Cherokee Jack
Man of a Thousand Holds 
Posts 1280
Registered 2-24-2009 Location New Orleans, LA Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-26-2016 at 08:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
100% this. Which is Why SmackDown! will need a NEW World Champion...and not just to sell more replicas of the Big Gold Belt. Having a champ be
able to jump shows is dumb unless EVERY title match will be a 3way with the champ vs both a RAW and SmackDown! star.
I think this can be
resolved by doing what I suggested: make it so that a world title change can't/doesn't result in guys changing what roster they're
on. Make the rights to Roman (or whoever the champ is at draft time) as draftable as anyone, and when the champ loses the title, they go back to their
show regardless of who beat them or what show that guy came from.
Two world titles dilutes the importance of both. You have one world title, it could (emphasis on COULD) elevate the importance of the IC and US titles
by having those be THE show-exclusive belt for each show, and the understanding that whoever's holding their show's belt has a claim to
being a top contender for the world champ's next defense.
I'm Cherokee Jack!
|
|
|
bigfatgoalie
The Man
Posts 6212
Registered 1-16-2002 Location Stratusphere Member Is Offline Mood: Stratusfied
|
| posted on 5-26-2016 at 08:48 PM |
|
|
Two world titles doesn't dilute their value. Poor booking dilutes a title.
Case in point...WrestleMania XX had two world title matches that meant a lot.
Sheamus as WWE World Heavyweight Champion sucked balls, despite being the only champ.
|
|
|
chefb
Turd Generation Superstar
Posts 17
Registered 1-16-2013 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-26-2016 at 10:29 PM |
|
|
I see the value in having one world champ and would prefer it myself, but I would have to bet on WWE going with two champs. Under current booking,
there is usually a two or three PPV stretch with the same two guys fighting for the title. So I don't see how the champ could go back and forth
unless he is going to be taking part in two storylines at once with a challenger from each show, or unless both champ and challenger appear on both
shows, which doesn't really make sense.
An alternative would be to have people fighting over number one contendership while the champ is feuding on the other show, but that might be a little
too much like a real sport for Vince. Not saying it can't work, but based on how WWE currently likes to book their shows I see two champs as
the more likely scenario unfortunately.
|
|
|
G. Jonah Jameson
Showstopper
Posts 959
Registered 12-28-2010 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 03:40 AM |
|
|
Some points for reference on the "Where the WWE World Heavyweight Champion goes when he loses the title" debate:
As established in the 2002 brand split, the champion wasn't draftable, but went to whichever brand whose representative he lost the title to.
When that champion lost, though, he just went back to the brand he was originally on. Triple H lost the Undisputed Title to Hulk Hogan, who was on
SmackDown!, so HHH went to SmackDown!. But when Hogan lost the title to the Undertaker, who was on RAW, Hogan stayed on SmackDown!.
Of the five U.S. PPVs between the brand split in April and the creation of the World Heavyweight Title in August (or September, I forget which), the
title changed hands at four. Some of that was probably the standard post-Vince Russo title hotshotting, but I imagine a good bit of it was cross-brand
champions getting worn out. So on some level, a brand split with a brand-hopping champion wouldn't bode well for said champion. But you have to
imagine WWE wouldn't put itself in a situation where the title was apt to change hands constantly, so if there's going to be separate
world titles, that'll probably be established pretty much right away. Maybe via a controversial finish at Money in the Bank that sees Roman
Reigns as champion of one brand and Seth Rollins as champion of the other, or something.
|
|
|
the goon
Sister Act
Posts 5781
Registered 3-13-2004 Location Charlotte, NC Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 04:07 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chefb
Under current booking, there is usually a two or three PPV stretch with the same two guys fighting for the title. So I don't see how the champ
could go back and forth unless he is going to be taking part in two storylines at once with a challenger from each show, or unless both champ and
challenger appear on both shows, which doesn't really make sense.
I go back and forth on whether there should be one or two champions after the new brand split (and can see the merits of both arguments), but
ultimately this is why I think each show should have it's own champion. The booking just seems too tricky with having one WWE champion who jumps
between two shows, not to mention that at the big PPVs like WrestleMania and SummerSlam it would mean that one show gets the shaft by not being
involved in the WWE title feud.
But if the WWE does go the two champions route, they really need to make sure that both championship belts are viewed as equals, unlike the last year
or two of the world heavyweight title's existence. I know it would be highly controversial, but I almost wonder if the WWE should retire the
current title in July and then introduce something like a "WWE RAW World Title" and "WWE Smackdown World Title" (or something along those lines)
with each belt looking almost identical and being viewed as complete equals. I know, that's probably crazy talk, but as long as the WWE title is
around and has all that lineage attached to it, it will always look like the more important title when compared the world heavyweight title. If the
WWE really wanted to get ballsy and say "see, this really is a new era" retiring the current WWE championship could be the way to go (and hey, you
could always bring it back a couple of years from now when the brand split goes kaput again).
|
|
|
salmonjunkie
Best There Is Was or Ever Will Be 
Posts 11422
Registered 6-25-2002 Location Sunny Seattle, WA Member Is Offline Mood: Authoritized
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 06:27 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the goon
I almost wonder if the WWE should retire the current title in July and then introduce something like a "WWE RAW World Title" and "WWE Smackdown
World Title" (or something along those lines) with each belt looking almost identical and being viewed as complete equals.
You mean like this?
|
|
|
G. Jonah Jameson
Showstopper
Posts 959
Registered 12-28-2010 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 12:12 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the goon
But if the WWE does go the two champions route, they really need to make sure that both championship belts are viewed as equals, unlike the last year
or two of the world heavyweight title's existence. I know it would be highly controversial, but I almost wonder if the WWE should retire the
current title in July and then introduce something like a "WWE RAW World Title" and "WWE Smackdown World Title" (or something along those lines)
with each belt looking almost identical and being viewed as complete equals. I know, that's probably crazy talk, but as long as the WWE title is
around and has all that lineage attached to it, it will always look like the more important title when compared the world heavyweight title. If the
WWE really wanted to get ballsy and say "see, this really is a new era" retiring the current WWE championship could be the way to go (and hey, you
could always bring it back a couple of years from now when the brand split goes kaput again).
I don't think keeping the "new" world title, whatever it may be called, on an even keel with the existing WWE World Heavyweight Title would be
all that complicated. Yeah, the World Heavyweight Title definitely came to be seen as the inferior title toward the end of its existence, but I think
that ties directly to a handful of easily avoided problems:
1) Both titles were being contested on both shows, and in that kind of scenario, one is always going to be seen as more important.
2) WWE was always doing "champion vs. champion" or "No. 1 contender vs. No. 1 contender" matches, and the competitors connected to the WWE Title
almost always won.
3) The WWE Title match was far more likely to be the main event of any given PPV.
If WWE does the brand split like it did the original one, Problem No. 1 goes out the window right away, and Problem No. 2 isn't likely to be an
issue either. That just leaves Problem No. 3 as the one WWE needs to be careful about.
I'm inclined to think the easiest way to keep both titles as relative equals is to have the "new" title be the one defended on RAW. RAW has an
unfair advantage because it's three hours to SmackDown!'s two, so give SmackDown! an unfair advantage by having its major title be the one
with the decades-long lineage. We talk about how much higher up in the pecking order the WWE Title got to be toward the end of the brand split, but
the titles seemed to be fairly equivalent in the early days of the brand split, before John Cena was drafted to RAW as WWE Champion and the man WWE
clearly wanted as its franchise player. Avoid that, avoid the most obvious potential problem.
|
|
|
jefft221
And I am AWESOME
Posts 129
Registered 11-17-2009 Location Little Rock, AR Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 12:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigfatgoalie
Two world titles doesn't dilute their value. Poor booking dilutes a title.
Case in point...WrestleMania XX had two world title matches that meant a lot.
Sheamus as WWE World Heavyweight Champion sucked balls, despite being the only champ.
Ok, so maybe that's *a* case. But over time, I don't think you can keep two main titles equally prominent. "Two main" titles...
that's already an oxymoron.
Split brand PPVs where only 1 is contested helps, but there will still be Wrestlemania, and Summerslam where 1 ends up being the main event over the
other, and a Royal Rumble winner picking 1 over the other.
It's certainly possible to keep the "other" world title stronger than they did before, but with 2, there won't be 1 that's as
strong as the 1 they have now(or as strong as it was with Brock).
|
|
|
Zeyes
ButtViper
Posts 7
Registered 1-26-2015 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 02:31 PM |
|
|
Maybe I'm being cynical, but this seems little more than an admission of defeat on the part of the creative team to me. What's stopping
them from putting more talent on the shows right now? All you need to do is stop having people appear on every single show, and voila,
there's room to feature other talent in the time slots you've freed up. No outright roster split needed, just better storyline management.
Clearly that's not in the cards though, so they're going for the crutch of splitting up the roster again to reduce the complexity for
creative. Meh.
|
|
|
williamssl
Steers and Queers
Posts 7137
Registered 1-11-2004 Location Hippieville Member Is Offline Mood: Fuck USC
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 04:41 PM |
|
|
Well, if you know that your one creative team can't handle the complexity of more than X simultaneous storylines going on at any time (because
there's ample proof that this is the case) and you want to do more with the roster you have which is flush with talent......
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but I'd much rather them address the core of the problem than allow it to perpetuate.
And maybe it's not the creative team by itself, but rather the constant over-the-shoulder looks and "input" and resultant rewrites caused by
Vince et al being involved in anything...such that it it's taking them 3x (or whatever factor) longer to work certain things because of all the
cycling. And maybe that's not going to go away here....but it does spread the problem a little thinner which should help.
RUMORZ sites are saying:
1) The PPV's will feature both brands - so no brand-specific PPVs, or rather if there are that's the exception and not the norm.
2) 2 Raw's (after WM, after SummerSlam) would feature talent from both shows. I suppose that makes sense - if those are amongst if not the
most watched shows and where the major resets happen...then do it to the benefit of both brands.
3) Reigns will headline Raw, Cena SD (so there are your #1 picks presumably).
Don't Mess With Texas
|
|
|
the goon
Sister Act
Posts 5781
Registered 3-13-2004 Location Charlotte, NC Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 05:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by salmonjunkie
quote:
Originally posted by the goon
I almost wonder if the WWE should retire the current title in July and then introduce something like a "WWE RAW World Title" and "WWE Smackdown
World Title" (or something along those lines) with each belt looking almost identical and being viewed as complete equals.
You mean like this?
Wow, that's almost exactly what I was picturing; a blue/black belt for Smackdown and a red/black one for RAW.
Nash is only a few inches bigger than JBL and depending on how stiff he gets Punk should be able to take it. -JB King, meant in a totally non-sexual
way
|
|
|
Flash
The Rowdy One
Posts 2856
Registered 4-22-2005 Location Brantford, Ontario Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
Maybe for WrestleMania they could do something like the winner of the Survivor Series brand versus brand match get's the main event.... a kind
of tangible bragging rights.
I'd like to see them take an almost sports like approach to drafting... pick trading; maybe there's some kind of annual waiver/prospect
draft where certain guys are protected from being drafted... Might add some drama and fun into the mix, while putting an end to some big name flip
flopping.
If Roman is going to be the face of Raw, then you can probably effectively call bullshit on those rumours that Vince had lost confidence in him....
Otherwise I'm a bit split; on one hand Cena going to SD makes sense to give the show a boost and credibility... on the other, for all the talk
of making SD credible and on the same level as Raw we know that's just not ever going to be the case, so I kinda feel like Reigns being on SD
would be better... a bit lower profile, but still a big we're behind you type vibe as the face of a show.
I'd got with:
Raw:
Cena, Samoa Joe, Ambrose, Owens, Zayn, Rollins, Ziggler, Corbin
SD:
Reigns, Styles, Orton, Wyatt, Balor, Sheamus, New Day, ADR, Crews
|
|
|
williamssl
Steers and Queers
Posts 7137
Registered 1-11-2004 Location Hippieville Member Is Offline Mood: Fuck USC
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 06:40 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flash
a kind of tangible bragging rights.
Something like this?
Don't Mess With Texas
|
|
|
Zeyes
ButtViper
Posts 7
Registered 1-26-2015 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 08:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by williamssl
Well, if you know that your one creative team can't handle the complexity of more than X simultaneous storylines going on at any time (because
there's ample proof that this is the case) and you want to do more with the roster you have which is flush with talent......
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but I'd much rather them address the core of the problem than allow it to perpetuate.
And maybe it's not the creative team by itself, but rather the constant over-the-shoulder looks and "input" and resultant rewrites caused by
Vince et al being involved in anything...such that it it's taking them 3x (or whatever factor) longer to work certain things because of all the
cycling. And maybe that's not going to go away here....but it does spread the problem a little thinner which should help.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. But that's what makes it a crutch, they're trying to work on the symptoms (an overextended
creative team), rather than address just why they're overextended. I don't buy at all that it's impossible to handle a roster the
size of WWE's and 5 hours of weekly TV to write for, and schedule your talent appearances in a meaningful and equitable way.
But sure, if you're constantly required to rewrite and re-rewrite shows until half an hour before airtime, it's probably rather difficult
to set up a sensible schedule at least a couple of weeks ahead of time. So from that angle I'm sure there's some temporary improvement to
be had, simply because it makes half the roster off-limits for each TV date. But of course the meddling from above has much greater effects than just
screwing with the way talent can be scheduled to appear - I doubt the storylines will improve one iota through the brand split, unless it actually
means at least one of the shows (Smackdown presumably) will enjoy a better working environment for creative.
And please, anything but two world titles again. I'm generally not the type of pro-wrestling fan who thinks WWE needs to be more sport-like, but
no sports organization in their right mind would intentionally set things up so that there's no undisputed top prize. And even during the
previous brand split the idea of Raw and Smackdown "competing" against each other was a bit of a joke; even fewer people are going to buy into it
this time around, now that the memory of the WWF/WCW rivalry has faded and it's commonly accepted that WWE is (and will be) the only major
league in wrestling.
|
|
|
salmonjunkie
Best There Is Was or Ever Will Be
Posts 11422
Registered 6-25-2002 Location Sunny Seattle, WA Member Is Offline Mood: Authoritized
|
| posted on 5-27-2016 at 10:24 PM |
|
|
WM Main Events of the Two Champs era
19 - WWE (Brock vs Angle)
20 - WHC (Benoit vs HBK vs HHH)
21 - WHC (HHH vs Batista)
22 - WWE (Cena vs HHH)
23 - WWE (Cena vs HBK) (no more Raw/SD exclusive PPVs after this)
24 - WHC (Edge vs Undertaker)
25 - WWE (HHH vs Orton)
26 - neither (Taker vs HBK) - WWE was billed 2nd to last (Cena vs Batista)
27 - WWE (Miz vs Cena) (last WM where Raw/SD had exlusive rosters)
28 - neither (Cena vs Rock) - WWE was 2nd to last (Punk vs Y2J) - WHC was first and only 18 seconds long! (DB vs Sheamus)
29 - WWE (Rock vs Cena)
I never realized that the Two Champs era lasted an entire decade.
Something else interesting I forgot about when looking this up. The US title was created/reinstated due to the brand split, since the IC title became
exclusive to Raw.
I was thinking - two world champions isn't bad IF they keep them on their separate shows. When they did away with the brand split and had both
main champions on the same show, that was where the main titles and the IC/US seemed diluted. All of the sudden, you had 4 singles titles in the same
promotion.
[Edited on 5-27-2016 by salmonjunkie]
|
|
|
DevilSoprano
Pee Wee's Plaything 
Posts 7182
Registered 11-16-2002 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 12:24 AM |
|
|
Two world titles is dumb because not only does it dilute the "best in the world" aspect that the world champion should be, but then it also dilutes
the US/IC belts to me because what's the point really? If you do one world champ and then treat the US belt as THE Smackdown Champion and the IC
belt as THE Raw champion, it definitely means more in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
Flash
The Rowdy One
Posts 2856
Registered 4-22-2005 Location Brantford, Ontario Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 02:14 AM |
|
|
I don't like the idea of two world champions, especially if they are running both shows on a single monthly PPV, because it crowds up the
card...
The problem has never been finding lot's of showcase time on TV for guys (although the WWE doesn't do a great job of it); it's the
all important PPV's where the stories they want to tell hit their various beats...
So now each PPV would/should feature;
WWE title match
World title match
IC title match
US title match
Tag title match
Women's title match
Granted you don't have to run a title match each month, but then aren't we back to the whole mid-card titles meaning nothing again... Yeah
we've got two shows, but that 3 hours is spent without even getting near building up some non-title issues.
I'd actually think about throwing the whole thing out and maybe do a brand champ for each show, and only that person can challenge for the
title... no mid card titles, just a raw champ, SD champ, and overall champ (plus tag and women's titles).
My only problem with this is that I'm not sure how to get from brand champ to who get's to challenge for the title... alternating months
doesn't work as I think that fast tracks too many feuds that deserve a rematch... maybe the world title is only fought 4 times a year?.... I
don't know, lost of flaws in this, pretty much the same as too many titles.
|
|
|
Count Zero
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1262
Registered 1-29-2013 Location Canada East Member Is Offline Mood: Universal
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 03:41 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flash
My only problem with this is that I'm not sure how to get from brand champ to who get's to challenge for the title... alternating months
doesn't work as I think that fast tracks too many feuds that deserve a rematch... maybe the world title is only fought 4 times a year?.... I
don't know, lost of flaws in this, pretty much the same as too many titles.
I think you might have just stumbled on to the central facet
of this issue. It might be a case of the wrong solution for the problem they think they are having.
If "We can only book, like, TOPS a half-dozen feuds because then it just gets to be too many people to juggle -- injuries, personal leave, etc." is
the problem, the solution is not "So let's double the workload and duplicate the creative process for two separate television products, and
expect that to work better."
I really hope they've got some kind of plan, or this... as JBL says, "This don't end well for somebody, Maggle." 
Originally posted by williamssl
"That hasn't stopped us from doing this shit before!"
"Checkmate, sir. Checkmate"
|
|
|
the goon
Sister Act
Posts 5781
Registered 3-13-2004 Location Charlotte, NC Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 04:37 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DevilSoprano
If you do one world champ and then treat the US belt as THE Smackdown Champion and the IC belt as THE Raw champion, it definitely means more in the
grand scheme of things.
I don't like the idea of elevating the IC/US title to "champion of RAW/champion of Smackdown" status. I know in recent times we've seen
Cena and Bryan hold them, but otherwise they should be for up-and-coming/midcard guys to hold. If Miz and Rusev are still holding the belts in July, I
don't think anybody is buying them as the top two guys in the WWE behind only Roman Reigns. Not to mention that if holding either belt means
you're essentially the top guy on your respective show, that means that about 3/4 of the roster won't ever have a chance to be IC or US
champion. Could I buy Baron Corbin as IC champion right now? Probably. Could I buy Baron Corbin as the IC champion and thus the RAW champion? No.
quote:
Originally posted by Flash
I don't know, lost of flaws in this, pretty much the same as too many titles.
I think that's the central problem, it's kind of a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" thing with the brand split. Because
if there are two world champions, then people will complain that it's stupid and it dilutes the importance of being WWE champion. But if
there's only one champion jumping between shows, there will be people (like me) complaining that it's unnecessarily complicated booking
and is stupid to watch Roman Reigns bounce between two shows, feuding with one guy for a few months on RAW, and then another guy for two months on
Smackdown, and back and forth.
Nash is only a few inches bigger than JBL and depending on how stiff he gets Punk should be able to take it. -JB King, meant in a totally non-sexual
way
|
|
|
Flash
The Rowdy One
Posts 2856
Registered 4-22-2005 Location Brantford, Ontario Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 04:48 AM |
|
|
The funny thing is, that with the network and being the only game in town, they are no longer beholden to the PPV model... IE they could really pull
of a paradigm shift in terms of how they approach their business.
For example; keep Raw on the traditional model of monthly PPV's... they know this works, so don't entirely re-invent the wheel.
For Smackdown pull them from PPV's altogether; use this as an opportunity to train your audience to expect something different... Use the old
Saturday Night's Main Event as a network/USAA simulcast special once every 6 weeks or something for their big story beats, and develop some
specific PPV's for Smackdown once a quarter or something.... Great American Bash, Starcade, or come up with some new one's altogether...
Hell, SD's "PPV's" could be something a bit more off the wall like this cruiser tournament... stuff like that. I think that could put a
bit more emphasis on the weekly shows being more must see; with the network serving as the outlet for something a bit more exclusive.
Otherwise if they can't separate the shows, then I just don't see two champs working well.
Also screw two titles.... I mean think about this... Randy Orton is a 12 time champion... on paper that makes him one of the greatest of all time.
|
|
|
DevilSoprano
Pee Wee's Plaything
Posts 7182
Registered 11-16-2002 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 12:54 PM |
|
|
I never said you couldn't create a midcard belt for each show, but the US/IC belts should be treated as the on the cusp of world championship
caliber. I liked one of the ideas I saw by someone who said they should keep the big 4 PPVs as is (Rumble, Mania, Slam, Series) and then you could
sprinkle in 8-12 other shows throughout the year as brand exclusives either in the typical Sunday night PPV slot or you start throwing in old school
ideas like Saturday night shows, Thursday night clashes, a more adult orientated Extreme Friday night special. Then what you can do is have your
elevated US/IC belts and then as the brands differentiate themselves, you add a lower midcard belt. A WWE Network/TV champion for Raw. A
Cruiserweight/technical pure rules champion for Smackdown. Or if you start getting real depth in a woman's or tag division, you add a
woman's tag team championship, or a second-tier tag champion, or even a stable/trios championship.
The worst thing they could do is just do a brand split but then have Raw & Smackdown be exactly the same with regards to both shows have a world
champion, both shows have a midcard champion, both shows showcase the same woman's and tag champions because then what's the point except
you added 1 world champion and broke up some feuds that have become stagnant. They've got to make the two shows unique and it starts by making
sure everything on both brands means something special. The one other thing I'd do, probably specifically for Raw because they have the extra
hour, each week they should do 1 NXT showcase match to see what kinds of reactions people get outside the typical hotbeds that are sure to react. Find
out if Austin Aries gets a reaction if the show is in Arizona. Find out if American Alpha can get over in Detroit. Not only would it see how audiences
are reacting but it gives them exposure before they're ready to move up.
|
|
|
phansett
And I am AWESOME 
Posts 199
Registered 4-15-2003 Location Chicagoland Member Is Offline Mood: No Mood.
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 01:26 PM |
|
|
1 title option
One WWE World Heavyweight Champion (or whatever they call it) that only defends against the other roster. Say SD drafts Reigns, then Reigns only
defends against Raw competitors until he loses to wrestler X. Then Reigns goes back to SD, and wrestler X only defends against SD wrestlers until he
loses and goes back to Raw.
This adds some bragging rights to the Title, as one show can boast about being home to the best in the world, allows the title program to cross
between shows, and guarantees a cross brand program at all times. Additionally the possibility of IC and US titles having improved meaning as they
are show exclusive titles.
|
|
|
G. Jonah Jameson
Showstopper
Posts 959
Registered 12-28-2010 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 03:11 PM |
|
|
For the previous brand split, the brands had two entirely different booking teams, didn't they? I would imagine that to be the plan here as
well, and it would likely solve that "creative can only competently handle X number of feuds at once" thing that everyone is jawing about before it
starts. I know there'll be commonalities in that Vince McMahon etc. will have control extending to both, but that will most directly affect the
major angles, with midcard feuds and such mostly being left to the separate booking teams.
|
|
|
Count Zero
Man of a Thousand Holds
Posts 1262
Registered 1-29-2013 Location Canada East Member Is Offline Mood: Universal
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 06:41 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by G. Jonah Jameson
For the previous brand split, the brands had two entirely different booking teams, didn't they? I would imagine that to be the plan here as
well, and it would likely solve that "creative can only competently handle X number of feuds at once" thing that everyone is jawing about before it
starts. I know there'll be commonalities in that Vince McMahon etc. will have control extending to both, but that will most directly affect the
major angles, with midcard feuds and such mostly being left to the separate booking teams.
If they don't have the people to do the job properly in one instance(ie, they can't book raw properly), how are they going to find twice
the number of competent people to suddenly do two times the work? Do writermonkeys grow on trees?
|
|
|
denverpunk
The Rowdy One
Posts 2425
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Mile-Hi Member Is Offline Mood: Stoked
|
| posted on 5-28-2016 at 06:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Count Zero
If they don't have the people to do the job properly in one instance(ie, they can't book raw properly), how are they going to find twice
the number of competent people to suddenly do two times the work? Do writermonkeys grow on trees?
Well, Lucha Underground proves that good wrestling writers do exist. The question is whether WWE will allow ideas other than their own "sports
entertainment" vision to be written.
|
|
|
