The Wrestling Backfire: Thoughts On WWE’s Future “Blockbusterâ€￾ Summer Idea

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


KyleFitta

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
1
If you realize who I am, great! If not, I will introduce myself. I am a former writer for 411mania, Examiner, Wrestling Truth, and a bunch of other wrestling sites that I cannot even remember. Currently, I have a weekly column on Mondays and review Impact live on Thursdays at Inside Pulse. And if you haven't figured out my name is by screen name yet, it's Kyle Fitta. Enough of the boring stuff. Now onto the more interesting stuff......

The Wrestling Observer Newsletter is reporting WWE creative is working on a major angle for the summer. Reportedly, they are working on coming up with a “knocks your socks off” storyline similar to how the Nexus angle captured attention in 2010 and CM Punk did in 2011. There is a lot of pressure to come up with something because of the low ratings and current product.

Before we get started, I think we must be able to construe what a blockbuster means. Of course, many people will have contrasting presumptions of what one may be; some may believe that Big Johnny/John Cena was already a blockbuster angle, while others may believe that CM Punk’s angle last year wasn’t even one. To me, a blockbuster angle would be something that’s astonishing and sustains a widespread of attention. For example, last year’s CM Punk anti-WWE promo. It was catastrophic and received a lot of mainstream attention from it. Even Colin Cowherd, an ESPN journalist that isn’t fond of professional wrestling, admitted the promo was well-said, giving it the attention it deserved.

Right now, the only angle that's brewing is the Paul Heyman/Brock Lesnar-Triple H feud. Needless to say, because of Brock Lesnar's limited dates, the addition of Paul Heyman was a smart idea. Not only can Lesnar take time off while his angle develops with HHH, but also because Heyman is more than capable of keeping the feud moving as well. Anyway, for a long-term angle (gee, I know; a few months is considered long-term these days), the writer's behind the angle have booked it well, as everything has been booked soundly and there's nothing that has rendered the moot yet (yeah, that's actually a plus these days). However, the feud just doesn’t seem what I would call blockbuster thus far, mainly because it's hard to take Lesnar seriously as the dominant figure in the 'E after he lost to Cena.

That is unless they do something that explains that Heyman's the mastermind behind Lesnar’s success due to his game-plan being well-crafted, opposed to when Lesnar's by himself, he made mistakes and became overzealous. I’m, however, not holding my breath for WWE to dig that deep, but it would surely justify the Cena lost. Bluntly put, unless WWE pulls a rabbit out of a hat by elevating this feud from solid to blockbuster as well as makes Brock Lesnar feel like a serious threat again, I don’t see this being the “rock your socks off” angle.

There are rumors stirring around that CM Punk and John Cena will be having a match at Summerslam. Before I get into what I want to talk about, I'd like to get a little off-top: I know people are outraged about Cena being back into the title picture. But, let’s face it: Even though he hasn’t been feuding for the title, he’s been in every main event since Survivor Series. So, CM Punk will finally be in a main event feud instead of being treated as second-rate material. Back on topic, at least in my opinion, this could be a blockbuster angle. Especially since CM Punk is a miracle worker on the mic as he can make almost anything seem compelling.

Whatever the case may be, the WWE cannot perform another anti-establishment/anti-WWE angle. Nor can they do another Vince McMahon injury angle. With Vince McMahon’s limo exploding, Randy Orton punting Vince McMahon in the head, Nexus, CM Punk last year, and Big Show, recently, punching Vince McMahon , on top of Brock Lesnar/Paul Heyman currently being the anti-establishments, WWE has milked those two ideas out for a way too long time.

But, considering that WWE’s shows have been in cruise control for the past months, with no signs of improving until the 1,000 episode and it feels as if the shows are written by 12-year-old kids with crayons, it would be a gargantuan testament of how atrocious the WWE’s writing staff has become if they cannot pull off something newsworthy. Whilst I do believe the team is sub-par, I don’t believe they are *that* bad. So yeah, I do believe they will be able to pull something off blockbuster.

However…….

The Nexus angle had potential to shake things up, but ended with Team Cena ruining their momentum. The Age of Orton was steaming, but lost it due to bad booking and Triple H winning at Mania. CM Punk was white-hot, but got cold after losing the belt to Del Rio and then being in a feud that went nowhere with Kevin Nash. And then the nearly impossible happened, John Cena defeated Brock Lesnar (which killed Lesnar’s dominant aura and anti-climatically ended Cena’s losing streak).

For the past several years, the WWE has triggered off something that felt like it was going to shake the company up as well as give the fans something dramatic. But, unfortunately every time that’s happened, the company has wound up doing a complete circle and remained the same cut-and-dry television program once again. Therefore, the question doesn’t become whether the WWE can pull off a big angle. The question has become whether they can follow through.

For those who don't watch the product anymore (I don't know why you would be reading this, though, but I'll still explain), something equivalent of what the WWE has done over the last several months is if Stone Cold lost against Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 14. And as a result, the WWE had the same old Michaels hold the belt even longer, while Stone Cold lost most of the momentum heading into this match and thus was back in the mid card. Then maybe in a year or two, they put the title finally on Stone Cold. But, of course, without nearly the amount of momentum he had during before.

In WWE, the two main problems are two things:

One, Vince McMahon’s ego.

Two, WWE plays things too conservative.

Whenever Vince McMahon says he doesn’t care what we think, he's not playing his gimmick. He’s playing himself. McMahon is at the end of his career, one that has made him a lot of money. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about his product anymore. It just means he had a "it's my way or the highway" philosophy when it comes to a lot of things.

Once, McMahon was close to bankruptcy. As a result, he gave the fans everything they wanted from new faces, to a more edgy product, and to a newly developed shows. But, after WWE became a monopoly, he barely ever gives the fans what they want. Did we want to see John Cena, Randy Orton and Batista as figureheads? Not really, but he did. Don’t get me wrong here, I’m surprised that they've allowed Daniel Bryan to get this big (so I will give them kudos for seeing his talent). However, he could be so much bigger now, but McMahon hasn’t allowed him to branch out as far as he could go just because he doesn't fit into future plans. Also, Alex Riley is over. But do we ever see him on Raw or even Smackdown? Not really. Keep going? Okay, fans could honestly give two shits about the Ryback, but Vince McMahon likes him so guess what, we have to watch him. I think you get the point by now.

The second part, WWE being too conservative, is something that has also plagued the WWE with a heavy dose of boredom. It’s the reason why there aren’t any heat-magnet and/or dominant heels, everything’s just happy-go-lucky. It’s why John Cena does practically the same routinely promo every week. It's why other wrestlers can't get over to the level they could be at if there wasn’t a “nobody can surpass John Cena’s popularity” rule. And it's also why the only time a major change occurs is when someone is leaving, i.e. Punk winning a feud over Jeff Hardy or Batista turning heel.

To put it as simply as possible, it’s why hardly anything is exciting. If people knew every single huge sports game would wind up ending the same 99 out of 100 times, people would stop watching it. Sometimes, you know, unexpected things are supposed to happen in sports. Not to mention, WWE has the biggest advantage over every other sport: there "sports'" outcomes are fixed!

Ultimately, the WWE not only needs to come up with a blockbuster idea. They need to finally finish an angle properly. And more importantly, spin this company in a novel direction. Like I said before, the product has done things that have created a spark, but its never amplified sufficiency to create a fire. Furthermore, McMahon needs to stop making decisions based upon his ego, needs to stop being conservative, and needs to stop purposely hindering wrestlers talents because they’re exceeding expectations, or the ratings, gates, merchandising, buyrates and so on will continue to tediously but surely keep decreasing.

That will do it for this week. I hope you liked it.
 

Attachments

  • fitta-wrestling-backfire.jpg
    fitta-wrestling-backfire.jpg
    99.3 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:

Matt86

New Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Not a bad column. Vince only makes money to spite himself to tell you the truth. Keep up the great work.
 

Pete

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,282
Reaction score
24
Points
38
Location
Alton, England
I'm curious about your take on the AJ/Punk/Bryan storyline, considering you speak about how potentially great angles fizz out due to overbooking/bad booking. Do you think that will end up happening with the AJ storyline as well?
 

KyleFitta

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I think it already has. I mean she's become the vocal point of the feud, to the point where the sell-point isn't about who's going to win the title; it's about who is AJ going to side with. I know the WWE is known for having extra elements in feud overshadow the title, but just because they're known to do doesn't make it any better. The title is supposed to be the crown jewel of a wrestling company. It's like having the Superbowl not be the most important game of the year. And I know wrestling is about entertainment. Still, what if Silva vs. Sonnen's fight officiated by a women who wasn't sure who she wanted to be with rather than who is the better fighter? I am all for making a feud interesting by adding extra soap opera-esque elements into the picture. For example, if Silva's wife was cheating with Sonnen, that would add more fuel to the fire and make Silva kicking Sonnen's ass more relishing. The match would still be about the title, though. If she was the ref, had feelings for both, and was the deciding factor of the match, it would not only feel tacky, but diminish the importance of the belt. Do you get what I'm saying?