WWE SmackDown Weekly Thread

[XL]

Because the action in the ring is/should be secondary to the story. The same formulaic match with slightly differing results should be driving story progression. If the same acts have been going backwards and forwards for 3 months it speaks to a lack of story progression. It also means there’s “nothing left on the table” for what should be the payoff.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by XL Because the action in the ring is/should be secondary to the story. The same formulaic match with slightly differing results should be driving story progression. If the same acts have been going backwards and forwards for 3 months it speaks to a lack of story progression. It also means there’s “nothing left on the table” for what should be the payoff.

I don’t think you’re wrong with what you’re saying, but I disagree that this is necessarily what you’re getting. Story can be driven forward by rematches. Sometimes guys have a rivalry and they’re going to go back and forth quite a few times. The idea that two separate wrestlers having a match together for the first time is the difference between something being fresh and stale is a fallacy that gets in the way of storytelling too.

I’m not saying run Roman Reigns vs. Drew McIntyre every week. But you could run it several times and tell a story with it that doesn’t warrant the internet groans that it would get.