The WWE needs to do a better job of building up storylines for BIG PPV Events

[Mogadishu]

In my opinion, the WWE could do a much better job of building up their storylines towards major PPV's. This past year's Wrestlemania for instance - I thought the WWE didn't do the greatest job in building up a lot of their feuds...due to the fact that a lot of the storylines were created AFTER No Way Out. (i.e. only 4-6 weeks of storyline building).

-Orton vs. Triple H
-JBL vs. Mysterio
-Cena vs. Edge vs. Big Show
-HBK vs. Taker

and some other matches that currently escape my memory, were all seemingly "rushed"...and kind of just jammed together. For BIG PPV events, I believe that the WWE would be far better off in devoting atleast a few months in developing a storyline.

Does anyone on here remember Summerslam 98?' In my opinion, Summerslam 98', Highway to Hell, was one of the BEST PPV's of all-time. That whole "Highway to Hell" tour and theme was built up tremendously. So many of those feuds from that PPV marked the culmination of months and months of storyline building.

-Stone Cold vs. Undertaker (was Kane in cahoots with Taker?)
-The Rock vs. Triple H (Nation vs. DX).
-Owen Hart vs. Ken Shamrock
-Sable vs. Jacqueline w/Marc Mero
-Jeff Jarret vs. X-Pac

And so much more!

The reason why I remember this card fairly well, is because these feuds were built up so well....and were not just rushed. If the WWE are interested in getting back to their Attitude Era success, then I believe that they should spend more months in developing their storylines for major PPV's.

[Nicky Fives]

right on my friend..... but I think Vince feels that he can get away with less now because the WWE's target audience is different...... back in '98, viewers were pretty much ranging from late teens to 20's, and they needed more developed storylines to keep entertained as well as decent matches, whereas now the target generation is the PG-13 crowd, where they care less about the build-up and storylines and only if their fave superstar wins or loses and what high-spots are in every match....

[Juan]

Hey man, no bullet points?

[Xero]

WWE needs to drop down to 12 a year, or less.

[Mogadishu]

right on my friend..... but I think Vince feels that he can get away with less now because the WWE's target audience is different...... back in '98, viewers were pretty much ranging from late teens to 20's, and they needed more developed storylines to keep entertained as well as decent matches, whereas now the target generation is the PG-13 crowd, where they care less about the build-up and storylines and only if their fave superstar wins or loses and what high-spots are in every match....

Great points. It's probably true that the younger demographic has a much shorter attention span and as result, doesn't need the huge build up.

[Mogadishu]

WWE needs to drop down to 12 a year, or less.

I agree to an extent.

I don't think it's the high number of PPV's that are a problem...although I definitely agree that Quality should take precedence over Quantity.

I think a major problem for the WWE is that they have too many "generic" PPV's. I'd like to see the WWE create more 'specialized' and 'unique' PPV's, so that each and every PPV can stand out in its own way.

In the old days, I really liked how we had an annual King of The Ring PPV. Despite the brand split, I really think the WWE should go back to that....and not worry if one brand is made to look superior or inferior if a wrestler from a certain show just so happens to win KOTR.

Survivor Series - same thing. Have your absolute TOP FIVE guys from RAW face-off against your TOP FIVE guys from Smackdown. Maybe it could be made 6 on 6....where 2 guys from ECW join both teams as well. The match could be made interesting in the sense that there would probably be a lot of inner conflict amongst both teams.

Example of a Survivor Series PPV:

Christian, Edge, Undertaker, CM Punk, Batista, John Morrison

vs.

William Regal, Triple H, John Cena, Randy Orton, Shawn Michaels, Big Show

The more specialized PPV's you create, the more potential for revenue that the WWE can create.

[Xero]

Every PPV but one or two are "specialized". And specializing them (the new ones anyway) has destroyed some of the better gimmick matches with overexposure.

We have the Rumble, No Way Out, Mania, Backlash (Mania rematches), Extreme Rules, Night of Champions, SummerSlam, Breaking Point, Cell, Survivor Series and TLC.

By doing the Cell PPV, for example, it really cripples its specialness. Same with TLC.

By lowering the amount of PPVs, you get better builds automatically because there wasn't a two week gap between one PPV to another. Those voids could easily be filled with SNME or other specials.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Problem is all these threads are obvious things they should be doing. Vince McMahon knows how to book a good wrestling product, there's just clearly extenuating factors.

[Xero]

Vince McMahon knows how to book a good wrestling product
No he doesn't. THIS is what he knows. He didn't know the attitude era, he was pushed into it. When he HAS to he can with the help of others. Otherwise he resorts to the 80s/early 90s booking.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

lol it's just funny how we all "know how to do it" though.

[Juan]

Welcome to the internet, Dale Newstead.

[Mogadishu]

Problem is all these threads are obvious things they should be doing. Vince McMahon knows how to book a good wrestling product, there's just clearly extenuating factors.

You're probably right. The question is, what are these extenuating factors? Why are these factors relevant now when in the late 90's, they were not? (or were far less relevant).

[Juan]

Because the crowds in the late 90's would cheer for absolutely anything, because they knew they were a part of something new and exciting. Now a days... not so much.

[Mogadishu]

Every PPV but one or two are "specialized". And specializing them (the new ones anyway) has destroyed some of the better gimmick matches with overexposure.

We have the Rumble, No Way Out, Mania, Backlash (Mania rematches), Extreme Rules, Night of Champions, SummerSlam, Breaking Point, Cell, Survivor Series and TLC.

By doing the Cell PPV, for example, it really cripples its specialness. Same with TLC.

By lowering the amount of PPVs, you get better builds automatically because there wasn't a two week gap between one PPV to another. Those voids could easily be filled with SNME or other specials.

I see what you're saying. The only problem is that by cutting down the # of PPV's you lose revenue. Even with better storyline build up and subsequent higher quality PPV's, I'm not sure if those PPV's would generate a significantly higher amount of revenue. I could be wrong though.

I like the SNME idea.

As far as the Specialty PPV's you listed, I'm not sure if I completely agree with that, but I see your points.

[Kami Raki]

Because the crowds in the late 90's would cheer for absolutely anything, because they knew they were a part of something new and exciting. Now a days... not so much.Agreed. This was present in WCW, ECW, and the WWF. But then again, it's kinda hard to get WWE crowds excited these days. They are only going to cheer for their absolute favorites and nobody else. I do agree on Xero's point that they need to cut down on the amount of PPVs. Kinda hard to build and make every one of their gimmick PPVs mean something.

[Mogadishu]

Because the crowds in the late 90's would cheer for absolutely anything, because they knew they were a part of something new and exciting. Now a days... not so much.

Agree and Disagree.

One thing the WWE did very well in the late 90's, was that they made each and every character interesting in atleast some way....even if the character was a jobber. The WWE devoted a lot of time in developing the characters through vignettes, back stage promo's, etc., etc. Hence - even a simple thing like Vince McMahon getting pissed off at the Stooges backstage would create great reactions.

The fans cheered because the characters were awesome....and the awesomeness of the characters allowed the writers to be more creative with those characters.

For whatever reason, the WWE got away from that when they purchased WCW. Since the WWE is in the Sports Entertainment business, I also hope that they can re-create that willing suspension of disbelief somehow.

Back in the day for instance, the fans wouldn't perceive it to be corny if Undertaker admitted to setting Kane on fire during the childhood....or if Undertaker was sacrificing people, etc.., or if Mankind spent his days and nights in a boiler room. That willing suspension of disbelief, allowed the fans to get caught up in the characters.

Unfortunately, this does not exist today.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

It's just mass produced garbage a lot of the time. It's all fluff, there's no substance especially on RAW.

[Mogadishu]

It's just mass produced garbage a lot of the time. It's all fluff, there's no substance especially on RAW.

Agreed.

One thing I've noticed since 2005 (the occasional time that I do watch), is that the WWE seems content on going through the motions.

I agree with what you say about RAW, but I think the other shows inevitably suffer as well. The truly hilarious thing, is that RAW is supposed to be the Flagship of the WWE...but is probably the worst of the three shows....largely due to the fact that there's a suffocating main-event bottleneck (usually centered around 2 or 3 of the following: Triple H, Cena, Batista, Orton).

ECW and Smackdown ultimately fail because anyone on the show that shows promise is ultimately moved to RAW....where they then usually end up becoming victims of the glass ceiling. Once their credibility has been ruined on RAW, they either stay 'dead' on RAW, or they get shipped off as 'damaged goods' back to Smackdown or ECW.

In the end - Batista, HBK, Cena, Orton, Triple H, and Undertaker remain your biggest stars.....with Edge walking that fine line between legit. World champ and transitional champ. Every now and then, when the WWE are bored, they'll throw in the likes of Jericho, JBL, and Show as transitional champs. Same old same old since 2005.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of CM Punk and John Morrison.

[wehavebensavedy2j]

I do think they should cut down on PPVs to once a month, as for the gimmick PPVs i think they should get rid of them except for extreme rules and as far as the Smackdown vs Raw thing i think its a good idea if done properly

[Emperor Smeat]

Agreed.

One thing I've noticed since 2005 (the occasional time that I do watch), is that the WWE seems content on going through the motions.

I agree with what you say about RAW, but I think the other shows inevitably suffer as well. The truly hilarious thing, is that RAW is supposed to be the Flagship of the WWE...but is probably the worst of the three shows....largely due to the fact that there's a suffocating main-event bottleneck (usually centered around 2 or 3 of the following: Triple H, Cena, Batista, Orton).

ECW and Smackdown ultimately fail because anyone on the show that shows promise is ultimately moved to RAW....where they then usually end up becoming victims of the glass ceiling. Once their credibility has been ruined on RAW, they either stay 'dead' on RAW, or they get shipped off as 'damaged goods' back to Smackdown or ECW.

In the end - Batista, HBK, Cena, Orton, Triple H, and Undertaker remain your biggest stars.....with Edge walking that fine line between legit. World champ and transitional champ. Every now and then, when the WWE are bored, they'll throw in the likes of Jericho, JBL, and Show as transitional champs. Same old same old since 2005.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of CM Punk and John Morrison.

Once they openly declared Raw their flagship on air multiple times when before it was treated equal to smackdown or at least seen as the more unpredictable show since it was live, the whole brand split has been declining in quality overall.

They are willing to destroy Smackdown/ECW ratings and popularity for short term RAW ratings boosts. It also doesn't help that they keep promoting RAW as their flagship and make people who bought a ticket for Smackdown feel like they getting the inferior show. While RAW has been very stale as a show, Smackdown and ECW are set up in a way to be exciting since they always pushing new stars and wrestlers in the main events.

[Mogadishu]

Once they openly declared Raw their flagship on air multiple times when before it was treated equal to smackdown or at least seen as the more unpredictable show since it was live, the whole brand split has been declining in quality overall.

They are willing to destroy Smackdown/ECW ratings and popularity for short term RAW ratings boosts. It also doesn't help that they keep promoting RAW as their flagship and make people who bought a ticket for Smackdown feel like they getting the inferior show. While RAW has been very stale as a show, Smackdown and ECW are set up in a way to be exciting since they always pushing new stars and wrestlers in the main events.

Exactly.

I think Gorgeous Dale Newstead said it best. This is all obvious stuff but there has to be other factors at play here.

Being ECW champ is the modern day equivalent of being a European Champion....in terms of credibility amongst the fans. Similarly, being the World/WWE champ on Smackdown is the modern day equivalent of being the Intercontinental Champion. I don't even want to comment on the meaning (or lack thereof) of the other singles titles.

In my opinion, RAW would be awesome if the following changes occurred:

To RAW:
-Edge
-Christian
-CM Punk
-Shelton Benjamin
-John Morrison

Off RAW:
-John Cena
-Randy Orton
-Big Show
-Triple H
-Batista (which has already happened).

With a RAW set up like that, I would also try and persuade RVD to come back (RVD + CM Punk = :drool:-)

That's just how I would arrange it, but I'm sure other people have different opinions.

[DAMN iNATOR]

The main problems, as touched on already, with the building up of storylines in WWE, is that they only have 3 weeks for any of the non-major PPV's (you know, Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series), which makes the build up to the matches in those pay-per-views either feel very rushed, or there is none or a very minimal amount of build-up due to non-interest in a match made for a pay-per-view.

However, at least with the major pay-per-views so far this year (Mania and SummerSlam), there was more than ample time to build up the storylines, 7 weeks for WM, and, I think, like 5 for SSlam. Even though the extra time arguably didn't do very much to help create any extra build up for WrestleMania 25, they did a much better job with creating more backstories and tension for most of the SummerSlam matches, which helped mold SummerSlam into a very solid pay-per-view on paper.

Fortunately, SummerSlam was every bit as good as the matches advertised and thus made it, in my opinion, one of the best pay-per-views of the year in all of professional wrestling. The other thing is we need to cut back to 12 or less pay-per-views, as has already been said in here. You couple that with the fact that some of the build up that happens is laced with WAY too much comedy just to tickle VKM's funny bone, and that in turn, can sometimes cause a match on any card to lose so much value that the fans simply don't WANT to invest their time and energy on those matches.

Finally, one other thing that's going to end up killing the buyrates for these pay-per-views is not just the build up, but the seemingly all-too-willing-to-copycat-the-TNA Lethal Lockdown gimmick by Vince, and incorporate some sort of special rules/stipulations/match types into every pay-per-view, to the point where the novelty of gimmick pay-per-views has already worn thin. And although it has yet to happen, I'm skeptical as to how well HiaC can possibly turn out, and if it will even reach the very SMALL amount of potential it currently has, quality-wise. I do hope they reconsider the TLC idea. I'd love to see the tournament-based PPV idea come to fruition, ideally I'd like to see that turned into the triumphant return of King of the Ring, where you'd have Finals match-ups for #1 Contenderships for the WWE, WHC, and ECW Championships at the event, and then immediately after, have the new #1 Contender for whichever belt get their chance then and there...a sort of way of going about giving the fans, wrestlers and promoters instant gratification all at once.

[RGWhat316]

I definitely agree with more build-up to storylines. I also hate that when a storyline is long running, it gets changed and forgotten about.

The biggest example of this recently is Wrestlemania. First HHH even said that Orton needed to win to make up for the night that HHH turned on him. Then once Orton attacked Stephanie, that whole storyline went right out the window and was never heard again. No reasony why Orton needed to win, just why HHH cus of Orton attacking his family.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Exactly.

I think Gorgeous Dale Newstead said it best. This is all obvious stuff but there has to be other factors at play here.

Being ECW champ is the modern day equivalent of being a European Champion....in terms of credibility amongst the fans. Similarly, being the World/WWE champ on Smackdown is the modern day equivalent of being the Intercontinental Champion. I don't even want to comment on the meaning (or lack thereof) of the other singles titles.

In my opinion, RAW would be awesome if the following changes occurred:

To RAW:
-Edge
-Christian
-CM Punk
-Shelton Benjamin
-John Morrison

Off RAW:
-John Cena
-Randy Orton
-Big Show
-Triple H
-Batista (which has already happened).

With a RAW set up like that, I would also try and persuade RVD to come back (RVD + CM Punk = :drool:-)

That's just how I would arrange it, but I'm sure other people have different opinions.


Nah the Smackdown world title actually has the value of a proper world title as it is a constant ppv main event title and the most over guys in the company have been wearing it of late :p (Edge, Punk and Hardy).

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Heyman

[Juan]

Heyman

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/536191747_5e3a6fc6b6.jpg

[Mogadishu]

Nah the Smackdown world title actually has the value of a proper world title as it is a constant ppv main event title and the most over guys in the company have been wearing it of late :p (Edge, Punk and Hardy).


I guess so. Despite that however, you can't deny the fact that RAW still ends up getting more World title matches as the final match on the card during a calendar year. Furthermore, take a look at the top guys on RAW compared to the top guys on Smackdown.

RAW
-Triple H, Orton, Cena, Batista (until recent), HBK. ALL of these guys have won World titles at Wrestlemania....as the very last match.

Smackdown
-With the exception of Taker, none of those guys have.

Even if Punk, Edge, and Jeff Hardy are/were the most over stars in the company, you can't tell me that any of these guys have been booked in such a way to be made to look like bigger stars than their RAW counter-parts. This is why that I still believe, that being a world champ on RAW still significantly outweighs being a world champ on Smackdown....the way the WWE has shaped itself.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Every PPV but one or two are "specialized". And specializing them (the new ones anyway) has destroyed some of the better gimmick matches with overexposure.

We have the Rumble, No Way Out, Mania, Backlash (Mania rematches), Extreme Rules, Night of Champions, SummerSlam, Breaking Point, Cell, Survivor Series and TLC.

By doing the Cell PPV, for example, it really cripples its specialness. Same with TLC.

By lowering the amount of PPVs, you get better builds automatically because there wasn't a two week gap between one PPV to another. Those voids could easily be filled with SNME or other specials.

I'm sort of in the middle here. I like the idea of PPVs with themes. For example: I think the Royal Rumble, King of the Ring and Survivor Series are all institutions they can depend upon. I'd love to see a RAW vs. SmackDown! vs. ECW PPV, which I think they could turn Bragging Rights into. The December PPV could feature War Games, to close out the year. You could just combine the top feuds of the year into one big match finale.

I hate the concept of grudge matches being turned into a PPV concept for the hell of it. It sort of works with War Games, I feel, but I don't even like the Elimination Chamber at No Way Out. I'd prefer it if the Chamber came from an organic place, and was brought out when there were plenty of people chasing for the WWE Title.

TLC, Hell in a Cell -- hate them both. Night of Champions is a pretty good theme -- with every title being defended without question. Some sort of Lethal Lottery concept would be good, if tag team wrestling still meant shit. They could do an entirely randomised PPV, though. They'd need to work out ways to promote it, though. Having heel champions going in would probably be the best bet, because there'd be more interest in a heel champion facing an unknown challenge -- increasing their chances of being knocked off.

But to address the main theme, I think that the WWE should be deciding what programs they want to run, and then working backwards. The WWE has probably got an idea of what they are going to do at Mania 26. Let's say it's Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels. They could very easily start building to that now. HBK tapping out to Legacy was a good start. Perhaps that can stir feelings in Triple H that he would be better off on his own? A great way to ease into a heel turn.

Who is The Undertaker's Mania 26 opponent? If it's Ted DiBiase, for example, start dropping hints now. Have Ted talk to Cody about wanting to do something in this business that no one else has done -- he just has to work out what.

Also, I'd be curious to see what Michael Hayes would do with RAW. I'd like to see him given the reigns for a week or two, and just see what he can come up with as episodic television. SmackDown! is a good show, but has the disadvantage of being, well, SmackDown!. There is no doubt that the RAW roster is also good, although it is quite top-heavy.