I just got done watching tonight's ECW and can honestly say that I enjoyed this one hour of wrestling more than I've enjoyed the past several weeks (perhaps even months) of Raw.
Perhaps it's because ECW only has an hour as opposed to Raw's two. Perhaps it's because ECW is less hindered by backstage politics. Perhaps it's because of the level playing field or the lack of a "glass ceiling" that allows all wrestlers to be showcased equally without the fear of being eclipsed by a bigger, brighter star.
ECW's general format reminds me of what wrestling used to be. By removing all of the drama and getting down the basics, ECW puts out a straightforward, easy-to-digest product that even casual fans can enjoy. There are clear faces and clear heels. The storylines are simple. The characters jump out at you on screen and are clearly distinguishable. The wrestling is fast-paced, and this is due in large part to the abundance of young talent who do not have to cater to older, slower veterans.
ECW has a freeflowing feel, and there is little of this show that is broadcast simply for the sake of putting soemthing on TV. Everything I saw tonight was for the sake of storytelling, which, let's face it, is what wrestling is all about.
I know many people will want to contradict me, but storytelling is the heart of professional wrestling. The drama of the match and what unfolds in the squared circle is what draws viewers in. You can have two of the best athletes in the world and they can put on a five-star match, but without a story, the match serves no purpose, and fans will soon forget no only the match, but the performers as well.
So much of Raw's broadcast feels like filler these days. The most ridiculous segments of their show are the "Did You Know?" facts that air following commercial breaks. When WWE first began airing these facts, they posted things like record-breaking attendance for WWE events such as Wrestlemania, and even facts about the show itself. However, for the past several months, WWE has done nothing but post information about their demographics and ratings. Facts like "More men between 18 and 24 watched Raw than any other program on cable television" are completely useless. How does this fact enhance my experience at the event or even at home? Why does this fact make me want to watch your program? Do I really want to be just another statistic for WWE?
Fans do not care about the ratings because fans ARE the ratings. This segment could be used for character development. Facts about their current, former, or up-and-coming stars could help fans get into the characters they are watching. Even something like, "Razor Ramon defeated Shawn Michaels in the first-ever Ladder Match at Wrestlemania X to become the Undisputed Intercontinental Champion" would be more informative than the statistics WWE churns out every week. At least now I know that the first Ladder Match at Wrestlemania was at Wrestlemania X. I know who participated in it. I know who won and who lost. And now it makes sense why the Intercontinental Title is so often decided in a Ladder Match. I've learned something, and I feel better informed about the type of program I am watching.
Posting information about your ratings and demographics sends a mixed message. The first is that you are simply gloating. If your program is doing well, then good for you. We are fans, and we want the business to succeed. We don't, however, care how it compares to other forms of entertainment. It does nothing for me to know that more people watched Raw than any Major League Baseball game combined for that night. You may as well tell me Raw had more viewers than the reruns of M*A*S*H. It means the same thing to me: nothing.
The second message it sends is more complicated, but may actually become more detrimental to viewership in the long run. Posting facts about what demographics are watching your program is generally a poor idea. "More men watch our program than any NFL game this week" is not something I would want on my program. That tells the female viewers this is a "man's show". Likewise, saying that more girls 14 and up watched your show than "iCarly" is nothing to gloat about. That means this is a "sissy show" and no self-respecting man would want to watch THAT. Continue to broaden these generalizations to entire races, and you can see where the problems may lead.
Another segment that does nothing for the program is the exterior shot of the arena. This is little more than WWE looking for a cheap pop. Everyone in the arena jumps up and down inside, screaming, "Look! We're on TV!" That's a great feeling when the camera pans the crowd and you're one of the people it catches with your "You CAN See Me!" sign. It does nothing for the crowd, or the viewer when all you're showing them is where they are. "Yep. That's where we are all right. Go ahead. Find it on GoogleEarth. We're there. You can see it."
Still more time is wasted doing replays of what happened at the start of the show. Lately WWE has taken to replaying the show's "shocking" opening segments no less than 3 times before the main event. Meanwhile, the commentators blab on about it every chance they get, no matter what match they are calling. Generally, Raw's format dictates that the payoff for the show's opening segment is in the main event. So all we really need is one replay right before the main event to get us up to speed (or refresh our memories). The rest is simply filler for the airwaves. As someone in the arena, why would you want to watch something on the TitanTron that you've already seen with your own eyes when you could rather be watching something NEW unfold right now?
Despite having two hours, Raw seems to be struggling to fill it's time slot. Raw has the most star power of any of WWE's brands (and perhaps any promotion in professional wrestling today), yet all these stars are held over until the main event. In the meantime we get to watch Matt Hardy and MVP wrestling in the mid-card while Shelton Benjamin jerks the curtain. So much time is wasted with simple comedy sketches that have no ultimate relationship to the match the characters are featured in, or simply with long, dragged out promos.
The promos are my final beef tonight. ECW sets a terrific example for in-ring storytelling. No more than 5 minutes for a story concerning the main event stars, and no more than a minute for the rest. Promos are quick and usually take place before or after commercial breaks.
The best promo of the night was the promo cut by Natalya of the Hart Dynasty. In the course of maybe 20 seconds she made it clear that the Hart Dynasty would show everyone the difference between FORMER champions (their opponents, Christian and Jack Swagger) and FUTURE champions (Tyson Kidd and D.H. Smith of the Hart Dynasty).
That's it. 20 seconds, give or take, and we knew EXACTLY what their motivations were in this match. These are the bad guys. It's so simple it's ridiculous.
Meanwhile, on Raw, the opening segment can take anywhere from 7 to 12 minutes. That's almost 1/4 of ECW's total runtime. As for promos, men like Matt Hardy or MVP may be given a minute or two, while men like Triple H may take another 7-12 minutes. Not only does this send a clear message to the fans that some wrestlers are more important than others (hence, the "glass ceiling") but it undermines the fans' intelligence. Sure, a good, complicated storyline that is built properly may take time to unravel properly so as to be understood in the proper context, but does Triple H really need to explain to us over 12 minutes how he's going to destroy Randy Orton? Why waste 7 minutes building up a 25 minute match?
I realize this will sound hypocritical of me, but here is my solution. Give each person who is going to cut a promo a brief outline (no more than 4 or 5 bulletpoints) of what they are to say. I realize 99% of WWE's promos are handwritten and recited word for word (and it shows), but let's assume for a second that each performer, after undergoing 3-4 years of training and experience, can think for themselves and successfully talk into a microphone. I would then grab a stopwatch and ask them to cut the promo for me. At the 45 second mark, I cut them off (assuming it takes a backstage interviewer approximately 15 seconds or so to ask the question). If they've made their point, I say, "Great! Do it just like that." If not, I ask them to rework the promo. I come back in a few minutes and repeat this exercise until they have their ideas down within the time frame, granting perhaps 10 seconds overtime (after all, it's live TV). Of course, the actual promo can take 2 or 3 minutes (especially if you're John Cena) but this keeps ideas concise so that it can be easily digested by the audience.
Don't get me wrong: I don't mind long promos, when they are effective. Two of my favorite stars, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and Mick Foley, are famous for cutting extended promos. Foley in particular had a great mind for character and storytelling and did much more with his mic time than the average wrestler ever did, taking our minds places we never thought we'd go. However, WWE's tolerance for young talent is little to none, which makes connecting with the audience an uphill battle, so you have to make every second count.
It may sound over-analytical, but if WWE cut down on it's excess and overproduction, it could get back to what made the company famous, and that's the WRESTLING. WWE is still capable of great wrestling, as we've seen from much of the young talent and a couple of the veterans like Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker. WWE's only detriment is that it does not allow itself the time to showcase their athletes because they'd rather spend more time talking about them.
