Tony Slammetie here, and I have a question for you all to ponder for a moment...
Are there too many PPVs? We're only going to talk about this in regards to WWE. This is because TNA absolutely HAS to have as many PPVs in order to keep up with WWE... they have no choice but to do so.
Royal Rumble
No Way Out
Wrestlemania
Backlash
Judgement Day
One Night Stand
Night of Champions
Great American Bash
SummerSlam
Unforgiven
No Mercy
Cyber Sunday
Survivor Series
Armageddon
14 ppvs... 14! That averages more than one PPV a month. This should be an easy question... of COURSE there are too many ppvs, if not 2 too many, then 8 too many.
I remember the days when there was just the big four; Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series. I understand that the world of professional wrestling moves so fast and story lines culminate so quickly that ppvs need to be more frequent then they used to be. But I think that 6 would be enough.
The reason that they started running monthly ppvs, according to Hulk Hogan's book, was that WCW was running monthly PPVs. It started off with In Your Houses, and then each one got a special name. In Your House No Way Out... In Your House Unforgiven... and so on. Then once you start doing monthly PPVs, then it's hard to go back to not doing them. I understand the dilemma, and it sucks that Ted Turner found it necessary to do crappy monthly PPVs just so WWE could out do them, but such is life.
Now if I was running tings in WWE I would do it slightly differently... and here's how.
The year starts off with The Royal Rumble. The winner of the rumble gets a shot at any title they choose at Wrestlemania. Instead of having "No Way Out" we skip it and build up an even better story line to build up to Wrestlemania, which is the Pinnacle of sports entertainment. Now, there's a big gap between Wrestlemania and Summerslam, and something needs to be put there. In comes "The Night of Champions" Which I think is the best non-big-four ppv. Then Summerslam.
So we got
Royal Rumble
Wrestlemania
Night of Champions
SummerSlam
Then we need something to come in between SummerSlam and Survivor Series, and I think Cyber Sunday is the best one to put there. Having a ppv where the fans choose the stipulations make people who voted for it want to watch it even more. Then we end the year with Survivor Series. 6 PPVs.
Royal Rumble
Wrestlemania
Night Of Champions
SummerSlam
Cyber Sunday
Survivor Series.
If it averages one every 2 months, it gives the ability to build up some great story lines, and really give a chance for the stories to get over. And it also gives enough time to scrap a story that isn't getting over and go for a new angle and build that one up correctly. This would also force the WWE Championships to be defended on National Television more often (due to the "must defend at least once a month" rule) and make the fans happier.
I understand that something like this is NEVER going to happen, so I propose something else. If you REALLY want to differentiate between the brands, then give them their own PPV every other month, and have the big four be joint PPVs. Give Smackdown 3 ppvs, lets say Backlash, Great American Bash, and Unforgiven. Give Raw Judgement Day, No Mercy, and Armageddon. Make One Night Stand, and, create another one for in between SummerSlam and Survivor Series... let's call it Halloween Havoc (for argument's sake) purely ECW, and give those young guns a chance to shine on the big stage twice a year. This way you can have monthly PPVs, and still have time to build up programming.
I should run a wrestling promotion.
Ropes' View
Run a wrestling promotion? Try getting the facts straight first. There were no In Your Houses called Vengeance or Armageddon. The last In Your House was Backlash in 1999. I don't care what WWE Magazine says.(Slammetie's Editor Note... It takes a man to admit to a misake, but it takes an ass to react to it like Ropes did... the notes have been fixed, and Ropes is an ass) Remember, this is the same promotion that wanted you and I to believe in 2006 that Triple H and Ric Flair were best friends even though twelve months before HHH took a screwdriver to Naitch's head. Consistency has never been WWE's strongest trait.
Now that that's out of my system, here's my thoughts on the pay-per-view topic.
If it were 2005, 2006, or 2007 and someone asked if there were too many pay-per-views in the WWE, I would have responded with an emphatic, Stone Cold like “Hell yeah!” But it’s 2008, my Stone Cold impersonations have never been spot on, and my answer is no, there aren’t too many WWE pay-per-views.
From 2005-2007, the WWE ran fifteen pay-per-views, including New Year’s Revolution, ECW One Night Stand (“ECW” was dropped from the title in 2007) Taboo Tuesday, now known as Cyber Sunday. While Cyber Sunday was, is, and will always be unique because of its interactive format, New Year’s Revolution was the regular pay-per-view fodder. Its only redeeming quality its first two year was that it was headlined by Elimination Chamber matches (and, in 2006, the first ever use of the Money in the Bank privilege). The 2007 New Year’s Revolution was not headlined by an Elimination Chamber match and the pay-per-view became just another regular show.
One Night Stand was supposed to be a callback to the glory days of ECW. Though the 2005 show was a success, it was still a WWE production with Eric Bischoff at the center of the show’s main angle. One Night Stand 2006 was not as good as its predecessor. It featured a match with Kurt Angle, who almost sued ECW in the 90’s and was kayfabe trashing ECW the year before, a championship match between Sabu and Rey Mysterio that ended in a no contest (for real?), and a dragging WWE Championship main event between John Cena and Rob Van Dam with a terrible finish that WWE tried to play off as an ECW type finish (which apparently meant a total cluster).
In 2008, the WWE has found a pay-per-view formula that works. First, it dropped the dead weight of New Year’s Revolution. Secondly, it took One Night Stand out of the theatre and away from the potty mouthed fans and made it a WWE pay-per-view, not a WWE pay-per-view in ECW clothing. Some critics think that an all gimmick pay-per-view is corny, but I say not when it’s done in a smart and entertaining way, which I think WWE did with this year’s One Night Stand. I would rather watch a women’s “I Quit” match then a “Cuffed to a Cage” match. WWE has even added some unique ideas to its regular monthly pay-per-views. In this year alone, WWE had two Elimination Chamber matches at No Way Out, made Night of Champions its own pay-per-view (not just something to make Vengeance more interesting) and peppered Unforgiven with the Championship Scramble matches. All in all, WWE pay-per-views have piqued my interest this year without even having second thought on the number of them.
A national wrestling promotion needs to have one pay-per-view a month in order to stay competitive, even if the competition at this moment is TNA. As long as the extra pay-per-views are a break from the normal type of cards, I say fourteen is not too many.
No comments:
Post a Comment