What's the point?

[Rckstrtmmy]

What's the point of all the build up and hoopla around Wrestlemania if none of the feuds are resolved there? I get that they should typically be the best matches possible, but if you're charging us more to watch this PPV then the matches should be the CULMINATION of everything that leads up to it. I really don't understand why it's such a big deal anymore. I mean don't get me wrong, I know the matches were better than usual and the production value, size of the arena, the week's festivities make it larger than normal PPV's. I'm talking purely from a storyline perspective. I mean so far the two matches announced for extreme rules are another concoction of Cena/Miz and Cole/Lawler. These were two of the biggest feuds going into WM and neither are resolved. Same with Orton/Punk. We saw Orton finally get his revenge on Punk for costing him the title and this past week the Nexus attacks him for the umpteenth time so you can assume they aren't done. HHH is waiting on Taker now so they aren't done either. I mean they already had 3 or so months to build these stories to a fantastic climax and none of them are over at the biggest event of the year? It's mind boggling to me. I just wanted to get this off my chest and find out what you guys think about this. Do you think the majority of WM feuds should end with WM or do you think they are doing things right?

 

[Rammsteinerteen]

It's a bit late now, twenty-seven years LOL.

Anyway, to answer your question, WrestleMania is where feuds START, the opposite. Plus, after the win of one opponent, obviously the loser will be pissed off losing at the grandest stage of them all. It's logic you continue on feud, it's just getting more intense. Once you cook the full fledge meal, you need to add a little more spice or other flavoring to it.

 

[Mac Attack]

The Answer

It's all about the money. Everything the WWE revolves around what gets them money. You say that the WWE should end all feuds at Mania but why? Having feuds carry over makes people more inclined to continue buying the upcoming PPVs. It is all about ways for them to make money and by them doing this they are making a profit. People want to see what happens and what is the culmination of the feud going to bring. If you think it is going to be at Mania then you up the price, and then give an unfinished product.

Now from a wrestling fan standpoint, a lot of feuds just started in order to be a feud at Mania. You cannot possible say that after one match a feud just ends. All the matches you mention in the OP have had only one match so there is reason to continue the feuds. It makes sense and it wraps up the feuds. Especially with Extrem Rules right after Mania it allows the feuds to take a new persona.

If you feel Mania should be the end all be all then you are very wrong. WWE can not allow a card to be full of new feuds because it isn't good for business. I find the summer can be a less watched time for the WWE so by having all these feuds carry over it allows them to get the views they are hoping for.

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

No you guys are right about there being only one match involved in these feuds. However we've heard/seen these same people involved for about 3 months now. Typically, at least for the past few years, the WWE builds up a PPV for a few weeks to a month tops. Things are starting to get stale. And yes I can understand some rematches and whatnot and I'm not saying everything has to come to an abrupt stop and start something else out of nowhere. But are you saying Cole/Lawler need MORE time to hammer out their differences? They should be done now. HHH/Undertaker need to continue their stuff after a legendary match? I understand Cena/Miz continuing because of the way things ended. I just want to see SOME new things going on, and for the price of WM, I think at least a few of the stories should be tied up with a pretty little bow.

 

[Gman35]

Remember, there used to be a ppv called Backlash, and that is where the stuff from Wrestlemania was to roll over. Well if that's the case, why did they have Micheals/Undertaker 2??? Also, the price for Mania is due to it being 4 hours!!

 

[caesarmacdaddy]

I agree. I think at least half the show or more should consists of one time dream matches and matches with crazy stipulations to blow off most feuds. Punk-Orton could have easily been a Last Man Standing match, and with their vicious build up, should have had a more brutal match stipulation.

Title matches should occur and be given 15 minutes each, at least. It does cheapen Mania if nothing is resolved there!

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

You don't want to add stipulations to everything, then you end up like TNA. If Orton/Punk is LMS, then it cheapens Taker/HHH. What they needed was a spotfesty type match. Orton/Punk was fine. You just need variety.

 

[Miko]

Because WWE doesnt stop after WrestleMania, it keeps going and in order to do that it cant start at precisely square one every year.

Basically, WrestleMania has to be an epic event, but there still have to be unanswered questions, a what happens next? feel otherwise fuckloads of people wouldnt bother watching Raw the next night. Then there'd be no more WrestleMania's to watch and complain that they're shit.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Because WWE doesnt stop after WrestleMania, it keeps going and in order to do that it cant start at precisely square one every year.

You're right, but I can see the original poster's point, too. WWE used to coordinate things so that feuds did end at WM, the culmination of weeks (or months) of storylines that led up to it. Similarly, the RAW that came the night after WM was a can't-miss show because it was exciting to see how the new programs were going to start out.

Instead, after WM27, we still have Cena chasing Miz, still have Lawler chasing Cole, still have Del Rio chasing Edge (which has now changed, but not because it was resolved at WM) etc. etc.

I'm still happy with the direction the company is moving but must admit I miss the way WM used to bring endings to the old stuff and gave us the promise of the new stuff.

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

Because WWE doesnt stop after WrestleMania, it keeps going and in order to do that it cant start at precisely square one every year.

Basically, WrestleMania has to be an epic event, but there still have to be unanswered questions, a what happens next? feel otherwise fuckloads of people wouldnt bother watching Raw the next night. Then there'd be no more WrestleMania's to watch and complain that they're shit.

Again, I understand that they can't just completely stop everything and start over. SOME things should be resolved on the grandest stage of them all. It takes away from Wrestlemania's grandeur if every match leads to another one and there is zero closure. The time after WM should be exciting with new things going on, not same old same old.

Think of it this way. If Wrestlemania is the Super Bowl of wrestling, then there should be some type of closure for some of the stories. After the Super Bowl in the NFL you have yourself a champion. Do they go back to square one? No! You have the players talking trash, free agent signings, trades, arrests, the draft, this season a lockout. Plenty of things happen after there is closure at an event that big. In the WWE it's even easier to have intrigue after big storylines end because what happens is WRITTEN. As of right now, to me, Wrestlemania is treated as just another PPV. I think of the writers saying something like this, "well we can have this happen at WM, then the next month this happens..." I don't think thats right, not with 3 months of build up already. It should be "this 3 month lead in should culminate with this" and it should be something fucking epic.

 

[Kofi/ZigglerClassic]

I agree with OP. The feuds that are builtup prior to Mania should END at mania. Cole/Lawler should've been over, CM Punk/Orton should've ended with a real slugfest of a match, Rey/Cody over, and Cena/Miz should be done. With them not ending and them continuing the feuds afterwards, really cheapens Mania imo. As of right now, sad to say it, Extreme Rules has the potential to be better than Mania 27 in terms of match quality and storyline decision making.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Actually the fact that feuds end at WrestleMania is more of a myth than a fact. A lot of WrestleManias in the past have seen never seen before matches held at that very event. Savage vs Hogan, Savage vs Flair, Hogan vs Warrior, HBK vs Bret Hart, Austin vs Rock at Mania 15 are all examples of this.

As a concept, it makes a hell lot of sense actually. Why would you want to see something at the biggest show of the year thaat you have already seen time and again? That is what would happen if a feud was to end at WrestleMania. The biggest show of the year is supposed to get you excited. What better way to do it than hold "first time ever" matches?

 

[Dagger Dias]

What's the point? I'll tell you. They do not resolve all of the feuds at Wrestlemania because the upcoming show after it (currently Extreme Rules, formerly Backlash) needs a reason for people to buy it. Fans who are brand-loyal to Wrestlemania will buy it regardless due to its name and history. Resolving feuds there does not benefit the WWE financially. Letting them go one month longer adds the Wrestlemania match to the storyline for the matches at the following PPV. If it was new matchups do you think Extreme Rules would get as many buys as it does? I bet it wouldn't. People would think to themselves "I just saw a great feud at Wrestlemania, why should I care about this?". Whereas, the way its done now they can think "Well the champion retained at Wrestlemania but now he has to face the challenger again!? I better order that show to see if he still retains!". See what I mean? That goes for all of the feuds not just the titles. It's set up the way it is so that WWE makes more money. They don't care if we want to see feuds resolved or not, unfortunately.