Live events crowds vs tv tapings crowds: what's the difference?

[Psykohurricane55]

I might have already did a threat like this in the past, i don't really remember and don't really care to look through every post to look for it so i'm just going to do another one.

Basically what i want to talk about it's WWE live events vs WWE TV tapings.

I went to the smackdown Live event in Montreal yesterday and the one thing i realise was how great the crowd reaction was last night. The way the event was produce with the bare minimum, the guys having more freedom to do what they wanted to do. Fans cheering for the babyfaces and booeing the heels. It was like if i went back in time to when i started watching WWE in the late 80's all over again. you didn't have the smart fans trying to take over the show by cheering for the bad guys just because it'S cool to cheer for that him.

So i got me thinking, why do we have such a difference between a live event crowd and a tv taping crowd. To be completely honest, i don't really get it. It's technically the same product but with tv cameras on. Maybe it's because the smart fans don't want to pay to go see a non televised event anymore, so you going to attract mostly families at live events and the more hardcore fans only want to pay to go to a event, if they can be heard on tv. I don't know why their such a difference between the crowd.

So i ask, why is there such a big difference between a live event crowd and a tv taping crowd.

 

[JJohns]

One of the biggest differences between a live event and a taping is that the live event is more action oriented. I went to the final show at the Joe, and it was the same thing. There wasn't a lot of promos. The other thing that helps with live events is that instead of breaking up the action with those promos, which can last anywhere between 5 and 20 minutes, there is an intermission to help fans get up, move around, and refresh before the second half of the show.

Like I said, when I went to the last Live Event I went to, there were I believe 4 promos, if you include Aiden English's singing on his way to the ring and Paul Heyman's introduction of Brock Lesnar. Sure, there are times in the evening where the event hosts would come up to shill merchandise, but those were a lot shorter than the commercial breaks that you would get at Raw or Smackdown tapings.

Plus, with Live Events, the wrestlers do have more freedom, and you will see guys that don't normally get exposure. The show I went to had a Tag Team match between Aiden English and Erick Rowan taking on Tye Dillinger and Sin Cara. When was the last time you saw Rowan or Sin Cara on TV?

 

[Navi]

It answer is very simple, it's a different crowd entirely. I think a lot of it has to do with the price of the seats, especially here in Toronto. At the Air Canada Centre you paid hundred's of dollars for a good seat, at the Ricoh Coliseum $35.00 will get you a good seat. As a matter of fact there are no bad seats at the Ricoh, with it being a smaller venue every seat is close to the action.

Also the show isn't filled with a lot of talking and promo's, they usually do that at the beginning on tron, so you just get a lot of wrestling and good matches at that. The crowd boo's the heel's and cheer the faces mostly because the place is full of kids. Whole families attend these house shows, again because of the price, and the fact they are usually held on a Friday night (no school the next day) or a Sunday afternoon.

At the ACC, the fans are usually hardcore who don't mind paying the ridiculous price tags, not only for tickets but food and drink. What you have to take into account is also the fact that RAW is a continuing soap opera. Each week the storyline arc's continue, at a house show that is all out the window. The face always wins to send the crowd home happy, on RAW it's just to continue the feud until next week.

I get what the OP is saying though, there is a huge difference and quite honestly I would rather attend a house show than go see a televised event.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

It answer is very simple, it's a different crowd entirely. The crowd boo's the heel's and cheer the faces mostly because the place is full of kids. Whole families attend these house shows, again because of the price, and the fact they are usually held on a Friday night (no school the next day) or a Sunday afternoon.

Indeed. I went to one two weeks ago, and it was a fucking blast because of this also.

Give me a traditional crowd who is super pumped to be at the show any day.

 

[Wrestlingaholic]

I don't get why so many people criticise 'smarks' for 'hijacking' shows if they don't react the way WWE wants? It's WWE's job to get the fans to invest in the wrestlers the way they want us to. It is their failure to do so that causes fans to go against them. It's just it seems these days, WWE seems quite ignorant of what its audience actually desires and would rather perpetuate their opinion.

Some of Wrestling' greatest stars have turned because the crowd reaction was the complete opposite of what the booking committee were hoping. The Rock turned twice because of this - the fans did not appreciate him being pushed down their throats, so quickly turned on him despite him being heavily promoted as a babyface. Then, after just a year of being a heel, a role he played particularly well as it turns out, the fans acknowledged this and started cheering him more, causing WWE to turn him (initially briefly) face, before finally relenting six months later and turning him fully face again. That might never have happened if it wasn't for the fans 'hijacking' the product.

Hulk Hogan turned heel largely due to fan apathy towards his tired babyface shtick, and inadvertantly turned face at Wrestlemania 18 due to the fans in the Skydome. This has never been considered hijacking, despite being no different really to the fans in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia at Royal Rumbles 2014 and 2015...

I do concur however that the audiences do differ (to an extent) at live events. Which is actually strange when you think about it - at live events the wrestlers have much more freedom to interact with the fans, so you'd think hardcore fans would embrace this. For example at the last live event I went to, NXT in Brighton (England) - incidentally a venue that, like Navi described the Ricoh Colliseum in Toronto, is very small and intimate so every seat is a brilliant one - and Peyton Royce was very very popular. Her way of dealing with this was to revert to classic heel (she did well) but there was a fair bit of interaction with the crowd that you simply wouldn't get at a tv taping, for time reasons if nothing else. But in terms of fan reactions, maybe, just maybe, it's because the more Roman Reigns get booed on tv, the more likely he is to be turned (as an example), whereas to do so at a live event would feel like a waste of time

 

[Sadiki22]

I agree!I was there for the event in MTL also and I noticed a big difference.All the matches were on point and entertaining,and the crowd was really into the show.I think probably because there is more freedom for the one's performing compared to a Smackdown or Raw show.For example,the match between Naomi and Carmella that was going on in MTL will be on Smackdown tonight,and I bet it won't have the same feel as the one in MTL!

 

[Psykohurricane55]

I don't get why so many people criticise 'smarks' for 'hijacking' shows if they don't react the way WWE wants? It's WWE's job to get the fans to invest in the wrestlers the way they want us to. It is their failure to do so that causes fans to go against them. It's just it seems these days, WWE seems quite ignorant of what its audience actually desires and would rather perpetuate their opinion.

Some of Wrestling' greatest stars have turned because the crowd reaction was the complete opposite of what the booking committee were hoping. The Rock turned twice because of this - the fans did not appreciate him being pushed down their throats, so quickly turned on him despite him being heavily promoted as a babyface. Then, after just a year of being a heel, a role he played particularly well as it turns out, the fans acknowledged this and started cheering him more, causing WWE to turn him (initially briefly) face, before finally relenting six months later and turning him fully face again. That might never have happened if it wasn't for the fans 'hijacking' the product.

Hulk Hogan turned heel largely due to fan apathy towards his tired babyface shtick, and inadvertantly turned face at Wrestlemania 18 due to the fans in the Skydome. This has never been considered hijacking, despite being no different really to the fans in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia at Royal Rumbles 2014 and 2015...

I do concur however that the audiences do differ (to an extent) at live events. Which is actually strange when you think about it - at live events the wrestlers have much more freedom to interact with the fans, so you'd think hardcore fans would embrace this. For example at the last live event I went to, NXT in Brighton (England) - incidentally a venue that, like Navi described the Ricoh Colliseum in Toronto, is very small and intimate so every seat is a brilliant one - and Peyton Royce was very very popular. Her way of dealing with this was to revert to classic heel (she did well) but there was a fair bit of interaction with the crowd that you simply wouldn't get at a tv taping, for time reasons if nothing else. But in terms of fan reactions, maybe, just maybe, it's because the more Roman Reigns get booed on tv, the more likely he is to be turned (as an example), whereas to do so at a live event would feel like a waste of time

But the problem with having 2 different type of crowd is that creative have less freedom with what they want to do with a character.

Let's take roman reigns for exemple, with the smart fans that goes to tv tapings, he gets booed, yet on live events with a different crowd, he's the most popular guy on the roster, so how can you adapt when you get different messages from the crowd. When the rock or hogan turn heel, it was because they we're hated by everybody even at live event, so they adapted, now you can't do that anymore because if you turn somebody based on one section of the fans reaction, then you risk to alienate the other section of the fanbase and with a top guy like roman it's even trickier because you risk to lose a ton of money if you do the wrong move.

The fact is, wwe can't really listen to the fans the way they use to because they serve so many different grop of fans and if you do something to please one group, the other will hate the decision.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I don't talk politics, but I think this topic brings a strong comparison to the people of the US. There is a loud group who thinks they represent the majority, who felt Hillary Clinton would win the Presidential race in a landslide. Lo and behold, Trump is President. Same thing here. There is a loud bunch of "smart" fans who think they represent the WWE Universe and can't fathom that the product is not being aimed at them.

Both groups that make more noise should shut up for a second and listen...because they are not as big as they think they are. I am not a Democrat or a Republican, so don't accuse me of siding one way or the other. I am just someone who sees that the people who have time to bitch and moan all day--political protesters, wrestling forum regulars, whatever--are not as important or relevant as they think they are.

Again, that isn't a shot at anyone. It's just how I see it.

 

[JoeFromTomsRiver]

Smarks/IWC tend to not go to house shows because nothing of consequence ever occurs. They'd rather wait for the next RAW/SD or PPV to come to town.

Also, house shows are cheaper, so a family of four can attend a untaped WWE show for half as much as if they got those same seats at a RAW.

So to answer your question, house shows get more families, and RAW/SD or PPVs get more hard-core fans.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Smarks/IWC tend to not go to house shows because nothing of consequence ever occurs. They'd rather wait for the next RAW/SD or PPV to come to town.

This right here.

I have never attended an untelevised WWE event before and what JoeFromTomsRiver stated is exactly why. What I like the most about the WWE is what makes it a show. So why should I care about a match that means absolutely nothing within kayfabe? The rare title changes that occur at the house shows are the only things that ever matter at those. Yeah it may be cheaper, but I'd rather pay extra and go to the bigger event. A friend of mine asked me earlier this summer if I was going to attend the WWE event that was coming to our town. My answer to him? No. I'm going to Dallas to attend Great Balls Of Fire instead. I had no reason to go attend a show where the matches don't matter when I could pay more to go to see the matches that do matter.

If you have fun at house shows, awesome. By all means go attend as many as you want. They don't appeal to people like me who care more about the show aspect of the WWE.

 

[sikkbones]

How often does this subject come up?

I'm having serious deja vu from the last time this thread was brought up.