Jump to content

TLC 2020


Onyx2

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Suplex Sinner said:

Aye it screamed trying to be edgy and new when they gave it to Otis but as usual, panicked because their crap booking was losing viewers and decided to change it up. Not been a really prominent MITB holder/cash in for a while. 

3 of the last 4 male Money in the Bank holders have failed in their cash-ins.

That sums up the lack of forward thinking in creative 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
1 hour ago, Tsurutagun said:

3 of the last 4 male Money in the Bank holders have failed in their cash-ins.

That sums up the lack of forward thinking in creative 

Highlights how pointless the gimmick is by this point. They did everything they could possibly do with it years ago. Seems more like something they feel they have to do every year rather than planning any real future story for the winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
9 hours ago, LaGoosh said:

Highlights how pointless the gimmick is by this point. They did everything they could possibly do with it years ago. Seems more like something they feel they have to do every year rather than planning any real future story for the winner.

That's one of their big problems, that need to do things every year because it's just what they do. As much as we love it, the Royal Rumble was the start of it, creating that scenario that they had to repeat year on year on year with very little way to vary it. They have played with the concept, particularly since the creation of PPVs in February because they know they are hamstrung by it. 

And yet they've added to it with Money In The Bank and the HIAC/TLC PPVs (and Wargames in NXT) that dictate the need to do things at certain times despite them being completely inorganic.

In fairness to them, there's probably a big chunk of their core fanbase who want it and would miss it if they scrapped it. It's also something that they can exploit commercially. 

It's a tough one because really WWE need to rip up some of these concepts and either scrap them or reuse them elsewhere. I'd definitely get rid of the HIAC and TLC PPVs and use the matches as gimmicks when the occasion calls for it. Perhaps Money In The Bank could be male one year and female the next to keep it fresher. 

They're a company that run so much on habit though that it's hard to see them making necessary changes. I don't know what the tipping point is for genuine change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
1 minute ago, tiger_rick said:

They're a company that run so much on habit though that it's hard to see them making necessary changes. I don't know what the tipping point is for genuine change. 

For the longest time I assumed it'd be Vince dying but watching what NXT has become? I've less faith than ever. They've become just as bad with the yearly habits. War Games doesn't organically happen. It's penciled in for the end of the year and they have to get something ready every November or December.

When those Raw ratings came out I was going to make a joke about their obsession with ladder matches and suggest they'd end up creating a show that hosts nothing but ladder matches. But then I realised that's essentially what we already have with the TLC show every year. They've done it for so long that it genuinely doesn't even register anymore what a weird way of booking events it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
9 minutes ago, tiger_rick said:

That's one of their big problems, that need to do things every year because it's just what they do. As much as we love it, the Royal Rumble was the start of it, creating that scenario that they had to repeat year on year on year with very little way to vary it. They have played with the concept, particularly since the creation of PPVs in February because they know they are hamstrung by it. 

And yet they've added to it with Money In The Bank and the HIAC/TLC PPVs (and Wargames in NXT) that dictate the need to do things at certain times despite them being completely inorganic.

In fairness to them, there's probably a big chunk of their core fanbase who want it and would miss it if they scrapped it. It's also something that they can exploit commercially. 

It's a tough one because really WWE need to rip up some of these concepts and either scrap them or reuse them elsewhere. I'd definitely get rid of the HIAC and TLC PPVs and use the matches as gimmicks when the occasion calls for it. Perhaps Money In The Bank could be male one year and female the next to keep it fresher. 

They're a company that run so much on habit though that it's hard to see them making necessary changes. I don't know what the tipping point is for genuine change. 

I think it's more that they are just really, really lazy. Why bother with writing a compelling enough long term story that merits a Hell In A Cell blow off when you can just shoe-horn it on to whatever you've come up with this week? Why bother thinking of a creative and unique MITB situation when you can just chuck it on whoever Vince likes that week and sort it out later? Why bother promoting individual stars when you can just promote gimmicks and just rotate people in and out because the gimmick is what you're selling for a quick buck rather than playing the long game and selling the wrestlers instead? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I always think, 'Why do people still watch if they don't enjoy the product or hate everything they see?'. This morning I realised that I still watch even though I don't enjoy the product. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed most of TLC as a stand alone show of matches (apart from the main event), but for the first time in ages, I haven't even been tempted to watch Raw. Usually I will skim watch it on my phone Tuesday mornings when I get up at the crack of dawn with my son, but this morning, CBeebies was a lot more entertaining that the thought of watching Raw. 

USA Network is supposedly fuming at the Raw ratings and is demanding more adult and violent content with the Royal Rumble to be rumoured as a creative reset. This would be exciting, if it wasn't at least the third year running they have had a 'creative reset'. I have no hope that the product will get better by adding a bit of violence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mim731 said:

Bray on Fire, Rey thrown off a building, what's the third? 

Was it Aleister Black off of the building too? 

Honestly, I'm going by what I've seen on socials. I've not properly watched a show since the Rumble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nick James said:

I always think, 'Why do people still watch if they don't enjoy the product or hate everything they see?'. This morning I realised that I still watch even though I don't enjoy the product. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed most of TLC as a stand alone show of matches (apart from the main event), but for the first time in ages, I haven't even been tempted to watch Raw. Usually I will skim watch it on my phone Tuesday mornings when I get up at the crack of dawn with my son, but this morning, CBeebies was a lot more entertaining that the thought of watching Raw. 

USA Network is supposedly fuming at the Raw ratings and is demanding more adult and violent content with the Royal Rumble to be rumoured as a creative reset. This would be exciting, if it wasn't at least the third year running they have had a 'creative reset'. I have no hope that the product will get better by adding a bit of violence. 

I really enjoyed TLC, as I have most of the PPVs this year, but I'm rarely tempted to watch RAW properly. It's just too long. There's just no way they can put on a three hour entertaining show that I want to sit through the whole way. Bits here and there sure but it's a damn long time out of my day. At least with the PPVs I know it's likely going to be worth it, while RAW is often just watching for the sake of hoping something good might happen at some point during those three hours. SmackDown on the other hand I'll watch every week because it's usually a pretty solid two hour show and doesn't feel overstretched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

That's one of their big problems, that need to do things every year because it's just what they do. As much as we love it, the Royal Rumble was the start of it, creating that scenario that they had to repeat year on year on year with very little way to vary it.

I'm not so sure on that to be honest. I don't think there's anything wrong with annual or seasonal shows, PPVs, gimmicks in general. Quite the opposite actually, i think wrestling could be worse off without them. They occur in real sports as well as just seasonal aspects in real life that provide people with things to look forward to and get excited about. Part of the fun of being a wrestling fan is the anticipation of where things are going, how and when the pay off comes. That can be created through good, logical booking anyway, but having certain constants isn't necessarily a bad thing. Like anything in wrestling it's down to how it's booked and the presentation.

Personally i always felt they had a pretty perfect seasonal format with the big 4 shows spread out through the year. And actually even more so when King of the Ring was added and made into a PPV. Maybe it's because i grew up on it and of course times change, but i still feel that way. Compliments a long term booking style, building to a big end of season like crescendo, establishing stars along the way.

Less is more in wrestling and for a long time now the quality of the WWE product as far as shows goes has been a victim of their overall business success and dominance. There's just so much of everything now it's inevitable something suffers. There's no off season. There's a million shows a year. There's about 700 hours of fresh content created every week. There's probably hundreds of thousands of wrestlers under contract just so they don't work elsewhere, so many never really develop beyond a certain point. There's 100 title belts. 8000 writers. Now they're camera style matches all of this. You can be with the company for decades with nothing much in your career particularly. changing. WrestleMania is 3 weeks long. Everyone and everything is over exposed and becomes watered down.

Hell in a Cell and TLC are stupid concepts for a whole PPV to occur at the same point every year. Certain matches should be saved for when a particular feud demands it, certainly. If they insist on doing PPVs with big gimmick matches with no storyline reason behind them, they may as well do a Raw Roulette style show. At least there'd be an element of intrigue and the match types can be mixed up. Regarding concepts like The Royal Rumble, King of the Ring, Money in the Bank and Elimination Chamber though, i think they can work as annual events as they can be effective methods of establishing someone and leading to other matches.

WWE are a company run on habit. Wrestling fans are massive creatures of habit. So much of the viewership that remains is based on habitual viewing judging by the comments you generally see. I'm not sure which is responsible for the other.

Edited by GeronimoJacksBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...