Tommy Platinum

This is often something people talk about, so lets put it to a vote and see what people really want. I was originally in favour of tri-branded PPVs, because it seemed like a good idea at the time. You get to see the big stars more often, what can be bad about that, right? It also helped that the first tri-branded PPV (not including the 'big 4' of Rumble, Mania, Summerslam and Survivor Series of course) was Backlash 2007, which was easily one of the best PPVs of the last few years in my opinion.

However, while we do see a lot of guys on PPV more often, I personally feel the negatives outweigh the positives and I know a lot feel the same. This way, we just see the same guys on PPV every month, whereas the brand exclusive PPVs meant that lowcard guys got on the PPV, and the midcard and tag titles looked more prestigious as they were actually defended on PPV. Now, nothing really means anything because most of the guys who are being shown won't even be on the PPV every month. Also, the big 4 were more buyable because they were the only PPVs to feature wrestlers from all three brands.

I vote for brand exclusive PPVs to make a return. Tri-branded ones are fucking everything up.

You?

__________________

Tomas

I think the E should just stick to once a month tri branded ppvs so they're not ruushed into putting matches on a card with little to no buildup, hell if it were up tp me I'd have a ppv once every two months to build feuds.

__________________

Crocker

Thats the point in brand exclusive PPV's, they woould be more time to build up the feuds.

tom2cool

with out A DOUBT seperatw branded PPV's and scrap ECW. Just like back in 03 - 06 or so.
This will give credit back to the mid card titles. I'm sick of the fact the prestigious title of IC title is looked down upon now. And i want a good fued not a 1 month fued which is forgotten the monday after the PPV.

Tomas

But they've tossed that as I
And I said with the Tribranded
so with the current format I would do that

__________________

RaiZ-R

I think the single brand PPV's were pretty much terrible across the board. You have months where a PPV was headlined by Hardcore Holly for God's sake. And don't even get me started on December To Dismember.

I understand the "getting new talent over" argument and I agree entirely with it, but a single branded PPV set-up is not the only way to achieve that. If WWE could stretch out the fueds it creates on TV, and slow build each one it need not put every match on PPV. For instance the World Heavyweight Title doesn't need to be defened on the same show as the WWE Title, because if the match has been built properly then it should be the reason people are buying the PPV.

But in all honesty, it's not the way the PPV's are presented that's the problem, it's the way the fueds are written and the way the titles are presented that causing the issues that we, as fans of the product, have. For instance, in WWE who is the top champion? Is it John Cena or is it Jeff Hardy? What about Jack Swagger? When John Cena proclaims "The champ is here!" how can we truely get behind him, when on Friday night Jeff Hardy comes out with a title belt with a much more illustrious history, and yet we can't really get behind Jeff either, because unfortunately his show (and he, himself) is treated as second class.

In WWE's current climate tri-branded shows is the only financially viable option, and yet, with a little hard work by the writers they can give us that happy medium where not only do we have huge matches and stars on every PPV, but we also get young, promising up and comers showing off their skills. But will the McMahons ever admit theat the current direction is the wrong one? I doubt it.

Doctor Doom

I'm going for tri-branded PPVs. It's a waste a money on a single brand PPV becasue we won't see a whole lot coming out of it, except one match. While tri-brand, you would get more bang for your buck and seeing more potential matches and fans seeing their favorite superstars wrestling in them.

I'm going off-topic by saying congrats RaiZ-R on your 1000 post.

__________________

RaiZ-R

Thanks Dr. D. I didn't even notice it happened until I was on 1004. Haha!!

Anyway, everyone continue on topic as this is a very good thread that Tommy has created here and far more important than my being able to look at n00ds in the VIP sction now.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

horrorfan_1986

The only PPV Holly headlined was Royal Rumble 2004. Which even though it was a WWE title match, it was a fairly meaningless match compared to the Rumble, Michaels vs Hunter and the Guerrero's battling each other. Seeing as Holly wasn't advertised for December 2 Dismember, you can't really count that either for a PPV he headlined.

The biggest question that needs to be asked for whether the WWE should go back to brand PPV's is 'Do they have enough top guys on each brand?" Most of the time, that's what effected whether a brand PPV would be good or bad. A lot of the worst ones were SD's in 2004/2005 (In my opinion). Not to insult JBL, but he's not the type of wrestler I'll throw down bucks to see him wrestle on PPV. The fact that he was thrust into the main event showed how lacking SD's talent roster was at the time.

On the flip side, my favorite time period for brands was Raw post Mania 20. Raw had their big stars in Benoit, Michaels and Hunter. Meanwhile, they had solid midcarders such as Orton, Jericho, and Benjamin. Raw could of easily put on brand PPV's worth paying 35 dollars for.

Taking a look at the current Raw roster, I believe they have a deep enough roster to pull it off.

Cena vs Jericho
Kane vs Orton
JBL vs Michaels
Punk vs Regal
Miz and Morrison vs Cryme Tyme
Mysterio vs Knox
Rhodes and DiBiase vs Snuka and Manu
Beth vs Melina

The above card I believe would bring in enough buys to put on a Raw brand PPV.

From Smackdown:

Hardy vs Edge
Show vs Triple H
Taker vs Benjamin
MVP vs Kennedy
Colons vs Kendrick/Zeke
Kozlov vs Khali
Michelle vs Maria
Swagger vs Hardy - ECW

On the otherside, even with the ECW match, I really don't think SD is equipped enough to handle brand PPV's anymore. IMO, they were the only brand who could put on a good brand PPV in 2006, but these days, they're missing the crucial midcard division.

ECW of course wouldn't need their own PPV as long as you can fit at least one to two matches on the other PPV's. Maybe if SD can work out their issues, brand PPV's would be the wise thing to do again. Considering most PPV's only have one or two good enough matches worth checking out, I don't think the WWE would really be hurt if they split up their roster to showcase two very different PPV's every other month.

If I had my choice, I'd instantly say to start running brand PPV's again starting with Raw's Backlash.

__________________

RaiZ-R

I wasn't counting D2D as a PPV Holly headlined even though he did, it was just another example of the shite the 'E churned out when they were doing the single brand shows.

It worries me that Holly headlined Rumble in a WWE Title match that is considered meaningless, and it's that kind of thing that I'm talking about. Not only was it a major title match (which should never be considered meaningless) it was on one of the big 4 (which was double brand back then). It's this sort of bad writing that worries me, but it's kind of off topic for this thread anyway.

As for your idea about not giving ECW it's own PPV's and simply sticking a couple of ECW matches on the Raw and SD cards to fill them out... I'm not entirely against that as an idea, but it again makes one show look more important than another and WWE need to concentrate on making them all look and feel equal to one another.