|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Jan 6, 2013 1:33:16 GMT -5
I hope I've covered all the bases here.
This is something I've been wondering for quite a while, ever since the whole controversy last year about Punk being WWE Champion but never getting the last segment or the main event match.
Honestly, I think that some people, both in WWE and the fandom, put too much stock into the "lasting impression" and what the last image is when the copyright bug comes on screen and we fade into ~ENTERTAINMENT~. It feels like those people are ignoring any of the good stuff that came before it because "If they didn't put it last, it doesn't matter". Personally, I feel like any match that gets enough hype, either by putting the guys on the poster or having lots of segments on the shows, is worthy of being called a main event, although you couldn't really have any more than 4 before you're just overusing the term.
I don't know if this is just part of a greater issue at large or not, but I'm interested in what people think on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jan 6, 2013 1:35:22 GMT -5
A World Title match, the last match on the show, or a match with an insane amount of hype behind it (IE. Undertaker's streak matches).
As far as your point about the last segment on any show, I think it's a MAJOR part of the show. More often than not, the last image before the show goes off the air is what people are gonna remember the most. There have been more than a few time when I've been happy with a show that wasn't very good but had a killer ending. On the other hand, I've gotten pissed off at shows that, in hindsight, weren't all that bad but had a god awful ending.
In the same way that a bad ending can ruin a good movie, a bad ending can ruin a good wrestling show.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 6, 2013 1:36:42 GMT -5
The most important match, with the biggest stars, and the most at stake
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jan 6, 2013 1:45:05 GMT -5
The match on a card that receives the most hype, seems the most important.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 6, 2013 1:49:47 GMT -5
It depends on the show. For TV, it's the most hyped/built match of the show. Most of the time it's the last match but with the 3 hour RAWs and as we've seen with WWE Main Event, that is not always the case.
For PPV, it's the last match. Others can steal the show or be important but the main event, the match that the show is built around always goes last.
|
|
|
Post by Aaron E. Dangerously on Jan 6, 2013 1:51:11 GMT -5
Last match on the card, no exceptions, for better or worse.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,273
|
Post by bob on Jan 6, 2013 1:52:08 GMT -5
The last match on the card, no exceptions
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Jan 6, 2013 1:59:39 GMT -5
It depends on the show. For TV, it's the most hyped/built match of the show. Most of the time it's the last match but with the 3 hour RAWs and as we've seen with WWE Main Event, that is not always the case. For PPV, it's the last match. Others can steal the show or be important but the main event, the match that the show is built around always goes last. Ya, and I think it totally depends on the type of TV show and promotion too. Almost all of the time these days, the WWE puts its most important/most hyped match on at the end of both their TV shows and PPVs. But it doesn't have to be that way, and in the 80s, that wasn't the case at all. On the weekly syndicated shows, when there was an important "main event" match, it usually went early in the show, so the announcers could talk about it for the rest of the show. SNME usually started with the main event and then kind of fizzled downwards from there. I don't know what it would do to ratings, but I wouldn't mind if RAW was booked that way. Start big and wind down. Don't ask fans to commit for 3 hours, get them to start with you when the show starts, and then keep who you can. A lot of times house shows in the 80s had the main event right before after the intermission, and then they'd end with the fun tag team match with the Bushwhackers or something. That might have just been so the main eventer could get out the building faster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2013 2:07:05 GMT -5
A lot of times house shows in the 80s had the main event right before after the intermission, and then they'd end with the fun tag team match with the Bushwhackers or something. That might have just been so the main eventer could get out the building faster. Exactly the point I was about to bring up. If you go by late '80s MSG shows, Hogan was a mid-carder and Bret Hart was a main-eventer. Weird. FWIW, I once heard it mentioned that Hogan wanted to do it that way to make it back to the hotel in enough time to get room service. Sounds like he was probably joking, though.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Jan 6, 2013 4:41:27 GMT -5
FWIW, I once heard it mentioned that Hogan wanted to do it that way to make it back to the hotel in enough time to get room service. Sounds like he was probably joking, though. That could be, but I know it wasn't just him, I know they did it with the Warrior too. It was probably some kind of main eventer perk. Other promotions did the same thing. Kerry Von Erich beating Ric Flair for the NWA World title was the biggest WCCW moment ever, and one of the biggest wrestling moments anywhere in the 80s - it wasn't the last match on that show. Neither was the Kerry/Lawler title unification match at Superclash. It's kind of a more recent phenomenon that "the main event has to be last".
|
|
|
Post by froggyfrog on Jan 6, 2013 4:47:08 GMT -5
The last match is THE main event. There can be other important matches on the card that can be main events, but there can be only one main event. If that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 6, 2013 11:41:39 GMT -5
I don't think the question should be about what is the main event so much as about what should be the main event.
The main event should be the last match on, because you should save the most hyped, most important, best match until last. That's how it should be.
Unfortunately that frequently isn't what happens.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,159
|
Post by agent817 on Jan 6, 2013 12:11:27 GMT -5
The most important and hyped up match in my opinion. Did Undertaker vs. The Dudley Boyz at GAB04 need to go on last? Did Sting and The Giant really need to go on last GAB98 when Piper/Savage vs. Hart/Hogan was more hyped than the other?
|
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by TGM on Jan 6, 2013 12:31:36 GMT -5
Option D.
Lawler vs. Cole was a main event, one which I was actually looking forward to seeing, despite how bad it turned out.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Jan 6, 2013 12:57:27 GMT -5
I do think the "should" argument is interesting but all the arguments for why the main event HAS to be last are kind of circular. (i.e., "It's the main event, it should be last.") OK.
Like I said for TV, I'd personally prefer the biggest stuff at the start and then for things to slide down. I would like that a lot more than trying to fight through a David Otunga v. Zack Ryder match 2 hours into the show to try to get to the end. Pop your biggest rating at the start. SNL kind of does this. If you actually stick around until the end of SNL you're treated to some weird, experimental stuff in the 12:55 AM slot.
PPVs I can go either way on. Ending the show with the big hyped match works well if you have enough good stuff on the card to build towards it. If the show's weaker though, and there's too much mediocrity to sit through, it can hurt the buzz of your last match. In those cases, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to run the hyped main event a little earlier, and then do a battle royal/12-man tag/other gimmick match to "wind down" the show and let the announcers and everyone reflect on what happened in the main event.
Maybe though, I'd just like to see something fundamentally different. I'd love to see the WWE look at different ways to structure a show. They've had pretty much the same format for RAW for more than a decade now. Aren't there more ways to structure a TV wrestling show?
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Jan 6, 2013 13:18:06 GMT -5
The main event is the most hyped, and most important match, and often the match that your entire show revolves around, and the one that WWE relies on to bring in most of the show's business/viewership.
It doesn't always go on last (one would argue that the true main event of TLC was Ryback/Team Hell No vs. The Shield, since that was the big talking point going into that show), but it often does because it's the match that the crowd is most looking forward to. You don't want your audience burned out on a pay-per-view because they already saw what they came for early on.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 6, 2013 13:22:33 GMT -5
If you're going to create a fight card, the one that'd be at the top/the most prominent one would be the main event. It doesn't always go on last, but most of the time it does. It's usually pretty easy to figure out which one they think is the show-seller though.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 6, 2013 15:13:31 GMT -5
The last match is THE main event. There can be other important matches on the card that can be main events, but there can be only one main event. If that makes sense. So when the last match on RAW is a 2 minute Eve v. Alicia Fox match, that is the main event?
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jan 6, 2013 15:22:06 GMT -5
Depends. On the a Raw since a promo can go on last there there doesn't have to be a main event match. Someone can be the main event in that they were advertised as the main draw (like a Rock promo getting all the hype). Also considering how RAWs are done to look like its all on the fly its harder to say there is more then one main event or a main event at all.
On a PPV its a match that you can see a few people buying to see that match or it was the main reason to buy said PPV or tickets for a show
|
|
|
Post by Djm Doesn't Find You Funny on Jan 6, 2013 15:28:54 GMT -5
The whole "last match on the card" routine is antiquated as f***, in my opinion. And those that harp on it are hanging onto a philosophy that went out when there were two World Tiles.
The match that receives the most hype, video packages, and TV time is the match that is marketed the most, which is the main event.
|
|