Crimson
Hank Scorpio
Thank you DWade
Posts: 6,511
|
Post by Crimson on Jul 24, 2014 21:09:13 GMT -5
I've been meaning to post this, but I lot of the anger towards the absence of Ambrose vs. Rollins at Battle Ground left me wondering, should the WWE even bother still doing these bait and switch booking? Building up a match only for it to not happen to drag out a story?
With stuff like people threatening to pull their subscriptions from the Network over it, I figure it's worth discussing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jul 24, 2014 21:10:22 GMT -5
Absolutely not. It's such bullshit. It's the epitome of screwing your audience out of their money, you promise them something and then don't give it to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jul 24, 2014 21:20:54 GMT -5
It would if the rest of the show was at least very good and not full of bullshit endings otherwise.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Jul 24, 2014 21:21:29 GMT -5
On RAW fine, On PPV Hell no
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 24, 2014 21:22:15 GMT -5
No
All it does is piss people off and make them resent the WWE. It's better to give the audience what they want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 21:24:42 GMT -5
I'm not going to say it can't work ever, but the way WWE is, it's not a good idea. Many people legitimately do not trust WWE and doing that only confirms people's suspicions. If it were like a TV show where swerves and payoffs were consistent and the general flow was logical, then it could maybe work. But the bait-and-switches are often illogical and forced, which makes then doubly bad.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319 
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 24, 2014 21:34:06 GMT -5
Absolutely not. It's such bullshit. It's the epitome of screwing your audience out of their money, you promise them something and then don't give it to them. they gave the crowd three different Rollins/Ambrose fights Sunday night instead of one. |
|
|
|
Post by Pillman's Pencil on Jul 24, 2014 21:37:20 GMT -5
No, if its on TV then they could perhaps get away with it, but not on PPV or in this 'WWE Network' era, it just pisses off people (not in a heel way)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2014 21:42:05 GMT -5
Absolutely not. It's such bullshit. It's the epitome of screwing your audience out of their money, you promise them something and then don't give it to them. they gave the crowd three different Rollins/Ambrose fights Sunday night instead of one. They were supposed to have a match though. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry The Arrow was Wrong! on Jul 24, 2014 21:51:36 GMT -5
Absolutely not. It's such bullshit. It's the epitome of screwing your audience out of their money, you promise them something and then don't give it to them. they gave the crowd three different Rollins/Ambrose fights Sunday night instead of one. They also ended up pissing off people who paid money to see Ambrose and Rollins have an actual match. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 24, 2014 21:53:15 GMT -5
Absolutely not. It's such bullshit. It's the epitome of screwing your audience out of their money, you promise them something and then don't give it to them. they gave the crowd three different Rollins/Ambrose fights Sunday night instead of one. People don't pay for fights. They pay for wrestling matches. Despite what WWE would like to believe. |
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 24, 2014 21:53:30 GMT -5
they gave the crowd three different Rollins/Ambrose fights Sunday night instead of one. They also ended up pissing off people who paid money to see Ambrose and Rollins have an actual match. does anyone really believe that match would have had anymore of a definitive ending than the fights? |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 24, 2014 21:54:54 GMT -5
They also ended up pissing off people who paid money to see Ambrose and Rollins have an actual match. does anyone really believe that match would have had anymore of a definitive ending than the fights? Maybe it should. It's an innovative concept, I know. |
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on Jul 24, 2014 21:57:49 GMT -5
Absolutely not. It's such bullshit. It's the epitome of screwing your audience out of their money, you promise them something and then don't give it to them. they gave the crowd three different Rollins/Ambrose fights Sunday night instead of one. Take note of the word "fights" and the lack of the words "wrestling" and "match" in that sentence, that is probably why people (including myself) were still pissed off. |
|
BigBadZ
Grimlock
The Rumors Are All True
Posts: 13,923
|
Post by BigBadZ on Jul 24, 2014 22:01:55 GMT -5
No. Especially when it's one of the main matches promoted for the card.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry The Arrow was Wrong! on Jul 24, 2014 22:03:26 GMT -5
They also ended up pissing off people who paid money to see Ambrose and Rollins have an actual match. does anyone really believe that match would have had anymore of a definitive ending than the fights? It doesn't matter what the finish is, they promised a match which they did not deliver on. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 24, 2014 22:09:33 GMT -5
You can do it, but you've got to do it in such a way that it seems to further things along.
As is, what replaced the match that everyone got so angsty about was yet another brawl that we've seen in the build-up for weeks prior. I honestly think that's what got people upset more than anything else. It wasn't JUST that the match didn't happen, it was that nothing really new happened either.
The defense was that, "well they're setting up for Summerslam, and it would make sense Dean would attack Seth.." and things along those lines. From a logic standpoint, that's true. But they'd been doing virtually the same thing on the free shows for a couple of weeks before that.
I firmly believe if they'd upped the ante a lil--say for example one of the two of them just gets brutalized by the other pre the match whereas they CAN'T compete in the match (that's not a perfect solution, just off the top of my head), or something different along those lines where it felt like the story legitimately was furthered and now you HAVE to see them finally come to blows at Summerslam, then it woulda worked. As it is, what we got felt like 'more of the same'. That wouldn't have taken much to tweak.
In a way, what they were going for with the delayed gratification could've made sense. It was just the execution that was sloppy.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jul 24, 2014 22:23:13 GMT -5
Only if the switch is of equal value. Like instead of Ambrose vs. Rollins, they made Ambrose fight Triple H. Instead they took away and gave nothing in return.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jul 24, 2014 22:34:57 GMT -5
Bait and switch booking is horrible and should never happen. The idea of "card subject to change" is theoretically due to injury or a guy not being able to make it for some really good reason. This was simply "Eh, we're not doing the match tonight." A marginal pull apart brawl could have been on Raw. WWE owed fans at least a match that went 7 minute and had a DQ finish like they've been doing with the house shows. Then do the pull apart brawling as well.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jul 24, 2014 22:35:49 GMT -5
I've been meaning to post this, but I lot of the anger towards the absence of Ambrose vs. Rollins at Battle Ground left me wondering, should the WWE even bother still doing these bait and switch booking? Building up a match only for it to not happen to drag out a story? With stuff like people threatening to pull their subscriptions from the Network over it, I figure it's worth discussing. On TV, yes. On PPV: Never. TV is to build angles. PPV is for resolution. |
|
