WWE/USA network update

[cabbageboy 0]

If there is one thing Russo certainly adds to a product it is a crazed sense of pacing. Something is always happening on a Russo booked show.

 

With that said, why does every discussion about the creative process always end up with either Russo or Heyman? There has to be some undiscovered booking talent out there with a fresh approach.

[Chazz 0]

If there is one thing Russo certainly adds to a product it is a crazed sense of pacing. Something is always happening on a Russo booked show.

 

With that said, why does every discussion about the creative process always end up with either Russo or Heyman? There has to be some undiscovered booking talent out there with a fresh approach.

 

 

Even if there are, it's not like any of their idea's will see the light of day under a Stephanie lead Creative Team.

[Diamonddust 0]

People actually want Vince Russo back with WWE, now? Why? Has he done such a great job in TNA?

 

As far as the TBS/TNT suggestions, we need to get out of the Monday Night Wars mentality as wrestling fans, like I've said before. This isn't 1998. WWE should take that to heart as well, and completely overhaul their product, especially Monday Night RAW, which is just beyond stale. I think that's the main problem with WWE...it's basically the same show it's been for the last 9 or 10 years.

 

Because Raw was a thousand times more enjoyable when he was writing the shows for WWE.

 

Russo isn't writing TNA by himself, but I do think TNA is more watchable now than it was before he came there. Let's wait to see what he can do with 2 hours. I didn't see it, but reviews of the first show were mostly positive.

 

And WWE obviously is not anywhere close to the same show as it was 9 or 10 years ago. You must not remember the Attitude Era at all if you think that. WWE feels stale now because it feels like nothing is ever happening. It was mentioned before that the one big storyline of the summer ended up amounting to nothing but a few comedy bits. Whether you miss a week of shows or a month, chances are you're not really missing anything and Raw will be the exact same show when you start watching again. In 1997 and 1998, something was always happening.

 

That all boils down to competition. WWE has no serious competition going to head to head with them for advertising dollars and other forms of revenue, so they don't have to go balls to the wall every week like they did during the height of the Monday Night War.

[Chazz 0]

I do find it amazing that no network executive (for either Spike or USA) has noticed the blatant nepotism of Stephanie's position and the dwindling ratings since she took over in 2001. Or, if they have noticed havn't made one complaint about it to Vince.

 

C'mon, if JJ Abrahms hired his brother as head writer for Lost and it started to tank (to half of what it once was), how long would that situation last before ABC stepped in and got rid of the brother?

 

Vince no longer has the passion to better the product like he used to. If he did, he'd kick Steph and HHH the fuck out of The Writer's Meeting's, reassign/fire Gerwertz and all of the yes-man writers, rehire Russo,(If he isn't under a TNA deal), and Heyman to head up Raw and Smackdown, and cancel ECW. Or maybe that's what I'd do. Either way, I hope making The WWE Hunter and Steph's playground the last several year's was worth it when he get's lowballed on a new deal for his highest rated T.V. Show.

 

I understand your point but Russo is worse........

 

Have you seen what Stephanie has done to the product the past several years? Even though It will probably never happen, I don't understand how re-hiring a man who helped The Company achieve it's most successful period of business ever would be considered worse.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

People are right that WWE is boring right now, and they need a big storyline to kick things into gear. What I meant by RAW being the same as '98, is that you still have the evil authority figure, and a babyface hero forced to "overcome the odds" (Cena, now Triple H). It's basically just recycling the same plots as before.

 

The whole feel of RAW is really stale, too. I wish they'd ditch the red and black color scheme and go with something new, or at least do a complete set redesign, not just little tweaks like adding a new screen or adjusting the incline of the entrance ramp, etc. Also, Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler should be broken up or shown the door (and I know a lot of people don't like to hear that, but I feel it's true).

 

Anyway, yeah, RAW isn't going anywhere other than USA, but USA has a right to want them to put on a better product, too.

[chaosrage 0]

People actually want Vince Russo back with WWE, now? Why? Has he done such a great job in TNA?

 

As far as the TBS/TNT suggestions, we need to get out of the Monday Night Wars mentality as wrestling fans, like I've said before. This isn't 1998. WWE should take that to heart as well, and completely overhaul their product, especially Monday Night RAW, which is just beyond stale. I think that's the main problem with WWE...it's basically the same show it's been for the last 9 or 10 years.

 

Because Raw was a thousand times more enjoyable when he was writing the shows for WWE.

 

Russo isn't writing TNA by himself, but I do think TNA is more watchable now than it was before he came there. Let's wait to see what he can do with 2 hours. I didn't see it, but reviews of the first show were mostly positive.

 

And WWE obviously is not anywhere close to the same show as it was 9 or 10 years ago. You must not remember the Attitude Era at all if you think that. WWE feels stale now because it feels like nothing is ever happening. It was mentioned before that the one big storyline of the summer ended up amounting to nothing but a few comedy bits. Whether you miss a week of shows or a month, chances are you're not really missing anything and Raw will be the exact same show when you start watching again. In 1997 and 1998, something was always happening.

 

That all boils down to competition. WWE has no serious competition going to head to head with them for advertising dollars and other forms of revenue, so they don't have to go balls to the wall every week like they did during the height of the Monday Night War.

 

I don't think it boils down to that. It's just a matter of hiring a competent writer. You don't need to be going balls to the wall to be able to write exciting unpredictable storylines. In 2000, WCW was barely giving competition above what TNA is now. Yet Raw was still unpredictable. There was still intriguing storylines such Angle/HHH/Steph and Guerrero/Chyna. (See the youtube thread for more of that) They hadn't fallen asleep yet.

 

It all changed in October 2000 when Kreski was replaced. I honestly wonder what would have happened if WCW had managed to stay alive for a little while longer.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Even if WCW had stayed around, I don't think they would have been serious competition to WWF like they were in the mid to late '90s. A lot of crap was happening with the main eventers in WCW...I bet a lot of them like Hogan and Goldberg would have ended up leaving, because any new entity buying WCW wouldn't have been able to afford them. Maybe a few like Sting or Flair would have stayed out of loyalty, but I kind of doubt it, since Sting seemed to be considering retirement and Flair was clearly burned out (read his book). They probably would have had to cut a lot of production costs, and maybe position themselves as a more mainstream ECW-like alternative, with a lot of young guys as the focal point. Also, they would have had to find a new TV outlet, presumably.

[Diamonddust 0]

People actually want Vince Russo back with WWE, now? Why? Has he done such a great job in TNA?

 

As far as the TBS/TNT suggestions, we need to get out of the Monday Night Wars mentality as wrestling fans, like I've said before. This isn't 1998. WWE should take that to heart as well, and completely overhaul their product, especially Monday Night RAW, which is just beyond stale. I think that's the main problem with WWE...it's basically the same show it's been for the last 9 or 10 years.

 

Because Raw was a thousand times more enjoyable when he was writing the shows for WWE.

 

Russo isn't writing TNA by himself, but I do think TNA is more watchable now than it was before he came there. Let's wait to see what he can do with 2 hours. I didn't see it, but reviews of the first show were mostly positive.

 

And WWE obviously is not anywhere close to the same show as it was 9 or 10 years ago. You must not remember the Attitude Era at all if you think that. WWE feels stale now because it feels like nothing is ever happening. It was mentioned before that the one big storyline of the summer ended up amounting to nothing but a few comedy bits. Whether you miss a week of shows or a month, chances are you're not really missing anything and Raw will be the exact same show when you start watching again. In 1997 and 1998, something was always happening.

 

That all boils down to competition. WWE has no serious competition going to head to head with them for advertising dollars and other forms of revenue, so they don't have to go balls to the wall every week like they did during the height of the Monday Night War.

 

I don't think it boils down to that. It's just a matter of hiring a competent writer. You don't need to be going balls to the wall to be able to write exciting unpredictable storylines. In 2000, WCW was barely giving competition above what TNA is now. Yet Raw was still unpredictable. There was still intriguing storylines such Angle/HHH/Steph and Guerrero/Chyna. (See the youtube thread for more of that) They hadn't fallen asleep yet.

 

It all changed in October 2000 when Kreski was replaced. I honestly wonder what would have happened if WCW had managed to stay alive for a little while longer.

 

Yeah, and it ended in 2001 when WCW was completely eliminated as a threat. Sure, they were on a prolonged death march that they couldn't return from... but they still existed, which was the key point. McMahon put the final nails in the coffin during 2000. When 2001 hit, everyone thought the Invasion was going to be the next huge storyline, but we all remember what happened there. From that point, the WWE didn't have to do a whole lot to maintain things as they were the only show in town. If you can operate at say a lower level and still be successful financially speaking, why try to outdo yourself every week when it's not needed?

 

As for Raw, it is pretty stale, as WWE 24/7 has shown us it's basically been the same show the past 10 years. They could do something to spice things up, but until USA gets real angry with them or in a position to use some leverage, nothing is going to happen.

 

As for Russo coming back or any other writer, remember this - regardless who is the top writer, Vince still has the final say in things. I remember what Jim Cornette said in a shoot interview about Russo - He worked out in the WWE because McMahon was there to separate the couple of good ideas he'd have from the mountains of bad ones. In WCW, there was no one to do that, and he fell flat on his face.

[mysterious_w 0]

With that said, why does every discussion about the creative process always end up with either Russo or Heyman? There has to be some undiscovered booking talent out there with a fresh approach.

 

Gabe? (Before I get ripped, I'm asking a question, not stating a fact)

[Toxxic 0]

Their numbers are strong enough that there is zero chance of USA cancelling them

 

So, did 83% of the posters in this thread stop reading the original post before this part of the story?

 

I think the discussion is revolving along the lines of what happens when USA come back to renew the deal in 2008 and offer Vince far below what he's prepared to take, he takes his ball and leaves (or tries to), rather than an out-and-out cancelling.

[Maztinho 0]

With that said, why does every discussion about the creative process always end up with either Russo or Heyman? There has to be some undiscovered booking talent out there with a fresh approach.

 

Gabe? (Before I get ripped, I'm asking a question, not stating a fact)

 

He's too classical in his approach and would get hate like Heyman did. I don't think anyone who has done well with full control of their own show should agree to work for the E.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

With that said, why does every discussion about the creative process always end up with either Russo or Heyman? There has to be some undiscovered booking talent out there with a fresh approach.

 

Gabe? (Before I get ripped, I'm asking a question, not stating a fact)

Having seen his guest booker thing where he booked the whole ECW restart... yeah I'd say Gabe wouldn't be too bad a choice considering what he chose to do. Fuck he wanted to book the whole thing around Randy Orton and it still was miles better than what actually DID happen.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

He booked the re-start? What exactly were his ideas for that?

[The Tino Standard 0]

With that said, why does every discussion about the creative process always end up with either Russo or Heyman? There has to be some undiscovered booking talent out there with a fresh approach.

 

THANK YOU.

 

We have people bitching in here about Raw being stale and the same old show it has been for 9 or 10 years, and yet the most popular solution is to bring back the old people (Russo and, indirectly, Heyman) who were responsible for creating exactly what's being called "stale" now?

 

Nobody knew who Vince Russo was before 1997. You want a new product? Bring in new writers and give them a chance to run with the ball.

[Bix 0]

What the fuck..."too classical"?!?! Have any of you watched any pre-1998 wrestling?

 

The ECW Guest Booker plans were fucking terrible, built around a ridiculous SH00T!11 angle in Orton being "punished" by being sent to the lesser brand and full of retarded rehashed ideas from the original ECW, like Orton as a Raven/Credible hybrid, London & Kendrick as Sabu, MNM as Taz, and Melina as Bill Alfonso.

[cabbageboy 0]

Mind you, I haven't seen a huge amount of ROH stuff but it seems to me like Sapolsky has this hard on for factions and teams. I swear it seems like everyone in ROH is in some kind of gang, with maybe one or two main guys that are alone. This isn't exactly a trashing of his booking, more of an observation.

 

What I would like to see in wrestling now is this: Get rid of the whole anti hero schtick. This would involve reducing the cliched heel boss or GM, maybe just have Vince or whoever make an announcement or two but otherwise stay out of things. If a guy is a face, let him have some friends in storyline. This is a problem I always had with the Austin era of booking....the guy was such a psychopath loner that either he had no friends or if someone did turn on him it made total sense because he would stun them or whatever.

 

Also, I would like to see outside the box booking. Some of my favorite matches are Warrior/Savage, Bulldog/Bret, and the like. Let's have some face vs. face booking without one guy turning needlessly on the other, then the guys shake hands after the match. Or maybe like the Savage match where he goes in a huge heel, but in the end is redeemed.

[Diamonddust 0]

I think a problem we're all glossing over is that the WWE doesn't want a "wrestling booker". They want someone who can write a television program.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Guest Booker with Gabe Sapolsky

 

and full of retarded rehashed ideas from the original ECW, like Orton as a Raven/Credible hybrid, London & Kendrick as Sabu, MNM as Taz, and Melina as Bill Alfonso.

 

Even if the ideas are rehashed from ECW, and something being 'rehashed' isn't always a bad thing, they'd be fresh to the WWE audience. I'm not a major fan of Gabe's, but I also recognize that he seems to have a good idea of what does or doesn't have a chance to get over well. And even if he tries something and the audience rejects it, Gabe is more willing than most bookers to react accordingly and change things rather than push back and try and force something on his audience.

[Mad Scientist 0]

I think a problem we're all glossing over is that the WWE doesn't want a "wrestling booker". They want someone who can write a television program.

 

And the nail is hit dead on the head. The E isn't about wrestling anymore; it's about TV, or a bad attempt at it. They want to focus on providing lackluster dramedy and sort of tack "wrestling" onto their crappy dramedy, which means that they provide matches that are overbooked nonsense to push the crappy overbooked nonsense in their angles.

[2GOLD 0]

 

The thing is they will never find truly good television writers. Because the good ones would be working on a network show rather than working in the WWE. You don't meet many writers whose dream it is to write for the WWE. Their dream is to write an Oscar winning movie or an Emmy winning program.

 

So what you end up with in picking television writers is people who couldn't get on a good show if they were the last resort. It's a room full of people who FAILED to write good drama and comedy when giving a chance at the big time. So you are asking a group of people who failed multiple times to come up with something entertaining to actually come up with something entertaining.

 

 

[Mad Scientist 0]

The thing is they will never find truly good television writers. Because the good ones would be working on a network show rather than working in the WWE. You don't meet many writers whose dream it is to write for the WWE. Their dream is to write an Oscar winning movie or an Emmy winning program.

 

So what you end up with in picking television writers is people who couldn't get on a good show if they were the last resort. It's a room full of people who FAILED to write good drama and comedy when giving a chance at the big time. So you are asking a group of people who failed multiple times to come up with something entertaining to actually come up with something entertaining.

 

And you also ask them to do this in a medium (professional wrestling) that they almost certainly disdain and just as certainly don't really understand. Bad idea all around.

[Bix 0]

Guest Booker with Gabe Sapolsky

 

and full of retarded rehashed ideas from the original ECW, like Orton as a Raven/Credible hybrid, London & Kendrick as Sabu, MNM as Taz, and Melina as Bill Alfonso.

 

Even if the ideas are rehashed from ECW, and something being 'rehashed' isn't always a bad thing, they'd be fresh to the WWE audience. I'm not a major fan of Gabe's, but I also recognize that he seems to have a good idea of what does or doesn't have a chance to get over well. And even if he tries something and the audience rejects it, Gabe is more willing than most bookers to react accordingly and change things rather than push back and try and force something on his audience.

1. They're still bad ideas.

2. Everything is undermined by his unwitting burial of the brand with the Orton angle.

[BruiserKC 0]

It's going to boil down to competition for WWE...plain and simple. Changing networks won't help (the NHL has all but vanished from the face of the sports world of TV since it went to Versus. Plus unless WWE takes a tank as far as advertising dollars, USA won't push for major changes. It's going to come to simply someone else putting up a product that can compete with the WWE. If TNA reaches the point where it becomes a serious threat, than you'll see the changes.

 

Until then...same ol' shit, different day.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

But that's not going to happen. TNA is more incompetent in many ways than WWE is. Those holding out hope for TNA to be the saviors of wrestling are deluding themselves.

[Bix 0]

WWE has terrible ad rates anyway. Its value to USA is in boosting the network average.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Their numbers are strong enough that there is zero chance of USA cancelling them

 

So, did 83% of the posters in this thread stop reading the original post before this part of the story?

 

I think the discussion is revolving along the lines of what happens when USA come back to renew the deal in 2008 and offer Vince far below what he's prepared to take, he takes his ball and leaves (or tries to), rather than an out-and-out cancelling.

 

I suggested two ways (Wrestling Network, Internet only) as ways Vince could combat USA lowballing him and having no other network to go to.

[Bix 0]

Their numbers are strong enough that there is zero chance of USA cancelling them

 

So, did 83% of the posters in this thread stop reading the original post before this part of the story?

 

I think the discussion is revolving along the lines of what happens when USA come back to renew the deal in 2008 and offer Vince far below what he's prepared to take, he takes his ball and leaves (or tries to), rather than an out-and-out cancelling.

 

I suggested two ways (Wrestling Network, Internet only) as ways Vince could combat USA lowballing him and having no other network to go to.

Both of which would kill the company.

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

I'm sure the 3500 24/7 Subscribers and 500 people that watch Heat on WWE.com would go wild about the ideas.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

I know Heat is on the Internet but I don't watch it.

 

Casual fans won't go online to watch wrestling.

[Diamonddust 0]

I'm sure the 3500 24/7 Subscribers and 500 people that watch Heat on WWE.com would go wild about the ideas.

 

WWE 24/7 is McMahon's way of keeping the hardcore fans happy by showing, as crazy as it seems, actual wrestling. As long as he has them hooked on a niche product like on-demand programing, he doesn't have to worry about them in terms of the current product.

 

I say this as a subscriber to the 24/7 service.