|
Nash Goldberg, ending aside, is a lot better match than people give it credit for in my opinion. Nash could put on a good match once every five years. (I have it as Nash/Luger on Raw, Nash/Brett and Nash/Goldberg) I honestly stopped watching around the Goldberg era, but I remember reading that Goldberg had pacing issues meaning people like Brett would just stick him in a headlock and tell him to chill the gently caress out. I can imagine Goldberg/Hogan would be great, because Goldberg would be over excited and Hogan would be super lazy, so I bet there'd be a great happy medium between the two. Or not, as the case may be. I should probably watch that match.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
I think the most telling part of Goldberg/Hogan wasn't that they booked it on 4 days build for a free Nitro, it was that they did it for a Nitro that was already sold out and a big deal. If you're going to give the match away free at least get a sellout gate for it. That match literally had no business positives besides a relatively meaningless 1 day rating battle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
LordPants posted:Nash Goldberg, ending aside, is a lot better match than people give it credit for in my opinion. It played to both men's strength's and told the story that Kevin Nash was big and powerful enough to give Goldberg a run for his money but wasn't multi-skilled enough to defeat him. Goldberg could match him in strength and beat him in speed and endurance. Goldberg was a fantastic wrestler for WCW to push. He really had it all back then. Unfortunately, his own ego and WCW turned him into a one note power wrestler but when he debuted(as green and sloppy as he could be), he was a lethal combination of striking, amateur and submission wrestling. I always thought that the tossed aside Bam Bam Bigelow vs. Bill Goldberg program could have been the very best for him, but the truth is, at the time, what I really wanted to see was Vader vs. Goldberg. If there was one guy who could match up to Goldberg as a heel to what Goldberg was as a face and make an exciting Starrcade main event, it was Vader.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I think the most telling part of Goldberg/Hogan wasn't that they booked it on 4 days build for a free Nitro, it was that they did it for a Nitro that was already sold out and a big deal. If you're going to give the match away free at least get a sellout gate for it. That match literally had no business positives besides a relatively meaningless 1 day rating battle. The Georgia Dome didn't sell out for this show. I believe they sold about 30,000 tickets before the match was announced on TV and I think they ended up with close to 40,000, maybe more. Now, you'd get some walk up anyway but they probably sold an additional 5,000 tickets for that match alone. That's not bad. Edit: Ok here is the story. They sold 20,000 tickets before Hogan found out about the huge gate and suggested the dark match. They ended up selling 36,000 tickets and having 41,000 total people in the building. They set up for that many, but the building holds far more. They even had to turn people away. (The 5,000 extra weren't papered those are luxury boxes and tickets held by Turner people.) They had 23,000 paid for their previous Georgia Dome show, so the Goldberg/Hogan match may have sold an additional 12,000 tickets. MassRafTer fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Apr 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:You know what, I will complain about Goldberg vs Hogan on free TV. Hot shotting that angle made for bad TV the next few months. Goldberg went from having US title level feuds for the US title to US title level feuds for the World title. It made for bad TV and made the title look so secondary to the Hogan vs celebrities sagas. True- I think even from the "getting something for free" perspective, fans would have enjoyed a build to a big match between an unstoppable juggernaut and the legend Hogan more than just getting it over with in a week. Changing the title on free TV, even with a really good match, isn't always a bad idea, but it was in this case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngnyMoODND0 A classic match that involves some of the worst beard cutting ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:True- I think even from the "getting something for free" perspective, fans would have enjoyed a build to a big match between an unstoppable juggernaut and the legend Hogan more than just getting it over with in a week. I remember Goldberg's first chance at defending his world title in a main event was at Halloween Havoc '98. Keep in mind that he won it July. Then he took World War 3 off and lost it to Nash the next month at Starrcade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
Some valid comments, but it's silly to play Sim Titan Towers all the time and worry about the business ramifications of these decisions, especially when it's relating to something that doesn't happen consistently. WWE gives away PPV standard world/WWE title matches on free tv very seldom and even less that are booked competitively. As fans we're only privy to very small fractions of information WWE or any organisation has to consider in making these decisions, consequently all we can do is speculate about what could/should be done ideally without having to worry about any factors that may hinder an ideal outcome. I'm getting wide of my point, what I was trying to say is that some fans should just take off their smarky fantasy booker/promoter/owner hat sometimes and just appreciate it when a company does something nice for their fans like a good title match on free television. Sue Denim fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Apr 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Sue Denim posted:Some valid comments, but it's silly to play Sim Titan Towers all the time and worry about the business ramifications of these decisions, especially when it's relating to something that doesn't happen consistently. WWE gives away PPV standard world/WWE title matches on free tv very seldom and even less that are booked competitively. As fans we're only privy to very small fractions of information WWE or any organisation has to consider in making these decisions, consequently all we can do is speculate about what could/should be done ideally without having to worry about any factors that may hinder an ideal outcome. Even if, had they made people pay for the match, the company may have not gone out of business when it did?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
You're an optimist. That much is obvious. You want to see the best side of this stuff and appreciate it, and that's good for you. But its not as if people see a match get booked and then go looking for a way to feel bad about it. The reason people were upset about Morrison/Miz is that they had been anticipating the match but on PPV. They had been thinking about what that meant to Morrison to get a PPV main event spot and world title match, even if he lost. What it would mean for Miz to get a PPV main event he could win clean without too much shenanigans. What such a match would mean to the "youth movement" that fans have been telling themselves is inevitable, coming, or here for years without it ever really taking foot. The reason people reacted badly to the RAW match is because it shut down all those things they wanted to see happen. So when all is said and done you can walk away and say "It may have been a bad business decision but it was a good match I enjoyed." That's a good thing for you but for many others you can't blame them for the fact that their memory will be a good match, but not one for the books or that really did anything for either man, meanwhile they will remember their frustrations about what the match could have meant if the bookers had followed out what seemed to make sense. In the grand scheme of things its quite possible that match will be a notable part of the story in how Morrison never got his big shot or Miz's title reign never really worked. And hell, consider the bigger picture. 10 or so years ago I wasn't arguing with my friends over the business logic of Goldberg/Hogan. I was just excited and talking to friends how it was a sure thing we'd be watching more Nitro than RAW on Monday. But now, looking back on it, I can't revel in vague memories of fun from a pretty chaotic period of my life and wrestling. That stuff fades. I can however look back and see how that was a bad decision on top of more bad decisions that really helped bring the ship down. And I'll remember the day Vince and Shane appeared on Nitro and the day I knew WCW was dead and the golden era was officially over a lot longer than I'll remember how it felt when Goldberg won the belt. Also consider that many of the people who complain about such things aren't TOO hard up for wrestling. For many WWE fans they may just appreciate Miz/Morrison as a good match on a show where they so rarely happen. But when other fans have SD, Superstars, maybe even Impact, ROH on HDnet, the internet, and DVDs then they're not going to say "I just appreciate getting a good match on Monday night" because that's not enough. Appeasing them with scraps doesn't work because they're not hungry enough to think that's a life saver. They're really just frustrated and tired. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Apr 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:Even if, had they made people pay for the match, the company may have not gone out of business when it did?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
Sue Denim posted:I'm referring to the Miz/Morrison match, because obviously WWE can afford to give away matches like these every so often. Given their PPV numbers they really can't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
And more to the point the issue isn't "giving away a PPV match." Its "not giving the younger guys the big stage, not giving Morrison a proper title shot, and not giving Miz a good win on a stage where all of this really could have made an impact on all parties." I personally don't have much problem with "giving away" matches. But that assumes it serves some real purpose, that you have something equal or better for the PPV, and that it isn't counterproductive to the bigger picture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
I think a lot of the backlash came from the fact Morrison won his title shot on a PPV which made people think that there was a chance they might actually put on a PPV without Cena or Orton involved in the title match.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 23:33
|
|
|
To me it's more that they WWE has badly overexposed their guys and matchups between them such that it's hard to give much of a poo poo about anything. There's a grand total of two fresh programs on the Mania card, one of which is a feud between two announcers. Everyone else has wrestled a billion times on other PPVs and/or free television, and these particular matches aren't ones I want to see over and over again. The stories outside of Rock vs. Cena (which isn't even a real match) and Cole vs. Lawler aren't peaking at the right time. I'll watch the show and I expect it to be good, but most of it doesn't have a real WrestleMania feel. This is a similar problem to that which plagued WCW in about mid-1998. The top of the card stagnated badly during the prior few years and they'd run through every interesting program with those designated top guys, so they started doing a mixture of stupid poo poo and rehashes. That was beginning of the end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
MassRayPer posted:You know what, I will complain about Goldberg vs Hogan on free TV. Hot shotting that angle made for bad TV the next few months. Goldberg went from having US title level feuds for the US title to US title level feuds for the World title. It made for bad TV and made the title look so secondary to the Hogan vs celebrities sagas. But putting Goldberg vs Jobbers for the WHC at the top of Hour 1 of Nitro would have happened after a big build or not...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:But putting Goldberg vs Jobbers for the WHC at the top of Hour 1 of Nitro would have happened after a big build or not... Goldberg vs a completely unmotivated mid card Hennig and Goldberg in an nWo battle royal, both on PPV would not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Given their PPV numbers they really can't. jeffersonlives posted:To me it's more that they WWE has badly overexposed their guys... Once you've given fans the standard of star power (not match quality, mind) they've had on free television for the past twelve years or so it's going to be really hard to take this away from an audience that's accustomed to it without having them lose interest in the product and constantly compare it as a short coming to a time when all the big names were on television weekly as standard practice. I think it would have a very similar effect and reaction to the reform of hardcore wrestling elements in WWE we've seen from some fans, but on a much larger scale. Some fans just can't get past having an element of the product they enjoy phased out for whatever reasons and will constantly see the evolution of the product without it as flawed and lacking. Star-power is a much more universally appreciated and recognised factor of the product both in terms of how much of the audience and to what what degree it's an important element to. With the example of phasing out hardcore elements we can see how a change like this effects viewer perception on a smaller scale and have an educated guess as to the consequences of such a change on a larger scale. Sue Denim fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Apr 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
The overexposure of stars is more that they've refused to rotate guys up and down the card, and compounded that by putting all of the few guys who are designated as permanent, cemented in concrete top-top stars on television every week. You can book John Cena in the same top position for many years and be successful, or you can have John Cena wrestling in important matches on television every week. But you can't have both, because after a certain period there's no more mystique left to John Cena and nowhere new to go with the character. That point was years and years ago and yet still nothing has changed. It amazes me given the reactions that stars get coming back from their absences that they haven't figured this part out yet. Well, Triple H obviously has for himself given that he held off his return for so long. Giving away so many matches on television when almost all of them are booked with terrible finishes is just dumb. If it was one or two a year like you're claiming it is, fine, lots of successful promotions throw the fans an occasional bone. But you're getting a PPV-quality matchup every drat week on one show or the other. It's not drawing viewers because almost nothing they do draws viewers. Changing that isn't going to drive everyone away; nobody watches RAW to see Cena wrestle Alberto Del Rio in a bad match that mostly consists of a commercial and has a non-finish. And now that match, which in theory could be a good and fresh money program, has already happened and wasn't any good. That's not even the worst example in just the Mania build of burning matches for no rhyme or reason, Edge and Miz in those champion vs. champion matches was. This isn't all rocket science, they're just stuck in a counterproductive booking mentality that's only worried about the next rating and the next PPV number with no sense of the bigger picture. Apparently people believe this now because it's former writers saying it, but there's hardly ever a long-term plan because any long-term plan that exists gets changed by Vince every week on the way to the show. It is frighteningly similar to WCW at the beginning of that company's fall, before Russo came in and things got really manic. Now, WWE has revenue streams that WCW didn't, and heretofore has not run into its Brad Siegel, so it isn't like the company is going to die anytime soon. But it's not really prospering in the grand scheme of things either, and if there ever comes a day when they fall out of NBC Universal favor (which considering the trials and tribulations there isn't a total impossibility), they're going to have some real problems. Moreover, it's producing RAW shows that have alternated between horrible and underachieving recently, ones that even some of the most ardent WWE fans around here haven't been defending. You'd think at some point the light bulb would go off to try some new stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 10:01
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:if there ever comes a day when they fall out of NBC Universal favor (which considering the trials and tribulations there isn't a total impossibility) Man, this is something to think about. What if one day some bigwig at the new NBC decides either "You know, we don't need wrestling" or "Dump Smackdown?" What does WWE do? Nobody notable wants them. Spike has UFC. Anyone who would want them wouldn't be anywhere near as big as they would want. Raw on Versus or Fox Sports would be a disaster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 10:13
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Changing that isn't going to drive everyone away; nobody watches RAW to see Cena wrestle Alberto Del Rio in a bad match that mostly consists of a commercial and has a non-finish. And now that match, which in theory could be a good and fresh money program, has already happened and wasn't any good. This is one thing that I disagree with. I really don't see what the big deal about showing Cena/Del Rio was. There's a big difference between a 5-minute free TV match with a cheap finish and 20+ minute main event on PPV, and I think any fan who orders PPVs understands that. If/when Cena and Del Rio have a headline feud, people aren't going to be looking back and going 'Oh, but they wrestled on RAW that one time', they'll be thinking 'this is a fresh PPV main event'. The fact Del Rio looked like a chump in that RAW match is bad booking, but unrelated to the actual idea of having the match.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 10:27
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Man, this is something to think about. What if one day some bigwig at the new NBC decides either "You know, we don't need wrestling" or "Dump Smackdown?" What does WWE do? Nobody notable wants them. Spike has UFC. Anyone who would want them wouldn't be anywhere near as big as they would want. Raw on Versus or Fox Sports would be a disaster. I think its safe to say WWE would have to drop a lot further than it is not to be able to get anywhere on regular TV. I mean, some basic cable channel will be willing to stick them on some night instead of reruns or old movies. It might not be an ideal spot or for a lot of money but beggars can't be choosers. WWE would either have to be in the toilet with ratings that don't seem appealing or be demanding too much money. The latter is certainly a real possibility but if WWE were so arrogant as to make outrageous demands that landed them off TV or on some tertiary network because they wouldn't take a lesser deal than that's on them. Either that or they'd have to be dealing with truly disastrous PR. Like Vince McMahon decides to commerate 9/11 by having the Great Khali turn heel and throw Evan "Air" Bourn into Horneswoggle's miniature Leprechaun village, then later that night Randy Orton murders his wife and children while at the same time HHH overdoses on drugs and dies in the ring on live TV. Then they probably couldn't get a new show. Otherwise wouldn't their ratings realistically have to drop well below the level of Impact's or Superstars' or ECW's before someone wouldn't be willing to take a flier on them and shove them on a dead night in their schedule? Surely FX or TNT or whoever has some 2 hours that do crap that they'd take a bargain basement RAW on for a chance? It wouldn't be a spot WWE wanted and those of us in the know would see the embarrassment for what it is, but WWE could still land 2 hours on MTV2 in place of Lucha Libre USA or replace SD with RAW if they wanted to bad enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 10:44
|
|
|
There are so many cable channels out there that there will always be a home for them. The TV deals could get worse, but they do bring in better ratings than most stuff on cable. I still would love a WWE channel. Every other major sport has one and they could easily find enough programming from all their archives to keep it stock full of footage. Do a couple reality shows, some call-in shows, interview shows, maybe a Superstars type show, NXT, and second runs of Raw & Smackdown. Then play old shows and PPVs the rest of the time. You can't tell me that wouldn't be an interesting channel to have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
Rarity posted:There's a big difference between a 5-minute free TV match with a cheap finish and 20+ minute main event on PPV, and I think any fan who orders PPVs understands that. Clearly not, as PPV buyrates have crashed. If two guys wrestle on free TV, whether it's 5 minutes or 50 minutes, they have faced off. Never before seen matches is a really good way to draw interest, and throwing poo poo on free TV is a great way to kill it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:18
|
|
|
A major problem with modern booking is that they feel like you need to see the two guys in a feud up against one another every week. That's never been the way to draw before and it makes no sense now. You have to make the crowd beg to see the bad guy get his whoopin, and part of that is never letting them see the bad guy get his whoopin without paying for it on PPV. When the heel gets punked out even some of the time, you devalue his effect on the viewer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:25
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Man, this is something to think about. What if one day some bigwig at the new NBC decides either "You know, we don't need wrestling" or "Dump Smackdown?" What does WWE do? Nobody notable wants them. Spike has UFC. Anyone who would want them wouldn't be anywhere near as big as they would want. Raw on Versus or Fox Sports would be a disaster. Or WWE'll just start their own network (as they already plan to) with their giant tape library, put RAW on that along with Smackdown and maybe even buy out TNA just for shits and giggles just to give them one-or-two extra first-run shows per week to help the network average. So let's all hope NBC Universal decides wrestling isn't for them anymore because all of those options sound pretty kickass to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:34
|
|
|
I mean, think beyond free TV. Think about all the potential moneymaking feuds they've blown. -They blow off Edge vs. Cena for WM22 even though it was interesting. Then they just have the two feud for the rest of the year on free TV and a bunch of B-shows and they never reclaimed that initial magic. Because they had a loving self-contained feud in 3 weeks in January -Randy Orton vs. John Cena was teased all the way back at Summerslam 2004. At the time, everyone simultaneously thought "Holy poo poo that is gonna be huge at WM23 or whatever." It felt important. It felt like the new generation was coming. What do they do? They drive it into the ground on free TV and B-shows. There wasn't even a good story with it, like THE TWO WRESTLING PRODIGIES STEP UP TO DETERMINE WHO IS THE BEST. It was just two dudes in a stock WWE feud for the belt. Two geeks fighting for a prop. -Batista vs. John Cena, which at the time was WWE's last feud they hadn't managed to touch, one that probably could have been a good WM feud. So of course they throw it on a Summerslam. With a terrible build, one that was essentially "uh hey these guys don't have a match. watch them fight i guess." LividLiquid posted:Spike would drop TNA, pick up RAW and Ultimate Fighter would move back to a post-Raw timeslot. Absolutely not. No way. UFC is their cash cow now, and it won't be playing second fiddle to WWE anytime soon, if ever. Also reminder that Spike all but told WWE to gently caress themselves and kicked them off because they didn't want them anymore
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:35
|
|
|
The WWE channel has been pretty much a negotiating tool for years. You'll notice that they bring up the subject whenever they are having problems with broadcasters over schedualing or content. It's the corprate "we'll take our ball home if you don't play our way." Thats not to make me think they won't eventually end up doing it. At some point someone will call their bluff and because Vince is a manchild who will never back down the channel will come into being.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:40
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Clearly not, as PPV buyrates have crashed. Yes, and we all know buyrates are exclusively dependent on just one factor and have nothing to do with things like bad storylines, the rise of MMA or failure to build new stars. And let's not forget WWE's propensity to rewrite history. If Cena/Del Rio were to feud in say, a year's time, they easily could and probably would sell it as a first time match-up and pretend that RAW never happened. It's not like the majority of the audience would remember. After all, this is the first Undertaker/Triple H match at Wrestlemania!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:45
|
|
|
I think so long as WWE can offer a bare minimum of four hours a week of relatively inexpensive (for the channel) first-run content every single week of the year, and get ratings that are at or above average ratings for it, then they're not likely to be in danger of losing their contract.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:48
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Yes, and we all know buyrates are exclusively dependent on just one factor and have nothing to do with things like bad storylines, the rise of MMA or failure to build new stars. I would quite like to see Cena vs Big Show myself, as I don't think that Cena could AA the Big Show... and if he could, well he certainly couldn't put him in the STF, so they could make the rematch a submission match. Money to be made there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:49
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Yes, and we all know buyrates are exclusively dependent on just one factor and have nothing to do with things like bad storylines, the rise of MMA or failure to build new stars. The point isn't really that they've never faced each other: it's that matches aren't special anymore. They just happen. Stuff gets thrown against the wall at random for no real reason other than "well, because." CC listed some prime examples below, and Del Rio/Cena is just another casualty of that. Something should build into a match to make it special. When you've got dream match ups that have never happened before happening for five minutes on Raw every week, it doesn't matter what you're throwing on PPV anymore: nothing is special, nothing is unique. What are the two best builds for Wrestlemania? Cole/Lawler and HHH/Taker. Cole and Lawler will probably never wrestle again. Cole has never wrestled before and probably won't after. This is a unique match, and while that's not the only reason the build has worked, it plays into it. The match is special, and it's something you don't see everyday. Meanwhile, while HHH/Taker HAS happened, it's been years, and they're building it as a special attraction that won't ever happen again. That's one of the few things it has going for it: these two guys aren't wrestling every night, and probably won't wrestle each other again. If guys are just getting thrown together week after week on Raw, there's no real allure when they have a match on PPV. Sure it's gonna be longer, and there might be a build, but there just isn't as much to look forward to. And in the end they usually just botch the PPV build anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:53
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I would quite like to see Cena vs Big Show myself, as I don't think that Cena could AA the Big Show... and if he could, well he certainly couldn't put him in the STF, so they could make the rematch a submission match. Money to be made there. Cena FU'd the Big Show at Wrestlemania XX!  It was before he got the STF though so there's something new I guess. e: I do agree that matches aren't special so much these days, but I think that comes down to the quality of the writing more than anything else. For a good example, Christian and Del Rio have met twice in recent weeks but Christian's wins mean a PPV title match between the two would be interesting. For a bad example, Cena/Miz. Even the dullest match on paper can be special if the storyline's written well, Rarity fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Apr 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:53
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Cena FU'd the Big Show at Wrestlemania XX! Oh okay I didn't know that. Tell you what I'd like to see though, Cena vs Big Show! See, I don't think that Cena could AA the Big Show... and if he could, well he certainly couldn't put him in the STF, so they could make the rematch a submission match. Money to be made there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:55
|
|
|
Rarity posted:Yes, and we all know buyrates are exclusively dependent on just one factor and have nothing to do with things like bad storylines, the rise of MMA or failure to build new stars. Bad storylines can survive with good matchmaking, and buyrates were sinking well before the rise of MMA and the current dearth of new stars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 11:59
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I still would love a WWE channel. Every other major sport has one and they could easily find enough programming from all their archives to keep it stock full of footage. Do a couple reality shows, some call-in shows, interview shows, maybe a Superstars type show, NXT, and second runs of Raw & Smackdown. Then play old shows and PPVs the rest of the time. You can't tell me that wouldn't be an interesting channel to have. The problem is every other SPORT has a channel. A Wrestling Channel would be awesome. Something that covered WWE, TNA, ROH, PWG, Chikara, SHIMMER, NJPW, AJPW, NOAH, CMLL, AAA, UK feds, Australian feds, whatever. A nightly news/roundup show, a variety of opinions and topic shows, footage and wrestling from all around the globe. It would be amazing. But if you've ever watched a network run by one sports teams you know that as interesting as it can be for awhile eventually they're just showing the same stuff over and over. Diehard fans may never lose interest because they live and breath their team, but others can only watch "classic games" so many times before the novelty wears off. WWE has enough stuff archived that it would take them a long time to burn it out, but there's two problems. One, putting stuff on their cable channel would kill DVD sales, which is one of their biggest money makers. It would make more business sense for them to sell Nitro or RAW seasons on DVD than to run them on a channel most people would get for "free" on a cable tier they already pay for. You'd be walking this tight rope of trying to divvy out your material at the right pace to not waste it. Because the other problem is the amount of original content coming in will always be limited and unless you make it very exclusive and hard to come by you're still talking about reruns. A WWE channel would turn into replays of the week's shows, airings of stuff like NXT, some kind of long Sportscenter/talk show type thing that was a lot of talking and the same hype and recap videos we already get too much of with some original and fun content like Zach Ryder's web show, and then maybe a few unique things. But WWE wouldn't air an ECW Hardcore TV episode every night because within a year they'd air the whole thing and within a few years everyone will have seen it. Its why syndication turns over so often and shows like Seinfeld or Friends that were once on 10 times a day give way to shows like Scrubs and How I Met Your Mother which will one day give way to Big Bang Theory and Modern Family or whatever. A WWE channel done right would be fun for a few years, probably, but would eventually lose a lot of its appeal in the same way their on demand channel seems to have. In order to make a WWE channel really work I think they'd have to really drastically change their business and either showcase a lot of other promotions and grant them the respect and attention they don't now, or to expand the "WWE Universe" hugely like in that fantasy scenario we've heard a few times about them opening companies all around the world to feed in talent in different styles and regions of popularity. Because an archive of filmed material, huge though it may be, will be depleted over time if you don't have a comparable amount of original stuff coming in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 12:00
|
|
|
Rarity posted:This is one thing that I disagree with. I really don't see what the big deal about showing Cena/Del Rio was. There's a big difference between a 5-minute free TV match with a cheap finish and 20+ minute main event on PPV, and I think any fan who orders PPVs understands that. If/when Cena and Del Rio have a headline feud, people aren't going to be looking back and going 'Oh, but they wrestled on RAW that one time', they'll be thinking 'this is a fresh PPV main event'. Niwrad posted:I still would love a WWE channel. Every other major sport has one and they could easily find enough programming from all their archives to keep it stock full of footage. Do a couple reality shows, some call-in shows, interview shows, maybe a Superstars type show, NXT, and second runs of Raw & Smackdown. Then play old shows and PPVs the rest of the time. You can't tell me that wouldn't be an interesting channel to have. Then again I'm sure Vince would be very happy to move in that direction and have the 'sports entertainment' they produce themselves to be merely a division of the entertainment producer/distributor they would become. I get the impression Vince wants the WWE to be changed into a very different corporate identity in line with production studios like Fox or Mirrormax and for shows like Raw to just be another entity produced under the WWE studios banner along with their films and new projects, the way the Simpson's and the films they produce are just another entity produced under the Fox banner. Even though I have no proof or really any reason to think this I get the feeling the whole re branding and preferred vocabulary thing is all about what kind of legacy Vince wants to leave behind, it seems to me that it's really important to him to expand the WWE banner outside of wrestling so that the McMahon empire is more like the Murdoch or Turner empire before he hands it off to Stephanie/Shane/Hunter. Sue Denim fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Apr 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 12:29
|
|
|
Sue Denim posted:if I want to see a match that is long enough to catch steam and have a couple of acts so to speak I'm only going to find this consistently on WWE PPV's. But free TV shouldn't just be 5-minute long matches with cheap finishes. We shouldn't be getting PPV main-event calibre matches every week on RAW but there's no reason we can't get a couple of matches that have a decent length of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 12:39
|
|
|
Logically we should be getting some 8-12 minute matches, often using midcarders who won't get big showcases on PPV so can build themselves up on free TV, and one or two bigger matches amongst the top players that don't have to be "PPV matches" but could be solid matches we've seen before, mix and match tag matches, or matches not quite ready for TV. Or even one big PPV match a month that keeps us hooked and watching all those matches to see if this is the big, awesome one. Because if the company can't spare 1 or 2 big free matches a month then they really suck. There's 90 minutes or so of TV available every week on RAW. There's no reason at least 45 minutes of that can't be set aside for 3 or 4 solid matches and RAW could still get all its promos, hype videos, recaps, and other non-wrestling in. Sue Denim's opinion that the only place she can catch a match with any real story, psychology, or time is on PPV is a really sad state of affairs that wasn't true for a very long time but seems to have been true for RAW so long that a lot of fans have accepted it as inevitable. Which is weird when you consider SD kind of makes a point of regularly debunking it. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Apr 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Rarity posted:But free TV shouldn't just be 5-minute long matches with cheap finishes. We shouldn't be getting PPV main-event calibre matches every week on RAW but there's no reason we can't get a couple of matches that have a decent length of time. STAC Goat posted:Logically we should be getting some 8-12 minute matches, often using midcarders who won't get big showcases on PPV so can build themselves up on free TV, STAC Goat , I agree with everything you said, but there's another type of match I think they should add on. I'd like to see WWE make a habit of having a match with someone like Drew MacIntyre, John Morrison, Kofi, Ziggler or Swagger of quality and length somewhere in between a main event title match and a regular PPV match shown on Raw or Smackdown a handful of times a year. It would give people who have hit the glass in the mid card who they want to be main eventing in the future some experience in more demanding matches without having to worry about them effecting a buy rate or not performing quite at PPV standard for the top of the card. Sue Denim fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Apr 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2011 14:16
|
|