Question: is the WWE product ‘stale’?

After the shenanigans in the comments about Smackdown’s title picture, I thought I’d take a closer look at the various WWE products at the moment and assess their varying degrees of entertainment or staleness. Of course, if you don’t agree, feel free to battle it out in the comments again…

1) RAW
The WWE’s flagship show, no matter how much they talk about ‘brand extension’ and Smackdown being just as important – we all know the truth. If you’re good and the powers-that-be like you, you’re likely to be on the Monday night live show; if you botch or there are no immediate plans for you, off to the recorded show with you (see: Sin Cara). It’s important to note that the best weeks of Raw now are the weeks when neither Triple H nor Kevin Nash are there – when the talent are allowed to work, we still get some terrific matches. Unfortunately, the wrestling too frequently takes a back seat to inexplicably elongated promos, in and out of the ring.

2) Smackdown
A Raw girl through loyalty to my beloved Punk, it has surprised me to note that Smackdown has been by far the superior show in the second half of 2011. Though the storylining may be equally pathetic, the focus is much more on the in-ring work (mostly because, of course, they can edit out the embarrassing pauses and cock-ups during the talking). Smackdown can be proud this year of the way Cody Rhodes has developed into a twitching, barking mad heel with genuine heat, rather than the prancing pretty boy of latter years; and of course Mark Henry’s establishment as a proper, intimidating monster.

3) Superstars
Whisper it, but more often than not at the moment Superstars is a better show minute for minute than either of the big leagues. Where else can you get to see Drew McIntyre and Tyson Kidd in action, for starters? Plus the fact that this was the show that aired one of the epic Daniel Bryan v William Regal encounters from the UK tour – any of which would have been a perfectly good choice as a Smackdown match, if not a main event. And of course it’s always nice to see Trent Barreta in his natural habitat.

4) NXT
Yes, this shit’s still going on. Now 7,394 weeks into the current series, we’re still no closer to knowing which rookie will be redeemed, and if Derrick Bateman’s Twitter is anything to go by, the talent have no idea how the show is supposed to operate either. Put it out of its misery, please.

5) FCW
OK, you have to use nefarious tactics to locate it from the UK, but it’s worth it. First of all, Regal is on commentary and occasionally used in the ring. Second of all, it is hilarious to laugh at The Ascension, whose vampire gimmick they keep claiming as “never before seen in WWE” (yeah, whatever). But third of all, the talent. THE TALENT. Antonio Cesaro. Dean Ambrose (whom I genuinely fear). Seth Rollins. These guys should be in the big time, but if they were they’d be used in rubbishy storylines and would never get to wrestle properly and they’d just end up jobbing to Randy bloody Orton, so maybe FCW is the best place for them.

Major problems with WWE products:
1) Michael Cole
It’s not so much that he’s irritating, although he is. It’s his ubiquity. Heel commentators are all very well, but the same heel commentator? On every single show? Saying the same thing? Too much.

2) The Divas division
I’ve been through this in detail before.

Now – over to you…


2 Responses to Question: is the WWE product ‘stale’?

  1. ValkyrieSmudge says:

    Lack of consistent angles outside of the main event picture has to be high on the list of problems. Predictability too. And they could use a hell of a lot more talent if they resurrected the tag team division.

    But yes, FCW is the best thing not on television

  2. Mike says:

    For me, it’s somewhat significant that I last watched RAW live in the epic weeks leading up to Money in the Bank. I’ve even missed it entirely on occasion. Smackdown, however, I watch religiously, and Superstars and FCW too get a lot of my time.

    I agree entirely about Michael Cole. He gets a lot of heat, sure, but it’s go-awayu-or-I’ll-switch-off-the-TV heat, rather than I-don’t-like-you-but-I-want-to-hear-more heat.

    And, as you say, when he’s on both the flagship shows, and dominates them through force of personality to the extent he does, it’s just unneccesary.

    Cut out the unnecessary crap, WWE. We don’t need to see commentator vs commentator feuds (or anything of them at all, for that matter). We don’t need to see extended backstage segments with legends or guests plugging movies for a cheap pop. We don’t need the ridiculously convoluted power struggles.

    What we would like to see is a nice blend of in-ring action, story and character development for as large a portion of the actual wrestling roster that can be accommodated. There’s a lot of very talented guys on the roster who don’t get the time they deserve because of the time wasted on filler and fluff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: