How long should feuds go on for?

[BestWrestlingOpinions]

It's been some time since I last created a thread and after watching the Hell in a Cell PPV and reading all the comments made in general news posts on this site, I have some heated arguments going on in my head, so I'll get right to it:

There is no question that there are many types of fans. Others prefer certain Superstars, with a certain body type, others prefer indy guys, also there are people who prefer certain dragged-out storylines, while others want shorter feuds. And this is where the argument starts.

Let's take the most recent and important feud-storyline that is going on in the WWE, the whole Corporate-Orton-Bryan-WWE Championship storyline. It has been going on since Summerslam in August, which currently marks more than 2 months' longevity. Some people claim that "they are tired of the angle", although they support Orton/Bryan/HHH, which pretty much means that it's either the booking itself that displeases them or just the sole fact that long-drawn feuds just don't cut it. Let's elaborate more:

-We have one factor, as stated above, and that is the booking. If the booking isn't correct, then the feud is going to become boring if the same stuff are being shown on tv over and over again. Here is the kicker though. Is the booking the sole factor? The way I see it, and based on the huge rise of the Internet and all the dirt sheets that people can read and get inside information etc, it seems a 1-month feud nowadays can be compared to a 3-months feud of let's say the Attitude Era. (I don't know if you guys think so, but in my head, it kinds tends to go down this way.) This, essentially, makes people impatient, and just because they are in contact and pretty much in touch, everyday, with WWE events and info, they just get used to and therefore bored with storylines that get dragged on for more than 2 PPVs easily.
Although that's just my opinion, the above statement seems pretty much flawless in its thinking, which kinda makes me wonder if you guys actually agree with that. Because, if this is actaully what's happening, then something needs to be changed. I can understand why people get easily bored with certain storylines and the main reason is because pretty much everything has been done before. And here is an example:

-During the above feud, we would have HHH come out every single time, along with Stephanie, and say the same stuff over and over again, and it was the same thing every week for 2 months. Bryan would then interrupt, saying how we will overcome the odds over and over again every week for 2 months. Also, the fact that a "against-the-power" storyline has been played out some times kinda makes it predictable and not so interesting as it was the first times (Stone Cold being the most notable example). Having been done before takes away the excitement and the funny thing is that there are not many things that the bookers can do to change it up a bit, without getting repetitive, and here is my questions to you:
-Do you think that feuds should be dragged on (booking aside) for more than 2 months? There will be a problem with that regarding the promos being cut every week till we reach the match on the upcoming PPV. They just become repetitive. If we have a 1-2 PPVs feuds, then the Superstar can cut promos without getting repetitive and therefore keep the angle hot. Of course, here comes another problem, and that is that it might make the feud less interesting, less personal and in the end not so interesting to watch from the beginning, which is kinda the case with the mid-card titles.

-Following the question above, there are also talks about how WWE has a lot of PPVs as of late, most notable the Night of Champions - Battleground - Hell in a Cell sequence. People find this annoying for many reasons:
One of them is the money paid to watch the PPV, and that's an outside factor to the entertainment, so I'm not gonna discuss it. The other one is that it doesn't give time to get developed feuds etc, BUT, as stated above, do we really need to get more weeks of the same promos and statements every week until we finally get to see a match on PPV?

I don't wanna go overboard and say that we should have a PPV every 2 weeks, that would be horrible, because then we would go on a hot-potato scenario with the titles, but there are people who say that WWE should have 8 PPVs every year, while my opinion is 12 PPVs (one each month) is the best ratio. Building a feud for 4-5 weeks seems like the most appropriate thing to do, and if they actually wanna drag out a feud for 1 more PPV match, then can have the second PPV being 3 weeks away from the last one, so that we don't need to see repetitive stuff.

So, what do you guys think about all these stuff? I'm really keen on reading your opinions.

 

[Dagger Dias]

There is no definitive answer to that question. It depends on the wrestlers who are feuding, the intensity of the storyline, and the way it gets booked. If it's two legends such as Michaels and Jericho in 2008, that feud lasted for half a year and I still wanted to see more by the time it finally ended. If I dislike either wrestler involved, then even one month is too much. More often than not, two PPV events worth of feuding should suffice unless the angle is good enough that it justifies continuing. The more I enjoy watching the wrestlers who are feuding and the more the feud escalates, the more likely I am to be fine with it lasting longer. No feud should last longer than a year without them taking a break though. Cena VS Rock, for instance, is the longest a feud should ever last in today's wrestling world.

 

[f_roEDGE]

The booking isn't the problem. The writing is. With great writing, we can have a long feud that DOESN'T get repetitive. The three biggest problem I have with the current Corporate-Orton-Bryan-WWE Championship storyline are:

1: The amount of missed opportunities to build for the future. Cody Rhodes, Kofi Kingston, Dolph Ziggler....heck, even Ryback...If any of those guys replaced the Big Show in this story, they would be bigger stars than they are now.

2: The lack of a clean pay-off. Who wants to pay for months of pay-per-views with no clean finishes, or no finishes at all? We watch Raw for that stuff. What happened to the glory days of definitive winners.

3: Most importantly, the length of this rehashed storyline. It seems like WWE wants to milk the story for as long as possible because if they end it, they may be too inept to come up with something else interesting. Bottomline, this story has been done to death. Stretching it out makes that too apparent.

12 PPVs a year...end of every month, with feuds lasting 2-4 months is the perfect scenario for me, as long as the feud is written correctly.

 

[Headman]

Depends on the feud. But I will say the two guys involved shouldn't fight three ppvs in a row. They could keep things fresh by having the heel hide behind other guys for a while. Or have outside threats interrupt the feud from time to time. There needs to be twists and turns and right now we're not seeing much of that. Daniel Bryan and Randy Orton haven't advanced their story at all in their 3 ppv matches. The WWE needs to learn when to move on from something and it seems like they started doing that tonight. Of course Randy Orton vs Big Show for the WWE title doesn't sound like a match that I'm going to shell out big bucks for. I guess that's why Cena's got the other belt.

 

[Kris Benwa]

I'm going to be honest I only briefly skimmed through your op. With that being said, I believe feuds should go on until people get tired of them unless there is something they are specifically trying to accomplish with one. The corporate storyline took a turn for the better with tonight's RAW it got Daniel Bryan presumably out of it and we got other development with Kane and what not. I think if they weren't ready to end it then this was the best thing to switch the people around to keep it as fresh and interesting as possible. As far as the Heyman and Punk story that's one that I can say carried on too long after Lesnar left it wasn't really believable that either Axel or Ryback on their own could stop Punk from getting his hands on Heyman. I hate the use of the word stale but CM Punk's promos had begun to be just that especially cutting the same one every week. If a feud is interesting it should continue to run as long as it is interesting unless they are trying to accomplish the building of a new star, or raised buy rates. So Heyman and Punk most people agree stopped being interesting a while ago so the blow off should have been a while ago and while the corporate story was getting to that point now that they've recreated interest it is free to carry on.

 

[Redrum]

It all depends i remember the NWO and Hogan had a feud vs sting for almost a year but sting never had a match til starrcade if i recall correctly and it worked like magic. The moment sting and hogan finally met at Starrcade it was a moment i dont think i will forget.

Now for the modern era where they end up fighting each PPV i say between two and three months. Even if the matches are good i can only watch it the same time so many times before i would like it to move on for awhile

Now if its a feud where the guy is working his way up then it can go on for half a year or more.