|
Post by Rude Awakening on Jan 4, 2017 18:26:48 GMT -5
This show sucks. Why can't WWE stay kayfabe? You wouldn't think wwe would be the ones to come out about their own product. The only thing I liked is when Paul said all the fans do is b*tch, moan, and complain and that they need to STFU. This statement is so true, people complain about EVERYTHING. Please get a different guy and maybe I'll give it another shot. You're the one bitching, moaning, and complaining right now..haha Sorry I'm not into wwe breaking kayfabe. I'm also not into fans acting like they know all the ins and outs of the wwe.
|
|
|
Post by Joey Cush on Jan 4, 2017 19:59:34 GMT -5
I thought the show was terrible. Great idea, terrible execution. If they had negative views on some things instead of being company guys, would have made it more must see.
|
|
|
Post by The Natural Eddy Valintino on Jan 4, 2017 20:01:13 GMT -5
Anyone else really enjoy the first episode of this show? I just got to watching it today and I absolutely love it. I feel like this is something the WWE Network really needed.. an ESPN type talk show where they talk about whats going on in the WWE, etc.. I love how Pete Rosenberg brings a fan point-of-view aspect to this. Some really good points were made by him and I enjoyed some of the questions he would follow up asking where Heyman and JBL didn't necessarily give the best answer. What are your guys' thoughts? Would you like to see it continue long-term? What are some things you would like to see changed or kept the same?I would love this show in the long run. Very entertaining show. I think the problem with WWEs inconsistency with original show is that i think they use these shows to basically test out what will stick based on who's watching live and how many hits the archive gets
|
|
|
Post by ZDB on Jan 4, 2017 22:04:19 GMT -5
This was awesome
I have a hard time accepting WWE's lack of kayfabe but it's something that needs to be overcome as kayfabe is never coming back and this may help do the job
|
|
bigraj
Main Eventer
PSN: bigraj70501
Joined on: Nov 5, 2010 16:46:40 GMT -5
Posts: 1,779
|
Post by bigraj on Jan 5, 2017 9:27:32 GMT -5
Finally got around to watching the rest of the show last night. I'd be very interested in knowing if JBL or Heyman really feels like that or if they're just supposed to go out there and berate Rosenberg and the "fans' perspective" in that manner. "Boycott or STFU." Really? Mr. Heyman, millions of fans that used to watch WWE have boycotted and aren't coming back. The people that still watch like the product for the most part. Yes, there are people that seem to "bitch and moan and whine" about everything, and a very small number do. But for the most part some complaints are about the Chris & Kevin comedy tour, while some other people complain about the tag teams, others complain about the women, or Roman Roman Roman, or the announcers, or the handling of the cruisers. Not everybody likes everything about the shows and voice that concern, some to vent and other in hopes that thing'll get better.
"WWE makes $$$$$$$ from the 3rd hour, so the fans are morons for not liking 3-hr Raws." Is that really the best response to give to the hardest of the hardcore fans that have stuck around? And I don't care how much extra money the company makes from Raw's 3rd hour. Raw was already hard to sit through at 2 hrs and they had the full roster to utilize and is an absolute chore to sit through now, and the brand split makes it even worse. I fall asleep sitting up trying to watch, and even starting the show late and skipping the commercials and stuff I'm not interested in doesn't help. Even the Raws that are mostly good still drag.
|
|
|
Post by ~ Cymru ~ on Jan 5, 2017 9:51:04 GMT -5
I liked the show but I think it'd work a billion times better if neither Paul or JBL were under contract and expected to give neutral or pro-company answers.
Paul didn't seem to want to talk about anything other than finances during the 2 hour raw bit of the show. I feel he too thinks 3 hours is a bit long. It wouldn't be so bad if the booking was good from all angles but sometimes matches are just put on to kill time
|
|
|
Post by ARUN on Jan 5, 2017 9:52:51 GMT -5
I enjoyed it. Finished the episode last night. Hoping they continue the series.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 5, 2017 10:43:10 GMT -5
I liked the show but I think it'd work a billion times better if neither Paul or JBL were under contract and expected to give neutral or pro-company answers. Paul didn't seem to want to talk about anything other than finances during the 2 hour raw bit of the show. I feel he too thinks 3 hours is a bit long. It wouldn't be so bad if the booking was good from all angles but sometimes matches are just put on to kill time I would be shocked if Heyman actually believes anything he (or JBL) said about 3 hour Raws, honestly. While I do think the show was a fun watch, its intention was clear - push the WWE agenda and ridicule anyone who doesn't align with it by placing two articulate employees, told to tow the company line strongly, against a host made to seem "out of his league", so to speak. Rosenberg's attempts to combat Heyman and JBL's arguments were weak, and completely glazed over the most reasonable detraction one would have with the topics. I have no doubt that was done very intentionally. Rosenberg has no issue articulating his points clearly on Cheap Heat, but yet he fell back on the "I don't like it" argument almost exclusively during this show.
|
|
|
Post by POOR-ly Cuyler on Jan 5, 2017 13:02:44 GMT -5
Felt like a circle jerk. WE ARE WWE! WE ARE RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG! Have an opinion? WE WILL SHUT THAT S*** DOWN!
|
|
|
Post by ClashOfStyles on Jan 6, 2017 12:56:15 GMT -5
I thought most of it was great but the "yay or boo" part sucked. How are they supposed to disagree with any of it if Vince is right on the other side of the camera?
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 8, 2017 15:50:05 GMT -5
Just watching this now. The responses to the "Raw shud b 2 hours I dont care if WWE makes money" nonsense are great. As an ongoing format, I'm not sure how far BRING IT TO THE TABLE can really go. It's basically an attempt to educate fans why the real world company cannot institute every suggestion made from their stupid complaints, but there's probably not enough material there to do it every week. They've already done the three hour Raw topic... They could do one on a PG rating and/or blood... They could do the complaints about Cena and Roman winning matches... But ultimately, I can't see them filling the half hour every week without resorting to more stuff like "do you like the Bella Twins and Conor McGregor?"
|
|
|
Post by Controversial Maverick PUNK on Jan 11, 2017 22:17:00 GMT -5
Just got around to watching it - and wasn't all that impressed. For the most part, it's nothing more than a PTI rip-off. I would be interested to see if they ever address the subject of Punk returning.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 11, 2017 23:41:19 GMT -5
Just watching this now. The responses to the "Raw shud b 2 hours I dont care if WWE makes money" nonsense are great. As an ongoing format, I'm not sure how far BRING IT TO THE TABLE can really go. It's basically an attempt to educate fans why the real world company cannot institute every suggestion made from their stupid complaints, but there's probably not enough material there to do it every week. They've already done the three hour Raw topic... They could do one on a PG rating and/or blood... They could do the complaints about Cena and Roman winning matches... But ultimately, I can't see them filling the half hour every week without resorting to more stuff like "do you like the Bella Twins and Conor McGregor?" The problem with this is that there are logical arguments against the 3 hour format, but Rosenberg could not (or was not allowed to) articulate them, for obvious reasons - it's a WWE produced show aiming to stifle fan unrest. I'm not really sure how "STFU or boycott" is a great thing to say, or a productive message to put forth. The simple fact is: thousands upon thousands of people have boycotted, in effect, by tuning out of Raw every week. The near 20% decline in its average rating over the last year is proof of that. "It makes more money" is not a good enough argument when it's the only point they can muster. It also drives away fans, gives away matchups that could be used to sell the Network, and increases the workload of the talent leading to increased risk of injury. All of those things, one can argue, are detracting from business and negating the money they're adding with that third hour (reportedly one million per episode.) The NFL could make more money by adding an extra 2 minutes to each quarter, but they don't, because it would decrease the viewer's experience, increase player fatigue, and risk of injury. We know that the company hates the three hour format. Those in positions of power are dismissive but telling when questioned about it, and those with less of a stake in the production side have made it clear how they feel. To this day, Eric Bischoff will tell anyone willing to listen that accepting a third hour of Nitro was the single biggest mistake he made in WCW.
|
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Jan 12, 2017 8:00:14 GMT -5
Just watching this now. The responses to the "Raw shud b 2 hours I dont care if WWE makes money" nonsense are great. As an ongoing format, I'm not sure how far BRING IT TO THE TABLE can really go. It's basically an attempt to educate fans why the real world company cannot institute every suggestion made from their stupid complaints, but there's probably not enough material there to do it every week. They've already done the three hour Raw topic... They could do one on a PG rating and/or blood... They could do the complaints about Cena and Roman winning matches... But ultimately, I can't see them filling the half hour every week without resorting to more stuff like "do you like the Bella Twins and Conor McGregor?" The problem with this is that there are logical arguments against the 3 hour format, but Rosenberg could not (or was not allowed to) articulate them, for obvious reasons - it's a WWE produced show aiming to stifle fan unrest. I'm not really sure how "STFU or boycott" is a great thing to say, or a productive message to put forth. The simple fact is: thousands upon thousands of people have boycotted, in effect, by tuning out of Raw every week. The near 20% decline in its average rating over the last year is proof of that. "It makes more money" is not a good enough argument when it's the only point they can muster. It also drives away fans, gives away matchups that could be used to sell the Network, and increases the workload of the talent leading to increased risk of injury. All of those things, one can argue, are detracting from business and negating the money they're adding with that third hour (reportedly one million per episode.) The NFL could make more money by adding an extra 2 minutes to each quarter, but they don't, because it would decrease the viewer's experience, increase player fatigue, and risk of injury. We know that the company hates the three hour format. Those in positions of power are dismissive but telling when questioned about it, and those with less of a stake in the production side have made it clear how they feel. To this day, Eric Bischoff will tell anyone willing to listen that accepting a third hour of Nitro was the single biggest mistake he made in WCW. Meltzer brought up a great point this week stating networks like to use programming to a point of overexposure, which inevitably kills a brand. If you remember way back in the 90s, Who Wants to be a Millionaire was the most popular show ever. Then network execs decided to put it on 3 days a week. Then 5 days, then 7 days a week, and in a year it was off prime time. People get bored with TV shows very quickly and overexposing it isn't going to help ratings. They are down almost 2 million viewers a week since they've gone 3 hours. Long term, the extra money may not be worth it.
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 12, 2017 10:15:53 GMT -5
The problem with this is that there are logical arguments against the 3 hour format, but Rosenberg could not (or was not allowed to) articulate them, for obvious reasons - it's a WWE produced show aiming to stifle fan unrest. I'm not really sure how "STFU or boycott" is a great thing to say, or a productive message to put forth. The simple fact is: thousands upon thousands of people have boycotted, in effect, by tuning out of Raw every week. The near 20% decline in its average rating over the last year is proof of that. "It makes more money" is not a good enough argument when it's the only point they can muster. It also drives away fans, gives away matchups that could be used to sell the Network, and increases the workload of the talent leading to increased risk of injury. All of those things, one can argue, are detracting from business and negating the money they're adding with that third hour (reportedly one million per episode.) The NFL could make more money by adding an extra 2 minutes to each quarter, but they don't, because it would decrease the viewer's experience, increase player fatigue, and risk of injury. We know that the company hates the three hour format. Those in positions of power are dismissive but telling when questioned about it, and those with less of a stake in the production side have made it clear how they feel. To this day, Eric Bischoff will tell anyone willing to listen that accepting a third hour of Nitro was the single biggest mistake he made in WCW. Meltzer brought up a great point this week stating networks like to use programming to a point of overexposure, which inevitably kills a brand. If you remember way back in the 90s, Who Wants to be a Millionaire was the most popular show ever. Then network execs decided to put it on 3 days a week. Then 5 days, then 7 days a week, and in a year it was off prime time. People get bored with TV shows very quickly and overexposing it isn't going to help ratings. They are down almost 2 million viewers a week since they've gone 3 hours. Long term, the extra money may not be worth it. Precisely. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that attention spans are rapidly decreasing. Take the major sports, for example. They're all actively trying to find ways to cut back on the amount of time it takes to see a game through in an effort to combat viewer fatigue. Is it going to cost them money up front? Absolutely. Less time on the air means less advertising revenue. Their belief, though, is that it will create a better viewing experience, which in turn will bring back a number of the viewers they've lost and make up the dip in profit.
|
|