NWK2000 wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 11:46

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 08:53
I think they have tried to establish way too many characters who are way too similar instead of focusing on a smaller group and adding new people in gradually the way Lucha Underground did. Time spent on Mike Hitchman and Dan Moloney and each mid/undercard wrestler getting the same video repeated eighty-three times should have been spent on establishing some real character for the principal stars... and a lot of them really need it. Moustache Mountain have no character other than "guys I'm supposed to cheer" and Gibson & Drake have no real character other than "guys I'm supposed to boo." They're not character; they're caricatures.

Do you think a disadvantage NXT UK has going for it is that they're effectively producing two hours of TV a week? Because a lot of these undercard angles and video packages seem like they're products of that. And I think NXT UK will iron itself out eventually it's just inevitably taking longer because of a larger principle cast.

I don't think so. It makes the show harder to sit through at times, but that would be solved by just moving one of the shows to a different day of the week.
For the purposes of establishing characters it should be more of an advantage than anything else because you have more time to do it in. The issue is introducing so many characters at the same time, especially when so many of them are so similar. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but all of these vaguely angry Brits (oh, and the vaguely angry Europeans in Aicher & Barthel) feel the same to me, as to the smaller, happy-go-lucky high-flyers. And those are basically the only two types of men the show has outside of (arguably) Moustache Mountain, El Ligero, Jordan Devlin, and Travis Banks. Where is the big, scary monster heel? Where is the Jimmy Jacobs' type of guy? Where are the mat technicians? Where is the Jerry Lynn-style babyface veteran? Where is the chicken-sh*t heel?
If you are going to make the decision to go with just generic large angry dudes and small energetic high-flyers than you need to do a lot of character stuff to set each other apart. NXT UK has done almost none of that.

cero2k wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 12:02

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 11:46

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 08:53
I like these guys elsewhere, but in NXT UK they feel like mere shadows of their PROGRESS selves. I'd find Dennis more interesting if he were feuding with Dunne or Andrews- AKA the two guys he said he was bitter at due to their careers succeeding early on and his not.

I intentionally avoid modern indies so that I can avoid making distinctions like these, so that I can judge wrestlers from a clean slate as opposed to comparing what they do their indy work, where they obviously are operating on a less rigid set of rules.

wait, so you actually prefer the watered-down restricted version of wrestlers?

No, WWE and the indies are different bodies of work in the same performance art. Not having anything to compare to when a guy debuts in NXT makes it new and exciting. And if I like the guy enough I'll go and find out their indie work once they've made their impression.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 12:36
No, WWE and the indies are different bodies of work in the same performance art. Not having anything to compare to when a guy debuts in NXT makes it new and exciting. And if I like the guy enough I'll go and find out their indie work once they've made their impression.

fair enough, we all do it the way we want to. I personally wouldn't be able to put so much trust on WWE, for every Eddie Dennis, there's a Biff Busick that WWE did nothing with.

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 12:36

cero2k wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 12:02

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 11:46

I intentionally avoid modern indies so that I can avoid making distinctions like these, so that I can judge wrestlers from a clean slate as opposed to comparing what they do their indy work, where they obviously are operating on a less rigid set of rules.

wait, so you actually prefer the watered-down restricted version of wrestlers?

No, WWE and the indies are different bodies of work in the same performance art. Not having anything to compare to when a guy debuts in NXT makes it new and exciting. And if I like the guy enough I'll go and find out their indie work once they've made their impression.

I can see how this makes sense.
It's also interesting to see who the few people are who fare better with the shackles (Cody, Sandow when he was a serious character, arguably babyface Dunne).

cero2k wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 12:02

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 11:46

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 08:53
I like these guys elsewhere, but in NXT UK they feel like mere shadows of their PROGRESS selves. I'd find Dennis more interesting if he were feuding with Dunne or Andrews- AKA the two guys he said he was bitter at due to their careers succeeding early on and his not.

I intentionally avoid modern indies so that I can avoid making distinctions like these, so that I can judge wrestlers from a clean slate as opposed to comparing what they do their indy work, where they obviously are operating on a less rigid set of rules.

wait, so you actually prefer the watered-down restricted version of wrestlers?

Triggered

cero2k wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 13:23

NWK2000 wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 12:36
No, WWE and the indies are different bodies of work in the same performance art. Not having anything to compare to when a guy debuts in NXT makes it new and exciting. And if I like the guy enough I'll go and find out their indie work once they've made their impression.

fair enough, we all do it the way we want to. I personally wouldn't be able to put so much trust on WWE, for every Eddie Dennis, there's a Biff Busick that WWE did nothing with.

Isn't he Lorcan? Some bald white dude. Sure.

KILLdozer wrote: ↑Jan 15th, '19, 14:00
Isn't he Lorcan? Some bald white dude. Sure.

yeap, exactly, if you only know Lorcan, he's completely irrelevant, but he used to be better