Apparently during a conference call the WWE in moving forward has canned Survivor Series as a Pay-Per-View. This past year, 2009, was the last installment of the event.
Not to disparage the good name of NoDQ.com, but that can also be confirmed at PWTorch (pwtorch.com) and Wrestling Observer (f4wonline.com).
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects. "This topic is going to suck to read in three years." -Psycho Penguin
OH, but the REAL news out of that conference call was Vince is considering 'gimmick PPVs' as they did better as draws than normal PPVs. And the rumor is, WAR GAMES! Well, it was one of several ideas including (ugh) Battle Bowl, and spin the wheel, make the deal.
Not only that, but Vince also announced he plans to launch a WWE channel by summer of next year.
Originally posted by Hogan's My DadGod Vince is an idiot.
I actually agree with Vince here. With Bragging Rights designed as a RAW vs. Smackdown show, and the fact that Bragging Rights was one of the best PPVs of 2009, it makes Survivor Series rather obsolete.
The team vs. team elimination concept has been something WWE mainly paid lip service to for many years now. The greatest Survivor Series were the first two in 1987 and 1988 when it was ALL 5 vs. 5 matches. Since then, the shows have been not nearly as good (1993 was probably the nadir - I was in the crowd for it) or focused on singles matches with the team matches as filler.
There's nothing stopping WWE from making Bragging Rights' RAW vs. Smackdown team matches elimination-style. I mean, wasn't everyone confused a few months ago about whether or not the RAW vs. Smackdown match at Bragging Rights was elimination style, and disappointed when it was one fall to a finish?
It's been 23 years. I like nostalgia and tradition in wrestling as much as the next guy, but I think we've seen the best the Survivor Series concept has to offer. I could go for something new around Thanksgiving time.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeOH, but the REAL news out of that conference call was Vince is considering 'gimmick PPVs' as they did better as draws than normal PPVs.
If you really think about it, most of the PPVs are basically glorified RAWs, so I can see where Vince is coming from.
I have very mixed feelings about this. Since it hasn't really *been* Surivor Series in years (that is, the elimination matches haven't been an important part of the card), losting the name makes a certain amount of sense. The problem, though, is that the name itself inherently implied a bigger-than-usual PPV, just as the name SummerSlam does (and, on a larger scale, the name Wrestlemania does). The trick will be finding a new name that still seems "big", and I'm not sure how they do that.
It does seem kind of odd to me that they're giving up the name as part of a move toward gimmick PPVs, yet they haven't tried to actually bring back the Survivor Series gimmick. I guess that they just can't get people to do that many jobs in one night.
I think the WWE channel is a bad idea. I think it's too much of a niche to get prime real estate on most cable systems. It would be smarter to partner with some other company that has non-wrestling programming to complement what WWE has.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeOH, but the REAL news out of that conference call was Vince is considering 'gimmick PPVs' as they did better as draws than normal PPVs. And the rumor is, WAR GAMES!
If they do War Games and keep their PG-rated concept (i.e. no blood), I will absolutely [INSERT GRANDIOSE STATEMENT OF HYPERBOLE THREATENING THE WELFARE OF VINCE MCMAHON].
Actually, I'll probably just boycott them for a couple of months like I did at the end of 2009 and just get sucked back in again.
My joke was that Wrestlemania would be renamed Money in the Bank until I saw that Money in the Bank was one of the ideas for a PPV.
So let's map out the whole year.
Jan - Royal Rumble (renamed Over the Top Elimination Challenge) Feb - Elimination Chamber Mar - Wrestlemania Apr - Draft May - Extreme Rules Jun - Fatal Fourways Jul - Night of Champions Aug - SummerSlam (renamed Bra & Panties) Sep - Breaking Point Oct - Hell in a Cell Nov - Bragging Rights Dec - Tables, Ladders, and Chairs
I think it has to do more with forcing the writers to develop mid card characters into those matches. That is work and the one thing we know about WWE writers, they don't like work. Especially if the work has to do with someone who is not high on the card or a spouse. They would rather book the same four guys in the main event for almost a year straight. How hard is that?
In all seriousness, I hate this idea. Yet, what I hate more is these WCW concepts. WarGames is the only real winner out of that lot. The rest of them all tanked after the first one. A WarGames PG style would be the lamest thing ever. Hell in the Cell has gotten boring to do as well. It might be the Roman Italian in me, but I want blood in my events. I want unbridled destruction and gore in some of these matches. I am not saying its right, but damn it, it needs to happen.
Originally posted by JustinShapiroMy joke was that Wrestlemania would be renamed Money in the Bank until I saw that Money in the Bank was one of the ideas for a PPV.
So let's map out the whole year.
Jan - Royal Rumble (renamed Over the Top Elimination Challenge) Feb - Elimination Chamber Mar - Wrestlemania Apr - Draft May - Extreme Rules Jun - Fatal Fourways Jul - Night of Champions Aug - SummerSlam (renamed Bra & Panties) Sep - Breaking Point Oct - Hell in a Cell Nov - Bragging Rights Dec - Tables, Ladders, and Chairs
I am requesting, nay DEMANDING, a Hog Pen Match PPV.
Originally posted by CajunManHey I liked WARGAMES when WCW did it with the 3 different rings. It wasn't that bad. I hope Vince does go with this concept.
When did they do War Games with three rings? They did the Battle Bowl thing with three rings, but I thought War Games was always just two rings?
Originally posted by CajunManHey I liked WARGAMES when WCW did it with the 3 different rings. It wasn't that bad. I hope Vince does go with this concept.
When did they do War Games with three rings? They did the Battle Bowl thing with three rings, but I thought War Games was always just two rings?
Cajun Man is confused. He's thinking of World War 3.
I've read other posts about how there would be no challengers for Booker if he won the title, but wouldn't he be the champ? Wouldn't EVERYONE be a potential storyline for him? Would it be that hard to sell Booker/Michaels?