|
|
Post by PsychoGoatee on Nov 25, 2015 13:17:26 GMT -5
With ratings at an all-time low, WWE needs to shake things up. For a bit I think hot-shotting the belt to some degree would help, doing things different than it's been for the past couple years.
In the longrun I think it's good to have long reigns with lots of successful title defenses, that's epic. But it shouldn't be that way 100% of the time or it's just routine, and it feels like WWE does not want to pull the trigger on anybody lately. I loved Rollins as champ personally, though they could've booked his reign stronger.
Right now though, I say let three or four people have the belt this year. Maybe five it Sheamus drops it by the Rumble. Call me crazy, it might actually help ratings and get excitement up, especially if these quicker reigns and title changes are booked well.
And in general speeding things up would help, make feuds move faster, make each week feel like it's moving things along significantly, not dragging the same thing out. Though in contrast, I would like some longer midcard title reigns, but move the champ through challengers a bit faster.
Then after that settle on some longer reigns for the WWE title again. Or if something is really working stick with it anyway, but stop saving everything for WrestleMania.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 25, 2015 13:18:40 GMT -5
Solving current problems by going back to the worst ideas of the Attitude Era won't work.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Nov 25, 2015 13:20:11 GMT -5
I'm all for spontaneity, but the hot potato title runs in 98/99 devalued the title as much as having Seth Rollins going 1-17 in televised matches as champ.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Nov 25, 2015 13:22:16 GMT -5
well one thing they could do was maybe have a world title change on RAW so the whole "anything can happen" can actually happen again. and not a MITB cash-in title change either. people may actually pay attention to the third hour if they see the title actually COULD change hands that night.
|
|
|
|
Post by Session Moth is over on Nov 25, 2015 13:22:35 GMT -5
There are parts of the Attitude era I would bring back that I feel would make a huge difference to the show. But there are many other parts of the Attitude era I never want to see again.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Nov 25, 2015 13:25:56 GMT -5
Raw used to be can't miss TV, and now what happens on the show usually matters so little that you don't need to watch it. Nothing really happens, nothing really changes. I barely ever watch Raw anymore, just watch the PPV's, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything at all
|
|
|
|
Post by PsychoGoatee on Nov 25, 2015 13:26:13 GMT -5
Solving current problems by going back to the worst ideas of the Attitude Era won't work. Ratings were huge and it was fun to watch, I think there was some merit to it. I don't think it should be the status quo longterm, but for a bit in what feels like a transitional time like this, I feel it could work. And they could book it better than back then. Not every match would end with a screwy run-in or what have you. I'm all for spontaneity, but the hot potato title runs in 98/99 devalued the title as much as having Seth Rollins going 1-17 in televised matches as champ. While I agree on paper, I had as much fun watching it then as ever, and the belt to me felt as important or more so than Daniel Bryan's long ROH title reign. Mankind's brief runs in 98 and 99 were certainly a good thing that were nice moments in history I'd think? The ones he traded with The Rock at least. Raw used to be can't miss TV, and now what happens on the show usually matters so little that you don't need to watch it. Nothing really happens, nothing really changes. I barely ever watch Raw anymore, just watch the PPV's, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything at all I agree, they need to fix that too. Ideally by having better feuds, speeding up the pace of the show, and having surprising things happen. Including surprises fans would like. I would've loved it if Reigns did get his rematch and beat Sheamus this week on Raw for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 25, 2015 13:27:56 GMT -5
Ratings were huge during the Attitude Era because of top quality stars like Stone Cold and the Rock. They had the personalities and star power in an era where they actually allowed stars to flourish. It wasn't because of titles being traded with frequency.
|
|
|
|
Post by PsychoGoatee on Nov 25, 2015 13:33:20 GMT -5
Ratings were huge during the Attitude Era because of top quality stars like Stone Cold and the Rock. They had the personalities and star power in an era where they actually allowed stars to flourish. It wasn't because of titles being traded with frequency. I'm not saying this one element is the key, or that things like that weren't factors. I'm just saying that one element is something they could give a try now, and I think it would help personally. At the very least, everybody is thinking and hoping Sheamus is a brief transitional champion, hopefully losing the belt at Royal Rumble at the latest. And it sure feels like a long Cena-esque babyface reign for Reigns would fall flat at the moment, so if anything he too could use maybe a four month reign before getting screwed and hunting some other heel. Then we could let Dean Ambrose have the belt, instead of putting it off and cooling him off for years and years. That guy needs the belt, and this style of booking would make him more likely to get it. Stuff like that. This trying to build to one big 'Mania moment and crowning a new "top guy" just isn't working with Reigns, and it doesn't look like they're giving anybody else that spot. So this seems like the best alternative until the next Daniel Bryan style potential hit gets going. If you have something magic like that, keep the belt on that guy for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 25, 2015 13:35:35 GMT -5
Anything with the title is just a symptom of a much larger issue.
Shows are just generally boring most of the time. The belt changing hands more ain't fixin that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 13:37:32 GMT -5
Throwing the belt around constantly isn't going to accomplish anything, but I do think the main event scene is at least part of the problem. Only relatively, but the past few years of this endless slog of, "Heel holds the title for an eternity while they make it very, very obvious the entire time where it's heading, face takes it, another heel almost immediately takes it," is probably doing quite a bit to turn some casual viewers off. Plus there's no point in watching a show when nothing changes at all for months on end. In general think unless someone is absolutely red-hot, six months should basically be considered the cutoff point on title reigns, no longer than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by PsychoGoatee on Nov 25, 2015 13:38:48 GMT -5
Anything with the title is just a symptom of a much larger issue. Shows are just generally boring most of the time. The belt changing hands more ain't fixin that Granted, WWE has lots of areas that need improvement. I don't think that contradicts the idea of this being a potentially helpful thing to try though, as a change of pace at the moment. In general think unless someone is absolutely red-hot, six months should basically be considered the cutoff point on title reigns, no longer than that. I agree there. And if a reign is completely cold like Sheamus, shorter than that would be good in my view. Even for a lukewarm reign (like Reigns may have), half a year could end up feeling a bit long. |
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,294
|
Post by Push R Truth on Nov 25, 2015 13:44:27 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind seeing more IC/US/Tag/Divas title matches main eventing RAW. There's something "entertaining" when the final match has something on the line.
Nothing is as soul destroying for a main event as "Here's a random Tag Match between some dudes that have separate feuds, faces on one side heels on the other".
|
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Nov 25, 2015 13:48:10 GMT -5
saving for WM really hurts in some cases. Reigns is clearly going to win the title at WM.. But we have to go 4 months of him chasing it before he has his moment. So anything that happens between now and WM is just slowly building to that point, which has slowly been building since the Shield broke up, and except for the two MITB cash ins(both on ppvs) nothing really ground breaking has happened. An angle that as been happening more less for two years now only has two "high points" ... This is why people end up watching football or something else, because nothing big happens anymore
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2015 13:50:29 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind seeing more IC/US/Tag/Divas title matches main eventing RAW. There's something "entertaining" when the final match has something on the line. Nothing is as soul destroying for a main event as "Here's a random Tag Match between some dudes that have separate feuds, faces on one side heels on the other". That's one thing I've really grown to hate. Why does the person in charge always arrange it that way? It's one thing when a promo war sets it up earlier or something, fine, but why would Triple H never decide, "Okay, at SummerSlam Cena's challenging Rollins and Big Show's challenging Ryback, so Cena and Big Show vs. Rollins and Ryback!"? It makes no sense, it'd be a nice change to the dynamic, show some combinations you don't see much, and nobody boos heels anymore anyway so don't need to worry about the crowd being confused or whatever. |
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone.
Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,589
|
Post by Bo Rida on Nov 25, 2015 14:53:14 GMT -5
Yes they often drag out storylines as if they still had two hours of TV a week and five PPVs, they're not adjusted for the amount of hours they churn out these days.
The destination just isn't worth the tedious journey to get there. In fact many have often been invested in a story but lost interest by it's conclusion. That's assuming there even is a payoff as plans are disrupted far too often, sure you could say that's bad luck and not WWE' fault but it's a clear pattern now and they should learn from it.
tl;dr - Strike while the iron is hot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Nov 25, 2015 15:06:47 GMT -5
You don't need to hot shot the title. That's something I never agreed with Russo about. What you do need? Engaging storylines. Compelling characters. Human drama mixed with the live absurdity of wrestling. I haven't watched WWE in months. When it was at its best? I DIDN'T WANT TO MISS ONE SECOND. That's what's missing: Making every damn second of your product count. Each Raw and each Smackdown should be integral to the overall experience, not the two months of WrestleMania season and the large dry desert between.
Really, what they need to do is book with the best attributes of Paul Heyman, Eric Bischoff and Vince Russo. Instead, for the last decade plus they've been booking with the worst.
|
|
|
|
Post by Secret Clown on Nov 25, 2015 15:07:36 GMT -5
They need to do some long term booking instead of booking from week to week. Have a starting point and a finishing point planned out and a rough idea what they want to do to get from A to B. Then let the wrestlers use their personalities to get the angle over and make it seem more real and organic.
|
|
|
|
Post by PsychoGoatee on Nov 25, 2015 15:11:43 GMT -5
You don't need to hot shot the title. That's something I never agreed with Russo about. What you do need? Engaging storylines. Compelling characters. Human drama mixed with the live absurdity of wrestling. I haven't watched WWE in months. When it was at its best? I DIDN'T WANT TO MISS ONE SECOND. That's what's missing: Making every damn second of your product count. Each Raw and each Smackdown should be integral to the overall experience, not the two months of WrestleMania season and the large dry desert between. Really, what they need to do is book with the best attributes of Paul Heyman, Eric Bischoff and Vince Russo. Instead, for the last decade plus they've been booking with the worst. I agree with that, and hot-shotting isn't something I'm suggesting as the new status quo longterm. But to be fair, Heyman did book 5 ECW title changes in '97, 4 in '99, and 5 in 2000 for example. Changing titles a bit more frequently was often part of that fast paced compelling stuff you're describing. It's not the end all be all, but it's something to include at times, and now feels like a good time for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 25, 2015 15:12:22 GMT -5
Between April and June 2000, Jeff Jarrett won 4 WCW world titles.
That's what hotshotting brings.
|
|
