Has the move to 3 hours been a good one for Raw?

[XL]

So, Raw has been at 3 hours for a fair amount of time now, has it proved a success? Is the show more enjoyable? Or is 3 hours just too long on a weekl-to-week basis?

[DrCrawford]

Maybe better from a marketing standpoint to plug their products and advertisers constantly but bad for the fans. I can't watch 3 hours of raw, it is too much. They should have focused on creating a compelling two hour show before making it a three hour show. Although some of the more recent raws have been good but in my opinion not enough to warrant three hours

[parkmania]

More enjoyable? Probably not. As enjoyable? Sure. There are plusses and minuses to the change - the biggest minus in my mind is that when the writers are not on their game, we end up with 30 recaps of what happened last hour. But when they are, we get The Shield, The Wyatt Family, Fandango - guys that previously wouldn't have been given enough airtime to get over.


So, to quote Nick Bakay - "Advantage: Push".

[DAMN iNATOR]

They can get a few more guys who normally wouldn’t get TV time on RAW with the extra hour if they choose to, but other than that, it’s pretty tiresome now.

[James Steele]

They are giving matches more time, and as a result we've gotten a lot more awesome matches on a weekly basis. It has given more people opportunities to get on TV and storylines more time to get told. I enjoy RAW every week. There is always something I really like every week.

[Ermaximus]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmhfnh6jfF1qzrzrro1_500.jpg

[DAMN iNATOR]

Another reason I don’t like 3 hour RAW: One more hour a week of bad jokes from The King.

[KIRA]

It's tiring as a fan at home I can only imagine the toll it takes on the live audience and the writers, there are some weeks where I don't even bother just for the mere fact that its overlong and I'm not up to it.I mean hell there are times where Ive gone to sleep on the show that NEVER happened before this 3hr fiasco. I wonder if Vince believes there is a such thing as overkill and the time the show is given isn't spent wisely at all. We are subjected to much of the same lulling segments as before but now they are longer because they need to eat up time and because some sad bastard in the back thinks his jokes and skits are funny.

[Emperor Smeat]

I'd say good move now but it wasn't originally.

Wrestling-wise, the early weeks felt like it was just dragging along with 3 hours but got a lot better once the WWE started to use the extra time towards tag wrestling. Could argue Team Hell No has benefited the most from the switch to 3 hours.

Think ratings-wise, its been around the same as the 2 hour shows so there isn't any real benefit or negative with the extra hour.

[Savio]

3 hour raw make me wish they dropped smackdown

[DAMN iNATOR]

I mean, personally, IMHO, it was great for celebrating the 1,000th episode but now it’s just getting so fucking repetitive that it feels like a grind to watch 3 hours of wrestling on a Monday night when there are other, higher-quality shows on for me to watch.

[XL]

To clarify: we're talking about your personal enjoyment of the show, not a ratings/advertising/corporate perspective. :y:

[Skippord]

since I record Raw and fast forward through stuff I don't care about it's been pretty good since there's more time for stuff I care about

[Shisen Kopf]

I just watch the Hulu plus 90 minute version. 3 hours is too long and the roster is weak right now

[#1-norm-fan]

I tend to have it on in the background while I do other stuff or watch it later and skip through most of it. I don't know if it's better or worse from an enjoyment standpoint. They haven't taken advantage of the third hour though.

[The Condor]

*Dean Ambrose "Nope" meme*

Meh, I don't really enjoy it as much. It's too much and I just don't like sitting around for 3+ hours. How they got an extra hour and still manage to have an overrun every week still makes me laugh. Just don't care for the length.

[Lock Jaw]

9/10 I enjoy it just as much as the 2 hour shows, with the added exception that I know have at least three "high points" in the show to look forward to (at the top of each hour).

The 1/10 time though, I find it excruciating to sit through.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Since we're only talking about the creative and personal enjoyment perspective, no, I kind of miss the two hour RAWs, with a fixed roster. Yeah, there is more time for other stuff, but how much of that "other stuff" is Randy Orton, Sheamus, Alberto Del Rio or Big Show. Having a three-hour RAW has not changed the creative direction of the company at all.

Not a real complaint -- I enjoy WWE programming most weeks (this week's was great, as I liked the story of Champion vs. Champion running through the night), but I'd enjoy it more if it were more succinct.

[The Condor]

Just watched DVRed Smackdown in an hour and skipped only commercials and seemingly inconsequential backstage segments/Reviews. Enjoyed it very much as opposed to the elongated, live RAW shows.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

If they actually used the time to create more mid-card feuds instead of just random matches it could be great.

[Mercenary]

Sorry but they want the money frm this. So do cry in your kaval flakes

[XL]

I watch Raw online the following day so I often find myself skipping through a match or two just to make the process less time consuming. You'd probably save half an hour on recaps alone.

I like the theory of the 3 hour show; more time for midcard fueds, more time for the Tag division, more time to expand on the Diva's division, etc. but they don't seem to have used it for that and we just get more of what we were already getting.

[Tommy Gunn]

I watch Raw online the following day so I often find myself skipping through a match or two just to make the process less time consuming. You'd probably save half an hour on recaps alone.

I like the theory of the 3 hour show; more time for midcard fueds, more time for the Tag division, more time to expand on the Diva's division, etc. but they don't seem to have used it for that and we just get more of what we were already getting.

Pretty much the same feelings about it. By the time I've skipped through all the recaps it doesn't seem that long.

[mike adamle]

Since the raw after WrestleMania I've loved the move. The Shield and Team Hell No are really making the most out of the extra time. I love the longer matches that actually develop into something now. It feels like the WWE's really finding their groove with these 3 hour Raw's lately.

[whiteyford]

Nitro made it work, if they followed that approach I'd enjoy it a lot more but all the recaps are dire.

[Schlomey]

Since the switch to 3 hours I have become disinterested in wrestling. I don't know if the product or the longevity is at fault.

I preferred a 2 hour show w/ 3 hour shows being a treat (even though half of them were worse than usual).


I would love them to go back to 2 hours and then do a 3 hour RAW leading into a PPV and then maybe a month of 3 hour RAWs leading into Wrestlemania...like making it special for Wrestlemania season....

[Theo Dious]

Yeah longer matches that give the likes of Daniel Bryan a chance to showcase awesomeness are totally a bad thing. We should go back to having just two hours and send Mr. Danielson back to 60 second matches every other week.

[Black Widow]

3 Hours Is Fine As long As They Keep It Entertaining. With That Said, They Have Been Struggling With The Entertaining Side Of Things.

[Anybody Thrilla]

I never watch it live. Only on DVR. So I love it.

[Mercenary]

Nitro made it work, if they followed that approach I'd enjoy it a lot more but all the recaps are dire.


No they didn't. A really long Warrior promo, and Nwo nitro cime to mind

[James Steele]

3 Hours Is Fine As long As They Keep It Entertaining. With That Said, They Have Been Struggling With The Entertaining Side Of Things.

Shut Up You Ignorant Ass!

[Kane Knight]

Think ratings-wise, its been around the same as the 2 hour shows so there isn't any real benefit or negative with the extra hour.

really? I'm seeing numbers at 2.5 or below. I thought they were doing better than that previously.

Anyway, since this is about personal enjoyment, I'd say it's a break even sort of deal. What I've caught has been on par with previous shows. Maybe a slightly positive tilt, because more stuff means a better variety, but about the same.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Does That Capitalization Thing Always Happen?

[Anybody Thrilla]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fuck ratings. At least until the show's in danger of being cancelled. Which it's not.

[Kane Knight]

Sorry but they want the money frm this. So do cry in your kaval flakes

If rating continue to decline, the money they get will be grossly diminished. They're already expending more, making the profit line that much higher.

If they want the money, they'd be wise to try and keep people, you know, watching.

I would love them to go back to 2 hours and then do a 3 hour RAW leading into a PPV and then maybe a month of 3 hour RAWs leading into Wrestlemania...like making it special for Wrestlemania season....

That would be cool.

[Rammsteinmad]

I'd prefer if they went back to two hours and had both shows as separate rosters again, similar to 2002/2003 when Smackdown wasn't so obvious as the B show.

[Bad News Gertner]

Good move. It's given guys who normally would be stuck on Superstars so tv time. Plus, Raw's been incredible lately plus we get more wrestling. I'm all for it.

[whiteyford]

No they didn't. A really long Warrior promo, and Nwo nitro cime to mind

Gave cruiserweights and midcard guys tv time week in week out, the first two hours were always fairly solid it was the main event stuff that got hit and miss.

[Bad News Gertner]

I could sit and watch a 3 hour Nitro up until early 98 anytime and enjoy it even today.

[Kane Knight]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Fuck ratings. At least until the show's in danger of being cancelled. Which it's not.
Yeah, damn people for discussing points which are actually quantifiable in a genre where everyone discusses behind the scenes elements. Hang 'em.

[Mercenary]

Yeah, damn people for discussing points which are actually quantifiable in a genre where everyone discusses behind the scenes elements. Hang 'em.




Which nost know nothing about.

[Kane Knight]

How fortunate that this is one point readily available and hardly a secret.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Yeah, damn people for discussing points which are actually quantifiable in a genre where everyone discusses behind the scenes elements. Hang 'em.

I never said anything about the people who care about ratings. My sentiments were my own on ratings. Nice try, though.

[Kane Knight]

I never said anything about the people who care about ratings. My sentiments were my own on ratings. Nice try, though.

Nice try at what? I think you're inferring more than I'm stating.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

A few more random matches that don't mean anything other than just wrestling. They haven't had those since WCW Nitro started.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Nitro made it work, if they followed that approach I'd enjoy it a lot more but all the recaps are dire.

No they didn't.

WCW started downhill fast when they went to "three solid hours." It was one of the reasons why Raw won the ratings war.

[whiteyford]

I remember most 3 hour Nitros being fairly good, solid undercard/midcard storylines, hit or miss main event.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

It was unsustainable. It burned them all of them out and WWF won because of it. Besides the announcers never even talked about the matches going on anyways, so they didn't really have solid storylines except talking about the NWO all night long.

[whiteyford]

DDP/Raven/Benoit feud was during the three hour Nitros wasn't it?

[whiteyford]

Just because the announcers didn't always focus solely on the match in front of them instead of shilling the main event doesn't mean there weren't storylines.

[James Steele]

Nitro went 3 hours from January 26, 1998–December 27, 1999 (according to Wikipedia). It wasn't the 3 hours that hurt them. It was horrible fucking shows.

[James Steele]

Going back to 2 hours in 2000 didn't help them either.

[Innovator]

Good tv = good tv, regardless of time.

For the WWE, it's good in the sense that they're gaining additional revenue for the 3rd hour.


For the writing team and fans, it's close to burn out when you factor in Smackdown, and Main Event and Superstars to a lesser degree. It is tough with 5 hours of weekly tv to not overexpose characters, many whom aren't compelling to begin with. They really should be calling up more people to fill the quota they need.

[Bad News Gertner]

I don't think many watch Main Event or Superstars. The top stars are gonna be on Raw/Smackdown regardless of time, but it has given more T.V time to mid card guys who I enjoy: Slater, PTP, etc..

[Bad News Gertner]

the problem with 3 hour Nitro's was it was the same thing every friggen week. They used to do spot 3hour Nitro's and it was treated like a big deal.

Every 3 hour Nitro:
Luchadors fighting each other ever week
Top card guys fighting JTTS
Techinal match featuring the same guys
Main event featuring an NWO run in

Now on its own it's solid action, but if it's the same thing week fter week, it gets tiresome. Nobody fought anybody different. Rey vs Juvy is awesome, but not week after week.

[XL]

I don't think many watch Main Event or Superstars. The top stars are gonna be on Raw/Smackdown regardless of time, but it has given more T.V time to mid card guys who I enjoy: Slater, PTP, etc..

Have Slater/PTP (or any other Midcard act) gained any traction from the extra time? They're featured on and off from week to week and neither have had anything substantial to do as of late.

They have enough time and more than enough characters, they just seem to lack enough ideas to fill three hours.

[Schlomey]

That would be cool.

Putting a pin in this thread as the first time I can remember that Kane Knight responded positively to something I wrote. :y: Progress.

[Ultra Mantis]

The core cast hasn't really expanded that much, some guys have been getting more time but there's only ever a handful of characters that are doing something and everyone else is still filler. Overall it's a meh, which I guess falls more into bad than good.

[Frank Drebin]

They are giving matches more time, and as a result we've gotten a lot more awesome matches on a weekly basis. It has given more people opportunities to get on TV and storylines more time to get told. I enjoy RAW every week. There is always something I really like every week.

This. Everyone stopped complaining about 5 minute tv matches when they went to 3 hours. Yah, they have some time to fill with garbage like segments with Hornswaggle, Cole and King showing you how to download the WWE app or drinking Sonic , and endless recaps - that sucks. Overall its been fine though. Much better than I thought it would go at the onset.

[Ruien]

I enjoy it. I do not watch the entire show but I did not do that when it was 2 hours long. The extra hour gives me more chances to flip back to RAW and see what is going on. Sure there are recaps popping up but those do not bother me.

[Bad News Gertner]

Have Slater/PTP (or any other Midcard act) gained any traction from the extra time? They're featured on and off from week to week and neither have had anything substantial to do as of late.

They have enough time and more than enough characters, they just seem to lack enough ideas to fill three hours.

Slater is the hottest thing in wrestling

[XL]

Well, obviously. But that's nothing to do with Raw being expanded to three hours. That's just Slater being God.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

To anybody who Put "bad move" do you think they would have had a 20+ minute match with Daniel Bryan, Orton and Kane Vs. the Shield if they didn't have 3 hours to spend? Hell no. Wrestling for wrestling's sake on a wrestling show is a good thing. If they start having longer matches on Raw they can gain more stamina and endurance to have longer matches on PPVs.

WCW's three hours were bad because like Gertner said they showed the same old shit every week. Even a great cruiserweight match can get old fast. How many of us remember "YOU CAN'T POWER BOMB KIDMAN!?" They did the same match every week.

[James Steele]

Just remember, when RAW was only 3 hours on "special nights" we got stuff like this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bdE-5zZIQSE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[XL]

I love the longer matches (for the most part), I just feel they should be getting more people over with the time they have available. For example, we should have a robust tag team division with depth, a good 6-7 teams all competing/working their way up to the titles. The extra time should allow them to build more than one "flavour of the month" challenger(s).

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

The problems with tag teams aren't just the time needed to establish them. There aren't many people who want to share the stage with a partner. Also it only seems they form teams just to break them up for one of them to be the big star. It's a 50/50 shot of being the big star like Shawn Michaels and the Miz or falling into obscurity like Marty Jannetty and John Morrison.

I don't ever remember a time they had 6-7 teams who legitimately had a shot at winning the title even in the 1990s, 2000s or ever.

[James Steele]

They have enough tag teams. Tag Team wrestling has never been and never will be a major focus for WWE. Plus, the business is different and you don't have as many real tag teams who have been partners for awhile coming up through the system. We've seen repeatedly that you just can't throw 2 guys together and they instantly are a great tag team.

[James Steele]

I'd argue that plenty of people are over. When is the last time WWE has pushed as many younger/newer guys as they are now?

[Bad News Gertner]

Yeah I don't see how anybody can honestly say it's a bad move.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Can't really recall this many younger/newer guys that weren't in a large group like the Spirit Squad Or the Nexus.

[Dukelorange]

They need to showcase as many wrestlers as they can. Smackdown needs to serve to cater to the younger talent.

[Ruien]

Thankfully we have a 3 hour show so the Shield will still be relevant while this new Wyatt Family thing takes off. Instead of having them class early they can keep their distance due to having extra time in the show.

[Kane Knight]

Good tv = good tv, regardless of time.

For the WWE, it's good in the sense that they're gaining additional revenue for the 3rd hour.


For the writing team and fans, it's close to burn out when you factor in Smackdown, and Main Event and Superstars to a lesser degree. It is tough with 5 hours of weekly tv to not overexpose characters, many whom aren't compelling to begin with. They really should be calling up more people to fill the quota they need.


Kind of funny, I remember a time where I would have loved more wrestling, and this much would have seemed like a dream come true.

Careful what you wish for, I guess.

[Innovator]

I think it's that plus the pairings. They kept going back to the same matches over and over again. The minute I saw Wade Barrett vs. Orton or Dolph vs. Kofi, I'd change the channel.

[poopfromweiner dude]

I've been a fan of it. Good for Orton

[poopfromweiner dude]

So yeah overall I vote good move

[XCaliber]

Sans the more advertising i'd say it's better there has been less squash matches and they have been able to showcase more of their roster.

[Dude Marsh]

I put in "bad move", but it depends really. It's a bad move because they have done away with the brand split, so a lot of the time, you see the same wrestlers on Smackdown as you would see on Raw. It becomes overexposure.

If they used different storylines on Smackdown with different performers, I wouldn't be against it. For example, according to the spoilers, Smackdown this week is just going to be the same guys who fought on Raw (from Money in the Bank) but in different combinations.

I don't think they need to keep the rosters completely seperated. Just focus on different storylines depending on the shows to give a little something to everyone. Get more wrestlers the exposure they need to show what they can do.

[Anybody Thrilla]

Smackdown could definitely use something to set it apart, but I still like Raw at three hours. There's seemingly at least one great match every week.

[James Steele]

I put in "bad move", but it depends really. It's a bad move because they have done away with the brand split, so a lot of the time, you see the same wrestlers on Smackdown as you would see on Raw. It becomes overexposure.

If they used different storylines on Smackdown with different performers, I wouldn't be against it. For example, according to the spoilers, Smackdown this week is just going to be the same guys who fought on Raw (from Money in the Bank) but in different combinations.

I don't think they need to keep the rosters completely seperated. Just focus on different storylines depending on the shows to give a little something to everyone. Get more wrestlers the exposure they need to show what they can do.

So you didn't like SmackDown! from 1999 to early 2002?

[Dude Marsh]

I never saw Smackdown from 1999 to 2002, I didn't have access to the channel it was on. I can't even remember when I caught my first Smackdown. So I was not being overexposed.

[Dude Marsh]

I'm not saying you can't enjoy it, by the way. I'm just saying that I, personally, would be more inclined to make an effort to watch Smackdown if the storylines were different. Kinda like how I make an effort to watch NXT because it's different people being on it.

[voncouch]

I understand why people don't like it. I can barely find time in the week to catch two hours of wrestling, let alone three. But since the move, I think the product has improved. Sure, there are alot of problems still, but since the move we've had alot of great 10-15 minute matches from guys who in the past would be lucky to grab 3 or 4.