Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

WWE TV 04/29 - 05/05 Bolsonaro's strategy is worse than Jon Snow's


KawadaSmile

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mad Dog said:

I disagree with that. If you go to the indies, there are some great and creative things going on. Game Changer Wrestling is a great example of a promotion that is just stuffed with creativity and thought. I think the minds are there, they just aren't given a chance because WWE wants Hollywood writers. But I think if you brought in Super Dragon, Joey Janela and the Elite and told them to fix things and not interfere that you might see things improve.

While I agree with this, I also think the difference is in booking a weekly, episodic show compared to just running "big" shows.

There are simple things that aren't by themselves enough to right the ship, but that I think would help. Rotating talent in and out more rapidly so that everyone stays fresh. More week-to-week continuity and consequence. More promos, but shorter and more energetic ones. Titles that are super important, even in the midcard. More video packages used to sell feuds and personalities and less video packages used to sell WWE philanthrophy. Maybe they should keep delivering "big shows" on the network for their hardcore base while doing 8-week arcs on TV. So you get a blowoff show of 2-3 big programs in weeks 7 and 8 and then the talent that was on for those 8 weeks is off for the next 8. (Not all of them of course, but many of them.) They could go to RAW, they could go to NXT, or they could even be exclusive to house shows during that time, which might get attendance up too.

I'm spitballing, but you could do something where the first four weeks is setting everything up and week 5 is a blowoff to the IC title feud of the 8-week arc, week 6 blows off the tag titles, week 7 the women's feud, week 8 the men's feud, or something to that effect. It doesn't have to be exactly that. And sometimes things would carry over. But it would provide a general outline for how to keep things fresh.

EDIT TO ADD: They should think about things in their wrestling style that are usually big pop getters and do more of them too. Seeing a hot crowd does make a difference to a casual viewer flipping channels. Seeing a match with a quiet crowd will not capture anyone's attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Charles (Loss) said:

While I agree with this, I also think the difference is in booking a weekly, episodic show compared to just running "big" shows.

There are simple things that aren't by themselves enough to right the ship, but that I think would help. Rotating talent in and out more rapidly so that everyone stays fresh. More week-to-week continuity and consequence. More promos, but shorter and more energetic ones. Titles that are super important, even in the midcard. More video packages used to sell feuds and personalities and less video packages used to sell WWE philanthrophy. Maybe they should keep delivering "big shows" on the network for their hardcore base while doing 8-week arcs on TV. So you get a blowoff show of 2-3 big programs in weeks 7 and 8 and then the talent that was on for those 8 weeks is off for the next 8. (Not all of them of course, but many of them.) They could go to RAW, they could go to NXT, or they could even be exclusive to house shows during that time, which might get attendance up too.

I'm spitballing, but you could do something where the first four weeks is setting everything up and week 5 is a blowoff to the IC title feud of the 8-week arc, week 6 blows off the tag titles, week 7 the women's feud, week 8 the men's feud, or something to that effect. It doesn't have to be exactly that. And sometimes things would carry over. But it would provide a general outline for how to keep things fresh.

EDIT TO ADD: They should think about things in their wrestling style that are usually big pop getters and do more of them too. Seeing a hot crowd does make a difference to a casual viewer flipping channels. Seeing a match with a quiet crowd will not capture anyone's attention.

I think those are great ideas. Think about the most memorable moments from the 80s and 90s. Those great Piper Pit segments were never more than 5 minutes. Go back to any of the old TV until the Monday Night Wars. It was a very snappy presentation that kept things moving along. I also think talent rotation is a great idea. They have a big enough roster that guys can take a couple of months off here and there. It gives you returns to surprise the crowds with here and there as well.

I think a 10 episode "season" might be an interesting concept to try. Build your storylines for those 10 weeks, blow it off at a PPV and then take the losers off of TV for a bit and move the winners on to the next thing.

I would also unify the World Titles, the Tag Titles and the Women's Titles to cut down on the belts running around right now. I think having a World, Tag, US, IC, Women's, Women's Tag and a Cruiserweight belt are probably too much but better than what we've been dealing with. But I think they need to go back to the belts having defined levels. It just feels like they throw the belts on whoever and it's ultimately meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Charles (Loss) said:

While I agree with this, I also think the difference is in booking a weekly, episodic show compared to just running "big" shows.

There are simple things that aren't by themselves enough to right the ship, but that I think would help. Rotating talent in and out more rapidly so that everyone stays fresh. More week-to-week continuity and consequence. More promos, but shorter and more energetic ones. Titles that are super important, even in the midcard. More video packages used to sell feuds and personalities and less video packages used to sell WWE philanthrophy. Maybe they should keep delivering "big shows" on the network for their hardcore base while doing 8-week arcs on TV. So you get a blowoff show of 2-3 big programs in weeks 7 and 8 and then the talent that was on for those 8 weeks is off for the next 8. (Not all of them of course, but many of them.) They could go to RAW, they could go to NXT, or they could even be exclusive to house shows during that time, which might get attendance up too.

I'm spitballing, but you could do something where the first four weeks is setting everything up and week 5 is a blowoff to the IC title feud of the 8-week arc, week 6 blows off the tag titles, week 7 the women's feud, week 8 the men's feud, or something to that effect. It doesn't have to be exactly that. And sometimes things would carry over. But it would provide a general outline for how to keep things fresh.

EDIT TO ADD: They should think about things in their wrestling style that are usually big pop getters and do more of them too. Seeing a hot crowd does make a difference to a casual viewer flipping channels. Seeing a match with a quiet crowd will not capture anyone's attention.

Definitely agree with all of this. The idea of rotating talents is something that should've been done IMO rather than the brand extension. You can only do so much in terms of fresh feuds and matchups when you cut your roster in half so in the end, I believe that allowing talents to rotate between TV and house shows (and time off if necessary) would be the best way to maximize all of your roster. And besides, if you wanna create new stars, you need them to have exposure. They're not gonna get that at catering. If you need to give a special attraction to some of the veterans (like Randy Orton or Rey Mysterio for instance), do it. We need to feel like it's special again to see some of those guys work TVs and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Charles (Loss) said:

While I agree with this, I also think the difference is in booking a weekly, episodic show compared to just running "big" shows.

There are simple things that aren't by themselves enough to right the ship, but that I think would help. Rotating talent in and out more rapidly so that everyone stays fresh. More week-to-week continuity and consequence. More promos, but shorter and more energetic ones. Titles that are super important, even in the midcard. More video packages used to sell feuds and personalities and less video packages used to sell WWE philanthrophy. Maybe they should keep delivering "big shows" on the network for their hardcore base while doing 8-week arcs on TV. So you get a blowoff show of 2-3 big programs in weeks 7 and 8 and then the talent that was on for those 8 weeks is off for the next 8. (Not all of them of course, but many of them.) They could go to RAW, they could go to NXT, or they could even be exclusive to house shows during that time, which might get attendance up too.

I'm spitballing, but you could do something where the first four weeks is setting everything up and week 5 is a blowoff to the IC title feud of the 8-week arc, week 6 blows off the tag titles, week 7 the women's feud, week 8 the men's feud, or something to that effect. It doesn't have to be exactly that. And sometimes things would carry over. But it would provide a general outline for how to keep things fresh.

EDIT TO ADD: They should think about things in their wrestling style that are usually big pop getters and do more of them too. Seeing a hot crowd does make a difference to a casual viewer flipping channels. Seeing a match with a quiet crowd will not capture anyone's attention.

Excellent ideas.

Of course, these are not foreign concepts to them. That's part of what makes the current situation so frustrating. They were already doing something very similar to this with SmackDown from fall 2016-spring 2017. And it was really good stuff.

They weren't necessarily rotating talent in any strict fashion, but they were shuffling guys around, featuring feuds on various weeks, strategically presenting payoffs on different weeks, etc.

I think there are some other key elements that need to be addressed (tbf you've actually touched on some of them also), including the announcers and interviewers & specifically how they lack credibility.

I do think it would be a significant improvement for the audience to have a relatable tour guide on these shows. A corporate shrill or a crew of folks who speak like their every word is this measured, carefully-constructed jargon *is* unattractive to your normal, everyday of the week folks. Whether it's on-the-nose or just a subconscious thing, people want to hear things presented by people who sound like actual human beings. They want easy, listenable conversation.

Buzzwords are fine and at times maybe even necessary. But you've got to recognize the difference in choosing to plug in your promotional terms versus these goofs just vomiting a bunch of shit nobody would ever say in any real life circumstance. Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of them having a host for the shows, someone who is apart from the commentary team. Renee is good at interacting with the wrestlers but isn't so good behind the desk so they should pull her out from there and have her opening the shows with announcements about who's on the card, what's coming up next etc. And then she can handle the promos by conducting them as in-ring interviews. Basically how Mean Gene was in Nitro but with a little more responsibility re introducing the show and being the first port of call for the viewer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like, if they're going for a more realistic sports style presentation, some backstage punditry or something. Like a more serious version of the kick-off panels where guys who aren't being used can comment on kayfabe strategy ahead of main events and stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FMKK said:

I'd like, if they're going for a more realistic sports style presentation, some backstage punditry or something. Like a more serious version of the kick-off panels where guys who aren't being used can comment on kayfabe strategy ahead of main events and stuff.

They should definitely survey other people on the roster in commercial bumpers before main events by asking them who they think will win. I think it gives the big matches more importance, and when it's a US or IC or tag title match, having the top stars weigh in with their opinion also adds some gravity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would do a studio show with Austin as the host during Smackdown. Have him interject at the top of the hour and do sit down interviews with wrestlers. Just take his podcast and make that a segment you go to a couple of times a night. Get the wrestlers in this casual natural environment that feels off the cuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NintendoLogic said:

Per the latest Observer, Vince soured on Luke Harper in large part because he couldn't do a Southern accent. The absolute state of this company.

He wanted to re-do the Godwinns maybe. Let's be honest, Vince has lost what was left of his mind a long time ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pterois said:

Sometimes, the accent of a wrestler can be important if he's supposed to talk a lot. I don't find Vince's point of view that strange.

I find it quite strange to think that a scruffy disheveled-looking guy with a beard *must* have a Southern accent. There are no scruffy disheveled-looking guys in Western New York where Harper is from? Or anywhere else? This is doubly confusing considering Vince and his producers' seeming hatred of any accent that's not American Standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there are lots of scruffy disheveled-looking guys everywhere but for whatever reason Vince thought a southern accent would improve his character. We often saw caricatured wrestling characters throughout wrestling history. It's useful for making an impact. Harper had already the look of the caricatural southern redneck. A southern accent would have been the icing on the cake. Vince is probably a perfectionist, if a character is not exactly like he wants, he tends to drop it. And I know WWE historically hates an accent that's not American Standard but Harper is an exception, it would have fit the character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...