Learning to break kayfabe
Join Date: Jul 2012
Re: TNA's obsession with Stables.
The difference between stables back then (in the 90s) and stables now is that back in 1996 a stable like that hadn't really been done. Before the NWO storyline there had never really been an organisation within an organisation who had been an enemy of everyone in that organisation as well as trying to take over the organisation (sorry I know thats a lot of organisations, lol). So it was fresh and something that the fans hadn't really seen before (apart from in New Japan where it is believed that Bischoff got the idea from the NWO from). As it was new and fresh in America fans loved it and there is no doubt that it helped shift the ratings in WCW's favour. Plus it was formed by two of the top names from WWE at that time so WCW was giving the impression that WWE was coming down to invade them. All that topped off with Hogan turning heel and joining them really polished it off. It looked real ("almost like a gang war" according to Eric Bischoff), and cool. As I've mentioned above with two of biggest names in WWE at that time and with getting one of the biggest names of all time in the industry; that helped make WCW so succesful at the time. However by 1998 fans started to get bored of it. It was the same thing week in week out, the same people as champion and the same basic storyline of that group trying to take over. So if it the "take over" storyline got boring in 1998 what makes you thing that the same recycled storyline used over and over and over again is going to work in 2012?
People have mentioned that WWE had a lot of stables during the attitude era. Yes that is true but you can't really call any of them "take over" stables. First off 'D generation X'; now Bischoff has referred to them as "a blatant cheap ripoff of the NWO". However they were never really a take over group; they were basically a group of cocky employees who were a constant thorn in the side of McMahon and other people in authority.
Other stables during the attitude era include 'The Coporation/Coporate Ministry' who weren't a take over group as they were the people in charge against the rebels of the company such as Stone Cold Steve Austin.
'The Union' were just a group of babyfaces looking to be treated fairly and not looking to take over.
'J.O.B Squad' Simular to 'The BWO' in ECW; was basically a pissed take of 'The NWO' and not meant to be taken seriously.
'Right to Censor' were never looking to take over but were trying to stop the amount of "profanity" in the WWE.
Yes ok during The Alliance storyline that was a take over storyline but only because WWE had doubled it's roster with the aquisitions of WCW and ECW. Besides the storyline was so poorly done that it ended up as WWE vs WWE.
Their have also been comparisons between NWO and Nexus but you can't really compare the two basically because The NWO had some of the biggest names in the industry and yes they were trying to take over; The Nexus were origonally 8 pissed off rookies looking make a name for themselves and I can't recall them ever mentioning that they were taking over.
So in conclusion I ask What is TNA's obsession with a storyline that got stale 14 years ago. I guess I havn't got an issue with stables, as they can work if done properly, just the same old recycled storyline being used over and over and over. Didn't TNA learn anything from WCW?