The Official UKFF RAW Thread...

[MVP RULZ]

7 minutes ago, hallicks said:

3 hours is the elephant in the room. Unfortunately the elephant also comes with a lot of money so it's difficult to get rid of, but, for the sake of their fans and the long term future of their television product, they need to get rid. 

The fact that there's lots of rumours about Smackdown getting a 3rd hour tells you a) how likely that is to happen, and b) how untouchable they think they are. What happens when network subs are ⩾ TV ratings? I don't want them to fail but so many of their problems are self inflicted.

Its USA network who want the 3rd hour though not WWE

If they had a choice and it wouldn't hit them too much financially I'm sure they would happily revert back to 2 hours.

Smackdown can't really have a 3rd hour unless they move the final hour on to one of the Fox cable channels as Fox only airs programming until 10pm Est

In which case you have to question how important they would view that 3rd hour, would they seperate it away from the main show and have it as a review type hour, Bringing back talking Smack would be an idea if they went that way for that hour.

If they had it as an extension of the show I think they'll see a big drop of for that 3rd hour as people who don't have The cable channels obviously can't watch and some People are just too lazy to change the channel or just think it's been a boring 2 hours I can't be bothered to fiddle around to watch the final hour on a different channel, we allready see a big drop from the 1st to 3rd hour on Raw running through uninterrupted on one channel.

[The Dart]

11 minutes ago, MVP RULZ said:

 

Smackdown can't really have a 3rd hour unless they move the final hour on to one of the Fox cable channels as Fox only airs programming until 10pm Est

 

When they added the 3rd hour to Raw they added it to the beginning, not the end.

If they want to have Smackdown 3 hours they could just do 7-10.

Anyway, 3 hours isn't the problem is it?   As Pitcos (probably) said earlier, "we" spent 10 years saying Raw was rubbish and used to be better before it became 3 hours.  If it was a good exciting show, people would watch for 3 hours.

[textonly]

Obvious problems aside, one practical, easy thing they could do right now to make the shows better? Get some of their WWE.com content on TV immediately. It's frankly ridiculous how much of WWE's best stuff is hidden away online (and not even on the Network). I was watching this Daniel Bryan segment earlier. It's 10 minutes long and it's just excellent. How they can produce stuff of this calibre and not be irresistibly compelled to put it on TV is beyond me.

[Devon Malcolm]

1 hour ago, C-Rock said:

My issue with WWE is that there booking is lazy and every match is like a indie spot fest which is tiresome and repetitive. Strip away the multi million pound production and most of the matches on Raw and Smackdown wouldn't be to dis-similar to what you see on Impact or ROH and personally I find straight up wrestling matches pretty boring especially when you have seen the matches a million times before with the same spots.

WWE need to take a big massive step out of there comfort zone and for me bring back Hell in a Cell, TLC, Steel Cage heck even Elmination Chamber matches as the main events on Raw and Smackdown like they did during the Attitude Era. I don't watch WWE to watch wrestling I watch WWE for entertainment and a straight up one on one match just doesn't do it for me anymore.

I mean you don't always just play a singles match on WWE 2k19 do you? Cause it's boring you liven it up with a stipulation.

WWE is like forcing adults to watch Power Rangers it's to kid friendly and i know WWE is heavily in to the make-a-wish and anti bullying campaigns etc but it's just all very to PC and bland and restrictive. WWE writers must feel like they are writing the programming with one hand tied behind there back.

Why is everyone doing a superkick and dive through the ropes? I find that really annoying as well just to add.

WWE has become just another indie promotion when it boils down to it.

I was just wondering the other day "Whatever happened to that plank C-Rock?"

Wish I'd stayed in suspense tbh.

[air_raid]

4 minutes ago, The Dart said:

Anyway, 3 hours isn't the problem is it?   As Pitcos (probably) said earlier, "we" spent 10 years saying Raw was rubbish and used to be better before it became 3 hours.  If it was a good exciting show, people would watch for 3 hours.

Chicken and egg. The same roster could produce an exciting stripped back show in 2 hours but 3 spreads it too thin. SmackDown is a really tight show with limited time for each character featured and not every character has to show up every week because they have too much time to fill. Nitro was noticeably worse once they switched to 3 hours because even though that roster was loaded with star power and talent, far stronger than what Raw has to play with today, 3 hours is too much and there's a Hugh Morrus vs El Dandy every third match, with first time PPV matches like Goldberg vs Sting given away for free to try and keep people watching until the end.

[Accident Prone]

11 hours ago, Vamp said:

The boring answer is probably market research.

Probably hire more people who don't watch wrestling 

Hire more writers

Throw unusual restrictions at wrestlers. 

They all ready do this and it's had a negative effect on the product.

[air_raid]

There's more than enough people out there who like wrestling and don't watch the show for them to concentrate on producing a wrestling show that's better suited to what wrestling fans like to watch to drive ratings up rather than split their focus and try and catch non-wrestling fans too. Win back the ones you're losing rather than try and hook new fish. Someone like me who watches a Raw every three months or so when its convenient, realizes its still shit and leaves it another three months. There's bound to be loads of my type that have gradually drifted off while the ratings have dropped but could be brought back in if Raw was anywhere near as good as SmackDown. People who don't watch wrestling aren't going to be able to tell them how to get me back into the wrestling show.

[Reborn]

It was announced at the Belfast live event last night that RAW and SD! will be held in Glasgow in November.

 

The Raw show last night didn't feature a single superstar traded from smackdown, and the ones traded to Smackdown, were still there at the Raw show. Its as if the shakeup never happened.

[HarmonicGenerator]

2 minutes ago, Reborn said:

It was announced at the Belfast live event last night that RAW and SD! will be held in Glasgow in November.

 

The Raw show last night didn't feature a single superstar traded from smackdown, and the ones traded to Smackdown, were still there at the Raw show. Its as if the shakeup never happened.

What was the card for Belfast? A couple of friends are taking their nephews to the Newcastle Raw show but know nothing about current WWE so I’d like to give them an idea of what to expect.

[Doog]

Isn’t it just RAW that’s in Glasgow on the Monday and Smackdown is in Manchester the Friday before?

[The Dart]

Yes, Smackdown Manchester November 8th.  Raw Glasgow November 11th.

 

 

37 minutes ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

What was the card for Belfast? A couple of friends are taking their nephews to the Newcastle Raw show but know nothing about current WWE so I’d like to give them an idea of what to expect.

 

Apollo Crews vs EC3
Mojo Rawley vs. Titus O'Neil
Natalya & Beth Phoenix vs. Ruby Riott & Liv Morgan
Aleister Black & Ricochet vs. The Revival
Finn Balor vs. Elias
Becky Lynch vs. Tamina vs. Lacey Evans   (I guess they thought Belfast might riot if Tamina wasn't on the show, so made this a triple threat for no good reason)
Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns & Braun Strowman vs. Bobby Lashley, Drew McIntyre & Baron Corbin

Edited May 9, 2019 by The Dart

[HarmonicGenerator]

10 minutes ago, The Dart said:

Yes, Smackdown Manchester November 8th.  Raw Glasgow November 11th.

 

 

  Hide contents

Apollo Crews vs EC3
Mojo Rawley vs. Titus O'Neil
Natalya & Beth Phoenix vs. Ruby Riott & Liv Morgan
Aleister Black & Ricochet vs. The Revival
Finn Balor vs. Elias
Becky Lynch vs. Tamina vs. Lacey Evans   (I guess they thought Belfast might riot if Tamina wasn't on the show, so made this a triple threat for no good reason)
Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns & Braun Strowman vs. Bobby Lashley, Drew McIntyre & Baron Corbin

Thanks! I’ll prep them for tips on staying awake during that second match.

[BomberPat]

The biggest problem with WWE is over-saturation of content. 

I'm not even a football fan, but I'd say that Liverpool/Barcelona the other day was probably the most solid 90 minutes of storytelling I have seen in years - a strong underdog story, with moments of high drama, villainy, and genuine emotion. So much so that I can see myself using it as an analogy when talking to trainees about how to structure a wrestling match.

The end of that game gave the audience a decisive finish, and gave them catharsis. People were, emotionally, absolutely exhausted.

Now bear in mind that WWE expect you to invest twice the length of that game into watching one of their TV shows every week. Another two (soon to be three?) hours for Smackdown. Another hour or two if you're mad enough to watch the C-shows. Another hour apiece for NXT, NXT UK and 205 Live. At least one PPV a month, the occasional NXT Takeover or other one-off specials, plus however much supplementary material (documentaries, Ride Along, other Network and YouTube guff).

It's insane, and no wonder that wrestlers feel stale and matches repetitive when they're never fucking off the telly. Game of Thrones isn't on TV every night of the week, they make you wait for the next episode, or binge watch it all at your pace. Nothing about WWE, in spite of being live, feels like "appointment viewing" any more because they never fuck off for long enough to make you look forward to seeing them again.

 

The other biggest problem, which I'll crow on about endlessly, is that the presentation fundamentally hasn't changed in the better part of 15-20 years. The difference, visually and stylistically, from the WWF in 1992 to the WWF in 1995 to the WWF in 1998 is vast. I could put on an episode of RAW now and not know if it was from last week, last year, 2015, 2010 or 2006. The same sets, the same camera angles, the same production. The entire product needs to be given a new coat of paint, because for years it's been impossible to shake that "seen it all before" feeling. 

[Daaaaaad!]

56 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

The other biggest problem, which I'll crow on about endlessly, is that the presentation fundamentally hasn't changed in the better part of 15-20 years. The difference, visually and stylistically, from the WWF in 1992 to the WWF in 1995 to the WWF in 1998 is vast. I could put on an episode of RAW now and not know if it was from last week, last year, 2015, 2010 or 2006. The same sets, the same camera angles, the same production. The entire product needs to be given a new coat of paint, because for years it's been impossible to shake that "seen it all before" feeling.

I'm sure it could be argued that a large part of that was due to the shift to HD, but that certainly isn't anywhere near a good enough excuse, especially so many years on now.

When they first reintroduced the draft, I remember noticing the week after that at least they'd done SOMETHING to differentiated between Raw and SmackDown Live. New logo for the former, different tron setup, moving the commentators... there was at least a hint of a difference there, and that felt like a big deal. I don't know when it changed back, though, because it ended up being so inconsequential that I didn't notice.

[Supremo]

Is there a logistical reason why they didn’t record Raw in Dublin on this tour? Feels like exactly the type of thing Becky needed after cooling off so much post-Mania. I know they book the arenas in advance but it’s seemed like the logical thing to do months and months ago.

At the very least, I’d have done a Network special.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Supremo