WON News + Notes, 4th December Issue

[cabbageboy 0]

The Angle/Austin stuff was hilarious and I enjoyed it a lot, but in a way I can see where HTQ is coming from. One of my main problems with Angle has always been that he never worked as either a heel or face in a way that could draw money. As a face his whole act always came off smarmy to me and I never could rally behind the guy as an underdog going against the odds (hard to rally behind a guy who can beat anyone straight up if he wanted). As a heel he did a lot of hilarious stuff like the Austin bits, but I don't think a comedy heel is really what draws in a main event position.

[BUTT 0]

I think the main point is that Austin shouldn't have been portrayed as a comedy character. But then, at that point that's how almost everyone was being portrayed as WWE moved to incorporate more comedy* into their shows.

 

 

*I remember around this time the Torch reporting that Vince McMahon did not like to use the word "comedy" in reference to that element of his programs, rather referring to it behind the scenes as "humor" or "ha-ha".

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Wasn't the highest rated segment of RAW of ALL TIME the stupid Rock/Foley This is Your Life skit?

Yes, but it didn't draw money or lead to anything that could draw money. Is it wrong that it didn't draw money? Not so much. But it was 20 minutes of time that could have been devoted to something that might have drawn money at the next PPV.

 

I know it's a sin around here lately to dare to think about anything that happens in terms of how it draws money, which is kind of the point of the wrestling business, because lord knows it's far more important to think purely about your own enjoyment and to hell with something as minor as making money.

 

As a heel he did a lot of hilarious stuff like the Austin bits, but I don't think a comedy heel is really what draws in a main event position.

 

Comedy doesn't draw. Comedy is fine for the midcard, but in the main events need something to get emotionally involved in to where you want to pay to see the match it's building. Goofy skits involving two guys who are meant to be draws doesn't do that. It makes you laugh, which is fine, but people don't pay $34.95 to see two comedians wrestle. Austin and Rock didn't draw 1 million buys because of any stupid comedy. They drew money because of two strong personalities. Hunter and Batsita didn't draw almost a million buys because of any comedy skits. They drew those buys because the World Title was important to both men, and Batista wanted to take it while Hunter wanted to keep it.

 

But I'm just thinking about the big picture and how things should make money, and we can't have that, can we?

[Wyld Cannon 0]

The Rock's entire rise to prominence was based on comedy. A significant portion of the audience was watching because the Rock was funny. This leads to increased ticket sales, merchandise, and even PPV buys.

 

Comedy can draw money just as much as "drama". Just because you don't want a comedy act to draw as well as serious World title struggle doesn't mean it can't or won't.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Hell, even in Austin's first rise to the top in WWF, he had his comedic moments. Remember when he hit Vince with the bedpan?

[bob_barron 0]

I know it's a sin around here lately to dare to think about anything that happens in terms of how it draws money, which is kind of the point of the wrestling business, because lord knows it's far more important to think purely about your own enjoyment and to hell with something as minor as making money.

 

Do I have any money invested in WWE? No. So I like what entertains me. I don't sit there and go, "That match/segment was cool. But it won't draw money, so I hate it."

 

But I'm just thinking about the big picture and how things should make money, and we can't have that, can we?

 

Go ahead and think about the big picture. I'll just laugh at you for taking a couple of funny skits so seriously b/c they won't increase Vince McMahon's pocket

[cabbageboy 0]

The Rock and Austin always had a level of seriousness about them at that core level, regardless of whatever comedy they might do. Austin smacked Vince with a bedpan or poured cement in his car, but it was cool stuff that made Vince look like a fool. It did not diminish our ability to take Austin seriously as a wrestler.

 

Ditto The Rock. He would do hilarious promos but it'd usually be to run down his opponent, talk trash, etc. He made his opponents seem foolish but he himself was still cool.

 

If I could make an argument against the Austin/Angle skits it was that it was the wrong time to do such bits. The WWF in theory was under attack by WCW invaders and the show should have been very serious (sorta like WCW during the NWO angle).

[Bruce Blank 0]

I know it's a sin around here lately to dare to think about anything that happens in terms of how it draws money, which is kind of the point of the wrestling business, because lord knows it's far more important to think purely about your own enjoyment and to hell with something as minor as making money.

Well consider the fact that we were talking about entertaining segments and then for some reason you figured that you'd flash your über-Smark badge and give us some useless factoid that makes NO difference in how entertaining a segment is.

 

How about I put it a different way then? You seem to be all about the business, so let's put it in business terms just for you

 

Let's say you and your buddies are on a lunchbreak from your duties as bag-boys at the local "Save-a-lot". Your two friends are sitting there eating bananas and one of them goes

 

"You know I like Bananas"

 

and the other guy goes "Yeah they're good"

 

then you (the hypothetical you I'm not trying to infer that you work in a supermarket ) but "you" go "Yeah but Save-a-lot doesn't sell a lot of bananas"

 

Cue up the "WTF" reaction.

 

So while I respect your right to drain any and all entertainment value out of something with the smark-view then I'm still sitting here wondering "What the hell does how much it did or did not draw have to do with it being an entertaining segment?"

[Black Lushus 0]

Angle drew my money for WM21...of course, HBK did also. The flipside is that those guys did NOT draw my money for whatever PPV the rematch was on.

[Guest poilbrun]

Hello all!

 

I'm rather new here, been reading the site for a couple of weeks but only registered yesterday to post this:

- What are "WON News"? From where/who do they come?

- What do the star ratings next to the matches mean? I saw them in the PS2 game, but always thought they were something created for the game to simulate the public's enjoyment for a match?

 

Thanks to anyone who would explain this or point me in the right direction to find information. I hate to ask, but everyone has been green at one point!

[bob_barron 0]

Angle drew my money for WM21...of course, HBK did also. The flipside is that those guys did NOT draw my money for whatever PPV the rematch was on.

 

Vengeance.

 

That was a great show

[Ginger Snaps 0]

Hello all!

 

I'm rather new here, been reading the site for a couple of weeks but only registered yesterday to post this:

- What are "WON News"? From where/who do they come?

- What do the star ratings next to the matches mean? I saw them in the PS2 game, but always thought they were something created for the game to simulate the public's enjoyment for a match?

 

Thanks to anyone who would explain this or point me in the right direction to find information. I hate to ask, but everyone has been green at one point!

 

 

Heh. N00b! Don't go in the Socket, you will be eaten alive.

 

WON = "Wrestling Observer Newsletter"

 

Star ratings (scale of 0 to 5) are the standard system that wrestling fans use to determine quality of a match. They're about the most subjective things ever, don't base too much faith in them.

[Black Lushus 0]

Angle drew my money for WM21...of course, HBK did also. The flipside is that those guys did NOT draw my money for whatever PPV the rematch was on.

 

Vengeance.

 

That was a great show

 

I dunno, Bob...I guess one match between them was enough for me...outside of the ending, the WM match was fabulous...it's very rare that a rematch will pike my interest.

[cabbageboy 0]

Speaking of Austin stuff from 2001....HTQ, how do you feel about the skits with RVD? It seems like they are mostly forgotten now, yet I thought that stuff was great. Just about as entertaining as the Angle/Austin bits, but the Austin/RVD stuff actually seemed to be leading to a feud that could have drawn money. As in Austin's paranoia over RVD's popularity leads Austin to flip and kick Van Dam out of the Alliance (or RVD leaves the Alliance).

 

Of course the Invasion storyline ended up being dropped so there was never a real resolution to this angle.

[pochorenella 0]

Angle drew my money for WM21...of course, HBK did also. The flipside is that those guys did NOT draw my money for whatever PPV the rematch was on.

Vengeance.

 

That was a great show

I dunno, Bob...I guess one match between them was enough for me...outside of the ending, the WM match was fabulous...it's very rare that a rematch will pike my interest.

 

I agree that Vengeance 2005 was a great show, and that Angle vs HBK II was a great rematch just a few notches below their WM bout, which I absolutely love. Some may nitpick about the 50/50 booking and Shawn "demanding he get his win back" because "he didn't need it" and the such, but ignoring those points it's a terrific match. Give it a try, Lushus. Then again, I'm biased towards Michaels, so...

[Guest poilbrun]

Heh. N00b! Don't go in the Socket, you will be eaten alive.

 

WON = "Wrestling Observer Newsletter"

 

Star ratings (scale of 0 to 5) are the standard system that wrestling fans use to determine quality of a match. They're about the most subjective things ever, don't base too much faith in them.

Thanks for the help!

 

PS: Damn, it's been some time since I've been called a n00b anywhere. That's what happens when you move in new directions... or rather back in old ones!

[Jericholic82 0]

 

 

They have hired Brian Friedman and Nick Florez, two choreographers to set up new individualistic ring entrances for the women.

 

oh....boy....

funniest thing I have heard all week.

 

 

sigged

[Jericholic82 0]

http://www.myspace.com/theluchagors13

 

It's really not that bad.

No, however the song on the main page is

[iggymcfly 0]

The Angle/Austin stuff was hilarious and I enjoyed it a lot, but in a way I can see where HTQ is coming from. One of my main problems with Angle has always been that he never worked as either a heel or face in a way that could draw money. As a face his whole act always came off smarmy to me and I never could rally behind the guy as an underdog going against the odds (hard to rally behind a guy who can beat anyone straight up if he wanted). As a heel he did a lot of hilarious stuff like the Austin bits, but I don't think a comedy heel is really what draws in a main event position.

 

I don't buy this. Close to half of the PPVs that I've ever watched, I watched solely to see Kurt Angle. Not just because he was a good wrestler, but because I could get into his character enough to really care whether he won or lost. If I wasn't so jaded with wrestling right now, and if the little bit of TNA I'd seen hadn't been absolutely terrible, I might have started watching it just to see Angle.