WWE, Their Forumla for Raw, and What That Says About Their Mindset
Posted: Oct 31st, '15, 19:08
I think the reason WWE almost always starts off with a promo segment- usually by the Authority- is because they use it as a device to set up that night's overarching story. It's almost certain that whatever the Authority and Seth talk about here will also be the subject of or impetus for numerous backstage talking segments, and will pay off in the main event. I'm not sure if it's just laziness or they really think it's working, but WWE seems completely ignorant of the fact that people are SOOOO sick and tired of it, and hurts the show because it makes every single show feel the same right from the beginning.
The more I think about it, the more I think it shows a very clear view of their mindset about things. They rely on this set-up (someone comes out to cut a promo, someone else interrupts/creates conflict, then a main event is either booked right there on the spot or we are informed of it soon thereafter) rather than actually announcing matches beforehand, or for something like this week's tournament, having the announcers quickly run it down for us, because they think that interest in the product is driven by personalities in conflict- i.e. their "storylines"- which are always a mutual conflict between two or more individuals- and thus, on every show, they feel the need to start off by creating conflict between two personalities and then pay it off at the end.
Interestingly, this mindset doesn't allow them to tell stories that aren't a mutual conflict between two or more people... by which I mean they never tell a story that is merely one person striving for something (like a championship), or the effects of a certain event (like a big loss) or series thereof on one person.
Think about it. This explains why they booked the Divas Revolution the way they did: They thought there needed to be mutual conflict (this three-way feud which required immediately debuting all three NXT women together and forcing them into these stables) rather than telling the story of one particular woman (Charlotte, for example) chasing the title and wanting to redefine women’s wrestling.
It also explains why wins and losses never seem to matter. In WWE you don’t get a title shot for winning a bunch of matches. You get a title shot because you have a mutual personal conflict with the champion. This explains why Ambrose or Ryback can pin Seth Rollins (or even more to the point, how we had Eva Marie pin the Divas Champion TWICE IN A WEEK last year) without ever getting a title shot. They’re not feuding with the champion, therefore they don’t get a title shot. Big losses never seem to affect anyone emotionally, either, because that’s a one person story, and WWE doesn’t like to tell those.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that a major reason why I enjoyed last week’s Raw so much was because it broke from this mold. The story of the one-night tournament wasn’t about people feuding with each other. It was about eight men each trying to earn a title shot, and the results of their matches along the way mattered. That made last week’s Raw feel so much different than every other Raw we’ve seen for what feels like years now.
The more I think about it, the more I think it shows a very clear view of their mindset about things. They rely on this set-up (someone comes out to cut a promo, someone else interrupts/creates conflict, then a main event is either booked right there on the spot or we are informed of it soon thereafter) rather than actually announcing matches beforehand, or for something like this week's tournament, having the announcers quickly run it down for us, because they think that interest in the product is driven by personalities in conflict- i.e. their "storylines"- which are always a mutual conflict between two or more individuals- and thus, on every show, they feel the need to start off by creating conflict between two personalities and then pay it off at the end.
Interestingly, this mindset doesn't allow them to tell stories that aren't a mutual conflict between two or more people... by which I mean they never tell a story that is merely one person striving for something (like a championship), or the effects of a certain event (like a big loss) or series thereof on one person.
Think about it. This explains why they booked the Divas Revolution the way they did: They thought there needed to be mutual conflict (this three-way feud which required immediately debuting all three NXT women together and forcing them into these stables) rather than telling the story of one particular woman (Charlotte, for example) chasing the title and wanting to redefine women’s wrestling.
It also explains why wins and losses never seem to matter. In WWE you don’t get a title shot for winning a bunch of matches. You get a title shot because you have a mutual personal conflict with the champion. This explains why Ambrose or Ryback can pin Seth Rollins (or even more to the point, how we had Eva Marie pin the Divas Champion TWICE IN A WEEK last year) without ever getting a title shot. They’re not feuding with the champion, therefore they don’t get a title shot. Big losses never seem to affect anyone emotionally, either, because that’s a one person story, and WWE doesn’t like to tell those.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that a major reason why I enjoyed last week’s Raw so much was because it broke from this mold. The story of the one-night tournament wasn’t about people feuding with each other. It was about eight men each trying to earn a title shot, and the results of their matches along the way mattered. That made last week’s Raw feel so much different than every other Raw we’ve seen for what feels like years now.