|
Post by rydndirty on Nov 13, 2007 9:00:39 GMT -5
Though I know there have been multiple threads about this, I have a point to make about this Brand Extension garbage.
The point (and I understand this point) was to make new stars by giving more people opportunity to get on TV. I get it. Without it, people like the Satinos, Hardys, Kennedys and such probably don't get over like they have.
That being said, how can you say you don't have enough time to get people over when this week on RAW, you have a Diva Squash match, a 6-Diva Tag match, Santino losing to Lawler (!), and a leprechaun "wrestling " a general manager's assistant. Also, add in all of the "Moments Ago" replays that make zero sense since we just watched it live.
What I'm getting at is that they wasted a majority of the show on garbage. Honestly, does anyone really care about the Diva matches? Can't we find someone else to push in that situation other than our color commentator? Do we really need to see a replay of something that happened 2 minutes ago? Do the replays have to be as long as the actual segment?
I love watching the WWE. I really do. But when someone says that they have to have two or three brands because they don't have enough time to get everyone on a show, that is a cop-out. Of course you don't have enough time when you put matches out there that no one will remember come next Monday.
I like to be entertained and I wasn't entertained by what I saw last night. Unfortunately, the WWE is like a virus and once it gets in your system like it has been in mine for over 20 years, its hard to get it out. I'll be glued to my TV next Monday from 9-11:05.
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Nov 13, 2007 9:20:50 GMT -5
Just to add - the Hardys were over as hell long before the brand extension.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2007 9:23:23 GMT -5
They may as well just end it, they're halfway there already.
Maybe keep ECW as a separate brand, but just combine Raw and SmackDown. It would be so much better, for all three shows.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Nov 13, 2007 9:29:25 GMT -5
Just to add - the Hardys were over as hell long before the brand extension. WAY over
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Nov 13, 2007 12:41:47 GMT -5
Fact is it doesn't matter what we think, They are probably making more money with it set up this way. Until that stops happening they will never end it
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Nov 13, 2007 12:45:10 GMT -5
Fact is it doesn't matter what we think, They are probably making more money with it set up this way. Until that stops happening they will never end it Glad I'm not the only one who's thought this. Also, the crossovers happening in the past few weeks are becuase of Survivor Series coming up, at least that's my view of it.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Nov 13, 2007 12:52:01 GMT -5
Fact is it doesn't matter what we think, They are probably making more money with it set up this way. Until that stops happening they will never end it Glad I'm not the only one who's thought this. Also, the crossovers happening in the past few weeks are becuase of Survivor Series coming up, at least that's my view of it. I know that's why we're seeing them, but I still kind of hope it leads to Rated's idea.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Nov 13, 2007 12:56:44 GMT -5
If having three brands makes more money than having everything combined into one brand, then why in the hell would they want to combine the brands?
As Vince would say, it's always about the MONAAAAAAYYYYYY.
|
|
Randy Barber 4-Life
Hank Scorpio
I have received an email from RAW's anonymous General Manager. And I quote: "No play for Mr. Gray!"
Posts: 5,001
|
Post by Randy Barber 4-Life on Nov 13, 2007 14:53:24 GMT -5
There's a lot of merit to everything you said. The problem though is that I don't think ending the split would solve any of that. I think yes, you'd have less time for the undercard because the harsh reality is that diva searches, looney toons style leprechaun chases and matches, basketball contests, etc. seem to be a priority these days. Those things will be in the show regardless, whether they have 2 hours or 4 hours for a brand. I know a lot of people want the brand split to end. I personally don't think the split itself is the problem, it just magnifies all the other problems.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on Nov 13, 2007 14:58:23 GMT -5
Fact is it doesn't matter what we think, They are probably making more money with it set up this way. Until that stops happening they will never end it Glad I'm not the only one who's thought this. Also, the crossovers happening in the past few weeks are becuase of Survivor Series coming up, at least that's my view of it. Don't forget that it is Sweeps month.
|
|
|
Post by Palatial Regalia on Nov 13, 2007 15:31:44 GMT -5
Never! There needs to be 3 brands just to fill the 5 hours of TV programming.
|
|
|
Post by davyd doesn't eat meat on Nov 13, 2007 16:04:37 GMT -5
I like the brand extension personally. More wrestlers on TV on a weekly basis, instead of Orton/HHH/Batista/Taker 3 nights a week. Plus, as everyone has already pointed out, they're making more money this way.
|
|
|
Post by Fantozzi on Nov 13, 2007 16:46:47 GMT -5
i hate the brand extension because IMO 3 champions = no champion
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Nov 13, 2007 17:25:14 GMT -5
The Hardys have been over for years before the brand split... And the 1st thing I would do is dump the Raw announce team, they're incredibly stale.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Nov 13, 2007 18:25:29 GMT -5
I still don't see how things would change without the brand split...
It will STILL be 5 hours of TV they need to fill. So options are:
a) two, almost identical, shows on mondays and fridays, featuring more or less the same people.
b) two somewhat different shows with different superstars (ie. no double shifts)
c) an A show with all the main eventers and a B show with mostly midcarders
d) a RAW-style show and the comeback of Superstars of Wrestling.
Ignore D as it's not gonna happen in 10000 years.
C would kill the "b show", as nobody would care about a show without or with few big names (see current ECW)
B and A are small variations of the current product.
As long as WWE have all these hours of TV, it doesn't matter the format of the shows, filler is a given.
|
|
mrrotten
Don Corleone
The #1 Kaneinite
Posts: 2,066
|
Post by mrrotten on Nov 13, 2007 18:29:17 GMT -5
I was thinking the other night that they could combine Raw and Smackdown together. Then keep ECW by it's self just to have to have low to midcards make up the major of their roster, with a few high card guys. That way the lower guys could develop.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 28,922
|
Post by Sephiroth on Nov 13, 2007 18:40:07 GMT -5
When they started the brand extension, I believe it had two purposes. One, they intended for Smackdown to become the "young man's" show where they would put their green, up and coming talent to get experience and recognition before moving to the main show, RAW. And to a certain extent, that effort was successful. Cena, Carlito, Londrick, Batista-these are a few of the names who have made the jump and enjoyed (arguable) success on RAW. However, I believe it was also a less than subtle effort by Vince to recreate the rivalry that had sparked fan interest during the monday night wars. In that effort, it was a failure, as it really just meant Vince was trying to go into competition with himself. However, Smackdown may have outlived that purpose now that they have ECW. I recall more than a few people saying part of the intent in re-launching ECW was to use it as a platform for new stars to rise, and then make the jump to other shows. And while CM Punk has emerged as the stand-out star they always meant for him to be, ECW is so low on talent and short on air time that the results could be best classified as mixed. With this in mind, I would actually be all for ending the brand extension, but it is not likely to happen because of all the problems it would generate. For instance, what would be the situation concerning all the titles? Do you continue to run a separate set of belts for each show, or do you unify them all to have one single set? Does ECW stay as a separate entity, or does it get melded to the other shows? How do you fit two shows worth of main eventers into one set of storylines? And of course, there would the increase in the boys travel schedules to think about. I am sure the brand extension will end, eventually. However, I don't see that coming any time for quite a while yet. The only circumstances under which I could see it being ended would be either Vince croaks or steps down as owner, and the new boss, be it Shane or Steph or whoever, decides to end it. Or, the WWE's fortunes take a dramatic turn for the worse, and to cut back the budget they have to cancel one or two of the shows. Otherwise, the brand extension is here, and it is not going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Fantozzi on Nov 13, 2007 18:48:13 GMT -5
I still don't see how things would change without the brand split... It will STILL be 5 hours of TV they need to fill. So options are: a) two, almost identical, shows on mondays and fridays, featuring more or less the same people. b) two somewhat different shows with different superstars (ie. no double shifts) c) an A show with all the main eventers and a B show with mostly midcarders d) a RAW-style show and the comeback of Superstars of Wrestling. Ignore D as it's not gonna happen in 10000 years. C would kill the "b show", as nobody would care about a show without or with few big names (see current ECW) B and A are small variations of the current product. As long as WWE have all these hours of TV, it doesn't matter the format of the shows, filler is a given. of course it's option A (like it was in 2000 and 2001) you'd have a great roster instead of 3 meh rosters with no depth, so i wouldn't call it a "small variation" of the current product
|
|
Tapout
Hank Scorpio
WWE Creative(TM)
W.W.W.Y.K.I.
Posts: 6,919
|
Post by Tapout on Nov 13, 2007 18:55:30 GMT -5
If having three brands makes more money than having everything combined into one brand, then why in the hell would they want to combine the brands? Men, this is really all there is to it. If you think the company will end the brand split just because you personally don't like it, you're living in a dream world. The E is a company and companies, especially public ones, have to make as much money as possible.
|
|
|
Post by tap on Nov 13, 2007 19:10:29 GMT -5
There is a trade-off, in my eyes, of ending the brand split. Granted, having 3 shows to develop talent means there is less competition on one show, more time to devote to get guys over, many of which have been mentioned in this thread. However, having repeat matches on TV and PPV, more often than not including gimmicks to drive up ratings and buyrates leads to feud exhaustion. Would having 1 brand with loads of stars lead to new feuds that could generate money be better for WWE long term? Or is taking the time to develop stars that can feed off each other (a la Triple H and the Rock circa 1998) developing stars the way to go? I don't know. I must admit I miss having 1 brand, it's easier to follow. Plus, I'm rather non-plussed at having interpromotional matches between ECW and Smackdown when it shows how threadbare the rosters are separately, or when the brand split isn't honoured with guys jumping across shows or being arbitrarily traded for no kayfabed reason.
Another possibility, although highly, highly doubtful, regarding the brand split and traveling, the expense it takes on the wrestlers. Would it be possible to bring back the taped show system for the shows? Raw could be live on a Monday, then taped on a Tuesday, for Monday's show. Smackdown could be taped on a Tuesday and Wednesday, whereas one ECW show could be live, and the other could be taped. It's probably not feasible, given spoilers, but with no head-to-head wrestling competition, it may make some sense. And to make sure that the shows are strong enough to encourage people to watch, even with spoilers, would definitely be better for the product.
Lastly, how many wrestlers are around to get guys over and even willing to do so? If you look at the attitude era, you have 'Taker, Michaels, and Triple H on a regular basis, and that's about it. Foley has done a good job of getting guys over, given his record (Triple H, Orton, Edge), but can he sustain this? Given reactions to him this year, maybe leaning towards no, I think. Austin shows up for himself basically, and the Rock is probably never going to come back. Jericho is returning to save us, but even his resurgence will be short term unless younger guys not named Cena or Batista are given a chance to get over, stay over, and draw money, pending they are either interesting enough or can work, or, preferably, both.
|
|