At the moment, I find there's quite a lot to enjoy about both of the televised US promotions. There's usually exciting action in the ring during every episode of Raw and Impact, particularly if the Shield or the Wolves are onscreen. It's every IWC fan's dream, in that some of the best ex-independent wrestlers from the USA and beyond are now getting freedom to show off what they can do on broadcast television. So why do I often feel that the shows don't deliver as they should?
Here's a possible explanation: the pacing of both promotions' flagship shows is frankly not working. Let's start with the massive three-hour behemoth that is Raw. Of course, the show's extreme length has in the past drawn a lot of criticism for containing too much filler: endless recaps and plugs for the WWE app were taking up way too much time as it became clear that the company was struggling to produce three consecutive hours of compelling television. To an extent, WWE has taken these comments onboard, as in recent months the amount of actual wrestling on the show has increased noticeably. However, this still isn't working too well.
The real issue is this. Post-Wrestlemania, WWE has a handful of performers doing pretty much all the heavy lifting regarding the important storylines: Evolution/The Authority, Daniel Bryan (plus Brie Bella now), The Shield, John Cena and the Wyatt Family. Pretty much all creative attention is lavished on their characters and stories. Given that they are usually facing each other in various combinations, they cannot be spread evenly throughout the show. Meanwhile, other performers are barely getting a look-in at all in terms of importance. It looked like Cesaro was getting a boost by joining with Paul Heyman, but he's now stuck in a going-nowhere program with the one-dimensional Rob Van Dam. Even supposedly upper mid-card stars like Sheamus and Alberto Del Rio haven't had meaty storylines in ages. And if you're Damien Sandow, you're probably wondering where everything went wrong.
What tends to happen is that every edition of Raw starts strongly, with plenty of star-power, then tails off badly. To give an example, the Wyatt Family unveiling the world's creepiest children's choir was an utterly mesmerising and disturbing piece of television that was fine-tuned for maximum impact. WWE is pretty much untouchable when it pulls off a piece of theatre like this, as its production values are absurdly high. Once we had taken this in, it almost felt like a disappointment that we had something as mundane as a wrestling match to follow, even one featuring popular tag champions The Usos. Their match was at least decent, but as the show went on and more matches arrived, I felt myself asking who are all these people and why should I care? A parade of mid-carders with ill-defined gimmicks squared off against seemingly random opponents for little or no reason. If WWE wants to make the midsection matter, it needs to have stronger gimmicks and carefully plotted feuds. Usually, of course, by the third hour, the stars reappear and interest levels rise again. But interest flickers too badly when the mid-carders take over.
It strikes me that it wouldn't be too difficult to make the midcard matter again. Stronger characters are needed (pop quiz: what's Dolph Ziggler's current gimmick? You're struggling to answer, aren't you?). It's telling that the one midcarder currently on the rise (again) is Wade Barrett. I initially found his 'Bad News' character to be a tiresome attempt at cheap heat. However, I was actually wrong, as this has successfully put over a different character for the Preston grappler: he's now a fun-loving heel who delights in winding up the crowd. Interestingly, this is something that Barrett came up with himself, that WWE liked and allowed him to run with. Put together similar revamps for Big E and The Miz, for example, and we could be talking again.
Turning to TNA, they almost have the opposite problem, at least as far as the UK is concerned (we''ll come to that soon). Shows just take forever to get going. Partly it's because their opening segments often feature lengthy talking segments which, while not exactly terrible, still feel underpowered. Of course, for much of the year, the title was on Magnus, who tended to open the show. He's a much improved talker, but he has a tendency towards languid verbosity, delivered in that weird Transatlantic accent. I feel TNA needs a more succinct talker to carry these segments; Bully Ray and Rockstar Spud know how to make a stronger impact (no pun intended), for example. Now the torch has been passed to Eric Young, who actually has similar strengths and weaknesses as Magnus; he takes his time.
Alternatively, they could just start with a match, as this would overcome a problem when I watch in the show here in Britain. It's my understanding that the US broadcast of Impact on Spike contains more commercial breaks. This certainly ties in my experience of watching television while on holiday in America, as I once watched an episode of The Simpsons there and was flabbergasted that the first break came directly after the opening titles. But I digress. Here in Britain, to pad out the show to a two-hour length, they screen long recaps of the previous week's action followed by accompanying backstage interviews sourced from TNA's YouTube channel. You get two rounds of this directly after the opening segment. Firstly, the interview segments are of very poor quality, usually shot under a distracting red light (why?) and featuring an inaudible off-screen interviewer. Last week, Sanada answered a mystery question with a two-word answer; I have no idea what the answer was supposed to mean without the context. Even more importantly, if the show opens at 9pm with a talk segment, there's no new wrestling action until 9.30pm or later. This is just way too slow!
Once the first half-hour is over, the show speeds up with a jolt. Matches follow thick and fast, and are often over rather too quickly. These are usually eventful affairs, which offer a lot of bang for your buck, but the pace is suddenly too frantic. The good news is that TNA at least gets round WWE's problem with the midcard by ensuring that everyone on the roster has a strong gimmick now. Samuel Shaw, for example, has a hefty storyline despite his low rank in the company. But the contrast in pacing is too extreme. Splitting up the YouTube interviews throughout the show would be a good idea as a start, but there needs to be more energy at the start too. However, for a while I've noticed that the second hour is far more compelling than the first.
I really don't think it's too different to make the necessary changes to improve both shows. But as it stands I wonder if WWE are losing fans in the mid-section of Raw, while TNA is forcing fans to switch off duirng the first half-hour.
No comments:
Post a Comment