Long-term booking vs short-term booking

[JasoRockStar]

One of the main things that the Triple H regime has been praised for is his preference for long-term booking. His storylines don't just pop out of thin air, there's usually foreshadowing for weeks, months, sometimes years. It kinda makes the product predictable sometimes, but that also means that stuff isn't just happening of the sake of subverting expectations and when genuine surprises do happen, it's a big deal: i.e. CM Punk returning, Ciampa heel turn, etc.


But I'm thinking back to when MJF's contract was up and he could've made the jump to WWE. How would something like that have affected the company's booking. You can't have him sitting around twiddling his thumbs and feuding with low tier stars, but writing him into stories that have been in place for months is also inconvenient and possibly upsetting to fans waiting for a payoff, see The Rock taking Cody's spot.

So I'm wondering which is better, booking for the long term or more week-to-week, short term storytelling?



What do y'all brehs think?

 

[Trips]

I think that you need a mix of both methods and some sure fired hotshotting of stuff. For example The Punk-'97 Drew to Punk-Rollins really needed all this time to develop. But on the other end how they had the IC belt on Bron then flipped it to Jey, to back on Bron. And while Bron is currently feuding with Kaiser it doesn't really seem like this will stretch much longer probably Rumble at most. I think having like 2 or 3 long term feuds/plans rolling while keeping the under card more open to move some stuff around or introduce new pieces works best. And it never hurts to flip some of the lower card belts around to give some guys a quick bump etc.

 

[Nero Christ]

You need both as some stories need longer times to fully develop whereas some can be completed in a short time span.

For character development, long term. Is necessary. Seeing a character slowly evolve/devolve and become something new is key to keeping them fresh.

Short term booking comes in handy for keeping the audience on their toes while also being able to facilitate long term storylines too. Look at the debut of Kane & how long they built that up while Taker was in a hot feud with Michaels at the time.

TLDR - both are key for keeping the product fresh and characters interesting

 

[Osmosis]

My issue with HHH is that he doesn't really call for audibles when acts get over organically or unexpectedly. The Gable/Otis stuff over the summer was super over but HHH had plans for Gable to feud with the Wyatts, so he never really explored the Otis angle.

 

[The Intergalactic Koala]

It really depends on the chemistry, fan reaction, and payoff.

For something like MJF/Cole...the shyt should have been instant (damn the injuries and p*ssyfooting)

Trips case, he overdoes the slow methodical burn that even frustrates old head wrestling heads like the marsupial.

At the end of it all, it all depends because some of the best feuds I have ever seen had long ass legs to walk on and it took some time, but the payoff is memorable.

 

[BrehWyatt]

You need a mix. The problem with long-term booking is that it doesn't account for the organic rise of a superstar where, if you strike while the iron is hot, you end up with a cornerstone for years to come.

 

[OneDeep]

Long Term Booking will always be king but it doesn’t mean that you need to slow burn everything at the same time

When you have a balance between both you get great television

 

[Tres Leches]

you need both like a good tv show you have the long term main plot that ends in the final episode but in between you have short term storylines