Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza
Posted: Apr 27th, '20, 11:12
2 - SOOOO Lazy.Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 27th, '20, 09:352- Unfortunately, you are correct (although it still doesn't explain why babyface management wouldn't just come out and make the match anyway, and oh my G-d the booking in that company is sooooooo lazy).XIV wrote: ↑Apr 27th, '20, 05:342 - You know thats the angle WWE would use anbd they'd use that phrase, because... well WWE. You could always use the Heel to go for the whole "match will be when I want the match".Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Apr 24th, '20, 10:00
2. I wasn't thinking along the lines of having someone refuse the match so much as just start the story but don't heat it up until after Mania. There are definitely ways to make it part of a storyline, though (but I'd avoid using the term "WrestleMania Moment(tm)" like the plague).
3. See... if you're going to do a brand split, I think the best way to do it is to have one traveling champion for each other the men's heavyweight, women's, men's tag team, women's tag team, and cruiserweight divisions. That way you've got one champion per division, and they get this special privilege, which makes the belts feel more important and makes the champs look like even bigger stars.
If you're not going to do that I think you can get away with two sets of titles if and only if you keep the shows as separate as possible, maybe only coming together for the Royal Rumble and MITB, and doing two nights of Mania and Summer Slam, one for Raw and one for SD (and you wouldn't need to do them in the same city, so you can get two big show gates).
Part of the reason that I've stalled out in my BRM Books Raw 1,000 and Beyond thread after almost four years' worth of booking was not knowing how to deal with the roster split, because I didn't have a strong enough women's or tag division to have separate titles for each show, but had put a lot of effort over the years into making sure I kept both world titles strong and not making the mistake that WWE did, so I had no idea how to handle the roster split.
4. Those examples you gave, plus the Rock/Ronda/Hunter/Steph segment from WM31 and the pointless Hogan appearance with Alexa last year were the first ones that popped into my mind.
5. It also serves as a bathroom break, but I think it could be shorter. If a fan doesn't have the story, an announcer should be able to relate it to them effectively. Stories can be kept simple enough that the packages don't need to be longer than one minute.
6. Or, at the very least, do it the way that NJPW has done in the past where all of the bullsh*t filler is early on the card, so while the first ninety minutes might be filler, the remaining three and a half hours are nonstop matches intended to blow the roof off of the place.
3 - Couldn't agree more. 1 set of champions re-installs a level of prestige and it is the champions advantage where they can show up everywhere, in terms of the realism of travelling to and from shows, they're the champion, they don't have to physically appear each week on both shows. They'd only need to work the shows of the wrestler they're in an angle with alongside the occasional appearance on the other show to keep the belt alive there too.
5 - If you go back to the way commentary used to be done, the video packages are even less necessary. It doesn't take 30 seconds for an announcer to fill us in: "XIV is facing BRM tonight, because BRM called XIV's mother fat. BRM is determined to make an examploe out of XIV and XIV wants revenge" . That takes 10 seconds to cover and the fan is clued in. You can even add in some stats "BRM attacked XIV on April 4th Smackdown, and XIV demanded a match with BRM won with a handful of tights, XIV wants to make it right and demanded a match here at PPV". Again, another 10 seconds and the whole picture is built.
6 - That's how wrestling cards have historically worked. It starts with run of the mill stuff, job guys, mid card stuff and then onto the stuff fans want to see. Going from a World Title match to Heath Slater vs Zack Ryder level match doesn't work it creates too many peaks and troughs. Start and build towards the big finish with the crowd getting more and more into it
3- Just based on my experience as a fan during the first roster-split, those little appearances on the other shows are pretty crucial, because otherwise the champion starts to feel like a tool of the powers that be, being assigned to this show or that show for a month or two at a time and then not showing up until the next time the story demands it (similar to the way that Superstar Shake-Up doesn't feel like two GMs sculpting competing rosters but rather like the powers that be assigning the wrestlers to the brand they want them on). Those appearances on the other show should be used for setting seeds for whatever the champion is doing on that show next, or for elevating guys who you want to start elevating but aren't ready to push super-hard yet (Jeff Hardy in 2002 in his feud with Undertaker being the shining example in my mind).
5- Exactly. The mistake WWE often makes in their storytelling as a whole (and particularly when there was no brand split) is that they don't have stories so much as just an idea of what a feud is about, which they will throw out on the first show of the PPV cycle, and then every show until the PPV is spent having those wrestlers interact in some way (match, promo segment, someone interferes in someone else's match, someone does commentary on someone else's match, etc.) just for the sake of having them interact while the announcers hammer home the same point over and over and over again. This leads to pretty much every moment in the feud being equal because other than the beginning and maybe a go-home angle, none of them are really important in any way, so we get highlight packages that are just a bunch of stuff.
What you have done is created a progressing story that is easy to figure out what the important clips for the video package are:
Week 1- clip from promo of BRM calling XIV's mother fat
Week 2- clip from promo of XIV vowing to defend his mother's honor and kick BRM's ass, followed by clip later in the night of BRM jumping XIV from behind and beating him down, then accepting the challenge
Week 3- clips of five seconds of beginning of match, followed by clip of finish where XIV goes for his finisher but BRM reverses it with a school boy while grabbing the tights for leverage
Week 4- clip of BRM cutting a promo reiterating that XIV's mother is fat and making fun of XIV for failing to defend her honor, followed by XIV running out swinging a kendo stick and BRM running off, then XIV picking up the mic and vowing to make BRM pay the next time they meet.
That's one minute AT MOST, and it's all actually important to the story, rather than just action clips and antics.
6- I actually think there is an argument to the peaks and valleys thing, but WWE is a little too extreme with it. I think you need a hot opener nowadays, and you need either a come-down match or a the very least a change of pace match after certain things (I'm not saying put a five-minute filler match on between your fifteen-minute ladder match and your twenty-minute I quit match, but I am saying that between those two matches is a great place to stick your twenty-minute grapplef*ck match).
Also, there is a difference between a come-down match and a filler match. A come-down match is only a come-down in the pace of the action, not it's importance. Otis vs. Ziggler from Mania this year would have been perfect as a come-down match due to the pacing, but it still delivered a big storyline moment and was fulfilling for fans in an emotional way, rather than one that is purely action, or a combination of the two.
3 - Oh 100% Having the champion(s) appear on other shows makes big difference and can have those occasional matches to put someone over just like that Taker / Hardy side mini-feud which ended in that awesome match where the champion won and Hardy was established as a capable singles competitor. You can have little interactions with other guys planting those seeds or do that sort of thing where you have wrestlers be showing to perform even better when the Champ is around trying to get their attention for the next title shot. Which could lead to a Babyface challenger eventually getting the next shot because they've been so good and it's been noticed or a Heel eventually gets a shot because they feel overlooked when they've been getting the wins and ultimately attack the champ. So many options without entirely sidetracking from the current feud. At the end of the day, they're the champ(s) and everyone should want a piece.
5 - I think WWE got lazy and decided the MMA presentation is the way they need to do things. Almost use a video package to build up everything on a PPV, and it doesn't require that. Particularly if it is a lower card feud, it does just need either something small like a 60 second video or a commentary round-up. Because that way, when you do have a proper video package for a bigger feud, it will feel mega (see Rock v Austin for Wrestlemania with "My Way" as the theme tune... the best feud video package of all time). They'd been through so much, and done so much, that summing it up in a video package was just hit after hit after hit and made what followed feel HUGE. But if everyone gets a video package, nobody feels special.
6 - Nothing wrong with a hot opener to get the people up for the show, but it's important to be careful with it. Again, if everyone is having a 20 minutes match, it does nobody any favours, you need a few matches where it is get in, get done, get out because then the fans won't get bored. This day and age, attention span is smaller so if you're going to have a 25 minute match, make sure the people involved can be innovative enough for a 25 minute match.