|
|
Post by Bandalero on Jun 20, 2012 8:43:27 GMT -5
This past Monday night's RAW kind of highlighted to me how the build-up of wrestling angles has changed over the years.
Other than the recent Cena/Rock year-long build-up, most angles run monthly (PPV-to-PPV) and sometimes the build-up is literally a matter of days before a PPV with little reason or sense.
But it's the payoff that gets me.
Back in the day, the payoff happened at the actual PPV. If there was a show the following day, it was all about launching new fresh angles.
Big Johnny was supposed to get fired at No Way Out, but we had to wait for Monday night to see the 3 x AAs send-off. So why buy the PPV?
To me it seems the show after a PPV is always more exciting and has the highest potential for concluding angles. This year's WM was like a long drawn out PPV, but the RAW afterwards was super hot.
|
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jun 20, 2012 9:02:36 GMT -5
Because WWE doesn't care about the payoff imo, I actually don't believe Vince cares about much these days besides appeasing his own sense of humor but that's a completely different topic.
I just personally think WWE mails it in, all the time. There is a lack of developed story telling, everything is rushed, and the audience no longer has any patience because of it. Additionally, the age of PPV is dying, especially for the smaller events. The NFL dominates American sports because of it's accessibility to average Joe and if UFC and WWE want to move forward, as opposed to the holding pattern I feel they both are currently in, then they have to go to that free "main event" style format. This is why I believe WWE created the WWE Network personally.
It's just a ton of things mixed into one, the scripted characters, the absolute lack of concern for storytelling across the board, getting by on cheap pops, caring more about ratings and sponsors than your actual fans, all of it.
I've been asking the same question for years, because it simply comes down to one piece of the puzzle for me, where did we lose that key focus on developed storytelling for every guy that makes it on TV? We are back in 1993 right now imo, guys just run out there and have matches, or squash matches, and you're supposed to cheer because that's the way it has always been. You can't care about, or even have, a payoff, if there is no build toward one.
I know you were asking the question in a more a specific nature, IE why not give us what we want to see on PPV because we paid our money, but WWE doesn't even create that many situations where I want to pay to see things happen. Johnny technically did get fired at NWO, they just publicly humiliated him more on Raw. I bought NWO, I watched Raw, I personally didn't care about either situation, which is the problem I have with it all. To top it off, that is one of two stories that WWE actually is telling. [/rant]
|
|
|
|
Post by Bandalero on Jun 20, 2012 9:16:27 GMT -5
man you nailed it and obviously have been thinking about it in more in-depth than I.
For all the heat that Dusty Rhodes used to get for his booking - a gimmick like War Games was wrestling story-telling at its finest.
You had 5 faces and 5 heels, each connected in some way with each other - mini-angles within one big angle, building up over time - PPVs weren't monthly, we're talking a 3-4 month build-up. Even WWF's early Survivor Series concepts had rhyme and reason behind the teams.
I wish WWE would do away with these monthly meaningless PPVs - if you're not going to invest in the story-telling and produce the payoff at the right moment, then what's the point?
|
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jun 20, 2012 10:02:00 GMT -5
man you nailed it and obviously have been thinking about it in more in-depth than I. For all the heat that Dusty Rhodes used to get for his booking - a gimmick like War Games was wrestling story-telling at its finest. You had 5 faces and 5 heels, each connected in some way with each other - mini-angles within one big angle, building up over time - PPVs weren't monthly, we're talking a 3-4 month build-up. Even WWF's early Survivor Series concepts had rhyme and reason behind the teams. I wish WWE would do away with these monthly meaningless PPVs - if you're not going to invest in the story-telling and produce the payoff at the right moment, then what's the point? I think Dusty was/is a fantastic storyteller. But to your point, I completely agree. I think if WWE had 6 PPVs a year, you would see them work so much harder to tell stories and get from point a to point b. Unfortunately, I don't really ever see them going back to that type of format. Even if they do switch those smaller shows to WWE Network, they are still going to want advertising dollars for those shows, and they will just mindlessly throw cards together. It comes down to who is in charge and what is important to that person. I personally think the older Vince gets, the more detached he is from society, the more stale and less energized the product becomes. How is a guy, who is 66 years old, still being a dictator over what is cool in storytelling for what should be an 18-35 demographic in 2012? Just doesn't make a ton of sense to me. WWE is a business now, far more than just a wrestling show, and I truly believe the actual product, and quality of that product, has become secondary to everything else they are doing. |
|
|
|
Post by nexusagainstus on Jun 20, 2012 10:47:08 GMT -5
Because WWE doesn't care about the payoff imo, I actually don't believe Vince cares about much these days besides appeasing his own sense of humor but that's a completely different topic. I just personally think WWE mails it in, all the time. There is a lack of developed story telling, everything is rushed, and the audience no longer has any patience because of it. Additionally, the age of PPV is dying, especially for the smaller events. The NFL dominates American sports because of it's accessibility to average Joe and if UFC and WWE want to move forward, as opposed to the holding pattern I feel they both are currently in, then they have to go to that free "main event" style format. This is why I believe WWE created the WWE Network personally. It's just a ton of things mixed into one, the scripted characters, the absolute lack of concern for storytelling across the board, getting by on cheap pops, caring more about ratings and sponsors than your actual fans, all of it. I've been asking the same question for years, because it simply comes down to one piece of the puzzle for me, where did we lose that key focus on developed storytelling for every guy that makes it on TV? We are back in 1993 right now imo, guys just run out there and have matches, or squash matches, and you're supposed to cheer because that's the way it has always been. You can't care about, or even have, a payoff, if there is no build toward one. I know you were asking the question in a more a specific nature, IE why not give us what we want to see on PPV because we paid our money, but WWE doesn't even create that many situations where I want to pay to see things happen. Johnny technically did get fired at NWO, they just publicly humiliated him more on Raw. I bought NWO, I watched Raw, I personally didn't care about either situation, which is the problem I have with it all. To top it off, that is one of two stories that WWE actually is telling. [/rant] Post of the year. |
|
|
|
Post by wabarrett on Jun 20, 2012 10:51:43 GMT -5
Yeah I normally defend WWE in cases like this, but frankly they are getting lazy again, there's no other way to describe it. It's the amount of tremendous talent on that roster that's making WWE enjoyable for me, certainly not the storylines (rather, the lack of them), PPV build-ups or booking.
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jun 20, 2012 11:09:52 GMT -5
I honestly don't even think the number of Pay-Per-Views is the problem. WWE used to still be able to tell fantastic stories on a monthly basis with a 12 Pay-Per-View calendar. It can be done, it just requires a lot of attention to detail and a commitment to caring about more the main event(s), which is something WWE doesn't do, and hasn't for quite some time.
We've beaten the discussion regarding gimmick Pay-Per-Views down to nothing, but it's still incredibly pertinent. I consider the shift to gimmick Pay-Per-Views to be the single biggest contributing factor in the decline of intriguing stories. I truly believe it is one of the single worst decisions in company history, and I'll stick by that belief indefinitely.
When WWE introduced gimmick Pay-Per-Views, they began using it as a scapegoat for proper story telling. They assume that the idea of a big stipulation and gimmick is enough to sell Pay-Per-Views and keep audiences coming back for more. Unfortunately, for a large chunk of casual viewers, and people who simply don't know the product any other way, it is enough.
WWE used to build stories around characters and definitively resolve conflicts in huge, high profile gimmick matches that meant something. Now you have two guys who have nothing against each other other than the fact that Challenger A won a number one contenders match to face Champion B and so on and so forth competing in a match like Hell in a Cell, formally a stipulation that was used only on the most heated rivalries and biggest stars. It's vicious cycle of under hype, over selling, and poor delivery.
When executed properly, you can build a solid show in four weeks. The problem is, WWE waits until two weeks out to even give thought to anything other than the main events. By that time, you're long past the point of being able to make someone care about a match.
The reason CM Punk and John Cena's Money in the Bank match last year felt so damn big is because it had reached a breaking point. The build was so hot and well executed that you felt like you absolutely had to see the match. I remember a time when EVERY single Pay-Per-View had at least one match that felt that big. It was the norm.
|
|
|
|
Post by wabarrett on Jun 20, 2012 12:33:11 GMT -5
I honestly don't even think the number of Pay-Per-Views is the problem. WWE used to still be able to tell fantastic stories on a monthly basis with a 12 Pay-Per-View calendar. It can be done, it just requires a lot of attention to detail and a commitment to caring about more the main event(s), which is something WWE doesn't do, and hasn't for quite some time. We've beaten the discussion regarding gimmick Pay-Per-Views down to nothing, but it's still incredibly pertinent. I consider the shift to gimmick Pay-Per-Views to be the single biggest contributing factor in the decline of intriguing stories. I truly believe it is one of the single worst decisions in company history, and I'll stick by that belief indefinitely. When WWE introduced gimmick Pay-Per-Views, they began using it as a scapegoat for proper story telling. They assume that the idea of a big stipulation and gimmick is enough to sell Pay-Per-Views and keep audiences coming back for more. Unfortunately, for a large chunk of casual viewers, and people who simply don't know the product any other way, it is enough. WWE used to build stories around characters and definitively resolve conflicts in huge, high profile gimmick matches that meant something. Now you have two guys who have nothing against each other other than the fact that Challenger A won a number one contenders match to face Champion B and so on and so forth competing in a match like Hell in a Cell, formally a stipulation that was used only on the most heated rivalries and biggest stars. It's vicious cycle of under hype, over selling, and poor delivery. When executed properly, you can build a solid show in four weeks. The problem is, WWE waits until two weeks out to even give thought to anything other than the main events. By that time, you're long past the point of being able to make someone care about a match. The reason CM Punk and John Cena's Money in the Bank match last year felt so damn big is because it had reached a breaking point. The build was so hot and well executed that you felt like you absolutely had to see the match. I remember a time when EVERY single Pay-Per-View had at least one match that felt that big. It was the norm. Agree with every last word my friend. When I consider WWE's booking these days, I always think from a kayfabe point of view, 'Why do half the Superstars actually continue to work here?' lol. There's hardly any mid-card Title matches, next to no competition for Title shots, a lot of guys just wrestle every week and get paid. Likewise, again from the kayfabe perspective, I always wonder why two guys who (as J12 said) have no real rivalry, or any angst or bitterness toward each other, would be happy to just jump into a Hell In A Cell match for a Title. It's like the GM basically goes 'It's October, we've got the Hell In A Cell PPV coming up, so I've got to make the WWE and World Title matches Hell in a Cell matches, cool? Good. Let's find a no.1 contender.' |
|
|
|
Post by oldschoolsoldier on Jun 20, 2012 18:09:24 GMT -5
I may be a lil dated ..but how the hell do you expect to do a proper build up for a PPV in 2 to four weeks..there are way too many PPV events and that is going to get VERY apparent when RAW goes to 3 hrs weekly in July...back in the day when you had 3 to 6 months to properly buld an angle the storylines were more compelling and made you want to dig deep in the wallet to see PPV events and go to house shows.Now there is little fanfare..little build.a booking approach of "lets throw crap at the wall and see what sticks"and little continuity to storylines.And Vince without competition(and please spare me any mentions of TNA or ROH)is complacent and stuck in a pardon the bluntness..a mastubatory style of booking..I.E;I dont care what anyone else thinks ..I like it..Until something or someone comes along to change that way of thinking..be it TNA or ROH gaining legitimate ground ,or Vinces numbers getting so lousy that Bonnie Hammer and USA threaten to not renew Raw..dont expect anything new or ground breaking.
|
|
