-
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
Would RAW Improve without Stephanie McMahon?
- Thread starter Solid Snake
- Start date
I am shocked this is tied but I can see and understand what both sides mean. My whole thing is just as Stop said, she is an untouchable heel.
Even when she is trying to be made into a face she some how makes the heel look like the good guy.
Even when she is trying to be made into a face she some how makes the heel look like the good guy.
Because she, as a person, is to an extent as unlikable as her character, and it tends to shine through.
This is the same woman who admitted that WWE only does its charity work to look good. Not because they actually champion the causes
You know what, I actually forgot about that and a few other things she has said/done while not even on a show... Yeah, she seemingly comes off as a bad person both ways.
There's a reason her nickname is the white trash princess
And I can bet that has a lot to do with how she acted back in the day as well...
:I don't want to hate on her because I don't know her but she has said and done some VERY questionable things.
Just speaking purely of her as a current role in the WWE and what she has said while speaking of the company, she just sounds like a bad person.
I had no idea she was supposed to be face lol.
I haven't watched Raw in a while but yeah, having Stephanie try and be face is going against nature!
I haven't watched Raw in a while but yeah, having Stephanie try and be face is going against nature!
She's not.
Even though I like Stephanie, I'll approach the question from the perspective that I don't like her. I'll be able to explain my answer better that way.
The question is would Raw improve if we got rid of Stephanie. Even if I didn't like her, if we are referencing her on screen character, the answer would still be no. Raw's problems go far and beyond the presence of Stephanie McMahon. So take Stephanie off screen. You still have a three hour show that is a struggle to get through even when the show is good. You still have a cruiserweight division in which the only thing that stands out about them are purple ropes. You still have a women's belt being treated like a hot potato. You still have Roman Reigns being pushed when it is obvious at least that crowds don't want to see it. Stephanie's presence may not be entertaining for many, but she is hardly the reason why Raw sucks as bad as it has been lately.
You can take away Stephanie McMahon and it's not going to magically improve the show. It's still going to have its problems, just with one problem removed.
In regards to her off screen job, being chief brand officer likely has very little influence over the content of Raw. So even that would not improve the show.
The question is would Raw improve if we got rid of Stephanie. Even if I didn't like her, if we are referencing her on screen character, the answer would still be no. Raw's problems go far and beyond the presence of Stephanie McMahon. So take Stephanie off screen. You still have a three hour show that is a struggle to get through even when the show is good. You still have a cruiserweight division in which the only thing that stands out about them are purple ropes. You still have a women's belt being treated like a hot potato. You still have Roman Reigns being pushed when it is obvious at least that crowds don't want to see it. Stephanie's presence may not be entertaining for many, but she is hardly the reason why Raw sucks as bad as it has been lately.
You can take away Stephanie McMahon and it's not going to magically improve the show. It's still going to have its problems, just with one problem removed.
In regards to her off screen job, being chief brand officer likely has very little influence over the content of Raw. So even that would not improve the show.
I say yes on the grounds that she has been the, for a lack of a better term, authority figure, on Raw for a long time and we do need a change of pace. Foley is there, which is different to recent years, but it would be better if she stays away. I mean, there is the issue of her flip-flopping between face and heel too much to a point where IDK what she is. I mean, even if she stuck as a face or a heel, it won't really work. Face? After the Authority angle, it won't work for a long while. Heel? We saw her as the 'bad evil queen' for a long time and it isn't new.
By no means this will solve Raw's problem of a stagnant midcard, Roman Reigns failing as a babyface, the three-hour format, the Cruiserweight problem, and all the others, but it could be part of the solution to one problem and that problem is things not being fresh (that, and leaving Roman focus on a US feud, have KO be booked like a credible, but beatable (without being defeated all the time) heel champ, perhaps let other storylines develop and other ideas).
By no means this will solve Raw's problem of a stagnant midcard, Roman Reigns failing as a babyface, the three-hour format, the Cruiserweight problem, and all the others, but it could be part of the solution to one problem and that problem is things not being fresh (that, and leaving Roman focus on a US feud, have KO be booked like a credible, but beatable (without being defeated all the time) heel champ, perhaps let other storylines develop and other ideas).
I don't think it brings anything less to the show.. the whole Steph (RAW) vs Shane (SD) and her being the boss man's kid and the second HNIC's bae is going to prevent her from going anywhere anytime soon. I say no, I like Steph, I will say though I wouldn't be opposed to her getting off her authority figure character for a little bit and shutting up and throwing down with one of those RAW broads in some actual matches.
Just remove them both from the company then maybe the issue is solved, but hey that is just me and this is just a little something called nepotism.
Yes
She certainly doesn't add anything to the show. If she was gone, no one wold care.
Mick Foley was a real let down as GM as well. Compared to his Commissioner gig in 2000, his position of GM is terrible.
She certainly doesn't add anything to the show. If she was gone, no one wold care.
Mick Foley was a real let down as GM as well. Compared to his Commissioner gig in 2000, his position of GM is terrible.
So if she was gone, no one would care. So no one caring would improve the show?
This is off-topic-ish, but comparing it to this whole Miz/Bryan thing.
Some resent it since it's "building to a match that's never going to happen", but.. Bryan's clearly on one side of the fence. Watching a Bryan segment you get the sense that he's honest, he cares about the show and all the performers and wants to make a quality brand for you, the fans at home... bonus points for bring DB. He's still an effective character while being an authority figure - something I've really never seen in WWE.
IMO Miz ragging on Bryan and stealing his moves is A-OK since it's such easy heat on the A-Lister since Bryan's an effective character, and it totally works getting Miz's ego over.
It doesn't have to all be about comeuppance but... sheesh.
Some resent it since it's "building to a match that's never going to happen", but.. Bryan's clearly on one side of the fence. Watching a Bryan segment you get the sense that he's honest, he cares about the show and all the performers and wants to make a quality brand for you, the fans at home... bonus points for bring DB. He's still an effective character while being an authority figure - something I've really never seen in WWE.
IMO Miz ragging on Bryan and stealing his moves is A-OK since it's such easy heat on the A-Lister since Bryan's an effective character, and it totally works getting Miz's ego over.
It doesn't have to all be about comeuppance but... sheesh.