Some people don't understand feuds anymore....

[RicSpade]

So I have been off the forums a while, but I read resulta and news on wrestlezone.com, one of the annoying things I keep seeing is reviews of matches, and in particular Barrett vs. Truth. The most notable thing I keep hearing is " this is like the 12th time with no resulotion why does this match keep happening?"

I am not going to knock this feud regardless how anyone feels about it, but I think the casual or atleast "new age" fan forgets 2 things.

1. Feuds use to last anywhere from 2 months to a year, or the seeds would be planted. Hogan vs. Savage started off as a team at WM4 when Savage beat Dibiase with Hogans help. Warrior and Hogan started at Royal Rumble. Savage and Jake the Snake started off at Summerslam with the wedding reception and they had a rivalry going past Survivor Series...

2, Feuds use to have series of matches culminating in a payoff (which could be happening at battleground)

I mean seriously if Truth wins people will think "this is stupid now Barrett goes back to being Bad News and R truth pretends he's king" but does anyone remember King Hacksaw, followed by Macho King Randy Savage? ]

Let me hear your thoughts anyone else agree the change of feuds every 2 to 4 weeks has made the fan not like the art of the feud? Or is it just who is fighting at the time the reason behind it?

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't think it's that a lot of people don't understand feuds anymore, although I'm sure it's true in some cases, but it's just that they have to care about the feuds. In the case of Barrett vs. Truth, not a whole helluva lot of people care because there's no real reason to care. The King of the Ring itself is a highly outdated gimmick and one that's really pretty tongue in cheek when you think about it. It's basically a take on the British royalty stereotype in which a wrestler is walking around wearing a fake crown, a fake cloak and holding a fake scepter. It's an image of a king that's centuries old and the idea of a king in and of itself as the ruler of a country is pretty outdated in most societies. It's also a concept that Vince McMahon himself doesn't seem to treat with any degree of seriousness, therefore there isn't any real prestige in when you consider that Barrett has lost more matches than he's won as "King" and that R-Truth is running around with a paper crown on his head, some sort of makeshift cape and a toilet plunger as a scepter. If the CEO and ultimate creative decision maker doesn't care enough about the gimmick to treat it seriously, then why should we the fans?

One thing is that feuds go by a lot faster because there's a ppv each month, which inevitably leads to the "WWE should have less ppv events" threads and arguments. That's all well and good, but it's not going to happen because monthly ppvs are money for WWE and being able to see a ppv for $10 per month is currently the life's blood of the WWE Network. In years to come, as the Network evolves, grows and is able to sustain more regular specials like the NXT specials & show from Japan, more original programming like NXT, etc. and they sustain the number of subscribers, then there's a remote possibility of WWE cutting back on the number of ppvs in order to draw out feuds longer by having fewer matches between the wrestlers.

 

[RicSpade]

Even with the 12 month ppv cycle, during the attitude era we had notable feuds which lasted more then a couple weeks, Austin vs. Mcmahon which technically could be said lasted from WM 14 before Austin won the title to St. Valentines Day Massacre before WM 15.

Taker/McMahon which was a swerve was a couple of months.

Taker/Kane went from Bad Blood to WM 14 and beyond.

DX vs. The Nation or Triple H vs. The Rock,

I really think besides the most notable feud between Rock and Cena which they posted as a year long rivalry, the last real feud which lasted a while would've been Heyman and Lesnar where Heyman turned on Lesnar, then Big Show, and culminated in Angle vs. lesnar.

 

[OldSchoolWrestlingFan]

I completely understand how fueds work & think that they do need time to build to get the proper explosion & pay off at the end but there is absolutely no excuse for bad booking & booking fueds just to be having fueds - having R-Truth vs "The King of Bad News" just doesn't make for good tv, it has nothing to do with the final payoff - Barrett is soon to be the next Jack Swagger, a man with all the potential to be a top guy that ends up being a bottom feeder

 

[chicagokmc]

I think its more than just frequent ppv's. Writing is more often than not dull and it makes us fans not want to see long feuds. For example, when the Wyatt family was together and there was a feud with someone, it was the same thing every week - a 3 on 1 beatdown with Bray standing over the fallen face shouting "follow the buzzards!" with the face finally winning at the ppv. if feuds are going to follow the same predictable formulas, they don't need to last for months. we get it after the first few weeks.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Let me hear your thoughts anyone else agree the change of feuds every 2 to 4 weeks has made the fan not like the art of the feud?

It seems the company is reserving true feuds only for the top of the roster. Mostly, they're for the guys at main event level, or at least upper mid-card. The thing is, if a main event performer's feud is to be carried out over a few months, I feel the participants should be involved on more levels than just the guy he's feuding against.

Take Seth Rollins. Yes, he's got his problems with Brock Lesnar and that's going to be the thrust of any storyline involving Rollins. Still, until recently, he's had his difficulties with Kane, while also firing, re-hiring and losing his security team to injury. As well, he occasionally has to deal with Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns.That's the kind of thing I'm talking about; the feud isn't the only thing occupying Seth's time.....and that's exactly how it should be. Back in the day Hulk Hogan was feuding with Randy Savage, both had a lot more on their plates than each other.....and that's proper; it helps draw the feud out longer by bringing in more elements.

As for the midcard, seeing guys like King Barrett and R-Truth involved in a mini-feud is a good thing because there just isn't much of that sort of thing below main event level. Even as it is, there isn't much conflict between the two.....it's Truth taunting Barrett with a 'poor man's imitation' of the king.....and Barrett responding as the pompous ass he's supposed to be. Not too much to hold our interest, except the result of each match.

Even with a monthly PPV, I believe WWE handles many feuds the old-fashioned way. John Cena's attentions were centered on Rusev for a few months, even as he had his US Title open challenges going in the meantime.

WWE still knows how to do it.

 

[whoopin' ass]

I agree with Mustang Sally about wwe holding true feuds for only top guys. Problem though is I don't think wwe really gets feuds anymore either. First your feud has to be over something that makes sense. Anyone remember the Booker T/Edge feud over a hair commerical? Did anyone really care? You can have these comedic feuds from time to time but wwe has that style way too much - a feud that really has no purpose. Second, you need 2 guys who are seen as somewhat equal otherwise it isn't a feud. If people really don't think one guy has a chance, why would they care? TNA recently did a good angle with Spud and EC3 that shows what I mean. On paper, not much of a feud but look at what happened - EC3 picked on and picked on and picked on Spud, Spud would start to fight back and then stop. That starting to fight back showed the audience that Spud could be on the same level as EC3(at least for this feud) so that when the big match came, people believed in him. wwe doesn't seen to do that anymore. Standard feud in wwe is person A attacks person B for no reason, person B wins the first match, person A attacks them the next night and wins and then either person A or B wins the third match depending on who they want to push. Doesn't matter thier history, wins or losses, it is just a formula to get them to the ppv.

 

[rmp0012002]

WWE creative doesn't know how to write a feud without making it PG. There's no good guy vs bad guy anymore and guys are just booked to wrestle, there's no hate between them to have something to build a feud with. Attacking someone in WWE means running in and giving the guy your finisher, old school the guy would get a beat down and bloodied and bruised giving a reason to feud. A run in now comes with entrance music instead of a sneak attack. In real life some people just dislike each other but the WWE can't portray it that way as it's not PG.

 

[GeneralKarim]

Meh. I think people understand feuds they just want to have a reason to care about them. Last time R-truth was interesting was when he turned heel and was serious for like a while. But even before that he was a joke and after that still a joke. You are putting a JOKE against your King of the Ring? Why do I care about this? R-truth already won against him. Why should I care? Why should I care about anything they do with R-truth ever? Or even Wade Barret for that matter. Cause they clearly dont take him seriously.

They retired his BnB gimmick which was actually getting over just so he can start losing as King of the Ring, a very outdated gimmick that serves no real purpose in 2015.

Next thing you know they will have him be Vine Time Barret. Just Barret doing vines. Which would actually be funny.

 

[Eyebrows]

I think a big issue is even-Steven booking. Most of the mid-card end up trading wins with no real resolution or pay-off to a feud, no matter how long it goes on for. I'd rather see segments advancing a feud between two single wrestlers than guys just trading wins so they can have a rubber match at the PPV. In the long-haul, this sort of booking means very little upward trajectory for much of the mid-card who just sort of flounder around without any real direction.

 

[Jeritron5000]

There's a difference between not understanding feuds and not caring about feuds. I don't think the concept is being lost on anybody. If Barrett and Truth don't mean anything to you, and their feud is dull and repetitive, then you're likely going to get bored and want to see something else. It's not enough for 2 individuals to feud. A compelling story has to be told to make you care to see a continuation or resolution.

 

[Navi]

Let me hear your thoughts anyone else agree the change of feuds every 2 to 4 weeks has made the fan not like the art of the feud? Or is it just who is fighting at the time the reason behind it?

Like most others have said, feuds aren't that hard to understand but the reasoning behind them have to grab your attention. They don't always do that and some feuds just don't make any sense at all.

When the Shield broke up and Ambrose went after Rollins fans cared. Why, because there was a real reason for Ambrose to do that. He had been betrayed in the worst manner possible. His best friend turned on him and stabbed him in the back. Fans could see this and understood it. Plus they liked the Shield and didn't want them to break up, and hated Rollins for turning heel. So they wanted to see Rollins get what was coming to him.

What they ended up having was the feud of the year in my eyes. There was history between the two, and reasons for what Rollins did and why Ambrose wanted to hand him his ass. It was simple and booked perfectly. Well until the end. Not to mention the chemistry that both men have with each other. Even if you weren't a fan of either, what they were going through pulled you in.

Now take that feud and compare it too the Wyatt/Reigns feud right now. You have a guy in Bray Wyatt who has never been interested in titles. It's always something else that he finds a reason to victimize someone. He's in a match with Roman Reigns, and the winner gets to go to the MITB match for the contract. Reigns wins that match and goes onto the ladder match at MITB.

As he's climbing the ladder to retrieve the briefcase, Wyatt appears out of nowhere and knocks the ladder over, costing Reigns the win. Now the two of them are sort of feuding, I say sort of because they haven't faced off in the ring yet, and it's been what 3 weeks. And the reasoning behind off of this starting is Reigns cost Wyatt his place in the MITB ladder match. This coming from a guy who has never been interested in winning any title.

It makes no sense at all to have two upper level talents facing off in a feud that means nothing. Now if Wyatt had been climbing the ladder and Reigns knocked him off I could see it, but not the way they've booked it. Plus Wyatt has been hiding in the shadows for the better part of a month and even though he's been called out hasn't faced off with Reigns yet.

What kind of feud is this? And why as a fan should I be invested in it? I know what's going to happen. At Battleground Wyatt is going to get the crap beat out of him, or it's going to be a screwy finish, so it's a nowhere feud with no real ending to it. And that's one of the main issues with feuds right now. So many have gone on and there has been no real endings too them, that some fans just go "screw it" now.

 

[Radical]

Fans are different these days, I believe. Even wrestling fans aren't interested in having feuds that last many months and or a year long except for rare instances like Rock vs Cena, Brock vs Undertaker or Triple H, or Rock vs CM Punk.

WWE has pretty much had the same audience for years now. They get pretty much the same viewers every Raw and SmackDown, the main difference in the WWE Network and they have over 1 Million subscribers and growing (not substantially but slow and consistently) so you can't really say they are doing much wrong because their business continues to be successful.

Whatever WWE has been doing for writing, storylines and feuds has been good enough to see slow and steady results.

MAYBE, though, MAYBE they could see consistently higher viewership numbers and a real spike in Network subscribers if they had more compelling and storylines and had TRULY must-see Raw and SmackDowns and more importantly PPVs that would have people shocked and intrigued by what went down and not just thinking "same old, same old."

The Reigns vs Wyatt feud is a good example of where it could really be a big deal or just be "same old, same old."

What kind of feud is this? And why as a fan should I be invested in it? I know what's going to happen. At Battleground Wyatt is going to get the crap beat out of him, or it's going to be a screwy finish, so it's a nowhere feud with no real ending to it. And that's one of the main issues with feuds right now. So many have gone on and there has been no real endings too them, that some fans just go "screw it" now.

I agree, despite both Wyatt and Reigns doing their parts very well and bringing a lot of passion and intensity to the feud, too often fans have invested in this just to see the PPV match end in a typical result and the next night on Raw the two characters pretty much start to go their separate ways and are virtually no different than how they were before the feud.

Wyatt has basically been saying, leading up to this match, that Reigns won't be the same after Battleground. Will this be true or is it just more talk and follow through?

If WWE is SERIOUS about making this an interesting feud, something BIG has to go down at Battleground. Something bigger than just an action-packed match with Reigns fighting through adversity and creepiness by Wyatt to get the win.

No, something bigger needs to happen. Something like; Wyatt needs to gain some power over Reigns that makes Reigns question himself. Maybe Wyatt brings Reigns' daughter's picture to the ring and taunts him with it and Wyatt wins and then Wyatt whispers something in Reigns' ear after the match and Reigns walks to the back with Wyatt. THAT would be an event that would get people talking! That would be something BIG and leave fans with all sorts of questions that would likely get them to turn into Raw and see what happens next.

I'll won't be watching Battleground but I'll read the results and if something BIG doesn't happen after the Reigns vs Wyatt match, it will confirm for me why I don't buy PPVs and I don't subscribe to the Network, because I get everything I need from WWE from their free shows (Raw, SmackDown) and their YouTube channel.