How To Do A Good Build-Up?

[Guest Mordecai's Cathedral]

Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, but I didn't think this should be in Fantasy Booking.

 

Lately, a lot of people complain of how badly a PPV main event is built up on shows. Some say there's too much goofy talking or stupid situations (e.g. JBL "attacking" Guerrero's mother) and others say that they should quit throwing people from different feuds together in a six-man Tag Team main event.

 

So, my question is: how can you build up the main event at a Pay-Per-View (or just a big show) well? I don't ask this for just a "sports entertainment" federation like the WWE, but other federations as well: ROH, NJPW... What are some good ways to build up a big match?

[The Amazing Rando 0]

My only answer is that there needs to be real emotion there, or at least as real as it can be.

 

It's a good reason why at a base level the Angle/Eddy feud going into WMXX was great. You could look at them at Angle and see real HATE, and that has not really been seen since.

 

For what certain faces go through at the hands of the heels, there should be a real hate thrown out alot more. This is especially true when anyone faces HHH. His opponents should be looking for blood (most of the time) and yet are just going into it like it's...well... just another match.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

For throwaway PPV matches and short feuds you can do the ol' standby by having the challenger beat the champion in a non-title or tag match. For example, next week have JBL & Orlando vs. Rey & RVD and have Rey pin JBL in a big upset where everyone is expecting Orlando to win. Insta-feud, it isn't going to be a huge success or anything, but if you need something quick it is alot better than thinking up some dumb angle.

 

The tippy-top feuds should be slow burning. The seeds to Cena/Angle were planted way back when Kurt was first made GM, and their characters are natural rivals. Start to show problems while wrestlers are still feuding with others. It must be done this way because of the multi-PPVs and you don't want to overshadow the current PPV main event, but still want to build to the big pay days.

 

Gimmick PPVs. Royal Rumble is set in stone every year. You don't have to do much to build it up because it is the Royal Rumble. Armageddon would be a lot more interesting if instead of a fatal-fourway, they brought back the ol' Armageddon HIAC with JBL vs. Booker vs. Eddy vs. Taker vs. Angle vs. Show and make it out to be an annual event. Get people talking, and unlike the Elimination Chambe you don't have to spend a bunch of money on the equipment since you already have it.

[iliketurtles 0]

Give it time. The fans need to be able to have the time to realize what's going on. Don't be afraid to foreshadow it...honestly...the perfect example was Goldberg vs. Lesnar for Wrestlemania 20, though there was a lot screwed up about that (the fact the feud turned into Lesnar vs. Austin becuse of Goldberg's contract situation, match was destined to be bad since everyone was leaving soon there after, etc.)

 

Make the reason for the feud REALISTIC. The Hogan/Rock confrontation on Raw after No Way Out 2002 was the perfect example. Fans knew this was Babe Ruth vs. Barry Bonds, so they already had a story ready and this confrontation made it all seem right. The beatdown afterwards was PERFECT. Absoutely perfect. And you know what it did? It got the nWo over as heels, which no one said could be done. It was a realistic gang attack.

 

Of course, you know what happened after they came back from the commercial break to totally overblow it, but this was exactly how a feud should start. Problems are evident between two wrestlers...and then it just blows over to extreme hatred.

 

You need to feel the passion between both wrestlers...it's all about chemistry. Some are naturals, some guys just don't have what it takes when feuding with each other. Triple H vs. Kurt Angle could of been the match/feud of the year in 2000, but for A LOT of reasons it just never worked...one main one is that they never really worked that great together, both in the ring and off camera. It just wasn't intresting.

 

A feud should never go to long, and that's just decided with how the crowd reacts. This is why a lot of the fans reacted negatively to Shawn Michaels and Triple H, it just got to the point it was so stale no one cared. You want to give them an ending they'll enjoy, and it's not always necessarily the bad guy losing. While Wrestlemania was usually the climax point to the year, it wasn't in 2000 with Triple H retaining. But because of that, they had Backlash 2000...which was of the same calibeur as Wrestlemania 16...and popped another huge buyrate.

 

I think the one reason why the WWE does so much stupid shit is because they try to hard, when if they can just stick to a main formula and constantly spice things up, they'd be a lot better. Someone made a good comment a few weeks ago saying they should focus more ont he wrestlers than the characters. If they did that, they'd be set. It's not about goofy characters. We aren't in that stage anymore. That's why all these new guys have come in this year with retarded characters, been pushed really strong, and it backfires immediately.

 

That's just a small piece...I could go all night about this topic, but that's a start.

[iliketurtles 0]

Armageddon would be a lot more interesting if instead of a fatal-fourway, they brought back the ol' Armageddon HIAC with JBL vs. Booker vs. Eddy vs. Taker vs. Angle vs. Show and make it out to be an annual event.  Get people talking, and unlike the Elimination Chambe you don't have to spend a bunch of money on the equipment since you already have it.

Love the idea, but SD is so weak could they really do that? Fans will be paying 35 bucks just for that one match because there's absoutely nothing else below the main event level that's worth watching on Smackdown right now. Even if you had it go 45 minutes.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Chris Benoit's story last year was a great way to build a big main event. He starts by beating Lesnar at Survivor Series, and then he earns one shot at the title by beating Cena and wrestling twice in one night only to lose barely. Heyman makes it his mission to stop Benoit from getting another title shot, including giving him #1 in the Rumble. He wins the Rumble against all odds, earning the shot at Lesnar, but because of Heyman's treatment of him he tells him to go fuck himself by jumping to RAW, doing what nobody had done in years (force HHH to tap out and win the title) and being the big factor in RAW dominating Smackdown throughout his reign and in some ways causing Heyman to lose his job by making it necessary for a draft lottery by causing the rosters to be unbalanced due to his presence on RAW.

 

Great angle, and the best they've done in a long time.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Armageddon would be a lot more interesting if instead of a fatal-fourway, they brought back the ol' Armageddon HIAC with JBL vs. Booker vs. Eddy vs. Taker vs. Angle vs. Show and make it out to be an annual event.  Get people talking, and unlike the Elimination Chambe you don't have to spend a bunch of money on the equipment since you already have it.

Love the idea, but SD is so weak could they really do that? Fans will be paying 35 bucks just for that one match because there's absoutely nothing else below the main event level that's worth watching on Smackdown right now. Even if you had it go 45 minutes.

My Armageddon card.

 

HIAC For the WWE Championship: JBL vs. Undertaker vs. Big Show vs. Kurt Angle vs. Booker T vs. Eddy Guerrero

 

WWE Tag Team Championships: Rene Dupree & Kenzo Suzuki vs. Rey Misterio & RVD

 

WWE US Championship: John Cena vs. Luther Reigns. Cena fights through his kidney injury, but ultimately loses the title to get it off of him and put someone new over in the process. Luther is not my ideal choice, but this roster is weak and almost everyone else above him are too high for this belt at the moment. This should help both guys. The other options are Orlando Jordan, Mark Jindrak & Jesus, but Reigns is better than those guys so he gets the shot.

 

John Heidenreich vs. Charlie Haas. They are having a mini-feud on Smackdown.

 

Chavo Guerrero vs. Billy Kidman. Paul London returns and costs Kidman the match, after 15 minutes or so.

 

Spike Dudley vs. Hardcore Holly. Spike jobbed to Hardcore on Velocity and comes back for revenge with help from Bubba & D'Von.

 

6 Matches are enough given that we are selling this show on the main event. You have three potentially good matches (Main Event, Tag Titles, Chavo/Kidman) which will get the most time, and three matches designed to put someone over. And it will probably end up better than the real show.

[Papacita 0]

I agree with most of what's been posted, although I'm a little iffy on the idea of foreshadowing feuds. Not that it shouldn't be done, but the way that WWE tends to do it (like having Kurt Angle jump into the middle of the Eddie/Chavo feud for no reason) makes things too obvious and takes away a lot of the suspense for me.

 

I think the best builds are those that convey a sense of hatred between the two wrestlers, but keeps the physical contact to a minimum prior to the big match. A good example of this was HHH/Austin for No Way Out 01--the non-aggression stuff got a little cheesy at times, but it was effective, and as a result, that match was for me probably the most anticipated of the year. When you see the guys going tit for tat, attacking each other back and forth week after week, that takes away a lot of the excitement for me, and lessens the desire to see them finally get their hands on one another. Rock and HHH did a lot of that when building for their post WM matches in 2000, and that's one reason I could never really get excited about that feud.