Mania - Stars or Stories?

**Maluco** · 02-22-2015, 09:44 AM

When planning Mania, the ideal is to have your big stars and big feuds with stories that draw fans and make them want to watch, but obviously there is a spontaneous side to wrestling and stories can come about on their own, organically.

A good example of this this year is Miz and Mizdow, the fans have been loving what they both created for months now and there is a big chance to have a match at Mania where the crowd will be emotionally invested. So do you do that match with lesser stars and a story, or do you put it on the pre-show and have a Sheamus return match instead. Star or Story?

I think that the art of telling a story is something that is getting lost in a world of 5 minute matches and that Mania should be the one place where this is maintained. It might be controversial, but I would rather see Bray Wyatt having a story with someone on the roster than cutting promos on someone who isn't there. But does the spectacle of their entrances make up for the lack of story for some people?

Another example is Goldust/Stardust, I feel like this is years in the making and even though the feud is young, there is so much back story they can use. Goldust, who has had a phenomenal career and was a truly unique star, where I doubt even Vince thought he could make Goldust work, fighting against a younger brother who feels he has had to put on the makeup just to get seen or noticed, when his ability should have been enough. He is resentful and now the father is involved too. For me, that is crying out for a traditional cage match blowoff at Mania with Dusty at ringside. So much story and emotion there. For me, that's what Mania should be about and the likes or Orton, Sheamus and even Taker, should be sacrificed so the guys who have been telling us a story all year, have a chance to shine.

Thoughts? Agree or Disagree? It can be both, but where you have to choose, stars or story?

**dingdongyo** · 02-22-2015, 11:38 AM

I think that stars generate stories and stories generate stars. But, stars sell 10x more than stories do. At least. I think I prefer the story part. For instance, I'd rather not see a crippled Undertaker again. But he will put asses in seats.

I hope the Goldust/Stardust thing launches Cody to the fricken moon. He's absolutely nailed every character he's ever been, and is even more fun to watch live. If I ran a promotion, id offer him every penny I could convincingly pretend to own.

**Jordan** · 02-22-2015, 01:15 PM

It's all abou the story for me. My first live WM on PPV was the Iron Man Match. There is no build that has captured me more than that simple story of the two best in the world about to go at it for 60 minutes.

Now obviously, I was a kid, and it was real to me so it will never be topped. But that for me is the quintessential booking to hook me for WM. I would say that Rock/Cena was built really well too. I just don't remember which one was really good, the first match or the rematch.

**Jordan** · 02-22-2015, 01:16 PM

I mean come on, Ric Flair's season long story to retirement was fucking gold. Stars ain't shit on a compelling story.

**Jordan** · 02-22-2015, 01:17 PM

And as far as Bray/Taker goes, to contradict my main interest (which is the story) I absolutely love the idea of grand spectacle. Plus there is always a story with Undertaker, a history deeper than anyone, that's why he doesn't even need to show up.

**#1-norm-fan** · 02-22-2015, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fragile X

I mean come on, Ric Flair's season long story to retirement was fucking gold. Stars ain't shit on a compelling story.

To be fair, that story was gold because Ric Flair was a megastar. Same goes with Rock-Cena. Replace those guys in those stories with a mid-carder and the story suddenly becomes a waste of time. Ideally, there would always be a story though. But the bigger star in the weaker story will usually trump the lesser star in the better story.

As for the original example of Miz/Mizdow vs. a Sheamus match though, I'd say Miz/Mizdow should get the nod. If it's Rock, Taker, etc. it's different. Sheamus isn't a big enough star yet to push a well built match off the card just for his star power.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 02-22-2015, 06:55 PM

I understand why the WWE brings in the big stars for WrestleMania, but I'm a fan of a compelling story. The idea should be to hook people onto characters they are going to see throughout the coming year as well. You might generate some interest for a night with The Rock or Undertaker wrestling, but if they're not going to be at Payback, why will people care about that PPV?

**Emperor Smeat** · 02-22-2015, 07:17 PM

Stories. Mania should be more about rewarding storylines with their big moment or ending than just tossing them aside in favor of quickly shoehorning someone into the event because of their star status.

Miz vs Mizdow shouldn't be tossed to the pre-show just because Sheamus came back especially if whatever build Sheamus gets towards his Mania match ends up being lazily thrown together.

**BigCrippyZ** · 02-23-2015, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noid

I understand why the WWE brings in the big stars for WrestleMania, but I'm a fan of a compelling story. The idea should be to hook people onto characters they are going to see throughout the coming year as well. You might generate some interest for a night with The Rock or Undertaker wrestling, but if they're not going to be at Payback, why will people care about that PPV?

This. To me, even though guys Rock, Austin and Taker are legends today, I think without the stories they were involved in over the years, they would NOT be the stars and legends they became and remain to this day. Would they have been main eventers and successful, most likely. Would they have become the "MEGA" stars and legends they became without the storylines they were involved in? Not as likely.

**#1-norm-fan** · 02-23-2015, 04:15 AM

The idea SHOULD be to make stars out of your current guys. They've failed. So if you're asking "Should they take the guys who they haven't successfully built up and try to build WrestleMania stories for them OR use stars who will attract an audience?"... the choice is obviously the latter. That's basically the bottom line. Use the other 11 months of the year to try to build guys up to where you can have a Rock-Cena level match with them. WWE can't do that. Because the writing is shit. So they go with star power over storylines. And they aren't really wrong in that aspect.

**Simple Fan** · 02-23-2015, 10:22 AM

Stars. It the biggest show of the year and half the stories right now are coming from the mid card (Mizdow, Stardust). I think that the Star power draws a lot better then Mid card stories that do t seem compelling. I like Mizdow buut just don't feel like its a WM worthy match. They are 11 other PPV for that kind of stuff. As for Gold and Stardust I can see that at Mania if Goldust puts his Career on the line.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 02-23-2015, 07:52 PM

I'm not bashing the part-time guys' ability or drawing power with this statement: But the WWE's dependence on them smells desperate. It's kind of like "Hey, we've still got The Rock...we're still cool." IF the WWE decided to stop using these part-time guys (if), then it might force the WWE to create more stars on that full-time roster level. I'm thinking about the compelling WrestleMania that could come out of a talent pool that doesn't include The Undertaker, Triple H, Brock Lesnar, The Rock or Sting. It'd make the WWE work much harder for the dollar, but the guys making the money would come out looking much, much stronger.

**Mr. Nerfect** · 02-23-2015, 07:54 PM

Alternatively, why doesn't the WWE try and boost other PPV events by having big names on those shows? The Rock showed up on a RAW recently and did the Royal Rumble, sure; but remember when Shawn Michaels' epic return after a four year absence was done for SummerSlam 2002? It's WrestleMania for bust, and it really makes the PPV a show that exists outside the WWE's usual continuum.

02-22-2015, 09:44 AM	#1
Maluco Reigning Tipsters Champ! Posts: 2,087	Mania - Stars or Stories? When planning Mania, the ideal is to have your big stars and big feuds with stories that draw fans and make them want to watch, but obviously there is a spontaneous side to wrestling and stories can come about on their own, organically. A good example of this this year is Miz and Mizdow, the fans have been loving what they both created for months now and there is a big chance to have a match at Mania where the crowd will be emotionally invested. So do you do that match with lesser stars and a story, or do you put it on the pre-show and have a Sheamus return match instead. Star or Story? I think that the art of telling a story is something that is getting lost in a world of 5 minute matches and that Mania should be the one place where this is maintained. It might be controversial, but I would rather see Bray Wyatt having a story with someone on the roster than cutting promos on someone who isn't there. But does the spectacle of their entrances make up for the lack of story for some people? Another example is Goldust/Stardust, I feel like this is years in the making and even though the feud is young, there is so much back story they can use. Goldust, who has had a phenomenal career and was a truly unique star, where I doubt even Vince thought he could make Goldust work, fighting against a younger brother who feels he has had to put on the makeup just to get seen or noticed, when his ability should have been enough. He is resentful and now the father is involved too. For me, that is crying out for a traditional cage match blowoff at Mania with Dusty at ringside. So much story and emotion there. For me, that's what Mania should be about and the likes or Orton, Sheamus and even Taker, should be sacrificed so the guys who have been telling us a story all year, have a chance to shine. Thoughts? Agree or Disagree? It can be both, but where you have to choose, stars or story?

02-22-2015, 11:38 AM	#2
dingdongyo I have standards. Posts: 445	I think that stars generate stories and stories generate stars. But, stars sell 10x more than stories do. At least. I think I prefer the story part. For instance, I'd rather not see a crippled Undertaker again. But he will put asses in seats. I hope the Goldust/Stardust thing launches Cody to the fricken moon. He's absolutely nailed every character he's ever been, and is even more fun to watch live. If I ran a promotion, id offer him every penny I could convincingly pretend to own.

02-22-2015, 01:15 PM	#3
Jordan It's a blood match! Posts: 27,374	It's all abou the story for me. My first live WM on PPV was the Iron Man Match. There is no build that has captured me more than that simple story of the two best in the world about to go at it for 60 minutes. Now obviously, I was a kid, and it was real to me so it will never be topped. But that for me is the quintessential booking to hook me for WM. I would say that Rock/Cena was built really well too. I just don't remember which one was really good, the first match or the rematch.

02-22-2015, 01:16 PM	#4
Jordan It's a blood match! Posts: 27,374	I mean come on, Ric Flair's season long story to retirement was fucking gold. Stars ain't shit on a compelling story.

02-22-2015, 01:17 PM	#5
Jordan It's a blood match! Posts: 27,374	And as far as Bray/Taker goes, to contradict my main interest (which is the story) I absolutely love the idea of grand spectacle. Plus there is always a story with Undertaker, a history deeper than anyone, that's why he doesn't even need to show up.

02-22-2015, 06:55 PM	#7
Mr. Nerfect Posts: 60,919	I understand why the WWE brings in the big stars for WrestleMania, but I'm a fan of a compelling story. The idea should be to hook people onto characters they are going to see throughout the coming year as well. You might generate some interest for a night with The Rock or Undertaker wrestling, but if they're not going to be at Payback, why will people care about that PPV?

02-22-2015, 07:17 PM	#8
Emperor Smeat Former TPWW Royalty Posts: 66,588	Stories. Mania should be more about rewarding storylines with their big moment or ending than just tossing them aside in favor of quickly shoehorning someone into the event because of their star status. Miz vs Mizdow shouldn't be tossed to the pre-show just because Sheamus came back especially if whatever build Sheamus gets towards his Mania match ends up being lazily thrown together.

02-23-2015, 04:15 AM	#10
#1-norm-fan Resident drug enabler Posts: 45,473	The idea SHOULD be to make stars out of your current guys. They've failed. So if you're asking "Should they take the guys who they haven't successfully built up and try to build WrestleMania stories for them OR use stars who will attract an audience?"... the choice is obviously the latter. That's basically the bottom line. Use the other 11 months of the year to try to build guys up to where you can have a Rock-Cena level match with them. WWE can't do that. Because the writing is shit. So they go with star power over storylines. And they aren't really wrong in that aspect.

02-23-2015, 10:22 AM	#11
Simple Fan Let me talk to ya Posts: 11,749	Stars. It the biggest show of the year and half the stories right now are coming from the mid card (Mizdow, Stardust). I think that the Star power draws a lot better then Mid card stories that do t seem compelling. I like Mizdow buut just don't feel like its a WM worthy match. They are 11 other PPV for that kind of stuff. As for Gold and Stardust I can see that at Mania if Goldust puts his Career on the line.

02-23-2015, 07:52 PM	#12
Mr. Nerfect Posts: 60,919	I'm not bashing the part-time guys' ability or drawing power with this statement: But the WWE's dependence on them smells desperate. It's kind of like "Hey, we've still got The Rock...we're still cool." IF the WWE decided to stop using these part-time guys (if), then it might force the WWE to create more stars on that full-time roster level. I'm thinking about the compelling WrestleMania that could come out of a talent pool that doesn't include The Undertaker, Triple H, Brock Lesnar, The Rock or Sting. It'd make the WWE work much harder for the dollar, but the guys making the money would come out looking much, much stronger.

02-23-2015, 07:54 PM	#13
Mr. Nerfect Posts: 60,919	Alternatively, why doesn't the WWE try and boost other PPV events by having big names on those shows? The Rock showed up on a RAW recently and did the Royal Rumble, sure; but remember when Shawn Michaels' epic return after a four year absence was done for SummerSlam 2002? It's WrestleMania for bust, and it really makes the PPV a show that exists outside the WWE's usual continuum.