Skip to main content

Lesnar = Ratings

In case you didn't know...
http://bls.uieblender.com/iphone/article_kit/articleitem.jsp?itemid=12781909&modelid=346&activityid=24&snum=3&user=1

Of course I knew.  My Brock-sense went off the moment it was posted on the Observer site.  Now if only he had beaten Cena, who knows what the ratings could have been...

Comments

  1. Translation: Everyone turned the channel after the Funkasaurus match. 

    ReplyDelete
  2. I trust the gamble with having Brock lose. I really do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What gamble? A gamble infers a high risk, and a high reward? What's the potential reward in this case? What exactly do you think WWE was reaching for? The "gamble" in this case was not buying a lottery ticket, and trusting that you're still going to win.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I said this morning in the "Brock goes on a tirade thread" that:

    "Also this story conveniently fits with the rumors that Brock's a bit of a
    cunt anyway. So maybe this really was the deal, get him to job his
    first match to cover their bases and then put out a story about him
    whining like a bitch about it to really secure the idea that putting
    Cena over was the right thing to do. (I know, I'm giving them WAY too
    much credit but who knows, there isn't any kind of shitty logic I'd ever
    put past them)"

    And now the Observer is reporting:

    "It's been reported
    that Brock Lesnar's backstage tantrum is at least partially a work on
    the locker room so as to convince people that Cena winning was the right
    move. Lesnar was said to be upset about the finish, but the word is
    that "some, if not most" of the situation was not legitimate."In other words, they knew it was the wrong move from the get go.So...that's nice. Good work team.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's the thing.  Brock is a live-action monster movie.  He's God-fucking-zilla if Godzilla lacked any form of pigment.  How does a monster movie start?  With the monster smashing everything in sight.  He wrecks everyone's shit, people panic, and the hero has to regroup to find a weakness.  Meanwhile, the monster continues to smash/kill/destroy.  This usually leads to one or two confrontations where the hero fails, the hero's friends/love interest die, and the situation looks bleak.  Until SUDDENLY the hero has an epiphany, discovers some new information, or decides to just say fuck it and dive head long into a fight.  The hero prevails.  The monster doesn't return...until the sequel.

    This entire Brock situation is WWE using the first 5 minutes of that movie, where Brock go SMASH, but then skipping then next 60-70 minutes to get right to the last 10.  Godzilla doesn't lose in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, whine to the hero's boss, and then eat the hero's boss to fill out what's left of the movie.  Even in action movies where a villain sees an early set back like in Die Hard it's usually the villain's cronies and no the villain himself.  Would anyone have given a shit about Hans Gruber if he hadn't outsmarted everyone else until the last 5 minutes when McClain finally overcomes the odds?

    I'm sorry.  This is shitty storytelling and no one can convince me otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Big picture, Joe.

    Brock was embarrassed on Sunday. That's an embarrassing loss to him. Have you ever played organized sports, dude? Do you know what an embarrassing loss feels like? I do. It sucks, and if you're the competitive type, you want to rip the other guys' head off after losing.

    Brock takes that idea, and goes beyond 11 with it. That loss is going to send him in a (kayfabe) downward spiral that allows us to see angles like HHH having his arm "broke". It's good business if you make him out to be someone who was caught off guard, disrespected, and made to look a fool. An embarrassed and angry Brock Lesnar sells more tickets than an undefeated Brock.

    The most important thing to realize is this: Lesnar is getting Cena money for about 60 work days. Cena makes Lesnar money on a much more full-time basis, save for movies or kayfabe injury. You think that sends a good message to the boys that Lesnar makes Cena money working 60 days, AND goes over him?

    No. Asbolutely not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Love-Matic Grandpa!May 1, 2012 at 8:32 PM

    In other words, it's 2001 all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ?? The ratings have gone down since Brock came back. They did better numbers his first 2 weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Translation, HHH = ratings!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. If we really want to talk about the poor booking of Brock, we should be focusing on the overexposure, not the loss to Cena.

    I said this after his first full Raw, when they ran through a month's worth of stuff in 2 hours (the punch, his first promo, the attack on Cena to end the show). They did the entire Brock/Cena feud in 4 weeks for no reason whatsoever.

    Even if Brock went over, they would be right to the standard "WWE Rematch Zone" after a month.

    It reminds me of when they brought Rocky back in early 2002, knew they only had him for a few months, and tried to cycle him through Hogan, Austin & Goldberg (look at THAT lineup) in consecutive PPVs. Theyre going to rush Brock through everyone they can as soon as possible and then he's going to be gone.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In reference to the Invasion? Like...a blown angle?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Godzilla doesn't lose in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, whine to
    the hero's boss, and then eat the hero's boss to fill out what's left
    of the movie.


    * Family Guy cutaway to "Godzilla vs. Initech"

    ReplyDelete
  13. I keep hearing this "Everybody relax, you all don't see the big picture etc etc" 

    Nope.

    In this case they had a very clear storyline mapped out, great execution and then they either got cute (work, shoot, worked shoot, whatever) or this was a message:  "We decide.  Our guys go over, regardless of sense, logic, or dramatic impact." 

    So go ahead, rationalize it, bring up Cena's unimpeachable character, tell us that it makes perfect sense.  It doesn't.  They cut the legs out from under a great storyline.  Don't tell me that an embarrassed and angry Brock Lesnar sells tickets.  How much angrier/more destructive is he going to get?  He's already proved he can't back it up, so his mystique is gone, and he's an ugly crybaby.  

    Jakers, did people forget how to write a decent storyline without worked shoots?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think he means the shock of Brock losing is akin to the shock of seeing buildings toppled.

    Or maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Love-Matic Grandpa!May 1, 2012 at 8:54 PM

    "You think that sends a good message to the boys that Lesnar makes Cena money working 60 days, AND goes over him?"

    Sounds a lot like the rationale for not bringing in the top WCW guys when it counted and never booking the organization to be an actual threat during the Invasion (at least, not without key WWF talent in place). 

    Honestly, if "the boys" don't like it, where else are they going to go? I asked that in 2001, and it's even more relevant today.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You have to really have something special going for me to root against Cena. (Sorry, I'm a fan, some things can't be helped)

    They had it.

    They won't get it again.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is a much different time than 2001, where idiots like Bradshaw and The Undertaker were the ones causing the big crybaby scenes over "their spot".

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's the crappy thing about this 16 ppvs a year (or whatever), accelerated feuding stuff -- ideally they'd do the slow burn on everything these days, given that they have little viable competition or territories to draw from. 

    In the 1980s the WWF handpicked top notch, seasoned talent from around the country, in the 1990s the WWF and WCW often did a lot of the work for each other -- one of them got a guy over and the other could sign them up and reap the rewards from that. 

    Now they have to take up some of the responsibilities of their non-existent competition AND be the developmental league for grooming future stars, but the genie is out of the bottle so to speak in regards to monthly PPVs and fast-paced TV, so we end up with these ridiculously accelerated feuds and endless rematches month after month.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So they lose YOUR money. BIG DEAL.

    When they lose everyone else's, I'll see your cynical side. Until then, I'll stay away from such negativity.

    ReplyDelete
  20. No. Not even close. Know anybody who died on 9-11-01? No? Don't make jokes about it, insensitive prick.

    ReplyDelete
  21. That is why HHH interjected himself in this feud.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 1. Just saying "big picture" doesn't automatically mean your response is actually addressing the big picture.

    2. Concern for the message it sends the boys is as far from big picture as it gets (See: No. 1).

    3. "An embarrassed and angry Brock Lesnar sells more tickets than an undefeated Brock." You casually dropped this premise as though it were an objective fact, when in fact it's exactly what everyone's been arguing about since Sunday. Needless to say, I completely disagree with you. Maybe Sportz Entertainment supports your too cute by half-booking, but 100 years of How To Draw Money at Professional Wrestling 101 completely disagrees.

    4. You never actually answered my question about what WWE's endgame was for this "gamble".

    ReplyDelete
  23. I bet the overrun spiked because the world found out that the Trials and Tribulations of John Cena has moved to facing a retired wrestler that a large majority of casual fans do not know. 

    But hey, WrestleMania is going to be huge!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes, actually. But so does everyone, right?

    I'll admit it was a bad joke, but I'll also admit I'll continue making jokes about it if I feel like it and you can fuck yourself.

    Smiley face.

    ReplyDelete
  25. SIde note about monster movies: Wouldn't Lesnar make a good Bane?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Fuck Lesnar you know what equals ratings? These BlackOps commercials during the Laker game. 

    ReplyDelete
  27. I guess I don't understand how guy who talks a lot of shit and backs it up by losing in his first match is supposed to sell tickets. 

    ReplyDelete
  28.  They had a 3.4 on the show he returned, but that's mainly thanks to the post-WM show.  After that, I think it was 3.1, 3.0, then the normal 2 hours last week got a 3.4... so they've been better, but this week's would've been a lot worse without people tuning in off the PPV... so I would not predict a similar or better rating next week.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The reality: People tuned in to see Lesnar.

    WWE's Warped Sense of reality: People turned the channel because Daniel Bryan was in the main.

    ReplyDelete
  30.  Maybe, but the voice is totally Killer Croc.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Based on declining ppv's ('cept Mania, thanks Rock) and declining stock and declining ratings; I'd say they're losing others as well.  But hey, I'm glad you don't run my company where you tell costumer's that their money is no big deal.  That's some awesome costumer service there.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Let's just think big picture.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The guy wants to use this as a forum for a product he obviously has no respect for?

    Take your money elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  34. How did this get 3 Likes? Half of it doesn't even make sense, sounds like drunken rambling.

    The gamble was the Lesnar loss. The endgame is Brock coming back from this and probably winning the WWE Championship.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Artist_Formerly_Known_as_KtuluMay 2, 2012 at 3:53 AM

    I take offense to that post. I'm an angry, sweating, zit-faced 20 year old single guy.

    ReplyDelete
  36. this is ridiculous. Raw's rating have been pretty steady for weeks.

    and let's face it: if THE ROCK can't boost the rating that much, I really doubt Lesnar can.

    ReplyDelete
  37. That's their problem, instead of letting a feud build, it has to be for the next PPV. Hence the reason why they did so much for the build of Cena/Lesnar in 3-4 weeks. I assume their gonna actually Brock's current feud with HHH, but I'm so jaded with the product that I think they're gonna fumble it someway. 

    ReplyDelete
  38. You get a like for the Die Hard reference. 

    ReplyDelete
  39. It's not storytelling.  It's REAL!  It's LEGITIMATE!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Oh man, did you step in it with the condescension. Condescension was practically my major. Not only have I taken a college course, I've taken enough to earn a BA in both Philosophy and Political Science, and a Juris Doctor. So interpreting the meaning of language, and crafting coherent, logical arguments is my field of expertise. Hence the now 4 Likes. I'm sorry you weren't able to make sense of it. What's your Master's in, Horticulture? No, but it's cool, you had no way of kno--oh, who am I kidding? Go fuck yourself.

    Oh, and making speculative, personal attacks, as you've done here, is a classic, transparent move when one can't defend their argument. I hope you've now been edified about its potential drawbacks. You could always pick a fight with the wrong person, and embarrass yourself. Sometimes it's better to just give up.

    ReplyDelete
  41. To be honest, me either but Ill reserve judgement before i lambast the product... this time.

    I was vehemently against Rock/Cena and it delivered ( as expected) Im against jobbing Brock so quickly but i can see vince going wwe >ufc... i can understand it. i dont like it, but i understand it.

    what i have been shocked about is the fact that people here are buying consecutive ppvs, so it shows that the matchups arent the problem. the matchups are being presented great, its the execution and more specifically the outcomes which people are up in arms about. bryan being red hot and losing in 18 sec, brock jobbing so quick. punk/jericho not having chemistry. to all that i say meh... we arent gonna gett the outcomes we want every single time yall. big picture speaking in vinces head is that brock left the wwe in a bad way and now with a lot of money on the table he has come back to put over hhh, so hhh can tell the world he beat the former ufc champ. face facts, this the vehicle to dent the cred of the ufc. nothing more or less.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The sentence actually didn't make sense. Calm down.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Meh, who cares about Brock Lesnar, HHH or John Cena?

    We're getting CM Punk vs. Daniel Bryan!

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm really enjoying their latest PPV technique. The 'big name' main event backed up by their best wrestlers in the other main event. Two types of matches to satisfy two types of audience.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Quite frankly it makes me so angry my zits would explode (if it wasn't for my excellent body cooling system.)

    ReplyDelete
  46. I actually don't blame them for this.  They just came off of a super slow, year long build for Rock/Cena.  I think they really needed to do something accelerated and big right off the bat.  Rock/Cena spent months just talking and not making physical contact.  One of the alluring things about Cena/Brock was that Cena wasn't messing around.  He got punked out and responded with a slap to the face.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Look, I understand what you're saying; but differing opinions than yours don't fall into "deranged" or "pathetic", they're just different and I would venture, based on the WWE's track record over the last 10 years (more misses than hits), that the anger stems from prior disappointments and folks are entitled to feel that way with you insulting them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Sometimes I'm convinced every dude on this site is an angry, sweating, zit-faced 19-year-old single guy.

    This may be the funniest fucking thing I've ever read on this site.  Why don't you puff out your chest some more? 

    I think you'd be very surprised at the level of education, intelligence and professional success of folks that post on this board...but hey, we can't all have master degrees as you, some of us are just finance directors of million dollar companies.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well, the latest news is that Brock/HHH is going to be at Summerslam, and then Brock will wrestle on the rest of the 'Big 4' until his contract runs out. So the people bitching that this was moving too fast will get their wish. My prediction? They will commence bitching that 'nothing is happening' and complain that Brock is not appearing on Bragging Rights or TLC.

    People *think* they want long, drawn out feuds where you can summarize a month's action in 1 sentence like back in the 80s. Fans today (us included) aren't conditioned for that. There's a reason The Wire only became a hit once the series was over and people could watch it on DVD.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I'm not the most educated fan of ROH, I mostly followed it through 411 recaps/columns from 2005-2009ish and video clips. But it seemed to me that Morishima was their Brock Lesnar. He came in, kicked everyone's ass and won the title (I think the match with Homicide was essentially a squash but that's just what I heard). I know he and D-Bry had some classic matches and I think Morishima always won (when he was champ). Then, after months of a dominant reign Nigel was the one who won the belt. Then Bryan got to beat Morishima after that. Again, I could be wrong about this, but I thought this angle was well-received overall.

    So why weren't people bitching that Samoa Joe had beat him (I assume clean cause it's ROH) right off the bat before he beat Homicide. Where were the people calling it "piss-poor storytelling" and "idiotic booking". To be fair I'm basing this on 411 columns and the feedback from that, so feel free to tell me I'm wrong and people *were* bitching and discounting Morishima's title reign as it was happening.

    ReplyDelete
  51. That's true. Even before that ROH angle, when the true ECW was around, Rhyno was getting thrown around by Taz when he came in. Then Rhyno got a push and went on a killing spree and destroyed pretty much everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  52.  I think at least part of the reason was, Joe was on his farewell tour from the company at the time, so it was treated more as a one-off and not part of a bigger story. Morishima also wasn't promoted in the same relative position as Lesnar - he was more or less a promising newcomer until he won the belt, which was treated as an upset more than a coronation.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm not going to explain subjects, verbs, objects, and adjectives to you. You should've learned them in second grade. If don't understand sentence structure by now, I can't help you.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Well maybe sports entertainment supports your too cute by half booking

    ReplyDelete
  55. I agree with you on the problem, but the WWF has demonstrated that it could handle the "show load" (if you will) before. From 1998-2001 you had twelve three hour PPVS each year and they managed longer burns than what we have now. We have 14 PPVs now, but a lot of those are so gimmicked out the whazoo they don't really leave any room for storyline matches.

    To me, Lesnar/Cena was a bit too much like Flair/Hogan. Instead of building a feud, WCW just went "Flair's heel now MONEY MAAAAAATTTCCCHHH!!!"

    I feel like Lesnar coming it should have been handled like the class "bad guy from out of territory comes in for limited tour" storylines of yesteryear:

    1. Lesnar shows up, gets paired up with upper mid-carder/lower main-eventer, wins. People buy the first PPV to see Lesnar back in action.

    2. Lesnar attacks Cena, so we get people to buy PPV #2 because it's the first "big match" for Lesnar. Either/or wins, but it's in non-decisive fashion (DQ, interference, etc.).

    3. People buy PPV #3 for the promise of a real blowoff. Now we've got a No DQ or cage or heck in the shed match, and someone wins in decisive fashion while keeping Lesnar strong (Lesnar destroys Cena or Cena outsmarts Lesnar after taking a beating).

    4. Lesnar moves on to challenge for the title, giving people a reason to buy PPV #4.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment