HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Feb 23, 2007 21:49:32 GMT -5
Good. The brand split is crap. It could have worked had Vince been willing to do it properly, but he isn't, so there's no point in continuing with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Feb 23, 2007 21:54:17 GMT -5
Well the shows have been more entertaining with people randomly showing up from other brands over the last few months, so I can't complain.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
It's Just a Ride
Posts: 42,477
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Feb 23, 2007 22:02:26 GMT -5
bye bye Brand spilt...finally, finally finally.....kill it, kill it dead!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Voldemar H. "Brak" Guerta on Feb 23, 2007 23:33:27 GMT -5
I like this idea, it's the best of both worlds. If the brand split ended completely, they would have to put 3 show's worth of main eventers (in WWE's eyes, remember, not your jaded eyes) on each show. That would lead to a whole lot less undercard wrestlers and feuds, which is a gigantic no-no considering how large WWE's roster is. WWE is just too large to completely end the brand split at this point, so interbrand matches and feuds is a great idea to spark interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Feb 23, 2007 23:38:25 GMT -5
It would be helpful-er if they had less PPVs. They had 5 in about one month. I imagine people are getting burned out.
|
|
|
|
Post by krazysane on Feb 23, 2007 23:50:45 GMT -5
so yea there ending it without saying it. thats fine. I like the idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Feb 23, 2007 23:54:20 GMT -5
I like the brand split, and I really wish they would stop crossing over shows so much. Back when the shows were more strictly split, it was actually a big deal for someone to appear on another show. Nowadays it's so common to see guys on any show, so it's like what's the point of even having a brand split?
I think a better approach to improving PPV's would be better storylines, more developed characters, and great wrestling action. Putting wrestlers from other brands on PPV's is just a band-aid as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Agent P
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wooo
Posts: 18,180
|
Post by Agent P on Feb 23, 2007 23:54:36 GMT -5
So the next time WWE decides to cut 12 or 15 guys, don't anyone come onto the forum crying about how terrible it is, because instead of giving lower card guys tv and ppv matches, we're getting the upper echelon on every ppv, which makes the other guys useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulk With A Mustache on Feb 23, 2007 23:57:56 GMT -5
I guess I'm in the minority that actually likes the brand split? Maybe it's just that I don't want Orton, Cena, and Lashley to dominate everyone and always be on tv. I'm with you. The Brand Split put more talent on TV and had less main eventers hogging the spotlight from the mid-card and lower-card talent. |
|
|
|
Post by Arturo Classico on Feb 24, 2007 0:06:23 GMT -5
As I see it the brand split id a double edged sword. On one hand it has given more people to be one tv. However it also has created massively boring title reigns and devalued what a world title is, so that is not cool also although the midcarder is better the Main event has been decimated. So it's been good and really bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by emoney3265 on Feb 24, 2007 0:30:16 GMT -5
They could lower the prices but what sense does that make? I'm not paying $40 for a PPV when you could easily get a UFC PPV for like... $10 or something? Either way... PPVs shouldn't cost more than $30 and that's still a little steep. I definately won't pay $50 for Wrestlemania either. Screw Vince and Co. They aren't robbing me of my hard earned money.
|
|
Agent P
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wooo
Posts: 18,180
|
Post by Agent P on Feb 24, 2007 0:32:32 GMT -5
The last UFC ppv was 50 bucks. Most of them are at least 35 bucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by emoney3265 on Feb 24, 2007 0:40:36 GMT -5
The last UFC ppv was 50 bucks. Most of them are at least 35 bucks. I stand corrected. Maybe it was like 10 for some bars or something I heard. I don't know.... I'm not a doctor. |
|
Agent P
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wooo
Posts: 18,180
|
Post by Agent P on Feb 24, 2007 0:51:53 GMT -5
The last UFC ppv was 50 bucks. Most of them are at least 35 bucks. I stand corrected. Maybe it was like 10 for some bars or something I heard. I don't know.... I'm not a doctor. It's probably just a 10 dollar cover charge, and you get free food or something. (Post #2,100) |
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
It's Just a Ride
Posts: 42,477
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Feb 24, 2007 0:56:44 GMT -5
I like this idea, it's the best of both worlds. If the brand split ended completely, they would have to put 3 show's worth of main eventers (in WWE's eyes, remember, not your jaded eyes) on each show. That would lead to a whole lot less undercard wrestlers and feuds, which is a gigantic no-no considering how large WWE's roster is. WWE is just too large to completely end the brand split at this point, so interbrand matches and feuds is a great idea to spark interest. You make a good point, but it's not like anyone but the main eventers have a huge role on the shows anyways. |
|
Hellsing920
ALF
Grand God of Godawful Games
Posts: 1,013
|
Post by Hellsing920 on Feb 24, 2007 1:20:10 GMT -5
So, let me get this straight...
The brand split was created basically so they could spread out the talent across two (now three) shows. Each show had their own main eventers and mid card guys and they really had no worry of other stars from other brands coming over and sucking up time that could be spent building the mid card guys so if they get called up to the main event, they will be somewhat ready.
Now, since the WWE has booked some godawful PPVs recently (and the buyrates show this), WWE now wants to take the main eventers from all three brands and put them on the PPV? Instead of actually using the talent they have and doing something interesting with them (like build some decent midcard feuds and angles), they are going to just take "their best" and force them down everyone's throats on the PPVs?
That is the most senseless thing I have ever heard. Think about it, adding Lashley, Cena, HBK, and any other RAW and ECW star they can think of onto a SmackDown pay-per-view isn't going to increase their buyrates.
If I purchase a SmackDown PPV, I expect to only see SmackDown talent. Same thing goes with RAW and ECW. We don't need to see another decent SmackDown midcarder get fed to Lashley. We don't need to see the Hardy Boyz and MNM have yet another match.
We need to see WWE get off their ass and try to actually book a brand exclusive event (with absolutely no talent from the other brands). We haven't seen it in a while, and the buyrate may go up if they book it right.
|
|
Agent P
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wooo
Posts: 18,180
|
Post by Agent P on Feb 24, 2007 1:24:29 GMT -5
Also, they seem reluctant to build up 2 seperate ppv's at once. Like last June there was nothing scheduled for Vengeance, which was 2 weeks after One Night Stand, until the night after. So in essence you had an entire ppv card with an equal amount of build up. I understand they don't want us to be confused, but in 2000 there were 3 ppvs being built up simultaneously almost every month and no one was confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banned Member on Feb 24, 2007 1:27:43 GMT -5
I like it. Its modifing the brand split with out ending it. The big names will move between shows and the lower card will still have a home and not have to worry about being fired like if it ended. QFT |
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Feb 24, 2007 1:31:04 GMT -5
Step 2:Cut down PPV Prices
NO ONE is willing to buy 16 or whatever 40 dollar PPVs
|
|
|
|
Post by Voldemar H. "Brak" Guerta on Feb 24, 2007 1:42:26 GMT -5
I just remembered something. Remember the Undisputed World Heavyweight Title? The champ would be on each show, and they would have challengers from any show, it was great. I really hope they bring back the Undisputed title someday, and hopefully they go the extra mile and unify the two tag titles and the IC & US titles to make one undisputed undercard title.
|
|
