Story lines then vs. story lines now (discussion)

[UMhester04]

So I was reading this article on Bleacher Report on why part-timers sell tickets and some things popped into my head. I figured we could all have a discussion on this.


1. What made the story lines back in the Attitude Era and Ruthless Aggression Era (or even earlier) so much better than the ones today?

2. WWE never had to go with "part-timers" back in the day because they developed their full timers into stars. Do you all think this was because of great booking?, the overall abilities of the people working then vs. now?, something else?

3. Do you think all these part timers will end up hurting WWE? What happens when WWE can no longer rely on them to put on great matches? To me it seems like the company is burying the talent they have now for the part timers, (which I honestly have no problem with the part timers btw...I am entertained by all of them and that is all that maters to me) but I understand that they won't be here forever. Once these guys are gone, how is WWE supposed to sell us these superstars that the company itself is not confident in? Now when we don't get part-timers, it's just like we have to "settle with the guys we have now" (at least in my head). It really is an interesting dynamic because without the part timers there is less money to be made, but in the long run it seems like WWE is hurting itself.


Opinions?

[bigbob]

Re: Story lines then vs. story lines now (discussion)

1. Probably because they seemed fresh at the time. For example, everyone that watched the Attitude Era knew where the Bryan vs Authority was going to go because we technically seen it already.

2. Simple, IMO. Competition.

3. Right now, other than PPV buys for some big PPVs, what have the part-timers really done? The Rock? Brock Lesnar? Chris Jericho? Right now, they aren't really affecting anything IMO.

[Hooe]

Re: Story lines then vs. story lines now (discussion)

Who have the part-timers "buried"? The Rock most recently lost to John Cena, Brock Lesnar lost to CM Punk at SummerSlam, and Chris Jericho's most recent match in WWE was a loss to then-Intercontinental Champion Curtis Axel.

Young guys aren't being buried like what was happening at the end of WCW. I actually think the WWE has gone far out of its way to bring new faces into the scene, be it CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Big E Langston, the Wyatt Family, Curtis Axel, and whoever else.

[st0rmb11]

Re: Story lines then vs. story lines now (discussion)

I don't see where the part timers could be considered as "burying" guys. I do think The Rock vs John Cena 2 could have happened without The Rock winning the title, so there was really no need to put it on him.

But Jericho and RVD came back and put guys over left and right.

[SmashMan]

Re: Story lines then vs. story lines now (discussion)

Brock Lesnar lost to CM Punk at SummerSlam

This didn't happen. Doesn't take away from your overall point, just clarifying.

[HuntTaker14]

Re: Story lines then vs. story lines now (discussion)

I don't see where the part timers could be considered as "burying" guys. I do think The Rock vs John Cena 2 could have happened without The Rock winning the title, so there was really no need to put it on him.

But Jericho and RVD came back and put guys over left and right.

I don't believe he meant "buried" as in winning every match, but I think he means it in a sense of the Part-timers take all the Main Event spots. Just look at the last 2 WMs (28-Cena v Rock, HHH v Taker, 29-Cena v Rock 2, Lesnar v HHH and Taker v Punk). How can the WWE get people to care about guys such as Ziggler, Rhoades, and co. when they are pushed down the card each year at Wrestlemania.

[stlstudios189]

Re: Story lines then vs. story lines now (discussion)

There was just more body to the storylines. Now it's just random things tied together. Here you two are a tag team now etc...

Make the matches mean something again.

[Majingir]

Re: Story lines then vs. story lines now (discussion)

1.What made them better? The fact that they actually existed is the first key to them. The storylines really felt like people spent time and effort working on it(compared to today where there aren't even any stories,just good guys vs bad guys competing in meaningless matches). The storylines had hooks and cliffhangers each week(I remember every week Raw use to end on cliffhangers, so the end of the episode gave you that "I can't wait until next week, I want to se what happens next" type of feel). And storylines had superstars with characters/gimmicks in it, not just people playing their real life self just with a different name.


2.Big reason they never had part timers back then is cause of WCW and stuff. If a superstar didn't like one company, he knew there was another company willing to pay around the same amount of money for chance at bigger oppertunity. Another reason is cause WWE today puts so much emphasis on like 1-2 people(1 of them is always named Cena) that the rest of the roster looks useless next to him. I don't think the problem is with superstars themselves, superstars of today are extremely talented, maybe even the best depth in terms of in ring ability WWE has ever had.

3.When the part timers are done, WWE wll just have new part timers(just wait until the days that CM Punk and Randy Orton become part timers in WWE......).


WWE seems to have a mentality of not wanting to recognize their past that much, but they do nothing to make people confident about the present or future. WWE needs good/lengthy storylines, they need characters/gimmicks, they need meaningful matches, they need stables!

[UMhester04]

Re: Story lines then vs. story lines now (discussion)

I don't believe he meant "buried" as in winning every match, but I think he means it in a sense of the Part-timers take all the Main Event spots. Just look at the last 2 WMs (28-Cena v Rock, HHH v Taker, 29-Cena v Rock 2, Lesnar v HHH and Taker v Punk). How can the WWE get people to care about guys such as Ziggler, Rhoades, and co. when they are pushed down the card each year at Wrestlemania.

Yes this is exactly what I meant.