|
commentaries
TIME TO SHAKE THINGS UP A BIT
I'll admit it, as much of a wrestling fan as I am, WWE has not been as great as I want it to be. Every time I allow myself to get excited about something, say Christian vs. Cena vs. Jericho, I'm forced to see a guy like Viscera shoved down my throat, pseudo-sodomoizing people (!?!?!). Well it seems to me that something needs to be done. My good friend Jon (AKA Damon Gest) put it this way: it used to be that Raw meant edgy, exciting television. Now it just means unprepared and underwhelming. Sadly, he's exactly right. WWE has always had some way of being recognizable-in the 80s it was the Hogan era, in the 90s it was the "New Generation," in the late 90s it was the Attitude Era. Where are we now? Really, we're in limbo. If anything, I like to refer to it as Attitude Light-not quite as edgy or unpredicatble as the Attitude era, but still somehow trying to cling onto the old way of doing things. Case in point? We're still suffering through the bouts of the "evil owner" gimmick, with Eric Bischoff on Raw. Sure, sometimes he's a heel, sometimes he's not really heel or face, but when he is heel, it's basically like watching Vince McMahon come down to the ring in 1998 and telling Austin he's got no chance in hell.
So how would I move forward with the company? Glad you asked. Here's my ideas.
-Get rid of crappy programming like Bottoomline and Afterburn. Both of
those shows only recap Raw and Smackdown, which is also done on Heat and
Velocity (and it is my opinion that both Heat and Velocity should be
all about WRESTLING. Even if the roster isn't big enough for two
Smackdown and two Raw shows (and it really should be), then you can add
some jobbers or guys from OVW-which would be a good way to get the younger
guys some much needed exposure. No one needs the recap. I won't lie to you: WWE
has not been on the top of their game (as opposed to The Game being on top of WWE...hahahahahaha! eh, that's not
funny really) in the last few years. Are the storylines they have worthy of FOUR shows that recap
the events of Raw and Smackdown? You know what? I don't think that storylines at the height of the Austin-McMahon fueled
Attitude Era were worthy of four recap shows, and that certainly is not true these days.
Instead, why not make one show the recap show (say Afterburn), while Heat and Velocity can focus on the
actual wrestling. Meanwhile, that stupid Experience show could take sort of a Confidential approach
to things; focus on one superstar (past or present), and make it sort of like A&E's Biography. You could highlight their most memorables matches and moments, and show what they're
like outside of the ring. It still wouldn't be much, but it would be better than nothing. As for Bottomline, why not do a sort of
panel show, featuring various personalities, who can then discuss different aspects of the show and the business. Heck, there's a ton of
other sports shows like this around. Here in Canada, there's TSN's Off the Record (which isn't quite the same thing, but close) and down south there are lots of shows like this. You could have the panel talk about specific matches, storylines, what wrestlers they think
are on a hot streak, which ones are not, and maybe even interview one of the superstars at the end of the show. Get a nice panel too, maybe consisting
of people like Josh Matthews or Todd Grisham, and throw in some other wrestlers like Bill Demott, Tazz, Dean Malenko (all of whom are under contract already) or maybe even some legends
like Steve Austin, Piper or maybe even someone like Ted DiBiase. It would be something different, I know I would watch it. It would do a good job of
showcasing the psychology behind matches, why matches are important, recapping storylines (but without doing it as tediously as the current core of
WWE programming approaches it) and can even do a good job of promoting pay per views. Imagine, each week of a pay per view, the panel can run through the list
of matches, how and why they came about, and then analyze who they think will win and why. See? It's effective, but without being tedious. In fact, get the right
bunch of people on the show, and it can actually be quite entertaining.
-Tweak the post-Wrestlemania draft lotterry slightly. This current draft has shown a lot of high-card guys getting switched, which is effective.
I won't lie to you, I don't care if a Steven Richards moves from Raw to Smackdown, since he likely won't get booked in such a manner to make an impact on either
show. But switching Benoit and Angle is a big move. But am I to really believe that only the top guys got switched from a random lottery? It's unlikely. Do it this way: make it a draft, just like
an expansion draft that occurs in professional sports when a new franchise enters a league. And just like an expansion draft, both brands would get to protect an "X" number of superstars. So let's take this example, pre-2005 draft: Eric Bischoff could protect five people, so let's say he protects
HHH, Batista, Shelton Benjamin, Kane, and Edge. Anyone else on the roster is allowed to go, including Benoit, Christian, Orton, Jericho and so on and so on. Meanwhile, Teddy Long can protect JBL, The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, John Cena and Eddie Guerrero. See? It's a slight point, but it could present certain
storylines. Say perhaps both General Managers allow the fifth protection spot to whoever can win a fatal fourway the Raw and Smackdown before the draft begins. So maybe Bischoff pits Christian, Benjamin, Tajiri, and Hassan, with Benjamin winning. It's a minor thing, but it makes it seem that much more important, allows for a guaranteed
match the week before the draft, and gives some guys a chance to shine. Heck, it might lead into a nice storyline or two too. Perhaps if a heel wins, he can become really cocky and brag about it for weeks. Or he could take the other route and complain that he had to earn the protection spot, whereas it should have been handed over to him. A guy like Hassan could use it to complain, noting how it's unfair and racist that he wasn't protected, despite being undefeated. Another nice gimmick might be to have Long and Bischoff switch shows a week or two before the draft, so they can "scout" who they want. Perhaps they can be in charge of the opposite show for that week, which might lead to some interesting
booking decisions for one week.
Now then, how would you decide which brand gets to pick first? Simple, the interpromotional Wrestlemania matches. Book three per Wrestlemania, with the brand that wins two of the three matches being allowed to have the first pick in the draft. What's the advantage of picking first? Perhaps the first pick then becomes automatically protected, so they cannot be
counter-drafted back to their original show. Or maybe it allows the GM to pick someone on the protected list. The nice thing about this is that it makes the interpromotional matches seem that much more worthwhile. Sure, they're cool and all, but they never have any big impact in the end. Especially because no titles have ever been on the line. This way, there's something
riding on them. As well, to go along with this, the GMs will have to hand-pick who they want to represent in the matches, obviously meaning they want the people they think will lead to victory. This way, you can set up the matches, without having to have any sort of other reasoning behind it. For example, for the past two years, two of these matches came about because of the Royal Rumble (Brock-Goldberg, Angle-HBK). That's fine and all, except you can't keep going to that well, or it becomes
too predictable. With my way, Bischoff picks HBK, Orton and maybe Edge and Long picks Undertaker, Angle and maybe Eddie. Again, more natural storyline would steam from the selection process here-guys can complain they weren't picked to be in the matches, you can have matches to determine which superstar gets the spot (possibly setting up a feud between those two, post-Wrestlemania) and lots of other options.
Now, going along with this mentality would be an entry draft. See, I complain that it's rather mundane and boring to see rookies just randomly appear on television, seemingly with no explanation. Gene Snitsky was just some random guy who appeared in a match with Kane and then became a Raw regular. With guys like Heidenreich fighting jobbers each week, how can I tell who is a jobber
and who is actually going to stick around? You can't. It would mean so much more, if we were told who the upcoming crop of rookies were, why they're important (ie. special skills/moves, any past accomplishments, etc.), and possibly ranking them, just as in professional sports. So, the brand which loses the Wrestlemania interpromotional 2/3 matchup can be the one to pick first in the entry
draft. Since the losing brand will likely take a hit in the regular draft, post-Wrestlemania, it's only fair that they get first pick for the next generation of superstars. Again, more natural storylines here-guys can get big egos because they were picked first overall, perhaps the guy who was ranked to go first overall was not, leading to frustration and bitterness (or perhaps they struck a deal with the GM so that they would be picked, in exchange for screwing someone else over in a match or something), and so on. It also leads to some instant prestige to the guy picked first, and it
can make a great underdog story for the guy picked last who goes on to become something big. Likewise, maybe someone wasn't drafted at all, but signed on as a free agent and became something big, just like Martin St. Louis of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Regardless, it lets the fans know who these guys are, where they're coming from and why we should care. Just because someone is drafted doesn't mean that they have to debut immediately. In fact, maybe you could do an angle where a guy comes up right away, struggles and someone takes him on as a mentor. Or
perhaps he comes up, struggles and is sent back down to the minor leagues, so that when he does come back, he can use that in his character somehow. Or maybe he makes an immediate impact. Regardless, once again we get natural storylines and characters, as well as letting fans know who these guys are and, you know, actually making us somewhat care about who they are. Plus, it would be something different which would bring some nice variation to WWE programming.
-Bring back the King of the Ring. It wass a cool idea and a nice thing to look forward to each
and every year. Plus, it was a good way of letting us know who the next generation of superstars was to be (pay more attention to the
years Austin and HHH won, and less Billy Gunn and Mabel). Make it something special again. Here's my theory: in professional sports you almost always
have one league, divided by conferences, divided by divisions. So in MLB, there is the American and National Leagues, in the NFL there is the NFC and the AFC, the NHL and NBA
have the Western and Eastern conference. Fine. Well, really, WWE is divided into two "conferences" known as Raw and Smackdown. Now just like in
professional sports, the winner of the one conference faces the winner of the other conference for the league championship. So, why not use this theory and apply it to
King of the Ring? The winner of the Smackdown tournament bracket fights the Raw winner for the title of King of the Ring. Heck, the last couple of years they had KOTR, the winner
got a Stanley Cup-esque trophy. Wouldn't it be something different? Then, in subsequent years, the winner can get an automatic berth in the tournament somewhere, in order to defend their crown.
Imagine seeing a guy like Shelton Benjamin win King of the Ring three times in a row. He's probably not realistically going to win the World Title anytime soon, so it would
be a nice way to give him some recognition and prestige, aside from the IC belt. WWE can even market this in a way to make more money too, by hosting pools on the WWE.com website. Entrants can pay say $10 to
get in, and the winner gets two ringside tickets to the next pay per view or something. It's better and cheaper than trying to buy your own tickets, so why not? Plus, it gets people into the tournament and
makes Vince some more money, all the while offering something different, which gives guys a nice nod of recognition. Why not bring it back dammit?
-Entertain the idea of an offseason. Serriisouly, the product hasn't been that hot the last couple of years, but I have faith that if the writers had some time off, maybe allowing them a couple of weeks to get together and plan a few months
worth of storylines, it could only be for the best. As well, guys get to rest up and heal their injuries, spend time with their families, and theoretically will make me want to see the product even more when it returns. End the season after Wrestlemania, since it
is technically the "Superbowl" of sports entertainment. Then, if you want to do Wrestlemania rematches, they'll seem a lot more fresh then they would when they're shoved down your throat for the second time in about four weeks.
Now I know what you're thinking-Vince will never go for that! Loss of revenue! But, theoretically, if you use your time effectively, guys will get a chance to heal, so that when you return your roster will be more complete, with less superstars (*cough* Randy Orton *cough)
away with injuries, and if you spend all that time writing, your product will almost HAVE to be better when you come back, meaning more people will get into it, which results in bigger revenues. As well, it would allow time for guys to pursue outside interests. Jericho could tour with Fozzy, a guy like Cena could make a movie, instead of missing several weeks of television time on the already star-depleted Smackdown. Sure, you might have lost the revenue for a couple of pay per views, or will you? Since WWE
has such a massive video library, in the offseason, fans can vote for which events they would like to see live. Then, the top-rated classic pay per view can be offered on pay per view, for a budget price. This would be especially great for a lot of older WWE stuff, not to mention ECW and WCW material, which is
not generally readily available in most video stores anymore. Wouldn't you order the classic Wrestlemania 3 or 10 on pay per view, for say $10? Sure, why not? And in their television slots, they can show classic Raws and Smackdowns. Wouldn't that be cool to see? As well, the year-end review shows can go here, as opposed to leaving
us with that crap during the holiday seasons (they would be better to watch when it's the offseason and there can be no other wresting, as opposed to the end of December, when theoretically there should be a Raw on tv that night). And before the new season starts, a cool countdown, season preview show can take place. Maybe also have a card or two where rookies get to show their stuff. Imagine seeing an entire event of WWE's newest
acquisitions-there should, in theory, be sound matches (since no one can be squashed by say a HHH) and it gives fans a chance to see who these guys are before they ever officially debut.
You could also do the drafts here as well. Don't do them on regular programming, since I'd rather watch wrestling on my wrestling show, not
who's been moved around. But if you're going to do a special show where the entire draft takes place
over an hour or two, then I'd be really interested in watching. Especially if the entry draft takes place too.
And that brings me to my next point-bring back the Slammys. No, don't make them cheezy, make them worth something. Have categories like: best finisher, best bad guy, best good guy, and more important things like, most improved, fan's choice, match of the year, rookie of the year, and
the MVP of each show. You could also move the Hall of Fame induction ceremony and make it part of this show too. Or at least have them honour the newest hall inductees somehow. It would be a nice way to interact with the fans and to give guys their due. Plus, it's another cheap excuse in place of wrestling, but still
having something on television to fill the void and lack of ratings. So if you take six weeks off between the offseason and following year, you could have one week of recap, one show of the Slammys, one of the rookies showcase, one show of the draft (or even two if need be), a week of preview shows and a couple of weeks of classic programming in between. The hardcore fans will still have something to watch, the casual fan
can recharge their batteries a bit. Regardless, WWE content will still be on the air in some form or another. Really, can you go wrong with that? You can kick the year off with the Backlash pay per view, the matches for which could be determined by a lottery of sorts, maybe fan voting (who would you like to see face off in a match?) and whatever else. If nothing else, it would be a slightly different format for a pay per view, which is nice since shows like
Backlash, Judgment Day, Armageddon and so on never seem that special to me, in the way that a Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series or Royal Rumble does. Unless there's some wicked good matches booked for a show like Armageddon, I'm usually fairly indifferent towards it, just because I know it really isn't that special. But having some sort of gimmick to Backlash, to determine the matchups, would make it special and be a great way to kick of the
new season. Loss of revenues might hurt a bit yes, but if you use your time off effectively, you'll be able to make up for it with better quality programming, which will attract a larger fan base (and thus more money).
Here's one final thought to consider-have less pay per views. Originally, WWE only had four in a year, but then expanded to twelve with the competition from WCW. Well there is no competition anymore. Yes, you'll lose some money, but perhaps you'll earn more buyrates for each pay per view you do have, since they should have more time to be booked effectively (and not on the fly, or done in a rush) and hence people will want to see the culmination of feuds, and simply put, there is the theory that longing makes the heart grow fonder. Plus, pay per views now cost $35 (at least here in Canada). This past year the WWE EXPANDED to fifteen pay per views. Now I love wrestling and all, but fifteen is too much. At that rate, it would cost me $525 to see WWE action. NOT worth it, since as I've said again and again, WWE is not pumping out the best quality entertainment these days. And maybe part of that problem is that feuds happen too quickly, are ended abruptly and are generally unsatisfactory, since WWE needs to book more and more pay per views all the time. Even if I go to a theatre to see a pay per view, it would still cost me $12 a shot (not including drinks or snacks), which is still worth $180. And that doesn't include Wrestlemania, which is worth $25 at the theatres. Again, not worth it. Nevermind the cost factor, but a lot of people don't have that much time to devote to something like that. I know that within a few weeks earlier this year, WWE had about three pay per views within six weeks or something like that. Now I go to school, and sitting in a theatre for three hours every other week at $12 a shot isn't going to happen. It forces people to choose which pay per views they want to see, and if you're rushing to book things, people are not likely going to have time to get interested in pay per views. Buyrates are down and this might just be the reason. I don't know about you, but my cable bill is already ridiculous. Adding three $35 pay per views on it would not be acceptable.
Nevermind the quality factor, or the cost involved, it's just poor business sense. Now I know very little about economics, but I understand it that every business is influenced the theory of supply and demand. It's no secret that the demand for WWE pay per views, and Vince's product in general, is at the lowest levels it has been in over a decade. So why then is there more supply of pay per views (again fifteen, increased from twelve) than ever before? Not at the height of Hulkamania, nor the Rock-Austin days was there this many pay per views being offered. And the top guys of today, while good, are no Hogans, Austins or Rocks. It seems to me you're screwing yourself over, huh? And add in the cost of inflation (or maybe just as a result from fewer buyrates), but the cost of pay per views, at least here in Canada, has risen over the last five years, and it's not hard to see why people aren't watching.
Me? I'd drop the number of pay per views to nine. Five joint shows-Summerslam, Survivor Series, Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, and King of the Ring, along with two Smackdown and two Raw pay per views each calendar year. Not bad huh? And let's face facts-Smackdown has been struggling with star power for over a year now (one of the reasons why JBL was allowed to be champion for ten months) and can they really demand that people buy the four or five brand exclusive pay per views they have these days? Not likely. Did anyone notice that one of WWE's biggest stars, The Undertaker, was not booked for Judgment Day 2005? Smackdown struggles enough as is, and 'Taker ain't at one of their own pay per views? Something MUST be done.
So there you have it, what I would do. Do I have all the answers? Nope. But it doesn't appear Vince does either.
Scott "Sodomy is a Finishing Move?" Hellings
June 18, 2005.
 
BACK TO TOP
|
