So Many PPV's....

[MikeJames]

I'm sure this has been discussed many times, but since I'm new, I'm gonna rehash it anyways.

Back in the day when I was a kid watching wrestling, I couldn't wait for the PPV's. They were bigger to me and my friends than the Superbowl. They happened every 3 months roughly, so 4 a year. All the matches were amazing. Bathroom breaks were taken when they had a real 15 minute intermission. It was awesome to watch and you didn't really know what was going to happen.

Since I have gotten back into it again, I don't even care if I don't get the PPV's. Why? Well, there are too damn many. And even with the PPV's, you see the same wrestlers wrestling eachother that you can see on Smackdown or Raw. Now don't get me wrong, it's nice seeing all these superstars each week, but.......every match doesn't have to be a main event style match. I used to like the guys beating the hell out of scrubs once and a while. Anyone remember the Brooklyn Brawler?

I'm not saying that what we have now doesn't keep attention, but, have a few more scrub matches, making more matches all together. Then, have a REAL 4 hour ppv and make it worth my money. Make them HUGE like they used to be so you KNOW you were going to get a great match. Also, no more 6 matches per PPV. I'll just get the results later instead.

Remember the REAL survivor series? The ones where they had 5 vs 5 and they lasted a LONG time? Not a second went by where they weren't interesting.

Yes, I know I may be living in the past a bit or maybe I became more aware of where my money is going now, but I can't/won't pay for a PPV every month especially when you can practically predict the outcomes of every match before it even happens.

Just some long winded thoughts........

MJ

 

[theViper]

I've been watching wrestling since before I could even speak, I'm now 22. I feel the same way, however the counter argument to this that I'm going to point out is that there are mainly three PPV's are a year that they treat as "Huge". However, with the lack of creativity, and everything... it's lack luster. Those three that I speak of? For those that aren't familiar, then let me remind you, however I feel like you already know. They are the Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, and finally SummerSlam. The only two I feel like are worth buying each year are the first two mentioned. I watched SummerSlam, and was just highly disappointed. Regardless, I digress... You do have really good thoughts here, however I think most people have just grown accustom to it anymore.

 

[RD_21]

Yeah I remember before when I was a kid before the attitude era you would have Hogan vs Taker in a feud and they would only do promo and Taker would beat jobbers on Raw and same for Hogan, then on the PPV they were facing each other.

In the attitude era the PPVs were good and we were ordering them every month but I guess I am not just that much into WWE anymore but it's true that I hate themed PPV, plus 40 to 50 is WAY too much for a monthly fee if you see it that way and I don't have 3 or 4 friends to split the cost anymore so I don't order the PPVs anymore.

 

[Ulquiorra-Cifer]

That is true..Toooo manny....Matches now at PPV are borring....There is 13 PPV now,but it would be better if it's only 6-8...maybe 9...But no more than that...

 

[ToWhomItConcerns.]

i don't mind the PPVs but i do find it a bit odd that theres more than 12.

1 per month is the most there should be...but i also wouldn't mind if they cut that number down too. 3 or 4 is way to low though.

 

[Derf]

There should be 12 in a year, with the Big Four being the only ones featuring stars from both shows. Now more then ever the WWE needs to build new stars, and how can they do that if over half the current roster rarely gets PPV time?

 

[CuddleBuns84]

I think the real main problem, is that all the Pay-per-views are conjointed. It has both brands on ever show.

I really liked it back in the Day, when Smackdown and Raw had it's pay-per-views, and they it only had Smackdown or Raw Talent on it.

With 13 to 14 pay-per-views a year, it wouldn't be bad, that the Big Four were the only jointed pay-per-views, the rest were split up for Raw and Smackdown.

Now, we all the titles becoming one, it's time for just 10 pay-per-views a year. Why do I saw 10. Because they need to take December and March off, to hype up Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania.

 

[Cactus~Clothesline]

The problem with NOT having all the stars on one show is the WWE can't really expect people to pay an arm and a foot for a PPV (Leg might be a little too much).

I do agree however there should be less than 12 because it devalues all of them to the point where they have started turning them into gimmick PPVs. That will wear off soon and then who knows what we will get next.

I would say 6 PPVs would cover it:

1. Royal Rumble in January
2. Wrestlemania in March
3. Backlash in May (or whatever name they give it now)
4. Gimmick PPV in June
5. Summerslam in August (late August)
6. Survivor Series in November

Take the original 4 and add two in the middle to spice it up. Maybe a KOTR and a Gimmick PPV, let the main four sell themselves with good wrestling.

 

[greg_74]

The question is if there are less PPV's would people buy all of them? The past couple years some friends and I ordered the Royal Rumble and WrestleMania and a few others (Elimination Chamber and SummerSlam this year) and then I've bought a couple when the came out on DVD or I've gone to two (No Mercy 2007 and Judgment Day 2009) but I just don't know if I would buy any more if there were only 6 a year. The thing is they would need the usual RR and WM buyers to buy all the 6 or 8 to make up for the lost PPV buys of say the 5 that would be dropped. Overall its a money issue, if this would increase revenue they might do it, but if there would be a increase in quality but a decrease in revenue they likely wouldn't change it. Btw I think the whole title unification thing could make it so it wouldn't be the greatest if Raw and Smackdown had separate PPV's again.

 

[ratedrstar4life]

I wasn't around for when there were only 4 PPVs in a year, but if the WWE went back to that concept than the rivalries will benefit. With a longer build-up there is time for the wrestlers to cut promos on each other and prove back and forth that each of them have a shot at winning. This makes the outcomes unpredictable.

Also, the WWE is doing many "celebration" and "special" episodes. These episodes are normally devoted to promos on historic events or the changing of rosters (the Draft) and barely advance any storylines. With only 5 weeks between pay per views at the most now, These episodes cut down the time to build rivalries even farther.

I'm overall happy with the current setup, but if the WWE eliminated a few more PPVs or change them to brand only, then rivalries can regain personal and longer builds. I think the PPVs they need to cut are Bragging Rights (the 5-on-5 RAW vs SD! match is something they can do at Survivor Series), Hell in a Cell (takes away from the cell's history), and TLC (something about a chair match and table match don't catch my attention).