Are slow build-ups hurting the business?

[Crush1]

This is kind of a sarcastic question, because nowadays everything in the WWE is too fast paced. The creative team always rushes to build up a feud so that they can sell it on a pay-per-view. I disagree with this kind of way of creating feuds. And I blame it on Vince. He should know better but the man has turned from a wrestling genius into a money and publicity ****e. He's trying to do everything to gain money, publicity (how bad it may be) and pleasing Bonnie Hammer. Fans can't take a break from things anymore. They dont understand the feuds. Every feud needs some kind of logic behind it. Most feuds are so rushed that they have to be constantly reminded to us by dozens of video packages and promos.

What ever happened by putting logic into your feuds? Its like they think the audience will believe everything is good that the WWE puts on a bowl. If they made the ''shit'' invisible we will still be able to smell it. Take the Khali vs Kane feud on summerslam for example. Now where the hell did that come from? people will ask questions like why are they fighting? who's stronger? how long are they fighting? I mean the WWE is promoting fake fights that dazzle the crowd. But if they are booking things like this what will the crowd think? You tell me.

I believe slow build-ups are essential for good feuds. And rushed feuds are so damn confusing the audience is rotating. Some will stay tuned and others wont. Why? because they dont understand what the hell is going on. Again lets take the summerslam card for example. Mysterio vs Ziggler. They have just recently began feuding and the WWE already puts that on a PAY-per-view. Are people really going to pay for a feud that's been so short? I mean they haven't even been feuding for a single month and they expect us to pay for this shit. Sure the matches could be good, but It's not a guarantee that people will know who is who and the reason behind the feud.

So my question is: Are slow-build ups hurting the business? Does money have to be made so damn fast that the WWE cant be bothered to use a slow build-up? Tell me what you guys think.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Can't blame this all on Vince because it's not entirely his fault. If anything, it's the fault of the consumers. The average wrestling fan nowadays barely has anything that can be called an attention span. To be honest, I think the same can really be said of a sizable portion of tv viewers in general.

See, no matter what Vince McMahon does, he can't win. No matter what he tries, he'll always face criticism so he might as well try and do whatever is going to make him the most money. And these days, a LOT, not all but a lot, of wrestling fans want immediate gratification. They want to see things happen and they want to see them happen soon. A slow build up, say over a period of months, doesn't work anymore because the majority of the audience just doesn't want to stay with it that long.

It's part of the whole thing that's a primal part of the IWC. Today, if a feud goes on for 3 or 4 months, a good portion of the IWC starts screaming that it's gotten stale. It's sort of the same with title reigns and matches themselves. Nowadays, if any title reign in the WWE lasts like 3 months or longer, then the guy's had the belt too long. If he loses it in a month's time, they start screaming that Vince is killing the guy's push or that he's a paper champion or that the title has no prestige anymore. Nowadays, two guys can't have a good match, they have to have a fucking shake the rafters, turn the world on its ear epic before those fans are satisfied.

No matter what Vince does, he's the devil incarnate so he basically just gives all the critics a collective fuck you, then goes ahead and does whatever puts the most cash in his pockets.

 

[Mark0820]

I don't know about that. I think the most interesting feud going right now is Hardy/Punk and that's been building for months. Even Punk's heel turn took a while. If it's done right, it keeps the feud fresh.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

It all depends on how good or great the matches are. Let's take a look at at HHH/Orton from this year. This had to be one of the best build-ups and strorylines i've seen in a while. But after all the punts, and the DDT on Stephanie, the match at WM 25 just didn't live up to the hype. Then take a look at Cena/Jericho from late last year. Cena comes out of no where to win the WHC at Survivor Series after the injury, but the two managed to put on a damn good match (the only watchable match from that awful ppv). At Armageddon, they had an awesome fast paced match, which was proably the best match of the night again. As far as Kane/Khali goes, they've been building this since the Bash, when Kane returned if i'm not mistaken. I don't know why WWE is putting so much time into building this feud because I think nobody really gives a shit about it. I'm all for slow build-ups. I like it when storylines and characters take time to devlop.

 

[Mark0820]

It all depends on how good or great the matches are. Let's take a look at at HHH/Orton from this year. This had to be one of the best build-ups and strorylines i've seen in a while. But after all the punts, and the DDT on Stephanie, the match at WM 25 just didn't live up to the hype. Then take a look at Cena/Jericho from late last year. Cena comes out of no where to win the WHC at Survivor Series after the injury, but the two managed to put on a damn good match (the only watchable match from that awful ppv). At Armageddon, they had an awesome fast paced match, which was proably the best match of the night again. As far as Kane/Khali goes, they've been building this since the Bash, when Kane returned if i'm not mistaken. I don't know why WWE is putting so much time into building this feud because I think nobody really gives a shit about it. I'm all for slow build-ups. I like it when storylines and characters take time to devlop.

I agree. Reminds me of the good old days when the big main events happened every few months. Like the Hogan/Savage feud which built for a year and then the match did live up to the build up. Or the Savage/Steamboat series of matches.

 

[The Brain]

I am all for the slow build up. It simply creates more anticipation and excitment. It's been said a million times the problem is too many ppvs. When there is three hour ppv every three or four weeks things have to be rushed. I think they should cut some of the ppvs back to two hours like the old In Your House shows. This way they can still have monthly shows, but not be required to fill three hours. Not all the big stars would have to appear on the ppv. The ones that don't compete in September for example will have more time to build their story and maybe wrestle in October.

The feuds need to make sense. Kane vs. Khali was mentioned. It's true that they have no real reason to be feuding. Can't creative come up with something besides Kane attacking Khali for no reason? It's really not that difficult. Here's a short summary of a promo Kane could give to explain himself: He's actually trying to help Khali. Khali was once feared by everyone on SmackDown. Now he's trying to please the fans as the Punjabi Playboy and has become a joke. Kane, a feared monster himself, has been down that road before. He tried to please the fans and it's not worth it. He's trying to do Khali a favor by bringing back his killer insinct and saving him from making the same mistakes Kane made trying to please the fans.

Pretty simple story. Nothing spectacular, but at least Kane has a motive. Once a motive is established you have the freedom to do pretty much what you want. Then the attacks make sense and you can let it build naturally from there.

 

[jrichardson25]

I am all for the slow build up. It simply creates more anticipation and excitment. It's been said a million times the problem is too many ppvs. When there is three hour ppv every three or four weeks things have to be rushed. I think they should cut some of the ppvs back to two hours like the old In Your House shows. This way they can still have monthly shows, but not be required to fill three hours. Not all the big stars would have to appear on the ppv. The ones that don't compete in September for example will have more time to build their story and maybe wrestle in October.

The feuds need to make sense. Kane vs. Khali was mentioned. It's true that they have no real reason to be feuding. Can't creative come up with something besides Kane attacking Khali for no reason? It's really not that difficult. Here's a short summary of a promo Kane could give to explain himself: He's actually trying to help Khali. Khali was once feared by everyone on SmackDown. Now he's trying to please the fans as the Punjabi Playboy and has become a joke. Kane, a feared monster himself, has been down that road before. He tried to please the fans and it's not worth it. He's trying to do Khali a favor by bringing back his killer insinct and saving him from making the same mistakes Kane made trying to please the fans.

Pretty simple story. Nothing spectacular, but at least Kane has a motive. Once a motive is established you have the freedom to do pretty much what you want. Then the attacks make sense and you can let it build naturally from there.

I completely agree. I think that WWE should cut back on Pay Per Views... They do about 14 a year or something really close to that.... Not having enough time to build story lines to the big blow up at a pay per view leaves us all confused with the WTF? look on our faces.

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

This is kind of a sarcastic question, because nowadays everything in the WWE is too fast paced. The creative team always rushes to build up a feud so that they can sell it on a pay-per-view.

Isn't that the whole point of wrestling? To get people to watch your feuds on pay-per-view? If they didnt rush those feuds, you'd have them fighting in tag matches for 7 weeks before they get to each other. Fans nowadays get so much more exposure to WWE programming than 10 or 20 years ago. Instead of big 4 pay per views, we have 12 a year. We need to fill those, and instead of one "RAW" or "WWF Superstars" there are 4 shows. Plenty of time to develop feuds.

I disagree with this kind of way of creating feuds. And I blame it on Vince. He should know better but the man has turned from a wrestling genius into a money and publicity ****e. He's trying to do everything to gain money, publicity (how bad it may be) and pleasing Bonnie Hammer

Why you got's to be hatin on peeps? You can't solely blame it on Vince McMahon just as much as you can blame it on the fans or creative or The Duke of Wellington. McMahon is just doing what he thinks it right, and what the fans want. And he is generally right. Because fans don't want to have to wait until 3 pay per views down the track to see a feud take place. They want those guys to face each other now! And hell, they should face the next few months as well.

. Fans can't take a break from things anymore. They dont understand the feuds. Every feud needs some kind of logic behind it. Most feuds are so rushed that they have to be constantly reminded to us by dozens of video packages and promos.

I think I understand the feud plenty. I can take a break whenever I want in fact. I could not watch Smackdown at all next week and still know about the CM Punk/Jeff Hardy feud. Here's the logic behind it: CM Punk doesnt like Jeff Hardy and wants his belt back. Oh gee that was hard.

What ever happened by putting logic into your feuds? Its like they think the audience will believe everything is good that the WWE puts on a bowl. If they made the ''shit'' invisible we will still be able to smell it. Take the Khali vs Kane feud on summerslam for example. Now where the hell did that come from? people will ask questions like why are they fighting? who's stronger? how long are they fighting?

That's one undercard feud that more than likely won't make a pay per view and if it does, will be filler. Besides, how is there no logic in those feuds? Kane is an unstoppable monster who has challenged the one face he is smaller than.

I mean the WWE is promoting fake fights that dazzle the crowd. But if they are booking things like this what will the crowd think? You tell me.

They think, "OMFG HARDY VS PUNK TLC IS GOING TO F*CKING ROCK". I dont get what you mean, promoting fake fights to dazzle the crowd? Welcome to the wrestling industry. Whats your point?

I believe slow build-ups are essential for good feuds. And rushed feuds are so damn confusing the audience is rotating. Some will stay tuned and others wont. Why? because they dont understand what the hell is going on.

Seriously if you can't keep track of a the feuds in the WWE, you must be silly. Or watch one show per 2 months. They recap every feud and tell the stories on commentary during TV time so this very thing doesn't happen. Who can't keep track of a feud? Honestly?

Again lets take the summerslam card for example. Mysterio vs Ziggler. They have just recently began feuding and the WWE already puts that on a PAY-per-view. Are people really going to pay for a feud that's been so short? I mean they haven't even been feuding for a single month and they expect us to pay for this shit. Sure the matches could be good, but It's not a guarantee that people will know who is who and the reason behind the feud.

Ok, Problems.

A) You be dissing a Dolph Ziggler feud man. Step back. Check yourself.

B) You are completely wrong. You make it sound like this match was built without anything behind it. Did you not see how Ziggler attacked Mysterio 2 months ago? Because he wanted the title? Did you miss that match at Night Of Champions? Or anything on Smackdown in the past month? How is that not feuding? Or should they wait 3 months before getting in the ring together? That a slow enough buildup?

So my question is: Are slow-build ups hurting the business? Does money have to be made so damn fast that the WWE cant be bothered to use a slow build-up? Tell me what you guys think.

Slow build ups bore regular fans unless you have some truly great performers. Y2J and HBK could pull it off, missing summerslam last year with HBK's career ending injury for example. But what would be the point of having Cryme Tyme not fight Jerishow at Summerslam and wait? Then people would bitch about talent not being used.

My favourite Joseph Heller book is Catch 22.

 

[obiwansidisi]

I’m old school. I remember Sabu and Tazz fighting the best out of 7. Keven Sullivan and Benoit going at each other’s throats and ripping the Omni apart. Dreamer and Corino damn near killing each other. Feuds used to mean something. I remember all of Flair’s title matches with Rhodes… yes, every one! The most recent feud I could remember getting excited about was when Benjamin fought Triple H and Flair, when they were Evolution. Yes, it moves much too fast today. I agree… that Ziggler/Mysterio feud was s**t, it was way too short! It started too quick to begin with. How are you going to have a feud going on between Mysterio and Jericho, and just drop it? What happened to the “Mask vs Belt match that they’ve been teasing for months? Yes, Blaim Vince, because his company (as sad as it is) sets the standard right now. Whatever the WWE does, the others follow… like it or not. The art of storytelling is gone. The epic feud between Macho Man and Steamboat, SCSA and Hart, SCSA and The Rock. The slow build up is gone because they’re all too busy trying to cash in on the next PPV buy rate…

 

[Mantaur Rodeo Clown]

Holy crap. this is a joke right? Haha prank on Mantaur to get him angry right? Posing as a unitelligent fan to get up his goat like I did to Monkeys_uncle? right? Right? Please tell me this is a joke.

The most recent feud I could remember getting excited about was when Benjamin fought Triple H and Flair, when they were Evolution.

The last time you got excited about a feud was 5 years ago? When they just had a series of matches on RAW. How could something like that get you excited and nothing else get you excited? Not a fan of Edge vs Cena? Jericho vs HBK? Batista vs Taker? Hardy vs Punk/HHH? No? Ok then.

Yes, it moves much too fast today. I agree… that Ziggler/Mysterio feud was s**t, it was way too short! It started too quick to begin with.

Started to quick? How can something START too quick? He attacked Mysterio! Was Rey supposed to just sit there and take it? And what do you mean it "was" shit. It's still going on. Theyre having a match at Summerfest. Do you watch WWE programming?

How are you going to have a feud going on between Mysterio and Jericho, and just drop it? What happened to the “Mask vs Belt match that they’ve been teasing for months?

They had that match. At The Bash. It was great, sorry you missed out on that. It's ok because they faced each other like twice more. Missed that as well huh?

Yes, Blaim Vince, because his company (as sad as it is) sets the standard right now. Whatever the WWE does, the others follow… like it or not. The art of storytelling is gone.

Why 'blaim' Vince? He's not the one that makes you not watch WWE and then comment on it like you know what you're talking about.

The epic feud between Macho Man and Steamboat, SCSA and Hart, SCSA and The Rock. The slow build up is gone because they’re all too busy trying to cash in on the next PPV buy rate…

Oh. this guy can names some feuds. Well isnt that swell. I could name feuds too! And guess what! They're recent ones with plenty of "storytelling".
Hardy vs. Hardy, Cena vs Orton, JBL vs HBK, Jericho vs Rey Mysterio.
That was hard.

Of course they want to cash in on the buyrate. Thats the whole point of people wrestling. Otherwise we'd have Hell In a Cell matches on ECW. And thats also why you have them fighting over multiple PPVS. So the feuds can evolve over 3 or 4 months. but thats just me talking.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

The last great feud I can recall is the Jericho/HBK angle from a few months ago. THAT is how an angle is done. These two put on a clinic of how to build to a good story and have a great finish. Adding to the fact that Jericho hit Shawn's wife, and in the end, Rebecca ended up nailing Jericho, it was sweet justice. It reminded me of the NWA days where a program would last a damn YEAR instead of three weeks. I liked the long-winded feud, as long as they keep it fresh. If you can find NEW things to fight about within a rivalry, then that is what can make it work.

Having this person fight that person because he holds the belt is one thing, but having one fight the other because he has no respect for him and he wants him out of wrestling is a different, more personal story. Slow builds would be a lot better, but in the WWE, it's simply not feasible. There are 12 PPV's a year, 50 Raw's and 52 Smackdown's a year. It just can't happen. I mean, it can, but the WWE will not let it happen.

 

[Wrath]

Yes it hurts the business.Because today's wrestling fans don't have the patience that WWE fans from 80's. Unfortunately Monday Night Wars have changed the whole business. There are two reasons why build ups are rushed these days. Everyone knows that because of WCW amount of PPV's are increased so you have to fill those cards and who would pay 40-50 dollars for a PPV that does not have main eventers in it's card ? So WWE have to use their main eventers to sell these PPV's but back in the day let alone having huge main event matches every month it was an exciting thing to watch Hogan on SNME. If WWE lower down it's amount of PPV it would be a bad business move so maybe world title matches,big four PPV's and ME vs ME matches may not be as big as back in the day but it is a fact that having 13-14 PPV's is more benefitable for the company. The second reason why we don't have feuds is people right now have tons of alternative networks and programs to watch so the minute you bore them they change the channel. They want to see everything happening quickly even IWC want everything fast. Look how they want midcarders to become main eventers so quickly. I'm hell sure if Cena held the title for 2 or 3 months he wouldn't be IWC's main target just because he held titles for too long even his fans turned his back on Cena. His reigns were not longer than 1.5 year just think about what would happen if he holds the title for 4 years.

In today's wrestling we have feuds rarely .Feud means a rivalry of 2 wrestlers that has a background story but in today's wrestling much like in UFC someone wins a tournament or n1 contendership match and puts into a match with him. No personal issues,no story behind it. It is not a feud. It's just a program of two wrestlers. It's again the result of having 14 PPV's in year. They have to fill those cards and you can't build up a feud in 3 weeks. Shawn Michaels vs Chris Jericho was a great example of true feud. The feud was actually started in WrestleMania 24. Yeah the reason Jericho started to feud with Michaels was Batista that was mad about Hbk beating Flair at Wm 24. See how the feud started and how was it finished ? Cm Punk vs Jeff Hardy is right now the only feud on WWE(If you don't count Orton vs Triple H which was finished). A feud don't have to be at least 6 months long but it should have a story behind it. In today's wrestling it's hard to create feuds thats why there is no more much build ups. So trying to slowly building up feuds would hurt the business.

 

[Milkyway!]

With the WWE having up to 12-14 PPV's a year, its obvious they have to have a slow build, with every fued having a rising action, climax, and resolution. They have to make a full story, with each fued lasting at least 3 months in order to suck every nickle, penny, and dime they can possibly get, while still keeping it entertaining. If they made every fued 1-2 months, there just isn't enough superstars to not cause the same fueds, same matches, just diffrent styles, causing a longer more steady build up.

Theres 7 hours of WWE programming a week, 10 and a half when we have a Pay Per View. Now, if every Pay Per View were diffrent, and every star wrestled a diffrent star every Pay Per View, then its quite obvious the WWE would have to have a roster of 100+ stars, which is about 30 more faces they have to pay. This way, a star can get into the same fued for about 4 months, until he finnally wins/loses the fued, and the WWE only has to pay 70-80 stars.

Not to mention the long building of a story, allows it to be more entertaining when it finanlly comes time for the climax and resolution. A star like Cena and Randy have been fueding off and on for about 2-3 years now. This next time they meet, will mean a lot more, because they've been telling the story for such a long time. People are ready to see what finnally comes of it, Randy Orton wins? Or John Cena?

 

[Blade]

I'll make this point;
Punk vs Hardy hasn't had a slow build up. Hell, they technically started thier feud in a match thanks to the cash in. They've put on a good set of matches which will be topped off with TLC and maybe further. But they've just been able to keep the feud interesting through Punk's promos and the addition of Morrison and Matt into the mix. This had no slow build up. Yet it could just be feud of the year.

Feuds should only have a slow build up when you can really trust the two wrestlers. Sometimes a slow build up in a feud just leads to a huge anti climax. I mean, Orton and Triple H's feud was booked awesomely at the start of the year with Orton taking out the Mcmahons. But then they had a match at Mania. And it sucked. That match had about 2.5 - 3 months of build up.

So a slow build doesn't always work. Different build ups for different feuds.