The Steel Cage

Gotta hear the Stephanie McMahon story now. You can't tease us and not deliver. This isn't the debut of Glacier!

Seth - were you mainly on the Raw creative team, or did you work with the Smackdown side as well during this period? I always wondered what the plan was for Rey Mysterio when they brought him in and if they expected him to be such a big player considering that he wasn't ever viewed as more than a cruiserweight in WCW. Also - one thing that I would love to hear about was what was the backstage reaction to the Goldberg/Lesnar match at Wrestlemania XX if you were around at that point.

I was actually at the house show in Binghamton you just mentioned (I believe the main event was Edge vs. Kurt Angle, and Rey Mysterio wrestled before his official debut). I remember coming home after the show and turning on the end of RAW, and Paul Heyman in a backstage segment said something like, "Well they say anything can happen in the WWE, ERIC BISCHOFF has joined Raw!" I flipped out.

You mentioned that the backstage segment with Booker T killed some suspense, which I guess is true, but I liked it simply because Booker's reaction to seeing him was just priceless. That's how we all felt I'm sure.

Just in case anyone cannot figure out WHY they would have Eric Bischoff physically appear on RAW before his introduction, the answer is so the viewers could make a buzzcall to their friends (i.e. the ones that might not be watching) during that commercial break, and RAW would achieve its highest possible rating for Bischoff's introduction.

I agree with Aaron, though, I thought Booker's reaction was priceless.

"So yes, it seems the whole thing was a very well-guarded secret -- one that they still managed to screw up on television, first by revealing him in a backstage segment with Booker T minutes before his actual introduction (ruining the shock value a bit), and then by having him HUG Vince McMahon 10 seconds after his debut (effectively ruining what could have been a huge money storyline)."

Unless you are talking about a one-time-only McMahon-Bischoff match, I disagree. Invasion 2 less than a year after they already did that angle, plus more than a year after the real WCW died would have been......no, just no.

Plus, kayfabe-wise, wouldn't you just refuse to let Bischoff in the building every week if he was trying to invade the show? And couldn't Vince just fire anyone who turned on WWE to go with Bischoff? At least with the NWO in WCW, Bischoff was in charge of both groups, which is why the NWO was allowed to Nitro despite "not working for WCW", and during the Invasion, Shane and Stephanie still owned 50% of the WWF, so they had a right to show up to WWF events with their own wrestlers.

WWE have a horrible habit of ruining surprises on RAW. The Eric Bischoff one was inexcusable.

The other major one that I can think of off the top of my head was when Matt Hardy made his big surprise return after the Edge/Lita fiasco. They did some sort of backstage segment with him laying a guy out (or something like that). Huge mistake.

Recently, they did the same thing with Jericho, when he clotheslined the marathon runner backstage before making his return in front of the live crowd.

I understand why WWE believes this is a good idea......they think that this way, people will see the "teaser" moment, call their friends and more people will tune in, popping the rating for that segment.

But his leads to one of the main problems with wrestling today. The lack of true surprises. For example, when Orton makes his return from his current injury, he SHOULD show up, unannounced, and interfere in a match or make an impact in some way. Pop the crowd, give the viewers something spontaneous. But instead, they'll promo it for weeks, he'll come out for a lame interview and then probably get pedigreed his first day back.

In the quest for next week's ratings, WWE has sacrificed surprises and spontaneity.

I remember Booker's face, and it was pretty f'n priceless indeed. However, I feel they should have not shown that teaser, or the jericho one (even though everyone already knew it was him). I think it's incredibly stupid to have major players that are returning form injuries come back with vignettes with weeks anticipation, like last summerslam were both HHH and Rey Mysterio came back the same day, and both won their mediocre matches easily, which sorta killed the feeling behind the big return and buried both chavo and booker.

The only sucessful return in recent memory that I can remember is John Cena returning at the Rumble. I had my money on an Undertaker back to back win, as rumors of the Edge-Taker match were already in place and WWE has failed to come up with an interesting story behind Takers WM matches other than oh my god the streak ends tonight or title vs streak. When Taker was eliminiated, and HHH hadnt shown up yet, I thought he was coming out number 30 and winning.

Thats until he came out at number 29... which led me to believe something big was coming for number 30. But I was as surprised as everyone when Cena came out, and despite not being a Cena fan Ive come to respect the guy for his working ethic and his desire to improve, and right then and there I thought thats how people are suppoused to return from an injury.

WWE focuses on getting ratings for the segment when someone returns, instead of getting buzz from a surprise return and bigger ratings next week

What is the reasoning why Macho Man Randy Savage has yet to return in any capacity to the WWE? Hogan, Piper, Flair, and Bret have all made coveted returns in SOME capacity...but not Randy. What are you feelings on this subject? Would LOVE to hear it covered in "The Steel Cage".

". . . during the Invasion, Shane and Stephanie still owned 50% of the WWF, so they had a right to show up to WWF events with their own wrestlers."

No, they didn't. Just before the Invasion PPV in July, Shane and Stephanie said (and I am well aware it was just a storyline) that they had sold their WWF stock.

"No, they didn't. Just before the Invasion PPV in July, Shane and Stephanie said (and I am well aware it was just a storyline) that they had sold their WWF stock."

Okay, then my bad. When Ric Flair showed up in November 2001 and said he purchased that 50%, it seemed like it was a recent thing, as if Shane and Steph had just sold it to him.

I'd say having Eric and Vince hug was definitely a bad move, up there with the Goldust-Goldberg skit in terms of disappointing first appearances.

The conventional wisdom is that WCW guys were/are buried purposefully when they go to WWE, because WWE isn't responsible for their success in the first place. I don't know if it's true, but stuff like this makes it seem like the only explanation.

Here's the YouTube link to Booker's reaction that I was talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEan8b3PPX4

I don't think it ruined a potential feud at all. Of course it ruined any chance of it happening straight away, but it could still have happened down the line.

All you need is for Vince to say that he put his trust in Bischoff, and put their differences behind him, but Bischoff is failing. Hell, they basically did that when they brought Ausitn back. If they wanted to develop a Eric/Vince feud they easily could of.

It's like saying they killed off any chance of a HHH/Batista feud by using Batista in Evolution.

Just wondering....

wweisright, has the WWE ever done anything incorrectly in your eyes, or are you such an apologist for them that you can take something as blown up as this, which was done incredibly wrong, and turn it into a "positive?"

please scott don't waste your time with wweisright. He is obviously doing some lame gimmick where he kisses WWE's ass on every topic. Just let him be and hopefully he will go away.

Incorrect is such a subjective term. I'm not entertained by every single thing they do, but there's reasons they do what they do, and I can understand them. Not everyone is going to like everything. Everyone just seems to say something 'sucks' or whatever because it's not what they would have done, because it wouldn't of/didn't please them, however the WWE isn't trying to please any one person in particular, it's trying to make a boat load of money, which they do. So therefore whatever may not have appealed to some people, has appealed to enough others to have them post record revenue each year.

For instance, I would have LOVED to have been surprised that Eric Bischoff just turned up out of the blue. Does it mean they done it wrong because I didn't like it? Do you think they didn't think about doing it as a surprise? That it didn't flash past anyone's mind in the company for even a second? Of course it did. It was considered, and they decided to go another way, for reasons you wouldn't know unless you were there. Perhaps it was because they wanted people to call their friends and tell them to get infront of a TV set. Perhaps it was because they didn't want anyone to flip over during commercial and miss the moment by settling on another program?

Of course they are looking for ratings, and if it means substituting surprise for them then they are going to do it. I would have loved the surprise, but I'm not going to act like I know how to produce a better television program than Vince McMahon just because I would have done something different.

Everything has a purpose. Everything on TV that you see is done for a reason. Most of the alternate options that other people will have done will have been considered and discarded because it isn't how they want to play it. If something is terribly wrong and offends enough people, they'll nix it and go back to what they know works. I mean Katie Vick was 'wrong', 'incorrect', so they nixed it. Some of the stuff that people moan about on a week to week basis clearly must be working for a large enough group of people, otherwise they wouldn't still be doing it.

If you had the minute by minute ratings for that part of the broadcast, and it showed consistency or increase from the time Bischoff was on screen to the time he appeared, then it was a success - there's the positive right there.

What people who look at the company from afar don't seem to realise is that there is pretty much a positive and a negative to be taken from anything they ever do. The people that don't like something will always go for the negative straight away, and won't even consider the positive - and there pretty much always will be a positive to be found somewhere - otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. That's fair enough. But to act like it was absolutely, definately wrong. They are hardly going to purposely and consistently litter their product with loads of ideas that are going to turn their core audience off of their product are they?

If I tried hard enough I'm sure I could find enough people that thought Austin becomming the face of the company and instigating the whole 'attitude era' was totally and utterly wrong. We could discuss the negatives of it all day and pat ourselves on the back, acting like 'we' know right and everyone else was wrong, but the fact is enough people liked the attitude era, otherwise they wouldn't have went with it. I could make a failure out of anything if I wanted, even the most seemingly universally loved aspect of the business, and find a group of people that also agree. That group of people is only going to be a small part of of their audience though, because enough people like what they do to tune in every week and have them break their profit records year on year. And that's truly all that matters to the company.

I mean there were people moaning that Batista only walked up to HBK and had a conversation with him at Judgement Day - I heard it refered to as moronic booking. Something as small as THAT gets turned into a negative. Every single thing the company does, I guarentee there will be people that didn't like it. So who is right? In everyone's mind, they will always be right, and that's fair enough. They aren't trying to appeal to everyone though, because that's impossible. They are trying to appeal to the largest audience possible, and that can never be everyone, because someone will always not like something.

Me? I like some things, I'm not too fond of others. Did I care for Mr Kennedy being rather far down the card for a fair few months? No. Did I like it when he lost to Flair? No. He's my favourite wrestler, I wanted him to win. Was it stupid, moronic booking though? No. They was clearly going somewhere, and clearly had their reasons for doing what they did, and I can accept that and not get worked up over it.

Andy, why would I be doing a gimmick? Could I write all that if I was doing a gimmick?

The fact that some people are absolutley SO SURE that they are right when they haven't a clue about the business absolutely astounds me. I mean sure, everyone can complain, but labelling things they try as terrible ideas, labelling booking as moronic, labelling business practices as stale, it's just all a bit weird. People don't have any idea what correct booking is, or how to save their business, all they know is that it's wrong in their mind. Being wrong in one person's mind, or even a few people's, doesn't make it wrong full stop.

What is 'wrong' anyway? Does anyone even know how to define it in terms of what we are talking about? IMO, 'wrong' is when they start losing money. That's the only way it can be defined, because they are a business. I don't believe ratings can define it, because the business has always been cyclical. They fell from 98-2000. Does it mean the product was that much poorer? I enjoyed 2000 more than 98. Does it make me wrong? Does it make me right? Considering there is no surefire way to shoot ratings, what do you ask them to do, to make it 'right', as if what they are doing now is so 'wrong'?

I'm not playing a gimmick. I'm simply someone that acknowledges there is a bigger picture to what I initially may or may not like.

Ok then you saying everything ( or mostly everything) is terrific right now is your opinion and means as much as mine since neither of us has ever worked for the company. This is a place to express opinions...good bad or both. This is not a messageboard for employees of the WWE. So we can both have opinions and say each other is wrong. I understand ratings going down doesn't always mean a poor show. But the product is in a rut right now and hopefully within the next 2-3 years it can create some fresh stars that make a mark not only in the wrestling community but in mainstream like The Rock, Stone Cold and Hulk Hogan did. John Cena is one example of WWE marketing a guy correctly. He is over with the demographic that buys shirts and other merchandise, his movie The Marine sold I think 18 million at the box office and he gets heat from the crowd every night. He is also a nice guy and great with PR. Do I think he needs a heel turn? Maybe...but I can live with him as he is now because a face is better at selling shirts and movies. Oh wait there I go again expressing my opinion. Oops.

Exactly, that's your opinion. I've never said you can't do it. People always go over the line of expressing opinion and thinking they can do better by calling it flat out moronic, terrible or whatever else. You were basically saying I was just playing a gimmick and couldn't really have real opinions so you were being just as bad.

The product's nothing like being in a rut. Is this seriously as bad as last year with all the injuries? Is this as bad as 2003 straight after The Rock left? Many people think this has been the best year since 2000, not just me.

Saying each other is wrong is fine. Saying the WWE don't know what they are doing just because they do something that you personally don't like, IMO, isn't. It's sheer arrogance to assume that your view and your view only is the correct one without considering the other side, a side that isn't exactly a backyard indie fed, it's the biggest wrestling promotion for a reason, they know what works and what doesn't.

"Saying each other is wrong is fine. Saying the WWE don't know what they are doing just because they do something that you personally don't like, IMO, isn't."

I agree...I never said WWE sucks because they are not doing everything I like. I like some things about WWE, just feel the writers have become stale as of late.

"It's sheer arrogance to assume that your view and your view only is the correct one without considering the other side,"

Never said my view was the be all and end all. So this point is invalid. I know that not everything WWE will do is going to be my cup of tea.

"a side that isn't exactly a backyard indie fed, it's the biggest wrestling promotion for a reason, they know what works and what doesn't"

Eh no denying WWE and the McMahons are amazing business people. Business people yes and they have a rich history in the wrestling industry. But just because WWE is #1 right now doesn't mean they know everything. They do a lot of things that do not work. They knew best with the ECW-Alliance angle? With how they treated RVD, Goldberg, Booker T, Paul Heyman etc? WWE is a household name and yes its pretty much monopolizing the wrestling industry now with TNA as a distant 2nd, but do not confused great marketing as a great product. Walmart has great advertising and makes billions each year but once you step inside its full of crap products for the most part.

It becomes a little suspicious when every single thing they do is in your opinion, OK. Not great, not bad, just OK. That's why people get a little weirded out.

That and the fact that you try and defend the some pretty indefensible stuff in the name of fairness. Really, even THAT would be fine if it kept things interesting. But your deal seems to be jumping on every person who calls the booking stupid, moronic, second-rate, reprehensible, repulsive, intelligence insulting, gag-inducing..... that's gonna take up a lot of your free time.

Seriously, it must be really fun to watch wrestling, being so emotionally invested and all. At least we know you like Kennedy...what is it about him? The whole saying-the-name-twice thing? I'm intrigued.

I like a whole lot of people, Kennedy, Morrison, Miz, Burke, Vickie Guerrero (the heat she gets is downright hilariously awesome). I love Umaga when the crowd is seemingly really into him too for some reason. A straight ass kicking machine like him with the crowd cheering makes for some good stuff.

I don't like everything, but there are just so many preconceived notions on the internet that are totally and utterly wrong and would be proven wrong in a conversation with anyone from the company, and I know that for a fact.

Andy, you went from this:

"please scott don't waste your time with wweisright. He is obviously doing some lame gimmick where he kisses WWE's ass on every topic. Just let him be and hopefully he will go away"

to this:

"This is a place to express opinions...good bad or both. This is not a messageboard for employees of the WWE. So we can both have opinions and say each other is wrong...." "there i go again expressing my opinion. Oops."

So...how on earth do you justify getting on your high horse about expressing your opinion? wweisright disagreed politely with your opinion- " don't think it ruined a potential feud at all. Of course it ruined any chance of it happening straight away, but it could still have happened down the line."-nothing wrong with that-and then you come out with the above aggressive, rude, and insulting remark. And then try and take the grounds of 'Don't abuse me for expressing my opinion.' The only person doing that was you.

I don't agree with everything wweisright says, but for crying out loud, why pick a fight when there's no need? It's petty crap like this that makes me embarrassed to admit I'm a wrestling fan.

It's frustrating to have every point answered with "you don't know what you're talking about". Great, we got it the first twelve times, but obviously your attempts to scold any fan who has an anti-WWE opinion aren't really helping, they just create long, pointless back and forth arguments. Not even interesting debate.

Of course no one knows what really goes on. But that goes for wweisright too.

And hell yeah Umaga is good. Did you ever see him wrestle as Eddie Fatu?

Seth I have a question, what was the original plan for Sean O'Haire and the Devil's Advocate gimmick? It seemed to be completely discarded in favor of a feud between Piper and Hogan.