Pro Wrestling Discussion Thread **Spoilers Possible**

[RainMaker]

At some point I think they'll setup something with him and Foley. They had this at a show and then a bit of a Twitter war later on.

Mick Foley 2012 Wrestlemania faceoff in hotel - YouTube

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

At some point I think they'll setup something with him and Foley. They had this at a show and then a bit of a Twitter war later on.

Mick Foley 2012 Wrestlemania faceoff in hotel - YouTube

I haven't followed all of it closely but there was a whole internet thing after this that may or may not have been a work (though I'm guessing it was). They were going back and forth online doing some worked angle. Then Ambrose started talking about Foley's kids, with Foley responding that his kids were off-limits. When Ambrose persisted, Foley told him off and basically said he wasn't going to work with Ambrose anymore. Ambrose then disappeared for close to a year - including from developmental. I'm guessing they were having fun, and then plans changed, so they dropped it in a way to create some kind of buzz online. I don't think Foley's wrestled since then so it may have been as simple as him being physically unable to have an actual feud. But, it's something they have "in the can" ready to go if they ever want to pull it out.

[TLK]

.

[RainMaker]

I get Rock-Cena at Mania again, but having the belt on Rock makes it the most predictable outcome ever.

Is Rock going to be appearing at Elimination Chamber?

[Mota]

Yeah the Road to Wrestlemania (tm) isn't all that interesting to me anymore. The idea of Rock vs. Cena for 3 years in a row doesn't interest me at all. Although technically it's only 2 years in a row, we all know that Miz was just an accessory in the main event 2 years ago.

[SirFozzie]

BWAHAHAHAHA! I know that's meant to make you believe that anything could happen on the obviously fixed RAW Roulette setup, but that would have been a "so bad it goes from bad to good all the way to bad again" match

Edit: OH GOD NO!/

[SirFozzie]

Ow. Vince took that F5 so wrongly.

[RainMaker]

I guess I don't understand why you use your two biggest moments at the RR (ending Punk's reign, winning the Rumble) to push a match that doesn't really need anything extra to it. Having the belt on The Rock at Mania isn't adding more buys. And you don't need Cena to win the Rumble to make it happen.

Ending Punk's reign should have been used on someone like Ryback, Sheamus, Ziggler, anyone who is young and on the way up. And if you're setting up Cena-Rock at Mania, just have someone else win the Rumble and get the push.

Nothing they do makes sense. I don't know why they wasted Heyman on Punk who needs no help on the mic. Should have just used him as the mouthpiece for the shield or something if you wanted him on the show.

[RainMaker]

Also I can't believe Vince is taking bumps like that at his age.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess I don't understand why you use your two biggest moments at the RR (ending Punk's reign, winning the Rumble) to push a match that doesn't really need anything extra to it. Having the belt on The Rock at Mania isn't adding more buys. And you don't need Cena to win the Rumble to make it happen.

Ending Punk's reign should have been used on someone like Ryback, Sheamus, Ziggler, anyone who is young and on the way up. And if you're setting up Cena-Rock at Mania, just have someone else win the Rumble and get the push.

Nothing they do makes sense. I don't know why they wasted Heyman on Punk who needs no help on the mic. Should have just used him as the mouthpiece for the shield or something if you wanted him on the show.

Rock/Cena for the title adds something entirely new to the match that wasn't there last year, I think that does add buys. You also have the element of having a movie star doing the media rounds, with the belt, to promote what will be your biggest match on your biggest grossing event of all time. That is the biggest match on the biggest show, and the WWE title will be the centerpiece. They've gone away from that recently and everybody complained about the WWE title being an undercard thing and the not the focus of the show. Now it's treated as the biggest thing in the most important match of the year.

And I loved the Punk/Heyman combo and now it's leading into a thing with Lesnar. Established guy with new guys can work in spots but it also can come off as manufactured. And besides, if Heyman was the shield's "mouthpiece" people would still complaining about they're not letting the Shield get over on their own and making them rely on the "crutch" of an established and over guy who gets most of the heat. If your manager is a bigger star than your wrestler that's not ideal either. The Shield's doing fine. They're in a protected booking spot where they don't have to lose matches, they interact with all the main eventers, but there's still plenty of room for upward mobility once they split up and have singles runs, for those of the 3 that connect with the fans. Heyman's maybe the best actor and promo guy the company has, I want to see him in the top stuff.

"Building new stars" has been the internet buzz word/rallying cry at least since I've been following wrestling on the internet since around 1995, and they certainly have built plenty of stars in those 27 years (as have other the promotions, all of which are gone, leaving only this one company that doesn't do anything right but somehow still makes millions where everyone else failed), but I think at some point to like wrestling you have to learn how to appreciate the top guys in their prime and not be upset any time any big star wins a match instead of a "new guy". If you're only into "new guys", you end up in the position where you have 20ish former main eventers on the roster who have now all been "buried" because they show doesn't currently revolve around them. The older territory promoters understood this, of course they didn't have to deal with cynical internet fans who hated everything they did. I mean, we remember guys like Jake Roberts, Ricky Steamboat, and Ted Dibiase as "legends", but under today's rationale, they'd all be considered failures because they were never pushed as the top guy in the company ahead of Hogan. Under today's IWC wrestling philosophies, Hulk Hogan would have lost the title to an "up and comer" like Hercules at Wrestlemania 2. He'd probably get the belt back, only to lose to some other "up and comer", leaving Hercules to flounder for a while and get "buried". Hogan would end up on top again because he was clearly the bigger star, and the other guys would be left to flounder in the midcard again, and everyone would complain that they were "pushed too soon." Then things look like WWE 2008-2011 and the title doesn't mean anything anymore. Unless you permanently demoted Hogan and pushed the new guy as the new Hogan, but that would have been an even more terrible idea, as it would have been if you "passed the torch" permanently from Cena to Lashley or Christian or Kennedy or somebody 5 or 6 years ago. Or if you decided to end the Undertaker's streak to an "up and comer" like Kennedy. That would have generated no business, you'd be killing a gimmick for future Manias, and Kennedy still would have been exposed as sucking balls once the "HE'S A NEW GUY" aura wore off.)

I used to kind of feel like way, like at it'd be fun if more random things you don't expect happen, and if you watch wrestling enough, they still do, but at a base level, the biggest stars in wrestling should win most of the big matches. Otherwise they're not big stars, and you end up with a watered down mess. Like WCW or TNA. Wrestling is so much more enjoyable if you can just kind of take it in as a fan and appreciate what everybody can do, whether they're in the main event or pogo sticking a chair to get back into the ring in the middle of a Royal Rumble. Sure, it's possible for wrestling companies, like TNA and WCW, to be so ridiculous and incoherent that it can just take you out of everything, but WWE so rarely goes to that level. Nobody remembers 1999-2001 WCW anymore. It was amazing. You can nitpick anything to death because it's absolutely impossible for any wrestling company to match one's preferred vision of what should happen 100% of the time. When people hate everything that happens I always wonder what year and promotion from history they consider "good booking" - I guarantee I can pick apart the "problems" with that year/promotion as well.

Edit: I remember the last time they tried to use the Mania main event to establish a new guy. We got Miz v. Cena. God help me that was awful. And people will say it was awful because they didn't go all-in and have Miz squash Cena clean and have that torch passing moment. But really, if he did, would we living in a world today where Miz is the top star and that's a universally great thing that everybody's into? No fucking way. We'd still end up with Cena/Rock, or, if instead they were REALLY intent on passing that torch, we would have had Rock v. Miz. No thanks.

[molson]

Dola, I was thinking about what were the years/eras where booking would have been considered "good" by that portion of fans who hate everything the WWE does today and I guess there's two big examples. One is ECW. And however well-remembered ECW is in terms of giving guys breaks, and booking around everyone's strengths, etc, it never made any money ever. It's awesome that it existed, and it revolutionized wrestling, but it wasn't financially successful. And two is the attitude era. Who definitely shot a couple of guys to the moon as far as star power, but it was really the culmination of the territory era in that it was built around the last group of guys who came up through the business that way. And the "glass ceiling" of that era was way, way beyond anything we've ever had before or since. The top guys were SUPER protected. Dean Ambrose never would have been allowed near the main eventers in any context. Business was great (though they really only had two years that were significantly better than what they do now profit-wise). But they had very little actual wrestling on TV, which was good for business, because the casual fans fueling that era could have cared less about wrestling, but for the same reason, it was going to be tough to sustain once the novelty war off. Could they replicate that today if only they say, pushed Dean Ambrose as the top singles star right now? Or bypassed using the Rock to this degree and instead focused on "new guys"? Somehow I doubt it. I mean, they kind of did that with Punk. Who is awesome, but who didn't usher in a new boom period.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

That is the biggest match on the biggest show, and the WWE title will be the centerpiece. They've gone away from that recently and everybody complained about the WWE title being an undercard thing and the not the focus of the show. Now it's treated as the biggest thing in the most important match of the year.

I think this has a good bit to do with this particular booking (well, the RR portion of it anyway) and I'm on board with that decision just fine.

The titles should mean something and in order for that to be the case, you've got to treat them as though they do.

[RainMaker]

The problem with the belt for me is that it tells everyone who is watching the winner. The next two months are pointless, we all know Cena is going to win because a guy on a limited contract is not going to keep the WWE Championship. I thought part of the fun with last years match was that I had no idea who was going to win. And I don't think the WWE Championship adds much to the match, it was already going to bring in eyeballs.

As for young stars, I think we just need to look at the current state of things. They can't bring in PPV buys without bringing back stars from 10 years ago. You'll have Rock, Lesnar, Undertaker, and HHH in prime matches. Cena is really the only current star who is going to be in a big match at Wrestlemania.

[Mota]

Lots of good points here.

Undertaker at Wrestlemania has basically become the retirement tour for wrestlers. You can have the honor to lose to the Undertaker and make a boatload of cash on one of your last matches.

With regards to WWE being all in with CM Punk, I totally disagree. They gave him the title, but for at least 8 months of that reign, the only time he'd see the main event was if he was against Cena. Cena was still definitely the #1 guy, so it does hurt Punk as a draw. The past few months he's really had a chance to breathe and become the true star and I think he's done great. Paul Heyman hasn't hurt either.

I do remember the dying WCW. The guys would turn every 2 months, you couldn't even remember who was a good guy and who was a bad guy at one point and you stopped caring. But is what the WWE is doing right now any better? They've done some of the WORST turns in history this year. Miz to a face (because he wasn't picked for Survivor Series), Alberto Del Rio to a face (because of 3MB ... REALLY!), and Daniel Bryan to a ... umm... is he a face or a heel now anyways? Everybody still remembers Shawn Michaels turning on Marty Jannety, or Savage and Andre the Giant turning on Hogan. A turn should really be a buildup of emotion and I haven't seen that lately.

With the WWE Title, I really believe that the guy who is the biggest star should be holding the title 90% of the time. You should never give someone the belt to get them over, you should give the belt to someone who has gotten themselves over. If not you get Sheamus, Jack Swagger, CM Punk's first reign, etc. They give them the title but for some reason are afraid to actually push them. That's a horrible idea and it devalues the title. If you trust someone enough to give them the title, you have to book them strongly.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The problem with the belt for me is that it tells everyone who is watching the winner. The next two months are pointless, we all know Cena is going to win because a guy on a limited contract is not going to keep the WWE Championship. I thought part of the fun with last years match was that I had no idea who was going to win. And I don't think the WWE Championship adds much to the match, it was already going to bring in eyeballs.

As for young stars, I think we just need to look at the current state of things. They can't bring in PPV buys without bringing back stars from 10 years ago. You'll have Rock, Lesnar, Undertaker, and HHH in prime matches. Cena is really the only current star who is going to be in a big match at Wrestlemania.

Punk vs Undertaker.

And I don't have a problem with Rock vs Cena being for the WWE Title. The biggest stars in the company should always be in the mix for the world title, whether its holding the belt or chasing.

Do I want to see all the old stars come back? Not really. I was never a big fan of HHH or the Undertaker, but I do like Brock and Jericho. According to Meltzer, Jericho is going to wrestle RyBack at Mania. Not my first choice for a guy for him to build up, but it's ok.

[INDalltheway]

Does that mean Heel Ryback? Seems that Jericho is all but set up to feud with Dolph.

[chrisj]

Originally Posted by Mota

With the WWE Title, I really believe that the guy who is the biggest star should be holding the title 90% of the time.

Not to mention... it made it exciting when a title change happened. Now it's just ho-hum.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by INDalltheway

Does that mean Heel Ryback? Seems that Jericho is all but set up to feud with Dolph.

No, I'm guessing it would be heel Jericho. I expect RyBack to be shit on at WrestleMania either way.

[Flasch186]

couldnt.

yup I read the whole damn thing and thought it was great.

Build up is key. The last big huge wow moment for me....and then I was pretty much lost forever was SCSA saving Steph from Taker. Thats it, how long ago was that. I can still pull it up on you tube and get chills....why'd it work? Because it took frickin' forever to climax. Now a swerve or turn happens all the time and 2 weeks later its forgotten. Nothing is built upon it.

[Matthean]

Yet, after all this, he joked that wrestling was what really ruined his week. "That's the worst thing that happened to me all week, the Rock beat Punk. Did you know that?"

Thomas Dotterer back in his liquor store less than a week after being shot

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The problem with the belt for me is that it tells everyone who is watching the winner. The next two months are pointless, we all know Cena is going to win because a guy on a limited contract is not going to keep the WWE Championship. I thought part of the fun with last years match was that I had no idea who was going to win.

I don't watch enough to know if this has happened already, but if Ziggler still has the MitB, maybe Rock wins to keep the title, but Ziggler cashes in with a blindside to steal the title. So you get the 'temp' winning the big match, but the title gets passed on to a permanent wrestler.

Not saying it's a good idea, but one way that you might not know the winner

[molson]

One thing about this little return run by the Rock, he's probably appeared/will appear on TV/PPV something like 15 times in a year. (12 weeks between Rumble and Mania, 2-3 PPVs, a couple of Smackdown appearances, a couple of RAWs off.). That probably more often than Hogan appeared on TV in his heyday. Of course, Hogan was working house shows and that was the big money-maker of the day. Point is, I think wrestling could use more part-time big stars. I think it'd be helpful if they could get past the idea that every single guy has to be on TV every single week. That whole concept only started out of desperation when WCW started doing it, but the WWE has stuck with it all these years later. Maybe there can be a happy medium between Cena being on TV 75 times a year and Rock's and Lesnar's 15. Can you imagine if Hogan wrestled King Kong Bundy and Andre the Giant every single week on free TV during the 80s? It wouldn't have been quite the same.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Thomas Dotterer back in his liquor store less than a week after being shot

He should watch PPVs with this guy

Fat Kid Upset Over WWE Royal Rumble 2013! - YouTube

[General Mike]

From the brand new Observer newsletter

Originally Posted by Dave Meltzer

Even though it was announced months ago that Undertaker is returning for Mania, the word this week is it may not happen. According to those in the loop, he’s uncertain about the show, which is a big deal because he was scheduled to be Punk’s opponent in what would have been the No. 2 match on the show. Not sure of a back-up plan given it’s right now not definite either way.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Mota

Everybody still remembers Shawn Michaels turning on Marty Jannety, or Savage and Andre the Giant turning on Hogan.

But could you do those turns in today's world? I mean, if Michaels kicks Jannety today, he's instantly the face, isn't he?

I'm trying to think of which faces are so over that you could get real heel heat by turning on them. It's not impossible -- Punk's turn on The Rock last summer comes to mind -- but it's a major challenge these days.

Originally Posted by Mota

A turn should really be a buildup of emotion and I haven't seen that lately.

But again, can you build up anything these days? You do one week of the buildup and every fan checks the internet and knows where it's leading. And then they get bored with how long it's taking.

[Mota]

I guess the whole point of wrestling is to build emotion with the fans and get them invested in the product so that they'll buy tickets, ppv, toys, video games, etc.

I really agree with you Maple Leafs about CM Punk's heel turn last year. That was quite effective. And it MADE SENSE as well, which is always a good thing.

It is hard to get the fans to feel what the company is trying to get them to feel. But if a company can't do that, how good are they? If turning heel on a face gets you cheered, then obviously they've done a bad job at getting you to care about the face they just turned against. If you have a connection with the face and someone turns on them, it should be a vehicle to building something big.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Mota

I really agree with you Maple Leafs about CM Punk's heel turn last year. That was quite effective. And it MADE SENSE as well, which is always a good thing.

It did make sense, but they didn't "build" it the way people seem to want them to. And that's why it worked. If every Raw for four weeks before that show ended with Punk looking sideways at The Rock, everyone would have seen it coming and Punk probably gets cheered when it happens. They didn't do that, so that crowd was legit shocked and angry.

Which isn't to say you build around shock booking, because WCW taught us that that's horrible.

What's the right answer? I have no idea. I just think it's a far tougher question for the writers than people make it out to be.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

But again, can you build up anything these days? You do one week of the buildup and every fan checks the internet and knows where it's leading. And then they get bored with how long it's taking.

The internet existed when the Rock went corporate, when SCSA saved Steph, etc. Thats a copout, if anything they could use the iternet to help the build, tweets, etc. Trust that a year long turn will bring people back in, not push them away.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The internet existed when the Rock went corporate, when SCSA saved Steph, etc. Thats a copout, if anything they could use the iternet to help the build, tweets, etc. Trust that a year long turn will bring people back in, not push them away.

The Attitude era wasn't exactly known for it's long, drawn-out angles. Didn't the Rock turn corporate after a 2-week face run after he split from the Nation? I'm pretty sure he dropped the People's elbow on Vince and then joined his side a couple of weeks later with no explanation.

[Flasch186]

sure there are mini swerves but the length of the 'heart' of the turn is what I reference.

[molson]

As far as broader, less-specifically-hinted-at turns, I thought Punk's was pretty well developed over time. He was getting gradually whinier. And it made sense in the context of everything that happened over that year - the "respect" thing was something Punk's fans were talking about on the internet, how he was always being overshadowed. So in a sense, they did use the internet in a way, just not directly. I thought that had way more explanation and context than any of the random 500 turns that almost everybody did during the attitude era. I think stuff has been planned out long in advance for the last year or so. Which isn't fool-proof either, that kept them going with the hot hand in Ryback, because they wanted to stay on track with that plan. It's a really difficult balance. Long-term planning v. drama/surprises.

[Flasch186]

I dont think its difficult. The internet has given them more cover to build turns and swerves and heat over longer periods of time, not the opposite.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I dont think its difficult. The internet has given them more cover to build turns and swerves and heat over longer periods of time, not the opposite.

How would that manifest itself, "exclusive" content on WWE.com?

Like I said, they clearly do use the internet to build guys and play against the IWC. The Punk heel turn clearly pandered to the internet fans and was built by them online, the company just built off that. He's a "heel" on TV but is clearly and intentionally booked as a face for the older male cynical fans - he complains about the same things they do and puts over the same underpushed guys they like (like Tyson Kidd.)

As far as it being easy, I have to ask, what era/year promotion do you think got or gets this right, or has it just never been done? You kind of lost me when you used the attitude era an example, because that went completely 180 degrees away from the type of booking you said you want to see. We're in the middle of a 2+ year Rock/Cena feud with all kinds of elements that have been built online for even longer than that, and that's getting panned by the usual suspects for being predictable and taking too long. If they switch it all up last minute they'll be criticized for "not making sense" and "always changing their mind". There have been so many different approaches to this over the years, from many different promotions, all have pros and cons, and still nobody has ever gotten it right except possibly in tiny bursts. So no, in this era, putting on a show of fake fighting where everything has already been done, while actual real fighting is readily available on TV, and while still maintaining 4-5 million weekly viewers (and doing far better business generally than real fighting) is not easy, and I'm actually pretty amazed they do it. Nobody else has come close. But it sucks because they should have what, 7-8 million? There's just no way that's happening. Though it's always hilarious to hear what people think would bring about that kind of boom period and how "easy" it would be. Why is nobody doing it? Why can Ring of Honor only draw 100 people to shows? They have long drawn out storylines.

[molson]

I'll have to dig up the video later but there was this Hollywood producer who did a kickstarter campaign to get money for the first season of his "revolutionary" wrestling show. The video promoting it was nauseatingly arrogant. He said stuff like, "this wrestling promotion will have well-developed storylines with beginnings, middles, and ends...what an amazing concept! It will be just like the popular television shows you enjoy like Dexter and Breaking Bad! Donate to this campaign and let's finally take wrestling back from the people who don't understand how to do it!"

The whole thing really connected with the enormous number of people who think there's been 2 or 3 good years of wrestling since 1992 and everything else has sucked, but who for some reason are still really huge fans. He exceeded his donation goal and raised 6 figures very quickly. Then he hired a lot of the top indy talent and filmed "something" - there was a trailer released that had very good production values. People still gush over this trailer as something so amazing and revolutionary, even though it's just some highlights of guys wrestling. But that's that last anybody ever heard of this producer. A lot of people though, were so wrapped up in his "vision" (which was never developed beyond yelling about "beginnings, middles and ends") that they still defend him to this day and say he couldn't do the project and had to keep everyone's money because he had a nervous breakdown or something. What's more likely is that he didn't know how to do a wrestling show and gave up, or here just was smart enough to know how to tap into that delusional fan-base and steal their money.

Even if the guy wasn't a scammer and was able to put together a coherent 8 episode season or whatever, could he have done the same thing over 110ish TV/PPV shows a year? 160 if you count Main Event? And draw several million people for every TV show and several hundred thousand paying $50 for every PPV? While dealing with injuries/talent defections/etc?

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by molson

Even if the guy wasn't a scammer and was able to put together a coherent 8 episode season or whatever, could he have done the same thing over 110ish TV/PPV shows a year? 160 if you count Main Event? And draw several million people for every TV show and several hundred thousand paying $50 for every PPV? While dealing with injuries/talent defections/etc?

Probably not, and personally, that is the big drawback to wrestling for me. At some point it became so over exposed that you get about 8 hours of it during a week. Quite truthfully, they probably lost me when Thunder and Smackdown debuted. They went from a single two hour "big" show a week to two of them.

I could handle not watching the garbage shows, but now you are starting to force me to dedicate two nights a week to you. I just lost alot of interest at that point.

Also I've seen some people talking about guys like Cena and other guys. The point I make is that a guy like Hogan was on top for almost a decade in the WWF. For much of that time he was only wrestling on PPV's and the big SNME. So you would see the guy, maybe 8-10 times a year. Nowadays the big stars are forced down peoples throats that many times in a month. It just makes the long reign of a guy like Cena even harder to swallow for alot of fans(myself included, I only watch about a half hour to an hour of wrestling a week as I flip channels, but Cena is an auto turn the channel at this point.)

At this point it is almost like Hogan ran wild for 40 years in terms of exposure. I'm not sure there is a fix for this. The guy has to be making money, but I would suspect his major audience would be people who didn't even know wrestling existed/were not alive when his reign started.

Seems I just need to come to terms with the fact that wrestling just isn't for me anymore.

[Toddzilla]

That was the Wrestling Retribution Project by Jeff Katz.

It had quite the roster - Colt Cabana, Chris Hero, Joey Ryan, and Kenny Omega.

This was back in the fall of 2011, I have no idea whatever happened to them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

That was the Wrestling Retribution Project by Jeff Katz.

It had quite the roster - Colt Cabana, Chris Hero, Joey Ryan, and Kenny Omega.

This was back in the fall of 2011, I have no idea whatever happened to them.

Ah yes. The pitch.

Wrestling Retribution or Revolution Project. Where is WRP, Jeff Katz? - YouTube

And the trailer!

Wrestling Retribution Project Trailer - YouTube

It's funny to read the comments after the trailer. A year or so ago, there's people calling it "brilliant" and "amazing", though more recently, people have caught on that it was all a scam.

If it had been legit, and if it told "compelling stories" and all that (as if that's easy to do), what's the upside - 500-1,000 DVDs sold to hardcore fans? It's such a niche thing. Wrestling is not a money maker except for one solitary company. Even though they've only had 2 good years creatively in the last 21, if you listen to that line of thinking. Why can nobody else get anything off the ground if it's so easy to do compelling TV based around guys fake fighting in a ring? There's a ton of available talent out there, (because the WWE, of course, doesn't recognize talent or "push guys properly")

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The internet existed when the Rock went corporate, when SCSA saved Steph, etc. Thats a copout, if anything they could use the iternet to help the build, tweets, etc. Trust that a year long turn will bring people back in, not push them away.

"The internet" was a little different when it meant RSPW and Al Isaacs.

And as others point out, The Rock going corporate wasn't a long turn at all, it was a hotshot that made no sense given what they'd done over the past few weeks.

[Toddzilla]

from diehardgamefan.com

What is considered to be the biggest project in all of Kickstarter history to fall apart post funding, however, turned out to be the Wrestling Revolution Project, aka the Wrestling Retribution Project. This campaign raised over $100,000 back in August of 2011, promising big name wrestlers like MVP and Colt Cabana. Filming was done, a new webpage was made for the newly rechristened Wrestling Retribution Project, and a lot of the IWC was pumped about this project, especially as it was headed by Jeff Katz, who is well known in the comic book and movie industries as a stand up dude (and also an ex WCW employee). However, things started to go really south right away. Two of the promised wrestlers never appeared (due to visa issues), and Jeff stopped updated the Kickstarter page in early September. Then, in late March/early April, everyone involved with the WRP just disappeared off the internet completely. Jeff Katz literally vanished from April 13th to June 8th, and when he came back he gave a long confessional of sorts on Twitter where he talked about having a nervous breakdown, losing his partner, and most importantly, losing ALL OF HIS MONEY in a Ponzi scheme. Note that nowhere in his explanation of where he went does he mention anything about the Wrestling Revolution Project, save to say Konnan was coming in “at some point” to do color commentary voice over. He does, however, mention another wrestling project…

Since his return to the internet, Katz hasn’t given a full public statement about the WRP, and he’s ignored outright questions to him about it via the Kickstarter campaign, Facebook, YouTube and Website, although in his defense, he has replied to a tweet Lance Storm made about it asking where the heck things were with it, but you’d have to dig for it, you’d have to read Lance Storms tweets to know it Jeff was talking about the WRP, and the only reply was “almost done” for a wrestling project that technically finished up in October 2011.

Even worse is the state of the WRP website. The original one (also the only one shown on the Kickstarter website in the updates section) no longer exists, and the other version of the site is broken in some spots, hasn’t been updated since February 2012, and it’s been almost 100 days since the official Twitter account has updated. People emailing or tweeting to the WRP have not received a response. I myself tried contacting Jeff Katz directly about this to hopefully get a statement to reassure backers that the WRP was still in the works. I received no actual response in any way. Even wrestlers I know that took part in the WRP are as in the dark as the people that gave Jeff Katz over $100,000 to do this.

So is this a scam? I don’t believe it was meant to be one, but due to Katz’s emotional issues and financial mismanagement, along with the apparent abandonment of the project, it’s safe to say that even if the project does make it out at some point (which I’m optimistic it will), Katz’s reputation with wrestling fans is pretty much destroyed. That said, bad stuff happens to well meaning people, and maybe now that Katz is getting his life back together, WRP might still see the light of day. If you want to get a straight answer on the future of the project, try emailing, tweeting and otherwise nagging the hell out of people involved. Even if Jeff Katz won’t reply to your tweets, you can try the wrestlers involved, as many of them have high profile Twitter and Facebook accounts, and are pretty upright and honest people, like Tommy Dreamer and Lance Storm. About the only thing that can be done for the people who financially backed this product is repeatedly contact the wrestlers, producers and Katz until there is a public statement on the future of the WRP, if there is any at all.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Probably not, and personally, that is the big drawback to wrestling for me. At some point it became so over exposed that you get about 8 hours of it during a week. Quite truthfully, they probably lost me when Thunder and Smackdown debuted. They went from a single two hour "big" show a week to two of them.

Yeah, as soon as Raw went to 3 hours I've had a REAL hard time keeping up. I'm about 6 weeks behind on my viewing. Often I just feel like giving up. But there's still those 2-3 good segments on Raw that are great and you don't want to miss them. Too bad they make you sit through so much crap to get to those segments.

I really believe that the moment a character becomes irrelevant, they should take them off TV and start dedicating time to guys that have at least a chance of getting over.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by molson

Though it's always hilarious to hear what people think would bring about that kind of boom period and how "easy" it would be. Why is nobody doing it? Why can Ring of Honor only draw 100 people to shows? They have long drawn out storylines.

The answer is that WWE can do it because they're the WWE and people are used to it. That's it. It's not because their storylines are better. It's not that the wrestling is better. If you put all these guys in masks and had the same writers booking them in an indy show they'd also struggle to draw 100 fans.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mota

The answer is that WWE can do it because they're the WWE and people are used to it. That's it. It's not because their storylines are better. It's not that the wrestling is better. If you put all these guys in masks and had the same writers booking them in an indy show they'd also struggle to draw 100 fans.

But what if you put the bookers of Ring of Honor (or pick whatever indy promotion you think is good), in charge of WWE, and they tried to book it just like ROH, would business improve?

I'm not saying, by the way, that WWE booking or wrestling is any "better" than any indy promotion. But they're selling a completely different product to a very different demographic. This is the style that works on a global scale.

TNA does roughly the same style and they do have a decent fanbase and budget, but they still don't make money. And they have access to all the great talent and bookers outside of the WWE. (And since everybody who runs WWE is terrible, TNA in theory, should have access to the best wrestling minds in the world, right?) And their product has never been as good for any period of time. So if the WWE bookers are terrible, and the TNA bookers are worse, who are the people that can actually do this? It's like with refs in sports. Everybody bitches about them all the time, and then when the replacements come in, they're clearly worse. So where are the "good" refs? Where are the ones who have an acceptable level of competence where we wouldn't have to hear constant bitching? In the same way, if the WWE has always been "terrible" where are the bookers/promoters that are hypothetically great at it by comparison, and why can't TNA hire them?

I like Chikara because it's ridiculous and doesn't take itself seriously, and they (and I think their fans) don't have that arrogance of believing that they're so superior to the WWE in every way but name recognition. I like Colt Cabana and his podcast for the same kinds of reasons. Even though he's personally been chewed up and spit out by the WWE system, he still just loves it all and epitomizes what's fun and endearing about pro wrestling. You really have to look hard for that kind of thing, 95% of the wrestling content on the internet is just about how terrible the WWE is. It's been like that for 15 years at least. And everybody thinks they're booking geniuses and could do it so much better - even though nobody else has ever made a dime doing it in the last 15 years.

I think if I tried, I could watch RAW with the more common mindset and find 20-30 things per show that I'd do differently. I sure as hell would personally prefer a Mania without Rock/Cena and Lesnar/HHH again. That doesn't mean it's terrible to do it that way.

[molson]

Originally Posted by General Mike

From the brand new Observer newsletter

I wonder if the Undertaker can't go if they'd consider Punk/Cena/Rock. The don't have the same fetish for multi-man matches that they had a few years ago, but that could certainly help the Rock get through a long match, something he's had some trouble with.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by molson

But what if you put the bookers of Ring of Honor (or pick whatever indy promotion you think is good), in charge of WWE, and they tried to book it just like ROH, would business improve?

Maybe last year I would have answered yes, but today my answer would be no. The WWE's audience is based on the booking style they've done for the last 10 years. It would be hard to change this. Booking a more serious or elaborate style probably would turn off a lot of the people that watch to see Santino or Hornswoggle or other silliness so any gains would probably be offset by losses.

The only chance for TNA to have improved is when they had the opportunity to sign Heyman a few years ago. I think that would have generated enough buzz to change the viewing audience. But to change from someone to another person that the mainstream audience doesn't know? It's a multi year process. Look at TNA, they got rid of their albatross Russo a year ago and started putting together a much better product, and the ratings haven't changed at all. The general viewing audience doesn't notice the difference, unless there's an earth shattering moment that will get everybody's attention they're not really paying close enough attention to notice.

[molson]

Sammartino to the wwe hall of fame, will be announced on RAW tonight. Pigs are flying around in hell and so forth.

[Mota]

Great news. WWE Hall of Fame is completely worthless as long as the true greats are being held out for whatever reason. Being champion for I believe 7 years, I think he deserves it.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by Mota

Great news. WWE Hall of Fame is completely worthless as long as the true greats are being held out for whatever reason. Being champion for I believe 7 years, I think he deserves it.

Not a question of him deserving it. They've tried for years to induct him. HHH was the lynchpin to this; from what I've read, he's agreed to do it as long as he doesn't have to speak to or see Vince.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

But what if you put the bookers of Ring of Honor (or pick whatever indy promotion you think is good), in charge of WWE, and they tried to book it just like ROH, would business improve?

FWIW, I don't think there'd be a seismic improvement in ratings if it were booked by the cloned offspring of Cornette, Heyman and the very best parts of every other booker in history. It's a different world, too many options for entertainment for ratings to avoid being diluted IMO.

I do think you'd could get a bit of a bump in weekly ratings, along with an improvement in PPV buy rates, with better booking and maybe a mild bump in merchandise revenue to go with it (because the characters would be stronger in theory).

I guess it boils down to a question of how much you could monetize a happier audience base that was also wider than what exists currently. I'm not sure the answer is some absurdly ridiculously large number, but then again, improved booking (however that's defined) isn't likely to jack up long term costs either (i.e. there's nothing in it that should water down any gains).

[molson]

Some interesting tidbits on Meltzer's audio update this afternoon. Bruno's deal includes participation in two DVDs (a Bruno DVD and the WWE 50th anniversary DVD), and he got a LOT of money for the whole thing - more money, by far, than anyone has ever gotten for doing the Hall of Fame event. Bruno still hasn't talked to Vince, I guess since 1988. It was all HHH, who then had to sell the deal and the pricetag to Vince, who is kind of indifferent on the whole thing. HHH sold Bruno on the fact that the product isn't vulgar/offensive anymore, and Bruno has been watching the show and agreed that that was the case. And the doctor who runs the WWE wellness policy operated on Bruno's back, and Bruno think's he's the best doctor ever - so in his mind, the wellness policy has a lot of legitimacy.

It's interesting that HHH was so into this, I don't think it translates into any $, I'm sure the HOF event itself sells out no matter what. And the DVDs aren't huge money makers. I'm sure the whole thing is a net financial loss, but HHH was into it just from a prestige/brand perspective.

[Mota]

Sounds good. From listening to a number of interviews with Bruno over the years, it seems he could care less about money. He lives in the same house he has been living in since before he earned all this WWF money. And he's turned down many offers to make movies of himself because they wanted to Hollywood-ize his story.

HHH definitely did a good job here. Apparently the last time he visited Bruno, he was quite impressed and respected him a lot even though he didn't agree to the Hall of Fame at that time. I guess HHH didn't give up and it eventually made the difference.