Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 16:16:07 GMT -5
See, that's the thing. I like things to be showy and high-budget, but the big problem with WWE's sets - mostly for Raw and SmackDown - is that they are without any regard for creativity or visual appeal. It's just, wow, nice screen for no reason. It's showy in a completely boring way.
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Jan 20, 2012 17:12:33 GMT -5
When WWE made RAW in 1993, it was named 'RAW' for a reason. The production values were low-end, the cameras weren't great, the arenas weren't high-end, yet the action in and out of the ring felt unpredictable and chaotic. This lasted until around the end of the Attitude Era, which for me is about Wrestlemania X-Seven.
Today, RAW does feel a little overpolished, and quite frankly, it is not true to its origins. Might as well be called 'Supershow' for all I know.
|
|
Jimmy
Grimlock
Posts: 13,317
|
Post by Jimmy on Jan 20, 2012 17:15:13 GMT -5
Maybe it's the nostalgia goggles talking, but I do like the older style RAW arenas, with the banners hanging down, the metal grates and the big titantron, just being...a titantron. It doesn't have to be too cheap, just don't go overboard with the production and style of the show. This is how I feel too. I liked how RAW is WAR really looked like a Warzone type of place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 17:45:12 GMT -5
The only time I thought something was over the top with a WWE set was when they had that video cube above the ring at WM26.
And Sin Cara's ring lighting.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 20, 2012 17:51:34 GMT -5
I don't really see a problem. As technology progresses, so will the way entertainment is shot and presented. Complaining about WWE looking to polished is about as silly as complaining that Blu-ray looks better than DVD's from ten years ago.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jan 20, 2012 18:12:56 GMT -5
Technology happens.
|
|
|
Post by Codebreaker on Jan 20, 2012 18:31:56 GMT -5
I like WWE's production for what it is and how clean it looks, but I can watch something like ROH without a problem. I've shown people something from WWE, then switched to an indy show and have had people say things like "When you said you liked wrestling, this is what I thought you meant!" On the other side of the coin, and much more frequently than the "too produced" argument, I've seen the complaint from WWE fans that they can't get into anything other than WWE because of lacking production values. At the end of the day, it comes down to what the individual wants to see from wrestling. The only time I thought something was over the top with a WWE set was when they had that video cube above the ring at WM26. Me too, it just seemed like too much for no real reason.
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Jan 20, 2012 18:56:30 GMT -5
What seems the most inexplicable to me (and again, to me) is the people that hate on the titantron and lighting and what not. To me, part of wrestling has always been about the spectacle, and one of the big appeals to me of going to one of the taped shows, even though you know you'll get more and longer matches and arguably better wrestling at house shows, is the pyro, the lighting, the titantron, all that. For me, it's just that I enjoy the wrestling. All the other stuff is unnecessary and, for me, adds nothing. I don't need a giant screen; I'm watching what's happening, why would I want to turn my head away from that to watch it on a screen? And since I typically just watch on TV anyway, I usually don't even see the screen except when the guys first walk out from the back. I don't need fireworks. I barely watch them on the 4th of July, let alone at a wrestling show. It just ends up feeling like a pointless distraction. Same with the light effects. It just doesn't really add anything for me. I watch wrestling because I like wrestling. I don't need, or particularly want all the extra bells and whistles. To me, "good production values" doesn't mean a light show, fireworks, a titantron, or a gaudy set. It means the ring doesn't look like a cheap piece of crap, things are well lit so you can see everything, skilled cameramen equipped with quality cameras, and (for TV) good people and equipment in the production truck. Throw in a good sound system so everything is clear and understandable, and that's all I really need or want. I do agree with you about the railing though. I don't care which style someone uses, and think complaining about that is a little over the top.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 20, 2012 18:56:39 GMT -5
I like everything as close to perfection as it can get, so I also feel this is a dumb critcism
|
|
|
Post by proudcaucasian on Jan 20, 2012 19:17:47 GMT -5
I feel it's over produced in various ways. I hate that the crowd has lights on them. I hate that they take the signs away from the fans. Remember how awesome the crowds looked back in the day when everyone had a sign? Now you hardly see any.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 20, 2012 19:25:44 GMT -5
considering the fact you do see some signs I think that might be more about the fans though
|
|
|
Post by Junkenstein on Jan 20, 2012 19:31:47 GMT -5
I can't criticise the shows for being too polished or produced (which as someone said, is really a matter of preference) but what I do dislike is how damn bland the TV shows and PPVs look.
You can have a really polished-looking show and still be visually exciting. WCW Nitro had my favourite production for any wrestling show, it was very polished and professional compared to the WWF's attitude look, but the shows and sets still had a lot of personality about them, you had the fire theme and so on. Even when they changed to the much-hated "Star Trek" set, the show still had a very distinct look.
It does kind of suck that they've gradually removed all the things that once made the shows visually unique. I mean, how can you justify putting the Smackdown fist out of work? Or those Backlash hooks? They have families to feed, goddammit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 19:37:16 GMT -5
I also think this is one of the dumbest criticisms ever. This. I hate looking back at how minor-league a lot of the PPV sets from the Attitude Era look. See, I really liked that. I don't need a "set". Thats what I used to love about their PPVs, it was just a simple set up and allowed them to use that space to cram more people into the building, which is what SHOULD be the most important thing. I think it looks better on TV because the crowd is more of a focus than of the massive screens and gaudy LED light panels that are so omnipresent now. I feel the same way about concerts, the light shows now are offensively distracting. It's about the MUSIC/WRESTLING, man. It's just a personal preference/attitude, and I don't see how it's such a "dumb" criticism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 20:43:56 GMT -5
A good example is the "point at Mania sign and fireworks explode" thing at the Rumble. THAT is overproduction. It's sacrificing real emotion for a cool image.
|
|
|
Post by norsisclouds on Jan 20, 2012 20:48:50 GMT -5
I like how clean their production looks for the most part for everyone--EXCEPT the divas....because I think it makes them look too...plastic and artificial, worse than the way they write them.
|
|
|
Post by ThatDamnPotato on Jan 21, 2012 7:17:52 GMT -5
I'm indifferent towards this, I like WWE's production and I like their sets and recently their sets haven't been too same-ish for PPV sets, I also miss the old attitude era sets and when I go and look back at those shows I keep thinking to myself "WWE will never be as good as the attitude era" there was something about it that just looked AWESOME! I don't know what it was but the production of a show won't stop me from watching it, I mean even TNAs production is alot better than it was and I personally love TNAs on the road impact/ppv set with the moving screen/entrance it looks better than the RAW/SD set tbh...
Also I liked the Wrestlemania cube and the one from the year after/before which was the circle tron in the ring that came down for the big entrances, its wrestlemania its supposed to look absolutely awesome!
|
|
|
Post by Society of the Spectacle on Jan 21, 2012 11:58:26 GMT -5
You know it's funny that this topic came up because I was just thinking this exact thing the other day: being overproduced, style over substance, etc. However I wasn't watching WWE, I was watching TNA.
I watched this last IMPACT, and it was so badly overproduced and came off as if it was trying way too hard. TNA doesn't have the money that WWE does, true, but WWE has a certain degree of taste at times with their production and effects, where I think TNA feels they need to push their technology/effects budget to the limit at all times. It just comes off looking cheesy and reminded me of how it looks when wrestling is portrayed/satirized/mocked in movies or TV shows. Backstage moments have to have a voyeuristic moving camera feel, with rock music almost drowning out the dialogue. I'm guessing the producers feel this looks awesome, but to me, this is the very definition (especially considering how TNA books) of style over substance.
WWE has money, and when something is supposed to look important, they will use a lot of flash, pizazz, and whatnot. However, I think WWE just has more talented people than TNA in the back; people who know how to go all out, but more importantly reign it in. Think about WWE vignette videos and feud hypes. Those probably cost quite a bit of time and money when you're doing them every week, but the work involved shows, as they are EXTREMELY well done. We all know that WWE likes to think of themselves as more than a wrestling company, and both RAW and SD at times don't feel like wrestling shows, but I feel like WWE has always strived for that feel. They just now have the immense wealth to make it happen. TNA, to me comes off like its trying to be "the ultimate wrestling company": copping ECW's rapid and "intense" television delivery mixed in with pushing their effects budget to the very max ala WCW to make everything look shiny or glossy, regardless of taste.
|
|
VersionOne
Team Rocket
Like a phoenix, Southpaw Shall Rise!
Posts: 893
|
Post by VersionOne on Jan 21, 2012 13:00:53 GMT -5
The production values should be toned down, but only in certain areas.
The way I see it is, why are the locker rooms and other areas that aren't suppose to be seen on TV professionally lit and the camera work is all perfectly shot when what we're seeing is meant to be "as it happens"?
Basically, areas that are part of the show e.g. the arena and designated interview areas can be as flashy and produced as they like. Everything else could be about the same level as the .com videos they've been doing recently (perhaps a bit higher)
I think it'd make everything that bit more believable.
|
|
theryno665
Grimlock
wants a title underneath the stars
Kinda Homeless
Posts: 13,571
|
Post by theryno665 on Jan 21, 2012 14:01:56 GMT -5
I complain about things like that sometimes when it's something stupid and distracting like the red/blue light on the crowd and the blue lighting of Sin Cara matches. I also comlain when people in backstage segments hav entrance music (aksana) or cut to a video (johnny ace). Things like that are completely unnecessary and make the show look bad. WWE IS overproduced. Yes, wrestling is a spectacle but by having such an elaborate set up 4 times a week, theres nothing spectacular about it. I think with the case of useless vignettes or Sin Cara lighting, that sort of superfluousness would be considered OVERproduction. But as a whole, WWE's production values are where a company its size should be in this day and age. Whenever I get to watch something in HD, whether it be a Blu-Ray or a PPV at my buddy's place with his giant TV, I do get slightly more enjoyment out of it than if I were just watching it on my standard-def cable connection. TNA's production is exactly the same as their roster: They have the capability to be great...they just have NO IDEA how to use it.
|
|
|
Post by gnr123 on Jan 21, 2012 15:47:23 GMT -5
In my opinion, this is a very stupid criticism.
WWE is a big, big company, who thrive on putting on the best show for their fans. Their sets, their lighting, their pyro, all adds to the live experience of the show. WWE's set's and production are over the top because that's what WWE is. People compare the sets and production today to what they were before, but here's the thing, WWE has moved forward. It's 2012, the production of 1997 isn't going to come back and isn't what the WWE are trying to be compared to, they want to put on a entertainment spectacular for their fans at home and at the arena's every night.
And I like the lighting and sound effects they used for the backstage segments. Kane's red lighting and music for an example seems to add to it. I know it's cheesy, but I like it that way.
|
|