bigmackdaddy
Don Corleone
Aloha
My mack is bigger than your mack.
Posts: 1,331
|
Post by bigmackdaddy on Oct 30, 2007 16:08:54 GMT -5
Frankly, I'm sick of seeing the likes of Triple H, HBK, Taker, Orton, and Punk being wasted in pointless tag, 2-on-1, 4 way, and 3 way matches, so I vote yes.
I'm sick of having to wait up to a month just to get a decent match.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 122,182
|
Post by Mozenrath on Oct 30, 2007 16:10:38 GMT -5
Yes and No.
Yes, they should toss in the blockbuster now and then, to remind you why people on top are there.
No, in that if you give too much away, why order the PPV?
|
|
Kae
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,610
|
Post by Kae on Oct 30, 2007 16:11:32 GMT -5
They need more PPV quality matches on PPV too.  |
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Oct 30, 2007 16:12:13 GMT -5
More wrestling on television would just mean more of the spam matches you speak of. The only way to get a match with a real outcome is to go to PPV IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Oct 30, 2007 16:12:55 GMT -5
They could stand to have more PPV-ish matches on television, but having PPVs every two months instead of every month would help them be able to pull that off.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Oct 30, 2007 16:19:47 GMT -5
They could stand to have more PPV-ish matches on television, but having PPVs every two months instead of every month would help them be able to pull that off. Agreed. At least they don't have multiple PPVs within one month anymore (in most cases). |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Digby Stamp on Oct 30, 2007 16:22:54 GMT -5
I'm very much in favor of bi-monthly ppvs.
|
|
|
|
Post by krazysane on Oct 30, 2007 16:23:02 GMT -5
If we can get more matches like hbk an cena from raw months back an matches that mean something, then i vote yes
|
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Oct 30, 2007 19:28:42 GMT -5
Too many ppv's, if you're gonna have this many, you may as well bring back jobbers, so the upper tier guys don't meet up in some way,shape or form every week between ppv's
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Oct 30, 2007 19:29:46 GMT -5
hardly any of the PPV matches are actually PPV quality
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2007 19:32:07 GMT -5
Yes, but not too much.
They simply don't have enough talent on the roster to have 'PPV Quality' matches every week. This is why they're being saved for the actual PPV (even then, those matches are questionable.)
Although, they should bust out HUGE matches on Raw, SmackDown and ECW a few times a year, just to keep people interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChitownKnight on Oct 30, 2007 20:02:58 GMT -5
we had Cena-Kennedy a month ago
|
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,692
|
Post by clifford on Oct 30, 2007 20:14:17 GMT -5
hardly any of the PPV matches are actually PPV quality |
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Oct 30, 2007 20:15:55 GMT -5
No, no and NO!
Having PPV quality matches on weekly TV shows is exactly what brought the business into the dead-end alley where it's struggling to come out of now.
Sure, it worked in the begenning to obtain higher ratings, and to push on the gas pedal to win the MNW, but now that the dust has settled, that style of booking is harming the business in a major way.
We should not even have Triple H, Orton & co involved in 2-on-1, tag team, 6-men whatever matches... It's not a smart way to promote the monthly PPV (oh and frequent PPVs deserve a whole different rant).
Why should I pay 40$ to watch the 16357th variation of HBK-Orton, HHH-Umaga or Taker-Batista?
A standard feud (5-6 weeks) will inevitably feature at least 4 confrontations between the Superstars involved, because God knows we need to actually see them get at it to remember they're feuding...
It's difficult to book a feud with no interaction, but WWE have taken the easy way, with matches and not much else. When it's time for the PPV, the audience is already jaded with the two guys having beaten the hell out of eachother in several occasions.
Sure, the big (gimmick) match is still a decent payoff, but the anticipation if long gone.
I'd dare to say we need LESS PPVish matches on TV.
I'd gladly watch midcarders fighting eachoter, or even a nice ol' squash match with HHH or Orton, while keeping the interest for the PPV alive and kicking.
|
|
wwerules60
El Dandy
"Bring what? a vomit bag? a fig newton?"
Posts: 8,999
|
Post by wwerules60 on Oct 30, 2007 20:21:34 GMT -5
They don't need to be PPV matches. But I'm sick of main eventers teaming up too, I want 1 on 1 matches. Handicap matches are getting really old too, WWE needs to end the brand split so we can see some 1 on 1 matches on TV without giving away the PPV matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Oct 30, 2007 20:27:59 GMT -5
They don't need to be PPV matches. But I'm sick of main eventers teaming up too, I want 1 on 1 matches. Handicap matches are getting really old too, WWE needs to end the brand split so we can see some 1 on 1 matches on TV without giving away the PPV matches. But still... Brand split or brand merge, we'll still have "rehashed" matches, or the same combinations again and again. It's a problem of booking mentality, not of men available to book. Having HBK/Rey Mysterio v Orton/Finlay is the same concept than HHH/HBK v Orton/Umaga. The "Main Eventer v Upper Midcarder" formula is stale, and counterproductive anyway, no matter how much you shuffle the deck. Unless WWE takes a few steps back, in the direction of "Superstars" and "Challenge", or fairly enough, the original RAW formula was ok, we're bound to watch the same guys wrestling week in and week out, leading to an already trite PPV payoff |
|
