|
Post by joeman on Dec 28, 2007 15:07:40 GMT -5
One reason that led to WCW's downfall was Thunder, which meant that wrestlers work twice for the same amount of money. If the brandsplit ended, a lot of wrestlers would get angry because of that reason. Don't let your pipedreams of booking ignore what happens in real life. These guys work almost daily anyways, doesnt matter if they are on TV wrestling or not. IIRC, each brand work 3 times a week. Ending the brand extension means they would work 6 times a week without further pay. Not only this, but if they want to alleviate the schedule, then they would have to cut down the house show, and if they do, they lose a lot of money. Ending the Brand Split is a bad idea for a collective WWE roster.
|
|
wwerules60
El Dandy
"Bring what? a vomit bag? a fig newton?"
Posts: 8,999
|
Post by wwerules60 on Dec 28, 2007 17:21:22 GMT -5
These guys work almost daily anyways, doesnt matter if they are on TV wrestling or not. IIRC, each brand work 3 times a week. Ending the brand extension means they would work 6 times a week without further pay. Not only this, but if they want to alleviate the schedule, then they would have to cut down the house show, and if they do, they lose a lot of money. Ending the Brand Split is a bad idea for a collective WWE roster. You can still manage to split the house shows up between the roster but then you do not have to be confined to only having a certain brands house show.
|
|
MolotovMocktail
Grimlock
Home of the 5-time, 5-time, 5-time, 5-time 5-time Super Bowl Champion 49ers-and Wrestlemania 31
Posts: 13,954
|
Post by MolotovMocktail on Dec 28, 2007 17:29:35 GMT -5
Don't end it outright, but reduce the number of titles and have them defended on all three shows.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2007 17:32:16 GMT -5
You can still manage to split the house shows up between the roster but then you do not have to be confined to only having a certain brands house show. Don't they also have different travel schedules, which had necessitated the need for the brand split?
|
|
.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,450
|
Post by . on Dec 28, 2007 17:32:59 GMT -5
I find it ironic the same people who think its a terrible idea, also think the smackdown ecw merger was really great. Personaly i dont think there really needs to be 3(2) world champions but thats just me.
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Dec 28, 2007 17:38:05 GMT -5
Attitude Era was over in 1999.
As a fan it be cool. But as a "smark" it would suck cause I would know so many wrestlers are gonna get lost in the shuffle and stuff. Imagine the past couple years without it and having to deal with Cenas boring title reign on two shows...
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 28, 2007 17:42:34 GMT -5
Nope, it would create more problems than it would solve creatively.
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Dec 28, 2007 17:45:23 GMT -5
Its been around for 5 years. Its made us wait approximatly one week to see what will happen next episode instead of waiting for SmackDown! later in the week. Yes, I'm talking about the Brand Extension, the main reason the Attitude era ended. I't has left us with a batch of wrestlers on one brand and another on the other. It has made two world titles when it is the law to have only one. It is a discrace to the already discaceful WWE. So all of you fourm fillers what do you think, should it stay or should it end, cast your votes...nnnnnnnow. you say the first thing like it's a bad thing to watch a different set of wrestlers on a different night, in a different setting, with the same production values. I think that's the best thing. Two world titles is still necessary to me to show just who the top guy on the brand is, doesn't matter to me if it's the whc or the WWE champ, both belts are important, the WWE title itself however is still the most important in pro wrestling. I think the Brand Extension has done wonders in terms of me wanting to see different wrestlers, and brand loyalty. Like on ECW/Smackdown i get to see longer matches, more sensible storylines based more around competition, and just a general old school WWE feel like thE New Generation except you know with better wrestlers. With RAW it's RAW, the top wrestling show for 15 years dude, featuring the top guys in pro wrestling, and acts that got over during the last generation. Eh it leads to less cluttered rosters, and a better show to me. more room for more stars to bloom I mean for years they had A-team and b-team touring rosters, so this is just the evolution of that. I think it leads to a lesser workload for the wrestlers, and well i just think it's good for the business, and it's definitely good for WWE's business.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 28, 2007 17:47:55 GMT -5
I find it ironic the same people who think its a terrible idea, also think the smackdown ecw merger was really great. Personaly i dont think there really needs to be 3(2) world champions but thats just me. I think the difference there is that there weren't really any new possible matches on ECW, and since they already are aired/filmed together, it only made sense. Of course, you can already see that people who were getting tv time before the merger sort of don't now.
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Womack on Dec 28, 2007 21:35:39 GMT -5
i say end it but keep the wrestlers only obligated to wrestle the same ammount of dates that they currently do, so that at least it gives the impression that anybody can face anybody else in a match and anybody can get involved at any time, i also find it ridiculous that when a characters mad about something that happened they wait a whole week to act on it when theres another 2 shows by the same company inbetween their own, especially in the aftermath of ppvs i dont buy that a smackdown guy is so mad about getting screwed that he waits until "friday" to air it out
|
|
|
Post by Dick Foley on Dec 28, 2007 22:42:05 GMT -5
The brand extension is a good thing. WWE's roster is twice the size it was before Smackdown was a seperate show. Take that away and half the roster would have to be cut. Your main stars on EVERY show would be Taker, Hunter, HBK, Edge, Orton, Cena. People complain enough about Hunter and Cena, now you have to see them TWICE a week. The real problem with the split is that the writers and bookers are stretched too thin.
|
|
|
Post by chunkylover53 on Dec 29, 2007 11:35:25 GMT -5
The Brand Extention I don't have a problem with. What they should do however is unify the belts as well as combining Smackdown and ECW.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Dec 29, 2007 23:28:20 GMT -5
I am sick to death of this question. It ain't going anywhere - get OVER it. Oh come on man! It's not nearly as bad as the weekly "Who was Right and who was wrong in Montreal?" threads!
|
|
|
Post by Janitor From Mars on Dec 29, 2007 23:31:56 GMT -5
Its been around for 5 years. Its made us wait approximatly one week to see what will happen next episode instead of waiting for SmackDown! later in the week. Yes, I'm talking about the Brand Extension, the main reason the Attitude era ended. I't has left us with a batch of wrestlers on one brand and another on the other. It has made two world titles when it is the law to have only one. It is a discrace to the already discaceful WWE. So all of you fourm fillers what do you think, should it stay or should it end, cast your votes...nnnnnnnow. Here's a simple solution: Unify the world titles, IC/US Title and Tag titles and keep the separate brands. Just make the title defenses inter-brand and keep the rest of the brands separate. Have tournaments for all titles frequently and build the storylines around them. You can have 2 brands and still have credible world champions. It's wasteful to have 2 world titles, 2 tag team titles, 2 mid-card titles, etc.
|
|
repomark
Unicron
For Mash Get Smash
Posts: 3,049
|
Post by repomark on Dec 30, 2007 0:56:44 GMT -5
I maintain that it should be ended to an extent - ie merging the world titles - but at the same time you could build major feuds on each of the separate shows and have stars only appear on certain shows without there being a brand split.
I think the brand split as it is has had its day - although that said I never felt it worked in the first place. Competing with yourself? Never a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 30, 2007 1:13:02 GMT -5
The brand split is an alright concept and I wouldnt mind it staying but they should stop half assing it. It made no sense at all to have tri brand ppvs. It hasnt sparked buys to the lower tier ppvs enough for it to exist. I still believe if they had 3 seperate and distinct shows, with the rosters completely seperated and single brand ppvs, WWE would be better off and when theres interpromotional matches at wrestlemania, there would be much more meaning to it. The way it is today with the combined ppvs and ecw and smackdown being combined, it dilutes the product.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2007 2:02:52 GMT -5
No, but I like the idea of having an Undisputed Champion or having the three champs faceoff once a year. I think it would be better served at KOTR or Summerslam though than something random like Vengance.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,868
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Dec 30, 2007 2:05:01 GMT -5
Same answer as every month.
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by badantoineaccid on Dec 30, 2007 2:12:52 GMT -5
I think it's going great. And with them sorta mixing them around is even better. It doesn't limit everyone to just a show. I mean Punk can fight someone on SmackDown for the hell of it or people team with someone on another show. So keep the split.
|
|
|
Post by Rapper & Actor Sammy Davis III on Dec 30, 2007 2:39:47 GMT -5
Then they'd have to come up with a new title for their video games.
|
|