WrestleZone Forums

WrestleZone Forums (http://forums.wrestlezone.com/index.php)
-   The Wrestling Archives (http://forums.wrestlezone.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   WWE to have 2 Brand specific PPVs a month?!? (http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=314419)

TheMainEvent 06-12-2016 04:37 PM

WWE to have 2 Brand specific PPVs a month?!?
During an interview this weekend jerry Lawler mentioned that following the Brand Split that WWE will have a PPV/Network Special for both Smackdown and Raw each month and the two shows would share the "Big 4 - Summerslam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, and Wrestlemania"

Now this seems like complete overkill and not needed. With the brand split they can still have a single PPV event each month that is shared between the brands. Currently the rosters (even with NXT callups) arent strong enough to have their own glorified Raw or Smackdown episode events. I honestly can't see this working well.

What are your thoughts on this?

HBKperfect23 06-12-2016 04:46 PM

This is what made the brand extension unwatchable for me. Too much. It was an over kill. This is the main reason I'm against the brand extension (this and two world titles).

Since the brand extension is happening, I'd like to see the two brands meet up for the Royal rumble, have inter-promotional matches at Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Sruvivor Series with a RAW vs SD! Traditional match. Outside of these four ppvs, I'd like to see each brand get four other ppvs totalling 8 ppvs per brand including ppvs featuring both brands.

Some pay per views seem meaningless to begin with. I always felt the July ppv seemed forced. The October ppv seems unnecessary. Two post mania ppvs seem like a bit much as well.

Jack-Hammer 06-12-2016 05:12 PM

Well, truth be told, if Raw and SmackDown are going to be two completely separate brands, apart from the original Big Four shows, then each brand will probably need its own ppv when you look at what we THINK we know so far. There's going to be entirely separate storylines involving wrestlers designated exclusively to each brand, so sharing every ppv event would mean that each brand would get, on average, maybe 3 to 4 matches each per show. If Raw and SmackDown only focused on a small handful of stuff each week that wound up on the ppv, then having two different ones probably would be overkill but then there wouldn't be much of a need for the brand split in the first place since the entire WWE roster would probably only need to be about 20 to 25 strong.

Another thing to consider is that we still don't definitively know whether or not each brand will get its own set of titles. Sure, we've all heard contrasting rumors over the past few weeks, of course, but we don't know what's what. If each brand is getting its own set of championships, then there's most definitely a need for each brand to have its own separate ppv.

Azane 06-12-2016 05:35 PM

I'm completely fine with it as long as the WWE Network is a thing, when it was 60$ a pop for multiple PPvs, it was ridiculous.

Keep the Big 4 Cross brand, let all the minors be back and forth between the brands so they get 2 ppv cycles to work in stories and actually develop something.

BestSportsEntertainer 06-12-2016 06:46 PM

Really? Really? This company screws everything up. This is going to get old very quickly, and ratings will plummet.

This is just overkill. That's what - 20 PPVs per year? That's not including Network specials. That's just too much.

shafe_41 06-12-2016 08:22 PM

As a business decision, it's smart. If the brands will truly be separate, they would need their own special events/PPVs. If they don't have their own events, what would be the point of having undercards? They wouldn't be featured on these events at all. So it really helps on getting those talents noticed and those talents getting chances. Different talents, different stories, different creative teams, etc... will warrant needing their own events. It adds more value to the Network. I'd gladly watch more than one PPV per month with my subscription. It also lets WWE have another PPV gate per month with higher ticket prices and draw a few more bigger gates per year. It's smart on their end.

My only question is MitB as a PPV. What brand would that be exclusive to? Or do you rename the PPV and stagger the MitB matches maybe six months apart to sort of rotate the briefcases? Or do you trash the event as a PPV all together and have two MitB matches at Mania? I would have a hard time believe they would trash the PPV all together seeing as it's actually more entertaining the last five years than any Survivor Series in recent memory.

I won't mind it. Gives me something to do on a Sunday night.

Aquaman6686 06-12-2016 08:40 PM

WWE absolutely NEEDS to have brand-exclusive Pay-Per-View events. With the WWE Network, even having two a month isn't a big deal, since they're included for free. The only PPVs that should be interpromotional are WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, and Night of Champions. Making the "regular" PPVs featuring both rosters again is what killed the Brand Extension the first time. This needs to be a hard split, not a soft one.

SoulTrain4 06-12-2016 08:43 PM

Its done to get them ticket revenues and keep up the network subscriptions. Very good business move. Complainers will watch anyway and those who don't they still won't care.

The PPVs are a draw for the network, the main draw so it makes sense to have more of them.

Now what would be overkill is two world champions. I do NOT want that. Let the world champion travel.

Dagger Dias 06-12-2016 08:50 PM

I'm fine with having brand exclusive PPV's again, that isn't the problem. Having two events per month is. That's overkill. There's 12 months in the year. The simple solution would be to have one PPV event per month where the 6 biggest ones are dual-branded. Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Money In The Bank, Summerslam, Night of Champions, and Survivor Series. Then have 3 Smackdown exclusive shows and 3 Raw exclusive shows. Two shows in one month, whether brand exclusive or not, is just too much. I'll give it a try if that is the route they do take, however it doesn't seem like that great of an idea.

faltemer 06-12-2016 08:53 PM


Originally Posted by shafe_41 (Post 5510383)
My only question is MitB as a PPV. What brand would that be exclusive to? Or do you rename the PPV and stagger the MitB matches maybe six months apart to sort of rotate the briefcases? Or do you trash the event as a PPV all together and have two MitB matches at Mania?

They could always make MITB and maybe 1 more PPV cross brand as well. My hope though is they have one MITB match at mania each year. 4 Raw 4 Smackdown. The winner outside of drafts and rumble is the only person who can choose to swap shows at any time. Adds a bit of extra interest to the briefcase and makes it more complex who they are cashing in on.

As for the orginal question I dont think they should do 8 months of 2 PPVs (With the big four not having any others directly around them). Im not opposed to having more then 12 total PPVs, but 20 would be too much. I would space it out so there is the big 4 then either: A, 12 single promotion events or B, 4 more cross promo events and 8 single promo events. I prefer B as there are things like MITB, extreme rules, elimination chamber, and one more that should be cross promotion.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.