|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 8, 2017 13:18:31 GMT -5
I see people bring up a lot that they feel WWE used to have the old "anything can happen" feeling that Vince would always trumpet on commentary in the 1990s, and that the current product's lack of that feeling leads to its lower ratings and fan interest, even while the actual wrestling WWE produces has been pretty strong in the past few years, by and large.
That said, it's understandable for wrestling shows to have some level of predictability: certain beats or tropes that pop up again and again, because you tailor your audience to expect them or because they just make storytelling sense. They're not always a bad thing, and it's ok for fans to have a sense of what they should expect to see when they turn your show on.
So, where do you, personally, draw the line?
For me, I think WWE's chief problem is that they get very repetitive with how they book things (e.g. 15 minute opening promo segments), but they do it in the guise of pretending that the show is chaotic. For example, stuff like Dolph Ziggler jumping Roode and Corbin after their match so they can turn the US title feud into a triple threat: was there anyone who didn't see that coming? Of course not. But what made it really egregious was that you just knew what they were going to do based on Ziggler being out there for commentary; they took what should be a "normal" situation (wrestler joins commentary team for a few minutes) and turned it into "Oh my, he's out of control!" when the audience knew from the first minute Ziggler appeared that he'd get involved. A wrestler jumping up from commentary to fight should feel genuinely chaotic, like when Piper and Savage ran to the Funeral Parlor on Superstars back in '91 to save Hogan from Flair and Undertaker, but this takes any and all life and feeling out of the situation.
Same thing with pull apart brawls; it can work if you're pairing, say, Brock and Samoa Joe in a match, since they're both monsters, but it happens too damn often (TNA was guilty of this all the time, too); again, it's faux-chaos, and doesn't carry any of the emotional weight it should. Meanwhile, watch an old NWA show where the Horsemen end up brawling all over the studio with Dusty, Magnum, and Ronnie Garvin and it feels like hell is breaking loose because it so rarely happened.
Again, though, predictability can be good, precisely because it makes the chaotic moments feel more impactful. I always contrast WWE with NJPW since NJPW is the promotion I watch the most now, but New Japan almost always has a new challenger for a champion's title appear at the entrance ramp after a big match to set up the next challenge. That said, it's not usually presented as chaotic: it's just what's expected, it's just what happens (the Young Bucks lampshaded this when they recently challenged Roppongi 3K for Wrestle Kingdom), so if a challenge like that goes down and does get violent, now it actually feels like a bit of a surprise; the violence takes what's a normal occurrence the audience is familiar with, the new challenger standing before the victorious champion, and turns it around into something different. It works in part because it isn't done every time.
So yeah, predictability in pro wrestling: how would you like WWE to approach it?
|
|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Dec 8, 2017 13:21:19 GMT -5
I don't have a "quick" term to describe it, but a situation like the 1998 Royal Rumble. We ALL knew who was winning that thing, and it was totally the right move.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,293
|
Post by Push R Truth on Dec 8, 2017 13:24:27 GMT -5
I don't mind some predictable conclusions, it's kinda nice to sometimes see your predicable hero win in the end. Key word SOMETIMES. There's a balance there in regards to length of time between when something becomes predictable to when it happens. If the ending of a show is predictable because of what happens during the second hour... that can happen quite often and that's not too annoying. When the ending of a show 3 months into a future is predictable because of what is going on... that can get very tiresome when it happens "too often".
What I don't like is long term predictable conclusions one after another that tie up a major title/program. Roman being "predictable" to main event Wrestlemania 6 months in advance multiple times over and over for instance. That sucks balls.
I think overall it's very much a "you need predictability to create a surprise". When twists and turns are all the rage, the biggest twist becomes when there IS no twist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 13:33:45 GMT -5
I don't care if anything is predictable or even if anything is unpredictable as long as the story's written well and leading to a great conclusion. Bryan's rise to WM30 is a great example because in retrospect it was a great story although those bumps in the road were annoying, the story from a "book format" or a "season format" makes sense. If something is unpredictable like say idk Rollins turning on Ambrose and Reigns, that's great too because it overall helped him and Ambrose out in the end.
Bad examples have to be Cena beating Rusev when he returned. It was predictable but it didn't help either guy out. A bad example of something being unpredictable is Sasha getting her ass kicked by Charlotte those few times. Like, come on now bruh.
It just depends on how great the storyline is written at the end of the day for me and wrestling. You can be predictable for 12 years straight and I wouldn't mind as long as I'm enjoying it.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Dec 8, 2017 13:37:32 GMT -5
The issue is in how it's predictable. Predictability is good when you're telling a straightforward story and employing basic storytelling tropes. Something like Ambrose and Seth reuniting and forgiving one another is a great example of it, and one that was really well received. Two former friends brought together by a common enemy, one torn about his wrongdoings and uncertain he deserves forgiveness while another is torn about the idea of forgiving someone who was once a brother to him for selling out everything they had to get ahead in his career. You know they're going to eventually work it out, and people don't mind that knowledge; what matters is the journey to get there and what happens when the story develops and moves on into its next stages. Of course they get back together, of course they win the title, but is the story being told well and does the audience fell invested in it? It doesn't have to be deep, it just has to be effective. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has very little storyline complexity to it, but it's still a box office titan with well received movies. You know that in Infinity War Steve and Tony are going to work out their problems again and stand together for earth. It's a given. But you care about how.
What isn't so great is that WWE is a bit more clumsy in what they do that qualifies as predictable. You have a lot of problems there, and you mentioned one of them in the matter of Ziggler attacking to make the title feud a three-way. They lean too often on the same trope to get the effect they want and go through the motions, acting like Dolph running from the commentary table to jump Corbin and Roode is somehow chaotic, and then that's it that's the whole story. We just move on from there with no emotional hook and no plot development into the obvious match that's been set up, like they're just going through the motions. It's not an unexpected enough situation because it always happens all the time. When you want something to be a surprise, you need to establish patterns and expectations that you then break sparingly, but WWE has a million tropes and they seem determined to use all of them as often as they can--remember when the writers were obsessed with the theme music distraction roll-up as a finish? It happened several times a week a few years ago and it was awful, because they overused the same expectation and let that be the only story element they bothered to have.
Then on the other hand, their idea of a "long term build". Of this year of Lesnar/Roman being the obvious main event and the only thing that really matters. They're not telling a story along the way that people are getting invested in, but the patterns are still obvious and we're still calling all the things they're doing to set it up with very little care about it. Every time Brock beats someone with one F5 it's not exciting us as they build the move up as deadlier and deadlier so that when it's finally kicked out of people lose their shit. There's no journey there, there's no development for people to care about, we're just seeing two dudes look strong in the lead up to a match we've been dreading for a year.
WWE likes to deviate in really dumb places, too, throw in bad twists and buck the expected outcome because we "Don't see it coming", but doing so in blatant defiance of good storytelling for the sake of swerving us. Again, it's not exciting, cool writing to just run with the solution that doesn't make as much sense or suit the narrative, and to keep doing that up and down your card. It should be a big moment when you do something unexpected, and it should be with emotional impact behind it. WWE fails miserably at that.
|
|
4TheGlory
Vegeta
The Fun One At Parties
Posts: 9,750
|
Post by 4TheGlory on Dec 8, 2017 13:40:03 GMT -5
My question would be: is the show as predictable to the average fan as it is to us?
|
|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Dec 8, 2017 13:43:55 GMT -5
My question would be: is the show as predictable to the average fan as it is to us? Given how they seem to be tuning out in droves? Yep.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Dec 8, 2017 13:44:22 GMT -5
Predictability is fine when the outcome is something you want to see.
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Dec 8, 2017 14:17:48 GMT -5
I feel like it's difficult to fully achieve unpredictability in the internet age when just about every outcome is debated among fans. You can have 100 people suggesting 100 outcomes and one of them will complain "Geez, that was so predictable. WWE sucks." Nevermind that 99% of those people didn't see it coming.
Whatever happened to predictability? Doesn't seem like it ever left, Full House. It never left at all.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Dec 8, 2017 14:18:09 GMT -5
When the supremely over face cleanly destroys the either racist or eating disorder triggering hee- oh
|
|
|
Post by Tenshigure on Dec 8, 2017 14:46:18 GMT -5
My question would be: is the show as predictable to the average fan as it is to us? Given how they seem to be tuning out in droves? Yep. Precisely. Hell, I'll go ahead and call it right now: the next upcoming Monday Night Raw, which they've already announced are going to have four matches they've already done to death in various combinations (Rollins/Reigns/Ambrose vs Joe/Cesaro/Sheamus in ANY combination, plus Kane v Braun in a pointless 'monster feud'), ratings are going to tank hard. The only fresh idea they're running with right now is Matt v Bray, and it's not matured enough on WWE TV long enough to entice casual audiences to stick with the show (especially since they only gave them 2 minutes out of a 180-minute show last week). Time will tell, but as I said a few weeks back...don't expect Raw to have any kind of spectacular ratings until the go-home show for the Royal Rumble (the 25th Anniversary).
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,121
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 8, 2017 14:52:16 GMT -5
Predictability is not in and of itself bad. Batista challenging Triple H was built towards and obvious, but it worked very well. I think it helped it was built towards and not treated as inevitability, even if that's what it was.
|
|
|
Post by The Rick Jericho on Dec 8, 2017 14:53:58 GMT -5
I don't have a "quick" term to describe it, but a situation like the 1998 Royal Rumble. We ALL knew who was winning that thing, and it was totally the right move. 100% This is why if Bryan won in 2014, we would all know he was winning and THAT was the right move too. It's easy to repeat the same pattern, yet I don't think WWE gets this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 15:16:55 GMT -5
My rule of thumb would be "Is it a swerve for swerve's sake?"
If it's unexpected because they have a storyline idea for it, great. If it's just Russo "let's do the opposite just 'cause"? then it's pointless. In that case I'd much rather well executed predictable.
|
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by TGM on Dec 8, 2017 15:49:45 GMT -5
Batista's face turn was completely predictable and organic. The fans were begging for it.
|
|
|
Post by Beets by Schrute on Dec 8, 2017 16:20:47 GMT -5
An example of how bad being predictable can be is obviously Wrestlemania 29. The only pass I give for that show’s results is Swagger unsurprisingly not getting the belt due to getting arrested weeks before. But the some of the main matches, they were re-matches from previous bouts. Lesnar-HHH in my opinion was unnecessary. Lesnar beat him the previous Summerslam fair and square. That should of been the end of it. But for some reason, someone “needed their win back”. So, you go through the same angles over and over again, and then they threw in a stipulation they pretty much sealed the outcome of the match ( If HHH loses, he retires).
And the other event that was very predictable was Cena-Rock II. The interest in this match had to be much lower than the previous year. We already saw it. Knowing the Rock cannot spend much doing WWE, it would be nice for other guys to get that opportunity to work with him at the event. But for some reason, the established Cena needed a redemption storyline for his character resulting in the finish of the match. Another reason why the predictibility was clear and unsatisfying, full-time movie star vs full-time wrestler for the belt at a time when movies for former start coming out. Tell me who wins that fight. It was known Rock was dropping the belt, so why not do things differenr than years before, like add another star to the match (like say, CM Punk).
|
|
|
Post by nickcave on Dec 8, 2017 16:33:28 GMT -5
If you're going to run a racist angle (which you really shouldn't but good taste has never stopped the WWE before) than for the love of god do the predictable thing and have the racist be soundly defeated. It's not hard and no one would be upset.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 16:43:16 GMT -5
Short Answer: When it doesn't suck.
|
|
|
Post by Ecks Ecks Ringout Ecks Ecks on Dec 8, 2017 19:17:46 GMT -5
I think predictable outcomes are enjoyable when the journey is executed well.
It needs a certain balance. The journey can't be paint-by-numbers formulaic, nor can it be a nonsensical Russoriffic mess. It needs to tick some familiar boxes that resonate with the audience, but it also needs a few surprises.
Look at the build to Reigns versus Lesnar at Mania. Even if Meltzer and company weren't reporting the plans, anyone who's been a wrestling fan for a few years can suss out where it's going. Reigns is presented as the top babyface, Lesnar is presented as the top champion. Both guys are protected, both are being built up to have killer one-hit finishers. It's wrestling storytelling 101, and it should be interesting and exciting ... but unfortunately, due to the uninspired, ham-fisted and frequently overcompensating execution so far, a lot of fans loathe the idea and just want it over with.
It's not really any different than movies. When you sit down to watch a summer blockbuster, it's a safe bet that the heroes are going to win in the end, but the storytelling makes the difference between being immersed and invested, or rolling your eyes and snarking at it ala MST3K.
|
|
|
Post by sportatorium on Dec 8, 2017 19:26:01 GMT -5
It’s a delicate balance as others have pointed out. When you have a popular babyface champ, people want to see the expected outcome of that person going over the heel. AJ Styles vs Jinder Mahal is a great example of precitability being a good thing. It gets bad if that babyface character gets stale & the heel challengers get more interesting, but we know that the stale face is still winning every time (a lot of Cena’s Run was like this)
One of the best executed surprises in recent memory was the debut of The Nexus. It came out of nowhere, but made complete sense the minute it happened.
|
|