|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on Jan 29, 2017 7:26:32 GMT -5
That is true, but this is a stadium with an expectancy of 60,000. They couldn't change it up for a night? It costs a lot of money so by them not spending too much on a stage, they earn a bigger profit from sales. Wrestlemania and I guess Summerslam are the only 2 that should have a special entrance stage. People don't pay money to see a stage anyways, they paid to see the wrestlers preform and that's exactly what they're getting. Not true one of the main reasons why I looked forward to the 2008 Rumble was because of the MSG entrance tunnel.
|
|
|
Post by ~ Cymru ~ on Jan 29, 2017 11:06:51 GMT -5
It costs a lot of money so by them not spending too much on a stage, they earn a bigger profit from sales. Wrestlemania and I guess Summerslam are the only 2 that should have a special entrance stage. People don't pay money to see a stage anyways, they paid to see the wrestlers preform and that's exactly what they're getting. Not true one of the main reasons why I looked forward to the 2008 Rumble was because of the MSG entrance tunnel. I like the stadium in Seattle with the really long entrance way. But honestly if you're tuning in just for architecture, maybe this isnt the best show for you It doesnt matter to me what the enterance way looks like, the amount of time focused on that area of the building is minimal.
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 29, 2017 11:19:38 GMT -5
as long as they don't have one of those wcw 1995ish or ecw 2000ish stages that connect right to the ring then they can have as simple as a stage can be without me caring.
|
|
|
Post by ahunter8056 on Jan 29, 2017 11:38:52 GMT -5
Disappointing, but not in the least bit surprising. It's been this way for years now, unfortunately. Now of course it's entirely true that stages have little to no impact on the quality of an event, and stages are expensive. But stages are still part of the presentation of an event.
Presentation in general is definitely something that WWE couldn't care less about. They're completely unconcerned with presentation. Every single championship has an identical design, every stage has an identical design. There's just no creativity. While that alone isn't enough to drive fans away, it's definitely a negative no matter which way you look at it.
|
|
|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on Jan 29, 2017 12:09:10 GMT -5
Not true one of the main reasons why I looked forward to the 2008 Rumble was because of the MSG entrance tunnel. I like the stadium in Seattle with the really long entrance way. But honestly if you're tuning in just for architecture, maybe this isnt the best show for you It doesnt matter to me what the enterance way looks like, the amount of time focused on that area of the building is minimal. Oh I get that completely but some times the entrance really does add to the show. Remember the Cactus Jack vs HHH street fight at RR 2000? The entrance set up and narrow walkway really made that match feel awesome when they were fighting outside and it wouldn't have been as spectacular with a regular style entrance.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 29, 2017 13:01:13 GMT -5
Disappointing, but not in the least bit surprising. It's been this way for years now, unfortunately. Now of course it's entirely true that stages have little to no impact on the quality of an event, and stages are expensive. But stages are still part of the presentation of an event. Presentation in general is definitely something that WWE couldn't care less about. They're completely unconcerned with presentation. Every single championship has an identical design, every stage has an identical design. There's just no creativity. While that alone isn't enough to drive fans away, it's definitely a negative no matter which way you look at it. That isn't true at all. They're obsessed with presentation - consistent presentation. If they didn't care about presentation, they wouldn't meticulously ensure that every arena they visit for television receives identical treatment in terms of look and feel. They have cultivated a WWE "style" that they ensure is present at every single televised event. As for the belts, again, it's about consistency. They're modeling themselves after the UFC in that regard. UFC's belts are all identical and people don't seem to complain about that. I understand the desire for something different, and you can accuse them of lacking creativity with plenty of merit, but presentation is one of their biggest strengths. In any case, I'm not surprised about this in the slightest. Not sure why everyone thinks this has everything to do with the Pay-Per-Views now being on the Network. I'm sure that's a factor, but likely not a particularly large one. The stages they use now are incredibly expensive, so I'm sure they want to get the most out of them. Not to mention, realistically, they're pulling in far more money from the Network monthly than they were from monthly Pay-Per-Views. I'd prefer unique stages for the big 4 shows, at least, but, it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by The Brain on Jan 29, 2017 13:09:44 GMT -5
The old Rumble sets with just the WWF logo and a blue curtain had more creativity than today's ''sets'' do.
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Jan 29, 2017 13:16:27 GMT -5
I've learned not to except much since they switched to HD stages. No clue why people are still surprised
|
|
|
Post by ahunter8056 on Jan 29, 2017 13:49:44 GMT -5
Disappointing, but not in the least bit surprising. It's been this way for years now, unfortunately. Now of course it's entirely true that stages have little to no impact on the quality of an event, and stages are expensive. But stages are still part of the presentation of an event. Presentation in general is definitely something that WWE couldn't care less about. They're completely unconcerned with presentation. Every single championship has an identical design, every stage has an identical design. There's just no creativity. While that alone isn't enough to drive fans away, it's definitely a negative no matter which way you look at it. That isn't true at all. They're obsessed with presentation - consistent presentation. If they didn't care about presentation, they wouldn't meticulously ensure that every arena they visit for television receives identical treatment in terms of look and feel. They have cultivated a WWE "style" that they ensure is present at every single televised event. As for the belts, again, it's about consistency. They're modeling themselves after the UFC in that regard. UFC's belts are all identical and people don't seem to complain about that. I understand the desire for something different, and you can accuse them of lacking creativity with plenty of merit, but presentation is one of their biggest strengths. Except for the fact that presentation is not solely about consistency. Consistency is just one aspect of it. To me, good presentation is just something that just looks good, and shows creativity. Using identical designs on everything just does not look good and shows an extreme lack of creativity, screams laziness, and therefore is bad presentation in my view. If they had good presentation, fans would be going "those belts look awesome/those stages look awesome", rather than fans literally chanting "belt looks stupid". The fact that fans across an entire arena (and not just a small portion of the audience) are chanting that proves that they need to work on good presentation, and not just purely on consistent presentation. Yes it is undoubtedly incredibly consistent, but an over-reliance on consistency in spite of creativity is not a good choice. Reusing an identical design for a championship may be a choice made purely for consistency, but it also gives off the impression of cutting corners, in not bothering to create a unique design.
|
|
|
Post by The Brain on Jan 29, 2017 13:51:17 GMT -5
That isn't true at all. They're obsessed with presentation - consistent presentation. If they didn't care about presentation, they wouldn't meticulously ensure that every arena they visit for television receives identical treatment in terms of look and feel. They have cultivated a WWE "style" that they ensure is present at every single televised event. As for the belts, again, it's about consistency. They're modeling themselves after the UFC in that regard. UFC's belts are all identical and people don't seem to complain about that. I understand the desire for something different, and you can accuse them of lacking creativity with plenty of merit, but presentation is one of their biggest strengths. Except for the fact that presentation is not solely about consistency. Consistency is just one aspect of it. To me, good presentation is just something that just looks good, and shows creativity. Using identical designs on everything just does not look good and shows an extreme lack of creativity, screams laziness, and therefore is bad presentation in my view. If they had good presentation, fans would be going "those belts look awesome/those stages look awesome", rather than fans literally chanting "belt looks stupid". The fact that fans across an entire arena (and not just a small portion of the audience) are chanting that proves that they need to work on good presentation, and not just purely on consistent presentation. Yes it is undoubtedly incredibly consistent, but an over-reliance on consistency in spite of creativity is not a good choice. Reusing an identical design for a championship may be a choice made purely for consistency, but it also gives off the impression of cutting corners, in not bothering to create a unique design. This.
|
|
|
Post by Ember's Flame on Jan 29, 2017 14:13:26 GMT -5
This feels like that episode of Nitro where Goldberg beat Hogan to me and idk why.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Jan 29, 2017 14:41:50 GMT -5
Just a reminder that the greatest Royal Rumbles in history (90, 91 and 92) the wrestlers ran through a ing curtain. SHUT IT!
|
|
|
Post by The Brain on Jan 29, 2017 14:50:41 GMT -5
Just a reminder that the greatest Royal Rumbles in history (90, 91 and 92) the wrestlers ran through a ing curtain. SHUT IT! I miss the days when the sets were simple like that. Just having a logo and a curtain was fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 29, 2017 15:06:19 GMT -5
That isn't true at all. They're obsessed with presentation - consistent presentation. If they didn't care about presentation, they wouldn't meticulously ensure that every arena they visit for television receives identical treatment in terms of look and feel. They have cultivated a WWE "style" that they ensure is present at every single televised event. As for the belts, again, it's about consistency. They're modeling themselves after the UFC in that regard. UFC's belts are all identical and people don't seem to complain about that. I understand the desire for something different, and you can accuse them of lacking creativity with plenty of merit, but presentation is one of their biggest strengths. Except for the fact that presentation is not solely about consistency. Consistency is just one aspect of it. To me, good presentation is just something that just looks good, and shows creativity. Using identical designs on everything just does not look good and shows an extreme lack of creativity, screams laziness, and therefore is bad presentation in my view. If they had good presentation, fans would be going "those belts look awesome/those stages look awesome", rather than fans literally chanting "belt looks stupid". The fact that fans across an entire arena (and not just a small portion of the audience) are chanting that proves that they need to work on good presentation, and not just purely on consistent presentation. Yes it is undoubtedly incredibly consistent, but an over-reliance on consistency in spite of creativity is not a good choice. Reusing an identical design for a championship may be a choice made purely for consistency, but it also gives off the impression of cutting corners, in not bothering to create a unique design. That's all fine, and accurate, but you were arguing that they don't care about presentation, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Their idea of good presentation may differ from yours, and mine, but you can't say they don't care. It's one of the biggest things they emphasize, whether they're they're actually good at it or not. To them, consistency is strength. Disagreeing with that is perfectly fine, and my view actually falls in line with you, though not as strongly. But that doesn't change the fact that how they appear during their live broadcasts ranks highly on their list of priorities, perhaps to a fault.
|
|