|
|
Post by J.B (@Condoonthemoon) on Aug 29, 2014 12:57:16 GMT -5
Hi all: I know many people see Smackdown as skipable WWE Programming these days. With it being Friday it go me thinking about the topic and wrote a piece on the subject. If you would like to check it out here is a link: Does Smackdown even Matter? If you would like to read it thanks so much. If not no worries chime in with your thoughts on the subject of Smackdown and if you would miss it if was gone from WWE's weekly programming why or why not? Some of things I mention in the article is Raw going to 3 hours, The creation of NXT and some other things as to why I personally wouldn't miss Smackdown myself. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisarrant on Aug 29, 2014 13:08:33 GMT -5
While I wouldn't personally miss it, not every show has to be for me for it to be enjoyable for someone else. By your logic, companies should only make shows if you personally enjoy them.
Going back to WWE, since the 1980s WWE has had multiple TV programs -- many of which had no storylines but were standalone matches. They made money off them because they got enough people to watch them, therefore it matters to WWE and those who watch it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew Sheehy on Aug 29, 2014 13:31:49 GMT -5
Smackdown has become a huge waste of time. What's the point of this show being on the air anymore? It's as useless as Wrestling Challenge in 1995.
|
|
|
|
Post by TolerancEJ on Aug 29, 2014 14:54:54 GMT -5
SmackDown used to feature superior wrestling action to Raw during the early/mid-2000s. Maybe they could revisit that concept again. Currently in NXT, I'd estimate its composition as an 80%/20% split of Wrestling Action/Storylines which makes it a refreshing program to watch.
As long as SmackDown exists, a potential exists of it becoming important again. Plus it allows more airtime for talent. It is also more advantageous for WWE to air their product on as many channels as possible (US only). In Canada, our WWE programming is include in one channel.
I think some of the luster of SmackDown decreases because it is recorded on Tuesdays and airs later in the week. Personally I avoid spoilers, but others actively seek out the results. No judgment either way, but I feel it takes away from surprises that may occur on the program. As for recent enjoyment, there have been a few times in the last year or so when WWE aired SmackDown live on Tuesday. This was just before WWE departed for an overseas tour. I actually preferred the live Tuesday broadcast because it freed up my Friday evening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 17:21:37 GMT -5
SmackDown was must-see television for wrestling fans around 12-13 years ago.
It's essentially a recap and dress rehearsal show for RAW now, so I rarely bother watching it or even setting my DVR.
With NXT now, SmackDown isn't even used that much as a platform for new talent to cut their teeth before transitioning to a live show.
When it moves to Thursdays, I may have it on in the background while finishing up some work or doing taxes or something, but I doubt I'll be paying much attention.
Even if I wouldn't personally miss it, the ratings show a pretty substantial amount of WWE fans still tune in, so they are doing something right.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisarrant on Aug 29, 2014 19:57:52 GMT -5
SmackDown used to feature superior wrestling action to Raw during the early/mid-2000s. Maybe they could revisit that concept again. Currently in NXT, I'd estimate its composition as an 80%/20% split of Wrestling Action/Storylines which makes it a refreshing program to watch. As long as SmackDown exists, a potential exists of it becoming important again. Plus it allows more airtime for talent. It is also more advantageous for WWE to air their product on as many channels as possible (US only). In Canada, our WWE programming is include in one channel. I think some of the luster of SmackDown decreases because it is recorded on Tuesdays and airs later in the week. Personally I avoid spoilers, but others actively seek out the results. No judgment either way, but I feel it takes away from surprises that may occur on the program. As for recent enjoyment, there have been a few times in the last year or so when WWE aired SmackDown live on Tuesday. This was just before WWE departed for an overseas tour. I actually preferred the live Tuesday broadcast because it freed up my Friday evening. While I do agree that in the early days of the brand split Smackdown featured superior wrestling to Raw (Angle, Lesnar, Smackdown 6), I don't think taping the shows in advance has hurt their ratings because they've almost always taped it in advance, going back to their earliest episodes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 20:03:06 GMT -5
Last time i watched Smackdown was sometime in the Summer of 2012 and i seriously haven't missed a thing storyline wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmatt64 on Aug 29, 2014 20:14:24 GMT -5
Yes we do if it is used as the stepping stone to raw. It could serve as the bridge show between nxt and raw. Personally I would rebrand smackdown and main event as two separate divisions. Each having unique titles. Mainevent would get the us versions. Smackdown gets intercontinental and raw world.
|
|
|
|
Post by gerardgerard on Aug 30, 2014 17:32:09 GMT -5
Yes we do if it is used as the stepping stone to raw. It could serve as the bridge show between nxt and raw. Personally I would rebrand smackdown and main event as two separate divisions. Each having unique titles. Mainevent would get the us versions. Smackdown gets intercontinental and raw world. That was kinda its role during the split, no? Quite a bit after too. Sure, you'd have the odd midcarder/upper-midcard act, but pre/post-WWECW saw it with the likes of Heidenreich, Dupree, Mordecai et al, and in the last few years, it's been used as a platform to introduce Ryback, Sandow and Dallas to the wider WWE audience before the push to the flagship; that's aside from the fact it hosted the likes of Morrisson, Swagger, Kingston, Ziggler and whatnot as rehab cases before shuffling them back off. On topic proper, it will matter for a few weeks after Smackdown redebuts Thursday nights, similar to its shift to SyFy, or around its MyNetworkTV debut, but I figure as long as 3 hour RAWs are a thing, the days of consequential Smackdowns are a thing of memory. The need for live content see it relegated to dry-runs and rematches. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2014 18:06:42 GMT -5
I'm not one to usually dwell on the past, but this was a damn good era.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisarrant on Aug 30, 2014 18:36:34 GMT -5
Yes we do if it is used as the stepping stone to raw. It could serve as the bridge show between nxt and raw. Personally I would rebrand smackdown and main event as two separate divisions. Each having unique titles. Mainevent would get the us versions. Smackdown gets intercontinental and raw world. That was kinda its role during the split, no? Quite a bit after too. Sure, you'd have the odd midcarder/upper-midcard act, but pre/post-WWECW saw it with the likes of Heidenreich, Dupree, Mordecai et al, and in the last few years, it's been used as a platform to introduce Ryback, Sandow and Dallas to the wider WWE audience before the push to the flagship; that's aside from the fact it hosted the likes of Morrisson, Swagger, Kingston, Ziggler and whatnot as rehab cases before shuffling them back off. On topic proper, it will matter for a few weeks after Smackdown redebuts Thursday nights, similar to its shift to SyFy, or around its MyNetworkTV debut, but I figure as long as 3 hour RAWs are a thing, the days of consequential Smackdowns are a thing of memory. The need for live content see it relegated to dry-runs and rematches. For a awhile after the split, Smackdown wasn't positioned as the "stepping stone" to RAW, it arguably had the better talent: Rock, Angle, Benoit, Hogan. Then Brock jumped over in August 2002. it started faltering when Heyman was removed as the head writer, and really went downhill in 2005. Around 2006 when it seemed to shift to be the stepping stone to RAW. |
|
|
|
Post by gerardgerard on Aug 30, 2014 19:02:53 GMT -5
That was kinda its role during the split, no? Quite a bit after too. Sure, you'd have the odd midcarder/upper-midcard act, but pre/post-WWECW saw it with the likes of Heidenreich, Dupree, Mordecai et al, and in the last few years, it's been used as a platform to introduce Ryback, Sandow and Dallas to the wider WWE audience before the push to the flagship; that's aside from the fact it hosted the likes of Morrisson, Swagger, Kingston, Ziggler and whatnot as rehab cases before shuffling them back off. On topic proper, it will matter for a few weeks after Smackdown redebuts Thursday nights, similar to its shift to SyFy, or around its MyNetworkTV debut, but I figure as long as 3 hour RAWs are a thing, the days of consequential Smackdowns are a thing of memory. The need for live content see it relegated to dry-runs and rematches. For a awhile after the split, Smackdown wasn't positioned as the "stepping stone" to RAW, it arguably had the better talent: Rock, Angle, Benoit, Hogan. Then Brock jumped over in August 2002. it started faltering when Heyman was removed as the head writer, and really went downhill in 2005. Around 2006 when it seemed to shift to be the stepping stone to RAW. Sorry, my post was a bit short in its scope; 70% of the split would've been more accurate. The Smackdown 6 era through to late-2003/maybe early-2004 was good times. |
|
|
|
Post by thelaw on Aug 30, 2014 19:35:18 GMT -5
Well, the WWE NEEDS Smackdown because it a revenue generator. Do they need the extra hour of Raw? Do they need to do so many ppv's and houseshows? Take away that chunk of money and see what happens to company financially.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee Hall on Aug 31, 2014 3:49:40 GMT -5
Hi all: I know many people see Smackdown as skipable WWE Programming these days. With it being Friday it go me thinking about the topic and wrote a piece on the subject. If you would like to check it out here is a link: Does Smackdown even Matter? If you would like to read it thanks so much. If not no worries chime in with your thoughts on the subject of Smackdown and if you would miss it if was gone from WWE's weekly programming why or why not? Some of things I mention in the article is Raw going to 3 hours, The creation of NXT and some other things as to why I personally wouldn't miss Smackdown myself. Cool, yeah I'll skip the article. It's kind of a dead horse at this point. More often than not we see the same matches from RAW or before RAW these days. Of course we also see many of the same matches on RAW week in and week out too. I record everything and FFW through quite a bit. It makes it easier to focus on wrestlers I want to see. If I hear about something good I passed over later, I sometimes go back and check it out in some form or fashion. With that being said... the more obvious question is why Main Event and Superstars are still around. Explain that one. |
|
|
|
Post by gerardgerard on Aug 31, 2014 6:46:46 GMT -5
Hi all: I know many people see Smackdown as skipable WWE Programming these days. With it being Friday it go me thinking about the topic and wrote a piece on the subject. If you would like to check it out here is a link: Does Smackdown even Matter? If you would like to read it thanks so much. If not no worries chime in with your thoughts on the subject of Smackdown and if you would miss it if was gone from WWE's weekly programming why or why not? Some of things I mention in the article is Raw going to 3 hours, The creation of NXT and some other things as to why I personally wouldn't miss Smackdown myself. Cool, yeah I'll skip the article. It's kind of a dead horse at this point. More often than not we see the same matches from RAW or before RAW these days. Of course we also see many of the same matches on RAW week in and week out too. I record everything and FFW through quite a bit. It makes it easier to focus on wrestlers I want to see. If I hear about something good I passed over later, I sometimes go back and check it out in some form or fashion. With that being said... the more obvious question is why Main Event and Superstars are still around. Explain that one.Similar to the point made by thelaw, they're both sold internationally and are contracted, in Ireland and the UK, at least, until the end of September. Superstars, for example, is one of two WWE shows still available on a basic digital/cable package in Ireland; the other being WWE experience, if anyone remembers that show (I checked a little while ago, and apparently, Afterburn and Bottom Line still exist too). They're making money for someone. |
|
