|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Sept 4, 2014 21:22:05 GMT -5
But then where would we fight on Friday Maggle? If the WWE are anything like me on a Friday night, they'll be fighting with family members in the KFC Carpark
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 29,302
|
Post by Sephiroth on Sept 4, 2014 21:30:54 GMT -5
I actually wouldn't complain. WWE could probably benefit in many ways from a bit less over-saturation on TV. I make the same argument in favor of cutting down the number of PPV's. But the revenue numbers just make it near impossible to justify without solid evidence.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnsons on Sept 4, 2014 21:35:31 GMT -5
WWECW > Smackdown
(:
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Sept 4, 2014 21:39:31 GMT -5
I don't think SmackDown itself is the problem, it's just that nobody cares about it. Crowds don't care because they know it's the B-show and not live, Creative doesn't care because not enough people watch it to bother making things happen, and viewers don't care because spoilers are out there 3 days early and there's no reason to watch because everything important happens on Raw. Endless cycle of "who cares", basically.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Sept 4, 2014 21:40:44 GMT -5
Man, Smackdown's just the minor leagues...
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 4, 2014 21:42:37 GMT -5
Should be replaced by NXT Smackdown contributes to the oversaturation of WWE, and NXT is too good to be wasted on the Network. Good idea but Kevin Dunn will crap all over it and turn it back into the campy obstacle course show. At that point HHH would need to take a stand and defend his pet project. I'd be very surprised if Vince would support the goofy twit over his own son in law.
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Sept 4, 2014 21:43:20 GMT -5
I can't see how people can pretend SD was totally irrelevant for like the past decade. In 2008 SD had a good roster. The star power in the 2009 SD Elimination dwarfed the RAW one. Edge, Taker, Jeff Hardy, Triple H. RAW had f***ing Mike Knox in theirs. SD was relevant until about that year...
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 4, 2014 21:48:08 GMT -5
The problem with Smackdown is that WWE doesn't need five hours of TV a week for their main roster. Three hours is too much on RAW. Smackdown becomes even more irrelevant because storylines are not developed further. It's another relic of the Attitude Era that is now redundant.
|
|
Emmet Russell
King Koopa
Quieter
The best wrestler on earth.
Posts: 12,526
|
Post by Emmet Russell on Sept 4, 2014 21:53:29 GMT -5
I still like the look and feel of the show. Also at two hours, it's the right length for a wrestling show. It's just a shame it's used as a recap show or a trial to see if matches will work and then they repeat them on Raw for a larger audience.
I don't want the World Title back by any means, but it was really cool getting to see it change hands on SD last year when Alberto beat the Big Show - it was legitimately shocking and I enjoyed it. It's the last time SD has felt like a must watch show though and that's terribly disappointing.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Sept 4, 2014 21:53:31 GMT -5
I don't think SmackDown itself is the problem, it's just that nobody cares about it. Crowds don't care because they know it's the B-show and not live, Creative doesn't care because not enough people watch it to bother making things happen, and viewers don't care because spoilers are out there 3 days early and there's no reason to watch because everything important happens on Raw. Endless cycle of "who cares", basically. I honestly don't mind this. The problem that I see is that despite them "not caring", they have to put on a facade and pretend that they do, so the same guys in that weird "everyone is presented as a top guy so no one really is" bubble that we see on RAW are also showing up on SD. I wish that WWE would drop ALL pretenses that SD is an equal show to RAW and just fully let it be a "who cares" show so that less utilized guys would have a platform to shine.
|
|
|
Post by Lazy peon on Sept 4, 2014 21:57:40 GMT -5
I've barely watched Smackdown all year and I don't feel like I've missed a single thing.
|
|
|
Post by SenorCrest on Sept 4, 2014 21:57:53 GMT -5
back in 2009 smackdown was killing it! the whole smackdown 6 and etc. What I don't like about it is that it is not live therefore it means wwe will f*** with it. The cheers/boos they add on are horrible. I don't even like the tape delayed raws because it feels dead and that is what smackdown feels like, dead.
On a side note, I loved the idea of the brand split and thought it was a good idea but they got lazy with it. I also remember the many 'brand split needs to end' threads. Good old days.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Sept 4, 2014 21:58:09 GMT -5
Wouldn't argue with that at all. Usually said ECW was the best show WWE put on while it was alive.
|
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Sept 4, 2014 22:04:45 GMT -5
The problem with Smackdown is that WWE doesn't need five hours of TV a week for their main roster. Three hours is too much on RAW. Smackdown becomes even more irrelevant because storylines are not developed further. It's another relic of the Attitude Era that is now redundant. Only if you're strictly looking for storyline development. Smackdown has always been, and I argue still is, the place for a solid wrestling show with good matches. And there is still storyline progression. A lot of the same matches that happened on raw do occur these days. But that's still a progression on these people vs those people. It's not like the Usos and Wyatts would feud on Raw, and then never see action with each other on Smackdown.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Sept 4, 2014 22:05:29 GMT -5
I just don't bother watching regularly. Every show is the same thing. Some shit happens. Guys dick around. Some of it good, some of it bad. 99% means nothing come Monday. That's Smackdown.
It's not a bad show to watch if you ain't got nothing else to do on Friday (soon to be Thursday) nights but Raw has been the only WWE show I've watched regularly in the past 2 years and I've don't feel like I've missed anything.
|
|
|
Post by boogeyman on Sept 4, 2014 22:08:32 GMT -5
Smackdown died in 2005 once they decided that it only served to backburner guys. The move to Friday was the burning of the corpse. The brand split ending was the pissing on the ashes. I really couldn't disagree more with this. Smackdown always served up great matches with those "backburner" guys. I have always preferred smackdown/wwecw to raw. Except for the shield years, wwe has used smackdown and their one hour shows as the wrestling showcase since smackdown's inception Instead of rock or hhh cutting promos that take up half the show, you had big matches and guys got more shine on them. Just like they had on heat. Raw has been variety show. Smackdown has been rasslin
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 4, 2014 22:09:35 GMT -5
The problem with Smackdown is that WWE doesn't need five hours of TV a week for their main roster. Three hours is too much on RAW. Smackdown becomes even more irrelevant because storylines are not developed further. It's another relic of the Attitude Era that is now redundant. Only if you're strictly looking for storyline development. Smackdown has always, and I argue still is, the place for a solid wrestling show with good matches. And there is still storyline progression. A lot of the same matches that happened on raw do occur these days. But that's still a progression on these people vs those people. It's not like the Usos and Wyatts would feud on Raw, and then never see action with each other on Smackdown. It's effectively an addendum to RAW, in that there's nothing important occuring. If you miss it, you won't miss anything storywise.
|
|
|
Post by PsychoGoatee on Sept 4, 2014 22:13:34 GMT -5
I often skip Smackdown, but even if I never watched it, might as well keep it around. People getting TV time, people getting paid, people watch it. If you want them to get rid of it as a fan, you can just not watch it and it's pretty much the same thing for you. Sometimes they'll mention some minor unimportant thing that happened in a recap on RAW, like one heel cheated somebody in the 15th match of their feud, and you get to see the more important 16th match on RAW anyway. It's all good. I think Smackdown could be greatly improved of course, I'd say focus more on wrestlers who don't get time to shine on RAW. But I don't think they should get rid of it, it's not doing any harm at least.
|
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Sept 4, 2014 22:15:10 GMT -5
I really couldn't disagree more with this. Smackdown always served up great matches with those "backburner" guys. I have always preferred smackdown/wwecw to raw. Except for the shield years, wwe has used smackdown and their one hour shows as the wrestling showcase since smackdown's inception Instead of rock or hhh cutting promos that take up half the show, you had big matches and guys got more shine on them. Just like they had on heat. Raw has been variety show. Smackdown has been rasslin This plus it was the place for gimmicks as well. Pretty much during the brand extension years Kane was the only Raw guy with a gimmick.
|
|
|
Post by boogeyman on Sept 4, 2014 22:15:51 GMT -5
They should use it to push guy who never get time on raw
Just use the midcarders and sheamus in a prominent role.
Brand split. We need it. Raw needs to drop that hour.
|
|