|
|
Post by The Man They Call Asher on Aug 26, 2013 20:41:19 GMT -5
What, no.
OKAY BRO HERE'S A REMATCH.
--
Seriously, with the roster as stacked as it is, why must every god damn motherf***ing match be a f***ING REMATCH?!?!?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Portable Stove on Aug 26, 2013 20:44:30 GMT -5
"It'll be Christian vs. Alberto Del Rio for the World Heavyweight Championship at SummerSlam!"
/one-on-one match on smackdown
I mean that's something I can't complain about because both matches were fantastic but I get your point. At the same time, it leads to jokes about how aggressive Ryback's being or how ineffectual Alex Riley is, etc.
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Aug 26, 2013 20:44:39 GMT -5
Three Hour Raws; eight Hours of WWE Television a week; a fairly thin roster; an overworked Creative team.
When you have so much television to fill your choices are pretty limited when it comes to fresh match ups.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 20:51:00 GMT -5
Three Hour Raws; eight Hours of WWE Television a week; a fairly thin roster; an overworked Creative team. When you have so much television to fill your choices are pretty limited when it comes to fresh match ups. The roster isn't really thin at all. The bookers are just lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Aug 26, 2013 21:01:26 GMT -5
Three Hour Raws; eight Hours of WWE Television a week; a fairly thin roster; an overworked Creative team. When you have so much television to fill your choices are pretty limited when it comes to fresh match ups. Except the roster's not thin. At all. Hell, we're lucky when we see half of the active roster used effectively over the course of eight hours of television. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 21:01:57 GMT -5
The biggest problem is that WWE is set up to where no one can move up or down from their place on the card, which means every wrestler can only wrestle opponents at exactly their level, which only allows for variations on a handful of matches, repeated over and over (and over).
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 26, 2013 21:15:46 GMT -5
We opened Pandora's box. We're no longer satisfied with mostly squashes, we expect the main eventers to compete every week. That means we've seen them already against just about everyone now. A match can only be brand new once, so inevitably that means we're going to get a bunch of rematches as long as they're main eventers.
|
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Aug 26, 2013 21:22:38 GMT -5
We opened Pandora's box. We're no longer satisfied with mostly squashes, we expect the main eventers to compete every week. That means we've seen them already against just about everyone now. A match can only be brand new once, so inevitably that means we're going to get a bunch of rematches as long as they're main eventers. Matches don't have to be squashes. Look at the Punk/Heyman feud. Axel is clearly many tiers below Punk in the pecking order, yet he's being booked to hold his own. Why not just have more matches like that? If you were to book something like Alex Riley vs. Alberto Del Rio, or RVD vs. Heath Slater, then of course, the higher ranking star should win. But the matches should be no shorter than five minutes and the lesser ranking guy should look strong even in a loss. PPVs should feature talents on all levels of the card, but sold primarily on the main event. The only shows that should be stacked with top talents are the Big Four. WrestleMania and Summerslam should be supercards filled with big name talents, while Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble should be "all hands on deck" affairs featuring as many talents as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 26, 2013 21:29:16 GMT -5
We opened Pandora's box. We're no longer satisfied with mostly squashes, we expect the main eventers to compete every week. That means we've seen them already against just about everyone now. A match can only be brand new once, so inevitably that means we're going to get a bunch of rematches as long as they're main eventers. Matches don't have to be squashes. Look at the Punk/Heyman feud. Axel is clearly many tiers below Punk in the pecking order, yet he's being booked to hold his own. Why not just have more matches like that? If you were to book something like Alex Riley vs. Alberto Del Rio, or RVD vs. Heath Slater, then of course, the higher ranking star should win. But the matches should be no shorter than five minutes and the lesser ranking guy should look strong even in a loss. PPVs should feature talents on all levels of the card, but sold primarily on the main event. The only shows that should be stacked with top talents are the Big Four. WrestleMania and Summerslam should be supercards filled with big name talents, while Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble should be "all hands on deck" affairs featuring as many talents as possible. I agree, but eventually you still do run into the fact that they're on TV so much that we will have seen these matches before, so as long as you have the main eventers on TV every week, you're going to have the issue of rematches being inevitable. WWE spoiled the audience during the attitude era, and trying to go back now would be extremely problematic given there's so many options to change the channel to. |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Aug 26, 2013 21:30:43 GMT -5
Matches don't have to be squashes. Look at the Punk/Heyman feud. Axel is clearly many tiers below Punk in the pecking order, yet he's being booked to hold his own. Why not just have more matches like that? If you were to book something like Alex Riley vs. Alberto Del Rio, or RVD vs. Heath Slater, then of course, the higher ranking star should win. But the matches should be no shorter than five minutes and the lesser ranking guy should look strong even in a loss. PPVs should feature talents on all levels of the card, but sold primarily on the main event. The only shows that should be stacked with top talents are the Big Four. WrestleMania and Summerslam should be supercards filled with big name talents, while Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble should be "all hands on deck" affairs featuring as many talents as possible. I agree, but eventually you still do run into the fact that they're on TV so much that we will have seen these matches before, so as long as you have the main eventers on TV every week, you're going to have the issue of rematches being inevitable. WWE spoiled the audience during the attitude era, and trying to go back now would be extremely problematic given there's so many options to change the channel to. But if WWE used more of its roster, at least the rematches would not occur as often. If they're worried about ratings and ticket sales, then they should try to get everyone over. People should want to tune in to see Zack Ryder, Jinder Mahal, or Yoshi Tatsu just as much as they want to see John Cena, CM Punk, or The Miz Everybody doesn't get to be pushed, but at the same time, everyone deserves to at least be over, credible, and relevant to a certain degree. No wrestler should be made to look worthless. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 26, 2013 21:45:22 GMT -5
I really don't disagree with anything you're saying. I'm just trying to guess why we see rematches so often.
Getting everyone over takes time, and to be fair, I think they're doing a better job now than they did in, say, the late 2000's because we are seeing more people with more competitive matches. I just think that, from a business standpoint, that to get to that level you're going to have to go through a rough patch or you have to accept rematches while you try to build more people to create a broader ME scene (which they seem to be doing now).
|
|
Dean-o
Grimlock
Haha we're having fun Maggle!
Posts: 13,865 
|
Post by Dean-o on Aug 26, 2013 21:58:45 GMT -5
Not only do we see countless rematches because of lazy booking, we also have ZERO effect in creating title divisions. The only way to get a title shot is to beat...sorry, "knock off" the champion on free TV so we can pay to find out if they can do it again when it "counts". So lazy, and it devalues the titles and the champions so much.
Cole's stock "You know, a win over _____ tonight will put _____ right in line for a championship opportunity down the line" phrase every time a champion is in a match makes my stomach turn because I just can't stand champions losing in non-title matches.
Even most PPV title matches aren't fresh anymore, because we see them 2-3 weeks before the PPV for free.
With such a big roster at times, there is no excuse for not having proper divisions and fresh matches each week. Most times we'll see a match on Smackdown, a rematch on Raw with no mention of the first match just 3 days ago.
|
|
