What are your opinions on WWE PPV's?

[Guest Downhome]

I was thinking about WWE PPV's, as you can see by my Rocky thread, and I began to wonder about them. As far as I'm concerned, all they are is an extended RAW/Smackdown on another channel. Yes, usualy the PPV's are better than the TV programs, but that isn't saying much at all. I feel that the PPV's are near the quality of what the TV SHOULD be, and the PPV's should be that much better than what they are now. Most have no true meaning, they acomplish nothing (except build up for the next nights RAW and next PPV), and they are totally NOT historic.

 

There is not enough time betwen PPV's to build up for feuds also. Now, this was bad enough BEFORE the split, but NOW, well, it's just that much worse. There are only 3-4 show between PPV's and that just is not anywhere NEAR enough. Add all of this up, and then you have the PRICE. Now I don't know about you, but $40 is way too much, $35 is way to much, $30 is way to much, and I even believe that with the CURRENT product that $25 is too much. If WWE wanted to do us right, then they would make us of the old saying "you get what you pay for". If I'm going to pay such outlandish amounts for their PPV's, I want to GET WHAT I PAY FOR!

 

Sincerely,

...Downhome...

[Guest cynicalprofit]

Honestly I think they could go back in time a little and build up feuds a billion times better if there was a ppv once every 2 or 3 months.

 

Also instead of having to shill out 30 a month, fans would be able to save and buy one ppv in that time, since most of us cant afford 30 a month, but if i knew there was a ppv in 2 months i could save for it. This would theoretically increase buyrates because ppl would be more willing to buy a ppv cause its not like its something that happens every 30 days. I mean outsied of wrestlemania, you cant guarentee a ppv is worth buying.(this years being the exception to that rule, even if i did pay for it)

 

Also with more time between ppvs you can build angles. I know its a hard concet to follow for the wwf, but imagine being given 2 months to work a feud, instead of a month. you can generate real hatred there. It also gives time to champs to make the belt look more stable. But god knows the wwf would hate that.

 

I would prefer a ppv every 3 months because then, you know when its comming, you can plan on it, the wwf can pitch it for 3 months, it gives time to build an intrest, and guys would have a reason to go out there and bust ass, instead of it being just another ppv.

[Guest TheSmarkzone]

I would like the following format: the Big 5 with 7 2-hour "In Your House" pay-per-views. SummerSlam and WrestleMania = 4 hours. WrestleMania is always at a dome, SummerSlam is always at a stadium.

[Guest RetroRob215]

Too many. Too expensive. Too bad.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

I could care less about the price but, I liked ecw's format of every other month. Even though they didn;t do the best job of building fueds, the wwe with more time can create feud's we acually care about, it's been kind of down lately. Nothing is better than the long term angles from back in the day, like hogan/andre, but it may be able to help them get things over. There is too much money to lose doing that though, an if they did being a publicly traded company, it would be like suicide, at least I think so.

 

--Rob

 

--Rob

[Guest Dangerous A]

I like the ppv every other month deal. Gives my friends and I time to save the ridiculous amount of money needed to get the show. Although I just discovered a local sports bar that shows all the ppv's, so I guess now I could really give a shit.

 

But for the thread's intents and purposes, I think they should lower the price to around 20-25 bucks and have them once every two months to let programs build and, get this, actually get a blow off at the ppv. What a fucking concept!

[Guest RobJohnstone]

dnagerous, exactly what I was thinking about the blowoffs, they have so much airtime that they saturated all the good gimmick matches so they mean nothing anymore. Table matches, ladder matches, they need to get back to basics, that's always the way to improve any situation.

 

--Rob

[Guest Downhome]

dnagerous, exactly what I was thinking about the blowoffs, they have so much airtime that they saturated all the good gimmick matches so they mean nothing anymore. Table matches, ladder matches, they need to get back to basics, that's always the way to improve any situation.

 

--Rob

Congrats, that is the smartest thing you have ever said at this forum.

[Guest the pinjockey]

January RR

March WM

May KOR

July Summerslam

September Starcade (I liked that name)

November SurSer

 

On the off months have a two hour Clash of the Champions type deal on CBS so you don't give away the "big" PPVs on free TV but you can give mainstream casual audiences a taste of PPV without spending the 35 dollars. Also there is more leniancy towards treadmill fueds or taking up each others time type matches since they are free making it easier for the writers.

 

That is my ideal scenerio but as long as 12 ppvs a year is profitable then it is 12 ppvs a year we will have.

[Guest AssDroid!]

The two ppvs I wish they *would* get rid of are No Way Out and Vengeance/Fully Loaded (now that the King of the Ring is getting a title shot at SummerSlam). They are just so anticlimactic and often lead to storyline holes big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through.

[Guest Downhome]

That sad thing about all of this, is that Linda McMahon recently said in a press conference that they are soon going to be adding MORE F'N PPV'S!

[Guest bdolo]

They at least need to cut ppv down to every other month.

 

I just confuses me so much on why the wwf is failing so bad, There is a lot of little things, like cutting down ppv's that would make things better, Maybe i am really fucking stupid, but how can you build a decent feud with only four or five shows in between, because of the split roster.

[Guest Creepy Crawl]

I say Way too many PPVs . I remember back in the day when there only used to be a PPV every 2 or 3 months , and the fueds meant so much more . Today its seems like the fueds dont mean much at all , because you got a guy fighting another guy for like 2 weeks and then the Raw after the PPV hes fighting with someone completely different . It just seems that there are no more good rivalries that last 1 or 2 months where they fight constantly and every once in awhile have somebody else mess with them . The quality of them has gone down extremely . They used to actually have bad ass matches you couldnt wait to see , now some of them just seem like a real good Raw or something . Now that I think about it there are actually some Raw shows that have been better than these lame excuses for " PPVs " that they have been having lately . I really cant complain though I have this little thing called a chip in my satellite box so I dont have to pay for them because if I did I guess it would be no PPV for me . To get me to pay for one it would have to be real good . The one thing that I hope will happen but I doubt it ever will , is that The Survivor Series would go back to its old format with the teams , I would definately pay to see that now .

[Guest HartFan86]

The two ppvs I wish they *would* get rid of are No Way Out and Vengeance/Fully Loaded (now that the King of the Ring is getting a title shot at SummerSlam). They are just so anticlimactic and often lead to storyline holes big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through.

Totally agreed. As soon as Rumble ends....BAM....Wrestlemania promotion to the high heavens. Make people WANT to look forward to the PPV in 2 months and not just think as Mania is another PPV.

[Guest jimmy no nose]

I used to buy every pay-per-view when IYH was $20, but now I buy only the ones I'm very interested in, usually about 5-6 a year. They should go back to big 5 and some $20 In Your House shows, maybe not even 7.

[Guest Razor Roman]

I also think there are too many PPV's... the "Classic 5" would be the best way to go, in my opinion. Especially since, because of the roster split, the time required for a feud to go through as many storyline points is effectively doubled. (What used to take place on RAW, and then was continued on Smackdown, now has to wait for the next week's RAW and vice-versa).

 

That would make me consider buying PPV again.

[Guest GenerationNever]

I always liked it when PPVs were few and far between. It gave them a sense of being special and unique. I also liked it before every PPV had a singles main event, I miss gimmicked PPVs. I'd have Survivor Series be JUST survival matches, the Royal Rumble would be kept the same, SummerSlam would be the same, and so would WM. This could build up matches and feuds, and really make the fans feel they've gotten their money's worth.

 

Of course, for this to work there would need to be less championship titles.

[Guest TheSmarkzone]

The roster split does not fit with an over-saturated pay-per-view market. They now have 1/2 the time to build a story, and only 1/2 of the potential match-ups.

[Guest Just call me Dan]

Yes, but that should eliminate all the matches just thrown on the card to allow for time. There are countless PPVs ruined because of booking on the fly for LOW MIDCARD angles. Feuds of this calibre are never even booked properly to begin with, so booking those ON THE FLY makes for a crowd killing shit-fest.

 

Think about it, if they built up their stars right, each show should have it's teirs. Like a main event, IC division and so on.

 

If a PPV has about 8 matches, you should have 2 big main events, 2 matches with the top guys in IC contention, 2 matches with the best of the tag teams competing, and 2 other strong undercard matches.

 

Of course, this is not the case, but this number of PPVs for a split roster is almost like having a PPV every other month.

[Guest Austin3164life]

The WWE is basically hurting themselves more with overexposure. There are just way too many pay per views a year, and all of them are highly priced. With the roster the size of what the WWE has now, one month (with two shows a week) is NO time at all to fully prepare a well-written feud that would last months at a time and have a big blowoff on one of the "big 5" ppvs. To me, every pay per view's message seems to be "Tune in tomorrow on Raw to find out what happens". Pay Per Views should either end or JUST begin a new feud. My plan is to eliminate all meaningless pay per views and cut it down to the Big 5. That would raise more anticipation for title changes, and it would clearly add a lot of time in the development of major groundbreaking feuds. That is all.

[Guest godthedog]

it's a double-edged sword. cutting down on ppv's would be good for building up feuds, make each ppv seem more special, etc. but ultimately i don't care a whole lot about the feuds, i just want to see some great matches. since almost no free tv match ever goes more than ten minutes, our chances of seeing a great match would be halved if they only kept the basic 5 ppv's. if the wwF hadn't started doing the IYH's, then we probably wouldn't have gotten a 'shawn michaels v. jeff jarrett', and we certainly would never have a 'shawn michaels v. mankind'. nowadays, a lot of the best matches are on throwaway ppv's. i'd go crazy if i had to wait 2 or 3 months between ppv's instead of 1 month, cause my wait for potentially great matches would be delayed more.

 

now...if they put more ppv-quality matches on free tv (see: may 2001), then i'd be a very happy man. but, of course, vince doesn't bother to put ppv-quality matches on free tv unless he's trying to get a guy over whose only strenth is ppv-quality matches, or unless he's desperate & needs a quick fix in the ratings.

[Guest nikowwf]

They can't cut down on the PPV's because they rely on the revenue. That's not even an option. We can speculate if they'd be better off (they probably would) but its almost 100% it would never happen.

 

Me, I think they need to plan better which matches will be GOOD matches. Sometimes (and Wrestlemania was a wonderful example) they think Angle is a TOP HEEL and Kane is a TOP FACE - they can have a match even though Angle / Kane is going to be average to bad. Me, I'd prefer they think Angle / RVD will be a good match - how do we make it happen?

 

Niko