GBH_189 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I read a discussion about the bret owen cage match from summerslam 94 and how boring it was I've never seen the mach since I saw it live but I remember it being great simply because the story of the match fit so well with the storyline of the feud, now after the passage of time the match is considered dull wrestlers seem to be moving away from matches that tell the story related to the feud they are in I've seen supposedly heated rivals begin matches with chain wrestling and to me it takes away from the overall story even if it works on that particular night  so the question I have is this-:  should wrestlers wrestle for the crowd that is in the arena or the people who may watch this match years down the line on DVD? should they wrestle to fit a story or simply put on a good stand alone match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Well, first time I heard that that match was consider to be dull. I fookin' loves it! Â As to the question, definitly the fans in the arena. It's the heat that the crowd produces that is paramount imo. Five star matches mean fuck all to most of the WWE Universe. (Melina vs Alicia Fox???). Crowd reactions make five star matches. Â Indy guys should wrestle for the DVD if there is one. It's good for their CV to show off good matches and the 20 paying fans can clap-clap-clap all they want... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshC Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Good wrestlers will always wrestle for the crowd, first and foremost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobra_gordo Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Indy guys should wrestle for the DVD if there is one. It's good for their CV to show off good matches and the 20 paying fans can clap-clap-clap all they want... Â Agreed. 99% of the time at indy events I go to there's no storyline as such anyway and if there is, most of the crowd propbably won't be following it. Â WWE/TNA guys need to do a bit of both, your lower level and midcard guys need to go full-tilt every match and make each match stand alone if they want to be noticed and to get the attention of casual fans. Main eventers should probably wrestle more for the storyline, one that springs to mind is the Austin vs Triple H 2 out of 3 falls (No Way Out 2001?). That match was awesome, they beat the shit out of each other from the bell instead of pissing around with hammerlocks but kept to the storyline which made it feel way more realistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthofsin Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Bret vs Owen in the cage to me is still the cage match that really set the bar for all cage matches that came afterwards. Its a classic. Â As for the question.. Always for the crowd. I find that the crowd reactions make or break a match for me as a viewer. The atmosphere and the pops is a huge part of what makes a match special for a viewer, just as is the commentry. Jim Ross could make you care about a match in a way Cole never will. But getting back on track.. Wrestling for the crowd is a fundamental principle of pro wrestling (or is that entertainment? lol) and it always has been. A match can be laid out great, but its ultimately the crowd who will decide if its great or not and a great wrestler feeds off that vibe and changes pace accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerously420 Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Did anyone else think that this thread was going to be how much should people be paid for wrestling for a show that is filmed for DVD? I did. My answer would be that all performers should have some sort royalty fee attached to the number of DVD's sold. The higher up the card you were on the event the bigger your royalty. Â In regards to keeping with the spirit of the thread i have heard that for production puropses in WWE that matches are usually worked so that the action is on cue with the right camera angles Vince wants for the product. Much like a hollywood movie Vince plays director and his entertainers do their live one take action movie every week on Raw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cokeorpepsi Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 You wrestle for the crowd not a freaking DVD. The crowd have not paid their money to be on a DVD, you wrestle for their reaction, their money, their support. Crowd and Audience are yours to entertain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted April 18, 2011 Moderators Share Posted April 18, 2011 That's the first time I've heard that about that match. Â When I saw it I had no idea what the story was going in, but they put everything across perfectly so it didn't matter. I'm pretty sure it's the best cage match I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAMM Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 This may be a completely stupid thought but, is it not possible to do both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Hitman Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I'm not a worker myself but my thought would be that you wrestle for the crowd. Not only are they a good barometer in most cases of whether the match is good, in the respect that if the audience enjoys it then likely so will the TV and DVD viewers, but if you can get the crowd popping for everything it can salvage an average match or make a good one into a great one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted April 18, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted April 18, 2011 Wrestle to get a reaction out of the live crowd or it will look like shit on the DVD anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Genius Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 Wrestle to get a reaction out of the live crowd or it will look like shit on the DVD anyway. There's a huge difference between experiencing a live event and watching it on DVD - live you have atmosphere at home... you dont. Â When it's live and the heel spends three minutes working the crowd on his entrance spitting water, knocking off kids hats, pulling out of handshakes etc etc then it usually works well to generate heat (except when the heel in question sucks at being a heel). However watch the same thing on DVD and you'll be looking for a fast forward button on the remote quite sharpish-On that kind of basis if you were watching a DVD with eight or ten matches that's gonna be almost an hour on entrances alone. Â When you watch most of the heels in the WWE they don't need to spend two to three minutes on the entrance. That might be because there will be a video package explaining who has done what to who and why so we already know who is to be cheered and who gets booed but still a WWE heel is usually in the ring in 30 seconds and still manages to generate heat. Â When a promotion puts some effort into DVD and web video then a match with two hundred people in attendance might be seen by thousands of people online on the likes of Youtube. As far as the workers in the match without the DVD sales to cover the time and effort going into the filming and editing of the show then there would be much less in the way of showreel material to use to secure future bookings. Â On that note you'd think it's quite obvious that if you've got a big spot planned that's gonna go down in history...it kinda pays to make sure it happens where a camera can see it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted April 18, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted April 18, 2011 There's a huge difference between experiencing a live event and watching it on DVD - live you have atmosphere at home... you dont. Â So you've never watched a match on telly or DVD and thought "that was rubbish, the crowd being dead really hurt it," or "I really enjoyed that, the crowd was mental?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Genius Posted April 18, 2011 Share Posted April 18, 2011 I usually notice the announcers selling things than I do the crowd. Â You can never tell what genuine crowd reaction is with the reports about the big 2 dubbing in crowd noises in post and editing in shots of crowd reaction taken from other parts of the show and at the bottom end where you can't hear the crowd as their sound recording gear is basically the tiny tinny mic on the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Some indy shows have in the region of 20 paying fans and the DVDs may ship to hundreds. Â Are the wrestlers risking serious injuries to entertain the 20 or the hundreds? 20 people can't really generate a great deal of heat anyway and I'd suppose the DVD has a commentator to make-up the short-fall. Â When I see guys rolling around in barbed-wire in front of 20 people I think their proper nuts. Surely it's for the pleasure of anyone who ever sees it, whether in the 'arena' or not. Â I think we all agree so my question would be: What's the minimum number of people required to attend get the wrestlers to concentrate of their primary job of entertaining the paying public? Or what ratio between ticket payers and DVD buyers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.