The Difference between RAW and Smackdown

Tommy Platinum · 06-20-2009, 01:16 PM

Do you think it is a problem that WWE have brands that are booked completely differently, with different writers etc? I am leaving ECW out of this for now because that is only 1 hour and is obviously a very different show from the others anyway, but the two major brands are treated very differently in many ways.

There are obvious things like the reluctance to take the focus off the established main eventers on RAW, the increased importance given to midcard feuds on Smackdown etc, but the example that inspired this thread is the women's division.

While the RAW writers are determined to make women's wrestling an absolute joke by having a man as the focus and treating the division as nothing but light comedy, the Smackdown division has remained pretty decent and although nothing epic, at least the McCool/Melina feud makes the belt look half way credible. So while Smackdown is making the division look decent, RAW is making all women's wrestling look like a joke. While Smackdown is showing that there is a new era of main eventers ready to shine, RAW refuses to let go of the likes of Triple H and Batista.

Do you think its a problem that the writers of RAW and Smackdown have such different philosophies regarding certain aspects of booking?

Y 2 Jake · 06-20-2009, 01:25 PM

I don't see it as a problem. Some people prefer angles and interviews over actual in ring action. Raw provides that. People like myself would rather just watch matches. Smackdown gives me what I want.

The same booking team for both the shows would result in two very familiar brands. And not in a good way. You'd just get more of the stuff you're getting on Raw.

I think it's great that you've got two sets of writers. I also think it's pretty obvious that neither set knows much about the other show.

Bernie · 06-20-2009, 01:48 PM

The difference is simple

Raw is now a comedy show and care about putting over storylines...and doing anything to pretty much gain ratings. They seem to forget about the wrestling aspect, as we see way to many gimmicked up things on that show. Now back in the day it was the same way, but not to the point where the wrestling aspect seemed secondary. It is build as the Flagship show as it has always been. And I feel that they have dropped the ball...and I wish they pick it up. Create better storylines, give matches time and come with the unpredictability. The whole PG aspect messes up what Raw gave us over the years. I mean sure it was kiddish from 93-96...but the better years of Raw have been the more edgy tv. So I feel that they should create that again, because it works...and besides loyal fans (Such as myself...even though this applys to my opinion) I think it turns alot of fans off...of what there doing now.

Smackdown is the better show because of the different feuds. The fact that they can put over storylines and give time for all their wrestlers to go out there and wrestle. Pretty much as of now Smackdown is everything a wrestling show should be. And unlike Raw, I can sit back and say that I enjoyed something on the Smackdown show everyweek.

Bigpapa42 · 06-20-2009, 01:50 PM

Actually, I see the growing differences between the brands as a very good thing. For a long time, Raw and SD seems to be interchangeable to me, beyond the talent I just didn't see a point to that. So I definitely like where they are going with this.

iamthedestroyer · 06-20-2009, 08:00 PM

I have no problem with the shows being handled by two different creative teams. It is unrealistic to assume that one creative team could write two different wrestling promotions storylines each week and keep it fresh.

Whether or not this is intentional, I like the idea of each show having it's own different feel creatively. This means that right now if I think Raw is garbage, I can tune into Smackdown and see something different. If both shows were booked the same way, if one is garbage they are both garbage.

I think the reason why Smackdown is so good at the moment is because they were desperate post draft. They needed new stars, especially faces. They pushed CM Punk, Umaga, and to Morrison. Unfortunately we all know what happened with Umaga.

Raw has Orton, Cena, HHH, Batista, and HBK. Meaning, they have 4 of the top 6 faces in the WWE. Also, Raw's big stars are bigger stars than Smackdown's big stars. This has lead to Raw being complacent in who they feature in the main storylines. Smackdown has breathed new life into Edge, Hardy, and Mysterio by intermingling them with younger guys. Where as Raw has made their upper card talent come off as stale and boring by intermingling them with all the same guys that they have been working with for the last few years.

iamthedestroyer · 06-20-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Potato Dynamite
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The difference is simple

The whole PG aspect messes up what Raw gave us over the years.

I think that the PG argument is mainly a cop out for fans. I think it is ridiculous to think that the main reason the WWE cannot put out a good show is because of a ban on blood and swearing.

Smackdown has proven that you can follow a classic wrestling format with serious angles and not have to rely on trashy television in order to be intriguing.

You can provide a show with stars that appeal to children, without alienating the older viewers. Simply don't insult people's intelligence.

They need to reboot Raw. What they are doing at the moment is not working. When you have to give away two weeks of PPV material in order to build any interest in your flagship show, that is a pretty good indication that creative isn't well.....very creative. Raw needs to begin taking Smackdown's approach and mix the younger guys into programs with the established stars in order to breath life into them. They are already doing that to an extent with Miz/Cena and as a result their segments have gained hundreds of thousands of viewers in the weekly ratings breakdown. (although that could be a coincidence as Cena is a proven draw.) That would be a strong indication that the fans want to see their established favorites put in new situations against fresh new stars.

For HBK you could rebuild Kendrick, you have an instant hot feud there as they have a past real life history together. Cena you have the Miz which they are doing at the moment. For Orton you have MVP, or Kingston. (Maybe Santino to a much lesser extent.) For HHH you could have him move on from Orton to feud with Ted Dibiase directly in a singles program, or you could revisit the program they were looking to start up a while ago with HHH/Regal. Contradicting myself here, you also have the one off HHH/Cena 3 match which would sell as they both have beat each other once. Instant backstory there.

Raw needs to take more risks with mixing less established talent with Main Eventers. Smackdown did that and it has paid off. Punk lost almost every match he had since coming to Smackdown, yet is now one of the hottest stars simply because of a good angle. It proves that a good provocative push will make the fans forget about a guy losing a few matches.

Silver Saviour · 06-20-2009, 11:34 PM

On a week to week basis Smackdown gives awesome wrestling and character or story progression. Its a little wrestling dense at times but it is the best weekly wrestling show of the last 10 yrs at least. I think TNA could learn a thing or two from its format. As far as RAW, they are different, and I think Smackdown is simply better. Sometimes littler star power creates new stars, instead of Orton v HHH for the billionth time.

Caesar · 06-21-2009, 02:16 AM

I think I recall reading pre-draft that the idea was to have RAW be storyline driven and Smackdown was going to be more focused on wrestling.

RaiZ-R · 06-21-2009, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caesar
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think I recall reading pre-draft that the idea was to have RAW be storyline driven and Smackdown was going to be more focused on wrestling.

It'd be nice if the Raw writers could do that while writing entertaining storylines. I have no issue with storyline based wrestling, it's whats got me into wrestling in the first place, but it has to be well written or else it's pointless.

Honestly, I'm glad they have different writing teams for each show, otherwise Smackdown and ECW would suck as much as Raw does currently.

King Steventon · 06-21-2009, 03:41 PM

I really don't see how Smackdown is any less storyline based than RAW.

RAW just wastse more time on Sports entertainment garbage written to make Vince laugh.

The Difference between RAW and Smackdown

This is a discussion on The Difference between RAW and Smackdown within the WWE Discussion forums, part of the Wrestling Forums category; Do you think it is a problem that WWE have brands that are booked completely differently, with different writers etc? ...