There are plenty of fine matches to actually headline the show -- I meant one that was going to do 7 or 800,000 buys, when WM20 will be lucky to do 500,000. Austin/Goldberg was the only one with a chance, and that was only before they watered down BG.
Originally posted by JMShapiroThere are plenty of fine matches to actually headline the show -- I meant one that was going to do 7 or 800,000 buys, when WM20 will be lucky to do 500,000. Austin/Goldberg was the only one with a chance, and that was only before they watered down BG.
One match alone won't draw 750,000 buys. A supercard would.
Goldberg vs. Lesnar
Austin vs. Jericho
Michaels vs. Rock
Angle vs. Guerrero
Booker T vs. Benoit
Undertaker vs. Kane
Dudleyz vs. WGTT
Big Show vs. John Cena
Rey Mysterio vs. Rob Van Dam
Trish Stratus vs. Molly Holly
Triple H vs. Randy Orton
Matt Hardy vs. Ultimo Dragon
This show, I think, would do astoundingly well.
Josh Beckett is God. If you don't believe me, ask the Yankees (or what's left of them after Georgie Porgie goes nuts).
Originally posted by SKLOKAZOIDConsidering that HHH vs Goldberg and Rock vs Goldberg, two supposed "dream matches" couldn't make the big spike, things aren't looking good. Then again, Goldberg was always overrated
Testify! Goldberg is top 2 in the most overrated people in wrestling in my generation. His act might pop a crowd, but it won't sell PPV. Why pay to see a generic match that you see him perform on free TV. There's no "step-up" with Goldberg... I scratch my head everytime I hear Meltzer bitch about "How WWE is screwing up Goldberg by not doing the exact same way WCW booked him". I'm like WCW destroyed their entire roster (lower and mid and upper-mid) just to get one guy over. And you want the WWE to do the same? Bizarre.
JMSHAPIRO quote - An historic WM 18 with the Rock/Hogan dream match did a one-shot great buyrate, but all business before and since has been abysmal. And the passing of time isn't going to get watered-down rosters an more over, only making new headliners will.
I didn't know WM18 had such a spike. Really too bad that with the exception of the emotion that was in Rock/Hogan. Nothing on the card stepped up at all. Again exception of Hogan/Rock. Poor booking going in and even worse execution during the night made it a poor Wrestlemania and I doubt any casual fan tuning in to see the extravaganza that was Rock & Hogan got turned on by anyone else in the night especially the World title main event.
The problem with PPV's now is none of the happenings in them are important. The perfect example is Triple H. All of 2002 the selling point of HHH reign was "We know you want him to lose the title, tune into the PPV. His run on top could come to an end". The thing was when he did lose the title at SurSeries 02 to Michaels, HHH became #1 contender 2 weeks later and 2 weeks after that became World Champ again. It felt like a total ripoff. HHH keeps the title for another year loses it to Goldberg, just to stay #1 contender and get a rematch in the very next PPV opportunity. Why tune in to watch him lose?... BTW Angle & Brocks playing hot potato with the WWE-Title isn't much better.
Solution? If you lose the title you DON'T get another PPV rematch or another reign for 6 months. (a TV match is okay as long as the former champ doesn't win). Don't care who you are. Make what happens on the PPV seem important especially title switches. Knowing your favorite babyface won't get to be champion for half a year if he loses or knowing the hated heel has to work mid-cards for 6 months if he loses. Certainly will give me a lot more incentive to tune into a PPV. Because right now there is none... Hell gawd forbid with this idea they will have to mix and match the combos on top of the card.
Originally posted by eviljonhunt81I don't think you ever know what the Wrestlemania main event is goign to be half a year in advance. Last year, maybe, but did you know it was going to be HHH/Jericho for the Undisputed title before that? Or . . . Rock vs. Austin(?), and on down the list?
It used to be very easy to tell what the WM main event would be by around Survivor Series. In 1997, HBK/Austin was apparent, in 98 so was Rock/Austin. Rock/Austin at WMX7 was pretty apparent. Jericho/HHH wasn't obvious, but HHH in the challenging role in the ME was.
Anyway, I don't want to run off a list. The point is that, yes, we usually did have a good idea about what is going to happen. And, even in today's fast-paced booking environment, WWE should know what their main event will be. Sure, it could sell based on the WM name alone, but they need to build up to one specific match to headline the card.
Whether they decide a RAW Champ vs SMACKDOWN! Champ will do it or figure something out. I really see no potential main events right now that can get the job done, except maybe getting Austin out of retirement to face Goldberg or Hogan.
But, they don't even know who they want to win the Rumble yet.
Originally posted by SKLOKAZOIDBut, they don't even know who they want to win the Rumble yet.
And you know this how?
I gotta agree here. To me, everything's bulding to either Cena or Guerrero winning the Rumble.
Two problems with that scenario: 1) SD has the February PPV, so it would make sense from a 'Maybe we should try to convince people to order this' point of view to have the SD challenger at Mania determined at the SD PPV.
2) SD won the Rumble last year and had the main event. It would seem then that would make this year RAW's turn for the Rumble winner and the Main Event at Mania. Then again, who knows how they'll decide to format the Rumble with the hard split philosophy taking hold.
Why Pro Wrestling proves the INS cannot keep terrorists out of the United States: If a felon like Nathan Jones is allowed into the United States with no special skills (unless being totally inept in the ring counts, but I think there are enough totally inept people in the US to keep that skill from being unique or special), then how the hell can they justify keeping anyone else out?
"However, at some point it has to be accepted that perhaps Vince has put things in a fatal freefall."
We're nowhere near that point yet.
"SD won the Rumble last year and had the main event. It would seem then that would make this year RAW's turn for the Rumble winner and the Main Event at Mania. Then again, who knows how they'll decide to format the Rumble with the hard split philosophy taking hold."
It would seem that Mania may be SmackDown's place to shine-Raw headlined this year's number two show, SummerSlam, so who's to know whether or not they'll keep that pattern implemented.
Murdoch Had Just Made A Mistake That No Man Ever Should-He Kissed A Big Angry Black Guy
Originally posted by oldschoolheroIt would seem that Mania may be SmackDown's place to shine-Raw headlined this year's number two show, SummerSlam, so who's to know whether or not they'll keep that pattern implemented.
Good point. It's a little more traditional in that the actual "WWE Title" with the lineage would headline their biggest show.
(edited by Simba on 5.11.03 1347) Reserved for future use.
Originally posted by jwrestleDid anybody include the PRICE uping this year from last? The 29.95 PPV to 34.95? So, the low buys could have managed near what some of last years did. I could just be totally wrong.
I got another question (or possible minor excuse for the lower buys)
Does this also include webcast buys? I know a few regular buyers of the PPV now getting it by computer and watching it their instead of through their cable company because it's more convenient.
(edited by Net Hack Slasher on 8.11.03 2018) Me fail English? That's unpossible
Yeah, Monday's show killed my desire to recap this week. Might have been just as well, as this was a pretty uneventful show. Some good in-ring action, but I don't think anything was really advanced in the end. So here's the thread.