I don't see why that matters. Rock still brought up Lesnar and gave him a win that mattered much more than when Brock beat Hogan or Taker.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WWE Raw drops to lowest TV rating in 18 years
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
UberTag
Member
The counter-argument would be... if they weren't going to bother mentioning the two subsequent defeats that Owens suffered to Cena then why did he have to lose those two matches? Why couldn't he have won the feud? Would that have really been so horrible?
You can't just pretend it didn't happen. Like they always bring up that Jericho was the first-ever undisputed champion by beating Stone Cold and the Rock on the same night but don't bother to mention how Jericho was treated like a bitch during his reign having to walk Stephanie's dog for her until he got decimated by Triple H at Wrestlemania.
Or that they were always big on Daniel Bryan. And loved and revered him. And always intended for him to challenge for the WWE title at Wrestlemania 30 and win two matches to bookend the show. (Which wasn't the case at all. They intended for him to wrestle Sheamus. And for Triple H to wrestle Punk. And for Big Dave to win the title.)
That's revisionist history. I don't buy into WWE's revisionist history. I buy into what actually happened. And what actually happened is that Owens won the first match and lost the next two. Just like most of Cena's opponents. (And don't get me wrong... I actually think Owens should have lost that feud. Rusev is the one they should have had Cena put over because they invested a full year's worth of build into him before pissing it away.)
Owens first match with Cena is what got me back into wrestling for a bit. To me, Owens was an unknown as I wasn't familiar with him since I didn't watch much WWE at all anymore which included not watching NXT or being much aware of it. But I decided to watch this PPV, I believe it was Elimination Chamber? Because I like the concept, so figured why the hell not.
Anyway, seeing Owens wrestling impressed me and seeing a new face go over Cena the way he did with no funny business, just a straight up clean victory, made me more invested in the product. I thought since they were letting a new guy like Owens go over Cena, of all people, that was a sign the company was changing for the better.
I was wrong, obviously, but at the time that brought at least me as a fan back for a little bit.
Anyway, seeing Owens wrestling impressed me and seeing a new face go over Cena the way he did with no funny business, just a straight up clean victory, made me more invested in the product. I thought since they were letting a new guy like Owens go over Cena, of all people, that was a sign the company was changing for the better.
I was wrong, obviously, but at the time that brought at least me as a fan back for a little bit.
Barrage
Member
You're right about Lesnar, Goldber was already certified.
Shit if you're counting that cup of coffee with Helms then throw in Miz,Orton, Edge, Khali...all when Cena was a main eventer. All in an attempt to make those guys main event players.
When have they ever lied about that? They've been pretty open about what their original plans were. At least they mention it in every single Bryan or Wrestlemania 30 doc. Or podcast.
The Jericho thing is definitely WWE being revisionist though.
TemplaerDude
Member
At the end of the day they don't really care what you believe.
Brock mattered before Rock lost to him. Brock was already seen as a huge monster by killing the Hardyz who were hugely over at that point. I'd say bleeding out Hogan and making him pass out was a much bigger deal to establishing Brock as a top guy.
Most people knew Rock was already on his way out anyways.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
You guys will be gnashing your teeth when Cena puts Roman over 3 times in a row.
If Roman is what it takes to make Cena heel then do it.
It'll probably just be Lesnar vs Goldberg all over again.
UberTag
Member
This is also true. If they don't like what you believe, they'll just mute your reaction.
And it's up to fans who don't approve of WWE's booking to vote with their wallets... and they seldom do.
Cena won't be turning heel because of Roman. But he will be putting him over (i.e. losing a feud without getting his wins back) unless he just ups and bails before he has to do the honors. And I suspect Cena will be a team player here because he had no problem doing that for Brock.
Well, they have been up front... and yet they haven't been up front. I mean, it's true that they latched onto the narrative that the "outspoken WWE fans" drove Daniel Bryan into getting that opportunity. That he wouldn't have gotten that main event and title win without them and that much is indeed factual.
What isn't genuine is their rationale for going that route. If CM Punk had not walked out, Daniel Bryan would not have gotten that match. Period. The void in Hunter's dance card for Mania with Punk's departure is what ultimately thrust Bryan into that spot because he was the only person on the roster with an established program vs. the Authority at that point with Punk gone. The Bryan match had to happen because Triple H's ego wouldn't allow him to be left off the Mania card and it made sense at that point to factor the title into the equation because of how Batista was being rejected by the fans. Even Dave was pushing for that to happen.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Those generational markers are a hot mess. No one born in 1971 is a freakin' baby boomer.
Sweeney Tom
Banned
ed: ^^ Makes the stuff that regularly happens on Black History Month even more depressing than it already was, in retrospect
Variety did an official puff piece a day or so after it happened where they casually dropped the company line that it was "planned all along to culminate a long-running story". It got bashed because nobody bought it so they finally had to tell the truth in their own official stuff, but that's another thing they resisted until they absolutely couldn't
Variety did an official puff piece a day or so after it happened where they casually dropped the company line that it was "planned all along to culminate a long-running story". It got bashed because nobody bought it so they finally had to tell the truth in their own official stuff, but that's another thing they resisted until they absolutely couldn't
Even if Cena wins a vast, vast, vast majority of feuds I'd be more forgiving if he lost clean. It's all nut shots, interference, and dirty finishes with the guy. It makes heels look like they "got one over" on Cena instead of being an equal or better. Randy Orton vs. Mark Henry is an example of it done right, Orton just straight up lost to the guy. He tried everything and it wasn't enough and it didn't hurt Orton an iota.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
And Mark Henry went on a frigging tear with the hall of pain. One of the best monster heel title reigns in history. Because he won, and he won clean and intimidatingly. He didn't get heat for cheating, he got heat because he was a mean dude
It really legitimized him because there was no asterisk, there was no "he only won because", he just won the match and won the feud. Imagine if Bray won against Cena completely clean at Mania, he would've been in an amazing position. The thing is these wins don't help Cena and clean losses wouldn't hurt him, he's untouchable so why not just lay down for a KO clean to help push him to the next level instead of having shenanigans.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Apparently the moment Cena sells one less t-shirt Vince has a fit and orders that he win 8248702 matches in a row.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Hate to break it to you, but you're still a filthy millennial.
Each generation has around 20 years to it, but that breakdown is 10-15 years, so all their generational definitions are way younger than usual. That age breakdown is commonly used for statistics, but they usually don't label them generationally like that.
thechristoph
Sir!
UberTag
Member
I'm using the Children in Household section as a tip-off on how to interpret the other sections.
You either have no children or "at least 1 child" in your household. Those two numbers always add up to 100%. And then if you have 2+ children or 3+ children or 4+ children the percentages gradually decrease.
In the race category, I attribute it the same way. Do you have someone that associates with being spanish or hispanic in your home? Yes/No? Do you have someone that associates with being black or african-american in your home? Yes/No? Some families will have both? Some people in certain families might be both? Some households will have no non-caucasian ethnicities at all so they'll answer no to every racial category including other. Hence why the percentages don't add up to anything. It also doesn't mean that 55.5% of WWE fans are not caucasian because you can have overlap in each category.
Household income is different as there is an unwritten category that isn't included in the chart... namely $0-$24,999. That's right 29.6% of WWE fans have a household income less than $24,999 US. Contrast that with 22.3% of boxing fans, 18.4% of UFC fans or the U.S. national average of 16.5%. The other income brackets fluctuate as the categories really aren't the ranges they say so much as is your household income $25,000+? Yes/No? Is your household income $35,000+? Yes/No? Hence the numbers progressively go down. Regard this to be exactly like the Children in Household category... if you make $50,000+, your answer for all previous income categories will default to Yes. Just as if you had 3 kids, your answer to having 2 kids or 1 kid would also default to Yes.
JesseEwiak
Member
Randy Orton is the #2 or #3 babyface. Cena's the #1 babyface. #1 Babyface's don't lose clean to heels and stay top babyfaces. How many times did Bruno, Hogan, or Austin (as a babyface) lose clean to heels? I'll give you a clue - never.
That's the whole point of wrestling - the heel is the heel because he can't defeat the good guy cleanly. It's not Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones no matter how much you want it to be. It's simple storytelling - the evil guy beats all the lesser heroes, than the main hero wins the match in the end.
You don't like it, but it's what built Vince McMahon's giant mansion, bought him a private jet, and earned him a spot on the New York Stock Exchange.
I assume white/none of the above makes up the missing portion for ethnicity. The income part is confusing, I think it might be ignoring the upper limit and treating it more like X% of the audience make at least this much. If that's the case, a higher percentage of WWE fans would be below $25,000 in household income.
I couldn't tell you with the first two since I didn't start watching wrestling until 96~. I also couldn't tell you with Austin because I didn't pay attention to things like clean losses when I was a kid. I will say that Austin was the face for, what, 4 or 5 years before he was turned heel? Cena has been it for a decade. It's tiresome seeing a guy for a decade with a clean loss record average of once every two years.
The heel has won cleanly several times. Within the past 5 years you can look at Brock Lesnar beating Cena and Triple H clean in feuds, Fandango beating Jericho at Mania, Henry beating Orton, Kane beating Orton at mania, Wyatt beat Bryan, that's just a few I remember. But you also have crap like Khali beating Taker/Cena clean when he first came in and Kozlov pinning Taker. The hero is supposed to win but the villain has to look strong otherwise it's a weak story. Cena vs. Bray was horrendous the peak of which was a cage match between the two where my brother counted Cena winning no less than 6 times throughout the match (the other Wyatts would prevent Cena from leaving the cage). How do you build believable heels if the hero is so overwhelmingly above them that even with a ton of help he still wins? (Cena did this with the Nexus, New Nexus, and Wyatts just recently). It's boring. Cena basically won an I Quit handicap match against Miz and Alex Riley. Like, come on.
Yes, and it's also turning people away in droves. The success of yesterday does not guarantee the success of tomorrow. The same thing will not work for 30 years. Hell, people dislike the similar beats Flash season 2 had with season 1 now imagine basically the same thing for 10 seasons. The topic name of this thread is "Raw drops to lowest rating in 18 years", THE flagship show of the WWE has hit it's lowest in almost two decades with basically no competition in it's field. The product is stale, the story telling is all too familiar, and the same people are at the top. People tire of it.
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
I stopped watching WWE back in 2004 after Lesnar lost in the dumbest possible way to Goldberg. I grew up watching WWE and I simply dont find the current wrestlers and wrestling entertaining. I imagine there are many fans like me who just stopped giving a shit 10 years ago. I'm really not sure what they can do to stop the decline. Going back to attitude era type of presentation isn't going to help anymore. Last time I really enjoyed some good WWE wrestling action was when Kurt Angle was the champ, it just isn't the same anymore.
no basketball to blame this week
what will they blame it on this week?
it's almost like people aren't watching wrestling because the product is fucking boring and stale
UberTag
Member
Their loss. They missed out on 90 minutes worth of promos, 60 minutes worth of commercials and 30 minutes worth of wrestling.
Tom Nook
Member
Hockey maybe?
I watched about 15 minutes of Raw monday despite not having the nba to distract me ( Overwatch won.) That 15 minutes was a random new day/bullet club tag match to close the show which i didn't finish to see who won because who cares? Who? Who? Who?
UberTag
Member
Nothing on RAW matters so why bother tuning in.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
And 30 seconds of The Shining Stars.
UberTag
Member
Can't believe they never got over with the crowd given everything they had going for them.
No wonder Vince is so upset after investing so much time and effort in their build.
Ninja Scooter
Member
The Club are rating poison.
Violence Jack
Member
I dropped it last night after that whole Enzo is concussed again thing. It got boring as hell outside of the AJ/Cena, Seth/Regins backstory segments.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Watching these weekly ratings is getting tiresome since they clearly don't intend to fix Raw in the face of these ratings.
We'll probably have to wait until we see the results of new tuesday night smackdown since that's supposedly the thing that's going to save their television contract.
We'll probably have to wait until we see the results of new tuesday night smackdown since that's supposedly the thing that's going to save their television contract.
I can't wait til nothing changes after live smackdown bombs, too.
UberTag
Member
The WWE could outright lose their television deal and simply air new content live on YouTube, Twitter, WWE.com and the Network and nothing would change with their fundamental booking and creative philosophy.
That will never change so long as Vincent Kennedy McMahon lives and breathes. There is no purpose to this thread apart from revelling in the status quo.
That will never change so long as Vincent Kennedy McMahon lives and breathes. There is no purpose to this thread apart from revelling in the status quo.
Copa Centenario chile vs Argentina ?
I don't think that is true, when they lose the bulk of their income, they will have to both cut most of their wrestlers as well as most of their creative team. It would significantly change their programming.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Total viewers are down 11% over the June 8th 2015 Raw.
That's still a significant decline, even for the WWE who is certainly no stranger to constant year over year declines.
it would still just be roman going over everyone
- Status