Why would SmackDown! or TNA going live make it better?

[Xero]

Seriously? I just don't understand the logic here. It seems this comes up and it's apparently a way to make the product better somehow. Why?

The ONLY argument here is the possibility of spoilers and ratings drop, which would only affect you if you don't have the self control to not read them.

As for ratings, I'm a firm believer that spoilers do not affect ratings as much as people think. A tenth of a point, MAYBE. But most people don't go out of their way to read spoilers, as they don't go out of their way to read TV show spoilers.

Please explain what makes live so much better than a taped show, which is cheaper to produce with the same writing and talent.

[Juan]

I think Smackdown is just fine the way it is.

[HBPunk]

cos its live, the feeling is different. its unpredictable. this is quite moronic stuff from you man, id expect much much better

[Xero]

cos its live, the feeling is different. its unpredictable. this is quite moronic stuff from you man, id expect much much better

How is it more unpredictable if you haven't read the spoilers? In what way?

I just can't see the difference.

[Triple A]

It is unpredictable because if something "huge" happens at a live taping, chances are you will hear about it somehow even if you try to avoid spoilers.

Live shows definitely have a different feel.

[HBPunk]

How is it more unpredictable if you haven't read the spoilers? In what way?

I just can't see the difference.

Because its happening that very second, it just feels different. Thats it, bischoff says the same thing in The MNW DVD. I hate watching Raw on tape so I watch it live every week and cant be arsed with smackdown most the time

[Xero]

Just don't see that as a legitimate argument for this and the overall production. It's the same product either way.

Especially considering we're a VERY small minority in WWE's audience. The people who read dirt sheets probably amount to maybe .3 or .4 of the rating, if that. Less people read them regularly. And that .4 accounts for tens of thousands of people as it is.

[The Franchise]

It would make the show slightly better because of the unpredictable thing but the storylines and matches ultimately decide the quality of a show.

Smackdown won't go live because of the travel issue. Maybe when the brand split was actually enforced and people rarely showed up on the other show (2003-2006) this was possible. I think it would be too much of a hassle unless SD is live on Tuesday.

[HBPunk]

Just don't see that as a legitimate argument for this and the overall production. It's the same product either way.

Yeah cos your so busy criticising every aspect of wrestling that you stopped being a fan years ago, you are a critic now. It is a fucking legitimate argument, nothing to do with fucking dirt sheets, i never mentioned them. IM SPEAKING AS A FAN, can you grasp that?

[The MAC]

when it comes to tna going live on certain events is fine but impact should be taped and they should fix the fuck ups and edit out stupidity, but then they might have nothing left afterwards.

Live pros: unpredictable, low amount of spoilers, maybe a tittie will flash

live cons: more fuckups, no re-takes, technical difficulties can bring the show to a halt, botches cant be edited out.

[Xero]

I see no difference between taped and live. I'm saying that as a fan.

And as a fan, you shouldn't see it as different either, because the way the produce it is exactly the same as if it's live. So if you were looking at this as a fan, there should be no real difference.

[HBPunk]

I see no difference between taped and live. I'm saying that as a fan.

And as a fan, you shouldn't see it as different either, because the way the produce it is exactly the same as if it's live. So if you were looking at this as a fan, there should be no real difference.

wel iv always gotten way more excited for live raw or a live ppv so sorry but you are just being a stubborn prick. there is a difference, simple as

[Juan]

Hey look, HBPunk being a dick to someone he disagrees with. Shocking.

[The Franchise]

I see no difference between taped and live. I'm saying that as a fan.

And as a fan, you shouldn't see it as different either, because the way the produce it is exactly the same as if it's live. So if you were looking at this as a fan, there should be no real difference.

Yeah if you don't read spoilers then there is no difference. I didn't even know Smackdown was taped until like 2004

[HBPunk]

Hey look, HBPunk being a dick to someone he disagrees with. Shocking.

i was told my opinion was wrong dude, i dont lie back and take it

[HBPunk]

Hey look, HBPunk being a dick to someone he disagrees with. Shocking.

maybe im pissed cos some homophobe keeps deleting my thread!you and your power trip, got your nose up my ass since i joined

[Juan]

maybe im pissed cos some homophobe keeps deleting my thread!you and your power trip, got your nose up my ass since i joined

Maybe you should leave then.

[HBPunk]

Maybe you should leave then.

ooooohhh big bully, were u bullied in real life? iv every right to be here

[ImpactPlayer365]

Well its like the Swagger title win...i try to avoid spoilers just to make watching Smackdown that much better, but even when you try to avoid them, the news is so big that some idiots cant contain themselves and make it apparent to everyone on the main page and in six different forums what had happened.

But being taped helps with backstage skits and promo's. Either way Smackdown is the better show to watch whether live or taped. The show has to stand on its own merrit no matter what.

[Juan]

Yeah, I used to get beat up and have my lunch money stolen every day. Now I'm making up for it by moderating a wrestling message board.

[Londoner]

Yeah, I used to get beat up and have my lunch money stolen every day. Now I'm making up for it by moderating a wrestling message board.

Now that's a way to get revenge!

[HBPunk]

Yeah, I used to get beat up and have my lunch money stolen every day. Now I'm making up for it by moderating a wrestling message board.

thought so, well can you quit fuckin following me or do u wanna ask me out?

[HBPunk]

Now that's a way to get revenge!

makes sense tho since fat computer geeks are easy targets

[Favre4Ever]

I think a live Smackdown! show would have to be on a different network. On MyNetworkTV, it's gonna get what it's getting regardless.

[Juan]

I'll quit 'following you around' when you stop making shitty posts and stop being a douche bag to anyone you disagree with.

[HBPunk]

I'll quit 'following you around' when you stop making shitty posts and stop being a douche bag to anyone you disagree with.

which post was shitty? mine are always much more entertaining that yours, and when people piss me off ill fuck them out of it, so have a word with them too. see you have so much 'power' here, you are loving it

[Juan]

*yawn*

[HBPunk]

*yawn*

you give a bad name to mario lopez sir

[Kane Knight]

It would make the show slightly better because of the unpredictable thing but the storylines and matches ultimately decide the quality of a show.

Smackdown won't go live because of the travel issue. Maybe when the brand split was actually enforced and people rarely showed up on the other show (2003-2006) this was possible. I think it would be too much of a hassle unless SD is live on Tuesday.

Smackdown won't go live because it's on Network TV, as well. Too many things could go wrong for the Network for them to put a prime time wrestling show live.

[Londoner]

I'll quit 'following you around' when you stop making shitty posts and stop being a douche bag to anyone you disagree with.

I wouldn't worry about him, i find him too funny to take his insults seriously.:D

[HBPunk]

I wouldn't worry about him, i find him too funny to take his insults seriously.:D

Thank you, im wretchedly entertaining

[Nicky Fives]

I think Smackdown is just fine the way it is.

yup... going live doesn't really matter...... plus it would screw with their schedule of Live events

[Londoner]

Smackdowns been live once or twice before hasn't it? Or am i imagining things?

[HBPunk]

Smackdowns been live once or twice before hasn't it? Or am i imagining things?

you are indeed

[Londoner]

Sure it went live once before, must be wrong.

[Juan]

Smackdowns been live once or twice before hasn't it? Or am i imagining things?

Yeah they've done a handful of live eps over the past 10 years

[Steveviscious89]

How is it cheaper? You have to pay people in the editing room don't you?

I have to agree with Bischoff's point of view on this, and maybe this doesn't apply to Xero. Most viewers are lured to the idea of a 'live' show. They get to experience the action at the same time (minus the five or seven second delay) as the people in the crowd. It's like you are being a part of it. I think that's what HBPunk is trying to say here.

[HBPunk]

2?

[HBPunk]

How is it cheaper? You have to pay people in the editing room don't you?

I have to agree with Bischoff's point of view on this, and maybe this doesn't apply to Xero. Most viewers are lured to the idea of a 'live' show. They get to experience the action at the same time (minus the five or seven second delay) as the people in the crowd. It's like you are being a part of it. I think that's what HBPunk is trying to say here.

well i wasn't trying to say it, i did say it and you're repeating it but i agree with you..and myself

[Xero]

How is it cheaper? You have to pay people in the editing room don't you?

Live satellite time is apparently a lot more expensive than just beaming it to the network as a pre-tape.

[HBPunk]

Live satellite time is apparently a lot more expensive than just beaming it to the network as a pre-tape.

do you like any sports xero?

[Xero]

I don't.

[HBPunk]

I don't.

right well in sport, if you watch on tape delay instead of live, i feel it really loses a lot of its appeal and iv heard a lot of people saying this too. its the same for live wrestling. who doesn't like sports???

[Xero]

Someone who enjoys taped wrestling as much as "live", I suppose.

[dronepool]

I don't know to be honest. The thought of it being "live" screws with my head I guess because I get more interested in catching it. I guess it's the excitement of it happening in the now and not 3 days later. I'd want to watch SD a bit more if it was live for some reason.

I don't like sports either, btw.

[6-String King]

It is unpredictable because if something "huge" happens at a live taping, chances are you will hear about it somehow even if you try to avoid spoilers.

Live shows definitely have a different feel.



There really is no other way to answer this question. Live is better. It's like watching a football game live vs. watching a football game you recorded on your DVR 4 days later.

[Jakob Synn]

Cause more stuff like this would happen

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i9yaBzmCaTg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i9yaBzmCaTg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Ruien]

Live is better for the fact if Velver Sky's titties come out we get to see them! Instead of a big blur, this was a rather easy question. Why else does anyone watch TNA?

[Emperor Smeat]

Ignoring costs for producing a live show and spoilers hurting ratings, doing a live show means in theory you need to work harder than a taped show since any mistake or bad segment on a tape show can be edited out unlike on a live show.

Its sort of like going to a live concert vs watching a music video, the singer in a live concert needs to focus on preparing and delivering a good show since you only get one shot at that event while the music video can be edited or parts re-taped to make it look better on tv.

[Jeritron]

People enjoy live TV because it creates the idea that you're seeing something unfold as it happens, and that anything can happen. There is a reason why it's done.

[Jeritron]

I could also care less about how the ratings are affected, or how cost efficient something is. Why would any fan care about those things unless they were literally working for the company?

[Xero]

I could also care less about how the ratings are affected, or how cost efficient something is. Why would any fan care about those things unless they were literally working for the company?

I agree with this.

However, as a fan, it just doesn't make a difference to me. I'm clearly in the minority and that's fine.

[Jeritron]

I guess it's a matter of whether you get that "this is happening right this instant" feeling or not. Since it's a "feelilng" and not really a tangible thing, it's hard to argue for or against it.
I do think it exists though, which is why live television is done. It's similar to how some people get more joy from hearing a song on the radio.

I do agree that it has no real effect on things as far as content or quality is concerned. The product is the product. I would compare it to something like Saturday Night Live, on which the jokes and writing are just as good or bad regardless of whether it's live, taped, or re-ran.
But for some reason there's a different feeling when watching SNL live, compared to reruns you're seeing for the first time.

[Londoner]

Sometimes i can put up with things not being live, not that obsessed about it overall, cant watch football(soccer) on a repeat though unless its a highlight show. Wrestling shows like smackdown im just used to not being live but i find myself skipping some of it, i probably wouldnt if it was live come to think of it.

[Tazz Dan]

Just think, if Wrestlemania was taped they could have cut the part out of the Bret/Vince match where Bret blew up and had to sit down on a chair.

:shifty:

[Xero]

And they could have spliced in an exciting Sid promo instead of an old boring Bret promo! GOLD!

[Kane Knight]

I could also care less about how the ratings are affected, or how cost efficient something is. Why would any fan care about those things unless they were literally working for the company?

The thing is, those ratings demonstrated that the fandom in general seems unaffected. When Smackdown has gone live, it's had no effect on the ratings. While it doesn't impact your enjoyment, it certainly demonstrates how it impacts others: Not much.

I'll say one thing, though: I'd rather they spend the money on making the show better than making it live. Honestly, as they're not going to do that, I can't care less. I DVR Raw anyway. only times I watch live wrestling are the Rumble and Mania, and even then, it's more about seeing it when it first comes out (like a movie) than needing it to be live.

I understand I may be the minority on here, but if we're weighing in, that's my two cents. Live means nothing to me. Not on a scripted show, at least. It doesn't even further any such illusion.

[Schlomey]

I've gone spoiler free since before Wrestlemania. The damn people who went all Swagger is Champ kind of ruined that moment for me. I would have marked out so hard seeing it "live" instead of reading it here.

So in a way spoilers & tapings suck. It takes away the shock value and what not.


but on the other hand, having something huge like Swagger winning the title might have improved the ratings as people woulde want to tune in to see it happen.



Double edged sword.

[XL]

I was considering this very question the other day.

Live is good. Live is even preferable. But live is not the answer to "How do you make WWE better?" like a lot of people seem to think it is.

I wonder how many of the important fans (the WWE Universe, not us) even know that it's not live. How many are shocked that they have to go to the taping on a Tuesday?

I considered the same point with regard to a "scripted show" as KK did, but then I figured that I always try to watch LOST as soon as I can. Perhaps that suffers from the same kind of "Spoiler" stigma as wrestling though.

[Kane Knight]

I doubt people would have tuned in to see an advertised surprise. WWE tried to do it with Angle, who at least had the benefit of being somewhat of a face at the time. Ideally, people would want to see the face come in and get the title....And the ratings stayed the same.

Swagger's more an IWC darling than anything else, and the majority of the IWC is already going to watch or not. The "shock value" of someone winning out of nowhere is going to be limited. This is why they didn't do it in the Attitude Era. There's just limited benefit.

Yes, I know I'm going to get shit from the "wish fulfillment" crowd.

[Kane Knight]

I was considering this very question the other day.

Live is good. Live is even preferable. But live is not the answer to "How do you make WWE better?" like a lot of people seem to think it is.

I wonder how many of the important fans (the WWE Universe, not us) even know that it's not live. How many are shocked that they have to go to the taping on a Tuesday?

I considered the same point with regard to a "scripted show" as KK did, but then I figured that I always try to watch LOST as soon as I can. Perhaps that suffers from the same kind of "Spoiler" stigma as wrestling though.

I gotta admit, I understand why people want to watch a show as it airs, but with DVR technology, I may never watch a regular TV show live again. PPVs are an exception, especially since I'm paying for the privelege of watching it now instead of buying it on DVD, but most stuff, I don't care about.

But I like my media that way. I like my MP3 player, my ereader, and my DVR. I've even considered canceling my cable altogether in the past, because between DVD purchases and Netflix, I can catch most of the stuff I want if I don't mind waiting a while. I don't bother with the radio except for news, I haven't touched a paper book in months (unless you count volume 1 of Neil Gaiman's Sandman, but since that's a graphic novel....)

I get that people want to watch the "first run" deal, but I'm not sure it matters if that's live or not. And yeah, I do wonder how many people know it's not live. They used to even use the word "live" a lot, though not in any way specifically misleading. The only reason I knew Smackdown was taped early on was the fact that I went to a couple of shows. I mean, I never looked at results or spoilers to be honest.

I'm sure I would have found out eventually, but I didn't care and since I didn't look, there was no real indicator. Except that the shows were TV tapings. And unless you're already part of the IWC, you probably don't need to worry about SD spoilers anyway. If you're coming to TPWW, for example, spoilers are an issue. Otherwise, it's hard to see it being much of a problem.

[Jordan]

Would Smackdown or TNA as a live show be better than taped? Yes.

Why?

Because live shows are better than taped shows.

Why?

Because I will read the spoilers.

Why?

Because I can.

But if you really don't want to know you won't read the spoilers!

I can't do that.

[Jakob Synn]

Remember when RAW was taped in advance? That led to a dissadvantage for the WWE in the Monday Night Wars.

I don't think Smackdown should be live, though I'd prefer it because I often read the spoilers to figure out whether I should watch it or not.

But TNA going live is something they have to do to keep in buisness with the WWE and not just simply be an afterthought. The WWE thinks now that TNA can and may be a threat. Will it be soon? Probably not. A year or so down the road? Probably.

Smackdown is something that can or can't be live. It doesn't matter which way it goes, but TNA live on Mondays is a part of natural progression to become a legitamite contender with the WWE.

[XL]

I'd be interested to hear some UK opinions on this, given that Raw wasn't shown live for years and is now shown live at 2am.

How many stay up to watch? How many DVR/Sky+ it? How many catch the repeat? Does this change your enjoyment of the product?

[Xero]

FTR, I do feel that PPVs have to be live. That's the one exception and I do feel it makes things better. Otherwise I don't really care if it's live or taped.

I think that's the best way I can put it. I just don't care whether it's taped or not.

[XIII]

no more spoilers!! for smackdown it would be better, for tna ??? ehhhhh?