Page 154 of 155 FirstFirst ... 54104144152153154155 LastLast
Results 6,121 to 6,160 of 6178

Thread: WWE General Discussion Thread

  1. #6121
    The Greatest of All Time LWO4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The AWA Territory
    Posts
    1,940
    They did like the Royal Rumble, but they were way more interested in "when's the next guy coming daddy?" Short 90 seconds between new wrestlers was just right for this new generation.

  2. #6122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,799
    The best part of the rumble is the entrances, no one loves the actual match itself.

  3. #6123
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    That might be true now but there have been some cracking Rumbles over the years.

    And speaking personally, I would rather see the personality you talk of coming through in matches and classic interviews than in the sometimes-painful 'skits' they subject us to. That's actually a more useful example with Austin anyway, because the way I remember it that's how he got over in the first place. Once he was over they started coming up with weird stuff for him to do but that came later.



    @lopprimetime

  4. #6124
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,799
    I mean, you can have a good rumble match, but its an hour long match where the goal is to toss someone over the top. There's gonna be dead time. The entrances move the match along and can keep a bad rumble interesting.

    I'm not saying just do bad skits and that will cure all for everyone. My point was is it feels like WWE thinks they can fill time with 2 seg matches and then they wonder why talents aren't over. WWE's roster is so gifted athletically but if you can't build a personality through some device, no one is going to care about the match. Also, if you do those matches on tv often enough, its like why would I pay for this on PPV? Something has to be said for building anticipation. Austin doing all the things he does really made the PPV matches he had more special.

  5. #6125
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Farrell View Post
    The thing is that those kids are more than willing to sit for three hours and watch things, but it's three hours of <5 minute videos from their favourite YouTuber.

    So, that makes me wonder if the Vince Russo format of short segments and quick matches might work better in 2018 than what they're doing now.

    If every TV match was eight minutes or less and kept fast paced, would more kids be interested? Would more kids be interested if the show moved along considerably faster? Would more of their current 3 million weekly viewers purchase the Network if long matches meant something on PPV since you didn't see them on TV? Would a long TV match have more meaning if it was such a rarity to do them?
    Russo's formula would never work. Kids aren't going to watch anything that's 3 hours in the modern age of attention spans, on a regular weekly basis. Even most adults aren't (try explaining to any of your normal friends that you watch Raw for a 3 hour block every week, and record their reactions). That helps to explain why the WWE audience has dwindled down to hardcore creatures of habit who have spent their whole lives with this. Then there's all the filler that's in every Raw that even hardcore fans don't care about; try selling that to a non-fan who actually has options and alternatives. The hardcore audience that is left, is a fan of the 20-25 minute main event matches, with lots of spots and kick-outs, where they get to chant 'This is awesome!'. If the whole show was 8 minute matches, they would certainly not be happy and possibly migrate to alternatives. We know from things like the reactions that Asuka/Nakamura/Styles have gotten that the WWE audience, contrary to popular belief, is more aware of the other wrestling companies than ever before.

    Russo's model has a lot of bad high-school acting, bad writing, filler, cringe-worthiness, that would certainly turn off long-time fans, but it would also turn off casual fans. We know this because in the dying years of WCW, their parent company commissioned a multi-year study to find out why all their fans had deserted them, and the reasons behind it. And the survey unsurprisingly revealed the reasons as being all the Russo related contributions: too much talking, too much bad talking and acting, too many segments, and not enough action. Russo of course refused to heed the study, threw it out, and the executive who had commissioned it, was aghast and resigned and ended up being transferred to some other division of Turner or whatever.

    Even now, when I talk to casual fans, the most hated thing is always the filler segments, bad scripting and surreal dialogue, the monologues, and acting. Vince's own personal opinion is that the show is way too long, that the ideal wrestling show should be 90-120 minutes long, but he can't enact that because of financial considerations (too much right fees for a 3 hour show). The best model is a mixture of talking and wrestling, with more natural, and better/less scripting, but in a 3 hour show that balance is rarely going to be met. Their primary consideration is filling time. So the structure of the model is hopeless, it would be doable if they weren't 3 hours, but that can't happen.
    Last edited by Allystare; 02-03-2018 at 02:10 PM.

  6. #6126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazyking View Post
    The best part of the rumble is the entrances, no one loves the actual match itself.
    The 1992 Royal Rumble would like a word with you outside.
    You wanted the best, you got this instead -

    http://kwangtheblog.blogspot.com

    My one-stop blog spot for full reviews of wrestling pay-per-views, TV supercards, and Network Specials.

  7. #6127
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,142
    I was going to say, there have been exceptions in recent years but by and large I love Rumble matches. It's the one WWE match I always make sure to watch every year, no matter what!

  8. #6128
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,799
    okay maybe its just me then! When i was doing my PPV marathon, I HATED watching them back. There's usually a hot start, then a plodding middle where sometimes guys just do nothing of interest and if you're lucky, you'll get a hot finish to the end match but more often, its just underwheleming.

    I tend to really like it live depending on entrances and the flow of the match. That was lacking in recent years tho.

  9. #6129
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    Usually there are three or four strands in a good rumble that pulls it together and makes a good match, and at least one general who does a long stint and has a big responsibility for making it work.

    That said, I really like most Rumbles up until... I dunno, the Attitude era, I guess. Then I like a few through the next ten years, probably every other one. Since the 2009 one I have found them far more hit and miss and while they have always been formulaic, several of the last lot have felt stifled, almost like parodies in a way.



    @lopprimetime

  10. #6130
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazyking View Post
    okay maybe its just me then! When i was doing my PPV marathon, I HATED watching them back. There's usually a hot start, then a plodding middle where sometimes guys just do nothing of interest and if you're lucky, you'll get a hot finish to the end match but more often, its just underwheleming.

    I tend to really like it live depending on entrances and the flow of the match. That was lacking in recent years tho.
    I second this. The Rumble is like a popcorn film; it's fun while you watch it and occasionally it'll transcend its usual heights, but with distance their mostly unmemorable. Frankly the only Rumble I ever thought that was truly really great was the 2004 one; the rest were alright, but I can't tell you a thing about them other than who won. In contrast, Lucha Underground's Aztec Warfare, which featured only twenty people and had eliminations via pinfall and submission, all stood out more, probably because it allowed for action all over the place whereas the Rumble doesn't allow for that.


  11. #6131
    The Greatest of All Time LWO4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The AWA Territory
    Posts
    1,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Farrell View Post
    The thing is that those kids are more than willing to sit for three hours and watch things, but it's three hours of <5 minute videos from their favourite YouTuber.

    So, that makes me wonder if the Vince Russo format of short segments and quick matches might work better in 2018 than what they're doing now.

    If every TV match was eight minutes or less and kept fast paced, would more kids be interested? Would more kids be interested if the show moved along considerably faster? Would more of their current 3 million weekly viewers purchase the Network if long matches meant something on PPV since you didn't see them on TV? Would a long TV match have more meaning if it was such a rarity to do them?
    Quote Originally Posted by Allystare View Post
    Russo's formula would never work. Kids aren't going to watch anything that's 3 hours in the modern age of attention spans, on a regular weekly basis. Even most adults aren't (try explaining to any of your normal friends that you watch Raw for a 3 hour block every week, and record their reactions). That helps to explain why the WWE audience has dwindled down to hardcore creatures of habit who have spent their whole lives with this. Then there's all the filler that's in every Raw that even hardcore fans don't care about; try selling that to a non-fan who actually has options and alternatives. The hardcore audience that is left, is a fan of the 20-25 minute main event matches, with lots of spots and kick-outs, where they get to chant 'This is awesome!'. If the whole show was 8 minute matches, they would certainly not be happy and possibly migrate to alternatives. We know from things like the reactions that Asuka/Nakamura/Styles have gotten that the WWE audience, contrary to popular belief, is more aware of the other wrestling companies than ever before.

    Russo's model has a lot of bad high-school acting, bad writing, filler, cringe-worthiness, that would certainly turn off long-time fans, but it would also turn off casual fans. We know this because in the dying years of WCW, their parent company commissioned a multi-year study to find out why all their fans had deserted them, and the reasons behind it. And the survey unsurprisingly revealed the reasons as being all the Russo related contributions: too much talking, too much bad talking and acting, too many segments, and not enough action. Russo of course refused to heed the study, threw it out, and the executive who had commissioned it, was aghast and resigned and ended up being transferred to some other division of Turner or whatever.

    Even now, when I talk to casual fans, the most hated thing is always the filler segments, bad scripting and surreal dialogue, the monologues, and acting. Vince's own personal opinion is that the show is way too long, that the ideal wrestling show should be 90-120 minutes long, but he can't enact that because of financial considerations (too much right fees for a 3 hour show). The best model is a mixture of talking and wrestling, with more natural, and better/less scripting, but in a 3 hour show that balance is rarely going to be met. Their primary consideration is filling time. So the structure of the model is hopeless, it would be doable if they weren't 3 hours, but that can't happen.
    I don't think Russo's formula would work at all. But look at kids. They can't sit infront of a TV and watch a movie, but they can sit for HOURS and play with an iPad. They can break down their own viewing, watch what clips they want to see at any moment, focus on their favorite. WWE's future might be in YouTube. Russo's formula still wouldn't have worked, it was too busy, even for this generation. Having 3 things happen at once is just ADHD. What I've seen, kids don't really want 3 things at once, they would rather have one thing at a time in 5 minute intervals. Honestly, I think if they can get Raw down to 2 hours to 90 minutes (I know, wishful thinking unless they move to Fox), with more athletic wrestlers and less 15 minute talking segments just to set up one match, then you could see more kids engage. Talking Segments that are shorter, and actually set up a match right here, right now, that would work. But currently it's 3 hours of filler and today's kids HATE filler. They'd just rather watch the highlights on YouTube tomorrow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lazyking View Post
    okay maybe its just me then! When i was doing my PPV marathon, I HATED watching them back. There's usually a hot start, then a plodding middle where sometimes guys just do nothing of interest and if you're lucky, you'll get a hot finish to the end match but more often, its just underwheleming.

    I tend to really like it live depending on entrances and the flow of the match. That was lacking in recent years tho.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prime Time View Post
    Usually there are three or four strands in a good rumble that pulls it together and makes a good match, and at least one general who does a long stint and has a big responsibility for making it work.

    That said, I really like most Rumbles up until... I dunno, the Attitude era, I guess. Then I like a few through the next ten years, probably every other one. Since the 2009 one I have found them far more hit and miss and while they have always been formulaic, several of the last lot have felt stifled, almost like parodies in a way.
    Rumbles are interesting. I agree that one hour is taxing. If WWE was better at getting more big names in the teens, instead of just the single digits or 20's, then it would really pick up that long drag between 10-20.

  12. #6132
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,142
    I like Aztec Warfare and the various Rumbles on about an equal level, though AW has the benefit of never having delivered a dud, which I admit there have been a few of on the RR side.

    I remember each Rumble pretty distinctly though, so I guess my experience is pretty different in that regard.

    I also find a long Rumble infinitely easier to watch than, say, many of the 40+ minute New Japan main events, simply because there's a tremendous amount of variety going on, at least in the goods ones.

  13. #6133
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    News doing the rounds is that from Backlash, all PPVs are to be dual brand.



    @lopprimetime

  14. #6134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Prime Time View Post
    News doing the rounds is that from Backlash, all PPVs are to be dual brand.
    Good move imo makes ppvs bigger deals.

  15. #6135
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    Not as simple as that. While you have a point it undoes a lot of the underlying point of the roster split in the first place.



    @lopprimetime

  16. #6136
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    1,168
    As I posted on Twitter, you'll end up having feuds and matches having to be on their respective shows as it'll lead to half the feuds being on a PPV and half the people getting meaningful matches. Eh. Surprised they lasted two years. Would have rathered just reduced the PPV rate then combine. It's worse off for sure for me going back to this.

  17. #6137
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    676
    I'm not too big of a fan of that as it does cut down the feuds that can be showcased for their respective brands. May as well do away with the brand split again and make Raw and smackdown each 3-4 hours each.

  18. #6138
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Northampton, England
    Posts
    59
    Maybe it's going to be like when they used to have feuds that began happened and ended on RAW, like with Sid and Marty Jannetty?

  19. #6139
    Senior Member Oliver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,948
    I think (hope) what Quasar says is what's going to happen - they'll have more unique feuding on the shows themselves.

    Supposedly they're doing it to avoid repetitive matches which...I mean, OK, but surely they can decide what matches they give us time and time again?

  20. #6140
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    Ending repetitive matches would require some discipline in the booking (especially given the amount of hours they have to fill) and I just don't think it's there anymore. It's like, they know there's no one chasing, so you hit the main angles and stories and the rest just sort of fills itself in easily.

    With a three hour show, if you're not utilising jobbers or 'enhancement talent', and you're not having at least one match run to, or near, a time limit draw, then you're going to burn through matches between your genuine talent. And then you do it again a week later. And again. And then there's a PPV. And the whole cycle starts again.



    @lopprimetime

  21. #6141
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,799
    it says in what i read is they are doing it because of rough ticket sales for the single brand PPVS and time being too long between PPVS for the creative to really handle. I think one issue is easier to fix than the other and that's the time between PPV's, it should be a way to develop other acts and actually end mini feuds in between. I feel like the problem with the time between is the booking has a set pattern and they can't find interesting things for guys in a feud to do more than 3 lead up shows.. By going to dual PPVs, you would make it easier but less chances to make new stars.. Star power and over saturation of the market is effecting the gate. Its fixing an issue the short term way and not caring about the long term consequences.

  22. #6142
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    ^ That I absolutely agree with.



    @lopprimetime

  23. #6143
    Senior Member Oliver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Prime Time View Post
    With a three hour show, if you're not utilising jobbers or 'enhancement talent', and you're not having at least one match run to, or near, a time limit draw, then you're going to burn through matches between your genuine talent. And then you do it again a week later. And again. And then there's a PPV. And the whole cycle starts again.
    Preaching to the choir. How many times have they done a series of matches which is essentially 'x loses to y' on Raw, just to build up to 'y loses to x' on PPV?

  24. #6144
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,142
    I don't watch many WWE PPVs these days, but I've always been a bigger supporter of split PPVs on paper, going back to the original split. What we've seen, time and time again, is by putting both brands on one show, the writing gets that much lazier.

  25. #6145
    So WWE just signed Mahabali Shera from Impact. I'll wait while you all laugh hysterically

  26. #6146
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by TripleR
    So WWE just signed Mahabali Shera from Impact. I'll wait while you all laugh hysterically
    I would laugh if I knew who that was.

  27. #6147
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by TripleR View Post
    So WWE just signed Mahabali Shera from Impact. I'll wait while you all laugh hysterically
    Finally. Someone to take Jinder's spot lol.

  28. #6148
    Senior Member Oliver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,948
    Is he the one that looks like Batista with Jinder's head stuck on top?

    Can't say I've seen any of his work.

  29. #6149
    Quote Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
    Is he the one that looks like Batista with Jinder's head stuck on top?

    Can't say I've seen any of his work.
    That is indeed the guy. He's really, really bad

  30. #6150
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    Given how people decided Jinder - who's pretty solid, if unspectacular - couldn't wrestle at all, I can't wait to see what they make of Shera.



    @lopprimetime

  31. #6151
    The Brain
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    4,142
    I honestly don't think Shera's bad at all. He came into Impact very green, and he definitely has his limitations, but he's an impressive power wrestler and with more seasoning and training he could probably be reasonably good. He had a really match with Al Snow, of all people, a year or two ago, though part of that is due to the fact that Snow knew exactly how to put it together to make it work. Still, even then he could be carried and he had only a few dozen matches under his belt then.

    I feel like he's doomed already though, because his reputation is absolute shit. This is why wrestlers shouldn't be on TV until they have some experience, fans see them at their greenest and the bad impression often sticks no matter what they do.

  32. #6152
    Senior Member Oliver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,948
    Unless they're Braun and start flipping vehicles...

  33. #6153
    Lamb of LOP anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    389 miles from Sheepster
    Posts
    952
    So after ‘Mania all PPVs will be longer and dual brand. That’s 5 hours for each PPV. I’m hoping that means MITB is just 6 MITB matches...

  34. #6154
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    Complete, utter, total overkill.



    @lopprimetime

  35. #6155
    Lamb of LOP anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    389 miles from Sheepster
    Posts
    952
    They don’t get the “less is more” approach at all. Just keep increasing our exposure and not understanding their audience doesn’t have time for all their stuff.

    I like the new main page reporter. He seems to copy stuff off other sites faster than the others on weekends. That’s not a criticism, I’m appreciative if I can start just using LOP more.

  36. #6156
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    The thing that was obvious even twenty years ago is the people following generally try to follow their favourites as much as possible. Put out more than most people can follow and they won't be selective, on the whole they'll check out entirely.



    @lopprimetime

  37. #6157
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Prime Time
    The thing that was obvious even twenty years ago is the people following generally try to follow their favourites as much as possible. Put out more than most people can follow and they won't be selective, on the whole they'll check out entirely.
    This is the key here. With the amount of talent on the roster there's almost no choice but to have so much wrestling though some are still getting the shaft. WWE needs to better maximize the talent.

  38. #6158
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,799
    The positive of this i can see is now you have one special event a month instead of two. Which I think is a good thing because I felt like 2 in month was overkill. it hurts the undercard for both brands i imagine but if they can build more focus onto to each feud, then potentially you could have some killer shows.. The problem I've seen is that the booking teams aren't the same, yet the shows have a similar tone, so nothing sets apart each brand where you would need single PPVs. if it was me, i would make the tv for both brands lead into every special event better cause then you'd have more investment from your fanbase. If nothing changes really and you're getting PPV quality matches on tv and same characters, it will be hard for the PPVs to have that special feel. Just because they are 9 fucking hours doesn't make a show special.

    If you have longer shows tho, you need more characters over.

  39. #6159
    Squared
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Northern England, UK
    Posts
    5,305
    The four months last year where they had two shows was definitely overkill, too.

    If you're going to run shows longer than 3 hours I can't see it working well with more than six a year. But I also don't see them cutting back that much. Or writing well enough to draw their stuff out for two months at a time.



    @lopprimetime

  40. #6160
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,799
    The way they have treated the preshow matches as an afterthought for the most part and alot of main shows going beyond 3 hours... I'll be fine if regular ppvs go say 3 hours 30 on avg.. Raw goes 3 hours 10 mins every week. I'll have an issue if they push 4 hours every month and then have the big 4 go like 5 plus...like Ugh. Basically forcing the viewer to watch way more content than any other form of entertainment just because they can..

    What it really will effect is the live crowd tho.. 3 hours and some change sitting in the seat is about as much as someone can stand before they get to a main event and they are dead.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •