WWE's bland production?

[garynysmon]

A very niche topic I know, but would it be fair to say that Kevin Dunn has always been one for playing it safe over the years?

I remember growing up in the early and mid 90's, and it always seemed to be WCW that took the risks when it came to thinking outside the box. Think back to Spring Break Nitros (and the swimming pool), nWo Saturday Night, Hog/Road Wild, Bash at the Beach taking place at the seaside etc. Even the sliding doors on WCW Saturday Night.

 

Of course not all of these worked out, but at least it came across as fresh and different.

 

 

 

 

When you compare that to the WWF, only Wrestlemania 9 and the short-lived Shotgun Saturday Night stand out as being particularly memorable for being completely different to the company's usual style.

 

When you fast forward to more recent years, every single show and even PPV had the exact same set (McMahon got his money's worth with that HD setup). I'll make no bones about it, I detest the WWE's over produced and polished product these days and hark back to a time when there was some more creativity behind the scenes (same could go for the booking I suppose.)

[King Pitcos]

When you compare that to the WWF, only Wrestlemania 9 and the short-lived Shotgun Saturday Night stand out as being particularly memorable for being completely different to the company's usual style.

The two great success stories of the nineties.

 

People only care about the stages when they're bored of the wrestling. It's the same as the belts, and pretty much all the bullshit nostalgia. "OMG THEY BROUGHT BACK AN OLD BELT/STAGE I LOVE IT" and "FFS THEY'VE DONE A NEW BELT/STAGE I HATE IT" are both very short-lived sentiments.

 

Austin was the draw, the scaffolding wasn't.

[Daily Buzzard]

Dunn is the shits. The constant rapid changing of camera shots makes WWE TV a chore to watch.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

Love the new WWE sets I must say. Looks so good. I've been begging for Raw to use a light up ramp since they used it at WrestleMania XX. Now they just need some LED security barriers, like you see in the Premier League and life will be good.

 

WCW's sets were excellent, but I imagine (like WWE who used to also have tremednous sets) if the technology was available in 1996 to have a giant LED wall where you can put any art work or design on it you like, WCW would have done the same thing. Its a practical set up.

 

When I grew up, all WWF had was a 9 tellys stacked up to make a big screen and a WWF logo on the entrance. It seemed pretty fine.

[WyattSheepMask]

The problem with holding a PPV on a beach is just that, it's a public beach therefore making no money, even if "100,000" turned up to watch it as Schiavone claimed (they didn't). I'd be very suprised if they made any kind of money on those spring break Nitros either. Admission was probably free tickets when you buy two beer pitchers, so the only winner in the whole was the bar.

Same with when Eric Bischoff would take the show on his holiday to Sturgis every year, no wonder the company died.

 

If the show is shit, it doesn't matter one iota what the arena looks like

[Undefeated Steak]

Agree with Ian's post. Love me a nice looking set/arena/venue. The Statue of Liberty for the NY Wrestlemania was a thing of beauty.

 

The Wrestle Kingdom 10 arena was glorious, the titantron and square LED's above the ring were ace. Probably my favourite arena set-up of the last few years.

[Sphinx]

 

When you compare that to the WWF, only Wrestlemania 9 and the short-lived Shotgun Saturday Night stand out as being particularly memorable for being completely different to the company's usual style.

The two great success stories of the nineties.

 

People only care about the stages when they're bored of the wrestling. It's the same as the belts, and pretty much all the bullshit nostalgia. "OMG THEY BROUGHT BACK AN OLD BELT/STAGE I LOVE IT" and "FFS THEY'VE DONE A NEW BELT/STAGE I HATE IT" are both very short-lived sentiments.

 

Austin was the draw, the scaffolding wasn't.

 

 

I don't think you can discount the presentation side of wrestling. WWF rising above its competitors in the 80s was largely because of how it was presented. Obviously times have changed and they're in a position now where they don't need to change anything as they're so far away from any of their wrestling competition, but the presentation was as much of a draw for me as a kid as the stars. The sets were part of that.

It's cost effective for them to have the same set, but it's also reasonable as a fan to be disappointed in having the same set essentially for the past 8 years after the creative efforts they had in the years prior. It's harder to pinpoint what event a match was or what year a match or angle was based on the set when it's virtually identical each time.

[Guest]

Aren't you someone who watches TNA on the reg? WWE's production value is bad/'boring' but the Impact Zone is tickety-boo?

 

Summerslam and Takeover looked great this week. They jazz it up when it matters.

[King Pitcos]

Which great angles and matches of the last decade can you not remember the year of because of the set?

[Scotland]

Everyones different. I agree that largely the set, belts and everything else aren't the star of the show but as a Wrestling fan, I appreciate a nice looking set (fnar) or a cracking championship belt. If something new is in the offing I'm usually interested to see it and occasionally some I just don't find aesthetically pleasing. It's not going to spoil the show, but if all the minor details are my cup of tea it certainly helps. I was disappointed when I first saw the big W Belt, and was disappointed when they went with this style after unification. I was even more disappointed when I realised we now have 4 belts that look just like this. If it was a design that appealled to me, I probably wouldn't have been bothered, but I guess you cant please everyone. If nothing else it will help create parity of esteem between the titles, which is a good thing, although i'd like at least like to be inclined to pick it up and have a look at it when I take the kids to Toys R Us. 

[Weezenal]

Which great angles and matches of the last decade can you not remember the year of because of the set?

He'd tell you but he can't remember because of the set.

[theringmaster]

Aren't you someone who watches TNA on the reg? WWE's production value is bad/'boring' but the Impact Zone is tickety-boo?

 

Summerslam and Takeover looked great this week. They jazz it up when it matters.

This

 

If they went for bells and whistle every PPV then come mania it wouldn't look that special (in fact this actually happened late 90s). WWE are on the road over 300 days a year they need a set they can transport, they don't need a new set every 2-3 months.

 

WWE are also very good at using sets to highlight eras, I played Smackdown vs RAW 2008 the other day and the second I saw the raw arena I was taken back to that era. I have noticed on tv when they show RAW from the early 90's they ALWAYS use a clip with the entrance aisle.

 

2-3 times a year is plenty

[garynysmon]

I suppose it was a bit clumsily written on my part, but my main point is that Kevin Dunn just comes over as a guy that likes to play it safe. Its something that's become more and more apparent over the years though. 

 

The current WWE TV just comes across as too formulaic and unwilling to stray from the format, no matter what. The mid to late 90's may have come across as a bit chaotic at times, but that was part of its appeal. You can easily have a TV product (even in 2016) that doesn't have to come over as unnecessarily over-produced, even within the confines of a family friendly product.  

 

When I grew up, all WWF had was a 9 tellys stacked up to make a big screen and a WWF logo on the entrance. It seemed pretty fine.

 

Yeah, it was fine for the time period and every show had something a bit different. Wrestling Challenge had the neon lighting entranceway that was seen at Wrestlemania 8, while Superstars had the video screens etc. But during the 90's, the weekly shows seemed to be tweaked every year.  Even in 1994 and 95 when Superstars was being filmed in high school gyms, they were making an effort to make it look half decent by introducing smoke etc.

 

The product always seemed to be evolving whereas now everything seems to be in standstill mode, given the odd exception such as Wrestlemania which usually looks great.

 

 

Oh, and comparing WWE to TNA isn't really a worthy argument as things stand. Even Bill Kenwright couldn't make that dead and tiny Impact crowd look good, let alone a company that's having to get the fucking Harris Brothers on board just to pay the bills.

[Briefcase]

The sets, entrances, music & even the attire the wrestlers wear make a difference to me.

 

I'm not saying have a new set every week but I do think it makes a show look a bit more big time with a flashy new set/stage. I do miss the old PPVs with different set designs. 

 

LED barriers like premier league advertisement boards already mentioned would probably be headache with all shopzone and network ads. 

[The Gaffer]

I generally can't stand how shiny and overproduced WWE is this days but I also know they're not suddenly going to work backwards for no reason other than a niche sentiment of aesthetic fetishism.

 

I don't think they're necessarily lazy. They probably just see it as "we invested all the money in this amazing look for our show, it's utilising all the best technology available to us as television production people, and we're going to stick with it." The Network specials and Takeovers are nice examples of having a more simple set up whilst still not looking like you've dug out the old Judgement Day: In Your House fencing just for shits and gigs.