HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Everything that is happening in the wrestling world.
User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19459
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by cero2k » Apr 23rd, '20, 13:34

src: https://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/hhh- ... um=twitter

During his appearance on this week's edition of Corey Graves' After the Bell podcast, Paul "Triple H" Levesque was asked what the odds are of us seeing another two-night WrestleMania going forward.
Well, my opinion is my opinion, but I think it was much more enjoyable than the eight-hour extravaganza. I think at some point that is probably what it should be. It’s just become so big that it's almost -- when you think about it in a way -- it started out as a concert that ended up being a festival. And it’s this week-long thing. When you think about it in that manner now, Thursday would have been Hall of Fame. Friday was SmackDown. Saturday was going to be TakeOver. Sunday would’ve been WrestleMania. Monday would’ve been Raw. It’s a week-long festival, and I think that big main stage attraction needs to be those two nights and it be this weekend of events. And I do think that's probably a change that out of chaos comes the genius, and maybe that is the genius of it. And I know there's been people saying that for a period of time, but that’s a major shift and that doesn’t come easy.
Both nights of WrestleMania 36 featured eight-match main cards and one pre-show match. The show was originally only supposed to be one night but was changed to two when WWE's schedule was impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. WrestleMania was moved from Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida to being taped on a closed set at the WWE Performance Center in Orlando. The Undertaker and AJ Styles' boneyard match was also filmed at a different location.

Triple H was on After the Bell ahead of his 25th anniversary celebration kicking off on tomorrow's episode of SmackDown. He first joined WWE in 1995.

User avatar
KILLdozer
Posts: 5858
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 22:54

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by KILLdozer » Apr 23rd, '20, 13:45

With an actual crowd? Maybe. Right now? Can't even compare.
When they come, they'll come at what you love.

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 24660
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by Big Red Machine » Apr 23rd, '20, 15:32

Or... wait for it... how about you do one show of about 5h (5:30 if you REALLY must), and just BOOK A TIGHTER SHOW?!

1. Don't waste half an hour of everyone's time with two completely pointless participation trophy battle royales that everyone watching knows won't mean sh*t. If you want to give the wrestlers extra money, just give them the extra money without having them work the battle royale.

2. Similarly, just because WrestleMania is happening doesn't mean that every feud needs to be involved. There is nothing wrong with doing an angle a few weeks before Mania and continuing the story on TV while holding off on doing the first match until after Mania (either the PPV, or you could even make that match part of the first post-Mania TV show that you hype up in advance so that you can have something to hype other than saying "see what surprises we have in store!"). As I said in my Mania review, Corbin vs. Elias from this year's show is a great example of that. It's better to keep Eilas off TV and selling the injury from his big bump than to rush him back in less than two weeks just to have a match at Mania, and doubly so when that match has non-decisive finish.

3. Just like not all of the wrestlers need to get to play, not all of the titles need to be defended, either. You could argue that this devalues the titles that don't get defended, but I'd argue that having the champion defend in a random match against a gaggle of challengers who haven't done sh*t to earn a title shot in a match that is clearly only happening so that the title will be on the line at WrestleMania devalues the title even more by exposing it as a prop.

4. Don't waste time with pointless skits and legends appearances. You want Hogan, Rock, and Austin to f*ck around together? Put that sh*t on Table For 3 or do it as a dark segment before Raw the next night. And this all goes doubly so for guest hosts. They are nothing but a waste of time at the best, and at worst, they result in dumb skits that do nothing but annoy fans. If something doesn't serve a purpose for one of your stories, DON'T DO IT.
The only exception to this should be the presentation of the hall of famers.

5. Keep the video packages shorter. A short video highlight package is going to be more effective than something long and drawn out, and for he few times where you have a complicated story you're telling and need to make sure you show all of the key points, having those video packages be longer than the others make them stand out more. We shouldn't be going twenty minutes between the end of one match and the beginning of the next. A five hour show is THREE-HUNDRED MINUTES. That's enough time for TEN MATCHES going TWENTY MINUTES EACH, with ten minutes between matches (plus five at the beginning and five after the main event). Obviously not every match will go that long (and a few will go longer), but the point is that even five hours should be MORE than enough time to do all of the matches you want to do and give them all time to deliver.
Also, the bell should be ringing for the first match within ten minutes of the PPV starting, and you should keep that kind of pace, except when something important is happening.

6. Don't have matches during the pre-show! The pre-show is a complete and total drain. The only reason I ever have it on is because I want to see the matches, and then I inevitably get annoyed when you cut away from the match I'm trying to watch to give me a video package about whatever Roman Reigns or Becky Lynch or Brock Lesnar or Seth Rollins are doing on the PPV, because apparently the fifteen minutes the panel will spend talking about that match over the course of the two-hour pre-show just isn't enough.
If you really want to do a pre-show with a panel for Facebook Live or whatever and also broadcast it on the Network then that's fine, but don't put matches during it. Let all of the matches you need to present be part of the main show. This way you don't bury those matches by interrupting them to show a commercial for something else, and you also don't drain the patience of fans who just want to see the matches but have to sit through two hours of the same hype points over and over and over again to get (if we're lucky) twenty-five minutes of wrestling over the course of two or three matches.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
XIV
Posts: 1258
Joined: Aug 19th, '13, 11:38

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by XIV » Apr 24th, '20, 01:27

Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 23rd, '20, 15:32
Or... wait for it... how about you do one show of about 5h (5:30 if you REALLY must), and just BOOK A TIGHTER SHOW?!

1. Don't waste half an hour of everyone's time with two completely pointless participation trophy battle royales that everyone watching knows won't mean sh*t. If you want to give the wrestlers extra money, just give them the extra money without having them work the battle royale.

2. Similarly, just because WrestleMania is happening doesn't mean that every feud needs to be involved. There is nothing wrong with doing an angle a few weeks before Mania and continuing the story on TV while holding off on doing the first match until after Mania (either the PPV, or you could even make that match part of the first post-Mania TV show that you hype up in advance so that you can have something to hype other than saying "see what surprises we have in store!"). As I said in my Mania review, Corbin vs. Elias from this year's show is a great example of that. It's better to keep Eilas off TV and selling the injury from his big bump than to rush him back in less than two weeks just to have a match at Mania, and doubly so when that match has non-decisive finish.

3. Just like not all of the wrestlers need to get to play, not all of the titles need to be defended, either. You could argue that this devalues the titles that don't get defended, but I'd argue that having the champion defend in a random match against a gaggle of challengers who haven't done sh*t to earn a title shot in a match that is clearly only happening so that the title will be on the line at WrestleMania devalues the title even more by exposing it as a prop.

4. Don't waste time with pointless skits and legends appearances. You want Hogan, Rock, and Austin to f*ck around together? Put that sh*t on Table For 3 or do it as a dark segment before Raw the next night. And this all goes doubly so for guest hosts. They are nothing but a waste of time at the best, and at worst, they result in dumb skits that do nothing but annoy fans. If something doesn't serve a purpose for one of your stories, DON'T DO IT.
The only exception to this should be the presentation of the hall of famers.

5. Keep the video packages shorter. A short video highlight package is going to be more effective than something long and drawn out, and for he few times where you have a complicated story you're telling and need to make sure you show all of the key points, having those video packages be longer than the others make them stand out more. We shouldn't be going twenty minutes between the end of one match and the beginning of the next. A five hour show is THREE-HUNDRED MINUTES. That's enough time for TEN MATCHES going TWENTY MINUTES EACH, with ten minutes between matches (plus five at the beginning and five after the main event). Obviously not every match will go that long (and a few will go longer), but the point is that even five hours should be MORE than enough time to do all of the matches you want to do and give them all time to deliver.
Also, the bell should be ringing for the first match within ten minutes of the PPV starting, and you should keep that kind of pace, except when something important is happening.

6. Don't have matches during the pre-show! The pre-show is a complete and total drain. The only reason I ever have it on is because I want to see the matches, and then I inevitably get annoyed when you cut away from the match I'm trying to watch to give me a video package about whatever Roman Reigns or Becky Lynch or Brock Lesnar or Seth Rollins are doing on the PPV, because apparently the fifteen minutes the panel will spend talking about that match over the course of the two-hour pre-show just isn't enough.
If you really want to do a pre-show with a panel for Facebook Live or whatever and also broadcast it on the Network then that's fine, but don't put matches during it. Let all of the matches you need to present be part of the main show. This way you don't bury those matches by interrupting them to show a commercial for something else, and you also don't drain the patience of fans who just want to see the matches but have to sit through two hours of the same hype points over and over and over again to get (if we're lucky) twenty-five minutes of wrestling over the course of two or three matches.
1 - Agree. Hate the battle royal. Pointless concept to get wrestler paid.

2 - You could use it for a storyline. "You refused to fight me at Wrestlemania and took my moment away"

3 - There's so many champions, it feels like no-one is a champion. It's the main thing I dislike about the brand split.

4 - 100% agree on the old-timers. I get that it's good for a pop to get Austin or Hogan out to do something, but don't do it at the expense of your current roster (Like that time Rock beat Rowan in 5 seconds, or when Austin, HBK & Foley took out League of Nations). Have the hall of famers appear sporadically, or build it into the storyline (A legend in the corner)

5 - Unless it's the main event or a huge match, not everyone needs a big video package, but in their defence, I understand why they do it (giving casual fans the full back story as to why this match is occurring).

6 - Hate to be the yes man, but I also agree here. The pre-show was okay when it was used for the big events to build it up and build up wrestlers in a sports based presentation, but adding matches just makes it a show in itself.

The problem with such a long show is the audience gets tired. How do you expect the fans to still react after 8 hours of sitting or standing and watching stuff. There's too many lulls and you can tell it with the crowd, there's been 2 or 3 occasions where there is 20-30 minutes of the crowd being completely flat. Unless your show is packed with non-stop classics in matches people want to see.. It just is too hard to keep motivated for the whole damn show and that has an effect on the whole overall presentation.
Have A Nice Day!

User avatar
KILLdozer
Posts: 5858
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 22:54

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by KILLdozer » Apr 24th, '20, 01:55

To add to the above, cut AT LEAST one match-Corbin and Elias shouldn't even be on WM at this point.
When they come, they'll come at what you love.

User avatar
XIV
Posts: 1258
Joined: Aug 19th, '13, 11:38

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by XIV » Apr 24th, '20, 07:35

KILLdozer wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 01:55
To add to the above, cut AT LEAST one match-Corbin and Elias shouldn't even be on WM at this point.
That doesn't even scream pre-show to me. Definitely cutable.
Have A Nice Day!

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19459
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by cero2k » Apr 24th, '20, 09:28

Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 23rd, '20, 15:32

1. Don't waste half an hour of everyone's time with two completely pointless participation trophy battle royales that everyone watching knows won't mean sh*t. If you want to give the wrestlers extra money, just give them the extra money without having them work the battle royale.
this is the dangerous thing to me, with more time, it's a matter of years that the shows will go back to 6 hrs show to get MORE people on the show.

I also don't know how good it will be to do WM two days. From all i've heard from pretty much everyone who's been to WM live, they say it's a pain in the ass to get in and out. Doing that twice in a row. Idk. I did wrestle kingdom this year and as great as that show is and as easy as going in and out of the Tokyo Dome is, waking up the second day and thinking of doing a big show like that again felt overwhelming, I kinda wanted to do other stuff at that point

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 24660
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by Big Red Machine » Apr 24th, '20, 10:00

XIV wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 01:27
Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 23rd, '20, 15:32
Or... wait for it... how about you do one show of about 5h (5:30 if you REALLY must), and just BOOK A TIGHTER SHOW?!

1. Don't waste half an hour of everyone's time with two completely pointless participation trophy battle royales that everyone watching knows won't mean sh*t. If you want to give the wrestlers extra money, just give them the extra money without having them work the battle royale.

2. Similarly, just because WrestleMania is happening doesn't mean that every feud needs to be involved. There is nothing wrong with doing an angle a few weeks before Mania and continuing the story on TV while holding off on doing the first match until after Mania (either the PPV, or you could even make that match part of the first post-Mania TV show that you hype up in advance so that you can have something to hype other than saying "see what surprises we have in store!"). As I said in my Mania review, Corbin vs. Elias from this year's show is a great example of that. It's better to keep Eilas off TV and selling the injury from his big bump than to rush him back in less than two weeks just to have a match at Mania, and doubly so when that match has non-decisive finish.

3. Just like not all of the wrestlers need to get to play, not all of the titles need to be defended, either. You could argue that this devalues the titles that don't get defended, but I'd argue that having the champion defend in a random match against a gaggle of challengers who haven't done sh*t to earn a title shot in a match that is clearly only happening so that the title will be on the line at WrestleMania devalues the title even more by exposing it as a prop.

4. Don't waste time with pointless skits and legends appearances. You want Hogan, Rock, and Austin to f*ck around together? Put that sh*t on Table For 3 or do it as a dark segment before Raw the next night. And this all goes doubly so for guest hosts. They are nothing but a waste of time at the best, and at worst, they result in dumb skits that do nothing but annoy fans. If something doesn't serve a purpose for one of your stories, DON'T DO IT.
The only exception to this should be the presentation of the hall of famers.

5. Keep the video packages shorter. A short video highlight package is going to be more effective than something long and drawn out, and for he few times where you have a complicated story you're telling and need to make sure you show all of the key points, having those video packages be longer than the others make them stand out more. We shouldn't be going twenty minutes between the end of one match and the beginning of the next. A five hour show is THREE-HUNDRED MINUTES. That's enough time for TEN MATCHES going TWENTY MINUTES EACH, with ten minutes between matches (plus five at the beginning and five after the main event). Obviously not every match will go that long (and a few will go longer), but the point is that even five hours should be MORE than enough time to do all of the matches you want to do and give them all time to deliver.
Also, the bell should be ringing for the first match within ten minutes of the PPV starting, and you should keep that kind of pace, except when something important is happening.

6. Don't have matches during the pre-show! The pre-show is a complete and total drain. The only reason I ever have it on is because I want to see the matches, and then I inevitably get annoyed when you cut away from the match I'm trying to watch to give me a video package about whatever Roman Reigns or Becky Lynch or Brock Lesnar or Seth Rollins are doing on the PPV, because apparently the fifteen minutes the panel will spend talking about that match over the course of the two-hour pre-show just isn't enough.
If you really want to do a pre-show with a panel for Facebook Live or whatever and also broadcast it on the Network then that's fine, but don't put matches during it. Let all of the matches you need to present be part of the main show. This way you don't bury those matches by interrupting them to show a commercial for something else, and you also don't drain the patience of fans who just want to see the matches but have to sit through two hours of the same hype points over and over and over again to get (if we're lucky) twenty-five minutes of wrestling over the course of two or three matches.
1 - Agree. Hate the battle royal. Pointless concept to get wrestler paid.

2 - You could use it for a storyline. "You refused to fight me at Wrestlemania and took my moment away"

3 - There's so many champions, it feels like no-one is a champion. It's the main thing I dislike about the brand split.

4 - 100% agree on the old-timers. I get that it's good for a pop to get Austin or Hogan out to do something, but don't do it at the expense of your current roster (Like that time Rock beat Rowan in 5 seconds, or when Austin, HBK & Foley took out League of Nations). Have the hall of famers appear sporadically, or build it into the storyline (A legend in the corner)

5 - Unless it's the main event or a huge match, not everyone needs a big video package, but in their defence, I understand why they do it (giving casual fans the full back story as to why this match is occurring).

6 - Hate to be the yes man, but I also agree here. The pre-show was okay when it was used for the big events to build it up and build up wrestlers in a sports based presentation, but adding matches just makes it a show in itself.

The problem with such a long show is the audience gets tired. How do you expect the fans to still react after 8 hours of sitting or standing and watching stuff. There's too many lulls and you can tell it with the crowd, there's been 2 or 3 occasions where there is 20-30 minutes of the crowd being completely flat. Unless your show is packed with non-stop classics in matches people want to see.. It just is too hard to keep motivated for the whole damn show and that has an effect on the whole overall presentation.
2. I wasn't thinking along the lines of having someone refuse the match so much as just start the story but don't heat it up until after Mania. There are definitely ways to make it part of a storyline, though (but I'd avoid using the term "WrestleMania Moment(tm)" like the plague).

3. See... if you're going to do a brand split, I think the best way to do it is to have one traveling champion for each other the men's heavyweight, women's, men's tag team, women's tag team, and cruiserweight divisions. That way you've got one champion per division, and they get this special privilege, which makes the belts feel more important and makes the champs look like even bigger stars.
If you're not going to do that I think you can get away with two sets of titles if and only if you keep the shows as separate as possible, maybe only coming together for the Royal Rumble and MITB, and doing two nights of Mania and Summer Slam, one for Raw and one for SD (and you wouldn't need to do them in the same city, so you can get two big show gates).
Part of the reason that I've stalled out in my BRM Books Raw 1,000 and Beyond thread after almost four years' worth of booking was not knowing how to deal with the roster split, because I didn't have a strong enough women's or tag division to have separate titles for each show, but had put a lot of effort over the years into making sure I kept both world titles strong and not making the mistake that WWE did, so I had no idea how to handle the roster split.

4. Those examples you gave, plus the Rock/Ronda/Hunter/Steph segment from WM31 and the pointless Hogan appearance with Alexa last year were the first ones that popped into my mind.

5. It also serves as a bathroom break, but I think it could be shorter. If a fan doesn't have the story, an announcer should be able to relate it to them effectively. Stories can be kept simple enough that the packages don't need to be longer than one minute.

6. Or, at the very least, do it the way that NJPW has done in the past where all of the bullsh*t filler is early on the card, so while the first ninety minutes might be filler, the remaining three and a half hours are nonstop matches intended to blow the roof off of the place.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 24660
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by Big Red Machine » Apr 24th, '20, 10:02

cero2k wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 09:28
Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 23rd, '20, 15:32

1. Don't waste half an hour of everyone's time with two completely pointless participation trophy battle royales that everyone watching knows won't mean sh*t. If you want to give the wrestlers extra money, just give them the extra money without having them work the battle royale.
this is the dangerous thing to me, with more time, it's a matter of years that the shows will go back to 6 hrs show to get MORE people on the show.

I also don't know how good it will be to do WM two days. From all i've heard from pretty much everyone who's been to WM live, they say it's a pain in the ass to get in and out. Doing that twice in a row. Idk. I did wrestle kingdom this year and as great as that show is and as easy as going in and out of the Tokyo Dome is, waking up the second day and thinking of doing a big show like that again felt overwhelming, I kinda wanted to do other stuff at that point
Do it in two different cities, so there are different fans (that being said, I'm sure it's more of a hassle for WWE to do it in two cities instead of just booking the same building).
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19459
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by cero2k » Apr 24th, '20, 11:55

Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 10:02


Do it in two different cities, so there are different fans (that being said, I'm sure it's more of a hassle for WWE to do it in two cities instead of just booking the same building).
there would be nuclear backlash from everyone if you make the fans have to choose which city to go to. That would also hurt all the indie shows of the weekend, not that WWE would care about either.

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 24660
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by Big Red Machine » Apr 24th, '20, 13:16

cero2k wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 11:55
Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 10:02


Do it in two different cities, so there are different fans (that being said, I'm sure it's more of a hassle for WWE to do it in two cities instead of just booking the same building).
there would be nuclear backlash from everyone if you make the fans have to choose which city to go to. That would also hurt all the indie shows of the weekend, not that WWE would care about either.
I don't think it would hurt them. It would certainly force them to choose which city to run in, but I think it would actually help them if they're smart about it, because you're getting the same stadium full of wrestling fans to choose from, but less competition within your city. Yes, it will make fans choose where to go, but you'll have the same size pool of fans, and only two indy shows going on at the same time instead of of four.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
KILLdozer
Posts: 5858
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 22:54

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by KILLdozer » Apr 24th, '20, 13:24

XIV wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 07:35
KILLdozer wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 01:55
To add to the above, cut AT LEAST one match-Corbin and Elias shouldn't even be on WM at this point.
That doesn't even scream pre-show to me. Definitely cutable.
I'm tired of them both. Corbin is literally the Anti-Roman Reigns/ Heel Version Of Roman Reigns, and Elias Sampson is like if you took the Brooklyn Brawler and tried to seriously push a novelty gimmick when the guy is just used for laughs and loses all the time...
When they come, they'll come at what you love.

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 24660
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by Big Red Machine » Apr 24th, '20, 13:44

KILLdozer wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 13:24
XIV wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 07:35
KILLdozer wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 01:55
To add to the above, cut AT LEAST one match-Corbin and Elias shouldn't even be on WM at this point.
That doesn't even scream pre-show to me. Definitely cutable.
I'm tired of them both. Corbin is literally the Anti-Roman Reigns/ Heel Version Of Roman Reigns, and Elias Sampson is like if you took the Brooklyn Brawler and tried to seriously push a novelty gimmick when the guy is just used for laughs and loses all the time...
Brooklyn Brawler is an unfair comparison. Elias has been pushed more and actually does have charisma. Honkytonk Man is a much better comparison.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
KILLdozer
Posts: 5858
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 22:54

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by KILLdozer » Apr 24th, '20, 13:48

Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 13:44
KILLdozer wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 13:24
XIV wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 07:35


That doesn't even scream pre-show to me. Definitely cutable.
I'm tired of them both. Corbin is literally the Anti-Roman Reigns/ Heel Version Of Roman Reigns, and Elias Sampson is like if you took the Brooklyn Brawler and tried to seriously push a novelty gimmick when the guy is just used for laughs and loses all the time...
Brooklyn Brawler is an unfair comparison. Elias has been pushed more and actually does have charisma. Honkytonk Man is a much better comparison.
Maybe, moreso they're just trying to overpush this guy with obvious ceiling, over and over and over again.
When they come, they'll come at what you love.

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19459
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by cero2k » Apr 24th, '20, 14:15

Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 13:16

I don't think it would hurt them. It would certainly force them to choose which city to run in, but I think it would actually help them if they're smart about it, because you're getting the same stadium full of wrestling fans to choose from, but less competition within your city. Yes, it will make fans choose where to go, but you'll have the same size pool of fans, and only two indy shows going on at the same time instead of of four.
less competition between indies, but less of a lot more things. there's more to running these shows than just going there. A lot of these promotions can't afford the cards they have for that weekend. Lots of promotions work together to bring in certain wrestlers from overseas, some share the expense of the venues. The wrestlers would have less shows to work for. There's really no benefit.

Plus, I honestly don't think WWE can fill out two different stadiums in the same weekend.

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 24660
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by Big Red Machine » Apr 24th, '20, 14:33

cero2k wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 14:15
Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 13:16

I don't think it would hurt them. It would certainly force them to choose which city to run in, but I think it would actually help them if they're smart about it, because you're getting the same stadium full of wrestling fans to choose from, but less competition within your city. Yes, it will make fans choose where to go, but you'll have the same size pool of fans, and only two indy shows going on at the same time instead of of four.
less competition between indies, but less of a lot more things. there's more to running these shows than just going there. A lot of these promotions can't afford the cards they have for that weekend. Lots of promotions work together to bring in certain wrestlers from overseas, some share the expense of the venues. The wrestlers would have less shows to work for. There's really no benefit.

Plus, I honestly don't think WWE can fill out two different stadiums in the same weekend.
I'm certain the promotions would still work together. It's just more likely that you'd see, some groups in one place and some groups in the other. it probably would hurt the wrestlers in that they can't go working fourteen shows in three days... but I'm not so sure that's a good thing for them to be doing, anyway. That can't possibly be good for the body.

As for WWE being able to fill up two stadiums on the same weekend... I don't know, either, but my guess is that the fear of not being able to do it would prevent them from ever trying (unless they decided to go REALLY crazy with it and did one in North America and the other in Europe or something like that).
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
cero2k
Site Admin
Posts: 19459
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 11:32

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by cero2k » Apr 25th, '20, 09:50

Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 14:33

I'm certain the promotions would still work together. It's just more likely that you'd see, some groups in one place and some groups in the other. it probably would hurt the wrestlers in that they can't go working fourteen shows in three days... but I'm not so sure that's a good thing for them to be doing, anyway. That can't possibly be good for the body.
no doubt some would work together. We know the Collective/GCW guys would all likely end up in the same city, I think the Gabe group would be in one city too. With those two big of groups banding together, I would imagine that the convention guys would like to get with either.

But like, let say that NJPW comes and has Suzuki in one city, everyone wanting to use Suzuki would likely go to that one city.

Gabe/wXw/PROGRESS group would be interesting because I would imagine that WWE would have Axxess in both cities, likely booking some of their talent, thus either breaking up the rosters, or kinda forcing for one promotion to be in a specific city.

I think we'd end up with an unbalanced calendar between the two cities.

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 24660
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by Big Red Machine » Apr 26th, '20, 12:13

cero2k wrote:
Apr 25th, '20, 09:50
Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 14:33

I'm certain the promotions would still work together. It's just more likely that you'd see, some groups in one place and some groups in the other. it probably would hurt the wrestlers in that they can't go working fourteen shows in three days... but I'm not so sure that's a good thing for them to be doing, anyway. That can't possibly be good for the body.


But like, let say that NJPW comes and has Suzuki in one city, everyone wanting to use Suzuki would likely go to that one city.
This is the is sort of thing I hadn't counted on. You're probably right, overall.

Speaking of the convention guys, does anyone know why RevPro has gone with them instead of ROH/NJPW the past few years? Seems odd. They come off as any other group booking a few NJPW guys instead of coming off as an ROH/NJPW partner.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

User avatar
XIV
Posts: 1258
Joined: Aug 19th, '13, 11:38

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by XIV » Apr 27th, '20, 05:34

Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 10:00
XIV wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 01:27
Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 23rd, '20, 15:32
Or... wait for it... how about you do one show of about 5h (5:30 if you REALLY must), and just BOOK A TIGHTER SHOW?!

1. Don't waste half an hour of everyone's time with two completely pointless participation trophy battle royales that everyone watching knows won't mean sh*t. If you want to give the wrestlers extra money, just give them the extra money without having them work the battle royale.

2. Similarly, just because WrestleMania is happening doesn't mean that every feud needs to be involved. There is nothing wrong with doing an angle a few weeks before Mania and continuing the story on TV while holding off on doing the first match until after Mania (either the PPV, or you could even make that match part of the first post-Mania TV show that you hype up in advance so that you can have something to hype other than saying "see what surprises we have in store!"). As I said in my Mania review, Corbin vs. Elias from this year's show is a great example of that. It's better to keep Eilas off TV and selling the injury from his big bump than to rush him back in less than two weeks just to have a match at Mania, and doubly so when that match has non-decisive finish.

3. Just like not all of the wrestlers need to get to play, not all of the titles need to be defended, either. You could argue that this devalues the titles that don't get defended, but I'd argue that having the champion defend in a random match against a gaggle of challengers who haven't done sh*t to earn a title shot in a match that is clearly only happening so that the title will be on the line at WrestleMania devalues the title even more by exposing it as a prop.

4. Don't waste time with pointless skits and legends appearances. You want Hogan, Rock, and Austin to f*ck around together? Put that sh*t on Table For 3 or do it as a dark segment before Raw the next night. And this all goes doubly so for guest hosts. They are nothing but a waste of time at the best, and at worst, they result in dumb skits that do nothing but annoy fans. If something doesn't serve a purpose for one of your stories, DON'T DO IT.
The only exception to this should be the presentation of the hall of famers.

5. Keep the video packages shorter. A short video highlight package is going to be more effective than something long and drawn out, and for he few times where you have a complicated story you're telling and need to make sure you show all of the key points, having those video packages be longer than the others make them stand out more. We shouldn't be going twenty minutes between the end of one match and the beginning of the next. A five hour show is THREE-HUNDRED MINUTES. That's enough time for TEN MATCHES going TWENTY MINUTES EACH, with ten minutes between matches (plus five at the beginning and five after the main event). Obviously not every match will go that long (and a few will go longer), but the point is that even five hours should be MORE than enough time to do all of the matches you want to do and give them all time to deliver.
Also, the bell should be ringing for the first match within ten minutes of the PPV starting, and you should keep that kind of pace, except when something important is happening.

6. Don't have matches during the pre-show! The pre-show is a complete and total drain. The only reason I ever have it on is because I want to see the matches, and then I inevitably get annoyed when you cut away from the match I'm trying to watch to give me a video package about whatever Roman Reigns or Becky Lynch or Brock Lesnar or Seth Rollins are doing on the PPV, because apparently the fifteen minutes the panel will spend talking about that match over the course of the two-hour pre-show just isn't enough.
If you really want to do a pre-show with a panel for Facebook Live or whatever and also broadcast it on the Network then that's fine, but don't put matches during it. Let all of the matches you need to present be part of the main show. This way you don't bury those matches by interrupting them to show a commercial for something else, and you also don't drain the patience of fans who just want to see the matches but have to sit through two hours of the same hype points over and over and over again to get (if we're lucky) twenty-five minutes of wrestling over the course of two or three matches.
1 - Agree. Hate the battle royal. Pointless concept to get wrestler paid.

2 - You could use it for a storyline. "You refused to fight me at Wrestlemania and took my moment away"

3 - There's so many champions, it feels like no-one is a champion. It's the main thing I dislike about the brand split.

4 - 100% agree on the old-timers. I get that it's good for a pop to get Austin or Hogan out to do something, but don't do it at the expense of your current roster (Like that time Rock beat Rowan in 5 seconds, or when Austin, HBK & Foley took out League of Nations). Have the hall of famers appear sporadically, or build it into the storyline (A legend in the corner)

5 - Unless it's the main event or a huge match, not everyone needs a big video package, but in their defence, I understand why they do it (giving casual fans the full back story as to why this match is occurring).

6 - Hate to be the yes man, but I also agree here. The pre-show was okay when it was used for the big events to build it up and build up wrestlers in a sports based presentation, but adding matches just makes it a show in itself.

The problem with such a long show is the audience gets tired. How do you expect the fans to still react after 8 hours of sitting or standing and watching stuff. There's too many lulls and you can tell it with the crowd, there's been 2 or 3 occasions where there is 20-30 minutes of the crowd being completely flat. Unless your show is packed with non-stop classics in matches people want to see.. It just is too hard to keep motivated for the whole damn show and that has an effect on the whole overall presentation.
2. I wasn't thinking along the lines of having someone refuse the match so much as just start the story but don't heat it up until after Mania. There are definitely ways to make it part of a storyline, though (but I'd avoid using the term "WrestleMania Moment(tm)" like the plague).

3. See... if you're going to do a brand split, I think the best way to do it is to have one traveling champion for each other the men's heavyweight, women's, men's tag team, women's tag team, and cruiserweight divisions. That way you've got one champion per division, and they get this special privilege, which makes the belts feel more important and makes the champs look like even bigger stars.
If you're not going to do that I think you can get away with two sets of titles if and only if you keep the shows as separate as possible, maybe only coming together for the Royal Rumble and MITB, and doing two nights of Mania and Summer Slam, one for Raw and one for SD (and you wouldn't need to do them in the same city, so you can get two big show gates).
Part of the reason that I've stalled out in my BRM Books Raw 1,000 and Beyond thread after almost four years' worth of booking was not knowing how to deal with the roster split, because I didn't have a strong enough women's or tag division to have separate titles for each show, but had put a lot of effort over the years into making sure I kept both world titles strong and not making the mistake that WWE did, so I had no idea how to handle the roster split.

4. Those examples you gave, plus the Rock/Ronda/Hunter/Steph segment from WM31 and the pointless Hogan appearance with Alexa last year were the first ones that popped into my mind.

5. It also serves as a bathroom break, but I think it could be shorter. If a fan doesn't have the story, an announcer should be able to relate it to them effectively. Stories can be kept simple enough that the packages don't need to be longer than one minute.

6. Or, at the very least, do it the way that NJPW has done in the past where all of the bullsh*t filler is early on the card, so while the first ninety minutes might be filler, the remaining three and a half hours are nonstop matches intended to blow the roof off of the place.
2 - You know thats the angle WWE would use anbd they'd use that phrase, because... well WWE. You could always use the Heel to go for the whole "match will be when I want the match".

3 - Couldn't agree more. 1 set of champions re-installs a level of prestige and it is the champions advantage where they can show up everywhere, in terms of the realism of travelling to and from shows, they're the champion, they don't have to physically appear each week on both shows. They'd only need to work the shows of the wrestler they're in an angle with alongside the occasional appearance on the other show to keep the belt alive there too.

5 - If you go back to the way commentary used to be done, the video packages are even less necessary. It doesn't take 30 seconds for an announcer to fill us in: "XIV is facing BRM tonight, because BRM called XIV's mother fat. BRM is determined to make an examploe out of XIV and XIV wants revenge" . That takes 10 seconds to cover and the fan is clued in. You can even add in some stats "BRM attacked XIV on April 4th Smackdown, and XIV demanded a match with BRM won with a handful of tights, XIV wants to make it right and demanded a match here at PPV". Again, another 10 seconds and the whole picture is built.

6 - That's how wrestling cards have historically worked. It starts with run of the mill stuff, job guys, mid card stuff and then onto the stuff fans want to see. Going from a World Title match to Heath Slater vs Zack Ryder level match doesn't work it creates too many peaks and troughs. Start and build towards the big finish with the crowd getting more and more into it
Have A Nice Day!

User avatar
Big Red Machine
Posts: 24660
Joined: Dec 16th, '10, 15:12

Re: HHH: Two-night WM more enjoyable than eight-hour extravaganza

Post by Big Red Machine » Apr 27th, '20, 09:35

XIV wrote:
Apr 27th, '20, 05:34
Big Red Machine wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 10:00
XIV wrote:
Apr 24th, '20, 01:27


1 - Agree. Hate the battle royal. Pointless concept to get wrestler paid.

2 - You could use it for a storyline. "You refused to fight me at Wrestlemania and took my moment away"

3 - There's so many champions, it feels like no-one is a champion. It's the main thing I dislike about the brand split.

4 - 100% agree on the old-timers. I get that it's good for a pop to get Austin or Hogan out to do something, but don't do it at the expense of your current roster (Like that time Rock beat Rowan in 5 seconds, or when Austin, HBK & Foley took out League of Nations). Have the hall of famers appear sporadically, or build it into the storyline (A legend in the corner)

5 - Unless it's the main event or a huge match, not everyone needs a big video package, but in their defence, I understand why they do it (giving casual fans the full back story as to why this match is occurring).

6 - Hate to be the yes man, but I also agree here. The pre-show was okay when it was used for the big events to build it up and build up wrestlers in a sports based presentation, but adding matches just makes it a show in itself.

The problem with such a long show is the audience gets tired. How do you expect the fans to still react after 8 hours of sitting or standing and watching stuff. There's too many lulls and you can tell it with the crowd, there's been 2 or 3 occasions where there is 20-30 minutes of the crowd being completely flat. Unless your show is packed with non-stop classics in matches people want to see.. It just is too hard to keep motivated for the whole damn show and that has an effect on the whole overall presentation.
2. I wasn't thinking along the lines of having someone refuse the match so much as just start the story but don't heat it up until after Mania. There are definitely ways to make it part of a storyline, though (but I'd avoid using the term "WrestleMania Moment(tm)" like the plague).

3. See... if you're going to do a brand split, I think the best way to do it is to have one traveling champion for each other the men's heavyweight, women's, men's tag team, women's tag team, and cruiserweight divisions. That way you've got one champion per division, and they get this special privilege, which makes the belts feel more important and makes the champs look like even bigger stars.
If you're not going to do that I think you can get away with two sets of titles if and only if you keep the shows as separate as possible, maybe only coming together for the Royal Rumble and MITB, and doing two nights of Mania and Summer Slam, one for Raw and one for SD (and you wouldn't need to do them in the same city, so you can get two big show gates).
Part of the reason that I've stalled out in my BRM Books Raw 1,000 and Beyond thread after almost four years' worth of booking was not knowing how to deal with the roster split, because I didn't have a strong enough women's or tag division to have separate titles for each show, but had put a lot of effort over the years into making sure I kept both world titles strong and not making the mistake that WWE did, so I had no idea how to handle the roster split.

4. Those examples you gave, plus the Rock/Ronda/Hunter/Steph segment from WM31 and the pointless Hogan appearance with Alexa last year were the first ones that popped into my mind.

5. It also serves as a bathroom break, but I think it could be shorter. If a fan doesn't have the story, an announcer should be able to relate it to them effectively. Stories can be kept simple enough that the packages don't need to be longer than one minute.

6. Or, at the very least, do it the way that NJPW has done in the past where all of the bullsh*t filler is early on the card, so while the first ninety minutes might be filler, the remaining three and a half hours are nonstop matches intended to blow the roof off of the place.
2 - You know thats the angle WWE would use anbd they'd use that phrase, because... well WWE. You could always use the Heel to go for the whole "match will be when I want the match".

3 - Couldn't agree more. 1 set of champions re-installs a level of prestige and it is the champions advantage where they can show up everywhere, in terms of the realism of travelling to and from shows, they're the champion, they don't have to physically appear each week on both shows. They'd only need to work the shows of the wrestler they're in an angle with alongside the occasional appearance on the other show to keep the belt alive there too.

5 - If you go back to the way commentary used to be done, the video packages are even less necessary. It doesn't take 30 seconds for an announcer to fill us in: "XIV is facing BRM tonight, because BRM called XIV's mother fat. BRM is determined to make an examploe out of XIV and XIV wants revenge" . That takes 10 seconds to cover and the fan is clued in. You can even add in some stats "BRM attacked XIV on April 4th Smackdown, and XIV demanded a match with BRM won with a handful of tights, XIV wants to make it right and demanded a match here at PPV". Again, another 10 seconds and the whole picture is built.

6 - That's how wrestling cards have historically worked. It starts with run of the mill stuff, job guys, mid card stuff and then onto the stuff fans want to see. Going from a World Title match to Heath Slater vs Zack Ryder level match doesn't work it creates too many peaks and troughs. Start and build towards the big finish with the crowd getting more and more into it
2- Unfortunately, you are correct (although it still doesn't explain why babyface management wouldn't just come out and make the match anyway, and oh my G-d the booking in that company is sooooooo lazy).

3- Just based on my experience as a fan during the first roster-split, those little appearances on the other shows are pretty crucial, because otherwise the champion starts to feel like a tool of the powers that be, being assigned to this show or that show for a month or two at a time and then not showing up until the next time the story demands it (similar to the way that Superstar Shake-Up doesn't feel like two GMs sculpting competing rosters but rather like the powers that be assigning the wrestlers to the brand they want them on). Those appearances on the other show should be used for setting seeds for whatever the champion is doing on that show next, or for elevating guys who you want to start elevating but aren't ready to push super-hard yet (Jeff Hardy in 2002 in his feud with Undertaker being the shining example in my mind).

5- Exactly. The mistake WWE often makes in their storytelling as a whole (and particularly when there was no brand split) is that they don't have stories so much as just an idea of what a feud is about, which they will throw out on the first show of the PPV cycle, and then every show until the PPV is spent having those wrestlers interact in some way (match, promo segment, someone interferes in someone else's match, someone does commentary on someone else's match, etc.) just for the sake of having them interact while the announcers hammer home the same point over and over and over again. This leads to pretty much every moment in the feud being equal because other than the beginning and maybe a go-home angle, none of them are really important in any way, so we get highlight packages that are just a bunch of stuff.
What you have done is created a progressing story that is easy to figure out what the important clips for the video package are:
Week 1- clip from promo of BRM calling XIV's mother fat
Week 2- clip from promo of XIV vowing to defend his mother's honor and kick BRM's ass, followed by clip later in the night of BRM jumping XIV from behind and beating him down, then accepting the challenge
Week 3- clips of five seconds of beginning of match, followed by clip of finish where XIV goes for his finisher but BRM reverses it with a school boy while grabbing the tights for leverage
Week 4- clip of BRM cutting a promo reiterating that XIV's mother is fat and making fun of XIV for failing to defend her honor, followed by XIV running out swinging a kendo stick and BRM running off, then XIV picking up the mic and vowing to make BRM pay the next time they meet.

That's one minute AT MOST, and it's all actually important to the story, rather than just action clips and antics.

6- I actually think there is an argument to the peaks and valleys thing, but WWE is a little too extreme with it. I think you need a hot opener nowadays, and you need either a come-down match or a the very least a change of pace match after certain things (I'm not saying put a five-minute filler match on between your fifteen-minute ladder match and your twenty-minute I quit match, but I am saying that between those two matches is a great place to stick your twenty-minute grapplef*ck match).
Also, there is a difference between a come-down match and a filler match. A come-down match is only a come-down in the pace of the action, not it's importance. Otis vs. Ziggler from Mania this year would have been perfect as a come-down match due to the pacing, but it still delivered a big storyline moment and was fulfilling for fans in an emotional way, rather than one that is purely action, or a combination of the two.
Hold #712: ARM BAR!

Upcoming Reviews:
FIP in 2005
ROH Validation
PWG All-Star Weekend V: Night 2
DGUSA Open the Northern Gate
CHIKARA Hot Off the Griddle

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KILLdozer and 3 guests