the jericho/trish angle

[claydude14 0]

I don't feel like wading through 15 page of this... I got through 7 and it's too much for me. How did a physics major or whatever he claims to be even get his application/storyline ideas read? The past few times WWE has posted job openings on that one job site, it has said that experience in writing television required.

[Guest robvandam420]

the thing is vince is not satisfied with viewership. he's hungry and wants as many viewers as he can get. i enjoy it.

But he has lost viewers because of it. If he wants to bring in new viewers, he's not doing a good job. Ratings are currently steady around a 3.5 mark, but they were much better a couple years ago.

 

Like I said, balance is what the WWE needs. You need stuff to appeal to a broad range of tastes. You can have one or two shock angles, and then balance those out with one or two more traditional, simple premise angles. And then mix it up with at least 1 hour of wrestling every show. At least 1 hour.

balance is good too. i agree.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Mind backing up your opinion with some facts rob? You keep saying how we all follow Wade Keller(Which is bullshit anyhow to generalize a mass populace like us into one group) and tell us we're wrong yet you don't give any opinions besides our ideas won't cause ratings to rise because it isn't shocking enough. We've pointed out for you to check the ratings threads, etc. as evidence for our belief but where's yours?

[Guest robvandam420]

because without vince to control those ideas they went down the shitter. namely making arquette champ.

This ignores the fact that 2000 was a better year for WWE than any one Russo was a part of. If ratings went up for Russo, they should have immediately went down when he left, right?

dont forget that wcw was going under and people were switching over more and more. not to mention that they were seeing a fresh face ala kurt angle, and a love triangle that is similar to something i would write and you would frown upon.

[Guest robvandam420]

I don't feel like wading through 15 page of this... I got through 7 and it's too much for me. How did a physics major or whatever he claims to be even get his application/storyline ideas read? The past few times WWE has posted job openings on that one job site, it has said that experience in writing television required.

its called knowing how to get what you want.

[Guest robvandam420]

Mind backing up your opinion with some facts rob? You keep saying how we all follow Wade Keller(Which is bullshit anyhow to generalize a mass populace like us into one group) and tell us we're wrong yet you don't give any opinions besides our ideas won't cause ratings to rise because it isn't shocking enough. We've pointed out for you to check the ratings threads, etc. as evidence for our belief but where's yours?

you all say the same things, thats why. and if it wasn't true then why am i the only one here with my point of view? and why is your point of view the same one i always see on the torch etc... because you read things and take it for a given in your head. maybe if you would really think for yourself this discussion would go somewhere.

[chaosrage 0]

because without vince to control those ideas they went down the shitter. namely making arquette champ.

This ignores the fact that 2000 was a better year for WWE than any one Russo was a part of. If ratings went up for Russo, they should have immediately went down when he left, right?

dont forget that wcw was going under and people were switching over more and more. not to mention that they were seeing a fresh face ala kurt angle,

WCW going under completely really spiked the ratings up in WWE for 2001 and 2002, huh?

 

and a love triangle that is similar to something i would write and you would frown upon.

Jesus fucking Christ, is a love triangle Shock TV now too?

[Guest Askewniverse]

I don't feel like wading through 15 page of this... I got through 7 and it's too much for me. How did a physics major or whatever he claims to be even get his application/storyline ideas read? The past few times WWE has posted job openings on that one job site, it has said that experience in writing television required.

Here you go, claydude:

 

i did it in a way you wouldn't expect. i conned the secretary into thinking i was high school buddies with gerwitz  and got him on the phone. i told him who a really was and what i wanted so he asked me about some of my ideas and then sent me this package in the mail with all this legal crap, and wanted me to write a few shows leading to a ppv. i think i would have gotten the job if not for the fact that i cannot travel. i was opting for a consultant kinda thing.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I personally enjoyed the love triangle however the problem with the current storylines is that they are either too vague in making use care for the characters or plain insulting our intelligence as viewers(Come on, Guerrero dousing Big Show with raw sewage!?!). I will say that I grew up watching the WWF/E from the Early 90's on so I might be a little old fashioned in my thinking however most of my favorite feuds/storylines were based in simpler backgrounds. Just because a storyline is complex doesn't necessarily mean it'll be great and also the storyline itsself is a major factor too because the better ones were usually wrapped up or given a better resolution(Unlike the Love Triangle or Higher Power which I also enjoyed...till Vince made it himself *sigh*)

[Damaramu 0]

Mind backing up your opinion with some facts rob? You keep saying how we all follow Wade Keller(Which is bullshit anyhow to generalize a mass populace like us into one group) and tell us we're wrong yet you don't give any opinions besides our ideas won't cause ratings to rise because it isn't shocking enough. We've pointed out for you to check the ratings threads, etc. as evidence for our belief but where's yours?

you all say the same things, thats why. and if it wasn't true then why am i the only one here with my point of view? and why is your point of view the same one i always see on the torch etc... because you read things and take it for a given in your head. maybe if you would really think for yourself this discussion would go somewhere.

Oh god....maybe you're the only one with that point of view because the rest of us know what good wrestling is. And we know what draws. But you don't. You have the opinion of an idiot. You keep bringing up the fact that you know what draws....BUT YOUR IDEAS DON'T DRAW DUMBASS. Think about it...in 2000 the rating were higher than ever. Then they went to your method and the ratings went down...so how now are your ideas better? When ours were drawing and then they took a nosedive when your ideas took over.

Man you are thick.

[HollywoodSpikeJenkins 0]

22 pages...

 

 

Sick.

[Guest robvandam420]

because without vince to control those ideas they went down the shitter. namely making arquette champ.

This ignores the fact that 2000 was a better year for WWE than any one Russo was a part of. If ratings went up for Russo, they should have immediately went down when he left, right?

dont forget that wcw was going under and people were switching over more and more. not to mention that they were seeing a fresh face ala kurt angle,

WCW going under completely really spiked the ratings up in WWE for 2001 and 2002, huh?

 

and a love triangle that is similar to something i would write and you would frown upon.

Jesus fucking Christ, is a love triangle Shock TV now too?

no, the reason viewers didn't watch much then is namely the invasion angle. as soon as shane and stephanie got involved, it was dirt.

[Guest robvandam420]

because without vince to control those ideas they went down the shitter. namely making arquette champ.

This ignores the fact that 2000 was a better year for WWE than any one Russo was a part of. If ratings went up for Russo, they should have immediately went down when he left, right?

dont forget that wcw was going under and people were switching over more and more. not to mention that they were seeing a fresh face ala kurt angle,

WCW going under completely really spiked the ratings up in WWE for 2001 and 2002, huh?

 

and a love triangle that is similar to something i would write and you would frown upon.

Jesus fucking Christ, is a love triangle Shock TV now too?

not shock tv, but certainly not the traditional crap that you guys want. it has intrigue, something that comes from complex storylines.... something damaruru frowns on

[HarleyQuinn 0]

If you give us some of the ideas you had rob, it'd help me at least judge your "opinion" a little better

[Damaramu 0]

because without vince to control those ideas they went down the shitter. namely making arquette champ.

This ignores the fact that 2000 was a better year for WWE than any one Russo was a part of. If ratings went up for Russo, they should have immediately went down when he left, right?

dont forget that wcw was going under and people were switching over more and more. not to mention that they were seeing a fresh face ala kurt angle,

WCW going under completely really spiked the ratings up in WWE for 2001 and 2002, huh?

 

and a love triangle that is similar to something i would write and you would frown upon.

Jesus fucking Christ, is a love triangle Shock TV now too?

not shock tv, but certainly not the traditional crap that you guys want. it has intrigue, something that comes from complex storylines.... something damaruru frowns on

I'm not the only one frowning on your ideas pal. We all are.

Intrigue is fine....but NOT OVERCOMPLICATION.

[Guest robvandam420]

despite the numorous claims that i dont know what draws, i certainly am the top heel here now. just look at the buyrates

[Tawren 0]

no actually it didn't. vince russo was responsable for winning the monday night wars. he did it with attitude and shock tv. are you now going to tell me that its not the reason they won? its because they were bringing something to the table that people were surprised to see. surprised draw viewers. old mindless predictable angles dont do shit except waste the companys money.

Yes, but shock tv is not what the audience wants to see anymore, they've had their fill for awhile. I wouldn't mind if WWE did a couple shock angles, as long as they backed it up with GOOD wrestling.

 

What the WWE needs right now is balance. They can still do shock tv angles to bring in the calibre of fan who enjoys that, but they should also have more traditional feuds based on simple premises so everyone has something they want to see. And above all, if the angle is based around shock tv, make sure it is set up around GOOD wrestling.

 

Wrestling foremost, the angles and stories should just keep things interesting inbetween matches and to set them up. Angles should not be the focus of the shows.

i agree. good matches are definately important, but these days the angles are just as important imo.

Your opinion sucks. Get a better one.

a better one, like the one all of you share. sorry thats not an opinion, thats a cult beleif. and its wrong. these are the opinions of wade keller and such. who cant get a job with the wwe. did you ever wonder why? probably because they aren't good enough.

According to your story (which we all know is BS anyways) you didn't get hired either, dumbass.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

your just a flavor of the day rob...

[Damaramu 0]

despite the numorous claims that i dont know what draws, i certainly am the top heel here now. just look at the buyrates

Yes you're a moron that is spewing shit line none other....it's entertaining to watch you make absurd claims.

[Damaramu 0]

So anyways...who thinks he'll get banned before the night is over?

[HarleyQuinn 0]

*raises hand*...something's got to give

[Guest robvandam420]

ok, so if you all think my ideas suck so bad i want to see you get half as far as i did. and dont give that coppout excuse of how the writing team is a bunch of idiots, bla bla bla. they are pros and know talent when they see it. so until you can get as far as i did, your all the idiots, not me. only then would you at least be entitled to an opinion i would consider as being half way reputable.

[Guest robvandam420]

no actually it didn't. vince russo was responsable for winning the monday night wars. he did it with attitude and shock tv. are you now going to tell me that its not the reason they won? its because they were bringing something to the table that people were surprised to see. surprised draw viewers. old mindless predictable angles dont do shit except waste the companys money.

Yes, but shock tv is not what the audience wants to see anymore, they've had their fill for awhile. I wouldn't mind if WWE did a couple shock angles, as long as they backed it up with GOOD wrestling.

 

What the WWE needs right now is balance. They can still do shock tv angles to bring in the calibre of fan who enjoys that, but they should also have more traditional feuds based on simple premises so everyone has something they want to see. And above all, if the angle is based around shock tv, make sure it is set up around GOOD wrestling.

 

Wrestling foremost, the angles and stories should just keep things interesting inbetween matches and to set them up. Angles should not be the focus of the shows.

i agree. good matches are definately important, but these days the angles are just as important imo.

Your opinion sucks. Get a better one.

a better one, like the one all of you share. sorry thats not an opinion, thats a cult beleif. and its wrong. these are the opinions of wade keller and such. who cant get a job with the wwe. did you ever wonder why? probably because they aren't good enough.

According to your story (which we all know is BS anyways) you didn't get hired either, dumbass.

i didn't get hired because i couldn't travel. if i was willing to i was going to go to stamford for an interview. didn't want to travel. and it is not bs. non of it. dont be jealous because you wish you had that talent.

[chaosrage 0]

no, the reason viewers didn't watch much then is namely the invasion angle. as soon as shane and stephanie got involved, it was dirt.

So what you're saying is WCW dying had nothing to do with WWE's ratings. Gotcha.

 

The people that were leaving WCW didn't go over to WWE. They just left. Or if they did, they didn't stick around hopelessly addicted to it. Fans started leaving WWE when the product started sucking.

 

If Shock TV was what actually drew people in, they wouldn't have stayed for 2000. More than that, it wouldn't have done better business than the shock TV years. There's no way to get around that point.

[Damaramu 0]

ok, so if you all think my ideas suck so bad i want to see you get half as far as i did. and dont give that coppout excuse of how the writing team is a bunch of idiots, bla bla bla. they are pros and know talent when they see it. so until you can get as far as i did, your all the idiots, not me. only then would you at least be entitled to an opinion i would consider as being half way reputable.

Ok...then if we're all idiots...go away.

The writing team recognizes talent? Yeah fucking right. That is why ratings are so fucking low. And maybe some of us don't want to try to get as far as you because *shock* we don't want to work for the WWE! Most of us have more promising careers lined up than that!

[Guest robvandam420]

no, the reason viewers didn't watch much then is namely the invasion angle. as soon as shane and stephanie got involved, it was dirt.

So what you're saying is WCW dying had nothing to do with WWE's ratings. Gotcha.

 

The people that were leaving WCW didn't go over to WWE. They just left. Or if they did, they didn't stick around hopelessly addicted to it. Fans started leaving WWE when the product started sucking.

 

If Shock TV was what actually drew people in, they wouldn't have stayed for 2000. More than that, it wouldn't have done better business than the shock TV years. There's no way to get around that point.

2000 did have shock tv, just no necro. when i say shock tv, i mean something that you would not expect to see on a wrestling show. but thats what makes it fun to watch. you know , you are not the only audience.

[Invictus 0]

ok, so if you all think my ideas suck so bad i want to see you get half as far as i did. and dont give that coppout excuse of how the writing team is a bunch of idiots, bla bla bla. they are pros and know talent when they see it. so until you can get as far as i did, your all the idiots, not me. only then would you at least be entitled to an opinion i would consider as being half way reputable.

Well, considering you said you tricked the secretary into thinking you were a highschool friend of Gewertz, I don't know how you can say they "know talent when they see it" in reference to yourself. You didn't get to talk to Gewertz on the phone because of your phenomenal writing abilities, you got there by lying and conning your way in. So it has no relevance to your writing abilities whatsoever, nor your ideas for the business.

[chaosrage 0]

2000 did have shock tv, just no necro. when i say shock tv, i mean something that you would not expect to see on a wrestling show. but thats what makes it fun to watch. you know , you are not the only audience.

Such as love triangles? Something that was around in the 80s (Hogan/Savage/Elizabeth) and probably earlier?

[HarleyQuinn 0]

WWF 97' also had "shock" TV and they did well too(The racism angle that got cut off, HBK and DX running rampant, etc.) however the "wrestling" side did even better money wise for the company however the WWE shied away so both sides do have merit however the wrestling side is the less riskier(no pun intended) road to take in terms of making money whilst keeping sponsors, etc.

[Guest robvandam420]

ok, so if you all think my ideas suck so bad i want to see you get half as far as i did. and dont give that coppout excuse of how the writing team is a bunch of idiots, bla bla bla. they are pros and know talent when they see it. so until you can get as far as i did, your all the idiots, not me. only then would you at least be entitled to an opinion i would consider as being half way reputable.

Well, considering you said you tricked the secretary into thinking you were a highschool friend of Gewertz, I don't know how you can say they "know talent when they see it" in reference to yourself. You didn't get to talk to Gewertz on the phone because of your phenomenal writing abilities, you got there by lying and conning your way in. So it has no relevance to your writing abilities whatsoever, nor your ideas for the business.

it was the ideas i gave him that took me to the next step. if i didn't give him good material he never would have gotten my adress to send me that package. he would have hung up.