Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kane Knight
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.