Kizzo 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 ...to lead the creative team After Russo left in 1999, Vince McMahon only hired Hollywood writers to his creative team....it was a risky business move to only have Hollywood writers who have no or little wrestling knowledge...but it turned out to be a sucess.... Chris Kreski would be the new creative director of the creative team and would take Russo's spot and also have total control of the creative process......his creative team was an all Hollywood staff, he even had people on there he already worked with....like Tony Blacha and Brian Gerwitz...I can't remember the other 5 Hollywood writers WWE brought end...but these 3 were McMahon's favorites... IMO, this Hollywood team did a great job...we had alot of great storylines...and alot of good booking...there was a sense of direction...and you can tell that everything was planned out....It was reported that Kreski used a storyboard to help with his storyline planning...and the writers planned 3 or 4 months in advanced.... Since 2000 was such a great year for the WWE, could this happen all over again if McMahon were to give a writer from Hollywood, and actually give him the creative team..with little input from him....like Chris Kreski Can you believe that Brian Gerwitz was part of that creative team???....He now leads RAW...didn't he learn anything from his former boss Chris Kreski???? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Man Of 1,004 Modes Report post Posted January 8, 2004 I think the problem is Gerwitz (or Grewitz it doesnt matteR) is he's good in small, comical doses, but as a head writer, he sucks donkey dick. I hope this would work, because 2000 was really good considering the years since. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Very true.....in 2000 he mostly did the backstage segments...and was mainly brought in to help with the Rock segments.. But he should have learned to atleast plan ahead...and the storylines and matches should both be as ONE.....both having some kind of point to them.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Yes, if they hire a good writer and not hacks like Gerwitz. Can you honestly imagine him or Steph doing storyboards? Thought not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Also want to add this to the topic...with all the new writers who had little or no wrestling experience....they perform this well without WWE's biggest star....Stone Cold Steve Austin who was out due to neck injury Talk about pressure... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chazz 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 I don't think more Hollywood Writers who know little or nothing about Wrestling would be a good solution. Kreski was the exception. Russo grew up as a fan of The Industry. Speaking of Russo, I always thought the man deserved a trial run as Head Writer when McMahon brought him back for what turned out to be a short stint as a "stay at home consultant" In June of 2002. Based on his track record while In The WWE, Russo deserved more than what he got IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Also want to add this to the topic...with all the new writers who had little or no wrestling experience....they perform this well without WWE's biggest star....Stone Cold Steve Austin who was out due to neck injury Talk about pressure... You can have great shows with wrestling writers. You can have great shows with writers not familiar with wrestling. The problem now is that the writers flat out suck, and the direction Vince is pointing them in isn't any good either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Vince Russo was a great writer...and wasn't afriad of telling Vince when he was wrong or the direction he was going wasn't going to work...and McMahon did the same thing to Russo editing his work as well.... When he came back in 2002 or was it 2003? None of the writers liked Russo, and complained to McMahon about him etc....with Steph not liking the idea of her being replaced by Vince Russo..... Steph has extreme power...McMahon was in talks with Russo for a month without no one even knowing according to Russo...but as soon as Steph found out...he was gone that same day... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JericholicEdgeHead Report post Posted January 8, 2004 I think the use of "Hollywood" writers is what is killing the product for me. I mean the focus on the shows a lot (not all) of the time is backstage segments, feuds between non-wrestlers and general ga ga or sophmore type humor which nine times out of ten is so poorly produced it comes out lame and stupid. Feuds and storylines not played out to their fullest or potential, and in alot of the cases dropped with no explanation seems to be another characteristic of the "Hollywood" writers. I think WWE would be smart to hire someone like a Mick Foley who not only knows the way the buisness works, as in building feuds up to make people WANT to pay to see the conclusion, but also in having that skill in creating interesting stories and situations. But finding that "Mick Foley" type of writer is probably a hard thing to do. They really need to interview future writers who was either in the buisness or has been a fan of wrestling for some time, in that they know how the buisness makes money. The over the top "Hollywood" writing which at times can be funny and entertaining and might bring in a few of the casual fans, but when it is overdone (like we have seen so much of in the last several years) then it makes the shows look and feel cheesy or 2nd rate and turns off the die-hard wrestling fans in droves, and those fans wheather Vince will admit it or not is the life blood of the company. SO personally I think they need to go into a different direction with the creative or the writers and "Hollywood" is NOT the direction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Jericho did you ever watch WWE programming in 2000... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndrewTS 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 I think WWE would be smart to hire someone like a Mick Foley who not only knows the way the buisness works, as in building feuds up to make people WANT to pay to see the conclusion, but also in having that skill in creating interesting stories and situations. Mick would suck as a writer, no offense. It's not that he's not a smart guy and it's not that he doesn't know the business. However, he's a kiss-ass, he loved the Russo era way too much from what I read from his books, and dealing with the politics would be too much for even him to put up with. It wouldn't work. The only way to see real change is to replace the entire writing team and convince Vince that he needs to go with a completely new direction than what he wants to go with all the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JericholicEdgeHead Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Yes I did, I have watched WWF since way back in 1983/84. And yes 2000 was a great year for WWE, but when I think back to that year I think of the wrestling aspect of it, and how alot of the talent was hitting career type peaks as in Triple H, Jericho, Benoit, Rock, Angle and a great tag-team division. I think the absence of Russo really helped and everything seemed to click, I compare 2000 to 1986/87 and 1996 the other years in WWF/WWE history where everything seem to "click" for lack of a better word. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deancoles 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Ric Flair would be my choice as a booker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Korgath Report post Posted January 8, 2004 When you think about it, you don't need to be a fan of the industry to be a good head writer. All you need is a proper sense of continuity and a desire to tell good stories. I really wouldn't mind a soap opera-type WWE product, if it was a GOOD one. And of course, every writer should follow the Golden Rule: Matches MUST continue the story, not detract from it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Really, I think one of the main problem's with the WWE writers is that they (much like Russo) want credit for the show. So, if Benoit and Angle have a great match, they know they can't get credit for that. But, if they write a backstage skit, it shows off their (the writers) talents. Thus, we get a large proliferation of skits and other ridiculous content. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justcoz 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 What does Chris Kreski do now? Is there no way at all that Vince could convince him to come back? I'm not against using Hollywood writers for some input into the storylines. Kreski is a fine example of someone who was able to make the transition. To a lesser extent, you can say the same of Ed Ferrarra who was a pretty big part of the Russo/McMahon era. I'd put two Hollywood writers as creative heads on Raw and Smackdown and have them work in collaboration with a booking committee with knowledge of the business. The Hollywood writers job for the most part is to listen to ideas from the booking committee and script episodes around those ideas. This way you can have input from a committee consisting of guys like Heyman, Foley, Dreamer, Ace, Bischoff and hell bring Russo and Ferrarra back in. It's amazing when you think that Vince at one point could have employed every creative head responsible for the wrestling boom in the late 90's. ECW's Heyman, WCW's Bischoff and WWF's Russo. He employs two of the three right now and employs them only as on air personalities? WHY??? There would have been no WWF Attitude if ECW and WCW Monday Nitro didn't exist? The main thing is that if it's broke... fix it... this is what pisses me off about the current creative end of things. It's obvious that there have been problems on the creative end. Problems creating new stars. Problems putting together compelling television which consistently brings in and retains viewers. Yet they make no changes to the formula, take no risks and make no moves within their creative department. A football team makes coaching changes if things don't click. Monday Night Football mixes up their broadcast booth if ratings are subpar. You see none of this within WWE. If you want to hang with the big boys and compete with other television productions (that is there competition, they have no competition in the business so there competition is now other television) - you can't surround yourself with YES men and refuse to listen to suggestions from your talent and audience. Especially when things are on a downward spiral. If Vince didn't listen to Russo in '97 we'd still have tired gimmicks like The Goon, TL Hopper, etc. We are what... four years into the Stephanie McMahon Experiment? I think by now she has a grasp as to how the creative end works. She's gained the experience that she needs for when that inevitable day comes which Vince and Linda pass on and the business goes to Stephanie and Shane. Let's move her on to another project within WWE operations. Have her learn the business end and learn how to work in the capacity that Linda does. I personally think that Stephanie would be a great representative of the company. She's attractive, intelligent and young. She would come off much better as a representative of WWE than insane roid rage Vince and dull unpersonable Linda. It may even help break the stigma attached to the company because of Vince's arrogance, temper and business failures. Women would respect the company more as they would see Stephanie as a young business woman representing a publicly traded company. Throw her on Oprah about growing up in the business. Sounds good to me. Just move on already... LISTEN TO THE PITTSBURGH MUSIC SCENE ON LIVE 365 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Russo was a terrible writer who got one thing right in 1997 and has been destroying promotions since. 1999 is probably the worst year in the history of the company from a wrestling and creative point of view, and I don't think I even have to mention how he drove WCW into the ground. The guy is terrible. Short of maybe Ole Anderson, he was the worst booker I've ever seen. Even Nash's storylines were somewhat coherent. Unless you want to see Carot Top come in and win the World Title by pinning Ric Flair in a tag match, and then go on to feud with Randy Orton, only to lay down and give him the title for no reason. Then Russo's your guy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dynamite Kido Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Fire the writers, let someone who knows wrestling start booking the shows, and let the wrestlers take care of the promos themselves as they used to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman Spiff 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 What does Chris Kreski do now? Is there no way at all that Vince could convince him to come back? Well, he quit because he couldn't take the pressure. I doubt he'd want to come back and deal w/ the egos of the guys on top, as well as have to suck up to Steph and Vince. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DerangedHermit 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 It's all the McMahon's fault (Vince and Piggy). But that's what you get when a family owns a promotion (see AWA and NWA:TNA). End of subject. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scroby 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Wasn't Gerwitz the one who walked up To Road Warrior Hawk and said "i don't know who you are" or was that someone else on the writing team? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted January 8, 2004 When you think about it, you don't need to be a fan of the industry to be a good head writer. All you need is a proper sense of continuity and a desire to tell good stories. Exactly, all writers should really be doing is coming up with interesting reasons for the conflict while agents call the matches and the bookers set the overreaching goals. There's no reason why a person who has never watched a match in their life couldn't come up with 100 reasons for two guys to 'fight'. And of course, every writer should follow the Golden Rule: Matches MUST continue the story, not detract from it. For example? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just wondering when a match took away from a story. I would think that you meant that the stories should all build around or to a conflict happening in the ring (which is why all the Stone Cold stuff doesn't work for most Smarks). But I don't want to put words in your mouth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 BUT, a writer who knew about *wrestling history* would have a better judgement of what worked and what didn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted January 8, 2004 BUT guys with wrestling history are better off being bookers who set down more of a overrall feel of a promotion and its direction. Booker: "Okay we're going to have Benoit feud with Angle... Writer, go look at some tapes from around Royal Rumble and work from that material." Writer: "Kay." On the other hand, I would trust a writer to come up with something original without having to go back to the cliches that wrestling people seem to rely on like Cornette's 'Rock'n'Roll Express' tag team formula and the Dusty Finish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Booking and Writing in the WWE often overlap, so knowing wrestling history would help the writer understand the direction the booker is going. On the other hand, I would trust a writer to come up with something original without having to go back to the cliches that wrestling people seem to rely on like Cornette's 'Rock'n'Roll Express' tag team formula and the Dusty Finish. Then you get something "original" like a Porn Star, or a Pimp... original is not necessarily good; and cliches aren't necessarily bad. Hollywood has proven you can work a formula over and over again (coughromanticcomedycoughactionmoviecough) as long as you can do it well. There are plenty of formulas the WWE could use right now that they haven't used effectively in a long time. Besides, if a writer is unfamiliar with wrestling history he might come up with a brilliant idea about a rebellious, beer-drinking, foul-mouthed wrestler fighting an up-tight, corporate, authority figure... *cough* I don't see how not knowing the product you're writing for is a good thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Papacita 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Creatively, I really don't get all of the praise that 2000 is getting. While admittedly, the first few months leading into Mania were pretty good, and the Angle/HHH/Steph love triangle was very well done, for the most part, the actual storylines and shows became dull, predictable and at times flat out stupid. Remember the damn McMahon-Helmsley Fact-gime??? Remember the evil McMahons signing the faces handicap matches and lumberjack matches and table matches week after week after week? The constant screwjobs. A lot of the WWF/E's reliance on backstage skits started in 2000. Now it wasn't by any means a bad year (certainly a lot better than what we've been getting since), but I wouldn't look upon it as some golden age that we need to return to. That said, it would be best if they had a writer who had some knowledge of wrestling and how things work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Creativity is more overrated than anything in wrestling. Wrestling fans don't watch wrestling to see how creative it's going to be, they watch to see their favorites kick the asses of their least favorites. There's no reason to make it anything greater than it really is. In the same way WWE has a farm system for its wrestlers, they need one for writers as well. They can learn about the history of wrestling by going through a training system, watch and critique the shows every week, familiarize themselves with the talent and learn wrestling psychology. While coming up with reasons for two people to fight is not really much of an issue, making it work in wrestling is often a problem. Otherwise, we would have had more successful bookers and writers. Generally speaking, because of the sheer volume of television produced and the pressure involved, the shelf life is only a few years. Guys like Dusty and Ole have started off great, only to burn out and take the product south. Memphis had the right idea of doing six months on/six months off in that it kept all the bookers fresh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Goodear Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Then you get something "original" like a Porn Star, or a Pimp... original is not necessarily good. Oh I agree, although I think you picked bad examples since those gimmicks provided the most overness Morely and Wright have ever had. I just think 'Hollywood writers' can provide a fresher insight than a 'wreslting writer' on occasion and its best to put the two together. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 Of course, those gimmicks had a short shelf-life and ended up doing as much harm as good (neither of them can escape it and there is little room for advancement). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted January 8, 2004 I'd take a dozen people from this board over both hollywood writers and wrestling writers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
