Guest Brian Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Big ratings for pointless segments do what for the long term? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Let's not debate the merits of Vince Russo on the WWE writing or his past contributions to said writing team. His biggest coup was telling The Rock to speak in the Third Person - that was his high point in professional wrestling. I assume the people who want Russo to return to the WWE writing team are the same people who think Flair can out-wrestle 90% of the WWE roster. In other words, they overlook a certain (aka "most recent" and therefore indicative of any future possible work) period of time where the aforementioned SUCKED DISTURBING AMOUNTS OF ASS, and focus on whatever convenient high points and think that would be the potential standard of work. Hmm, what I just wrote seems to contradict what I first wrote... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeDirt 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I really don't see much changing until Vince realizes the product has sucked since Steph has started booking. Does anyone think these "shakeups" will make a difference? And is the SD creative team that much worse than RAW's? Kane/Lita, anyone? The wedding and segments leading up to it drew big ratings for this time period in wrestling. They do not, nor should they, care about catering to the smarks. No...but I'd rather see Austin drive a beer truck to the ring and give the Corporation a beer bath then see Kane and Lita in some stupid wedding, you know? They don't have to cater to the smarks, but they don't have to put out complete shit, either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I'd rather see neither. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
humongous2002 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Vince needs to understand that the only solution is to have Heyman become the head writer again, Paul E. knows how to cater to the fans unlike the out-of-touch Vince McMahon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
razazteca 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I'd rather see neither. I would rather watch Mark Henry vs Rikishi in a Greco-Roman wrestling match with Kurt Angle as the special ref. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Tjhe CyNick Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I think Heyman is the best option of the people that they currently have. But I dont think Heyman will set business on fire either. He might make it more fun for hardcore fans to watch, but I dont think he's ever shown an ability to draw the casual fans that makes the difference in 5 million viewers vs 8 or 9 million. I think there are a lot of problems that will plauge the company no matter who is booking. Not the least of which is guys like Taker and HHH who have to be on top because of their pull in the company, but have shown no ability to draw in the last 2 years. Even if Heyman was head booker on SD he would still be forced into making Taker a key focal point of the show, and thats never going to drive up business. Ditto for HHH over on RAW. The other big problem I see that cant be overcome by changing bookers is that fans have seem too much in the last 7 or 8 years. There has been so much free wrestling on TV in that time that there is very little that can be done to get people talking and wanting to seek out WWE TV again. They've seen every angle, every gimmick, every big spot, whats left? If you look back over history, the 2 major "boom periods" came off the heels of a drastic change in the way the product was presented. When Hogan started his run in New York the product was much different from the previous run of Bob Backlund. Bob's era was more about wrestling, and Hogan came in and changed that. The business was built around cartoonish superheroes who appealed to young kids (worked for me). As time went on they kept doing the same stuff and eventually fans that were hooked in the early 80s as kids, were outgrowing that stuff and turned away from the product. Business didn't pick up until Bischoff changed the industry with Nitro and offering main event matches every week along with the NWO concept. Here you had heels who were acting hip and appealed to teens/young adults and business started to take off. Vince eventually caught on and surpassed WCW with Austin/Rock and DX and the "crash TV" style of wrestling. The key thing was that this era was completely different fromt he cartoon era of the 80s and it got people talking. But now I dont see what the new concept is that will hook people in. Do you go back to shorter matches? We've already seen that. What about trash talking/foul mouthed good guys? Seen that too. Do you go back to a cartoon oriented product? That might appeal to a different fanbase (ie kids) but they also risk running off the much sought after male 14-25 demographic. On the other hand, maybe the fans who grew up with Hogan in the 80s are starting families now, and would welcome a kid friendly product that they could expose their children to. I mean I know I wouldn't want any kid of mine watching those Divas call each other "c#$% suckers" and whatnot. I dont think the answer is more wrestling, because I dont think that really appeals to the average fan. But at the same time, the stupid angles like Kane-Lita dont appeal to anyone with a working brain, unless its just to laugh at it. So I dont think the answer to the WWE problems is to just hand the book over to Paul Heyman, because I just dont see what he could do to make the product that much better. Booking Eddie Guerrero vs Kurt Angle didn't set business on fire right now, and it likely wont do much better under Paul's control. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I think they (the writers) spend too much time making Raw and Smackdown "entertainment shows" rather than "sporting events" - there's too much pointless scripting and, strangely enough, attention to detail, that they lose long-term focus and you get major logic-gaps happening. So every week they're writing like they're writing for a TV show rather than like they're writing for a wrestling show. The perspective is off. A TV show is hard to write for, a wrestling show is very easy to write for. I think you are backwards... A T.V. show is much easier to wirte....there are several reasons why....they have off seasons....so they are able to plan way in advance and get there creative thoughts together.....with the breaks they can rest and get those creative juices flowing again....plus everything is taped so they can edit and redo everything... With a wrestling show...you never know what will happen... a guy could get hurt and it throws away all that was plan way in advance....so you have to restart things....then you may have a "Stone Cold" walk out...and you have to rewrite a whole show from scratch and among other things.... Just ask a Russo, Kreski, Gerwitz, Steph, Heyman, Bischoff or any other writers that have been creative heads or just writers...that a wrestling show is very hard to write and plan for.....and it is very stressful...especially if you are the one who heads the creative team... In a way I do feel sorry for Steph...she has to oversee two writing teams(RAW and Smackdown)...and now she is helping write Smackdown since another writer is on hiatius.....plus looking over RAW....imagine having that kind of load........That's why you need someone strong to handle these duties... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mystery Eskimo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I assume the people who want Russo to return to the WWE writing team are the same people who think Flair can out-wrestle 90% of the WWE roster. Not 90%, but Flair is still more entertaining than half the Raw roster. They could do worse than Russo, at least he actually has an interest in wrestling. They need less random soap opera guys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 No. A TV show goes through several drafts, and every bit of dialogue, camera angles, action sequences, etc. must be written and rewritten and rerewritten. A Wrestling show, really, should only have one draft (it IS wrestling, after all) and there really shouldn't be _any_ dialogue because that should be up to the wrestlers to do and whatever goes on in the ring shouldn't be written because, again, that's up to the wrestlers to do. So really, the majority of the show (promos and wrestling) _should_ be incredibly easy to write. Segments are the only thing they have to really concentrate on, and even then that shouldn't take long because there shouldn't be a whole lot of segments on a show. Key Words here are "should" and "shouldn't". The main focus should be on long term booking and whether or not what they're writing falls in-line with what has been going on (aka continuity). Wrestlers getting injured is a problem, but the company should be "tight" enough that there is another person who could easily take the injured wrestlers place. Unfortunately, in todays WWE there is such a wide gap between the upper card and the midcard and some guys are so entrenched in their positions that it's incredibly hard to do that. Smart writers would have back up plans and back up plans for their back up plans. The writers you listed write under the "TV Show" format; I am sure Heyman didn't have nearly as hard of a time writing for ECW -a wrestling show- than he has writing for the WWE -a TV show-. I don't feel sorry for Steph at all. I look at the WWE Writers job as a very easy thing - a very political and very unrewarding thing - but the task of writing a show is very easy (the hard part is the politics - which Steph, as bosses daughter, dictates rather than placates). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strummer 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 When Cornette was on WOL once, he said he wrote 1 or 2 months worth of OVW TV in about an hour. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeDirt 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 No. A TV show goes through several drafts, and every bit of dialogue, camera angles, action sequences, etc. must be written and rewritten and rerewritten. A Wrestling show, really, should only have one draft (it IS wrestling, after all) and there really shouldn't be _any_ dialogue because that should be up to the wrestlers to do and whatever goes on in the ring shouldn't be written because, again, that's up to the wrestlers to do. So really, the majority of the show (promos and wrestling) _should_ be incredibly easy to write. Segments are the only thing they have to really concentrate on, and even then that shouldn't take long because there shouldn't be a whole lot of segments on a show. Key Words here are "should" and "shouldn't". The main focus should be on long term booking and whether or not what they're writing falls in-line with what has been going on (aka continuity). Wrestlers getting injured is a problem, but the company should be "tight" enough that there is another person who could easily take the injured wrestlers place. Unfortunately, in todays WWE there is such a wide gap between the upper card and the midcard and some guys are so entrenched in their positions that it's incredibly hard to do that. Smart writers would have back up plans and back up plans for their back up plans. The writers you listed write under the "TV Show" format; I am sure Heyman didn't have nearly as hard of a time writing for ECW -a wrestling show- than he has writing for the WWE -a TV show-. I don't feel sorry for Steph at all. I look at the WWE Writers job as a very easy thing - a very political and very unrewarding thing - but the task of writing a show is very easy (the hard part is the politics - which Steph, as bosses daughter, dictates rather than placates). And it's really sad, when you think about it. How many big "storylines" does each writing team do at a time? One? Two? Leading up to Summerslam we had the Angle/Eddie feud on Smackdown and the HHH/Eugene storyline on RAW that got all the attention. Smackdown also had the Dudleys turning heel. Okay...but what about everyone else? I just get frustrated at how four or five guys will get a storyline, and then for everyone else it's just thrown-together crap at the last second. How did the Smackdown writers set up Holly vs. Rhyno at NWO and Gunn vs. Suzuki at the GAB? They had a DQ finish on the show before the PPV. Wow...way to think ahead, guys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 There has to be a fundamental, structural, problem in regards to storylines and booking. I can't imagine a so-called "entertainment" company being so inept when it comes to writing. Seriously, a 4th grade class could write better, more coherent, television. It has to be a WCW-like thing where there is miscommuncation and it becomes a constant game of 'telephone' where "Let's have Angle vs. Eddie" becomes, "Let's have Angle and Luther vs. Eddie and then Chavo comes out and then Taker chokeslams him and then JBL and Orlando dance and then Vince comes out and fires everyone and then Paul Heyman cries and then Teddy Long gives the title to Booker T" - you have so many voices having their input and trying to further their own politcal agendas that the message gets lost and there are so many useless, counterproductive, storylines making its way on television. It's the job of the Director of Creative to make those voices as clear and distinct as possible and that simply isn't being done and hasn't been done in a long, long time. That's why HHH's storylines tend to be the most focused, there are no other voices being added to his message - what he wants and what gets on screen are very much the same . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Again, the writers shouldn't shoulder the blame unless we see a bad skit or we're criticizing the specific words in a promo. Vince determines the direction of the company and the writers are required to write within that direction. The writers aren't writing what happens -- they're simply writing what the wrestlers say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I think everyone in the creative process is to blame for the storylines and angles that goes on in the WWE. From the bookers, to the writers, to Vince McMahon himself. The way I see it is that each episode of RAW and Smackdown are scripted - there are actual scripts to these events - and it goes right down to the letter of a word in a promo. The writers are the ones who do that, they are the ones who make up those scripts (along with others in production) and IMO the scripts are the problem. There is an attention to detail, but the attention is going to the _wrong_ detail. They spend so much time drafting these point-by-point pieces of paper that they (a)lose focus of the big picture and (b)don't have enough time thinking of alternatives just-in-case something goes wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Until the writing team can come up with something, without having to go through five or so Vince McMahon "my way or the highway" edits, then it is really pointless what name they throw in under the PHONY TITLE of "head writer" That being said, in recent memory/history, Smackdown was best with Heyman in charge, or whatever influence he did have was excellent. Vince is going to have to bite the bullet called pride, and give Heyman ACTUAL control of writing/storyline producing if he wants Smackdown to get better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 No. A TV show goes through several drafts, and every bit of dialogue, camera angles, action sequences, etc. must be written and rewritten and rerewritten. A Wrestling show, really, should only have one draft (it IS wrestling, after all) and there really shouldn't be _any_ dialogue because that should be up to the wrestlers to do and whatever goes on in the ring shouldn't be written because, again, that's up to the wrestlers to do. So really, the majority of the show (promos and wrestling) _should_ be incredibly easy to write. Segments are the only thing they have to really concentrate on, and even then that shouldn't take long because there shouldn't be a whole lot of segments on a show. Key Words here are "should" and "shouldn't". The main focus should be on long term booking and whether or not what they're writing falls in-line with what has been going on (aka continuity). Wrestlers getting injured is a problem, but the company should be "tight" enough that there is another person who could easily take the injured wrestlers place. Unfortunately, in todays WWE there is such a wide gap between the upper card and the midcard and some guys are so entrenched in their positions that it's incredibly hard to do that. Smart writers would have back up plans and back up plans for their back up plans. The writers you listed write under the "TV Show" format; I am sure Heyman didn't have nearly as hard of a time writing for ECW -a wrestling show- than he has writing for the WWE -a TV show-. I don't feel sorry for Steph at all. I look at the WWE Writers job as a very easy thing - a very political and very unrewarding thing - but the task of writing a show is very easy (the hard part is the politics - which Steph, as bosses daughter, dictates rather than placates). Have u ever wrote or was head of the creative team? Why did the two best creative director directors quit... Vince Russo....too much stress, with the added Smackdown show... Chris Kreski....burnt out...too big of a load... Of course politics will cycle in....but the majority of it was stress and the work load.... It's the job of the Director of Creative to make those voices as clear and distinct as possible and that simply isn't being done and hasn't been done in a long, long time. That's why HHH's storylines tend to be the most focused, there are no other voices being added to his message - what he wants and what gets on screen are very much the same . Of course his storylines are going to be the foucs his wife is the Director of the creative team....of course she will tell the writers what to foucs on more and what not to worry about... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Having Heyman lead the charge is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It will mask the problem, but it won't fix the problem. Heyman did not fix _anything_ on Smackdown. He just knew who the good workers were and put them in matches together again and again and again which made each individual show better, but it didn't make Smackdown as a whole better. He didn't create anything that was long-lasting; it was a very short term fix. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Have u ever wrote or was head of the creative team? Yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Have u ever wrote or was head of the creative team? Yes. LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Kizzo, you are not getting it. Friends = TV Show ER = TV Show CSI = TV Show Raw and Smackdown = TV Show OVW = Wrestling Show ECW = Wrestling Show Which are the easiest to write for? OVW and ECW. Why? Because they didn't script out every little thing. They are written as Wrestling Shows rather than Entertainment shows. Which is the hardest to write for? Raw and Smackdown. Why? Because on top of the fact they have to write out every little thing, they have to do it every week for 50 weeks whereas ER/CSI/Friends only has to do it for 22 episodes. The writers for RAW and Smackdown would be better off writing a wrestling show rather than a television show. I am not denying that writing for RAW and Smackdown is hard, *because they are written AS A TV SHOW*. It's all there in the original paragraph. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Which are the easiest to write for? OVW and ECW. Why? Because they didn't script out every little thing. They are written as Wrestling Shows rather than Entertainment shows. Which is the hardest to write for? Raw and Smackdown. Why? Because on top of the fact they have to write out every little thing, they have to do it every week for 50 weeks whereas ER/CSI/Friends only has to do it for 22 episodes. The writers for RAW and Smackdown would be better off writing a wrestling show rather than a television show. I am not denying that writing for RAW and Smackdown is hard, *because they are written AS A TV SHOW*. It's all there in the original paragraph. Ok...I see your point..... But I assume the reason they want it be written as a T.V. show because the past sucess they have had with that formula.....record revenues....becoming a public traded company....they would have not accomplish this.....just being a wrestling show... But looking over the years...I can see why past writers have been burnt out...they have to write a "TV show" in just one week....instead of just putting matches on the card....w/o storylines....or promos... My suggestion would be....to just give the creative team a 2 week vacation....every 3 months......that way they can get some rest.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
humongous2002 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Having Heyman lead the charge is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It will mask the problem, but it won't fix the problem. Heyman did not fix _anything_ on Smackdown. He just knew who the good workers were and put them in matches together again and again and again which made each individual show better, but it didn't make Smackdown as a whole better. He didn't create anything that was long-lasting; it was a very short term fix. Well he wasn't the head writer for SD that long either but at least he was getting Angle, Benoit, Lesnar, Eddie, Rey and even Edge over, hey, I'll take that over nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 The WWE may have needed the TV show structure back when they were head-to-head with Nitro, but they don't need it any more. They don't need that fast-paced, edge-of-your-seat, YOU MUST WATCH US NEXT WEEK, 'attitude' because the fans who are watching now have proven they are in it for the long haul; because it's been a long, long time the WWE has been "edge of your seat", yet the fans have stayed. How they are losing the fans now is by not delivering on what they promise; by not living up to their potential. I think a big reason why the WWE is failing to do this is because they still have the TV show mentality - that they are too "boxed in" by a format that has become out-dated and no longer needed. When I look at what the television audience wants today, it is either something "real" (insert reality show here) or something "well written" (CSI), and the WWE does not offer either, and they probably can easily offer both. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 The WWE may have needed the TV show structure back when they were head-to-head with Nitro, but they don't need it any more. They don't need that fast-paced, edge-of-your-seat, YOU MUST WATCH US NEXT WEEK, 'attitude' because the fans who are watching now have proven they are in it for the long haul; because it's been a long, long time the WWE has been "edge of your seat", yet the fans have stayed. How they are losing the fans now is by not delivering on what they promise; by not living up to their potential. I think a big reason why the WWE is failing to do this is because they still have the TV show mentality - that they are too "boxed in" by a format that has become out-dated and no longer needed. When I look at what the television audience wants today, it is either something "real" (insert reality show here) or something "well written" (CSI), and the WWE does not offer either, and they probably can easily offer both. Then they will remain in the 3's and possibly hit the 2 mark if they book an all "WRASSLIN SHOW" You will not grow just by booking a wrasslin show...you need some form of entertainment....the reason I started watching WWE was because of the shorter matches.....the amazing characters and storylines.....not one match got me hooked to WWE...it was the characters and the storylines.... But of course what WWE is writing now...is not exaclty what I call entertainment.....nor is the character development there.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 A wrestling show can contain amazing characters and storylines, I don't see why it couldn't. Infact, the simplistic environment that writing for a wrestling show provides would allow for deeper storylines and better characterization. Without having to worry about every little thing a wrestler says in a promo and writing out scripts, a writer could spend time with other wrestlers developing their characters beyond the 1 dimension that we see every week. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 A wrestling show can contain amazing characters and storylines, I don't see why it couldn't. Infact, the simplistic environment that writing for a wrestling show provides would allow for deeper storylines and better characterization. Without having to worry about every little thing a wrestler says in a promo and writing out scripts, a writer could spend time with other wrestlers developing their characters beyond the 1 dimension that we see every week. Well I agree with another thing.... But...that's why Hollywood writers are needed(the good ones) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I think what I mentioned above could be done by a dozen+ posters here, none of whom have any experience in hollywood, but all of whom understand professional wrestling and it's history, characters, and successes enough that they could successfully write for WWE television (and along with that have the creative resources to bring in something fresh). This goes back to what I originally said: A Wrestling Show is not hard to write for. It's just a matter of what is focused on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kizzo 0 Report post Posted September 5, 2004 I think what I mentioned above could be done by a dozen+ posters here, none of whom have any experience in hollywood, but all of whom understand professional wrestling and it's history, characters, and successes enough that they could successfully write for WWE television (and along with that have the creative resources to bring in something fresh). This goes back to what I originally said: A Wrestling Show is not hard to write for. It's just a matter of what is focused on. Absolutley.....I think anyone on this board could write for the WWE(and turn it around) But since Vince prefers "hollywood writers" to fit his format(mostly to impress stockholders)....that's why I stated to get the best Hollywood writers you can find and let them write the shows and book(plus I prefer them as well).... Of course at this time...the creative team is mostly made of "wrestling people"...with only a couple of Hollywood heads....and since this is so...the format should change... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Super Pissed Smark Report post Posted September 5, 2004 Vince is not going anywhere (hell notwithstanding). Steph is not going anywhere. Triple-H is not going anywhere (ditto on hell). Until you can solve this problem, it doesn't matter if they hire Robert Towne, Charlie Kaufman, Lawrence Kasdan, David Koepp and William Goldman as "Hollywood writers," nothing about the product is really going to change. Micro-analyze it as much as you want, until you change the macro nothing really matters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
