1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Report says DirecTV has "no interest" in WWE Network

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by leprechaun106317, Jun 28, 2012.

  1. Jul 10, 2012 #61 of 222
    Blackbird 13

    Blackbird 13 New Member

    2
    0
    Jul 10, 2012
    Stumbling onto this forum to find out more about the Viacom/DirecTV dispute, and being a diehard professional wrestling fan.. I decided to check this post out as well.

    I can't help but agree with the idea that as much as I would LOVE to have a channel showing 1980-2000 pro wrestling (and the WWE owns most all of it that's worth showing from that era), I can't see how the financials would work out. One thing that no one here as mentioned yet is that Vince was looking at adding other shows to the network, not SOLELY WWE or wrestling-related programming.


    Also.. I don't understand those of you who "look down" on professional wrestling. Most of the shows on television are equally as "fake". Mariska Hargitay is not actually an SVU detective. Jim Parsons is not a supergenius. Trey Parker and Matt Stone aren't actually foul-mouthed Colorado schoolchildren. I don't get the argument that pro wrestling is "fake" any more than someone saying one of those shows is "fake"...
     
  2. Jul 10, 2012 #62 of 222
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    Has nothing to do with it being fake. I used to hate people telling me that when they watched soap operas, dramas, action shows, and sitcoms. Has to do with what it's become from what I grew up watching. I won't watch it anymore nor will I let my son watch it either. Btw, you forgot to include "reality shows" and anything involving politicians in your list of fake shows.
     
  3. Jul 10, 2012 #63 of 222
    Blackbird 13

    Blackbird 13 New Member

    2
    0
    Jul 10, 2012
    Far be it from me to tell you how to raise a kid, but the WWE is more kid friendly now than it ever has been, for whatever that is worth.

    I'm 29, and grew up watching wrestling, getting into it around 93 (and going back and watching all the videos from the 80s I could get my hands on). I'll agree that it's nothing like it used to be, and that's kind of a shame.


    It's crazy how many of the "reality shows" are the "fakest" programs on television, isn't it?
     
  4. Jul 10, 2012 #64 of 222
    noahproblem

    noahproblem Legend

    127
    3
    Aug 19, 2009

    Well that might be debatable :D
     
  5. Jul 10, 2012 #65 of 222
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    They stand around talk now. When a 2 hour show has as much wrestling as a 1 hour show did when I was growing up its not interesting. I have no idea why people pay money to go to the arena to watch a little over 20 minutes of in-ring wrestling. Don't forget, McMahon took on the Russo mentality that the best wrestling show they could ever have on TV is a live show with no ring, Its on too late, and I just don't want him watching it unless its old stuff. I have an old Raw vs SD on the wii and he played it the other day. He told me he played the Royal Rumble and had no idea what to do and didn't understand why people kept just showing up and no one was pinning anyone. So, I have the first Flair DVD and showed him the 92 Rumble match.
     
  6. Jul 10, 2012 #66 of 222
    la24philly

    la24philly Hall Of Fame

    1,714
    0
    Mar 8, 2010
    WWE raw and SD have been horrible to watch lately so many commericals, way to many talking and crap.

    last night was the worst in sometime, they had like 6 matches total 4 of them were 2 min or less.

    20 min it felt like i was watching a combination of a soap opera trying to become a porno when AJ was proposing to punk.

    WWE needs to bring back some of the attitude era and make RAW worth wild, if they do they could get tv providers. But with this current crap theyre showing us, I wouldnt buy it.
     
  7. Jul 10, 2012 #67 of 222
    SParker

    SParker Active Member

    1,588
    2
    Apr 27, 2002
    Agreed, I like AJ a lot but that was just plain silly last night.
     
  8. Jul 10, 2012 #68 of 222
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    That bad huh? And arent they going 3 hours permanently in a couple of weeks? Good luck with that WWE. The company you ended up buying did sooooooo well with it.
     
  9. Jul 10, 2012 #69 of 222
    SParker

    SParker Active Member

    1,588
    2
    Apr 27, 2002
    It's a chore watching 2 hours of RAW let alone 3. Unless that extra hour is used for pure wrestling like cruiserweights. Yeah right..
     
  10. Jul 10, 2012 #70 of 222
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    Actually I'm in the mood, so I'll give my suggestions as an old school former fan later. No one may care, but I think my suggestions might help. No, it won't be something dumb like take the mats off the floor or anything.
     
  11. Jul 10, 2012 #71 of 222
    zimm7778

    zimm7778 Hall Of Fame

    1,201
    5
    Nov 11, 2007
    And here it is.....

    Raw is expanding the 3 hours. For some people, they may think that’s great. Others are shuddering at the thought. Then there are people like me who just shake our heads wondering if USA or WWE bothered to remember the last company who tried this and how it ended up. The short version: It didn’t. But here people sit again about to watch what may be an impending disaster. However, even as I am not a fan I’d like to make a few suggestions as to how they can possibly make Raw a success at 3 hours. Again, I am no expert. My ideas may not help or possibly could hurt. I will tell you the broad answer is not to “just have more wrestling.” Nitro did that, it didn’t work. For three mind numbing hours fans in attendance (I was there for those 3 hour shows twice) and at home watched a whole lot of wrestling. But it was all pointless because the same guys fought the same group of guys, traded wins, and if you happened to remember who won at all by the end of the night you thought no better of either one. So, simply wrestling is not the answer. Their biggest concern in my opinion is to make a 3 hour show not be a 3 hour show the likes of which they’ve done in the past.

    Suggestion #1: When the show starts at 8 do a 15-25 minute pregame type show. And by this I mean really do one. When the actual match/show portion of Raw starts do the usual opening then. Have different hosts, let them discuss things in a more intelligent way though not internet site smart. If you want to talk to the announcers calling it like they do in pro sports pregame shows, fine. But all in all it’s a different show complete with a different opening and everything. You also need to give them something to discuss on that show about what’s upcoming that night which leads to….

    Suggestion #2: Go back to the old days of coming on the air with a roster of matches already set up for the night. This idea of going to the ring and creating your own matches for the night or McMahon making them on the fly “on air” is tired and old. It’s fine for it to happen every once in a while. It’s happened for years. I remember seeing it happen in syndication. But not every single show. Do not waver off this format most weeks either. The matches advertised happen. Period. Have several, but not so many they all just run together and mean nothing.

    Suggestion #3: Give time limits to matches again. Not do it only when it suits you. Not when it makes the guy look under the gun. Every single match that takes place with the exception of one, the main event. It’s 30….and it’s 30 whether it’s got 5 minutes on the air left or 25. Occasionally let the show end with the match still going on. If it’s interesting people will want to tune in or actually go when the show is in town for fear they could miss something. The only exception to this would be if a World or World Tag Team title match was taking place. Yeah, that would mean making that tag title mean something again, but anyhow the time limit policy could lead to…..

    Suggestion #4: Turn one of the pointless several belts that mean nothing into something of a TV title. Announce that from here on out, anytime this champion wrestles on TV in a singles match the title is on the line whether it’s a jobber off the street or a main event caliber performer. Time limit: 15 minutes. Also on this note, this does not mean you do the shocking thing I know they’d want to do and have the champion lose to some jobber. You don’t need that. The idea that the title is deemed important enough that it’s being defended each week will automatically give it prestige over time.

    Suggestion #5: Most weeks the main event wouldn’t interfere with this because it’d be set to end about 10-20 minutes before 11. You end with a postgame show from the same people who started. Let them get backstage locker room interviews from the people who wrestled. Let them give their opinions of what they saw. Let them talk to the announcers for a minute or two. Make it feel like a sports atmosphere again.

    That’s it. Is it so hard to try this? Hey if it worked I and many others might get interested again because it’d be worth checking out. With my ideas you’ve just cut at worst 25 minutes off the show, and at best 45 minutes. I’ve also spotted you a match with the title being defended each week. Now all they’d have to do is plot whatever time is left. If they went back to let’s get here, now to get there, let’s work backwards and see where we start.


    EDIT: just realized something might not sound right in Suggestion 3. The time limit for all matches but the main event would be 15 minutes (thus why I have the tv title 15). The main event with the exception of a World or World Tag Team title match is 30 minutes. These two title matches I just referenced would be 1 hour obviously.
     
  12. Feb 9, 2013 #72 of 222
    onan38

    onan38 Legend

    320
    7
    Jul 17, 2008
  13. Feb 9, 2013 #73 of 222
    SParker

    SParker Active Member

    1,588
    2
    Apr 27, 2002
  14. Feb 9, 2013 #74 of 222
    Jeffro

    Jeffro AllStar

    79
    2
    Dec 23, 2006
    If anybody has the actual survey, please cut and paste the survey so we can see exactly what it asks. Thanks
     
  15. Feb 9, 2013 #75 of 222
    leprechaun106317

    leprechaun106317 AllStar

    90
    6
    Apr 5, 2011
    I wish I knew where this survey was.. i'd like to take it. I want the network and I hope DirecTV ends up carrying it.
     
  16. Feb 9, 2013 #76 of 222
    DodgerKing

    DodgerKing Hall Of Fame

    2,045
    0
    Apr 28, 2008
    Just curious as to why so many are fans of a stage performance geared towards 13 year old boys?
     
  17. Feb 9, 2013 #77 of 222
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,609
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    It's entertainment and not really geared to young boys.

    I'm not sure why the Dodgers have fans. ;)

    I'm also not sure why people care about what others watch.
     
  18. Feb 9, 2013 #78 of 222
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    +1
     
  19. Feb 9, 2013 #79 of 222
    Mariah2014

    Mariah2014 Breaking the mold

    843
    5
    Apr 21, 2006
    Somewhere...
    I'm glad they don't we have enough garbage already.
     
  20. Feb 9, 2013 #80 of 222
    KyL416

    KyL416 Hall Of Fame

    4,490
    637
    Nov 10, 2005
    Tobyhanna, PA
    The surveys randomly appear when you visit DirecTV.com
     

Share This Page