blowoff to their long feud and the seg-way (sp?) into RVD-Rhyno for the world title.

 

So it would seem to me that he had Van Dam penciled in there to be world champ, apparently. If it wasn't for Heyman's problem with managing money, chances are Van Dam would have came back sooner and would have been champ by the time they went under. Anyway this discussion has gotten off track so much its ridiculous.

 

Heyman may be "full of shit" to an extent, thats not the issue here. To all of the Heyman haters, is anyone here saying Heyman is without flaws and errors? No. All we are saying is that it seemed like he added more substance into a Smackdown product that wasn't that different from Raw, even months after the split. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I will say one more thing about this "source" that apparently knows all and sees all what Heyman is apparently all about though. You say he worked for the Torch, correct (keep in mind said WORKED, not IS WORKING CURRENTLY). If I was to believe his words about the goings on behind the scenes, I would be inclined to think Mark Madden is as good of a source as this guy as well then. You're speaking of this guy as if he holds the bible to everything that is true about Heyman. The reality of it is that, as I stated a while ago, there is not a cut and dry deal here with Heyman. There is surely bullshit he's spewed, but I honestly think that most of the news that makes the sheets have to be legit unless guys like Meltzer and Keller just get their news from the WWE from one man only, being Heyman. I don't see that as the case at all personally.

[Guest Brian]

Go to otherarena.com or the wrestling classics board and talk with JDW.

 

Taaz, Heyman, Ross, and Flair. Whomever the WWE stooges out.

 

He's writing both shows anyways so arguing SmackDown's quality is a moot point.

[Guest EN090]

Compare Benoit/Austin in Edmonton or Bret/Benoit as segemnts vs. "This is Your Life Rocky". Or Austin/Michaels vs. Bulldog/Owen.

 

All four were entertaining. The masses obviously preferred "This is Your Life." What's the point?

[Guest Brian]

Which one was more quality? You drew popularity as an indication of quality, but yet there was so many better things going on that didn't draw great numbers than the stuff that sometimes did.

[Guest JHawk]

The masses didn't necessarily prefer This Is Your Life, Rock". They tuned in expecting some payoff (like Rocky being pissed at Foley for doing and Foley turning on him because his feelings were hurt) that never happened. Big difference.

[Guest Brian]

I was just looking for something with a large viewership, but you could easily compare most attitude stroylines to great angles from the past that suffered from weak viewership, and that doesn't make them of lesser quality does it? Austin/Bret, which was losing to the other product, for example.

[Guest RedJed]

He's writing both shows anyways so arguing SmackDown's quality is a moot point.

Then why have you been arguing about Smackdowns quality through this entire thread?

[Guest EN090]

I was just looking for something with a large viewership, but you could easily compare most attitude stroylines to great angles from the past that suffered from weak viewership, and that doesn't make them of lesser quality does it? Austin/Bret, which was losing to the other product, for example.

 

I think we're getting into a matter of tastes here. Sure, there was stuff outside of the attitude era that was great. Austin/Bret, Bret/Shawn, Flair/Savage over the Miss Elizabeth photos, etc.

 

My point was that the attitude era was generally considered must-see TV and successful. It made lots of money and was over with the masses. It's not about how popular it is...it's about how much money it makes.

 

People can have different tastes as far as angles go but my point was that most of the stuff in the attitude era made money which would make it successful. On the other hand, some of the stuff we've seen in the past few years (Benoit/Austin, etc) was generally liked by a lot of the people on the internet but didn't make as much money so it wasn't AS successful.

[Guest Brian]

"Then why have you been arguing about Smackdowns quality through this entire thread?"

 

No one listened to me before when I brought it up, and much of the points I'm arguing against are directed around SmackDown.

 

We're arguing must-see TV here, not how much money it made. And must see TV is indicator of quality. Most of those matches and angles were as good as they come. Is Bret vs. Owen, one of the greatest matches ever, not must-see because it didn't draw?

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Too hard to tell. Other factors, beyond quality, influnce ratings.

 

However, there is word-of-mouth. If it's really good, people will tell their friends, family and co-workers about it.

[Guest EN090]

We're arguing must-see TV here, not how much money it made. And must see TV is indicator of quality. Most of those matches and angles were as good as they come. Is Bret vs. Owen, one of the greatest matches ever, not must-see because it didn't draw?

 

My point is that the bottom line in the wrestling business is making money. In order to do that you must bring in the masses and bring in as many people as possible to watch the product. It needs to be must-see for the masses. Would Owen vs. Bret be must-see for someone like me or you? Probably. Would it be must-see for the casual fan (the source of cash for the company)? Probably not.

[Guest Brian]

Valid point on both sides.