|
|
Post by Quark: Ferengi Sex Machine on Jul 1, 2007 10:37:02 GMT -5
Does there really need to be a title defense at every ppv?
Seriously we, the fans, realize that the intermediate/supplimental ppvs (Taboo Tuesday, Vengeance, No Mercy, GAB (at times), and others) have little to no chance of any major title changes.
Why not use these lesser ppvs for actual good storytelling and flesh out the mid-card or a feud rather than bait and switch with pointless title defenses that the outcome is more-or-less given.
or I dunno...have something BIG happen and hae someone win a title at one of the ppvs besides the big 4 or 5
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 1, 2007 10:40:11 GMT -5
Does there really need to be a title defense at every ppv? Seriously we, the fans, realize that the intermediate/supplimental ppvs (Taboo Tuesday, Vengeance, No Mercy, GAB (at times), and others) have little to no chance of any major title changes. Why not use these lesser ppvs for actual good storytelling and flesh out the mid-card or a feud rather than bait and switch with pointless title defenses that the outcome is more-or-less given. or I dunno...have something BIG happen and hae someone win a title at one of the ppvs besides the big 4 or 5 Yeah or better yet, less PPV events or I don't know. Build-up to these PPV fights would be nice for once. |
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Jul 1, 2007 10:47:17 GMT -5
There are too many PPVs anyway but there has to be some kind of payoff for them to be worth paying for. They shouldn't used just for advancing something cause that's a ripoff. If they wanna sell story development they should do it for cheaper than they do.
|
|
mo
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,785 
Member is Online
|
Post by mo on Jul 1, 2007 10:50:18 GMT -5
Seriously we, the fans, realize that the intermediate/supplimental ppvs (Taboo Tuesday, Vengeance, No Mercy, GAB (at times), and others) have little to no chance of any major title changes. To be honest, WrestleMania is the only PPV that I'm 100% sure there will be title changes, the others I honestly don't expect it much |
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 1, 2007 10:51:00 GMT -5
There are too many PPVs anyway but there has to be some kind of payoff for them to be worth paying for. They shouldn't used just for advancing something cause that's a ripoff. If they wanna sell story development they should do it for cheaper than they do. Absolutely. Its like when TNA started out with that retarded weekly PPV gimmick. At this rate, thats what WWE PPVs are these days: The weekly PPVs of TNA, which simply just to advance through the motions. |
|
|
|
Post by Quark: Ferengi Sex Machine on Jul 1, 2007 10:51:08 GMT -5
well yeah that's my point would you rather pay say $20-$30 for the filler ppvs and $40 for the good ones and possibly up to $50 for WM and realize that nothing decent will happen in the cheaper ones other that story and status quo reinforcement or pay an even 40 and then 60+ for WM and feel cheated when no titles change hands?
|
|
Erik Majorwitz
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
I don't have a PS3.
Longest Crapper- Laying it across the table
Posts: 18,051
|
Post by Erik Majorwitz on Jul 1, 2007 10:56:41 GMT -5
Vengeance had how many title matches and how many were title changes? Lame...
|
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 1, 2007 11:00:04 GMT -5
well yeah that's my point would you rather pay say $20-$30 for the filler ppvs and $40 for the good ones and possibly up to $50 for WM and realize that nothing decent will happen in the cheaper ones other that story and status quo reinforcement or pay an even 40 and then 60+ for WM and feel cheated when no titles change hands? Remember the old IN YOUR HOUSE PPVs? They were of the idea that they weren't the serious PPVs (Wrestlemania, SummerSlam, etc.) but instead "interim" PPVs that were cheaper and progressed the storyline. |
|
|
|
Post by axlbucket on Jul 1, 2007 11:01:53 GMT -5
I like the fact that the last two Armageddon PPV's have featured the World Champ in a tag match rather thatn a title defense
|
|
|
|
Post by luvmesomekane on Jul 1, 2007 11:06:13 GMT -5
That gimmick you speak of for TNA was not a gimmick. They had weekly PPVs at 10 dollars a piece as they're only way of getting on TV. See its not that easy for a new wrasslin promotion tog et a TV deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Newberry on Jul 1, 2007 11:06:46 GMT -5
I'm sure they've become dependent on that extra intermediate PPV revenue, but things were better when you had four PPVs a year or less and built feuds up between them, with maybe one or two that would span across all of them culminating at Wrestlemania.
When I was a kid, I never got to order PPVs, so I always got the results as still pictures the next weekend after they happened. I hated that. I wanted interesting things to happen on regular TV. One of the reasons I watched WCW was because they did the Clash of Champions on free TV and I got to see titles change hands. When the IYH PPVs started and then WCW went to monthly 3-hour PPVs, then I really knew I was screwed. Thank God for the Internet or I really never would have known was going on half the time. Although WCW did have crazy ideas about showing you entire matches from the PPV the next night on Nitro.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old School Heel mark4Morishima on Jul 1, 2007 11:10:22 GMT -5
Couple months ago there was a NEWZ piece about WWE corporate disappointment from the PPV's. This was what led to the all-brand PPV's only. Apparently the other action item from it was to circle the wagons and build every single PPV around the 'big six': Cena, Lashley, Batista, Shawn Michaels, the Undertaker, and HHH when he comes back.
That's from memory so the detials may not be perfect. But unless there's been a big change in thinking I wouldn't bet on it.
|
|
Agent P
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wooo
Posts: 18,180
|
Post by Agent P on Jul 1, 2007 11:22:10 GMT -5
My idea with the three World Champs is this.
Make it a rotating. For instance, at the GAB only have, for instance, the WWE Title on the line. At Unforgiven have the World Title on the line. At No Mercy have the ECW Title on the line and just keep rotating like that. Obviously for the Big 4 ppvs, all 3 belts should be defended.
I'm not saying leave the other champs off the card, but they could have them in tags and 6-mans. Hell have a #1 Contenders Match and have the champion sitting ringside to do commentary (see Sid vs Vader at IYH: Buried Alive).
At least this way it won't be overkill.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottyno on Jul 1, 2007 12:01:57 GMT -5
I hate the PPVs where the main event is a tag match involving the multiple world champs, the matches are very good, and they feel like matches that should be main eventing raw or smackdown, not a ppv. You can't have a world champ go multiple months without defending his title, and they almost never defend the title on a free show so they have to defend them at the ppvs. I would definitely prefer they cut the number of ppvs down to something like 8, and defend the titles more on free tv, but they won't do that
|
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,683
|
Post by clifford on Jul 1, 2007 12:18:55 GMT -5
My idea with the three World Champs is this. Make it a rotating. For instance, at the GAB only have, for instance, the WWE Title on the line. At Unforgiven have the World Title on the line. At No Mercy have the ECW Title on the line and just keep rotating like that. Obviously for the Big 4 ppvs, all 3 belts should be defended. I'm not saying leave the other champs off the card, but they could have them in tags and 6-mans. Hell have a #1 Contenders Match and have the champion sitting ringside to do commentary (see Sid vs Vader at IYH: Buried Alive). At least this way it won't be overkill. Yeah this would be a very good idea. Right now they are just creating world title matches at every PPV just for the sake of it, so immediatly every PPV has 3 world title matches which means less room for the undercard. |
|
rra
King Koopa
Posts: 10,145
|
Post by rra on Jul 1, 2007 12:21:24 GMT -5
That gimmick you speak of for TNA was not a gimmick. They had weekly PPVs at 10 dollars a piece as they're only way of getting on TV. See its not that easy for a new wrasslin promotion tog et a TV deal. Absolutely true, but its annoying when you spend $10 and have a promised "HUGE announcement," only for Vince Russo come out and say that he'll reveal it NEXT week (and $10 later). You know? |
|
|
|
Post by Mister Yummy on Jul 2, 2007 3:17:29 GMT -5
The TNA weekly's were $10? I thought they were $5. How could they expect anyone to fork over that much every week for a mediocre show when the other guys do much better for free? Meh.
I'vce said for a long time that there are too many WWE Pay Per Views now. They should go down to 5 or 6.
|
|
|
|
Post by strawberrypunk on Jul 2, 2007 3:55:55 GMT -5
I've been wishing that they'd cut back on PPV's and titles. Its a total over kill going on right now. I believe June saw TWO three hour Raw's! Plus of course ECW and SmackDown!...Then didn't June have two PPV's? I think it did, but I could be wrong. Everything just starts to blur together after awhile.
|
|
