Runa216 said:
This whole post of yours shows we'll never see eye to eye on this. The way WWE does basically everything is not only juvenile and shallow, but disrespectful. Disrespectful to the fans, to the talent, and to the industry as a whole. and they keep doing it. My reactions are absolutely justified, WWE needs to be better but instead they just cater to whatever makes the most money while taking the least risk. I don't even wanna get into WWE vs AEW, but it's so very clear which company actually respects its fans. And you can't even say I'm just an AEW Fanboy, because I was 100% with WWE from 1998-2018. A full 20 years of my life I was watching WWE, and the more I watch the less I like it. the more predictable it is. the clearer it is that whoever's dictating the story and direction actively goes out of the way to troll their audience. I go back every year in January and watch every royal rumble from 2000 up to whatever year it is, and I've been doing this since 2012. I watch them all, sometimes 2-3 of them a day. this year, I was watching with a bit more scrutiny now that I've seen how much better Professional Wrestling can be. Pretty much everything from 2000-2010 had a consistent level of quality to them. Well structured, with storylines littered throughout. Stories within the rumble itself like Kane just wrecking the 2001 show or Jericho faking out michaels in 2003 or the hazing of Daniel Puder in 2005 (I didn;t say they were ALL good stories). But whatever happened, something was happening. there was a narrative at play be it for that show or for later. The rumble regularly set up or paid off multiple stories, with clashes happening and mixes and matches that made sense. Remember how Mick Foley came in and wrecked Randy Orton, setting up a match at Wrestlemania without having to give the win to either of them? Remember how 2007 ended with Michaels and Taker, then 2008 started with Michaels and Taker? Remember how in 2009, Orton successfully rallied Legacy to win over HHH? Remember in 2006 when Rey Mysterio channeled Eddie Guerrero to win? All of this is great storytelling, with spots and almost always a feel-good ending. Or, at the least, an ending that worked. then, in 2011-2015, shit just suuuuuuuucked. Like, the commentary crew changed, the bullshit was through the roof, heels were obnoxious instead of menacing, and it was all just a bunch of garbled bullshit. I notice this isn't too far after WWE went PG so I imagine that had a lot to do with it. but, like, Michael Cole just yelling loudly and being a moron about everything only to then turn around and do the thing he was complaining about in 2012? Garbage. Bad writing, bad character work. Cole is better now, but there was a 2-3 year stretch when his commentary ruined everything. I know the color commentator (heel commentator) is supposed to be a shitty person, but he was just bad. Lately, they do the same shit with corey Graves. which sucks because I know for a fact corey Graves is a great commentator. but now he's just acting like an obnoxious fool you have to listen to because he's on commentary. He just makes me go 'shut up and go away'. He has 'go away' heat, not heel heat. You know who has great fucking heel heat? You know, the one where he's a slimy shithead and you want to see someone beat him down? MJF. He's the most snivelling shit-heel asshole in wrestling right now and while his bullshit is just as obnoxious and stupid as WWE, he does it WELL. In a way that makes you root against him. but yeah, 2011-2015 it was always the wrong winner, the favourites either got thrown out early/disrespectfully, or the commentary was just terrible. Alberto Del Rio was just...I went back and reexamined his career and I genuinely have no idea what anyone saw in him. Boring, lame, uninteresting, not threatening, etc. Plus he was barely in the company when he won, so I just don't get it. sheamus was probably the best from this stretch but Jericho should have won. Cena didn't need the win. Batista didn't need the win. I do actually agree with Roman winning in theory but man did the fans hate him and Bryan should have won either 2014 or 2015. Fortunately, 2016-2021 were varying levels of okay. HHH winning in 2016 was....okay, I don't think HHH needed the win but in the context of the story it made perfect sense. Orton didn't need to win a second time and the resulting Wrestlemania match was trash. If they needed Randy vs Bray, let Bray win for whatever reason. New star, new winner, elevates folks. Shinsuke winning was great and the last bit with the old school vs the new school was genuinely brilliant, too bad shinsuke never got elevated like he was supposed to and his match with AJ sucked. Seth Rollins winning and besting Brock was pretty awesome from top to bottom and that was a pretty decent show. 2020's sucked for the first half. I really, really hate Brock's style now; used to love him in 2002-2004, but holy crap his stuff is just so bland and repetitive now. Coulda done something with Braun Strowman and Keith lee, but nooooooo....it's not the WWE way. But the end/winner was right. 2021 was...actually shockingly really good. like I said, I went back and watched them over the last few weeks and 2021's rumble was easily one of the better ones. I don't have much to comment on the women's rumbles because there are so few of them and even when I don't like Charlotte winning, it made sense and given her status within the women's division, she deserved at least one rumble win. Asuka, Becky Lynch, Charlotte, Bianca Belair, and Ronda Rousey are all good pics and I don't have any complaints (Even though it's clear they want Charlotte to be the best ever in that regard, too; there's a reason people are sick of her, and it's not because of her actual skill or passion. She's the female Roman Reigns) I'm rambling. I doubt you'll even read it. I'm just saying that I spent 25-30 hours over the course of this month comparing and contrasting the various rumbles throughout the ages and there was a clearly marked decline from 2011 onward. Again, 2016-2021 were all kinda ups and downs, but they didn't have the same storyline build up or in-ring storytelling. Rarely have any of the winners or plots been resolved or successfully carried through. Even when they get things right, they still somehow manage to fuck it up. and an ongoing throughline since 2011 is that they actively resist anyone the fans actively get behind. Punk should have gotten a rumble victory. Bryan Danielson should have gotten a rumble victory. Bray Wyatt deserved one. Jericho absolutely deserved one. We didn't need to see Cena, Orton, Brock, Batista, and Edge getting second wins when those all could have went to better or more deserving guys. The Rumble is at its best when it's elevating new talent, or skyrocketing someone up the card who clearly deserves it. You don't need to give those guys the boost. guys like Kevin Owens and AJ Styles and Big E and so many others needed it more. They deserve it much more. and WWE Disrespecting them by refusing to give it to them is exactly why there's such a consistent backlash to it all. the WWE Talent is pretty damn great overall. I'd say 75% of the roster is deserving of praise for their work. They're amazing at what they do and guys like Owens and Zayn and AJ and Rollins are among the best in the world. the writing just sucks, the direction sucks, the booking is disrespectful, and since 2014-2015, it just seems like the creative direction of the company is specifically designed to troll the fans and piss everyone off. Either WWE is deaf to the chants of the audience or they are actively trolling. Either way, it's not a company I feel anyone over the age of 12 should emotionally invest in. Their writing and booking just don't pay off. and that should piss you off knowing that they're legitimately the biggest and most influential company in town. |
I skimmed it, but am confused as to why you quoted me in it, because it was not at all responsive to what I said.
In regards to AEW vs WWE, it's really irrelevant to the conversation. Unless you made some deal with the devil where you have to follow one and only one wrestling promotion, it doesn't really matter which one is better. If both are good watch both, if both suck watch neither. If they're both putting on excellent stuff, then you may have to choose because time is limited, but one putting on a bad show should have no bearing on how likely you are to watch the other. Like you said, last year's was very good. Did that make you say "Well fuck AEW, never watching that shit again WWE for life fuckers!" It shouldn't have, and this is the same kind of reaction in the other direction.
In regards to the rest of it... It was a bad rumble. Not really fighting that point, since I already said I was disappointed. Last year's rumble was good. It happens. The last five years winners have been Lesnar, Edge, McIntyre, Rollins, and Nakamura. So a good balance of top stars and people who needed a push. For women, its been Rousey, Belair, Flair, Becky Lynch, and Asuka. Again, a decent balance. If the Rumble was always won by people who were "up and comers" it would lose meaning. Because there are four top belts now (which kind of sucks in itself but w/e) there's still a chance for two more needing superstars to get a mania spot, so we'll see how that shakes out.
As for the overall quality of the product, of course something becomes more predictable the more you watch it. Because good storytelling is fundamentally going to be the same. Naturally, as time goes on, they've already used up the best ideas. Not everyone has been watching for 20 years, so if they have stories that work, they want to use them for newer fans. If you cater only to your longtime fans, you wind up with an ever shrinking audience. Same things tend to happen with comic books, games, and other medium. Maybe after 20 years you've just kind of seen enough of the product, and if so, then that's fine, don't watch it. But... to feel disrespected implies that you're taking it personally, which is kind of odd. The wrestler's might have a reason to take it personally, but if so, they're adults, and they can work that out.
If WWE is trying to make money while minimizing risk... then yeah. That's what good businesspeople do. The fact that it's making money means it's appealing to an audience, just not you.
At any rate, you claim to have spent 25-30 hours comparing various rumbles... Which, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but seems kind of odd. I mean, if you found that to be a good way to spend your time, then by all means, but it seems like you're perhaps a bit too emotionally invested. For me, I watch the PPVs, Raw and Smackdown when I can. I generally enjoy the time I spend watching, and if I don't, I may post my feelings, and then just move on. Again, you do you, but becoming overinvested in something can completely suck the joy out of it, and that's what this seems like to me.
Essay Pro