The Undertaker, or why i have a problem with modern wrestling

It's quaint that you use Chikara as an example DRG. Fact remains, they come under far, far less scrutiny than WWE. If WWE these days had a guy running around pretending to be a barber, a white man pretending to be black, an unintelligible maniac (Ultimate Warrior), guys from the south pacific region played off as savages, a guy that thinks he's a boat(ffs!), fake policemen, models and yes, a dead man - if those gimmicks came out today, WWE would be crucified for it. Chikara is just fortunate that by comparison, it goes so much more unnoticed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robstar

It's quaint that you use Chikara as an example DRG. Fact remains, they come under far, far less scrutiny than WWE. If WWE these days had a guy running around pretending to be a barber, a white man pretending to be black, an unintelligible maniac (Ultimate Warrior), guys from the south pacific region played off as savages, a guy that thinks he's a boat(ffs!), fake policemen, models and yes, a dead man - if those gimmicks came out today, WWE would be crucified for it. Chikara is just fortunate that by comparison, it goes so much more unnoticed.

---

That's the beauty of being a publically traded company and having to answer to so many regulatory agencies, politicians, and investors; the amount of creativity you are able to express is VERY limited.

The use of Chikara was only for the fact that they seem to embrace the "Super Heroes of Wrestling" mentality of the Ultimate Goodies meet the Most Horrendous of Baddies. I could have gone with the Lucha Va Voom route, but I don't think that is their overall intent with their product.

Honestly, I figured TNA would have jumped at this chance by now. Since WWE has taken such big hits to their abilities to think outside of the box, TNA has the better situation in that they only answer to three groups that I can think of; The Panda Energy sponsors, the Spike TV representatives, and the Fans of the product. Panda will require the repayment of the money invested but while Daddy Carter is alive, I don't see it as a debt that will be collected upon in the near future. The Spike Reps have no room to bitch as TNA has been the top show on their channel for quite some time and they have been more than accommodating to Spike in terms of moving spots to make way for Bellator, sticking to the guidelines for usage of blood on TV, etc. The fans that TNA have currently are the hardcore’s, which is why the numbers don't fluctuate the way WWE's have over the past 3 years.

Since TNA is in what I would consider to be the most "stable" (not better) position in wrestling at the moment, I feel they would benefit the most from a big risk. They took a risk signing Lagana and the product has become much better since. They risked letting a top star (Abyss) switch to a character that was kind of silly and it has been a success (for me at least) thus far. The risk of going Live has driven up the approval rating of consistent fans. The risk with the A&8s attack on Sting managed to at least get people talking about TNA in a good way instead of just bitching about Hogan when the company came up in conversation (how A&8s will turn out is still up for debate). My lengthy point is that TNA is taking managed risks (latest example: lowering PPV #'s to 10) and they seem to be working overall, but I think they would take the least amount of damage if they took a huge risk.

I think that TNA would be too close to running the risk of being laughed off the scene. It's not a matter of filling a desire of the public - that corridor of desire has narrowed considerably. Having a handful would be OK, and yes, Curry Man was an awesome gimmick. Yet like Suicide, never gotten properly behind by the company. They just seem to lose the courage to back these guys past a certain point.

But again, the question is - you can serve it up, but is the demand for it large enough to justify it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robstar

I think that TNA would be too close to running the risk of being laughed off the scene. It's not a matter of filling a desire of the public - that corridor of desire has narrowed considerably. Having a handful would be OK, and yes, Curry Man was an awesome gimmick. Yet like Suicide, never gotten properly behind by the company. They just seem to lose the courage to back these guys past a certain point.

But again, the question is - you can serve it up, but is the demand for it large enough to justify it?

---

I think the demand is there in a limited capacity. If TNA were to sign someone who wasn't a known commodity from previous time in the WWE (I would have suggested Jon Moxley, Brodie Lee or PAC had it not been for WWE getting to them first) then I could see them getting these characters over on a major level... Scorpio Sky (pre-idiot tweet) would have been another Character that could have been successful, but not a "Larger than Life" one. He was then given the "Mason Andrews" name and it was blown. Point in case is the reactions someone like Jigsaw (Rubix) got from the crowds during his matches. The athlete impressed and the mystery added the element of Awe but TNA just didn't supply the backing, as you said.

The way that this would work for TNA is if they were to acquire a max of 2 characters that the fans could adopt and get behind: 1 being an X/Smaller guy (think Sami Callahan) and 1 being a bigger Heavyweight (Marco Corleone for lack of a better example) that can wrestler. If they can talk, it’s a bonus (they can get him a handler if needed) but overall he needs the ability to tell his story in the ring. Yes, TNA has Matt Morgan already, but his overall credibility need to be restored and they are working on that now. You add another “super heavyweight” to the mix with the potential for them to clash and TNA has a chance to bring that “Large to Life” type of fight in a big way. The interest becomes even greater when Abyss returns to the mix.

I too miss the cartoony super heroes of yesteryear. That's why I like guys like Kane, Sheamus, Damien Sandow and even Cena and ADR. The character they portray is clearly just that, a character (except arguably Cena but his "Super Cena" status qualifies). I'd disagree with Robstar that WWE couldn't have outlandish characters these days, obviously racial stereotypes wouldn't fly (although one could argue the current product is littered with them), but a new monster, crazy beer drinker, mysterious masked wreslter etc. would all work. Hell, even guys like JBL, the larger than life business tycoon, would be an improvement on the generic face/generic heel most of the roster portray.

I really liked Cody Rhodes' masked gimmick when it started, the potential to go Phantom of the Opera was there and the fans would have bought it. I'd say there are two worlds of fans now: the kids who believe it all anyway and the 'grown ups' who know it's fake and want to be entertained. I'll suspend my disbelief to see someone take and AA or lift themself through a bodyslam so why not that The Undertaker can appear and disappear at will?

Oh and to the OP: great post, it made for a great read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowki

Unfortunately, we are talking about a company that had 9.0 ratings in the USA 15 years ago! These days it is pulling in 3.0.

There might be youngsters who lament the days that Cena was on top, but there will be a hell of a lot less than the ones remembering wrestling overall.

---

The cable television landscape and the way that people consume media has changed drastically over the past decade, so comparing the ratings of yesteryear to that of today makes little to no sense.

And this isn't directed at you specifically, but why people continue to fixate on the numbers when they don't seem to completely understand them is way beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MachoManFan

I too miss the cartoony super heroes of yesteryear. That's why I like guys like Kane, Sheamus, Damien Sandow and even Cena and ADR. The character they portray is clearly just that, a character (except arguably Cena but his "Super Cena" status qualifies). I'd disagree with Robstar that WWE couldn't have outlandish characters these days, obviously racial stereotypes wouldn't fly (although one could argue the current product is littered with them), but a new monster, crazy beer drinker, mysterious masked wreslter etc. would all work. Hell, even guys like JBL, the larger than life business tycoon, would be an improvement on the generic face/generic heel most of the roster portray.

I really liked Cody Rhodes' masked gimmick when it started, the potential to go Phantom of the Opera was there and the fans would have bought it. I'd say there are two worlds of fans now: the kids who believe it all anyway and the 'grown ups' who know it's fake and want to be entertained. I'll suspend my disbelief to see someone take and AA or lift themself through a bodyslam so why not that The Undertaker can appear and disappear at will?

Oh and to the OP: great post, it made for a great read.

---

Thank you, im really glad you like it......oooooooh yeah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wade Barrett 1979

It's a wonderful thing called nostalgia.

No doubt in another 20 years todays younglings will be lamenting the days when John Cena was on top. Tis the circle of life.

---

100% this will happen. In 20 years people will miss Cena,Punk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iron Ape

The cable television landscape and the way that people consume media has changed drastically over the past decade, so comparing the ratings of yesteryear to that of today makes little to no sense.

And this isn't directed at you specifically, but why people continue to fixate on the numbers when they don't seem to completely understand them is way beyond me.

---

DVR,internet if none of those stuff were around ratings would be much higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewantu2

DVR,internet if none of those stuff were around ratings would be much higher.

---

Even if one eliminates those factors, people still need to take into account that there are loads more programming options available in the same time-slots, and that's inevitability going to change the share information. So treating today's Nielsen numbers as having the same contextual significance as previous years' figures is as misguided as it is pointless.

There's so much more to take into account when trying to accurately gauge the size of today's WWE's audience, and all of this constant gloom 'n doom silliness is just inane. It's sort of sad that so many people continue to latch on to that stuff to push their own ridiculous agendas.