|
|
Post by speaktomeworriers on Apr 20, 2014 10:22:15 GMT -5
I was thinking wwe puts on wayyy too many PPVs... With Raw and Smackdown Having Main Event Matches all the time, is there any need for all these ppvs? I mean other than the original 4, do the other 8 ppvs really serve a purpose? these special events are just the same as any RAW or Smackdown in my opinion, everyone is just so impatient these days, they want these matches to happen yesterday, I think we need some build up, and make the ppv matches mean something again. what do you think?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 29, 2024 4:09:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 10:42:04 GMT -5
No, there are better matches on ppv and I like more title defenses
|
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Apr 20, 2014 10:46:09 GMT -5
I'll never understand why wrestling fans want less PPVs , less hours of programming, 2 hr Raws back, etc. I want all the programming they can dish out! If you don't want to watch that many PPVs then don't watch them all, no offense my man.
|
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Apr 20, 2014 10:46:32 GMT -5
When I had to pay for them... Yes way too many!
Now that they included on WWE network.... bring em on!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 29, 2024 4:09:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 10:52:29 GMT -5
As much as I'd love to see it go back to the old days with only around five major ppvs (along with they're own theme songs instead of flavor of the month bands providing the theme each month) and more scrub/local jobber matches to actually build up stars, I know those days are history and not coming back....that's part of the reason the product is so stale nowadays....you'll see Cena, Batista, Orton, Bryan fight each other twenty times before the monthly ppvs-sometimes in title matches....but so long as McMahon is Mr. Monopoly we have to deal with all of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by speaktomeworriers on Apr 20, 2014 10:52:59 GMT -5
I'll never understand why wrestling fans want less PPVs , less hours of programming, 2 hr Raws back, etc. I want all the programming they can dish out! If you don't want to watch that many PPVs then don't watch them all, no offense my man. True enough...i do follow that advice though, I dont watch them all, only the ones i think will be interesting.... im just too old school i guess, i liked the format from 80's, 90's. no offence taken... |
|
|
|
Post by speaktomeworriers on Apr 20, 2014 10:55:36 GMT -5
No, there are better matches on ppv and I like more title defenses i may be wrong, but i usually see the same matches on free tv, and title defenses every week... except the us of course but even that title isnt ppv worthy |
|
|
|
Post by RybackV1 on Apr 20, 2014 10:57:07 GMT -5
I'll never understand why wrestling fans want less PPVs , less hours of programming, 2 hr Raws back, etc. I want all the programming they can dish out! If you don't want to watch that many PPVs then don't watch them all, no offense my man. True enough...i do follow that advice though, I dont watch them all, only the ones i think will be interesting.... im just too old school i guess, i liked the format from 80's, 90's. no offence taken... I'll admit I do enjoy the 1996 wwf PPV binge I've been on because the IYHs were only two hours making the matches more meaningful and the other "big " PPVs seem like huge events. But I still enjoy the current format. Just wish there weren't so many gimmicky PPVs. Save the gimmick matches for blowoffs to big feuds. |
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Apr 20, 2014 11:21:18 GMT -5
The problem with more PPVs is the build sucks alot more often. 8 would be perfect with about 6 weeks between PPVs. No PPV between Rumble and Mania.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 29, 2024 4:09:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 11:28:33 GMT -5
Could do what TNA is currently running. Have pay-per-views every once in a while and have special Raws like semi-ppv's.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 29, 2024 4:09:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 11:28:39 GMT -5
6 is good.
Also, to answer Ryback's post, the only reason some fans (like myself) sometimes want less content is because it's easy to get burned out trying to keep up with everything when there are hours and hours of content each week.
Also, in regard to the PPVs, I think cutting it down to 6 will make the events seem more special and actually increase buyrates. PPVs should be treated as "must see" events instead of "this months" event.
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Apr 20, 2014 11:34:39 GMT -5
Less PPVs would do nothing for the build-up. Even your own post acknowledges the problem -- Raw and Smackdown's content. WWE doesn't care to preserve things for the PPV.
If there was a Sheamus vs Christian match at a PPV in 4 weeks, they would have at least three matches on TV in that time. If there was a Sheamus vs Christian match at a PPV in 8 weeks, the only difference would be that Sheamus and Christian would have twice as many TV matches in that time. Which would only make the PPV match seem like even older news.
WWE could do a PPV once a week or a PPV once a year and the problem would still be the same -- the free TV shows are full of PPV-length filler matches because the company is too lazy or uncaring to write storylines for the majority of the roster. A TV show that has a bunch of PPV-length matches and does nothing to build up actual PPV matches is the issue, not the frequency of PPVs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ✖ AJ on Apr 20, 2014 11:36:11 GMT -5
I just wish that the September-December pay-per-views were actually good... by the time we get past Summerslam my interest drops.
It has been like that every single year for about the past five years.
|
|
|
|
Post by knupmc on Apr 20, 2014 11:39:41 GMT -5
Once a month is good so no
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 29, 2024 4:09:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 11:42:23 GMT -5
Royal Rumble in January
Wrestlemania in April
King of the Ring in June
Summerslam in September
Survivor Series in November
That's all they need. Putting out to many PPVs saturates us with needless crap. And it'd be a first step towards building longer and more meaningful feuds for everyone on the card.
|
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 20, 2014 13:29:11 GMT -5
I think it's alright now. I know a lot of people thing only the "big 4" is better, and maybe it is for a portion of the audience. But today's culture of immediate gratification required WWE to always have a big event just around the corner. It also helps to justify the price of the WWE Network. If suddenly they cut out over half of PPVs each year, a lot of customers would be pissed and probably cancel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmy! on Apr 20, 2014 13:38:13 GMT -5
12 is fine for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slim on Apr 20, 2014 14:03:24 GMT -5
12 is perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Apr 20, 2014 14:20:59 GMT -5
Less PPVs would do nothing for the build-up. Even your own post acknowledges the problem -- Raw and Smackdown's content. WWE doesn't care to preserve things for the PPV. If there was a Sheamus vs Christian match at a PPV in 4 weeks, they would have at least three matches on TV in that time. If there was a Sheamus vs Christian match at a PPV in 8 weeks, the only difference would be that Sheamus and Christian would have twice as many TV matches in that time. Which would only make the PPV match seem like even older news. WWE could do a PPV once a week or a PPV once a year and the problem would still be the same -- the free TV shows are full of PPV-length filler matches because the company is too lazy or uncaring to write storylines for the majority of the roster. A TV show that has a bunch of PPV-length matches and does nothing to build up actual PPV matches is the issue, not the frequency of PPVs. I love this post. Nowadays, the WWE doesn't use their programming time wisely. They tend to wait about a week or two after the preceding PPV to begin building towards the succeeding event. The overall build to the last two WrestleMania's (XXIX & XXX) have been lackluster. Had they marketed their feuds and storylines better, than it is justified having 12 PPV's a year. If you include all of the commericals during RAW, the length of a RAW is longer than their three-hour PPV's. When RAW became two-hours in February 1997, an episode of RAW (factoring in commercials and overrun) was longer than their two-hour IN Your House PPV's. Honestly, we are spoiled with all of this content we're getting today. Compared to the late-'80's, the product is oversaturated now. For me, three-hours a week is sufficient for me. Hell, if I only watched NXT, that one-hour is good enough for me. I will say, the WWE has had stellar matches on RAW since RAW 1000. |
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Apr 20, 2014 14:23:43 GMT -5
When I had to pay for them... Yes way too many! Now that they included on WWE network.... bring em on!! This 10 times over. At $10 a month they can do a PPV twice a month for all I care. |
|
