Wrestlemania 2020 - Spoilers, rumours, etc

leggo

I'd bet the house on them doing more stuff like the Boneyard/Funhouse match, I think from their standpoint they've struck gold. Was it here someone said they could see them doing a whole PPV like that in the future? That's a realistic sounding prediction to me. WWE's trend when they hit on something is to run it into the ground.

I'd be open to seeing Taker matches like that in the future, Bray too. Tbh if I never saw Taker wrestle normally live again and only saw his 'matches' produced like this, that'd be fine with me. Do a Kane match so we can finally get a defining match between the two of them that doesn't suck because, as great as their story was, they sadly never had chemistry in the ring.

I'm also wondering if other old-timers saw that and got ideas. A Stone Cold Broken Skull Ranch match in the future for example.

LineOfBeauty

leggo wrote: »

Why do you need to try validate your opinion by trying to invalidate others' though? "You enjoyed it? Well I didn't and nobody else did, look at the ratings!" That's just insecurity in your own opinion and ability to back it up with substance tbh.

Let people enjoy things, nobody here is telling you that you also have to enjoy them. There's no need for you to make ridiculous claims to try 'prove' that your opinion is the correct one.

What substance would you like it backed up with? I've written here quite a bit already about how the show was the wrong way to crown 2 new champions (one of which you're hoping to build a brand around) and how those cinematic matches end up doing far more harm than good. On this thread somebody expressed a similar opinion, and they are told to stop watching wrestling. Others are saying it's this great match or great storytelling, well there's obvious reasons why that's not the case but ultimately if they are these things that people say they are then that's reflected in future ratings and buyrate no?
That's just called normal discourse.

leggo

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

What substance would you like it backed up with? I've written here quite a bit already about how the show was the wrong way to crown 2 new champions (one of which you're hoping to build a brand around) and how those cinematic matches end up doing far more harm than good. On this thread somebody expressed a similar opinion, and they are told to stop watching wrestling. Others are saying it's this great match or great storytelling, well there's obvious reasons why that's not the case but ultimately if they are these things that people say they are then that's reflected in future ratings and buyrate no?
That's just called normal discourse.

Ratings are the weakest way to back up your point tbh, because you're presupposing the reasons that MILLIONS of people did or didn't watch. And you really can't do so with any credibility whatsoever beyond if you go through the quarterlies and see there was a huge jump or drop (and even then it's tenuous because the promise of a surprise usually preempts a jump, e.g. I don't think Big Show is a now a 'draw', but his segment with Drew kept a higher % of people watching the programme at that time than usual because they knew a surprise was coming, so we can't judge anything from that really).

And these segments weren't even rated on TV because they happened on the Network. So you're conflating two things which have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The fact that that's the strongest evidence you can have for them being a failure, as opposed to just being something you didn't enjoy, only really proves you don't have a leg to stand on with this line of thinking. That's what I mean about lack of substance.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Why?

I don't enjoy Downton Abbey but do enjoy Better Call Saul. I wouldnt go onto the Downton Abbey thread to tell them how I don't care about their programme but insist they recognise it's crap

Why did you feel the need to contribute to a Wrestlemania thread when you have no interest in the product?

Did WWE hurt you? It's ok. You're safe now.

I'm pretty sure I only jumped onto the thread post show after I saw someone tell someone else if you didn't LOVE the Wyatt stuff then you dont love wrestling and you should stop watching it. That's my arrival point and so now here we are.

So you enjoy Better Call Saul, it's good TV, maybe even great TV. I assume you watch other shows and films that would be highly regarded forms of entertainment, some which might even be considered high art. So then surely the only way you could enjoy Wyatt and Taker's stuff is through the lense of irony no? It's over the top, camp, cheesy, silly dialogue, crazy camera cuts, hilarious imagery, corny music, plain bad fight sequences, meledromatic lighting ect. With all of that, there's no way you can enjoy that on anything other than an ironic level if you consume any content outside of WWE's sphere, no?

And really it's people who adamantly defend this stuff that I don't get. Say you enjoyed it, say you laughed at it, say it was campy fun (which really isn't what I want in my wrestling but if it's what you want then OK) but absolutely don't tell me me it's "gold standard" stuff, 5 star classic stuff, best wrestling content you've ever seen stuff and not expect to be called on it. Don't express that stuff publicly if you don't expect to be called on it.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I only jumped onto the thread post show after I saw someone tell someone else if you didn't LOVE the Wyatt stuff then you dont love wrestling and you should stop watching it. That's my arrival point and so now here we are.

So you enjoy Better Call Saul, it's good TV, maybe even great TV. I assume you watch other shows and films that would be highly regarded forms of entertainment, some which might even be considered high art. So then surely the only way you could enjoy Wyatt and Taker's stuff is through the lense of irony no? It's over the top, camp, cheesy, silly dialogue, crazy camera cuts, hilarious imagery, corny music, plain bad fight sequences, meledromatic lighting ect. With all of that, there's no way you can enjoy that on anything other than an ironic level if you consume any content outside of WWE's sphere, no?

And really it's people who adamantly defend this stuff that I don't get. Say you enjoyed it, say you laughed at it, say it was campy fun (which really isn't what I want in my wrestling but if it's what you want then OK) but absolutely don't tell me me it's "gold standard" stuff, 5 star classic stuff, best wrestling content you've ever seen stuff and not expect to be called on it. Don't express that stuff publicly if you don't expect to be called on it.

Again, no. You jumped in on the thread to defend someone after they said they were ASHAMED to watch WWE. I don't care if people like it or not, never mind love it. But if you are ashamed, you probably should stop watching. Completely false representation of the conversation.

I like "high art" I suppose. Depends on what you call high art. I just like what I like. I wouldn't like anything just simply because some consider it high art.

And watching wrestling at all could be described as watching through a lense of irony. It's theatrics with added athleticism.

I enjoy it.

The Wyatt segment I felt told a great story and was surprisingly nuanced for what it was. I was less of a fan of the taker segment but enjoyed it nonetheless.

And yes, I personally found the Wyatt segment one of the best segments I have seen in a long time. You can "call me on it" all you like.

But if you think your opinion holds more weight because you think you enjoyy "serious" wrestling, just remember that you actually think that. It's an eye opener

RocketRaccoon

I wish I had enough time to waste to watch hours upon hours of wwe programming just to tell people how rubbish it is.

LineOfBeauty

leggo wrote: »

Ratings are the weakest way to back up your point tbh, because you're presupposing the reasons that MILLIONS of people did or didn't watch. And you really can't do so with any credibility whatsoever beyond if you go through the quarterlies and see there was a huge jump or drop (and even then it's tenuous because the promise of a surprise usually preempts a jump, e.g. I don't think Big Show is a now a 'draw', but his segment with Drew kept a higher % of people watching the programme at that time than usual because they knew a surprise was coming, so we can't judge anything from that really).

And these segments weren't even rated on TV because they happened on the Network. So you're conflating two things which have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The fact that that's the strongest evidence you can have for them being a failure, as opposed to just being something you didn't enjoy, only really proves you don't have a leg to stand on with this line of thinking. That's what I mean about lack of substance.

Ratings are as good a way as any to justify interest in a TV show. Ergo this company has run off over half of it's TV audience over the last 7 years. You can make judgments from quarterly ratings for sure, you can breakdown who is a true draw and who isn't based on advertised quarterly segments. And if you think TV ratings don't impact ad buys or network deals then you're out to sea, the same can be said at a smaller level for how quarter hour ratings impact the push of talents.

If you want to then you can analyse quarterly paid Network subs and see that that's down, or that the entire premise failed so badly that they are now trying to sell off their ppv business wholesale. The danger with that is that if they do it then their weekly TV will be relied upon to draw buys for those ppvs again and the product has arguably never been less hot, it's ice cold. And if they can't turn that around, if they can't draw ppvs buys, that's when the real scramble begins.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, no. You jumped in on the thread to defend someone after they said they were ASHAMED to watch WWE. I don't care if people like it or not, never mind love it. But if you are ashamed, you probably should stop watching. Completely false representation of the conversation.

I like "high art" I suppose. Depends on what you call high art. I just like what I like. I wouldn't like anything just simply because some consider it high art.

And watching wrestling at all could be described as watching through a lense of irony. It's theatrics with added athleticism.

I enjoy it.

The Wyatt segment I felt told a great story and was surprisingly nuanced for what it was. I was less of a fan of the taker segment but enjoyed it nonetheless.

And yes, I personally found the Wyatt segment one of the best segments I have seen in a long time. You can "call me on it" all you like.

But if you think your opinion holds more weight because you think you enjoyy "serious" wrestling, just remember that you actually think that. It's an eye opener

Literally the thing you are attacking this person for is saying he didn't enjoy basically WWE's version of Sharknado. You can enjoy Sharknado ironically but it's hardly the same as thinking Sharknado was robbed of the Palme d'Or.

Honestly from our interactions what I can gather is that you seem to view wrestling only through the prism of irony and that maybe you have never felt compelled or moved by any wrestling you've seen in any way aside from at lense of it being "theatrics with added athleticism" rather than it being a medium for storytelling.

Also the nuanced stuff for the Wyatt thing is ludicrous! Literally it was so on the nose that they had Wyatt do narrative exposition the entire way through it! The call backs were ridiculously on the nose. If you've got any examples of nuance that I couldn't keep up with because Wyatt's storytelling is so complex then please do list some because I'm at a loss here as to where this nuance was.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Literally the thing you are attacking this person for is saying he didn't enjoy basically WWE's version of Sharknado. You can enjoy Sharknado ironically but it's hardly the same as thinking Sharknado was robbed of the Palme d'Or.

Honestly from our interactions what I can gather is that you seem to view wrestling only through the prism of irony and that maybe you have never felt compelled or moved by any wrestling you've seen in any way aside from at lense of it being "theatrics with added athleticism" rather than it being a medium for storytelling.

Also the nuanced stuff for the Wyatt thing is ludicrous! Literally it was so on the nose that they had Wyatt do narrative exposition the entire way through it! The call backs were ridiculously on the nose. If you've got any examples of nuance that I couldn't keep up with because Wyatt's storytelling is so complex then please do list some because I'm at a loss here as to where this nuance was.

"Literally" you are talking out of your arse.

I have explained that not enjoying something and denouncing your viewership to go to a competitor's content because of shame are two different things completely.

And yes, there is a certain sense of watching wrestling through a somewhat ironic lense. I admitted that in the last post. It's not so much ironic though, its more that I know what I am watching isn't real but entertaining.

Is an Irish whip ironic to you? Is it ridiculous and insulting that you think that a man being pushed towards a ring rope can't just fall to the ground to stop the momentum? Where is your distain for such childishness?

It is theatrics with added athleticism. I don't know how you found that description different than "a medium for storytelling".

I have been "moved" by wrestling. Eddie and Benoit in the ring holding their belts, "I'm sorry, I love you", edges return etc. Don't know what your point is.

With regards the Wyatt stuff, perhaps you as a super fan of all wrestling didn't find it nuanced, even me as a fan of what you deem garbage wrestling got all the details straight away, but you need to remember, some fans are young and were not privvy to prototype Cena or Hogan's turn. It was nuanced in such a way that my nephew's could still enjoy it but also be wondering what it was based upon. Smart fans such as yourself immediately got the references, but it was vague enough to make younger fans to want to know more.

So no, it wasn't complex storytelling but it had enough layers so as to be accessable for anyone who wanted to enjoy it.

leggo

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Ratings are as good a way as any to justify interest in a TV show. Ergo this company has run off over half of it's TV audience over the last 7 years. You can make judgments from quarterly ratings for sure, you can breakdown who is a true draw and who isn't based on advertised quarterly segments. And if you think TV ratings don't impact ad buys or network deals then you're out to sea, the same can be said at a smaller level for how quarter hour ratings impact the push of talents.

If you want to then you can analyse quarterly paid Network subs and see that that's down, or that the entire premise failed so badly that they are now trying to sell off their ppv business wholesale. The danger with that is that if they do it then their weekly TV will be relied upon to draw buys for those ppvs again and the product has arguably never been less hot, it's ice cold. And if they can't turn that around, if they can't draw ppvs buys, that's when the real scramble begins.

What are you even talking about here? This has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make, i.e. that the Boneyard match was bad and that the ratings (which have nothing to do with that match) reflect that. You're just typing words here.

If we're getting into the stage of "I don't want to back down so I'm just going to start rambling and changing my point until I hit on something I can say I was right about and feel better about myself"...well then you may have a day to waste to do that, but I don't, sorry.

Rock77

leggo wrote: »

I'd bet the house on them doing more stuff like the Boneyard/Funhouse match, I think from their standpoint they've struck gold. Was it here someone said they could see them doing a whole PPV like that in the future? That's a realistic sounding prediction to me. WWE's trend when they hit on something is to run it into the ground.

I'd be open to seeing Taker matches like that in the future, Bray too. Tbh if I never saw Taker wrestle normally live again and only saw his 'matches' produced like this, that'd be fine with me. Do a Kane match so we can finally get a defining match between the two of them that doesn't suck because, as great as their story was, they sadly never had chemistry in the ring.

I'm also wondering if other old-timers saw that and got ideas. A Stone Cold Broken Skull Ranch match in the future for example.

Oh don’t get me wrong I think they might use something like this again for Taker or Wyatt but I doubt it will be at Wrestlemania. It’s just not for ‘the grandest stage of all’

It’s the kind of thing that would keep hard core WWE fans going but for the casual fan like myself there’s very little interest.

And seriously lads, we get it. Some of you liked it, some of you hated it. Yis are not going to convince each other! Let it go..

Bounty Hunter

Rock77 wrote: »

Oh don’t get me wrong I think they might use something like this again for Taker or Wyatt but I doubt it will be at Wrestlemania. It’s just not for ‘the grandest stage of all’

It’s the kind of thing that would keep hard core WWE fans going but for the casual fan like myself there’s very little interest.

And seriously lads, we get it. Some of you liked it, some of you hated it. Yis are not going to convince each other! Let it go..

I started a thread on this topic already but seems the discussion (let's keep it civil folks) is here so...



Why not? Mania in recent years has been 7 hours in lenght and can be quite a slog, I for one welcome the idea of something a little bit different and fun (IMO at least) breaking things up a little. Variety is needed even at Mania.

I would not be pushing for something other than a non traditional world title match headlining Mania but I'd have no problem with future "Cinematic Wrestling" matches

Rock77

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

I started a thread on this topic already but seems the discussion (let's keep it civil folks) is here so...



Why not? Mania in recent years has been 7 hours in lenght and can be quite a slog, I for one welcome the idea of something a little bit different and fun (IMO at least) breaking things up a little. Variety is needed even at Mania.

I would not be pushing for something other than a non traditional world title match headlining Mania but I'd have no problem with future "Cinematic Wrestling" matches

Sorry I didn’t see the other thread, my bad..

To be honest I think this was only done because of the circumstances.. I just can’t see them having a packed out stadium and not having some of the superstars there in front of the crowd.

If I was at Wrestlemania and they did a boneyard match and showed it on the big screens I’d be very annoyed I didn’t get to see Undertakers entrance.

Like I said I know some fans enjoy those type of ‘matches’ but I really don’t think they are suited to Wrestlemania.

leggo

That’s a very good point actually, hadn’t thought of it like that. And lads will want to wrestle in front of the big crowd every day of the week too. But still it’d come down to what they want and if they want it that way, it’ll happen. I can also see Taker now preferring it to live matches, he’s got to feel on another level than where you compare it to say his Goldberg match. So maybe Taker/Sting and dream matches like that that wouldn’t work in a ring.

Monokne

I have heard this talking point elsewhere, my take from having been at Mania's and just watching them on TV the last few years - if you put a half hour video on in the middle of Mania and cut the crowd audio, I think it would serve as a fun intermission for the live crowd. No pressure to make noise or be too lively. Just relax. I found being there that you just can't sustain the level of excitement the show asks of you and I think that's why these Wrestlemania's die at the halfway mark the past few years. Maybe this could help with that, particularly if the audience knows in advance.

Rock77

Monokne wrote: »

I have heard this talking point elsewhere, my take from having been at Mania's and just watching them on TV the last few years - if you put a half hour video on in the middle of Mania and cut the crowd audio, I think it would serve as a fun intermission for the live crowd. No pressure to make noise or be too lively. Just relax. I found being there that you just can't sustain the level of excitement the show asks of you and I think that's why these Wrestlemania's die at the halfway mark the past few years. Maybe this could help with that, particularly if the audience knows in advance.

I like the two night idea, this would fix the issue of sustaining the excitement. They could possibly use this kind of match again at Mania but to be honest I don’t think they will. I think it was a needs must and better than nothing kind of thing.

ThePott

Didn't they do a pre-taped match at a PPV a couple years ago and it got booed out of the building. Can't entirely remember what it was though. Think it was a Bray and Orton segment. Then again if it was made clear what it was before hand maybe it would get a softer reaction.

Itssoeasy

ThePott wrote: »

Didn't they do a pre-taped match at a PPV a couple years ago and it got booed out of the building. Can't entirely remember what it was though. Think it was a Bray and Orton segment. Then again if it was made clear what it was before hand maybe it would get a softer reaction.

Oh they did. Jesus I'd forgotten about that. Wasn't it a compound with a house.

ThePott

Just looked it up House of Horrors match at Payback (2017).
Couldn't be arsed watching it but reading the reactions at the time it sure does sound like it killed a hot crowd for the rest of the night. Interesting to see people's arguments against it too as it feels less real. Lots of comparisons to be made between the Firefly Funhouse Match. Interestingly both were billed a matches too which might have hurt the reaction.
If not billed as a match maybe the reaction would be positive.

CastorTroy

The thing with that Bray/Orton match was it somehow finished in the ring, or at least ringside.
That's the problem with a lot of these kinds of matches. Not just offsite matches, but falls count anywhere or last man standing as well.
They could go anywhere in the building but the final decision seems to always be in front of the crowd.

When they didn't have the fans, Edge/Orton didn't have to worry about making their way back and the 2 matches were able to take place away from the ring

ThePott

Yeah but it you were to do this again would the fans sour on it regardless of where the ending takes place. The damage has been done already if they're stuck watching a screen for 20 minutes. Especially when you take Mania into account.
It's a massive stadium some people will have better views of the screen that others and if it's a 7 hour show people are either going to be exhausted or you risk turning the crowd against the show early on.

weareallmarks

They did pre records at mania 12 and mania 10. savage v crush at 10 and piper v goldust at 12. They both started or ended in the arena which built anticipation for the audience and the watchers.

With no audience, they dont have to worry about anticipation once they set the scene like a film. they appear (didnt watch it) that they did that well on night 1, not so much on night 2

Omackeral

If Savage v Crush was prerecorded then they should’ve re-shot the ending of it. Absolute sh*tshow.

CastorTroy

Was that the falls count anywhere then the guy who was pinned had to make it back to the ring by 10? I always wondered why I haven't seen that kind of match since. I do remember the ending where he tried to hang Crush by his feet

Itssoeasy

ThePott wrote: »

Didn't they do a pre-taped match at a PPV a couple years ago and it got booed out of the building. Can't entirely remember what it was though. Think it was a Bray and Orton segment. Then again if it was made clear what it was before hand maybe it would get a softer reaction.

They might have but at least it's not 1992 WCW where there were at least two maybe three tag titles and it was such a mess with TV tapings.

Itssoeasy

CastorTroy wrote: »

Was that the falls count anywhere then the guy who was pinned had to make it back to the ring by 10? I always wondered why I haven't seen that kind of match since. I do remember the ending where he tried to hang Crush by his feet

It was 60 seconds to get back into the ring. I knew that thr goldust and piper match was pre taped but most of the mania X match was done in the arena and the end part of pre taped looked very sloppy and if they were going to be pre taped then they'd surely have made the end better.

leggo

Omackeral wrote: »

If Savage v Crush was prerecorded then they should’ve re-shot the ending of it. Absolute sh*tshow.

The entire match was awful. Why in God’s name did they think a 60-count was a good idea?!!

Itssoeasy

leggo wrote: »

The entire match was awful. Why in God’s name did they think a 60-count was a good idea?!!

The two guys in the match were good it’s was the match stipulation that made the match bad. The pin fall where crush was literally outside between the ring and announce desk was stupid.

What was the match type they had that wasn’t a normal match but you had to pin your opponent in the ring ? That made no sense.

I'm letting it go after this, but the baulking of the sanctity of wrestling has been forgotten since the Johnny Vs tomasso match and the advent of aew doing the new compound match.

Ha

leggo

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The two guys in the match were good it’s was the match stipulation that made the match bad. The pin fall where crush was literally outside between the ring and announce desk was stupid.

What was the match type they had that wasn’t a normal match but you had to pin your opponent in the ring ? That made no sense.

Falls Count Anywhere. Except they didn’t. The one place they didn’t count was the one place falls count during EVERY SINGLE MATCH: the ring! Which led to them doing moves in the ring then having to roll the opponent out of the ring to cover them. Disaster.

Aside from two classic matches, WrestleMania 10 was awful. Remember the fake Bill Clinton they kept cutting to and non-ironically interviewing him as if he was the real one?