|
|
Post by hunterbusax on Apr 27, 2015 16:09:01 GMT -5
I enjoyed Extreme rules thing is every match i had already seen at one point on free tv or a previous PPV . They feel like there only purpose are to sell a gimmick more than anything not to advance a storyline or build up a person. I wouldn't mind if they cut down to 1 every 2-3 months WM, Royal Rumble,summer-slam,Money in the bank,Survivor Series think that's all they need . An since there pushing the network dont think tv buys matter at this point so less wouldn't be a bad idea.
|
|
Big Poppa Pumpkin
Dennis Stamp
I'll be in the back polishing............ my belt.
Posts: 4,987 
|
Post by Big Poppa Pumpkin on Apr 27, 2015 16:10:56 GMT -5
I like them because matches usually get a lot more time than they do on Raw and less time is spent on wacky skits and celebrity shilling (Wrestlemania excluded) and whatnot.
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,653
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Apr 27, 2015 16:45:34 GMT -5
I like them a heck of a lot better now that they're $9.99 instead of $54.99
|
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Apr 27, 2015 16:51:17 GMT -5
I wish they would tinker with the formula, now that they only cost $9.99 now.
I look at TNA's One Night Only shows, and while it's an atrocious idea to tape them months ahead of time, I do like that they do stuff that they don't normally do on TV, like one night tournaments and Battlebowl style shows. WWE does this stuff with only a couple of their shows like the Rumble and Survivor Series, but they could do more of them now that the stakes of each individual show is lower.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Apr 27, 2015 16:53:01 GMT -5
The shows could be better but I think they're fun. If anything they might play a little better as modern SNMEs now that more people have legitimate access to them.
|
|
RIHT
Hank Scorpio
Wanted a title with "YOU'RE WELCOME!"
Close enough.
Hey-yo.
Posts: 5,897
|
Post by RIHT on Apr 27, 2015 16:53:43 GMT -5
I hate that we are probably getting the same set of matches for 3 PPVs in a row (WM, Extreme Rules, and now Payback). I'd rather have gaps in between to add some anticipation to the matches and maybe make things feel more important.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 16:59:34 GMT -5
With the Network being a monthly subscription set up, then they better not EVER drop below one per month as that is what I pay for.
I'm really quite baffled by the objection to monthly PPV's in 2015 with the Network price and no commitment. Just dip in and out when you want at low cost.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Apr 27, 2015 22:48:48 GMT -5
I don't mind monthly PPV's but make em different
- Jan - Rumble - Rumble
- Feb -
- Mar - WrestleMania
- Apr - Extreme Rules - every match is gimmick
- May - Money In The Bank - MITB
- Jun - KOTR (or rename it) - Tournament
- Jul - Great American Bash - Elimination chamber, Winner is #1 contender at SS
- Aug - Summerslam
- Sep - Fall Brawl - Lethal Lottery (Same concept as WCW's, Winner gets a trophy/Plaque)
- Oct - Halloween Havoc - Horror themed PPV
- Nov - Suvivor Series - WWE title M.E - Undercard is Tag Team elimination matches
- Dec - TLC
PPV's at the moment just feel like a typical RAW, Also make the stages stand out
|
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Apr 27, 2015 22:56:25 GMT -5
There's really no point. The shows are shorter than weekly TV anyway with almost as much filler most of the time.
|
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Apr 27, 2015 23:04:06 GMT -5
There's really no point. The shows are shorter than weekly TV anyway with almost as much filler most of the time. I agree. There's no reason for most of them. Not at all. Extreme Rules, for example, was completely pointless/boring. Most of them just feel like Sunday Night Raw. |
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Apr 27, 2015 23:05:50 GMT -5
There's really no point. The shows are shorter than weekly TV anyway with almost as much filler most of the time. I agree. There's no reason for most of them. Not at all. Extreme Rules, for example, was completely pointless/boring. Most of them just feel like Sunday Night Raw. And if you're going to run 12 ppv's a month then why waste a B show on one of your A markets? Chicago, New York, LA, etc should get nothing but A shows or the shows building to the A show (Road to Wrestlemania, July ppv before Summerslam etc) |
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Apr 27, 2015 23:07:35 GMT -5
I agree. There's no reason for most of them. Not at all. Extreme Rules, for example, was completely pointless/boring. Most of them just feel like Sunday Night Raw. And if you're going to run 12 ppv's a month then why waste a B show on one of your A markets? Chicago, New York, LA, etc should get nothing but A shows or the shows building to the A show (Road to Wrestlemania, July ppv before Summerslam etc) I feel almost completely assured that the July 6th Raw in Chicago will have at least as much going for it as Extreme Rules did, definitely a major waste of the city. |
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,477
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Apr 28, 2015 0:15:44 GMT -5
I like them just because you normally get more time for matches. With that said I wish they would tinker with them a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Apr 28, 2015 1:39:39 GMT -5
No. No, no, no. Absolutely not. They are pretty pointlessly wearing themselves thin. I mean, they don't really make that much money off of these shows anyway. They cannibalized buys and PPV DVD sales for the Network, which the vast majority would retain anyway. The idea of a monthly PPV was bought into by the boom era, when there was a demand for more and more wrestling. That isn't so much the case today. You need to get rid of Extreme Rules and TLC because they're crappy, gimmicky PPVs to begin with and they really have watered down those gimmick matches. Extreme Rules was atrocious. TLC is always a disappointment. Night of Champions is stupid when all the belts are unified and defended on every PPV anyway. What even are Battleground or Payback? And yes, add in Fall Brawl. It's been gone long enough, and like MITB, it involves enough people to it to keep it fresh. So cut it to 8.
|
|
|
|
Post by madness50 on Apr 28, 2015 1:58:19 GMT -5
Cut the PPV's to 8 and I think that would work.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Apr 28, 2015 7:27:55 GMT -5
Monthly PPVs are not the problem, we've had that for years. The problem is the writing. Better angles, a deeper roster, etc. would mean it wouldn't matter that we have monthly PPVs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 28, 2015 8:02:25 GMT -5
No
Most offer nothing that an episode of RAW and Smackdown couldn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 8:07:59 GMT -5
So people want to pay more for the Network to get less?
Sensible.
|
|
Eunös ✈
Dalek
Duck Feet Expert
Tolerated, just not practically liked.
Posts: 59,189
|
Post by Eunös ✈ on Apr 28, 2015 8:09:28 GMT -5
Before I had the Network, The Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania were the only 2 PPV's I bothered ordering.
Now I've actually started watching them all again..
Fastlane and Extreme Rules were 2 PPV's I wouldn't have bothered with if I didn't have the Network.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saul Goodman on Apr 28, 2015 8:35:14 GMT -5
I have been watching them every month for a year, I realize that I do not like them. Extreme Rules was a decent show, but there is no way I would have paid $50 for that. However, there is no way that the WWE will go back to four PPVS a year. This is the 20th year that the WWE had a monthly PPV. PPV's are the selling point for many to subscribe to the network, I am surprised that they are not doing 16 PPVs a year.
|
|
