Staleness

[Guest y2jailbait]

Thats a question i always ask myself when i hear about Edge being stale or William Regal's character being boring. I personally think that its the fans that determine who is stale and who is not. Its not like edge or RVD or Billy and Chuck go out there and not know that their move list and/or character is getting tired, its just that the fans are so accustummed to seeing everything but damn near death in the ring that they are somewhat bored with natural and normal moves. Its confusing, but just to point an example. Edge has about 5 really good moves. Spear, Edgecution, edge-o-matic, missle dropkick and that facebuster type move that he does. Okay, how many moves did Ric Flair have? HMMMMMMMMM, im thinking about 3. How about Austin, Angle, Rhodes, Savage, you name it and most wrestlers have about 5 moves that they use to be reconized. With that being known with all the spot-fest wrestling and near death crap wrestling that we've all seen, we get bored very easliy with Edge and Regal and sometimes Van Dam. I dont know what is wrong with most fans these days, its like they have the highest expectations for every single thing all the time. Maybe thats whats wrong with wrestling, not the storylines, but the fans themselves. Who knows, maybe im just crazy, but this is just my opinion, so dont kill me just yet.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

There is more to wrestling than just moves.  Flair had a limited moveset, true, but he also knew better than anyone how to work a match.  Edge's psychology is next to nil.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

good post, i agree in part.

 

I think that sometimes characters aren't allowed to develop (Rock) because the fans are so high on them that they are friad to change them and lose the fan response.

 

But the comment about flair,savage,rhodes,etc. having all a few big moves doesn't really apply since they wrestled in a completely different era where matches weren't built around one or two high spots.

[Guest mastermind]

You know I have thought about this many times. I was going to ask how would people here program fans to a certain style or product. I agree in part. I take Edge/Regal for instance. How many times have I seen people saying that the wwf rushes through feuds and don't give it time like in the past. Well, the wwf tried this with Regal/Edge and it got ripped. Of course the matches weren't that hot either. Do people realize that Hogan/Orndorff in 1986 began in the middle of the year and finished in January 1987?

 

The moveset of the wrestlers is also another good point. If you really study wrestling even the biggest and best stars only truly do 5 moves maximum past or present. Bret Hart who many consider one of the greatest is infamous on the net for the five moves of doom. On the flip side to this though he knew how to put together a good match the majority of the time.

 

Now about storylines. It's forced on the wwf to make it complex, yet also simple. Realistic, but also entertaining drama like a movie. Sometimes IT IS the fans and I'm guilty of it as well. Sometimes there ARE changes, but we also don't really notice it sometimes. I think psychology in matches and applying the hotspot and hotshotting have made fans turn into insta-gratification for storylines and matches without proper build.

 

However, the growing knowledge of fans has increased the quality at times. As Vince said we fans "demanded" not to be insulted with the simpleton good guy/bad guy philosophy. Too bad the wwf succeeded with the new philosophy in 1998 and then completely turned it upside down in 1999. Luckily workrate was forced upon the wwf after the crappy storylines in 1999 and we got the great early run in 2000. As of right now, who the hell knows what the wwf thinks the fans want.

[Guest Risk]

However, the growing knowledge of fans has increased the quality at times. As Vince said we fans "demanded" not to be insulted with the simpleton good guy/bad guy philosophy. Too bad the wwf succeeded with the new philosophy in 1998 and then completely turned it upside down in 1999. Luckily workrate was forced upon the wwf after the crappy storylines in 1999 and we got the great early run in 2000. As of right now, who the hell knows what the wwf thinks the fans want.

 

I posted that Vince interview.  

 

Anyways, here are what I think the problems are.

 

1)As mentioned, the "good" guy and "bad" guy dynamic has to go.  It worked in ECW, why not in the WWF?  

 

2)More realism.  The first time Austin hit McMahon in the back of the head with a chair, I was worried about McMahon's condition and Austin's job, I was a mark then.  Plus, in the match, Mick Foley had Austin beat with the Mandible Claw(the ref was out) and it was mentioned on TV.

 

That was good realism.  Having Austin attack McMahon the first one or two times was great.  Having it become expected and making Vince a "bad" guy was messed up.

 

3)Less PPVs.  They should only have four or five PPVs, this leaves time for feuds and angles to build.  This makes PPVs very important and affordable to the common fan.  Also, we get better matches on free tv.

 

4)Less titles.  It is no secret I hate the IC title's nonsensical World-esque name.  IMO, we should have a World Heavyweight title, a Junior Heavyweight title, and the Tag Team titles.  This makes belts seem VERY important and not every one will win one.

 

5)A more stiff style.

 

6)More mat-work, like that in 1963 thrown in with some the styles of today.

[Guest Risk]

However, the growing knowledge of fans has increased the quality at times. As Vince said we fans "demanded" not to be insulted with the simpleton good guy/bad guy philosophy. Too bad the wwf succeeded with the new philosophy in 1998 and then completely turned it upside down in 1999. Luckily workrate was forced upon the wwf after the crappy storylines in 1999 and we got the great early run in 2000. As of right now, who the hell knows what the wwf thinks the fans want.

 

I posted that Vince interview.  

 

Anyways, here are what I think the problems are.

 

1)As mentioned, the "good" guy and "bad" guy dynamic has to go.  It worked in ECW, why not in the WWF?  

 

2)More realism.  The first time Austin hit McMahon in the back of the head with a chair, I was worried about McMahon's condition and Austin's job, I was a mark then.  Plus, in the match, Mick Foley had Austin beat with the Mandible Claw(the ref was out) and it was mentioned on TV.

 

That was good realism.  Having Austin attack McMahon the first one or two times was great.  Having it become expected and making Vince a "bad" guy was messed up.

 

3)Less PPVs.  They should only have four or five PPVs, this leaves time for feuds and angles to build.  This makes PPVs very important and affordable to the common fan.  Also, we get better matches on free tv.

 

4)Less titles.  It is no secret I hate the IC title's nonsensical World-esque name.  IMO, we should have a World Heavyweight title, a Junior Heavyweight title, and the Tag Team titles.  This makes belts seem VERY important and not every one will win one.

 

5)A more stiff style.

 

6)More mat-work, like that in 1963 thrown in with some the styles of today.

 

7)Better bookers.

[Guest RickyB]

3)Less PPVs.  They should only have four or five PPVs, this leaves time for feuds and angles to build.  This makes PPVs very important and affordable to the common fan.  Also, we get better matches on free tv.

 

The WWF will never cut down the amount of PPV's.... why would they?  The more PPV's they have = more money.  So why would they risk losing more money just in case it improves the storylines.  Maybe they could try and bring back In Your House or maybe since they brought WCW they could bring back Clash Of The Champions as Pay-Per-Views between the main ones which wouldn't be as big as the real Pay-Per-Views.  But at the moment they know that they will make a lot of money from the current set of Pay-Per-Views, so why change them?

[Guest razazteca]

Cutting back in PPVs is a good thing, instead of forcing storylines to work in a 3 week period, then getting a very different than desired reaction.....WMX8 Hogan was supposed to be a heel.  The angles need more time so that it can develop properly, maybe cut back to 5 PPVs a year for each independent brand then 3 big interpromotional PPVs Wrestlemania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series.

[Guest Mark4steamboat]

The angles need more time so that it can develop properly, maybe cut back to 5 PPVs a year for each independent brand then 3 big interpromotional PPVs Wrestlemania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series.

i totally agree but Royal Rumble should be Interpromotional with 15 Raw and 15 Smackdown guys in the rumble.