|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Sept 28, 2014 19:33:25 GMT -5
Honestly, it might help. It would force their hand a bit in having to come up with more original ideas. Original ideas are worthless when they need stars to make money. WWE's roster doesn't have the main event depth to carry two brands -- if they did, they wouldn't have ended the brand split. Smackdown never had a separate production crew. If WWE could afford to run two different production crews, Smackdown would have been live for years. The entire reason it's taped on Tuesdays is because the production crew is already on the road from Raw on Mondays.
|
|
Mr Wrestling Jr.
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 6, 2010 7:07:35 GMT -5
Posts: 3,410
|
Post by Mr Wrestling Jr. on Sept 29, 2014 0:25:29 GMT -5
Honestly, it might help. It would force their hand a bit in having to come up with more original ideas. Original ideas are worthless when they need stars to make money. WWE's roster doesn't have the main event depth to carry two brands -- if they did, they wouldn't have ended the brand split.Smackdown never had a separate production crew. If WWE could afford to run two different production crews, Smackdown would have been live for years. The entire reason it's taped on Tuesdays is because the production crew is already on the road from Raw on Mondays. That's why SmackDown! was separate right? Have some already established main event talent and bring some mid card guys up to main event status. Back in 2008 - 2009 RAW had Cena, Orton, Batista, Michaels, Big Show and a few young guys which they were bringing up like Miz, Kofi, Swagger. SmackDown! had Edge, Undertaker, Triple H, Mysterio, Kane and new stars like Punk, Hardy, Morrison, McIntyre. Although that mostly fell through due to 2010 being when the brand split started to crumble, I enjoyed it and SmackDown! built them up and they moved to RAW when they were ready. These days it's whoever Vince likes because of a move they do.
|
|
|
Post by The Mask of Truth on Sept 29, 2014 3:54:41 GMT -5
Since when does a company's logo have anything to do with the product they distribute. The real problem is creative just isn't creative enough.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Sept 29, 2014 4:32:17 GMT -5
That's why SmackDown! was separate right? Smackdown was separate because in 2001-2002, WWE wanted to create its own competition and they had Steve Austin, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, the Outsiders, Kurt Angle, Triple H, Chris Jericho etc etc on the roster. By 2011-2012, WWE no longer had the roster to support two separate major shows. The Smackdown crew was the B crew and Raw needed everyone decent to support the 3 hours. That's why the brand split ended. Either that or Triple H and his friend Mark were just having a laugh at how quickly the people who spent years saying end the brand split would start saying they wanted it back.
|
|
Mr Wrestling Jr.
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 6, 2010 7:07:35 GMT -5
Posts: 3,410
|
Post by Mr Wrestling Jr. on Sept 29, 2014 4:57:09 GMT -5
That's why SmackDown! was separate right? Smackdown was separate because in 2001-2002, WWE wanted to create its own competition and they had Steve Austin, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, the Outsiders, Kurt Angle, Triple H, Chris Jericho etc etc on the roster. By 2011-2012, WWE no longer had the roster to support two separate major shows. The Smackdown crew was the B crew and Raw needed everyone decent to support the 3 hours. That's why the brand split ended. Either that or Triple H and his friend Mark were just having a laugh at how quickly the people who spent years saying end the brand split would start saying they wanted it back.Haha. It seems like they might be able to give it a trial run. Or at least not have everyone who was on RAW be on SmackDown!. I really hate seeing the United States and Intercontinental Champions teaming up on both shows when only a few years ago they were meant to be opposing champions of their respective brands.
|
|
|
Post by Emerald Enthusiast on Sept 29, 2014 5:07:42 GMT -5
Ever since WWE started using the new logo in August I feel that things seem to have become very bland, drab and there seems to be a lot lacking in the overall energy of the shows. Maybe this was a problem anyway but the old "attitude logo" was still making me think/hope for better years. Now with the new logo in place it just seems everything has been stripped away and its very basic, plain and flat. WWE is suffering from an identity crisis? Is it time to get rid of the names "Raw" and "Smackdown" and come up with new shows to replace them? WWE has had an identity crisis for almost a decade, as is evidenced by the ratings spiral of both Raw and Smackdown. The brand split was a horrendous idea from its very inception, and with the thin roster right now, WWE would do well to concentrate on making its flagship show worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Sept 29, 2014 8:22:15 GMT -5
That's why SmackDown! was separate right? Smackdown was separate because in 2001-2002, WWE wanted to create its own competition and they had Steve Austin, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, the Outsiders, Kurt Angle, Triple H, Chris Jericho etc etc on the roster. By 2011-2012, WWE no longer had the roster to support two separate major shows. The Smackdown crew was the B crew and Raw needed everyone decent to support the 3 hours. That's why the brand split ended. Either that or Triple H and his friend Mark were just having a laugh at how quickly the people who spent years saying end the brand split would start saying they wanted it back.It is funny how so many begged WWE to drop it, and now they beg WWE to bring it back. Goes to show some will complain no matter what WWE does.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Mar 29, 2024 7:21:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 9:52:09 GMT -5
you can't blame what you seem to think is poor television on a little picture.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Mar 29, 2024 7:21:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 10:12:47 GMT -5
I'm a former wrestling die-hard. These days, I'm still very up-to-date and knowledgeable, but more of a typical Raw and PPV casual viewer. For me, I find it hard to keep up with what's what in WWE. I couldn't tell you to be honest. What shows are on when, on what networks, what's online, who has a show/does what/blogs where.
I think it would be great with a tighter structure. Not necessarily getting rid of any shows, but restricting things a little to avoid over saturating.
I personally would like it
PPV's - every 4 - 6 weeks - PPV TV Raw - Monday - TV NXT - Thursday - TV SmackDown - Friday - TV SuperStars/Main Event/Rebrand - Sunday - Online show
That way there is PLENTY of room to have EVERYONE fit in somewhere. Raw for everything that is WWE's main deal, NXT for the up comers set-up they currently have which is amazing I think, SmackDown for B-List main eventers and mid/low carders, and then the online show for any one who doesn't fit in to anything else.
I realize this is similar to what they have now (I think?) but I would make it stricter. So, certain superstars STICK to whatever show they're on for whatever feud they're in.
I'd like more continuity and structure.
|
|
|
Post by specterkev on Sept 30, 2014 21:52:19 GMT -5
can;t dump raw and smackdown... then they would not be able to pat themselves on the back with their longest ruinning episodic series thing
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Mar 29, 2024 7:21:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 23:28:46 GMT -5
Ever since WWE started using the new logo in August I feel that things seem to have become very bland, drab and there seems to be a lot lacking in the overall energy of the shows. Maybe this was a problem anyway but the old "attitude logo" was still making me think/hope for better years. Now with the new logo in place it just seems everything has been stripped away and its very basic, plain and flat. WWE is suffering from an identity crisis? Is it time to get rid of the names "Raw" and "Smackdown" and come up with new shows to replace them? WWE has had an identity crisis for almost a decade, as is evidenced by the ratings spiral of both Raw and Smackdown. The brand split was a horrendous idea from its very inception, and with the thin roster right now, WWE would do well to concentrate on making its flagship show worthwhile. I disagree. It created enough room to help build stars at a faster pace. It fell apart when they decided to make all ppvs dual branded.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Mar 29, 2024 7:21:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 23:36:24 GMT -5
Smackdown was separate because in 2001-2002, WWE wanted to create its own competition and they had Steve Austin, The Rock, Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, the Outsiders, Kurt Angle, Triple H, Chris Jericho etc etc on the roster. By 2011-2012, WWE no longer had the roster to support two separate major shows. The Smackdown crew was the B crew and Raw needed everyone decent to support the 3 hours. That's why the brand split ended. Either that or Triple H and his friend Mark were just having a laugh at how quickly the people who spent years saying end the brand split would start saying they wanted it back.It is funny how so many begged WWE to drop it, and now they beg WWE to bring it back. Goes to show some will complain no matter what WWE does. Where? It's easy to pull stuff out of nowhere like that to prove a point. Just like saying "90% of ya'll bitched", where do these statistics come from? Not targeting you specifically marino, I like you, but I am getting tired of reading crap like this.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Oct 1, 2014 8:12:13 GMT -5
It is funny how so many begged WWE to drop it, and now they beg WWE to bring it back. Goes to show some will complain no matter what WWE does. Where? It's easy to pull stuff out of nowhere like that to prove a point. Just like saying "90% of ya'll bitched", where do these statistics come from? Not targeting you specifically marino, I like you, but I am getting tired of reading crap like this. Well to be fair I never gave a percentage. And yes, there were many that said it was ruining WWE. On this site and others. I never kept records of whom said it and where they said it. I only remember because I loved it and had many discussion about WWE keeping it. Now that it's gone, it seems, the majority want it back. Just saying.... please don't hit me.
|
|
becks007
Main Eventer
BELT MARK
Joined on: Aug 14, 2011 9:11:57 GMT -5
Posts: 2,185
|
Post by becks007 on Oct 1, 2014 8:53:31 GMT -5
The ones to be blamed is the creative writing team. They just aren't creative enough. Something seems to be holding them back, but its definitely not he new logo..haha.. Speaking of which, i really like the new logo.. Smooth and modern, perfect for the current day and age..
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Oct 1, 2014 11:20:49 GMT -5
The logo has nothing to do with it, it's the fact they have no competition or reason to improve. Although, the new logo does suck imo. Honestly, it might help. It would force their hand a bit in having to come up with more original ideas. Original ideas are worthless when they need stars to make money. WWE's roster doesn't have the main event depth to carry two brands -- if they did, they wouldn't have ended the brand split. Smackdown never had a separate production crew. If WWE could afford to run two different production crews, Smackdown would have been live for years. The entire reason it's taped on Tuesdays is because the production crew is already on the road from Raw on Mondays. WWE would have plenty of stars if they didn't bury or ruin most of them every single time they gain some momentum. The brand split could easily come back, Raw could have Cena/Bryan/Reigns and SmackDown could start fresh and build some new stars, Jericho/Van Dam/Ambrose/Rollins could be on and start to build up people like Barrett and Wyatt. Then when Van Dam and Jericho leave you have credible people to hold the WHC and once they get big enough you transfer them over to Raw. It's very simple actually, but WWE don't want to put the effort in. Oh and SmackDown being taped doesn't help, the fake pops and boos are really cringeworthy.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Oct 1, 2014 14:08:43 GMT -5
WWE would have plenty of stars if they didn't bury or ruin most of them every single time they gain some momentum. The brand split could easily come back, Raw could have Cena/Bryan/Reigns and SmackDown could start fresh and build some new stars, Jericho/Van Dam/Ambrose/Rollins could be on and start to build up people like Barrett and Wyatt. Raw cannot afford to lose Ambrose, Rollins and Wyatt. Raw can afford to lose Tyson Kidd, Justin Gabriel, R-Truth and Curtis Axel, but I'm not sure those guys are going to carry a brand by themselves.
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Oct 1, 2014 14:25:25 GMT -5
WWE would have plenty of stars if they didn't bury or ruin most of them every single time they gain some momentum. The brand split could easily come back, Raw could have Cena/Bryan/Reigns and SmackDown could start fresh and build some new stars, Jericho/Van Dam/Ambrose/Rollins could be on and start to build up people like Barrett and Wyatt. Raw cannot afford to lose Ambrose, Rollins and Wyatt. Raw can afford to lose Tyson Kidd, Justin Gabriel, R-Truth and Curtis Axel, but I'm not sure those guys are going to carry a brand by themselves. They should be able to and that's exactly the problem. They need new stars and they may have to go through a dry period to fufill that, what's worse a few months of bad raws people will still watch or a worthless Friday show that is basically there as a raw replay? They could make a lot more money using both to the full potential rather than throwing all eggs in one basket.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Oct 1, 2014 14:31:05 GMT -5
Raw cannot afford to lose Ambrose, Rollins and Wyatt. Raw can afford to lose Tyson Kidd, Justin Gabriel, R-Truth and Curtis Axel, but I'm not sure those guys are going to carry a brand by themselves. They should be able to and that's exactly the problem. They need new stars and they may have to go through a dry period to fufill that, what's worse a few months of bad raws people will still watch or a worthless Friday show that is basically there as a raw replay? Bad, starless Raws are worse. Smackdown wasn't making new stars -- if it had, the brand split would still exist and Sheamus would be headlining those shows and drawing Cena-like numbers. WWE had to combine the rosters because the Smackdown-only guys weren't seen as stars and didn't draw like stars.
|
|
|
Post by rustyy on Oct 1, 2014 14:40:44 GMT -5
They should be able to and that's exactly the problem. They need new stars and they may have to go through a dry period to fufill that, what's worse a few months of bad raws people will still watch or a worthless Friday show that is basically there as a raw replay? Bad, starless Raws are worse. Smackdown wasn't making new stars -- if it had, the brand split would still exist and Sheamus would be headlining those shows and drawing Cena-like numbers. WWE had to combine the rosters because the Smackdown-only guys weren't seen as stars and didn't draw like stars. So then build them on raw, have a draft and send them to a revamped Thursday night Smackdown, problem solved. Not like it'll happen, WWE doesn't want new stars until it's forced, I can't wait to see the panic when Reigns flops and Cena retires.
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Oct 1, 2014 14:51:33 GMT -5
Bad, starless Raws are worse. Smackdown wasn't making new stars -- if it had, the brand split would still exist and Sheamus would be headlining those shows and drawing Cena-like numbers. WWE had to combine the rosters because the Smackdown-only guys weren't seen as stars and didn't draw like stars. So then build them on raw, have a draft and send them to a revamped Thursday night Smackdown, problem solved. If WWE can build enough stars to carry a three-hour show and enough new stars to separately carry a two-hour show, and get SyFy to actually go through with a Thursday move, then they'll do it. Thing is, building new stars isn't as easy as people on the Internet think it is.
|
|