Like a lot of your readers, I have noticed an annoying trend in wrestling and that is the lack of blowoff/payoffs to feuds. It seems like feuds just keep going with no end in site. You of course always point it out with your 'so this feud MUST CONTINUE' For example, Cody Rhodes made fun of the Big Show for always losing at Mania. Then Show beats him at Mania to win the IC title to finally have his moment in what should have been the perfect blowoff. But then the feud continued for like another month.
Right now Randy Orton has beaten Del Rio so many times, they had a great falls count anywhere match on Smackdown that seemed perfect to end the feud(3 weeks ago!) and yet, it's still going.
One of the main reasons to buy the PPVs is to see the blowoff of a feud. Well, why should I pay money when I know that is NOT happening? It never happens anymore. It happens when creative gets bored and just ends it with no explanation and moves the guys onto something else. Plus with the WWE's obsession with 50/50 booking, even if they do a great finish on a PPV, I'll just assume the guy who lost will just get his win back the next night on RAW. It makes it really hard to get invested in the angle or storyline.
I know you notice this, but why do they do this? Why can't they just satisfyingly end feuds anymore. I mean must they always, as you say, 'MUST CONTINUE'?
Because as you noted,they're obsessed with 50/50 booking, and they have precious, precious TV time to fill so what better way than with REMATCHES. Why invest the time in creating new feuds when you can have one guy invoke his "rematch clause" and do the same match again the next month? Plus there's an awesome video package to go with it because they just had a match together! They'll make MILLIONS! Well, with Rock-Cena they really will make millions, but otherwise I'm just being sarcastic.
On the Wrestling Observer's website yesterday, in the day's update, they posted a link of Big Show doing an interview with Rosenberg. I was impressed with the big guy's views on wrestling, like finishes, bumping and why he doesn't wrestle a faster pace. He was very insightful and I'm sure lots of his colleagues are as well in regards to angles, matches, etc. So it makes me wonder if these wrestlers are so intelligent when it comes to their craft, why does the show suck so much?
ReplyDeleteIs it a case of Vince not listening to wrestlers anymore like he did in the past? Stephanie and HHH being creative morons? Corporate interests from sponsors running the show more? The top guys too lazy and well-fed to want to do anything that may spice things up? Something else I'm omitting? Or a combination of all of the above?
Do you really think HHH and Steph are idiots? I just imagine WWE's shows are the product of roughly 50 peoples' ideas that often conflict with one another and the quality filter (ultimately Vince) is too loose and worn out to keep the waste out.
ReplyDeleteIt's much like the theory that 1000 monkeys using 1000 typewriters would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. For every Summer of Punk, there's a return of Kevin Nash to follow it plus dozens of more terrific signals that tell me that not only should I not be paying for any of this, but to watch any of the shows for free is even masochistic.
Didn't HHH bring in Kevin Nash? Doesn't that make him an idiot?
ReplyDeleteWrestling in general has always had a problem with ending feuds because if the feud is money, you don't wanna leave it on the table. Sometimes it works, you got tons of money matches out of Dusty Vs Horsemen even after the first War Games. Most of the time it doesn't. Look at most great feuds and they went too long.
ReplyDeleteAustin/McMahon should have ended with the match at Valentine's Day Massacre, but it slogged on and eventually had Austin befriend Vince.
Vince only listens when the guys MAKE him listen.
ReplyDeleteOne of Vince's biggest problems, though, is continuing feuds that weren't that hot (if at all) to begin with. Just look at all the Sheamus/ADR matches we had this year.
ReplyDeleteYep. And Diesel v Mabel if I recall. Or at least, the end of Summerslam 95 pointed to it continuing, I forget.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I was going to say. I'm far more bothered when they insist on continuing a shitty feud, even when it's done logically, than when they continue a fun feud that logically should have ended. For example, Christian vs. Orton a couple of years back continued even though Christian kept losing, but it was a fun feud that kept Christian in the World title picture. Meanwhile, countless months of Sheamus vs. ADR was just absolutely dreadful.
ReplyDeleteI think it kinda did, with Luger as a player in the feud, but his jump scuttled those plans.
ReplyDeleteThat feud only lasted a month. Mabel attacked Diesel during the lumberjack match at IYH 2, lost at the next PPV, then Nash went into a program with Cornette's Owen/Bulldog/Yoko group.
ReplyDeleteRandy Orton and Cena's feud felt like it was the only one in recent memory that had a definite end. The way nothing ever gets settled, it almost feels like WWE is on one big loop. And occasionally, they'll switch around guys. Look at Cena and Punk. WWE's top feud, and it never had an ending.
ReplyDeleteHhh probably should've asked if he was on plavix. Other than that, it was a good idea.
ReplyDeleteWatching Impact this past week, I realized that TNA's video packages work a whole lot better than WWE's due o the fact that they actually include footage and voice-overs that we hadn't seen before. It might not be anything earth-shattering in terms of changing the angle, but at least it's fresh and ever-forward.
ReplyDeleteAnd dear Vince, you claimed that WWE could do the show intro recaps better than TNA. You were wrong. Yours are pretentious and laborious and way too dragged out. TNA's are to the point, and for whatever reason just fit in more seamlessly with their shows. (...though I can only imagine how laughable some of the ep titles would have been had WWE decided to steal that old idea from TNA).
And wasn't that just due to him not wanting to risk losing his insurance for his role in Magic Mike?
ReplyDeleteEither way, whatever it was meant to be it ended up a mess. Plus there was no chance in hell Nash vs. Punk would've been anything above 3 stars.
If anything, this trend feels like it's getting worse. Why would I be invested in a Cena/Ziggler rematch if Cena's won every time? Why should I want to see Truth and Cesaro again? Cesaro already beat Truth clean at Survivor Series? There aren't even any good reasons for rematches anymore.
ReplyDeleteI wish WWE would ditch the rematch clause altogether like it used to be. Force the ex-champion to work their way back up.
ReplyDeletePunk is no hbk.
ReplyDeleteBut guys... they're telling stories...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/wwe-storytelling-john-cena/
And completed unrelated, but this article came up while I was reading the previous one. All kinds of awesome.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/indiana-jones-mystery-journal/
I actually really like WWE's intro videos. They update anybody who missed the prior week's episode, and they give the upcoming episode some structure. I think their less-is-more approach works fine in this case.
ReplyDeleteSomething still doesn't add up with the Nash/Plavix/aborted CM Punk feud story. Nash seems to insist that his match with Punk was canceled because of his Plavix/insurance issue. Yet that doesn't explain why Triple H -- and not Punk -- was the one who finally got to get the best of Nash (outing him as the conspirator and punching him) after weeks of Nash getting the best of Punk physically. And then when Nash did return, it was during a match between Triple H and Punk. That return DID lead to Nash wrestling. It would have been just as easy for Nash to return and continue his feud with Punk, ultimately having them have their match (which Punk would win). Instead, they went with Nash attacking Triple H. Story doesn't add up.
ReplyDeleteHaving guys trade wins is great when used sparingly, but they use it in EVERY feud now. Stuff like Rock-HHH, Benoit-Booker series, Flair-Steamboat, etc were good because you believed either guy could win on any given night and the matches were always good. When they do it with everyone and every feud, it just makes sure no one seems special and no win/loss means that much
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Austin vs Vince deserved a definitive blowoff. They could have then had Shane rise from his dad's shadow with a new approach to the Austin problem and/or Corporate feud.
ReplyDeleteLess is more? Sorry, but I gotta disagree on that. There's absolutely no reason to watch WWE programming anymore since you'll get everything in the video packages. They cram everything into those videos.
ReplyDeleteSo b/w that and endless "moments ago" or "during the break exclusively on our app but which we're still showing on TV anyway," WWE provides their own Cliffs Notes to their shows.
Is the idea of 50/50 booking a Scott thing or does it permeate the intrawebs?
ReplyDeleteTrue enough, but the ultimate blowoff had to be Austin taking the belt off of the Rock. But yeah, they milked it for everything it was worth, they made sure they got every last penny out of that feud.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure the Rock could have a fued against a tub of popcorn and it would make millions. Can you imagine all the quality Rock lines from that fued?
ReplyDeleteI liked 2005/6's way of settling/changing things when they'd have a feud-ending match on PPV, followed by a FINAL cage match on SmackDown where someone would interfere and WHAM new feud. Fairly sure that's how JBL/Eddy/Angle/Rey got chopped and changed.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. But see, the case with Rock/HHH is that they weren't neccesarily trading wins, usually it was Rock wins by DQ, HHH cheats to win, Rock gets a pin in a tag, Rock wins a cage match, HHH gets pin in a tag, HHH cheats again, Rock finally triumphs etc.
ReplyDeleteThere's no such thing as too much Steen vs. Generico..
ReplyDeleteI would suggest this article deserves its own topic
ReplyDeleteI figured that it would make its way to the BoD one way or another, and figured hat either by e-mailing Scott or posting it here, the gears would get set in motion. :)
ReplyDeleteReally so hate the trend of the PPV following Wrestlemania having rematches that are far better then the WM matchups. It's a long list. This trend truly began post WM20
ReplyDeleteSometimes they're better than WM itself. That's a problem.
ReplyDeleteSeeing Punk attempt the GTS on Nash would of been a disaster.
ReplyDeleteThreadjack: The Hobbit......anyone?
ReplyDeleteIn the WWE the GTS is a terrible move to use as ur primary finisher.
ReplyDeleteOnce i saw him hoist JBL for it in 08, I was through.
It adds up.
ReplyDeleteNash got out of jobbing to the hot young face and got a payday wrestling his buddy.
Its through the IWC as of now. Im not gonna say Scott coined it, cuz Ive heard Csonka on 411 say it for years.
ReplyDeleteIt shows that they know what they are doing.
ReplyDeleteHype the shit out of WM> You pay for WM.> WM leaves you with shit-taste> Book Backlash better> You pay for it> Shit-taste leaves.> WWE has double your MON-AY!
Read the book in elementary school.
ReplyDeleteMeh.
Saw it in 3D IMAX 48 FPS lol...never read the story, didn't care about LotR...
ReplyDeleteVisually: It's Avatar on speed, technical masterpiece and definitely worth seeing in a nice big theater in 48fps
Story: Fucking epic, I'm so glad I never read it because now I get to watch it and have NO IDEA wtf is happening next
So yeah, I'll be watching it in 3DFPS at least twice more.
Just got back from seeing it in Imax 3-D and loved it. Mind you, I've always been a sucker for Tolkien's universe, so filling in the blanks that occurred during the Hobbit book has me all jazzed up. For the regular viewer, it may feel a bit bloated.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't believe the Imax in Ft. Lauderdale didn't play it in 48fps. It really pissed me off, but it was still great, even at 24fps Imax 3-D.
ReplyDeleteCan you give me an idea of what you thought of the 48fps compared to normal 3-d?
He was going to have matches with them both. Then due to the meds he could only have one. It's not complicated.
ReplyDeleteSpoiler: Bilbo Baggins is Keyser Soze and it's all a dream.
ReplyDeleteIn currently listening to old episodes of The Place To Be podcast and I just listened to Survivor Series 88. They talked about how Jake Roberts went from feuding with Rick Rude to Andre. They had a match on SNME, Jake won by DQ, Andre came out to beat up Jake. Then at SurSer, Jake pinned Rude and continued with Andre during the match. Boom, one feud ended and another began. And this wasn't a one-time occurrence.
ReplyDeleteBTW, loving the podcast after the suggestion a few weeks back.
Valid point. Extreme Rules last year was am awesome show but I will say that Lesnar being there was why I spent my money. Undercard didnt matter (even though it was great)
ReplyDeleteI can't blame Vince for people's stupidity.
ReplyDeleteIf WM pissed me off, why in the hell am I gonna buy next month's PPV? Unless you have something that I feel like I think is worth it(this year would of been worth it imo), I'm not buying the show and I probably won't buy another for a loooooong time.
In the past, you'd have the finale of a feud and then you'd have the the denouement where the hero made it clear he was the better of the villain. Then the new villain would attack him or just walk out onto the stage and stare at him (were said villain a bad ass).
ReplyDeleteI wanted to go to the Midnight showing at my local IMAX but they were only taking reservations(plus it was 18 bucks.....BULLSHIT!).
ReplyDeleteThats the exact reason brah!
ReplyDeleteThey sucker people in damn near every year because WM is THE SHOWCASE OF THE IMMORTALS, like a fucking highlander gathering... then it fails... and then rematch city next month promising better shit with the results the fans wanted...
Jesus, thats retarded. Why would he lose his insurance?
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to put it into words man, it was basically like...I've never felt more like the screen was actually a hole cut into a wall and Martin Freeman was just standing on the other side performing in real life. It almost has a soap-opera sort of look to it because it feels "softer" I guess.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'd have to go check out the 24 version to really see if it's much different but it certainly felt "realer" than Avatar.
Thanks man. I'm going to check it out. Found some non-imax theaters that are playing it in 48fps.
ReplyDeleteWho's saying it's complicated? But it made no sense to completely abort the Punk feud in order to have the Triple H feud. If he could only have one match, wouldn't it have made sense to just finish off the feud that they had already started? Instead, they spontaneously transferred it over to Triple H, so Punk was never able to get even after weeks of being bested by Nash. So Nash can say all he wants to that he couldn't face Punk because of medical issues, but he's not being completely truthful there.
ReplyDeleteYou're saying it's complicated because you don't understand. He was planned to have two matches. He could only medically have one. I can't make this any simpler for you.
ReplyDeleteMost movie actors have to have a certain insurance bond to be covered due to some kind of SAG rules, I don't fully understand it but if he intentionally put himself at risk in a wrestling match, due to his pre-existing heart condition he could've lost it.
ReplyDelete