The W
Views: 179003738
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.3.17 0840
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - if WWE, really wants to make this competition look serious... Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(13147 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
The Vile One
Chourico
Level: 39

Posts: 213/262
EXP: 382151
For next: 22624

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 7889 days
Last activity: 7766 days
#1 Posted on 24.7.02 0009.16
Reposted on: 24.7.09 0029.06
Why haven't the pay-per-views split up yet? I mean doesn't it kind of make this false competition ridiculous because both "brands" perform on the same ppv. WWE pay-per-views suck nowadays and there are just too many of them. Why not just knock off 3 ppv's, keep the five original big ones, and have 4 additional ppv's. Like 2 ppv's for smackdown and 2 for RAW. Hell make it 10 ppv's, whatever works, but I think 12 is spreading it thin. And its ridiculous that both brands always have to be on one ppv. I mean c'mon, they are even splitting up the ppv's between two announce teams!!! This is the most obvious change needed for this angle, but WWE seems the most reluctant about doing it. Just another reason we can put on the list why this angle IS a failure.
Promote this thread!
WhoBettahThanDeion
Bockwurst
Level: 55

Posts: 176/583
EXP: 1268344
For next: 45854

Since: 4.1.02

Since last post: 7828 days
Last activity: 7664 days
#2 Posted on 24.7.02 0204.17
Reposted on: 24.7.09 0212.07
Me personally, I'm against two pay per views. Why would they split buyrates? You know everyone wouldn't get both. And the WWE seems reluctant to change the price.

Think about it, it's like Blade and Blade 2 coming out on DVD at the same time for 20.99 when you could get the Blade two-pack for 29.99.
Notorious F.A.B.
Pepperoni
Level: 71

Posts: 354/1052
EXP: 3068647
For next: 98482

Since: 4.2.02
From: Dudleyville's Gay Ghetto

Since last post: 7470 days
Last activity: 7456 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 24.7.02 0228.41
Reposted on: 24.7.09 0229.01
the plan is still to eventually run separate PPVs but the ability to do it just isn't there yet. the company just down-graded its performance expectations to the stock holders! plus, i doubt wwe could just announce they'll run eighteen shows a year and the PPV companies will all automatically carry them.

...but you want LESS ppvs per year. that will never, ever happen unless the company starts losing money on some shows. overall revenue is down but they aren't going into the hole. taking a couple shows off their line up is the same as saying "let's make LESS money!" that's never going to happen.
Scott Summets
Sujuk
Level: 69

Posts: 133/1008
EXP: 2852593
For next: 17165

Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 7349 days
Last activity: 7318 days
#4 Posted on 24.7.02 0653.12
Reposted on: 24.7.09 0659.02
If they only cut one PPV and have the big 5 co Raw and Smackdown, and then have the other two just for one brand (I say don't have a Feburary PPV), I could see the WWE making more money because they could hype the PPV's better and more people may want to see them. I'm sure 11 good PPV's would be better money makers than 12 PPVs thrown together. The advantage would be in months without the big 5, if Raw is having a PPV, Smackdown could already have matches for its PPV next month announced.
WyldeWolf1
Boerewors
Level: 45

Posts: 144/361
EXP: 611642
For next: 48527

Since: 20.6.02
From: Florida

Since last post: 7876 days
Last activity: 7875 days
#5 Posted on 24.7.02 0807.48
Reposted on: 24.7.09 0809.15
I see two big obstacles:

1) Does the Undisputed Champ appear on both PPVs? If so, then does each brand have a #1 contender? etc, etc

2) With the brands being totally separate, how does one establish the months-long feud needed to lead into a Big PPV where they meet and settle the score?
The Vile One
Chourico
Level: 39

Posts: 214/262
EXP: 382151
For next: 22624

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 7889 days
Last activity: 7766 days
#6 Posted on 24.7.02 1543.29
Reposted on: 24.7.09 1559.02
Wylde Wolfe, the same way they establish a number one contender from RAW or Smackdown.

How? Why not just let the IC and Tag Team champions float between shows, while keeping hardcore and CW (gimmick titles) on RAW and Smackdown.

Fab, les ppv's doesn't necessarily mean less money. Not everyone can afford 35-40 bucks for a ppv every month. And quite frankly if they have less ppv's it will give feuds more time to build up excitement and interest. Not to mention most WWE ppv's now are just basically glorified weekly tv shows with matches that aren't much longer, another sign of WWE's declining creativity. Once again, if any shells out over 30 dollars for a WWE PPV, but better be worth it and then some. And don't try to tell me that Vengeance was.
SmooveK
Goetta
Level: 42

Posts: 124/308
EXP: 481805
For next: 39561

Since: 27.6.02
From: Fukushima, Japan

Since last post: 7198 days
Last activity: 6887 days
#7 Posted on 24.7.02 1547.58
Reposted on: 24.7.09 1559.05

    Originally posted by Scott Summets
    (I say don't have a Feburary PPV)


That's actually a good idea. It adds time to REALLY establish things for WrestleMania, and the WWE could make the show 5 or 6 hours long and charge a bit more for it. It would make it really seem like a monumental, MUST BUY event each year.

-K
WyldeWolf1
Boerewors
Level: 45

Posts: 151/361
EXP: 611642
For next: 48527

Since: 20.6.02
From: Florida

Since last post: 7876 days
Last activity: 7875 days
#8 Posted on 24.7.02 1601.15
Reposted on: 24.7.09 1610.44

    Originally posted by The Vile One
    Wylde Wolfe, the same way they establish a number one contender from RAW or Smackdown.

    How? Why not just let the IC and Tag Team champions float between shows, while keeping hardcore and CW (gimmick titles) on RAW and Smackdown.


My point was, they need to establish a system, answer some questions, make adjustments like you suggested, etc before doubling PPVs. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that they need to explain things well for once.
Santa Sangre
Bockwurst
Level: 56

Posts: 43/604
EXP: 1323586
For next: 74599

Since: 21.6.02
From: Germany

Since last post: 2772 days
Last activity: 2772 days
#9 Posted on 24.7.02 1641.16
Reposted on: 24.7.09 1659.01
They finally are starting to do little things to make the brands different. Given some time, I think we will have seperate ppv's for Raw and Smackdown. All this ppv talk makes me miss clash of the champions. Maybe if the buy rates go down a lot we could get something similar. Maybe it could even replace that Feb. ppv that everyone seems to hate.
Notorious F.A.B.
Pepperoni
Level: 71

Posts: 356/1052
EXP: 3068647
For next: 98482

Since: 4.2.02
From: Dudleyville's Gay Ghetto

Since last post: 7470 days
Last activity: 7456 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 24.7.02 1647.38
Reposted on: 24.7.09 1659.05
i don't think it's a fair assumption that if you remove one PPV more people will buy what's left.

buy rates come from compelling match ups and good storylines. you can say what you want about the creative direction of the company, but eliminating one or more PPVs won't make any match more compelling or make a storyline better.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 118

Posts: 1258/3428
EXP: 18086964
For next: 296004

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 3516 days
Last activity: 3516 days
#11 Posted on 24.7.02 1700.48
Reposted on: 24.7.09 1701.10
I think going to a monthly PPV system has hurt the WWF more than just about any decision they have made in the last 8 years or so. I mean, almost all the (on-air) problems people have can be traced to that.

Devaluation of titles? Needing to come up with a good challenger every month means the belt changes hands with greater frequency in order to keep main event matchups fresh and unpredictable. If you think we see some tired combonations of wrestlers right now, imagine if somebody held the World Title for over a year uniterupted. He would have not only run out of challengers, but he would have also become unbeatable (in a bad way).

Little hype to matches? Lack of memorable feuds? We don't see year- or even months-long buildup anymore, because there would be just too many shows to pass where the two wrestlers in question would have to pass up on fighting each other in order too put off their meeting, and then it will have risked losing momentum.

Bland, repetitive, or lazy writing? That happens when you have to come up with new stories (or new ways to continue existing ones) for approx. 15 guys every month. Of course they're gonna run out of ideas. This also leads to the ignoring of past storylines or feuds because writers need to force something in a hurry with only 5-10 shows between PPVs.
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 83

Posts: 280/1498
EXP: 5223098
For next: 209146

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 2178 days
Last activity: 2166 days
#12 Posted on 24.7.02 1746.06
Reposted on: 24.7.09 1754.57
That's why I've been a big supporter of not only separate writing crews (which they apparently have now), but splitting the PPV's between brands. That way, they get to keep 12 PPV's, but the writers of each brand only have to build toward 6 PPV's a year instead of 12.

Of course, I probably would make Wrestlemania a cross-promotion PPV (so really the split would be 6-5, maybe they could rotate who gets the extra PPV each year). By setting things up this way, you could create a Supercard feel to Wrestlemania.

Also, by each brand having to support a PPV 100% by themselves, it would force each brand to elevate new and/or different talent, as current lower-card performers would have to be on the PPV, not just be filler for RAW and Smackdown while the upper card of both shows fill out the PPV lineups.

I think the idea of ever running something like 24 PPV's (12 per brand) is a pipe-dream. But I do think they could create more interest in the current 12 PPV's by splitting them amongst the brands.
The Vile One
Chourico
Level: 39

Posts: 217/262
EXP: 382151
For next: 22624

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 7889 days
Last activity: 7766 days
#13 Posted on 24.7.02 1917.14
Reposted on: 24.7.09 1918.49
Well Fab, eliminating ppv's would put less pressure on the bookers and wrestlers. One thing you can say to defend the bookers/writers WWE is that there are so many damn shows every month. PPV's will also be bigger and more important if they don't happen so frequently. The problem is that ppv's are just 30 dollar versions of the weekly shows now. They aren't like real ppv's.
Retro Rob
Linguica
Level: 21

Posts: 35/64
EXP: 45575
For next: 4369

Since: 18.7.02

Since last post: 7478 days
Last activity: 7390 days
#14 Posted on 24.7.02 1936.13
Reposted on: 24.7.09 1938.08
The WWE can keep their current schedule, they just have to differentiate between the Raw part of the show and the SmackDown! part. Put all the matches from the same show back-to-back. Put the Raw commentators only on the Raw matches. Change the ring apron and light some fireworks after the first show finishes it's matches. That would improve the PPV's and help seperate the brands.
The Vile One
Chourico
Level: 39

Posts: 219/262
EXP: 382151
For next: 22624

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 7889 days
Last activity: 7766 days
#15 Posted on 25.7.02 0004.39
Reposted on: 25.7.09 0019.53
yeah but Rob, I mean, they are both wrestling on the same ppv, kind of defeats the purpose. If they brands were fighting against each other on the same show, YEAH there you go....
Notorious F.A.B.
Pepperoni
Level: 71

Posts: 357/1052
EXP: 3068647
For next: 98482

Since: 4.2.02
From: Dudleyville's Gay Ghetto

Since last post: 7470 days
Last activity: 7456 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 25.7.02 0026.05
Reposted on: 25.7.09 0029.05
the problem isn't how long story lines are, it's how good the story lines are. the number of shows per month has nothing to do with either. they need compelling stories and rivalries and they need to stick to them.

case in point - the HHH / Angle / Stephanie love triangle. your opinion may differ, but that story was aces all the way through and it spanned both shows every week and multiple ppvs.

outside of the big five events per year, the ppvs are just supercards. no mercy, no way out, etc, etc. you can't put on a Big Event every month and they aren't trying to. they'll try to SELL you every one though, because they're a business and that's what they do.

it's just not a fair assumption that less shows automatically make better shows. the writing can suck for a three month feud (edge / regal) or it can suck for a three month feud (the invasion).

(edited by Fab on 24.7.02 2230)
Alex
Lap cheong
Level: 82

Posts: 51/1494
EXP: 5186948
For next: 22301

Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 326 days
Last activity: 34 days
#17 Posted on 25.7.02 0149.35
Reposted on: 25.7.09 0151.21
In addition to sharing Wrestlemania, they could share the Royal Rumble...there could be disputes over who gets the coveted "30th man that doesn't ever win" slot, and maybe more!
auroralye
Weisswurst
Level: 12

Posts: 14/19
EXP: 7463
For next: 458

Since: 2.1.02
From: Jersey City, NJ

Since last post: 7647 days
Last activity: 6933 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on 25.7.02 0220.50
Reposted on: 25.7.09 0227.53
Not that I am in any way arguing for less complex storylines with faster payoffs, but one major problem in building up a feud that spans several months is the problem of putting too much emphasis on a storyline that never pays off. Injuries are common enough in wrestling that one wrong move could ruin a long feud and compromise future storylines (i.e. Triple H's injury that interrupted his evil alliance with Stone Cold last spring and even Kevin Nash's most recent injury required a lot of last minute rewrites.) But often its not even injury that disrupts these feuds. I slightly disagree with Fab's assesment of the Triple H/Steph/Angle love triangle. That very drawn out (though interesting) plotline lost a lot of its impact because it never really had a strong ending. Triple H got a clean PPV win and it was implied that there was more to this feud, but they ended it with one quick nontitle Raw match because thay had to re-turn Triple H heel to correct the horrible payoff to the "Who ran over Stone Cold?" fiasco. The whole love triangle feud fizzled out and when it ended in such a lackluster way, I know it turned a lot of casual fans off. (Most of which were my female friends, but still...) I think before the WWE needs to start worrying about epic feuds, they need to concentrate on being able to keep the same "Era" for more than two weeks at a time. All these constant reboots remind me of WCW in its death throes. Nothing spells desperation more than self-proclimed "new eras."
Notorious F.A.B.
Pepperoni
Level: 71

Posts: 358/1052
EXP: 3068647
For next: 98482

Since: 4.2.02
From: Dudleyville's Gay Ghetto

Since last post: 7470 days
Last activity: 7456 days
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 25.7.02 0340.45
Reposted on: 25.7.09 0346.00
that's cool about the love triangle, auroralye. to each their own. i loved the pay off because steph and hunter stayed together when the predictable thing (some will say "better") was for steph to go with angle. she was with hunter for two years and that rules for me.

i agree with everything else you said, too.
Saruman
Salami
Level: 36

Posts: 198/215
EXP: 283682
For next: 24431

Since: 25.1.02
From: Kirksville, MO

Since last post: 7899 days
Last activity: 7869 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 25.7.02 0536.46
Reposted on: 25.7.09 0539.00
Personally,
I'd cut out No Way Out, and go back to the traditional Royal Rumble/Wrestlemania two month corridor build. Those two would have to be cross-brand.
Next, Survivor Series goes back to being, well, a survivor series between the two brands.
Finally, KotR gets to be cross brand for the tournament.

Now, RAW gets 4 bi-monthly ppvs, and Smackdown gets 4 bi-monthly ppvs, with Summerslam being the headliner for the RAW brand and Backlash being the headliner for Smackdown. Hmmm....
January: RR
February: Nothing
March: WM
April: Backlash
May: RAW ppv
June: KotR
July: Smkdn ppv
August: Summerslam
September: Smkdn ppv
October: RAW ppv
November: SS
December: Smkdn & RAW ppvs, they could stagger these okay, or put one in the beginning of January and hold the rumble back for the last weekend.
Eh, just my pointless 5 am theory of the day.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: In the beginning
Next thread: Must Have Matches...
Previous thread: NWA TNA
(13147 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Pro Wrestling - if WWE, really wants to make this competition look serious...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2024 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.463 seconds.