|
|
Post by Duck Holliday on Oct 22, 2015 2:55:08 GMT -5
meh, dunno how much it would help, because the fact is, 3 hours of RAW followed the next night 2 hours of SD is really a lot of wrestling, I feel like people would get burned out even quicker, especially since you'd be seeing 2 hours of the exact same stuff you just saw the night before while the commentators act like it's the first time we've ever seen it agreed. I love wrestling but I'd have a hard time watching basically the same content two nights in a row.. at least on Thursdays, there is a bit of a cool-down period between. |
|
|
|
Post by greenjack1992 on Oct 22, 2015 3:43:58 GMT -5
So?
|
|
|
|
Post by kingnothing ~ Hardwired... on Oct 22, 2015 4:49:19 GMT -5
The brand split is not a move they could make right now. They need to fill three hours of Raw and have to have all hand son deck for that. Going live may be too costly also. They just need to make sure they put effort into Smackdown and make it matter. Outside of that, nothing will really change. I agree with this, but I have to wonder about filling 3 hours of Raw being too hard. If they were to give some of this awesome talent more time for matches and not cram half of them together in tag matches as frequently I believe it could be done. Hell, they could have a few more divas matches alone if they'd split them out of all the tag matches. I must have hope that things can improve. I refuse to be in the doom and gloom camp that writes the same old complaints, regardless of the current track record. |
|
PudgieTheSheep
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 6, 2012 16:41:55 GMT -5
Posts: 651
|
Post by PudgieTheSheep on Oct 22, 2015 5:11:22 GMT -5
No brand split please. It was stale after the initial surge last time and they don't put enough effort into the 3 hours of live TV they have. Splitting the writers and creative team and giving them half the time to create something would have an awful effect imo.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 18:41:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 7:20:12 GMT -5
They already have a brand split. It's called NXT. Eh. In the end, it's developmental. Is this just the stock response for anyone who suggests NXT is its own brand or what?! A developmental that sells out Wembley Arena may be developmental, but it's still a standalone brand. I don't think a main roster split would work, personally. But they've got enough workers to do it and fairly balance two separate rosters. I just fear that SmackDown would become the jobbers show. |
|
torriefan4life
Superstar
Joined on: Mar 9, 2012 13:27:48 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by torriefan4life on Oct 22, 2015 9:48:05 GMT -5
Well that is good, but they can't make Raw worth watching right now so I don't think just making SD live makes it must see.
|
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Oct 22, 2015 11:16:31 GMT -5
So will SD and Raw be in the same city each week?
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Oct 22, 2015 11:27:34 GMT -5
meh, dunno how much it would help, because the fact is, 3 hours of RAW followed the next night 2 hours of SD is really a lot of wrestling, I feel like people would get burned out even quicker, especially since you'd be seeing 2 hours of the exact same stuff you just saw the night before while the commentators act like it's the first time we've ever seen it agreed. I love wrestling but I'd have a hard time watching basically the same content two nights in a row.. at least on Thursdays, there is a bit of a cool-down period between. I third this. After watching 3 hours of RAW, dedicating another two hours the next night just seems like overkill. To be honest, there are too many other good shows on for me to spend that much time watching wrestling (especially sub par wrestling that ends up not really mattering) during the week. Nobody want to admit it, but to be honest, Smackdown is just overkill. With the network and all of the content there, and with 3 hours of RAW, NXT, and monthly PPV, Smackdown isn't needed at all. It stretches the writing thin, it overexposes the product and makes the fans less interested at all because they have seen it all. Smackdown should be cancelled, and they should run with house shows on Tuesday. There is more than enough WWE content available on the network and on Monday nights to fill demand. I know the hardcore people here can't ever get enough, but for your average fan, trying to keep up with all of the content is exhausting. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 18:41:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 12:01:25 GMT -5
Cancel Smackdown.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 18:41:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 12:10:31 GMT -5
agreed. I love wrestling but I'd have a hard time watching basically the same content two nights in a row.. at least on Thursdays, there is a bit of a cool-down period between. I third this. After watching 3 hours of RAW, dedicating another two hours the next night just seems like overkill. To be honest, there are too many other good shows on for me to spend that much time watching wrestling (especially sub par wrestling that ends up not really mattering) during the week. Nobody want to admit it, but to be honest, Smackdown is just overkill. With the network and all of the content there, and with 3 hours of RAW, NXT, and monthly PPV, Smackdown isn't needed at all. It stretches the writing thin, it overexposes the product and makes the fans less interested at all because they have seen it all. Smackdown should be cancelled, and they should run with house shows on Tuesday. There is more than enough WWE content available on the network and on Monday nights to fill demand. I know the hardcore people here can't ever get enough, but for your average fan, trying to keep up with all of the content is exhausting. It wouldn't be an overkill, if it featured guys you'd only see on SmackDown. If I'm getting John Cena and Bray Wyatt on Mondays, but on Tuesdays I'm getting Ambrose and Sheamus... It's not me watching the same pointless show back to back. Different storylines, characters and presentation will keep it fresh. |
|
|
|
Post by Duck Holliday on Oct 22, 2015 12:25:00 GMT -5
I third this. After watching 3 hours of RAW, dedicating another two hours the next night just seems like overkill. To be honest, there are too many other good shows on for me to spend that much time watching wrestling (especially sub par wrestling that ends up not really mattering) during the week. Nobody want to admit it, but to be honest, Smackdown is just overkill. With the network and all of the content there, and with 3 hours of RAW, NXT, and monthly PPV, Smackdown isn't needed at all. It stretches the writing thin, it overexposes the product and makes the fans less interested at all because they have seen it all. Smackdown should be cancelled, and they should run with house shows on Tuesday. There is more than enough WWE content available on the network and on Monday nights to fill demand. I know the hardcore people here can't ever get enough, but for your average fan, trying to keep up with all of the content is exhausting. It wouldn't be an overkill, if it featured guys you'd only see on SmackDown. If I'm getting John Cena and Bray Wyatt on Mondays, but on Tuesdays I'm getting Ambrose and Sheamus... It's not me watching the same pointless show back to back. Different storylines, characters and presentation will keep it fresh. obviously that would make it better, but for one, the roster is too thin to realistically pull it off, and two, I don't want to comitt to 5 hours of WWE programing in two nights. (back to back) |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 18:41:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 12:28:41 GMT -5
Which is why RAW going back to 2 hours would help (if that's an option).
The roster isn't nearly as thin as it was a year or two ago. Especially with NXT call-ups and returning veterans.
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Oct 22, 2015 12:40:17 GMT -5
It wouldn't be an overkill, if it featured guys you'd only see on SmackDown. If I'm getting John Cena and Bray Wyatt on Mondays, but on Tuesdays I'm getting Ambrose and Sheamus... It's not me watching the same pointless show back to back. Different storylines, characters and presentation will keep it fresh. obviously that would make it better, but for one, the roster is too thin to realistically pull it off, and two, I don't want to comitt to 5 hours of WWE programing in two nights. (back to back) I know for the younger fans it isn't a big deal, but for those of us with full time jobs and with spouses and kids, 5 hours devoted to one show during the week on back to back nights is a LOT of commitment. You have other shows that you watch, and that your wife watches, and that your kids watch. Cooking dinner, doing dishes, and any other chores you have doesn't leave a lot of free time in the evenings. There is tons of new content on the network I would love to watch, if I had more time. I wouldn't miss anything in the slightest if they cut RAW to 2 hours and dropped Smackdown. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 18:41:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 12:42:36 GMT -5
obviously that would make it better, but for one, the roster is too thin to realistically pull it off, and two, I don't want to comitt to 5 hours of WWE programing in two nights. (back to back) I know for the younger fans it isn't a big deal, but for those of us with full time jobs and with spouses and kids, 5 hours devoted to one show during the week on back to back nights is a LOT of commitment. You have other shows that you watch, and that your wife watches, and that your kids watch. Cooking dinner, doing dishes, and any other chores you have doesn't leave a lot of free time in the evenings. There is tons of new content on the network I would love to watch, if I had more time. I wouldn't miss anything in the slightest if they cut RAW to 2 hours and dropped Smackdown. That's you. I highly doubt married men with children are the WWE's biggest demographic. It's all priorities. Would you rather watch that DVRed episode of The Walking Dead, or Monday Night RAW. |
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Oct 22, 2015 12:43:20 GMT -5
I would watch SmackDown if it was live
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Oct 22, 2015 12:48:49 GMT -5
I know for the younger fans it isn't a big deal, but for those of us with full time jobs and with spouses and kids, 5 hours devoted to one show during the week on back to back nights is a LOT of commitment. You have other shows that you watch, and that your wife watches, and that your kids watch. Cooking dinner, doing dishes, and any other chores you have doesn't leave a lot of free time in the evenings. There is tons of new content on the network I would love to watch, if I had more time. I wouldn't miss anything in the slightest if they cut RAW to 2 hours and dropped Smackdown. That's you. I highly doubt married men with children are the WWE's biggest demographic. It's all priorities. Would you rather watch that DVRed episode of The Walking Dead, or Monday Night RAW. No, I know I am in the minority. Though they have a lot more entertainment options to compete with now than they did 15 years ago. Right now, if you gave me the choice between those two, I would choose Walking Dead. Also because that is what my wife would choose. The reason less people are watching Smackdown is because less people are interested in devoting their time to more WWE during the week. A brand split or making it live isn't really going to change it much, if at all. Smackdown was brought about during the hottest period for wrestling ever. But it has been a decade since fans were that interested in wrestling to necessitate a second show during the week. And one could even argue that even during the height of wrestling, it wasn't really necessary. In fact, to reference Walking Dead again, they are spreading themselves too thin as well with all of these spin-offs. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 18:41:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 12:51:06 GMT -5
That actually made sense. Wrestling simply isn't hot enough to warrant a second show. Although I feel if there's going to be one, it should have an exclusive roster to differentiate it from RAW.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 18:41:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 13:41:36 GMT -5
Just hire good writers...
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanMadeLesGold on Oct 22, 2015 22:19:43 GMT -5
I would watch SmackDown if it was live I agree, hard to watch something that was taped and has spoilers everywhere. Unless I hear something like a debut, I generally don't tune in. |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Oct 23, 2015 0:09:16 GMT -5
I think that's just too much wrestling too close together, I mean Jesus Christ - on a ppv weekend, you'll have 3 hours of ppv, 3 hours of Raw, and 2 hours of SD within 48 hours on each other.
|
|
