Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 240 of 429

Thread: AEW Dynamite

  1. #201
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15v2 View Post
    No one seems to be saying he's a waste of time/money.
    Here's the thing, I like Orange Cassidy. He makes me chuckle...when I'm watching a GCW show that nobody in the crowd or in the back is taking seriously.

    Put OC on every TV show you produce. Just don't tell me out of the other side of your mouth that this company is more serious, and things matter more, and we're going to present more like a sport.

    If you want to be "wrestling is fun", and you've found a billionaire to fund it and a TV network to air it, then do it! But don't tell me about how we have real contracts with real lawyers and this is real serious in the next segment because I ain't buying it.

    I think that this is going to be a stumbling block for AEW at some point. Cody clearly wants to book traditional, serious pro wrestling and none of his partners are seemingly on board with that. At some point something's got to give.
    Quote Originally Posted by Powder View Post
    A short title run (a few months) could have been comedy gold. Snow fighting with Head on who is the actual champion etc.
    No, your top Champion should NOT be a comedy act. "Comedy gold" shouldn't be the goal in pro wrestling, especially at the top of the card.

    Al Snow was a novelty act. That's not taking anything away from the guy's skill or the fact that he's got one of the best minds for pro wrestling that has ever lived. But his crazy guy with a mannequin head gimmick was not a top of the card gimmick. Later run Al Snow where he was the trainer of the Tough Enough students and a little more serious, by all means push that guy. But you're going to kill any meaning your title has when you're putting it on midcard comedy acts.

  2. #202
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    Then what about now, with the Fiend? or The Undertaker for that matter?

    The Fiend and the Undertaker are supernatural beings that cannot be hurt. How is that better than a comedy act for a short run? Look to yesterday, excluding Taker for the moment; The Fiend took 10 stomps, about 10 superkicks to the face, 2 sledge hammer shots to the head, thrown off the stage into "exploding equipment", and still got up like nothing happened to him at all.

    A guy who had a mental breakdown and sees a mannequin head as a real person is at least based in reality vs a supernatural being that is now virtually invincible.
    Last edited by Powder; 11-01-2019 at 11:24 AM.

  3. #203
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by Powder View Post
    Then what about now, with the Fiend? or The Undertaker for that matter?

    The Fiend and the Undertaker are supernatural beings that cannot be hurt. How is that better than a comedy act for a short run? Look to yesterday, excluding Taker for the moment; The Fiend took 10 stomps, about 10 superkicks to the face, 2 sledge hammer shots to the head, thrown off the stage into "exploding equipment", and still got up like nothing happened to him at all.

    A guy who had a mental breakdown and sees a mannequin head as a real person is at least based in reality vs a supernatural being that is now virtually invincible.
    First off:

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Farrell View Post
    It's why I think that The Fiend's near invulnerability is dumb as shit, and why I think that I'll probably want to tear my hair out if I watch that six man from last night.
    Second, both Fiend and Taker are treated like legitimate. Like they are a threat to those that they face.

    Even ECW didn't put the belt on him. They treated him just a step above comedy.

    The gimmick got over, I'm not disputing that. But just having an over gimmick does not make you a top guy. If that's the case, put the fucking IWGP belt on Toru Yano for a few months and let comedy reign supreme.

    That title should be seen as the pinnacle of the company. The top, ultimate thing that you can achieve and strive for. Ted DiBiase never got it. Mr. Perfect never got it. Jake Roberts never got it. The only people who hold it should be the guys the company presents as the tippy top. Not the latest guy off the indies with some support. Not the person the fans chant loudest for. Not the guy who's been there 20 years and is getting a "thank you".

    Every time you deviate from the title being the pinnacle that you can achieve in the company, you devalue it somewhat. And if that's not the top thing you can achieve any more, what is? What achievement exists.

    I can't imagine Triple H and Steve Austin bleeding buckets inside a steel cage over the prize that just spent three months as "comedy gold".

  4. #204
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    The fact that DiBiasi, Perfect, Roberts or even a sober Scott Hall never won the WWF or WCW world title is a damn shame. We could argue until we are blue in the face on which guy was more deserving, but that probably will be reserved for it's own thread.

    But I know you already said and hated the fact that the Fiend is basically Doomsday in that he cannot be beaten and only gets stronger each time you "kill him". But that does not change the fact that the WWE just put its title on a Supernatural Creature. How is that the pinnacle? The Fiend/Bray Wyatt, is an awesome character, and perfect for pro wrestling, but he is not a character that the WWE should want to represent the company. How will anyone take the WWE seriously if/when Good Morning America or any talk show for that matter wants to interview the champ? The Fiend comes out in his mask and gives and interview? Please. Again I like the character, and it is awesome that they put the belt on him, but the character is not the pinnacle or the 'top guy'.

    Even when heels are champion, they give interviews, and state that there is a beef between him and his opponent, but they are still men, not supernatural creatures.
    Last edited by Powder; 11-01-2019 at 11:49 AM.

  5. #205
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    The big problem with that argument is that Coach can just come back and say that The Fiend isn't what 'should' happen either, and all those points just go away, immediately.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  6. #206
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    Oh I know, and I get it.

    But I guess my point is that if the WWE has no problem putting the title on a Supernatural Character like Taker back in the Day, or now The Fiend, then why would it not be ok to put the Title on a guy like Al Snow w/head for a bit?

    If the reasoning is that Snow is a comedy act, which he basically was, and that would devalue the title, then how is an impervious supernatural monster not also devaluing the title?

  7. #207
    Super Moderator Team Farrell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    833
    I don't think that The Fiend should be Champion. I don't think that he should be anywhere near it. I don't think that he needs it.

    Undertaker in the late 90s into the 00s had scaled back his gimmick big time and become a respected veteran. But he could have gone 25 years without holding that title and still have been a major star.

    Seth is at least positioned as the top guy in the company. 1C to Roman and Brock, I guess. AJ was treated the same way. Jericho is treated that way in AEW. Okada is treated that way. Nick Aldis, Rush, etc. are all positioned as the top guy in the company.

    The Fiend could be positioned as the top guy in the company if they really wanted to.

    Silly comedy guy #3 can't be positioned as the top guy if you want your company taken seriously.

    Note: I thought that Kofi's reign was dumb as fuck when he continued tossing pancakes out on his way to the ring.

    EDIT: Again, Taker and Fiend are at least presented as legit killers. Al Snow was a silly comedy guy. I can buy 1993 Undertaker vs Yokozuna. I can buy 1999 Taker vs Steve Austin. I can buy The Fiend vs Brock Lesnar. Can you for a second but Al Snow beating any of those guys?

  8. #208
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    At the risk of putting words in his mouth, my guess is that Coach will probably say that putting the title on someone like the Fiend devalues the title, whether WWE has no problem with it or not, but it still doesn't devalue it as much as much as putting it on a character that is not taken or presented seriously.

    For what it's worth, thinking back to most of the people I knew who were watching WWE in 1998 or 1999, and the vast majority of them would have shit over anyone not named Austin, Rock, Mankind, Hunter, or someone similarly positioned, holding the belt.

    EDIT: Ah, he got in there before me anyway.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  9. #209
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Farrell View Post
    I don't think that The Fiend should be Champion. I don't think that he should be anywhere near it. I don't think that he needs it.

    Undertaker in the late 90s into the 00s had scaled back his gimmick big time and become a respected veteran. But he could have gone 25 years without holding that title and still have been a major star.

    Seth is at least positioned as the top guy in the company. 1C to Roman and Brock, I guess. AJ was treated the same way. Jericho is treated that way in AEW. Okada is treated that way. Nick Aldis, Rush, etc. are all positioned as the top guy in the company.

    The Fiend could be positioned as the top guy in the company if they really wanted to.

    Silly comedy guy #3 can't be positioned as the top guy if you want your company taken seriously.

    Note: I thought that Kofi's reign was dumb as fuck when he continued tossing pancakes out on his way to the ring.

    EDIT: Again, Taker and Fiend are at least presented as legit killers. Al Snow was a silly comedy guy. I can buy 1993 Undertaker vs Yokozuna. I can buy 1999 Taker vs Steve Austin. I can but The Fiend vs Brock Lesnar. Can you for a second but Al Snow beating any of those guys?
    The Ministry of Darkness disagrees with this.

    But I do get your overall point.
    Last edited by Powder; 11-01-2019 at 12:46 PM.

  10. #210
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Powder View Post
    To be fair, Al Snow with Head was arguably one of the most popular gimmicks ever during it's height. I know you saw those ECW arenas with almost every fan with the Styrofoam heads in support of Snow.

    Then when he went to the WWF full time, Snow w/Head were still just as popular, with the fans in 100% support of him and the gimmick, but the WWF did not see what they had with him. Snow could wrestle, had charisma, and a gimmick that was over as anything at the time. I am definitely not saying that Snow was the long term future of the company, but Snow with the Head gimmick could have easily been in the main event in the late 90s and it would have/could have been good and fun. A short title run (a few months) could have been comedy gold. Snow fighting with Head on who is the actual champion etc.

    Eugene, Doink or Flash Funk had fan support, and were fun, but not one of those three were nearly as popular as Snow was, nor could anyone really see anyone of those three gimmicks as champion.

    Snow's gimmick was that he had a mental breakdown and driven insane because of his years as a Jobber, but he was an actually talented wrestler. It obviously worked, and caught fire for a period of time. Upon his return to the WWF, they used him as a comedy act, which was gold, but they also could have pushed him into the mainstream, again for only a few months, and it could have worked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Powder View Post
    Oh I know, and I get it.

    But I guess my point is that if the WWE has no problem putting the title on a Supernatural Character like Taker back in the Day, or now The Fiend, then why would it not be ok to put the Title on a guy like Al Snow w/head for a bit?

    If the reasoning is that Snow is a comedy act, which he basically was, and that would devalue the title, then how is an impervious supernatural monster not also devaluing the title?
    Quote Originally Posted by Powder View Post
    The Ministry of Darkness disagrees with this.

    But I do get your overall point.
    Do you?
    Let's look at it exactly as it is with AEW: Should shin nudging OC be pinning Chris Jericho or Cody?

    The obvious answer is no. This isn't to say it wouldn't be entertaining. But common sense shows that it would be a mess.


    As for Al Snow, you completely argued against my point while actually repeating it. Yes, he was over, and yes it was over big. But would even ECW version of Al Snow been credible enough to beat Austin, Rock, or Undertaker? Not at all.

    I honestly don't mind AEW having OC while Cody and Jericho measure their dicks about how much bigger theirs are over WWE/HHH/Vince, as long as it's kept separate. I feel they accomplished that. They wrestled in costumes over nobodies. That doesn't bother me. Kofi tossing pancakes while WWE champ didn't bother me, because you can be a happy go lucky guy outside the ring. But once the bell rang, Kofi became serious. I've seen UFC fighters go out to dance coordination that was fun and silly, and then kick major ass in the Octagon. So COACH and I differ there.

    Where I drew my line was Kenny Omega doing comedy spots, while he's the guy Jericho beat to become the top contender. He's snapping his fingers and cosplaying while we're being told he's the best bout machine and best wrestler in the historyz of everz. That felt like an insult to me.

    I feel like AEW is really good at the comedy stuff for the audience that likes it, but the issue is that I don't see how that kind of audience can grow with that kind of stuff. I don't know if it's bias exactly, but I know from day one I've felt the Elite perform for only a certain kind of fan. And everything they've done seems directed at only these fans, and almost feels like they are insulting those who aren't part of their Inner Circle of fans. ECW was similar. And it was partially why ECW never achieved the greatness of other brands, and stayed in bingo halls. It was a very good product, just like AEW's. But they targeted such a small portion of the overall audience, that everyone else felt like they didn't belong watching it.

    Anyways, going way off track. But comedy gimmicks are great in the midcard. Not the main event.

  11. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15v2 View Post
    I drew my line was Kenny Omega doing comedy spots, while he's the guy Jericho beat to become the top contender. He's snapping his fingers and cosplaying while we're being told he's the best bout machine and best wrestler in the historyz of everz. That felt like an insult to me.
    See this is the sort of thing that feels like some of the hyper criticism you and Coach call out about WWE. Kenny Omega snapping his fingers and Kip Sabian, Jack Evans and Angelico doing a spot Ric Flair has done his entire career is an insult? Quite honestly I didn't even know Omega had even done the finger snapping thing till you pointed it out and outside of this forum I've heard no one else bring it up; most people thought it was an homage to Flair. On top of that it was three seconds in an eleven and a half minute match that was otherwise taken completely seriously by everyone involved, unless you're going to count the fact that the Bucks and Omega dressed up for Halloween (which is something they always do; they love Halloween, as evident by the Being the Elite specials). Like if the entire match was spots like that and every week Omega and the Bucks dressed up as video game characters then I'd get how that would quickly grow old. But this was a one time thing for a holiday and a spot that took up three seconds of a match otherwise taken completely seriously. That would be like me checking out of movie because of three seconds of a shot I thought wasn't very good.

    Like let's keep things in perspective here. Is AEW perfect? No; we've all been over repeatedly some of the bad comedy from the pre-shows, that limo scene on the show Wednesday was far too long, the women's division could be better and I am absolutely TERRIFIED at the thought of Brandi Rhodes wrestling (which is why I'm really hoping that vignette is leading to Kong doing the work and Brandi just managing her). Do they take shots at WWE at times they shouldn't? Yes. Are they for everyone? No. But a) no wrestling promotion is going to be for everyone and b) on the whole the worst thing I've seen said about the show is "it's not always better than NXT." By in large people have liked AEW Dynamite; Cagematch, a site that I feel is very good at measuring the pulse of things, has rated every AEW Dynamite show at 7.50 or higher, with three of them being above an 8.18. Reviews on the whole have been very positive. The ratings are obviously not RAW numbers but other than this week against Game 7 of the World Series (which unlike past weeks did have a heavy effect on both them and NXT) they've drawn very respectable numbers for TNT. And that's for a promotion that didn't exist a year ago. The crowds for the show have been great each and every time from what I've seen. There's a lot to like about what AEW is doing, even if it isn't perfect or to the liking of some of the people here.


  12. #212
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,028
    Nope, not the same. You're likely not even talking about the same spot.

    I am not watching it again, but I remember all 3 opponents were swaying on their feet in one corner, looking like bad 80s NES game animation, and then Kenny had his back to them, he snapped his fingers, and all 3 fell over.

    That's nothing like Flair did. Flair would at least get hit before trying to walk off and then fall. And I didn't love that either.

    And nope again, the rest of the match was not serious, it was completely overchoreographed. It was a stage show, an act, a live performance. Not a wrestling match. The only time it felt like a wrestling match was when the heels were on offense.

  13. #213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    804
    That is exactly the same spot. Jack, Angelico and Kip all got up wobbly, Omega snaps his fingers and all three flop to the ground. And all three did get hit with Snap Dragon Suplexes prior to that spot so let's not act like they just walked in there, Kenny snapped their fingers and they fell.

    And as for the match on the whole you are generalizing based on your biases and likes, same way I am. You didn't take it seriously. That doesn't mean no one else did. Kenny Omega, The Young Bucks, Jack Evans, Angelico and Kip Sabian are three guys who are really good at flying around. It's how they win matches, although Angelico can win them on the ground in the right situation. The best way for them to win is the style of match right there. Other than that one spot that match was very serious; it just wasn't serious in the way you wanted it to be. That doesn't mean it wasn't for other people.


  14. #214
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    That is exactly the same spot. Jack, Angelico and Kip all got up wobbly, Omega snaps his fingers and all three flop to the ground. And all three did get hit with Snap Dragon Suplexes prior to that spot so let's not act like they just walked in there, Kenny snapped their fingers and they fell.
    Correct, one part one. Incorrect one part 2. I just watched it again.

    Kenny hits the SnapDragon on JAck, who bumps to the left side of the screen. Then he snaps Angelico. Then Kip counters at first, but gets one as well.
    THEN, Jack gets up from the left side of the screen, walks over the right side of the screen, wobbles until Kenny snaps his fingers, and then he falls AGAIN.

    If you don't see why that's a million times past anything Flair did, then there's no point to this conversation.

    EDIT
    And that's ignoring the fact that the match opened up as a 3-4 minute tornado match while the Elite didn't tag, were in and out on their own, while the ref looked like a tool. In the fed telling as how important rules are going to be.

    It's a fucking joke.
    Last edited by PEN15v2; 11-01-2019 at 02:38 PM.

  15. #215
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    Quote Originally Posted by PEN15v2 View Post
    And that's ignoring the fact that the match opened up as a 3-4 minute tornado match while the Elite didn't tag, were in and out on their own, while the ref looked like a tool. In the fed telling as how important rules are going to be.
    This is my biggest problem with AEW, and I am an AEW supporter. If AEW wants to have every tag team match be tornado rules, just come out and state that. That they are completely changing tag wrestling forever by having every match be held under tornado rules. Simple.

    But what has been going on, is tornado rules apply, then they don't, then they do, then for the finish, they do not again by making sure the correct guys are in the ring.

    Make a choice, tornado rules or no tornado rules, but keep consistent at least in every match.

  16. #216
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,028
    I want to make clear, all the guys in AEW are talented, and I know they can wrestle. Also, I know they've been great in AEW. Omega is in no way a bad wrestler. I don't know about overrated or anything, but he's very very good. And good wrestlers are allowed to have a comedic side. Omega definitely portrays that well.

    But that match was a fusion of everything I hate about AEW. Spots for spot sake, overchoreographed, ignored rules in a fed telling me how important structure/rules will be, a confusing intro I didn't understand at all because it's like an inside joke I'm not welcome to, and then that awful segment we've been debating. I get it, this type of wrestling is popular with cagematch and other online critics.

    But guess what? I'm not cagematch. I couldn't give two shits how well reviewed it is. I have a brain, and I know a big reason it's getting rated so high is because AEW is targeting to please those types of fans. But ever since the days I wrote on the LOP main page, never have I been the typical online fan. Never have I cared what critics thought. I don't watch wrestling for others to enjoy. I watch it for me. And that match infuriated me unlike anything I've seen. HIAC exasperated me, but AEW infuriates regularly. I want to like it. There are great highlights on the show. But goddamn, they need to stop waving their dicks around talking about how cool they are, and instead just be a good god damn fucking wrestling show.

  17. #217
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    804
    That I will agree with. It's been a bigger problem with the Lucha Brothers (who come from the lucha tag rules where you're the legal man if your partner rolls out of the ring) but there's no doubt AEW as a whole has had that issue. I'd personally just prefer they adapt the lucha tag rules thing and establish that as your baseline, much like WCW did back in the 90s. It's the perfect balance where there can be tags, but you can still keep the action going if a guy rolls out of the ring or something.

    But again, that's one of a handful of things that are problematic to me.


  18. #218
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    But again, that's one of a handful of things that are problematic to me.
    And that's fine. As heated as we discuss things, I never fault you for liking what you like. I'm a WWE fan, but any WWE fan who doesn't see the amount of flaws in their shows is delusional. For me, the good generally outweighs the bad (last month of SD, and the spring/summer 2019 of both main brands are a obvious exceptions). And AEW I'm giving more of a chance because they do offer something I enjoy that I don't find elsewhere. The sense of new and exciting is HUGE for them. Jon Moxley has reminded me why I felt he would be the true breakout star of the Shield back in 2013-2015. The Joshi contributions to the womens division is impressive. The attention to tag wrestling is such a huge spot for me. I like the TV presentation a lot, and it's better than almost any WWE product most weeks.

    But the damper to that is how the tag division is built around Young Buck type matches. Lucha Bros also do this, Private Party, SCU (to a point)...etc. And they lose me quickly. The womens division is incredibly weak overall. I don't find the Jericho work to be all that great.

    It's been a frustrating show to watch, knowing how I prefer ROH's special events/PPVs, and Impact has been on a tear, and MLW has a really solid show (though the push to this PPV isn't doing anything for me), and NWA is on the rise, and NXT is still the best wrestling product overall.

  19. #219
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,325
    Deleted a long post cause I was gonna be a hypocrite lol.

    AEW was awesome this week. Loved it.

  20. #220
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    I saw this and thought of Cult and Pen's fictional conversation.


  21. #221
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Cult Icon View Post
    There's a lot to like about what AEW is doing, even if it isn't perfect or to the liking of some of the people here.
    This got me thinking and maybe this is a better way of getting my point across. Because basically, I've identified four different types of fan - and we've got three of them in this thread.

    You've got the 'wrestling can be anything' people on the one extreme. I think these people seem to be mostly behind this stuff and don't think there's a limit to what you can do with it.

    You've got fans on the other end who are traditionalists who won't watch at all so long as the too staged stuff is in play. You might appeal to them if you change, but you can write them - who am I kidding, us - off entirely with some of the current content.

    There's also people like Pen and Coach, who don't mind this kind of thing but think you can only use it in certain places - push it too far and you run the risk of losing them.

    Lastly, there's a group we don't seem to have here but I've seen elsewhere, who like AEW for the most part but actively dislike some of these 'excesses', for the lack of a better word. You'd improve the appeal of the show for these people if you cut them out, and it's likely that you lose them as viewers if the silly stuff takes on a bigger part in the show.

    There's also a fifth group, but we don't really know much about them. The potential audience - people who might watch wrestling, but who don't currently. We certainly don't know how many there are. In truth at this point they might not even exist anymore.

    Nevertheless, obviously everyone wants to try and appeal to that fifth group. One strategy would be to try the sports-based presentation they mooted initially, and appeal to the traditional fans, something that would please the other two groups of fans but might not retain all of the first group.

    Instead, they obviously think they can write off fans like me, and can tap into a larger section of the fifth group to counterbalance that. That remains to be seen but it's obviously the goal.

    I think that what needs to be recognised is just how big a swing they are taking on it, because right now there's not much to base it on but faith. And I guess the one thing that the people cheerleading for it need to remember is, the more you push it, the riskier it gets. If you've already alienated one group who probably would have watched with different presentation, how many more can you risk on the idea that this are the tactics to bring invisible would-be fans out of the woodwork?

    It's not about me or my set - we're already gone, and won't be back without a huge shift in presentation. It's those other two groups in the middle that you risk losing. And if they do lose those groups and it turns out that there isn't some big new audience for this stuff to take their place, then this will be a huge missed opportunity. We can say it's great that there's another place to work and all that's true, but if that's all that comes out of the last couple of years and a billionaire starting a promotion all of this will ultimately be a bit of a waste.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  22. #222
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,325
    I don't think its a waste if someone tries and fails. The fact they got to this point is incredible to me. Yes the Elite needed a Billionaire to help them get on TNT but the fans that are in the building every week aren't going there to see Tony Khan. Its now of course a business that wants to be profitable and soon but like Darby Allin bought a house just recently and that doesn't happen without AEW existing at least at this very moment in time.

    I'm not saying that AEW will work long term but to even be on TV in 2019 and actually beat one of WWE's Brands in ratings week after week is impressive to me and if the company folds in 5 years, they still have that.

  23. #223
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    Well, it'd be a waste because it'd make it less likely that anyone else would try again. As we've seen, opportunities like this - where you get a wrestling company on major TV backed by a billionaire - just don't come along every decade. You've gotta make them stick.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  24. #224
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,325
    I guess but if AEW were to fail that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were wrong serving whichever group they are serving. It could just mean that the market cant support two wrestling promotions at the tv level longterm successfully. We don’t know what the potential viewer wants exactly that would make them tune in or if like you said earlier if the lapsed fan even cares at this point.

  25. #225
    Puerto Rican dude living in Japan Degenerate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Osaka, Japan
    Posts
    595
    I really dig the discussion happening here. I don't have much to add to it but please keep it going!

    I am enjoying Dynamite a lot, and it's pretty much the only wrestling show these days I make sure to take time to watch. Everything else I just fit in my schedule if I have a couple of spare minutes. This week's show was also pretty solid, and they began to give more time to promote storylines outside of straight up matches. It was a nice change of pace.

    One thing I haven't liked in the last few episodes has been how the shows end. They finish something and go off the air very quickly without giving us time to register what just happened. It feels very abrupt. Last week it was the time-limit draw between Mox and PAC. I kind of understand them going off the air so quickly because they "ran out of TV time". But this week after having the first ever tag team champions crowned, couldn't they have a nice celebration on TV? Hopefully they can time things out a bit better as time goes on.

    In any case, it's been only a month, and so far there's not a whole lot to complain about. I'm hopeful that they can continue to improve.

  26. #226
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,325
    The timing is an issue i feel and Tony or somebody has to take charge and tighten things up or put your angle type stuff that you don't have to rush at the end and put the matches that are important but need the time earlier in the show.

  27. #227
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by LK3185 View Post
    I guess but if AEW were to fail that doesn’t necessarily mean that they were wrong serving whichever group they are serving. It could just mean that the market cant support two wrestling promotions at the tv level longterm successfully. We don’t know what the potential viewer wants exactly that would make them tune in or if like you said earlier if the lapsed fan even cares at this point.
    Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. They're running against the received wisdom of a lot of the history of the wrestling business. For me, if you do that and fail and waste a chance like this, it's completely fair if people call you out for your hubris.

    Or, to put it another way, if you back yourself on a long shot with the stakes so high, you have to win, or you have to front up and take the criticism that'll follow.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  28. #228
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,584
    I think the counterpoint to that is that they have made it this far by going in the face of those who told them they could never get this far without changing their style/philosophy. Doesn't mean there isn't a limit to how far you can push things, but you can at least understand that mindset vs. looking at what worked farther back in history.

  29. #229
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    I think you can always understand young people - particularly guys with enough cockiness that they can do OK in the wrestling business - backing themselves until they're absolutely proven wrong. But understanding it doesn't really change the equation all that much, for my money.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  30. #230
    The Brain
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    3,584
    I think it shows at least a higher possibility to buck historical trends and still succeed. 3 years ago if someone suggested a promotion would be in the position AEW is now by doing what they've been doing, I don't think anyone would have believed it.

  31. #231
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by mizfan View Post
    I think the counterpoint to that is that they have made it this far by going in the face of those who told them they could never get this far without changing their style/philosophy. Doesn't mean there isn't a limit to how far you can push things, but you can at least understand that mindset vs. looking at what worked farther back in history.
    Use that same logic to WWE. They've made it this far, there must not be any reason for them to change and improve then, right?

  32. #232
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    It depends on how you define succeed, I guess. Personally, I expect them to 'succeed' if it just means to stay in business and entertain a minority audience.

    I think the trouble is there's plenty of difference in the things they've achieved and the things they are trying to achieve (or, at least what they should be trying to achieve if you believe they should be aiming at growing the wrestling audience), and while the former can be explained by changing circumstances (and there's lot of reasons for thinking that they have changed), that's not something you can say about the latter. Other than optimism, which is what I suppose thinking what you can buck a historical trend without the solid basis amounts to.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  33. #233
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    You can already define AEW as a success. In less than 1 calendar year, they went from an idea between friends, to getting a billionaire to back and fund them, to a promotion with PPVs to a real Wrestling Company, who signed some major talent (and my guess is that in 2020 some major players will jump ship), to having a weekly Wrestling Program in Prime Time. That is impressive.

    And what are we doing? We are;

    1. Debating their ratings, which are pretty solid considering they only have 3 "Household names of the US wrestling business" (Cody, Jericho, and Moxley) on their roster, and the casual fan probably did not know the rest of the talent.

    2. Debating which show/company is better, the WWE or AEW. This is probably the best judge of success. I remember when TNA came out, and it was no where near as an impact (pun intended) to the business. The only time TNA was relevant was when they brought in Hogan, changed the ring to 4 sides, and moved to Monday. The WWE stepped up and brought back Bret Hart to counter that, and TNA still failed. AEW so far is gaining ground and we are debating what we like more.

    So AEW is a success regardless of weather it is our individual cup of tea or not. They have a prime time TV spot against the WWE monster, and are winning each night, so far 4 for 4. In another year, we can then judge if AEW is a continued success. Again, I think that in 2020 when the wrestlers from WWE have their contracts expire, and if they jump to AEW, that will really determine if the company will last.
    Last edited by Powder; 11-04-2019 at 03:30 PM.

  34. #234
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    I'm sorry, but the minute they got backed by a billionaire then they moved on to a different playing field. Not only can you not call them a success yet, you won't be able to do it for years yet (unless there's a sizeable shift in the current wrestling landscape).

    For a few guys playing promoter, they were a success, but now they're being judged by big boy standards. Anyone who says we know that yet is kidding themselves.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  35. #235
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    How long does AEW need to be around to consider them a success?

    WCW was a success, and for a time the best wrestling company on the planet, then they folded spectacularly. But they were not that much of a success from 1988 - 1995, then they exploded in 1996-1998, then they folded in 2001. So does AEW need to be around 3 years? Because WCW was not doing well until the nWo. AEW is already having people talk about them, much more than WCW was in the early 90s.

  36. #236
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    It's not a question of how long, honestly. It's more complex than that - and you first of all have to work out what the conditions for success are, as I said above. And comparing it to WCW is completely pointless. Comparing it to other wrestling companies is probably pointless, but comparing them to one that existed a generation ago in a completely different landscape is beyond meaningless.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  37. #237
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    I am looking at it like this. As I already said. In less than a calendar year, they went from an idea between friends to a true company with a decent size roster with a weekly prime time show with a PPV schedule. Love them or hate them, that is a success. Now can they sustain that success, is the more pressing question, not if they are a success.

  38. #238
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    You're judging them by the the standards from when they started, and that's just a really low bar for people who are now backed by a billionaire. Like it or not, the game changed when that money came into the picture. I'm judging them by where they're at now, because frankly that's all that matters. People need to stop letting their feelings interfere with their judgement on this.

    For what's worth, I fully expect them to make it enough to stay in business. But as of right now there's no evidence that they can grow the business at all, never mind to replace the fans that their tactics are displacing, which is the bare minimum standard that I'll ultimately consider as a bar they have to get over to be called a success. And it's going to be a while before we have the answer to that question.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

  39. #239
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    2,815
    The XFL (original version) was backed by a billionaire and it failed almost immediately. They finished that first season, but it was already failing in less time than AEW's Dynamite has been on air. Terminator Dark Fate is already being called a flop in its opening weekend, despite having huge studio backing, bringing back Linda Hamilton, erasing movies 3-6, and James Cameron.

    Being backed by a billionaire does not put you somewhere else, it means that you have funding, that's it. AEW could have flopped hard in weeks 1-4 and then we would not be having this conversation, but being that they are succeeding, means that they are a success.

    Sustaining that success is the question; not are they a success as they have proven to already be one.

  40. #240
    Administrator Prime Time's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    4,813
    Only if you judge them by the lowest possible bar. I am not. There is more going on here than you seem to comprehend.

    Look, I get that people are optimistic about them and want to take their part - that's fine. But I'm not looking for any opportunity to praise them, or to knock them for that matter. I've said many times on Twitter that the falling ratings in the US are not really anything to worry about, as other posters who follow me can probably back up. I'll be the first to own it if they do make it beyond doubt. I probably still won't watch it myself unless it looks very different, but I'm not too proud to recognise things when they have been proven.

    But there's plenty of things going on that will factor in to whether or not what they are doing has worked more than just to attract a niche, it can't be judged by the lowest possible bar they have to clear, and I'm not going to be suckered into judging them by that standard just because of other people's optimism.

    That's all I've got to say unless we've got a genuine debate rather than people just reiterating their position.

    "The worst moron is the one too stupid to realise they're a moron."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •