Jason Mayhem Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Surely the biggest difference is that WWE storylines build up to PPV events. It's not like the only time you're expected to pay extra for storyline developments is a spin-off video where Santino, Hornswaggle, Zack Ryder and the Bella Twins win a cruise holiday (making sure to slow right down when passing a Harveys lorry on the way to the port) and hilarious misunderstandings ensue, never to be mentioned on Raw except when somebody gets a postcard. Â Maybe not PPVs but there are series finales and special episodes that they build towards, trying to spike the viewership of that episode and therefore increase revenue from advertising. They also build stories and introduce new characters or even special guests to the show in sweeps week, again to try and increase revenue from advertising. OK ppv isn't about advertising as much as PPV buys, but the theory of them making more money buy building to a specific episode is the same, regardless of whether you are expected to pay more for that episode or not. Â I was never arguing this point anyway, I wasn't at any point saying that WWE was identical to a soap in terms of business model (eventhough there are still similarities) I was saying that WWE is pretty much the same as a soap in terms of ongoing character development. Â I'll post it again... Â A soap opera, sometimes called "soap" for short, is an ongoing, episodic work of dramatic fiction presented in serial format on radio or as television programming. Â A crucial element that defines soap opera is the open-ended nature of the narrative, with stories spanning several episodes. The defining feature that makes a television program a soap opera, according to Albert Moran, is "that form of television that works with a continuous open narrative. Each episode ends with a promise that the storyline is to be continued in another episode".[3] Â Soap opera stories run concurrently, intersect and lead into further developments. An individual episode of a soap opera will generally switch between several different concurrent story threads that may at times interconnect and affect one another or may run entirely independent of each other. Each episode may feature some of the show's current storylines but not always all of them. Especially in daytime serials and those that are screened each weekday, there is some rotation of both storyline and actors so any given storyline or actor will appear in some but usually not all of a week's worth of episodes. Soap operas rarely bring all the current storylines to a conclusion at the same time. When one storyline ends there are several other story threads at differing stages of development. Soap opera episodes typically end on some sort of cliffhanger, and the Season Finale ends in the same way, only to be resolved when the show returns for the start of a new yearly broadcast. Â Again, if you read the description of a soap, it is difficult the argue that WWE is any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted March 12, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 12, 2012 That's great because Lister's book has an article about how similar Soaps and Wrestling are. Â Can I just say, what a fucking pointless argument. Also, I agree with "Jason Mayhem" and his original point about characters. It's a pity he keeps banging on about soap operas really because it's detracted from it. Â wrestling cannot possibly be like other TV shows because a) real TV shows use a lot of mundane, run of the mill, real-life stuff in building characters and storylines that just wouldn't and couldn't relate to wrestling. And secondly, wrestling doesn't (generally) do rape, murder, stabbing, abortion, and all the other cheap shit that soaps rely on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JohnnyChimpo Posted March 12, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 12, 2012 wrestling cannot possibly be like other TV shows because a) real TV shows use a lot of mundane, run of the mill, real-life stuff in building characters and storylines that just wouldn't and couldn't relate to wrestling. And secondly, wrestling doesn't (generally) do rape, murder, stabbing, abortion, and all the other cheap shit that soaps rely on. And thirdly, they dont want you to pay 20 quid at the end of the month to watch a special episode that only last an extra 20 minutes or so anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 That's great because Lister's book has an article about how similar Soaps and Wrestling are. Can I just say, what a fucking pointless argument. Also, I agree with "Jason Mayhem" and his original point about characters. It's a pity he keeps banging on about soap operas really because it's detracted from it.  wrestling cannot possibly be like other TV shows because a) real TV shows use a lot of mundane, run of the mill, real-life stuff in building characters and storylines that just wouldn't and couldn't relate to wrestling. And secondly, wrestling doesn't (generally) do rape, murder, stabbing, abortion, and all the other cheap shit that soaps rely on.  Hi Rick,  The soap opera thing...... 1- Other posters have tried to say my view is incorrect but without any convincing arguement otherwise, so yeah i'm just countering with the same arguement. Sorry if its getting boring. 2- WWE could learn from other soaps in the way they rotate their characters and introduce new people all the time and C- Its funny to see how defensive wrestling fans get when wrestling gets "downgraded" in such a way to a mere soap opera. Perhaps this is what someone else was talking about when they said that some wrestling fans take it too seriously.  No WWE doesn't do rape, murder, stabbing, abortion etc, but it has done necrophilia, incest, hanging oh and giving birth to a hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted March 12, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 12, 2012 No WWE doesn't do rape, murder, stabbing, abortion etc, but it has done necrophilia, incest, hanging oh and giving birth to a hand. Â When was the last time WWE did any of these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 12, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 12, 2012 Rick is correct. Everyone else please shut up about soap operas in this stupid circular argument in which no one is really disagreeing and everyone is missing everyone else's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 12, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 12, 2012 I'd say Wrestling is more like Oz, only with less bumming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 12, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 12, 2012 I doubt anyone in wrestling has ever even seen Oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted March 12, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 12, 2012 2- WWE could learn from other soaps in the way they rotate their characters and introduce new people all the time and Soaps don't rotate characters that people love and connect with. Soaps are like real life, where everyone connects with everyone else. Wrestling is supposed to be a sport, so the portion that is presented on TV generally only features a connection between people who are in competition. As a result, you rotate the characters by changing their opposition, motivation and morale standing. You don't need to keep changing them. New characters come along quite often as it is. Â C- Its funny to see how defensive wrestling fans get when wrestling gets "downgraded" in such a way to a mere soap opera. Perhaps this is what someone else was talking about when they said that some wrestling fans take it too seriously. Of course we take it too seriously. Anyone who bothers to use an internet forum for wrestling, football, cricket, comics, movies, Eastenders, etc is taking it too seriously. No-one is getting defensive, the comparison just doesn't fit. There are plenty of amusing similarities but there's no direct correlation between the two. Â No WWE doesn't do rape, murder, stabbing, abortion etc, but it has done necrophilia, incest, hanging oh and giving birth to a hand. Once each about 10 years ago, faced a backlash and realised that it's a stupid idea. And I did say generally. John Cena was "stabbed" once by a dirty Puerto Rican. No idea where they got that idea from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 12, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 12, 2012 He should change his hometown to "Unit B". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 2- WWE could learn from other soaps in the way they rotate their characters and introduce new people all the time and Wrestling is supposed to be a sport, so the portion that is presented on TV generally only features a connection between people who are in competition. As a result, you rotate the characters by changing their opposition, motivation and morale standing. You don't need to keep changing them. New characters come along quite often as it is. Â Mate.... really???? Â Wrestling hasn't been portrayed as a sport for about 30 years now!!! Â You can't just sell wrestling off of the back of the actual "wrestling", that's why they have to build to events by developing the characters rather than promoting the "contest" element. This is why WWE have been absolutely right to move the industry in this direction. The busines of selling "wrestling" died a long time ago. Â The only event that sells itself without having to have any character development into it is the rumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted March 12, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 12, 2012 Wrestling hasn't been portrayed as a sport for about 30 years now!!! So why do they win and lose and challenge for Championship belts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Double post sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Wrestling hasn't been portrayed as a sport for about 30 years now!!! So why do they win and lose and challenge for Championship belts? Â Tigers right. Of course it's presented as a sport, in the same way Eastenders is presented as real life. That's different than something being a sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Wrestling hasn't been portrayed as a sport for about 30 years now!!! So why do they win and lose and challenge for Championship belts? Â The same reason Rocky did. Were the Rocky films primarily about boxing? Â No, they were stories about the character Rocky Balboa, who was a boxer and with boxing as the back drop. How much actual "boxing" was shown in the films? Most people didn't watch the Rocky films because they were interested in Boxing "sequences" necessarily. Â It's not the "wrestling" that MOST people watch for, its the characters and the journeys. That's what I meant by the business of selling "wrestling" is dead, its the characters that people buy. Â What I mean about it not being presented as a sport is that the wrestling or sporting contest itself isn't what people actually watch for, the only real exception to this I would say is the Rumble. 40 years ago you could present a show called "wrestling" and people would watch it, because of the spectacle. This business is pretty much dead. Â Yes Rock v Austin at WM17 was an awesome match, but would people feel the same way about it if it was two random people you didn't know or care about doing those moves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.