We are back again with Part 2 of the fan interaction post that we started a few weeks ago where I asked fans what they thought about the creative side of pro-wrestling. As far as the answers go I think that you'd be pleasantly surprised to find that the questions have garnered a more positive reaction then you would have expected. Check out the first part of the series right here:
Question: Do you think that wrestling was better with just a Booker or full team like it is today?
Big Gold Belt Show: Two different eras so hard to compare. Honestly, wrestling back from the 80s is not like the attitude era which is not like the universe era today.
Gabrielle: I do think it was better. I can only speak for myself though. I was more invested in characters and the storylines.
Well You Know Radio: Yes and no. There was "A" booker when there wasn't a whole lot of public exposure, i.e. multiple worldwide TV programs every week. But I don't think the booker ever worked in isolation. Others always had input on direction, whether it was Prichard, Dusty, Lawler, Cornette, etc as the "booker". But I think the team approach has resulted in a too many cooks situation. My personal preference would be that one person is responsible for booking each show, taking input where necessary. Not to mention, WCW had a booking committee. And we all know how well that worked....
Ring Rap: I don't know that it was better or worse, as there were quite a few bookers that were not very good. That said I think things were more simple then. Wrestling works best when it's basic - about wins and losses, titles that matter, and personal grudges. Having a team can get in the way of that simplicity.
Wrestling Happy Hour: I feel like that's a loaded question. Depends on what wrestling. Look, I'm a WCW guy (4life) so I guess as a fan ya gotta give credit to the bookers (shout out to Kevin Sullivan if you read this lol). But no man, for me it goes back to the product. If what I see on tv keeps me entertained from week to week then I don't care if it's a Hollywood guy or if it's an old boy in the back. I'm a mark. I'm a fan. I love this business. That being said, I don't buy into the idea of it having to be a wrestling guy calling the shots. But lets be honest, WCW ain't in business anymore.... (Meaning downfall of bookers)
Dan: like I want to say yes, but at the same time you don't want to give one guy all that power because if he fucks up it'll just be a revolving door of one creative person coming in and out.
For more from those featured above:
https://ring-rap.com
https://www.facebook.com/WrestlingHappyHour/
http://bgbgroup.tumblr.com
Question: Do you think that wrestling was better with just a Booker or full team like it is today?
Big Gold Belt Show: Two different eras so hard to compare. Honestly, wrestling back from the 80s is not like the attitude era which is not like the universe era today.
Gabrielle: I do think it was better. I can only speak for myself though. I was more invested in characters and the storylines.
Well You Know Radio: Yes and no. There was "A" booker when there wasn't a whole lot of public exposure, i.e. multiple worldwide TV programs every week. But I don't think the booker ever worked in isolation. Others always had input on direction, whether it was Prichard, Dusty, Lawler, Cornette, etc as the "booker". But I think the team approach has resulted in a too many cooks situation. My personal preference would be that one person is responsible for booking each show, taking input where necessary. Not to mention, WCW had a booking committee. And we all know how well that worked....
Ring Rap: I don't know that it was better or worse, as there were quite a few bookers that were not very good. That said I think things were more simple then. Wrestling works best when it's basic - about wins and losses, titles that matter, and personal grudges. Having a team can get in the way of that simplicity.
Wrestling Happy Hour: I feel like that's a loaded question. Depends on what wrestling. Look, I'm a WCW guy (4life) so I guess as a fan ya gotta give credit to the bookers (shout out to Kevin Sullivan if you read this lol). But no man, for me it goes back to the product. If what I see on tv keeps me entertained from week to week then I don't care if it's a Hollywood guy or if it's an old boy in the back. I'm a mark. I'm a fan. I love this business. That being said, I don't buy into the idea of it having to be a wrestling guy calling the shots. But lets be honest, WCW ain't in business anymore.... (Meaning downfall of bookers)
Dan: like I want to say yes, but at the same time you don't want to give one guy all that power because if he fucks up it'll just be a revolving door of one creative person coming in and out.
For more from those featured above:
https://ring-rap.com
https://www.facebook.com/WrestlingHappyHour/
http://bgbgroup.tumblr.com