|
Post by bigshab421 on May 21, 2015 8:25:10 GMT -5
After watching last night's NXT even with a few buddies who are casual fans, we got to talking. They are not huge followers of NXT but they thoroughly enjoyed the show. It got me thinking, how can WWE create such an awesome show under their own roofs with 1 hour of tv a week and a quarterly 2 hour special? Then it hit me, they don't over expose it.
Overexposure I think, is what is torturing WWE TV and letting NXT thrive. Think about it, 3 hours of Raw, 2 hours of Smackdown, 2 hours between Main Event and Superstars, and then 13-14 PPV's on top of it! In all actuality, WWE's programming is killing them.
The only problem I have with NXT is that I'm always left wanting more, yet if I watch Raw or SD I am always thinking "god, this match again!"
I think if WWE cut back Raw to 2 hours and Smackdown, with Main Event as the B-Level show, storylines, and matches would improve drastically. Less time makes everything tighter and more concise, which is what needs to be on WWE tv.
Also, I think if they went to the Big Four PPV's (Mania,SummerSlam,Survivor Series,Rumble) with two specials in between it could make for better television. For example after Mania, you could do Extreme Rules and Money in the Bank leading into SummerSlam, Night of Champions and No Mercy (?) heading into Survivor Series, etc. Cutting back to maybe 10 pay per views, and eliminating gimmick (PPVs) and saving those matches to fit a fued(s) could be super beneficial to the WWE.
It could give writers a chance to branch out and take a breath, and allow viewers to not become numb to the same mindless booking and matches each week.....thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on May 21, 2015 8:45:36 GMT -5
The WWE's product has been overexposed since the late-90's. NXT has that less is more aspect that makes you crave more and more. When we watch RAW & SmackDown, it can be a chore to sit through. Week after week, it has become a cliché seeing the same matches over and over. Everytime I see something we've seen before, I cringe. NBCU is partly to blame. They wanted RAW to be three-hours at the expense it dilutes the product. It is like saying NBC doing Saturday Night Live for an extra hour. By the time 1 AM hits, you just want to go to sleep. Ending it a 2 AM would give you more that what you can chew.
With RAW being a three-hour commitment, you just want to go to sleep by the time the third hour rolls around. For me personally, I was tired as hell watching RAW. If it had not been for Kevin Owens appearing, I would have stayed asleep. I can't believe we have stomached close to 150 consecutive three-hour RAW's since RAW 1000.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on May 21, 2015 8:49:06 GMT -5
I have been saying it for over a decade. Less is more. There has been too much tv for quite a while, and it causes viewer fatigue. I know the most hardcore fans want all they can get, but it hurts the product overall.
|
|
PVA
Main Eventer
Too hot to handle and too cold to hold
Joined on: Apr 12, 2004 15:33:20 GMT -5
Posts: 3,120
|
Post by PVA on May 21, 2015 8:55:45 GMT -5
Agreed. Less is more but wwe is greedy more exposure = more money.
|
|
|
Post by bigshab421 on May 21, 2015 8:58:31 GMT -5
The WWE's product has been overexposed since the late-90's. NXT has that less is more aspect that makes you crave more and more. When we watch RAW & SmackDown, it can be a chore to sit through. Week after week, it has become a cliché seeing the same matches over and over. Everytime I see something we've seen before, I cringe. NBCU is partly to blame. They wanted RAW to be three-hours at the expense it dilutes the product. It is like saying NBC doing Saturday Night Live for an extra hour. By the time 1 AM hits, you just want to go to sleep. Ending it a 2 AM would give you more that what you can chew. With RAW being a three-hour commitment, you just want to go to sleep by the time the third hour rolls around. For me personally, I was tired as hell watching RAW. If it had not been for Kevin Owens appearing, I would have stayed asleep. I can't believe we have stomached close to 150 consecutive three-hour RAW's since RAW 1000. Yeah it is pretty insane. Plus it makes PPV's less special because it is essentially a Raw without all of the crapty promos. I just feel as though, if they cannot go back to two hours, then get rid of some of the PPV's. There is no need for 3 pay per views within a months span, its just way too much. If you had a schedule like this, it would be great: 1. **WrestleMania**(late March/early April) 2. Payback (WM rematches, sipulation matches. Middle of May) • Money in the Bank (Early July) 3. **SummerSlam** (Middle/Late August) 4. Night of Champions (End September) 5. Battleground (Special that uses a Cage, Cell, or Chamber to fit the name. End of October) 6. **Survivor Series** (End of November) 7. No Mercy (Middle of December) 8. **Royal Rumble** (Middle/Late January) 9. Fast Lane (Middle February) Plus, you can avoid having to throw an impromptu PPV together like Elimination Chamber and just have it on raw with a weeks notice. Imagine if they had that long month and a half stretch and announced an Elimination Chamber for the IC Title on Raw.....ratings would go through the roof
|
|
Fig Heel
Superstar
Joined on: May 3, 2014 13:27:02 GMT -5
Posts: 771
|
Post by Fig Heel on May 21, 2015 8:59:01 GMT -5
I only watch Raw each week and even that I turn off after an hour. NXT has eager, thriving talent that can make mere simplistic rivalries and storylines exciting.
|
|
|
Post by bigshab421 on May 21, 2015 9:02:25 GMT -5
Am I the only person who thinks that if they would cancel Smackdown, nobody would notice?
I mean, its taped, usually rematches from Raw, and rarely, if ever advances storylines.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on May 21, 2015 9:06:18 GMT -5
I'm never one to ask for less free wrestling, but I do think they need to cut back on monthly PPV. There isn't enough time between shows to build a compelling story. 6 PPV a year would be more than enough IMO.
|
|
Quazimoto
Superstar
Joined on: Feb 4, 2014 12:37:37 GMT -5
Posts: 991
|
Post by Quazimoto on May 21, 2015 9:12:34 GMT -5
Yes... WWE is definitely overexposed. But, at the same time, even being overexposed wouldn't be such a problem if the writing was great. WWE's problem is that there are far too many cooks in the kitchen for the main roster shows. It's written by a whole gaggle of scribes with hollywood experience and very little wrestling knowledge before being hired. Worse yet, they all answer to one man who will routinely let his ego get the best of him and who has pretty clearly lost touch with what the modern wrestling fans want (kids don't really count because they will generally suck up whatever you put in front of them until they get tired of it and move on to something else). NXT is written by a handful of folks and overseen by a guy who got into the business because he loved wrestling from when he was a child.
Point is that scaling back PPVs (which will NEVER happen) or putting out less hours of TV won't make a difference at all unless they do a better job with the writing.
One might also argue that WWE being a publicly traded company and thus not being allowed to be edgy or brutally violent from time to time has really hurt them as well. Not saying we should return to the blood, guts, and boobs of the attitude era, but let's face it, there are certain times when some blood or an extremely brutal match would do wonders for a feud or storyline.
So yes, while WWE is overexposed, there are also some other major issues at play that have cause what we see in the current product.
|
|
Mr Wrestling Jr.
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 6, 2010 7:07:35 GMT -5
Posts: 3,410
|
Post by Mr Wrestling Jr. on May 21, 2015 9:21:49 GMT -5
The reason NXT is so much more entertaining is because they actually give angles time to grow, time to hate the heels and love the faces. Championship match builds are given time so we want to see it. On the main roster they use RAW and SmackDown to zoom through angles. In what takes two months on NXT it can take 3 weeks of RAW and SmackDown.
|
|
|
Post by bigshab421 on May 21, 2015 9:24:27 GMT -5
I feel scaling back would gives writers and creative a little more freedom to focus on the necessary.
Honestly, why do the try to squeeze as much into a show or focus on pointless stuff like Sandow/Axel instead of adding fuel to a character like Ambrose or even Sheamus
|
|
|
Post by T R W on May 21, 2015 9:34:44 GMT -5
Yes... WWE is definitely overexposed. But, at the same time, even being overexposed wouldn't be such a problem if the writing was great. WWE's problem is that there are far too many cooks in the kitchen for the main roster shows. It's written by a whole gaggle of scribes with hollywood experience and very little wrestling knowledge before being hired. Worse yet, they all answer to one man who will routinely let his ego get the best of him and who has pretty clearly lost touch with what the modern wrestling fans want (kids don't really count because they will generally suck up whatever you put in front of them until they get tired of it and move on to something else). NXT is written by a handful of folks and overseen by a guy who got into the business because he loved wrestling from when he was a child. Point is that scaling back PPVs (which will NEVER happen) or putting out less hours of TV won't make a difference at all unless they do a better job with the writing. One might also argue that WWE being a publicly traded company and thus not being allowed to be edgy or brutally violent from time to time has really hurt them as well. Not saying we should return to the blood, guts, and boobs of the attitude era, but let's face it, there are certain times when some blood or an extremely brutal match would do wonders for a feud or storyline. So yes, while WWE is overexposed, there are also some other major issues at play that have cause what we see in the current product. The WWE being a publicly traded company is something that people don't consider or bring up enough. Because of that, EVERY move the WWE makes is REQUIRED to be in the best interest of making stockholders many. I really dreaded them going public, and I think it has been a huge blow to the quality of the product. It may have made people more money, I don't know. But a TV show being held to stockholder standards is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on May 21, 2015 10:14:11 GMT -5
I think WWE needs to scale back on the amount of PPVs
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on May 21, 2015 11:38:14 GMT -5
I don't think anybody here wants 3 hour Raws.
If they used Smackdown to focus on different guys and not just rehash Raw would be nice, too.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 24, 2024 8:12:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 14:19:28 GMT -5
Too much crap, not enough awesome.
Hell, Stephanie said it last night during the NXT pre-show. She literally brought up 3 points why NXT is so successful and popular right now. One of them being character development.
|
|
|
Post by ~ Cymru ~ on May 21, 2015 16:09:52 GMT -5
I've been an advocate for less for a while now, there's simply so much going on that its impossible to watch it all, especially if you have work and a social life. Sometimes I feel that the writers run out of stuff to do on raw.
I can't comment on smackdown as I stopped watching a while ago, after realising Smackdown is "raw-lite" re-caps of raw with throw away matches before another raw-recap. Its only been lately that smackdown seems to he becoming more important.
I've never entertained the thought of watching superstars. And only recently started watching NXT which feels asthough its not even a product of WWE, yeah it leaves you wanting more but I see that as a good thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 24, 2024 8:12:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2015 16:50:07 GMT -5
Does anyone actually watch all four shows every week. Raw, Smackdown, Main Event and Superstars? Yes they have 7 hours of television a week but is it overkill if you don't watch that much? SD, ME and Superstars are not exactly must see shows.
On the flip side. I do think they could scale back and need to change up their formats. Cut back to fewer PPVs and make them important big events instead of just being an extra one or two Raws each month. Stop doing repeat matches on Raw from week to week and having matches on Smackdown just to have the same matches the next week on Raw. Enough with the recaps literally seconds after crap happens or right after a commercial break. A recap an hour later is fine for some of the bigger things, but come on.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhawk on May 21, 2015 16:59:55 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more with you guys. It is too much wrestling to watch which is why I think they should tone it down a bit. They really could do away with Main Event and Superstars and just keep Smackdown and Raw.
|
|
ohernan6
Main Eventer
'Cause That's How I Roll!
Joined on: Jan 20, 2009 17:40:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,670
|
Post by ohernan6 on May 21, 2015 17:18:54 GMT -5
The crazy thing is, I actually miss the brand split... but when it was a true brand split and Raw and Smackdown had their own PPVs.
I would love for Smackdown to get their own exclusive storylines again. It worked (almost perfectly!) back when Heyman was running it. I just watched Vengeance 2003 and was amazed at all the unique storylines that were going on exclusively to Smackdown.
|
|
|
Post by Flair Forever on May 21, 2015 17:33:47 GMT -5
The crazy thing is, I actually miss the brand split... but when it was a true brand split and Raw and Smackdown had their own PPVs. I would love for Smackdown to get their own exclusive storylines again. It worked (almost perfectly!) back when Heyman was running it. I just watched Vengeance 2003 and was amazed at all the unique storylines that were going on exclusively to Smackdown. You beat me to it - I wish they would go back to Raw & Smackdown being separate brands.... This way, they'd have three brands - Raw, Smackdown, and NXT.... there could be endless talent-trading, drafting, and cross-promotion stories - yet the shows would all feel different & not so repetitive.....
|
|