---------- Forwarded message ---------
Hey Scott,
Just wondering if you had a chance to check out last night's show, and if so what you thought.
I watched it on DVR this morning and was really impressed. The match itself wasn't blow-away or anything, but the UFC-slash-boxing style presentation was really different and well-done, in my opinion.
Either way, I'd be interested in a thread for it to see what people here thought.
Thanks!
---------------
I have no idea if the show airs in Canada or not, but Raw burns me out on WWE after three hours, so I wouldn't watch anyway. Plus it would cut into my Buffy time...I KNEW that Psych prof was up to no good!
I watched it because there was nothing else on before the debate. I liked that it was presented in a different style & the 1-hour format could be used really effectively here. Like build to one big "main event" each week, and have another shorter supporting match.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the first main event on WWE SuperStars on WGN featured the Undertaker against somebody and that show quickly went down the toilet. I assume they'll lose interest in this within 3 weeks as Raw's ratings sink further.
I really loved this show. Not even that the match was amazing or anything (though it was pretty good), just how different the presentation was from usual WWE fare. No wacky GMs or jokey interviews. The announcers built up the importance of the match, the videos hyped up how "great" each competitor is, the pre-match interviews established why each guy wanted to win, and the post-match broke down the ramifications. In short, they presented a wrestling match as being important and worth your time.
ReplyDeleteEven the way they presented Sheamus did him more favors than all his bad comedy routines on the main shows. After the match, he didn't make jokes--- he said it sucks that he lost, but he's not making excuses and he'll get revenge next time. Now that's the kind of character that people could get behind.
So yeah, a show like this is both heartening and depressing at the same time. It shows that everyone involved (the wrestlers, the production staff, the bookers, and even the announcers) are capable of putting on this type of production and doing it very well. They just choose not to.
The show was ass backwards to me. I don't know why the hell they didn't start off with Santino/Ryder vs. Gabriel/Kidd. 10-15 minutes to get fired up and whatnot and you still could have done all of the fluff with Punk and Sheamus.
ReplyDeleteAlso, as to BigNasty's post about Superstars starting strong with a big match and then devolving into a C-show.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we can't expect Punk-Sheamus level matches every week, nor should they try doing that. But I don't even think that matters. I think the format of this show should be the star, and could go a long way towards getting the rest of the product over.
For example, let's say 3 weeks from now the "main event" of Main Event is Antonio Cesaro vs Kofi Kingston for the US Title. Sure it doesn't have the big star power, but that can still be a really entertaining show in this format. Open with the announcers saying what a huge opportunity this is for Kofi. Discuss the history of the US title. Hype videos on both men detailing their careers, their backgrounds, different fighting styles.
Serious interviews in the locker room where Kofi says how his career is at a crossroads and he needs this title or he fears his very career could go away. Cut to Antonio in his locker-room, talking about how this win will be stepping stone towards facing the Cenas, Punks, and Sheamuses of the world.
Then they deliver a balls out 25 minute match with lots of back and forth, psychology, hard-hitting spots that we don't get to see in the usual 5 minute Raw match. Build to a series of believable close falls. Then a clean finish. You know, a GREAT WRESTLING MATCH.
And then after it's over, whoever wins, it's treated as important. The loser talks about how this hurts his career. The winner can hype how the victory will lead to something important for him on the upcoming Raw or Smackdown.
Throw in a fast-paced 10-minute match to close (this would be a perfect spot to have a cruiserweight division) and you've got a really entertaining 60-minute show that doesn't need to involve the big stars or main storylines. And it could go a long way towards getting over the midcard guys who can work.
That said, I'd be a lot more psyched about this new show if they moved Raw back to 2 hours.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was a test run to see if the format would work on Raw or something.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually in favor of putting the important stuff up top in the 1-hour format. Hook people right away, give them the good stuff. Don't give them the motivation to tune out before things get really good. It's sort of like the format of the old Saturday Night's Main Event, where the opening or at worst 2nd match would be the Hogan match, and by the last 15 minutes you'd get your Koko B. Ware squash as people tuned out.
ReplyDeleteI think they were going with the "Saturday Night's Main Event" Style, where the top match goes on earlier in the show. I did like that they gave the show a reason to exist, with both a big main event and a tag team tournament match. Although they could call it CM Punk's Main Event, since 75% of the show had him on camera.
ReplyDeleteI say give them credit for trying something different.
Why the fuck do people still think Neilson ratings are relevent today? Back in the 90s, sure. However with all the different ways you can watch television now I just don't see how cable companies still treat it as the end all, be all.
ReplyDeleteAnd this doesn't just apply to WWE or TNA but ALL tv programs. Curious though, does the Neilson's count DVR or Tivo?
This has some potential, but it'd be much better if they just included this style presentation on Raw...
ReplyDeleteExactly. On tv there are three different times alone to watch Raw: live, Mondays and on tape Wednesday and Sunday on Mun2. Plus now you can see a condensed version on Hulu. If WWE was so worried about ratings, I dont think they would give the people so many different options of watching it.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about the Main Event. On the positive side, as mentioned, the presentation was different, the CM Punk video package was tremendous and the Sheamus/Punk match was good, although I wasnt too crazy about how it ended. On the negative side, there seems like there's gonna be a lot of talk, the canned heat and cheers were in full effect from pretty much the start, and I still dont know what the purpose of the show is. Eight hours of original content (including Superstars and NXT) on non ppv weeks, and 11 hours on ppv weeks, is A LOT to watch.
I will watch and give it a chance. I just hope it doesnt turn into another Superstars in the weeks to come.
I mentioned down below that this show could be a test run for that format on Raw and Smackdown.
ReplyDeleteIt's never going to happen but if WWE insists on keeping Raw 3 hours then Smackdown needs to go.
ReplyDeleteI'd be very, very surprised.
ReplyDeleteMaybe people think they are relevant because WWE doesn't shut the fuck up about how many people watched Raw?
ReplyDeleteAgreed. At this point all of the storylines happen on Raw anyway, so why not just use this style of presentation on Smackdown? Open with the hype/interviews for Main Event #1, then have Main Event #1 as a long 25-minute match, followed by the post-match breakdown and interviews.
ReplyDeleteThen a 10-min tag (or cruiserweight-esque) match as the bridge between hours one and two.
And then do the same for Main Event #2 in the second hour.
A two-hour show with two well-hyped long matches and a bridge match in between. No storylines or comedy bits or video recaps. Just focus like hell on the matches and the ramifications.
Having that format for Smackdown while having the storyline-heavy stuff on (a hopefully 2-hour) Raw would be a really perfect mix each week.
I honestly don't understand the need for this show. At least when WCW was running Nitro, Thunder, Worldwide, all of the shows had different backdrops and feels to them. Even Jakked/Metal for WWF had an announce team that you would hear/see anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteBut the new WWE show is simply an hour of time shot on the regular stage set up, and 1/2 the announce team is one guy we see all the time anyway.
The problem with over-saturation ironically can't be overstated enough. 3 hrs on Mon, 1 hour on Wed, 2 hrs on Fri, plus 1.5 hrs online (no commercials) with NXT and Superstars, plus endless recap shows and all of the YT things they push... it simply ends up being "do I want to watch such-and-such wrestler on Monday this week or when I get a chance to sit at the computer next week?"
That's all it is: placing the roster in different schedules in different media. There's nothing special about one appearance vs. another. I don't even think NXT is all that good from what I've watched.I caught up to when Bray Wyatt debuted, and it was a chore to sit through those shows. Everyone looks the same, the basic approach is the same, and nothing special stands out.
I'll still watch core stuff, but seriously, F this company.
I will completely agree about the oversaturation right now. They really, really need to consider dropping Smackdown soon but I don't see that as feesible.
ReplyDeleteI will disagree about everyone looking the same in NXT though.
"Why the fuck do people still think Neilson ratings are relevent today?"
ReplyDeleteYou find a more reliable way for WWE and USA to determine the price of advertising spots on the show, then.
Hey, I dig Smackdown as it is most of the time. Like night and day from Raw.
ReplyDeletehaha. I think it is hilarious that afaik you are already the third user who mentioned the Undertaker but didn't seem to remember his opponent - Matt Hardy.
ReplyDeleteNice. Season 4 of Buffy is not quite up to the level of 2 or 3 (then again, 3 is by far my favorite season of TV, ever!), but it may be the best season in terms of comedy episodes. Some great stuff!
ReplyDeleteBig mistake skipping this show, Scott. If you must, skip RAW to watch this instead.
ReplyDeleteIt's like a wrestling fan's dream for WWE.
If you love wrestling, and hate the entertainment crap they pull on RAW, then why not quit watching RAW, watch Main Event, and be happy instead?
ReplyDeleteBecause it's the first show, and they wanted to hook people immediately. I'm sure quite a few people would have turned off the show in the first few minutes if it started off like an episode of Superstars.
ReplyDeleteVery good show, but I wonder how they keep it up. The Punk video was the best part, but pretty certain that's lifted from his DVD. No way they put that level of production quality into the videos every week. If they did, and hyped the show a bit on RAW and gave it main events with secondary and Tag title matches at stake (and won and lost on occasion), then they might be on to something.
ReplyDeleteAgree with the posters below that the show was "built backwards" but we'll see if that's just a first week out type of thing.
The NFL should run a live practice whenever this is on...just for fun.
ReplyDeleteDid Matt win? Because he's Stronger Than Death.
ReplyDeleteI thought the condensed version was called "Monday Night Smackdown"?
ReplyDeleteOf all the Big Bads, Adam gets the least love. I thought he was pretty interesting.
ReplyDelete