Thread: Does the "Supercard" concept still work in today's landscape?
View Single Post
Old 02-23-2012, 04:13 PM   #6
Next Big Thing
 
Next Big Thing's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,839
Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)Next Big Thing has a relatively large amount of rep (50,000+)
I agree with what you're saying, but Wrestlemania is supposed to be big like this.

I think the way the WWE does pay per views cheapens the remaining pay per views more than what the WWE shows on Raw or Smackdown do each week. Pay per views used to bring closure to a program or at least set up a final battle (e.g., cage, casket match, stipulation, etc...) at another PPV. Or at least it felt that way to me.

Now, it seems like some feuds just go on and on for the sake of filling pay per view slots which means that those stories also have to be played out on t.v. which decreases the big time feel of the match. Why should the audience care about Summer Slam or Survivor Series when it's pretty much a guarantee that those same headliners and feuds will continue on the next pay per view? On top of that, you have gimmicks that used to mean finality (Hell in a Cell; TLC; Elimination Chamber; MITB; etc...) being used as the basis for pay per views. It cheapens the whole "high stakes" aspect.
Next Big Thing is offline   Reply With Quote