View Full Version : Long term booking, do you think it will work?
captaincharismark
07-28-2011, 10:08 PM
With WWE planning the Cena/Rock match at WM a year ahead, more and more rumors point to long term booking. But, do you think that form of booking would work for WWE? As it is now, stars leave so frequently that I'd have a hard time believing it would work properly.
If all the details could be controlled, it might be an interesting way of doing things. Fueds could be built up properly and fueds would mean something again. Imagine making a WM match a year in advance with both wrestlers being on the shows. Especially if the wrestlers were on different brands. It could be built slowly enough without being long and drawn out. Pulled off properly could lead to interesting scenarios. Done wrong might lead to worse shows and losing fans....
So where do you stand on this issue???
The only downside to long-term booking is people fucking up, getting injured or failing wellness. They have to do it with guys who they can trust and hope for no injuries. Contracts are not an issue, because WWE would know when their contracts end. They shouldn't be starting big angles like that and not have them signed for at least a year after the end of the angle.
But otherwise, it's what they need and something that's been missing for a VERY long time. I can't even remember the last time something was properly built for six months or more. Short-term booking is okay for off-times and the mid card. At the very least, there should be long-term booking that comes to a head at SummerSlam and the Royal Rumble.
Innovator
07-28-2011, 10:16 PM
Yes. Yes it will. They should know where they are headed 6-12 months from now, where they want to be, who they want to attempt to build, etc.
captaincharismark
07-28-2011, 10:20 PM
I know I would be intrigued to see if WWE could pull it off. Obviously things like injuries and Wellness Policy violations would play crucial roles in determining success or failure. Complications aside, I also miss the days where fueds had more build and meaning. Short term does a good job of keeping things fresh, but the titles and fueds now don't represent anything special. At least long term booking might bring back more prestige for belts and fueds again...
Kane Knight
07-28-2011, 10:37 PM
Yes. Yes it will. They should know where they are headed 6-12 months from now, where they want to be, who they want to attempt to build, etc.
The problem is, every time they hit a minor snag, they shit themselves.
And to be fair, between injuries, deaths and (in the modern era) wellness violation suspensions, it's hard to book longterm without seriously changing the way wrestling operates. And really, nobody wants to do that.
Seth82
07-28-2011, 11:03 PM
long term booking works
didn't Sabu and Taz feud in ECW for like a year before facing each other
Majunior
07-28-2011, 11:29 PM
It's certainly possible... but difficult. As has been mentioned, there are a lot of variables that could very easily throw off plans. That said, I still think it's something that should be attempted. Have a Plan B, C, D, E, F and G, but I think it's a very good idea to have a more over-arching booking style. It's something they used to do more often, and obviously it's something we've been lacking.
long term booking works
didn't Sabu and Taz feud in ECW for like a year before facing each other
Yeah and it was awesome. Great feud
Seth82
07-28-2011, 11:52 PM
Yeah and it was awesome. Great feud
indeed
one of the best feuds of the 90's
Jordan
07-29-2011, 12:06 AM
Long term booking is obviously the way to go as year to half year long stories are awesome to take part in as a fan, I truly enjoy a well booked feud like Jericho/HBK or Cena/Orton. Rock/Cena is the biggest match in the world and we knew a year in adavce, awesome. Also if Bryan does cash in a WM, WWE is god.
captaincharismark
07-29-2011, 01:54 AM
The problem is, every time they hit a minor snag, they shit themselves.
And to be fair, between injuries, deaths and (in the modern era) wellness violation suspensions, it's hard to book longterm without seriously changing the way wrestling operates. And really, nobody wants to do that.
Even though long term booking has it's fair share of issues, it's still better than short term booking. Changing the way wrestling operates would be a benefit to WWE right now. As we've seen with The Rock/Cena, using long term booking has endless possibilities with the invention of the internet. Fueds can be continued even when the shows are over. Which to me would only make the belts more meaningful and prestigious. With so much build and anticipation to title matches, when a new champion is crowned, it adds more credibility to that particular title. I'm sure if anything, hardcore fans wanna see more old school type ideas such as long term booking return.
whiteyford
07-29-2011, 04:56 AM
It was the norm in the 70s/80s, plot how/when the feud would end then work backwards. The big issue WWE has, other than injurys and wellness violations, is having to fill PPV match slots every month and fit the matches around the gimmicks that those have.
Impeccable
07-29-2011, 05:36 AM
The only downside to long-term booking is people fucking up, getting injured or failing wellness.
Bingo...it deters writers and bookers from doing long term booking.
After the 2002 rumble, Steve Austin came out on Raw the next night and announced his participation in the 2003 rumble. Problem was, Austin left before the next rumble. Long term plans right out of the window.
Besides, wrestling fans "have the memory span of goldfish", so we aren't supposed to remember things that happened last week, let alone last year for long term booking!
RVDmark
07-29-2011, 06:14 AM
Even so, look at Austin, he injured his neck, was out for 8 months (I think), and he came back white hot with the who ran over Austin angle. Sure with long term booking you will have to change plans around a bit once in a while, but if its handled properly it can even add to the excitement of wherever the angle was going. WWE's problem is that if someone gets injured or wellness policied, the angle gets phased out quickly (Kennedy angle), or simply forgotten about(Crime Tyme's title shot).
Long term booking has its risks but short term booking is often far too predictable (unless it goes the other way then it ends up like Russo's work, unpredictable, but for all the wrong reasons).
Punk is so over right now, give it somewhere to go, and whatever happens, dont have HHH go over Punk (Ok HHH has to win some, thats how a fued works but overall Punk must be the winner)
Rammsteinmad
07-29-2011, 06:47 AM
It's difficult to tell how much fans will get into long-term booking in this day and age. Back in the 70's and 80's when LTB was the norm, people only had weekly TV shows or close-circuit PPV or whatever the fuck they had to watch wrestling with... so a year long feud could easily be spread out over a year.
Today is a totally different story. With two televised shows and two internet shows, along with the internet itself (youtube, facebook, twitter etc), it's a much faster-paced environment. Cena and Rock seems to be working so far, but Rock isn't an active wrestler, so it's hard to tell if it would work with two active performers. And not every wrestler can just say 'I'll see you at Wrestlemania next year!'.
And also, with the internet fans being the assholes that they are, everyone's saying long-term booking works etc, and as soon as they did it more often they would probably bitch about 'oh, this feud has gone on too long' blah blah blah. Just saying. :|
Rammsteinmad
07-29-2011, 06:48 AM
Wow, that post doesn't make any sense to me. But it's out there now.
captaincharismark
07-29-2011, 01:16 PM
It's pretty much one extreme or another with LTB. Either ppl like it and think it helps the shows or it's long, drawn out and boring. As far as WWE doing it, IMO it would help WWE b/c then they could more accurately use storylines for long term vision. Not just starting something only to have it end before it even begins. Using it as a means to establish titles and fueds could give WWE the credibility from belts that has been missing for years....
Of course using LTB can be a double edged sword if it isn't utilized properly.
Kal-El
07-29-2011, 01:30 PM
Long term booking is obviously the way to go as year to half year long stories are awesome to take part in as a fan, I truly enjoy a well booked feud like Jericho/HBK or Cena/Orton. Rock/Cena is the biggest match in the world and we knew a year in adavce, awesome. Also if Bryan does cash in a WM, WWE is god.
There's a problem with Rock/Cena . . . He's NOT on the show every week! I agree with the other feuds, especially Jericho/HBK THEY were awesome.
captaincharismark
07-29-2011, 02:13 PM
There's a problem with Rock/Cena . . . He's NOT on the show every week! I agree with the other feuds, especially Jericho/HBK THEY were awesome.
The Jericho/HBK fued is an example of LTB being a positive for WWE. Building WM matches would certainly be more meaningful if they had the right two guys. Could you imagine the kind of impact building a long term WM fued with Taker might be? And if that other person was CM Punk if could lead to classic wrestling moments...
Jordan
07-29-2011, 02:32 PM
There's a problem with Rock/Cena . . . He's NOT on the show every week! I agree with the other feuds, especially Jericho/HBK THEY were awesome.
Okay Cena that's enough, lol.
They are promoting it online which it genius and I'm glad the Rock isn't on TV every week, by the time WM would roll around he wouldn't be as big of a deal (to me).
dhellova guy
07-29-2011, 03:13 PM
Yes. It would work. Done properly.
Innovator
07-29-2011, 03:22 PM
The problem is, every time they hit a minor snag, they shit themselves.
And to be fair, between injuries, deaths and (in the modern era) wellness violation suspensions, it's hard to book longterm without seriously changing the way wrestling operates. And really, nobody wants to do that.
Yeah. Why change the way things are done when you can keep trotting out Cena and Orton?
Kane Knight
07-29-2011, 04:39 PM
There's a problem with Rock/Cena . . . He's NOT on the show every week! I agree with the other feuds, especially Jericho/HBK THEY were awesome.
Cena/Rock will work mostly because the Rock can come and go as he pleases, because he doesn't neeed to worry about injury, etc.
Yeah. Why change the way things are done when you can keep trotting out Cena and Orton?
Yes, that's the part I was talking about. Not "treating wrestlers like cattle," not touring schedules that promote both injuries and drug abuse, not <s>Srunning with people who shouldn't be main eventers due to injury and other risk</s>.....Okay, so it's part of where I was going, but there's a bigger picture.
BigCrippyZ
07-29-2011, 05:54 PM
I think it will work again if they do it correctly. They also will have to be careful not to panic and FUCK up if someone does get injured or suspended, like they've been known to do the past several years.
Innovator
07-29-2011, 05:59 PM
Yes, that's the part I was talking about. Not "treating wrestlers like cattle," not touring schedules that promote both injuries and drug abuse, not <s>Srunning with people who shouldn't be main eventers due to injury and other risk</s>.....Okay, so it's part of where I was going, but there's a bigger picture.
I went with the option that would promote feedback on tpww. If I gave a business answer, it'd be lost.
A mandatory off-season for wrestlers should be something they look at, going along with what you said about the touring schedule.
And if I had my way, I'd do away with the whole "independent contractor" gimmick, have them be employees, give them insurance, and charter planes when they go overseas. You want your characters to be larger than life, they shouldn't be crammed into coach for a 17 hour flight.
parkmania
07-29-2011, 07:32 PM
What I think needs to happen is for WWE to see if they are able to sustain the heat with Cena/Rock. If this happens, they need to start working a couple other long-term (6+ month) feuds while continuing a large number of short-term (1-3 month) feuds.
If they go with all LTFs, they'll end up in just as bad of a place as they are now. Soap operas are notorious about this - even though they're on 5x per week, you can miss a month or more and tune back in and be "caught up" in a couple days without watching any reruns.
In television writing terms, you need to have a couple over-arcing themes while also having the episodic payoffs that keep people interested in tuning in each week.
Kane Knight
07-30-2011, 08:50 AM
I went with the option that would promote feedback on tpww. If I gave a business answer, it'd be lost.
A mandatory off-season for wrestlers should be something they look at, going along with what you said about the touring schedule.
And if I had my way, I'd do away with the whole "independent contractor" gimmick, have them be employees, give them insurance, and charter planes when they go overseas. You want your characters to be larger than life, they shouldn't be crammed into coach for a 17 hour flight.
Hell, a polysyllabic answer would be lost.
The big problem with getting rid of the independent contractor status is that they have no real reason to. As long as it's more profitable to chew you up and spit you out, none of these changes would happen. But yeah, I agree with the basic premise. Though I'm not sure an off-season is necessary. There's plenty of talent to occupy the card year-round. Rotation of the top stars would require a little more effort to keep things hot, but it would also mean other stars had time to rest, and it would mean you had a contingency in case of an injury. Because honestly, until all matches are settle by thumb wrestling, there will be some injuries, and you can't get around that.
Guys like Cena could be kept "fresher" by simply not having them in the spotlight all the time. Of course, this might mean fewer cena sweatbands sold to fat chicks in the short run, but it also means he's not going to have as many career-shortening injuries.
For guys like Triple H, this would likely be a lateral move in terms of screen time. Dude was injured like every six months, and needed time to return. It'd be the same deal, minus the painful recovery in most instances.
But it'd also require wrestlers to give up the spotlight and the guys who use them to ask/be okay with it.
captaincharismark
07-30-2011, 05:28 PM
I went with the option that would promote feedback on tpww. If I gave a business answer, it'd be lost.
A mandatory off-season for wrestlers should be something they look at, going along with what you said about the touring schedule.
And if I had my way, I'd do away with the whole "independent contractor" gimmick, have them be employees, give them insurance, and charter planes when they go overseas. You want your characters to be larger than life, they shouldn't be crammed into coach for a 17 hour flight.
Having an offseason is a great idea, but for whatever reason WWE seems to be against it. It would allow the wrestlers to enjoy time off and rest up from injury. Plus, it might allow the creative team to come up with better ideas and not become burned out. With the touring schedule WWE has, utilizing an offseason should be common sense. I realize taking time off hurts the bottom line in the short term, but the long term benefits far outweights the bad.
Yet another good point raised is the "independent contractor" label. Everyone knows it's BS, and it's only a way for WWE to control their employees while shafting them. Nothing more than a clever way to avoid having a union in pro wrestling. Otherwise, they'd have to provide more benefits, take better care of wrestlers' health and not use unethical practices. Again, something that would affect WWE's massive profits and be too benefical to the wrestlers. A real "indepent contractor" can pick and choose when and where they work. When was the last time a WWE guy got to do that? Really it's a joke even having that status and it's not very accurate.
Both things that would detract from long term booking, but issues that need to be addressed. You can't ignore things that could make the business better. If it means less wrestler deaths and a more positive reflection on the WWE, you'd think it would be a natural progression. And definately one that's necessary and long past due.
Shisen Kopf
07-30-2011, 06:50 PM
I think those bitch asses should do more long term shit and shit ya know. It keeps my fucking interest if I know what the goddamn ppv main event will be. Christ, those assholes shoulda thunk about planning events out a long motherfucking time ago. Ya dig?
Kane Knight
07-30-2011, 10:12 PM
Having an offseason is a great idea, but for whatever reason WWE seems to be against it.
For whatever reason. XD. You are priceless.
captaincharismark
07-30-2011, 10:24 PM
For whatever reason. XD. You are priceless.
Thank you very much:D
Innovator
07-31-2011, 04:04 PM
They've fired Cena and he missed 4 segments. They threatened to fire him again and he didn't miss a show. They will never take him off TV for a rest.
RiX1024
07-31-2011, 04:47 PM
Good idea, just hope no one fcks up though. what happened to the "everyone gets a storyline" concept?
Good idea, just hope no one fcks up though. what happened to the "everyone gets a storyline" concept?
It was replaced with the "main eventers are the only ones worth pushing" philosophy.
captaincharismark
07-31-2011, 05:30 PM
They've fired Cena and he missed 4 segments. They threatened to fire him again and he didn't miss a show. They will never take him off TV for a rest.
It's clear WWE thinks Cena is too vital to their success. Although you'd think WWE would realize taking him off TV could freshen up the main events. I swear WWE has no logical reasoning when it comes to long term vision. Thus the reason they haven't established many new guys in the main event.
Mr. Nerfect
08-02-2011, 04:06 AM
As parkmania said, you can't have every story long-term booked. Certainly some of them really benefit, but it's basically about the feud, when you want the pay-off and working backwards.
The thing about drawn-out feuds is that it is obvious there isn't so much a plan as it's just "let's keep this going."
captaincharismark
08-02-2011, 05:34 AM
As parkmania said, you can't have every story long-term booked. Certainly some of them really benefit, but it's basically about the feud, when you want the pay-off and working backwards.
The thing about drawn-out feuds is that it is obvious there isn't so much a plan as it's just "let's keep this going."
Using long term booking only works in certain instances. Obviously, if two guys don't work well together, there's no reason to keep them in a fued. Kinda a situation where using common sense goes a long way in the success of that concept.
Mainly, long term booking is a positive as long as the storylines and titles benefit from it. Setting up WM matches is the main scenario where a long fued makes sense. Utilized properly, it could create some classic moments and make the title matches and fueds more exciting....
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.