The reason WWF/E dropped the Surviorseries elimination concept...

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


Keith

WCW Halloween Phantom
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,594
Reaction score
2,824
Points
113
Some have said that its because the format is just dated and wouldn't get over now. I think the real reason is because WWE don't have enough over stars to merit a whole PPV made up of it. If you look at the show's glory years from the late 80s-early 90s there were tones of big names, and fresh feuds, and pretty much everyone had a conflict. There was very little filler.

Also does anyone agree with Bruce Pritchard that the 90 main event with the surviving faces VS. surviving heels should have been a battle royal with one man surviving overall. Think it would have been much better than what they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kross Rhodes

Deezy

DZ PZ
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
133,614
Reaction score
37,059
Points
118
Location
Canada
Favorite Wrestler
brethart2
Favorite Wrestler
newjack
Favorite Wrestler
ddp
Favorite Wrestler
therock
Favorite Wrestler
nwo
Favorite Wrestler
wolfpac
They dropped the concept during the attitude era when everyone was over. It's simply who wants to watch a wrestling show where the matches are all the same? Kind of redundant and breeds viewer apathy.

But the battle royal made up of surviving team members would actually make the old Mean Gene line of "Who will survive?" fit better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kross Rhodes

Cwalker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
33,317
Reaction score
15,926
Points
118
Favorite Wrestler
randyorton
Favorite Wrestler
romanreigns
Favorite Wrestler
codyrhodes
Favorite Wrestler
adamcole2
Favorite Wrestler
ajstyles
Favorite Wrestler
jaylethal
Favorite Sports Team
BZw58qk
The battle royal idea adds interesting aspects of story telling. Like do you save your partner in order to have a better chance to win the match or let him get eliminated in order to have a better chance to win the battle royal
 

Kross Rhodes

Israel Has the Right to Exist
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
168,054
Reaction score
33,600
Points
148
Age
37
Location
Wrestling Forums
Website
wrestlingsmarks.com
Favorite Wrestler
emma
Favorite Wrestler
YA1yyED
Favorite Wrestler
frmoJZU
Favorite Wrestler
nock3cf
Favorite Wrestler
danielbryan3
Favorite Wrestler
tLCb5kv
Favorite Sports Team
WYT3shw
Favorite Sports Team
fRXTMaD
Favorite Sports Team
LechI0u
Favorite Sports Team
RHZ7KJg
That battle royal finish sounds interesting. Reminds me of BattleBowl with a cooler twist.

I agree @Cwalker. There would be all kinds of stories they could tell with that and really play on the Survivor name.
 

Keith

WCW Halloween Phantom
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,594
Reaction score
2,824
Points
113
They dropped the concept during the attitude era when everyone was over. It's simply who wants to watch a wrestling show where the matches are all the same? Kind of redundant and breeds viewer apathy.

But the battle royal made up of surviving team members would actually make the old Mean Gene line of "Who will survive?" fit better.

Everyone was over for a very brief spell during the Attitude Era [not quite everyone]. Which was its problem. It was such a flesh in the pan. You don't drop a whole concept that was proven money because of that.

The battle royal idea adds interesting aspects of story telling. Like do you save your partner in order to have a better chance to win the match or let him get eliminated in order to have a better chance to win the battle royal

Great point. Part of Bruce's point too was that the way they did it was just a predictable way to have the predictable babyface celebration with Hogan and Warrior. It was odd booking having so many heels oppose the faces too.
 

Deezy

DZ PZ
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
133,614
Reaction score
37,059
Points
118
Location
Canada
Favorite Wrestler
brethart2
Favorite Wrestler
newjack
Favorite Wrestler
ddp
Favorite Wrestler
therock
Favorite Wrestler
nwo
Favorite Wrestler
wolfpac
Everyone was over for a very brief spell during the Attitude Era [not quite everyone]. Which was its problem. It was such a flesh in the pan. You don't drop a whole concept that was proven money because of that.



Great point. Part of Bruce's point too was that the way they did it was just a predictable way to have the predictable babyface celebration with Hogan and Warrior. It was odd booking having so many heels oppose the faces too.
I think you're looking at the Hogan era with rose colored glasses. Just like the attitude era, only a hand select few kept themselves relevant after it.

It still doesn't mean the same gimmick match should be every match for an entire ppv. It's redundant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kross Rhodes

Kross Rhodes

Israel Has the Right to Exist
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
168,054
Reaction score
33,600
Points
148
Age
37
Location
Wrestling Forums
Website
wrestlingsmarks.com
Favorite Wrestler
emma
Favorite Wrestler
YA1yyED
Favorite Wrestler
frmoJZU
Favorite Wrestler
nock3cf
Favorite Wrestler
danielbryan3
Favorite Wrestler
tLCb5kv
Favorite Sports Team
WYT3shw
Favorite Sports Team
fRXTMaD
Favorite Sports Team
LechI0u
Favorite Sports Team
RHZ7KJg
I think you're looking at the Hogan era with rose colored glasses. Just like the attitude era, only a hand select few kept themselves relevant after it.

It still doesn't mean the same gimmick match should be every match for an entire ppv. It's redundant.
People complain about two Hell in a Cells and yet some of these same people want 6-8 elimination tags?

200.gif