Most of us agree that WWE is stale right now...

[B. Brian Brunzell 0]

Vince needs to realize that it's not *1999* any more, first.

Well, having the "catfight" chicks iat WRESTLEFUCKINGMANIA isn't a good start now, is it?

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Vince is doing the exact same thing he did 10 years ago. Clinging to an old formula that just doesn't work.

[Guest Redhawk]

I agree with putting more emphasis on matches. Bring back the Intercontinental Title, and have just ONE World Champion and ONE set of Tag Team champions. The champs can float between each show. I like the idea of adding rankings, but those guys are so hung up on returning jobs and crap that it's be kind of hard for one guy to build momentum, especially with no one wanting to be out of that Top 10.

 

But what the REALLY need to do is build new stars. Back when things were going strong in 1998-2000, the midcard was filled with stars and meaningful feuds. Ken Shamrock, Val Venis, Jeff Jarrett, D'Lo, The Brood, D-X (aside from HHH)...not everything was centered around the main event. As it is now, the writers only put effort into main event angles and throw midcarders out there for no rhyme or reason.

 

Someone should tell the main eventers and the writers that creating a new star doesn't mean anyone's going to lose their spot in the main event.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

I don't like the whole 'floating champion' deal because it completely ignores the idea of the split.

[Guest Redhawk]

But it does reinforce the idea of Undisputed Champions and makes the titles more prestigous.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Will the feuds carry over on both shows?

 

I think they can make both titles prestigious on each respective show - they just really need to get rid of the 'WWE Heavyweight Championship' and "World Heavyweight Championship' title names. Plus, they should have had tournaments to establish each champion.

 

RRR: Always looking for a reason to justify tournaments

[Guest Redhawk]

The Champs would feud with one guy (or team) from each show month to month -- or depending on who's PPV it is that month if they're really going to split the PPVs.

[Guest Super Pissed Smark]

Someone should tell the main eventers and the writers that creating a new star doesn't mean anyone's going to lose their spot in the main event.

Actually, it does. If you've got four guys as main eventers sharing the payoffs for main-eventing 12 PPVs and you add a fifth guy, then at least some of the four are looking at less main events and less main event money.

 

Meltzer did a much more thorough job of explaining that once, but I think that was the gist of it.

[Guest Downhome]

Will the feuds carry over on both shows?

 

I think they can make both titles prestigious on each respective show - they just really need to get rid of the 'WWE Heavyweight Championship' and "World Heavyweight Championship' title names. Plus, they should have had tournaments to establish each champion.

 

RRR: Always looking for a reason to justify tournaments

I've always thought it would be cool that at the end of the year, on the December PPV, they should tally everyones wins/losses together, and from that pick maybe 20 or so guys who have done the best durring the year, and then have an end of year tourny. Just something to sorta really end the year for good, the season if you will.

[Mrnoitaull 0]

I think bringing Shane O Mac would be a quick and forceful booster right about now.

 

Where is he anyway, in the back ?and what was his reason for leaving?

[Guest JMA]

And JMA: remember they are trying to make profit, you would have the promotion dead by the end of this year.

No. I'm simply giving people what they want.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Vince needs to realize that it's not *1999* any more, first.

Hey, I take offense. I was marking during 1999 and let me tell you the storylines had way more magic in them then than they do now.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Have Test become a pro-french heel. He could wear a beret, and carry the French flag, and he could conceal a lead pipe inside a peace of French bread.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

And JMA: remember they are trying to make profit, you would have the promotion dead by the end of this year.

No. I'm simply giving people what they want.

I wouldn't be too certain about that.

 

 

Well, first off I'd release some of the older wrestlers, as well as the big, unalthletic ones. Secondly, I'd have longer matches and shorter promos. 70% of the shows would be wrestling based while 30% would be based on storylines/angles. There would be no skits either. I would also cutdown on the use of comedy characters. Less house shows would also be in order (and no titles would be defended at house shows).

Good intentions, but most of the roster isn't cut out for long matches(see Hardy, Matt). You'd just end up with workers who can go and a lot that would just be completely lost after 10 minutes(see Knoble/Hurricane from KOTR).

 

Some skits are needed because running 2 hours of serious product will wear out the fans. What's needed is someone who can smartly write the skits that you do have so that they aren't huge wastes of time.

 

Finally, while toning down house shows is sort of a good idea, no title defenses is kinda screwing the paying customer. If it's not for the title, why the hell should the fans give a damn?

 

 

The PPVs would be shortened to the big four (SummerSlam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, and WrestleMania) and the price would be reduced to $20.00. Smackdown should also be live. Heat and Velocity would not pretend it is Sunday or Saturday; they would admit to being taped, so to speak. The commentators would talk like they have no advanced knowledge of outcomes. I would impliment a stiffer style so that not-selling wouldn't be a problem.

If you lowered the cost down to that, you would NEVER be able to recoup the costs of running the PPV in the first place.

 

What's this obsession with a live Smackdown that I'm seeing lately. It being run live won't make it any better.

 

Your idea for Heat and Velocity is beyond stupid. Yeah, the shows are taped, but the announcers have no clue about the finishes, yeah, THAT'LL make the shows better. I mean, really, what good would that accomplish?

 

Don't know about you, but having a lockerroom full of injured(and probably pissed off for the most part) wrestlers is a BAD thing.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

The concepts used in 1999 (crash tv) have proven not to work in 2003.

[Guest Redhawk]

Someone should tell the main eventers and the writers that creating a new star doesn't mean anyone's going to lose their spot in the main event.

Actually, it does. If you've got four guys as main eventers sharing the payoffs for main-eventing 12 PPVs and you add a fifth guy, then at least some of the four are looking at less main events and less main event money.

 

Meltzer did a much more thorough job of explaining that once, but I think that was the gist of it.

Not really. See, you're confusing "star" with "main eventer." In 1998-2000, there were guys who were unquestionably in the midcard, yet people cared about their characters and therefore they were stars. Chris Jericho was NOT a main eventer during the Chyna feud, but the fact that he actually had a feud with a storyline made him a star in the midcard. The fans cared about him. Ken Shamrock never really made the main event, but when he was feuding with a heel Rock, he was a star.

 

Now of course these new stars could eventually become main eventers. But as paranoid as the current main eventers may be, that's the business. Hell, maybe they'll even step their game up if they felt like they had to actually WORK to keep their spot.

 

And with more stars on the card and more storylines for people to care about, everyone makes more money. In 2003, people aren't going to pay for a PPV or watch the shows just for the main event angles. When WWE was going strong, they had variety. I didn't give a crap about the Austin-Undertaker feuds, but I still had The Nation vs. DX, Shamrock vs. Owen Hart, and so on as reasons for me to watch the show. Back then, everyone who you saw on TV was in a feud. Today, they just focus on the main event to sell the show and put midcarders in random matches.

 

Think about it: What feud is 3-Minute Warning in? How about Maven? Chris Nowinski? Tommy Dreamer? They just throw them out there. Back in the day, it'd be for a reason.

[Guest Super Pissed Smark]

Ah, well as long as none of the "stars" you want to create get any crazy ideas about moving up to the main event, then I guess that's okay.

 

Who's 3-Minute Warning feuding with? Good God, are you serious? They still have jobs?

[Guest Redhawk]

Competition is good. With the exception of HHH, who is pretty much guaranteed a main event spot as long as he's with Stephanie McMahon, the other main eventers will put more effort into their work in order to keep the newly developing stars from coming and and taking their spot. And the newer stars will step their game up so they can take that main event slot when a top star slips.

 

And maybe if 3MW as involved in some storyline instead of just randomly wrestling people, someone might care about them.

[Guest JMA]

I wouldn't be too certain about that.

 

I'd wager at least 90% of the posters on this board would be happy.

 

Good intentions, but most of the roster isn't cut out for long matches(see Hardy, Matt). You'd just end up with workers who can go and a lot that would just be completely lost after 10 minutes(see Knoble/Hurricane from KOTR).

 

They would slowly be conditioned to have longer matches.

 

Some skits are needed because running 2 hours of serious product will wear out the fans. What's needed is someone who can smartly write the skits that you do have so that they aren't huge wastes of time.

 

Well, maybe SOME skits.

 

Finally, while toning down house shows is sort of a good idea, no title defenses is kinda screwing the paying customer. If it's not for the title, why the hell should the fans give a damn?

 

To see a good match being put on? Seriously, even the marks know that titles almost never change hands on house shows. Trust me, they don't care THAT much about the titles.

 

If you lowered the cost down to that, you would NEVER be able to recoup the costs of running the PPV in the first place.

 

What's this obsession with a live Smackdown that I'm seeing lately. It being run live won't make it any better.

 

Your idea for Heat and Velocity is beyond stupid. Yeah, the shows are taped, but the announcers have no clue about the finishes, yeah, THAT'LL make the shows better. I mean, really, what good would that accomplish?

 

Don't know about you, but having a lockerroom full of injured(and probably pissed off for the most part) wrestlers is a BAD thing.

 

It's worked before (in referrance to the PPVs). It's no obsession, just what I would prefer. Live shows seem to do a lot better in the ratings and give you the feeling that ANYTHING can happen. I don't see how it's "beyond stupid." I just don't want those on Heat/Velocity to act like it's Sunday/Saturday. Stiffness isn't the leading cause of injuries, IMO. IMO the leading cause of injuries are blown spots.

[Guest Super Pissed Smark]

And maybe if 3MW as involved in some storyline instead of just randomly wrestling people, someone might care about them.

 

 

And at this point I don't think the other main eventers are physically capable of doing much more than they are now.

[Guest Redhawk]

Yeah, because Undertaker, Big Show and A-Train are obviously giving 100% out there. And HHH hasn't been lazy, no sir.

[Guest El Satanico]

I wouldn't be too certain about that.

 

I'd wager at least 90% of the posters on this board would be happy.

Even if 90% of all "Smarks" loved it, only 20% of marks would and you'd get ratings in the high 1's/ low 2's at best.

 

WCW's average ratings were high 1's/low 2's up to it's death...good luck

[Guest JMA]

Even if 90% of all "Smarks" loved it, only 20% of marks would.

Marks are very easy to manipulate. They wouldn't be a problem.

[Guest El Satanico]

So you think...Marks are fickle and you either entertain them or they will leave you.

 

They don't care about the things most marks care about. To them it's all about entertainment and you wouldn't give them that.

 

If they wanted what you want to give them, then MMA would be much more popular than it is.

[Guest JMA]

So you think...Marks are fickle and you either entertain them or they will leave you.

 

They don't care about the things most marks care about. To them it's all about entertainment and you wouldn't give them that.

They would be entertained. There would still be promos, stables, attacks, ect. But there would be better matches and realistic angles to go along with that.

[Guest Luke Cage]

As most of you know, I feel that Rocky/Austin just doesn't have "it" right now. It just doesn't seem anywhere near what it used to, and I know a few of you guys feel this also. Even though they are back, and feuding once again, WWE still has a sense of staleness, on both "brands". My simple question to you guys, is what will it take to once again bring the feeling back to WWE television?

Competetion. Some rich rube needs to fund a new national televised promotion for Vince to steal ideas/talent from.

Currently the WWF is nothing but a multilevel marketing machine that happens to use pro wrestling (or what used to be pro wrestling) to sell cheap crap. The last time I watched a WWF show (as rarely as that occurs) I felt like I was watching an informercial with stuntmen. God forbid they stop reminding me to buy things and show me some wrestling...

[Guest Jack Potts]

I agree with the general consensus that there needs to be more emphasis on wrestling, and fewer skits.

 

However, I would also change the production of the skits, so that they seem less contrived. There would have to be a logical reason for the camera to be in a given situation.

My favorite example of this is when Jericho abducted the cameraman a la the 4 Horsemen to have him tape Jericho smashing Chyna's hand.

 

If the cameraman caught the performer at a particularly bad time, or in the middle of a rant, I would occasionally have the wrestler push them out of the way, or shove them out the door. I would change the production of the skits to create an urgent, cinema verite flavor or "Reality" TV feel.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Jack, I agree completely, add to that, they should do away completely with the bait and stwich. Just give it or not.

[Guest Brian]

Nah, thereare some points where it's appropriate. But they've long past killed those options.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

The real bait-and-switch these days is them actually coming through with their promises. It makes everyone go "huh?! I didn't see THAT coming"

 

MMA will be more popular than the WWE btw.