PDA

View Full Version : Hmm... what's going on with the PPV's now?


Kenny
12-15-2003, 08:26 PM
Royal Rumble is usually in January. But they usually do Raw, Smackdown, Both, and so on.

So are they pushing the Rumble back for a Smackdown PPV? Or doing the Rumble first? I don't see how they're going to work the schedule out.

Jan - Royal Rumble
Feb - Smackdown PPV
Mar - Wrestlemania XX

I hope that's how they do it. If they put the Rumble RIGHT before Mania that's going to take some anticipation out of the event.

loopydate
12-15-2003, 08:28 PM
January - Rumble - Both Brands
February - No Way Out - SmackDown!
March - Wrestlemania - Both Brands
April - Backlash - RAW
May - Judgment Day - SmackDown!
June - Bad Blood - RAW
July - Vengeance - SmackDown!
August - Summerslam - Both Brands
September - Unforgiven - RAW
October - No Mercy - SmackDown!
November - Survivor Series - Both Brands
December - Armageddon - RAW

Kenny
12-15-2003, 08:29 PM
January - Rumble - Both Brands
February - No Way Out - SmackDown!
March - Wrestlemania - Both Brands
April - Backlash - RAW
May - Judgment Day - SmackDown!
June - Bad Blood - RAW
July - Vengeance - SmackDown!
August - Summerslam - Both Brands
September - Unforgiven - RAW
October - No Mercy - SmackDown!
November - Survivor Series - Both Brands
December - Armageddon - RAW

Awesome... thanks.

The CyNick
12-15-2003, 08:30 PM
The four original PPVs (Rumble, Mania, Summerslam and Survivor Series) are all dual brand PPVs. The other 8 PPvs rotate form being RAW only to SD only. So, Dec was RAW only that means that the Feb PPV (No Way Out) will be the next SD exclusive show. Rumble in January and of course Mania in March are both dual brand shows as I mentioned.

Beyond that they are planning on adding more PPVs, but right now there is no firm plan on how many to add (speculation is between 2 and 4 per year) or when the new PPVs will debut if at all.

Ricky
12-15-2003, 08:32 PM
Bloody hell they already have 1 a month, why would they need anymore?

The CyNick
12-15-2003, 08:47 PM
Bloody hell they already have 1 a month, why would they need anymore?

I think if everything goes the way they want, they'd like to eventually have a brand only PPV every month, and then leave the Big 4 as the only months with only 1 PPV.

Problem is you cant just add 8 PPVs out of nowhere, so they have to ease into it. If they add 2 or 4 PPVs in a year or so and the buyrates stay close to the same, then they can continue to add.

I think it sounds crazy to have 2 PPVs a month and expect people to pay, but then again a lot of people thought 1 per month was too much, and thats been a huge success for the WWE, so anything is possible. The main problem with adding PPVs right now would be that they have a tough time finidng time to promote the PPVs they have, never mind adding more shows. Plus, I dont think, especially on SD they have enough stars to headline a show every month. But like I said it s a long term plan, and nothing is set in stone.

Corkscrewed
12-15-2003, 11:27 PM
Each brand having its own PPV would make it look more like the brands are different. However, I'm not sure it wouldn't be too much.

sexymanalive
12-28-2003, 02:56 PM
I like thing the way they are now but if WWE what to change it am cool with that

Kane Knight
12-28-2003, 03:03 PM
The concept of paying 60-80 bucks a month for the current product is appalling.

I'm sure people'll do it though.

BasicThuganomics
12-28-2003, 03:59 PM
I think it's really good the way it is personally. I like it when a brand has about 2 months to promote angles for their PPV. Plus whenever one brand doesn't have a PPV that month it gives them a chance to concentrate on other divisions and spotlight them. I'm mainly thinking of the Matt Hardy/ Rey Mysterio match that headlined Smackdown during it's off month. And wasn't the RVD/Xtian ladder match during RAW's off month too? It's kool during an off month to see important angles that can get showcased on free TV.

ColdwaVer
12-28-2003, 04:01 PM
The concept of paying 60-80 bucks a month for the current product is appalling.

I'm sure people'll do it though.

The way things have been lately, I wouldn't buy any Smackdown PPV's. I'm certainly not planning on buying No Way Out in February unless things really pick up.

c4g2
12-29-2003, 05:28 AM
I think it's really good the way it is personally. I like it when a brand has about 2 months to promote angles for their PPV. Plus whenever one brand doesn't have a PPV that month it gives them a chance to concentrate on other divisions and spotlight them. I'm mainly thinking of the Matt Hardy/ Rey Mysterio match that headlined Smackdown during it's off month. And wasn't the RVD/Xtian ladder match during RAW's off month too? It's kool during an off month to see important angles that can get showcased on free TV.

I agree.

AareDub
12-29-2003, 09:33 AM
The only way I'd pay for 2 a month would be if they cut the price of each in half so I was still paying the same amount. Otherwise I'd just have to pick the one that looked better for the month.

Jeremy Christian
12-29-2003, 10:56 AM
The way they do the brand only pay-per-views is a good thing; it gets talent on television. However, the cards that way are very unattractive to me, unless they are secretly handed a bottle of Bavarian Vodka and they book something great... like Jericho vs. Michaels for the title at WMXX.

*prepares to ship off a bottle of Bavarian Vodka*

Kane Knight
12-29-2003, 01:08 PM
The only way I'd pay for 2 a month would be if they cut the price of each in half so I was still paying the same amount. Otherwise I'd just have to pick the one that looked better for the month.

I personally still prefer the notion of generally having 2 months between PPVs now for each brand. It gives more time to build up a feud or angle we can actually care about. I mean, when the PPVs were every month, the feuds sometimes had as little as 3 weeks to develop, and with only one show a week these days, that's not a long time. I suppose it wouldn't be as bad if most feuds didn't totally resolve at PPVs and more of them carried throughmultiple PPVs, but I don't think the WWE has any faith in the attention span of its following.

The CyNick
12-29-2003, 03:57 PM
I personally still prefer the notion of generally having 2 months between PPVs now for each brand. It gives more time to build up a feud or angle we can actually care about. I mean, when the PPVs were every month, the feuds sometimes had as little as 3 weeks to develop, and with only one show a week these days, that's not a long time. I suppose it wouldn't be as bad if most feuds didn't totally resolve at PPVs and more of them carried throughmultiple PPVs, but I don't think the WWE has any faith in the attention span of its following.

Yeah I kinda like the current format, in that the brand only PPVs get some time to build up, instead of the usual 1 or 2 weeks of build that goes into a lot of matches on PPV.

The only bad thing about some of the brand specific PPVs have been the booking. I thought Vengeance was a great show, but could have been a lot better if they kept the McMahon's off and put ACTUAL WRESTLERS. Then No Mercy had Vince vs Steph which was a bad idea, and again took the spot of ACTUAL WRESTLERS. If they would just have matches with ACTUAL WRESTLERS, the brand specific PPVs would be much better.

Another good thing is that the so-called major PPVs now seem a little better because you only get the top guys from each show on the PPV, which makes them seem special.

Kane Knight
12-29-2003, 04:19 PM
indeed. There is much good in the brand-specific PPV concept. The booking is weak, as you've said, but this is working out much better than I had hoped in termss of the format, at least.

I wouldn't lose any sleep if we got rid of the McMahonwhich situation. I wouldn't mind NOT seeing them on TV anymore, on either show. Using the time they eat up for the talent would be a big boost.