Guest TheyCallMeMark Report post Posted July 19, 2002 I normally don't think Downhome is right, but on this particular subject he is right on. Last nights SmackDown! was the best one in probably two months, and included several good matches. Hogan was even being used properly for once (to garner heat for a match as opposed to actually being in the match). The WWE is headed in the right direction. They only really missed the explanation of what the fuck a general manager did. Oh, and they're jobbing Jericho to a worthless rookie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest -Cutthroat- Report post Posted July 19, 2002 But you know what? The WWE still sucks... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted July 19, 2002 I normally don't think Downhome is right, but on this particular subject he is right on. Last nights SmackDown! was the best one in probably two months, and included several good matches. Hogan was even being used properly for once (to garner heat for a match as opposed to actually being in the match). The WWE is headed in the right direction. They only really missed the explanation of what the fuck a general manager did. Oh, and they're jobbing Jericho to a worthless rookie. Ummm, I guess that is a god thing. Just for craps and giggles, may I ask what exactly you don't usually agree with me on, examples perhaps? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted July 19, 2002 Steph has never played 'the boss' angle before? Are ya sure? C'mon, the only difference is her clothing and her hair. That's like saying 'Ruthless Aggression' Vince is fresher than 'In the Interest of Fairness' Vince. What new direction are they going? Cause I could have sworn that they were still screwing us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Spicy McHaggis Report post Posted July 19, 2002 I just want to say that I loved Smackdown from top to bottom. I wish I could retract all of my "hating Steph" comments now, well I take that back actually. I was so worried she was going to come in just as she left, but that was not the case. I REALLY enjoyed the "new" Steph, and enjoyed it a lot. I really think she has all that it will take to be a convincing Female business woman. From what I saw of her tonight, THAT is how I've always interpreted her as being in real life, professional, stern, and just flat out to the point. I give props to Steph and her seemingly wanting to make her self grow, and get better as a character. As for the rest of the show, the Cruiser matches were great and I was VERY pleased with getting two on this Smackdown. I loved how they did the Cena/Jericho thing, I loved Stephs interaction with everyone (including Jericho), I didn't think I was going to care for Billy/Chuck Vs. Holly/Val but I all of a sudden got all into that match and really REALLY marked for the Val Venis "Superfly" ending (am I the only one that got that?), as did many in the crowd. I was even please by the six-man for what it was. I was also so pleased with the entire Bishoff things in the back, with him talking to various talent, trying to "woo" them to RAW! Then the main event, well, I don't think Rocky/Angle have ever had a bad match with one another, once again they pulled out a great effort. The interaction with Taker to build for this Sunday was great, and just when I just KNEW that Rocky would get the upperhand and RockBottom Angle to end the show, that damn Angle goes and pulls off a hell of a reversal which led to yet ANOTHER major mark out moment for me. Then we have the ending of the show... ...the Steph/HHH/Bishoff stuff was great if you ask me. That is the best "final buildup" I have seen for a PPV in MANY months. I'm sure that entire interaction with the three pushed a few people over the edge to order the PPV. Very good stuff there, and I was very pleased at how it ended. Hell, I even marked out for THAT! Tonights Smackdown was just great in my eyes, and I can think of absolutely nothing that I did not care for. I know I didn't mention everything here that was on the show, but my point is that I have nothing to complain about. Kudos WWE, kudos for furthering, continuing, and pushing a brand new program/programs for a change, this was a huge breath of fresh air from where I sit. Sincerely, ...Downhome... Downhome, that's everything I wanted to say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheyCallMeMark Report post Posted July 19, 2002 Actually Downhome I don't remember any specific examples. I just recall that I normally disagree with your opinions. Hyuck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RickyChosyu Report post Posted July 19, 2002 Now if you can build a case that she soley killed ratings, then I can just as well build a case that she kept them up for a while and that they went down after she left, which they did. Don't get me wrong, as I never feel that ANY one angle hurts the show, it's the entire show from top to bottom, each angle, each match, everything that dictates ratings for an overall show. I only brought up what I said because of that one quote from above that you used to start with. Like I said just now... ...if you are going to say that she has always killed ratings, I can bring up that they fell even worse and consistantly, after she left TV. By the way, the overnight rating for this Smackdown was a 4.4. Now obviously the final will not be that high, but it will be at least what it was last week, which was a 3.3, and possibly even higher than that. Now if everyone as you say hate her so much that she "kills ratings" shouldn't this weeks rating be lower than last week, as all of these people as you say would have turned off the show once she came on. I'm sorry, but her being on Smackdown is going to do NOTHING to lower the ratings... ...if anything, it will now intrigue the fans, as it is now something new, something fresh, and a new dirrection, and come on, don't play that "but Steph has been here before, this is NOT fresh" card, as she has NEVER been on the air in this current angle before, it IS new, it IS fresh, and it IS a new dirrection. If anything hurts the ratings, it will be because that they fail to follow up with this GM angle correctly, and NOT just by her being on the TV program. Like I said before, I can build a strong case where other things lead the ratings fall much more than the absense of Stephanie, and I can also build a case that she has solely killed ratings before. Now, I'm not refering to when she was merely part of HHH's faction and wasn't responsible for carrying segments on her own. In early 2001, she was put into the "evil owner opposing Austin" role, screwing him several times to guys like William Regal. These shows, while recieving higher ratings than current Raws and Smackdowns, got significantly lower ratings than shows before them and were most definately part of over all ratings downfall that has lead up until now. Stehpanie's segments opposite HHH always did poor ratings too, as even the much hyped "re-weading" failed to deliver strong ratings. Now, you can blame this on HHH just as much as Stephanie, just like you can blame the previous example of the "Owner Vs. Austin" failing on Austin because the storyline was tired. However, it produces a continue thread of Stephanie failing to deliver ratings when put in the position to. Just because overall ratings have fallen since her departure doesn't mean she's needed to keep them up. If you can prove that, I'd love to see it. As for your ratings info, the overnight for smackdown was a 3.9, not a 4.4. Smackdown's overall rating last was a 3.3, the overnight was not. I don't remember what it was, but I know it was in the 4's. Besides, overnights mean next to nothing anway, so until you get the actual ratings, you have no place trying to disprove what I said, because overnight's offer no actual proof. What, exactly, is fresh about a tired, re-hashed angle? I think we both know that it's quite the opposite, as after already seeing Shane/Steph Vs. Vince, Flair Vs. Vince, and now Steph Vs. Bischoff, any chance of this being new, fresh, or any other buzzword you want to use it absolutely nill, and it's out-right comical that you would try to pass it off as such. If anything, it's the same thing with different faces; faces that the fans have already seen, and I'm not playing a card, I'm using facts, which is more than you can say. Stephanie, as a character has been done to death, and the idea that they're fighting over who goes to what show really makes no difference to the fans because they can just watch both shows and see whoever they want no matter which show it is. That's not the kind of intrigue they need right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Downhome Report post Posted July 19, 2002 As for your ratings info, the overnight for smackdown was a 3.9, not a 4.4. I don't want to keep going back and forth, but I must point out where you are wrong. The SD overnight rating was not 3.9, but instead, 4.4 (with a 7 share). To take this further, the first hour was listed at 3.9 (where your 3.9 figure comes from) and the second hour was a whopping 4.9. That is an ENTIRE point in increase in the ratings. Now regardless of what the final will be, it will make sense in that entire on point increase from hour one to hour two will stay constant. Now, with this known, let me ask you... ...if the fans truly are sick of Steph, and she is the "ratings killer" as you say, wouldn't it make sense in the ratings going DOWN for the second hour, instead of climbing by an ENTIRE point? I don't know about you, but I have to say yes. I am not going off on you saying "I'm using facts which is more than YOU can say", I'm just discussing a subject. I have gave you nothing but facts, so think twice before you decide to try to say soemthing to me in order just to make you sound "in the right". Again, no ONE person (as you say) will force the ratings to go down, up, or stay the same. It is a group effort, and not one person can be called a ratings killer. Just because overall ratings have fallen since her departure doesn't mean she's needed to keep them up. If you can prove that, I'd love to see it. That is so cute how you are trying to make her to be out a reason for the ratings being off bad when she was there and blaming her as the MAIN reason, when you say that I can not say that her leaving hurt the product even more. The FACT is that while she was there, ratings were up. That is not my little fantasy world, it is fact and all the proof I need. Now, just for fun... The last two months of 2000 ratings for RAW... November 6, 2000 5.1 November 13, 2000 5.0 November 20, 2000 5.0 November 27, 2000 5.0 December 4, 2000 5.0 December 11, 2000 5.75 December 18, 2000 4.8 December 25, 2000 3.8 ...and then... The first two months of 2001 for RAW... January 1, 2001 4.55 January 8, 2001 4.8 January 15, 2001 5.2 January 22, 2001 5.6 January 29, 2001 5.4 February 5, 2001 5.0 February 12, 2001 4.8 February 19, 2001 4.8 February 26, 2001 5.1 ...now, take those numbers, from the very time frame where you state she was a "ratings killer" and explain to me just where she killed them. They look rather constant to me. Seriously, help me out here man. Where are thos "significantly lower ratings" of which you speak? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
