Would it be a good thing if Smackdown was canceled? - Wrestling Forums : WWE, TNA, ECW, E-Fed, Wrestlemania, Live Wrestling Streams

Miakal · 01-28-2005, 09:50 PM

Would it be a good thing if Smackdown was canceled?

I've always thought it would be. I think it would be a good thing because then WWE would have to focus on a smaller product instead of having two titles, split rosters, and roughly 427 PPVs a year.

It seems to me that without Smackdown and the larger roster they could focus a lot more on RAW. They could have bigger matches each and every week instead of having things spread out so much.

I'd like to see Spike take up another WWE wrestling show if this took place. You could have maybe an hour show which would be a little more experimental. Play around with the booking and match types here and there. Give people storylines that don't normally get the chance. If the crowd reacts in a positive way throw them on RAW to see what else they can do.

Starscream · 01-30-2005, 11:30 AM

Personally, I dont think cancelling Smackdown would be a good thing.
I think the WWE needs to take more time and look at how stale the writing team has gotten. The WWE writers have been using the same formula for matches and feuds and that is what is making Smackdown (and even RAW) too predictable and a little boring.

The Solution: One idea is to end the brand extension and go back to a large roster of superstars. If this is done up-to ten storylines could be takled at any given time and fans would want or need to watch both shows in order to see what happens next in their favorite characters story. On the downside, much of the elsser talent would have to be let go because a roster of 60superstars is just to big if all programming will be based off of the same group of stars.

Another solution would be to simply revamp the writing/creative team. They need to come-up with better storylines and stop doing predictable outcomes for stories. I cant remember the last time I was shocked by any writing on either program (other than by how bad they handle some characters/stories). All in all, if they fix the writing, they will gain more interest. Its simple, but WWE management doesnt seem to realize that the major problem lies there!!

AudioSavior · 01-30-2005, 11:45 AM

An Hr show would suck and not having two 2 hr shows with all the wrestlers in the WWE would be pretty shitty.

bubble monkey · 01-30-2005, 03:32 PM

To be honest, after seeing WWE get worse and worse over the last few years, despite having all the potential it has, and all the protesting from viewers, I kind of want to see more than Smackdown get canceled. I think I'd like to see WWE fold altogether, just so Vince and company can finally realize how much they've screwed up their company. Of course, if that happened, they'd probably just whine about the evil internet fans being responsible for it.

AudioSavior · 01-30-2005, 03:37 PM

Blah blah blah blah....

Y2J The King Of The World · 01-30-2005, 03:49 PM

I definitely don't think that it'd be a good thing if Smackdown got the axe completely. While I won't be surprised if it gets dropped from UPN, I'd bet that Spike would pick it up (or if WWE goes back to USA at the end of its Viacom contract). Simply put, they need that two hours of programming to develop talent and storylines - whether they be for one brand or two.

I know that a lot of you hate the brand extension, but I think it'd be a blessing and a curse all in one:

A curse becasue I don't think that ending the brand extension would "magically" make the writing and booking better. More guys would get forgotten about than now. There would be less TV time in which to book all of these guys into, and we'd be in a world where every match was an 8-man tag so that they could keep enough guys working. Now, I know some of you are thinking that I'm assuming Smackdown would get cancelled - but that's not the case. Remember the pre-brand extension days where the same guys (*cough* HHH *cough* Rock *cough* Austin...pardon me!) would take up 20 minutes each with promo time on Raw AND Smackdown, then have a match? The same thing would happen if the rosters were to recombine. Plus, while we'd have the initial "wow" of having some dream matches, we'd eventually get back to the same main events over and over (again, HHH, Rock & Austin trading out pretty much every PPV). Is that really what we want?

The blessing would be that they'd release their underused guys, who could to go TNA (or another promotion). That promotion would hopefully gain popularity, and then there would be COMPETITION for WWE! Their product, therefore, would have to get better to compete, so maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.

I think that WWE should take a hard look at their programming schedule if Smackdown is removed from UPN. That show would be so much better if it were live, so I think that a move to Wednesday night would do wonders for it. First, they wouldn't have to compete with the "big dogs" on the major networks, as Thursday is the biggest TV night of the week. Secondly, the schedule of the production team wouldn't be that different if they worked Wednesday instead of Tuesday (whereas they'd have a more frustrating schedule if they had to work Monday, take two days off, and then work on Thursday). Sure, live TV is expensive, but what's more important than driving ratings by making your programming live?

AudioSavior · 01-30-2005, 04:12 PM

I want anything for TNA to become big. I think I heard they got a better time slot. They need to get off that network though because they will burry them in the long run. They had that Boxing show on regular fox and they had it moved to fox sports which pissed me off because we do not get that in Canada. At least the American version.

WWE only having one show will all those stars and main eventers I mean come on. How can you see that working? It would take years just to build someone up, not to mention you would have belts dropping like flies and a new champ every second month. That just makes the belt less important because anyone can get it.

I really don't understand the logic behind the thinking of people only wanting 2 hrs a week with a company that has close to if not more than 100 wrestlers. Where is the common sense in that?

Ya, such a great idea.... and people wonder why wrestling fans get made fun of lol.

Spinoff360 · 01-30-2005, 09:21 PM

It won't be cancelled. If UPN drops it they will just get another TV deal for it. Smackdown sucks so I wouldn't care if it did get cancelled though.

The Total Package · 01-30-2005, 11:32 PM

Wasn't it about 6 months ago everyone was talking about how bad Raw was??
I fail to see how getting rid of Smackdown would help anything..anyone that has followed wrestling for more than the last 7-8 years knows this is just how it goes sometimes..there are incredible highs and incredible lows..This may sound weird but I think Vince needs to take a break for like a month..go sit on the beach with his wife and let the kids run things for a bit..perhaps he would come back recharged and with a fresh perspective on his product right now..it doesn't seem as though he takes anytime off and when you are so close it is hard to see what is wrong sometimes..
Well back on topic, Smackdown is a sympton of a larger problem, not the problem itself..

bigdaddy86 · 01-31-2005, 03:36 PM

It would not be a good thing. Smackdown is stale as it is, but its still something to watch "sometimes", the thing that will make SD better is going live each and every thursday. It gives the show more or a surprise feeling, rather that reading spoilers every week. Plus they need to elevate there talent more, after WM21 the draft needs to be shaken up a bit. Same face/New place.