How big of a problem is it that Mania has become Legends Day?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Dolph'sZiggler, Mar 22, 2013.

  1. Remember when Wrestlemania was the day that legends were created? Now it is the day that Legends return to hold down the main roster.

    I'm not here to shit on Taker, HHH, Rocky, Brocky, or any of the legends. They are awesome and I want to see them perform.

    So D'Z, what's the problem? You like the legends, I like the legends, we all like the legends! But how long can WWE sustain this? How long until the neglect they've shown towards building new stars catches up to them? They only have another Mania or two, three at the most, to dust of Taker's old ass. And once he's gone what do they have to show for it? We all assume Cena beats the streak, so then what? WWE has invested the last 5 years of hyping the streak to give a rub to... Cena :neymar2:

    Rock/Cena- nobody on the roster benefited

    HHH/Brock- nobody on the roster benefits

    So as fans we are basically being told that nobody else on the roster matters. because this is Mania season, the time that new stars used to be born, but instead of birthing new stars now we just get the old ones dusted off.

    This line of thinking can only last for so long. Will WWE finally pull their heads out of their ass and realize they need OLD STAR vs NEW WRESTLER INTERACTION or we will be looking at a future with no real options to carry a brand?

    We are on a fast track to 1995 all over again. I only hope the WWE's popularity falls as far as it did back then, because something has to give.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. You're right, it's better other kind of matches, now to be at WM you have to be a legend, I'd give an opportunity for a title to Justin Gabriel at WM
     
  3. Simple mathematics. Legends = buys which brings in lots of money. It seems that's the main focus for WWE. Make money to appease the board and the stock holders. When they're all too old to wrestle, then I don't know what Vince/HHH are going to do.
     
  4. I feel your pain bud, this is fucking obnoxious. Wish the wrestling business and the fans could just move on, really can't enjoy a match with two guys who we won't see again for months and obviously won't help the actual roster.

    I guess you could say that putting Taker in a match with Punk helps Punk, having Cena go over Rock doesn't help him though. It'll just push him further and the fans will hate him more. But based on last fall's ratings Punk and Cena as main eventers aren't drawing anyway (although there's plenty of other factors to that, such as the show being shit)

    Otherwise the only guy who's getting anything from this PPV is Ryback going over Mark Henry, but will that be followed up on? Orton could benefit by turning heel, that's about it.

    Just said in another thread, blame WWE being a publically traded company, Vince having to answer to the board of directors and stockholders who don't care about wrestling and just want a quick buck.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I agree, but how long can they continue doing this? They can only shit on the long term for so long to make quick bucks before their bullshit catches up to them.
     
    • Like Like x 1

  6. Not sure why I'm quoting your post as I just have another tidbit to add, but this legends shit is also giving WWE an excuse to have TERRIBLE fucking build, which is all the more depressing.

    They mail it in, give us matches we don't really want to see and say "But you'll buy it anyway, won't you ya little cocksucker!" and they will be right. Not me directly, but 1 million + moronic motherfuckers will buy their shittily built Legends only PPV.

    :facepalm1:
     
  7. Indeed. I say they have maybe 5 more years tops of this formula. Hopefully within that time they can let guys like Ambrose and Ohno move into main event spots and beat the older guys.
     
  8. Imagine how starved for star power the main roster will be by then.. far removed from the days of Edge, Mysterio, HBK ect and even guys like Big Show, Henry, Christian and Jericho are gone by that time.. we will have a bunch of "main eventers" with nothing to have made them worthy of that spot besides WWE putting them there. It will be an entire main roster of ass clowns that every fan knows beyond a shadow of a doubt isn't as good as the previous generation. And we won't have to even wonder about it, because WWE is proving to us that this generation must fucking suck if they can't create new stars from it, or even worse are afraid to fucking try.
     
  9. I don't think for one second Cena beats Undertaker for the streak.

    I think next year will follow the same formula (Rock/Brock, Taker/Cena, maybe Punk/HHH), but I think the nostalgia and aura will wear off by then and they'll put them up against the younger members of the roster. Ambrose/Rock, Ohno/Cena -- something like that. I don't think WWE is as stupid as we all think and if we know this is a problem, so do they.
     
  10. As always though, wrestling is cyclical. Early eighties: shit/Late eighties: great, Early nineties: so so/late nineties: fantastic and so on. We'll be in the shit for a while, but inevitably the business will reinvent itself again. Then new, fresh stars will come up and take over.
     
  11. They know it is an issue, but the question is how much of an issue do they think it is compared to the bottom line they are making with the huge buy rates?

    If they view it as a more minuscule problem than we do than it could easily continue down the same problematic path while WWE views it as a minor problem because they are still stacking cash.

    You do agree then that this is a problem? And that if WWE doesn't correct it it will have massive ramifications on the company?
     
  12. That's the hope. The landscape of WWE has changed so much though, if there was a time where the cycle will be broken it is in this current era.
     
  13. The buy rates will inevitably drop after the aura goes. No one is going to be as pumped for a Rock match as they were with Rock/Cena part 1, and the same goes for Brock. The part time euphoria goes eventually and they just become the top dogs to beat, and then build becomes important instead of purchasing the PPV for names.

    I completely agree that this is a problem, and I disagree with their ideology of these mega dream matches. One dream match on the card is fine (Rock/Cena needed to happen), but have someone get a huge rub at each Mania' imo.

    If they do ignore this, but I doubt they will, they will be in trouble. You will be left with a retired Undertaker, a borderline retired HHH who no one cares too much about anyway, part-timers who have no aura around them anymore or no longer want to compete, a beaten and tired John Cena close to retiring, and no new stars to show for it. How do you build Ambrose into a mega-star then, Orton? :haha:
     
  14. They clearly just don't have a plan. Whether or not they are generally retarded or they were just sitting around masturbating because "omg the Rock is coming, buyrates galore!"

    It's sad, because we all made logical, awesome Wrestlemania cards in 5 minutes. Why can't they get one done in 2 months?

    I'm just peeved because of what happened in 2010. WWE was in a bad spot because Batista, Undertaker, and Jeff Hardy just left and they didn't build up anyone new, so they panicked and gave the belts to Jack Swagger and Sheamus thinking that would work :haha: Since then Edge and Triple H have gone, as has an Orton that actually drew...

    How many of them have been adequately replaced? Maybe Orton with Punk... And when will it happen?
     
  15. I usually don't complain about the part timers because I mark for them like most and I understand their place from a business point of view, but I understand a lot of people's frustration when it comes to this. It hasn't really got out of hand just yet, but with Rock signed on for next year and the rumors of Rock/Brock (possibly for the WWE Title), Brock winning the title again, Austin wanting to come back for one more match, Triple H still hanging around, Undertaker always having to defend his streak, etc, you have to wonder when it's too much and actually makes the current product look weak by putting so much emphasis on guys who first became stars ten or fifteen years ago or even longer. (And for the record, I'd mark for a Brock title win, but the point is still the same.)

    Has there been any other era in WWF/E history that has relied on past stars to sell the show as much as the current one? Even the one guy they rely on the most who isn't a part timer has been the top star of the company for the past eight years.

    I don't mind Rock/Cena since it makes sense and is a huge money match up to put Cena over a legend. Undertaker/Punk also makes sense (or does it, because the way they're booking this, it's a mess, and it isn't really gonna put Punk over.) But HHH and Brock could be used to put over other stars. Lesnar could be used in a traditional big man match to help establish Ryback as a monster, and Triple H could perhaps team with the New Age Outlaws to reform DX to go after The Shield and put them over (put over of course doesn't HAVE to mean lose, but in these two cases, it would make sense.)
     
  16. Meaningful feuds against guys like Sheamus and Show with him going over strong. Then culminating into a feud with Cena; wherein he loses at first, but finally gets his win at WM for the most impact.
     
  17. WWE do actually know how to make stars though. I know people will say "Who will replace Cena?", and that's a million dollar question, but they do know how to make stars imo. Punk was a midcarder who had no momentum and has a horrible look for a main eventer in WWE, and they managed to turn him into a big draw. They have the talent on their roster believe it or not, and they do have some monkey in the back who does know how to build some decent storylines (Nexus, Summer of Punk etc), but Vince likes to ruin them after a while.

    The point is, it's not all doom and gloom imo. I'm as mad as the rest of you about the legends getting the top spot and have ranted about it on here numerous times, but it's business, and it's understandable in that sense.
     
  18. Its a shame the fact that the shield victory will be overshadowed by orton's heel turn
     
  19. In my hypothetical scenario Cena had gone, and going over Sheamus and Big Show does not turn him into a mega-star. The only opponent who would is Cena. Ambrose going over Cena would be huge, but anyone going over Cena would be huge because WWE have built him as a huge star, but no one else around him is one anymore. Without Rock, Brock, Cena, Taker or HHH, who would Ambrose go over to take their place?
     
  20. My point is he can't go for Cena straight away. They need to build the new generation of main eventers properly to avoid another Sheamus/Ryback scenario. Having an Ambrose/Ohno beat Sheamus/Show etc builds credibility in their respective characters. Gives them an aura that they can beat anyone.