Simple; get the Wyatt Famiy on the show, have all the wrestler's gang up on them, and give the Wyatt's a shave and a haircut, then throw them into a tub and give them a bath. Ta Daaa.
What can WWE do to make Smackdown interesting again?
- Thread starter Red Rain
- Start date
-
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
Simple; get the Wyatt Famiy on the show, have all the wrestler's gang up on them, and give the Wyatt's a shave and a haircut, then throw them into a tub and give them a bath. Ta Daaa.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,334
- Reaction score
- 1,703
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 36
TNA wouldn't even be able to compete with Superstars, let alone Smackdown.
I think you're exaggerating a little bit here, buddy. TNA has been pretty good as of late, you should watch it sometime...
The latest two/three episodes, especially. But if you still can't manage to like the product, then, I get it. It's not everyone's cup of tea.
Anyways, speaking of Superstars... If it was up to me, both 'Superstars' and 'Main Event' shows shouldn't exist. They should just put more effort into SmackDown! Not saying it's shite, but it ain't spectacular either.
You're actually correct, I suppose I'm speaking from my own a**.
I enjoy TNA to where I think it's a better show than RAW, most of the time. TNA is just too heel heavy, much like WCW was.
WWE knows how to be on a more better and successful show 10 out of 10 times, that's just Vince and his experience right there.
TNA isn't a bore fest with vanilla writing like Smackdown has. (Despite the fact that vanilla writing is highly successful)
If people could stomach something interesting and not be so mindless, we'd be having a totally different discussion
Despite the popular belief that people, by and large, want alternative it's just not true.
When something is an alternative, it's just that. It differs from the norm.
The norm would be doing the same thing 3/4 times. the alternative would be doing 1/4 times.
The alternative just doesn't hold up and just ends up replaced through the course of time.
This is the reason TNA often recycles WWE's storylines so quickly after WWE uses it.
WWE has mastered their formula and has the money to make something so saccharine appear immaculate.
TNA is great, but when they use a WWE angle so soon it just seems low rate.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 3,334
- Reaction score
- 1,703
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 36
I was speaking strictly in terms of of competing for viewers, not personal enjoyment of the product. Objectively speaking, no way can anyone say that TNA is serious competition for WWE. I agree about axing Superstars and Main Event, though. Neither draw in any significant number of subscribers and it annoys me to see important (or semi-important) stuff being placed on Main Event when it could instead be booked on Smackdown to make that show better.
Have the current fanbase replaced with an alternative fanbase that's capable of appreciating progressive insight.
Cut Raw down from three hours and generally just stop treating SD like it's secondary to it.
Have good feuds that spread across both shows
Stop using SD as a Raw recap show with two or three extra matches thrown in (the same as Main Event and Superstars)
It's very rare I ever bother with SD these days and if I do, it's for one- maybe two matches at most. I always intend to watch the SD before a PPV but even then I forget.
Have good feuds that spread across both shows
Stop using SD as a Raw recap show with two or three extra matches thrown in (the same as Main Event and Superstars)
It's very rare I ever bother with SD these days and if I do, it's for one- maybe two matches at most. I always intend to watch the SD before a PPV but even then I forget.
More Orton vs Ziggler
Orton with a free mic
Ted Dibase rehired
Cena banned
Jericho banned
Punk banned
HHH wrestling
No comedy
No women other than the odd rump. most lads watch wrestling half cut, so it is like trying to raise the titanic, so what is the point of the rumps if the lads cannot enjo it
Limp Bizkit and Manson play
Orton with a free mic
Ted Dibase rehired
Cena banned
Jericho banned
Punk banned
HHH wrestling
No comedy
No women other than the odd rump. most lads watch wrestling half cut, so it is like trying to raise the titanic, so what is the point of the rumps if the lads cannot enjo it
Limp Bizkit and Manson play
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2011
- Messages
- 39,124
- Reaction score
- 5,642
- Points
- 118
- Age
- 30
- Location
- God's Country, Sheffield UK
Give the reigns to Heyman, build another Smackdown 6 around Orton, Sheamus (I'll get hate for these two but both can be interesting with the correct booking which Heyman an do with ease plus they're established stars ala Eddie and Angle [not in talent but in relative positions in the company]), Ziggler, Cesaro, Reigns and Mark Henry. Smackdown isn't that bad as a show but it's caught in a vicious cycle where people complain nothing happens on SD but when it does it shouldn't happen on the "jobber show". Smackdown doesn't need to be live or anything it just needs stories you can only get by watching SD, even if spoilers leak a good show is still a good show Impact has proven that.
I'm opposed to an unmotivated Randy Orton who lacks intensity. Mark Henry can never protect himself, but I'm not opposed to him being on your list. He's great at working the crowd. I do recall Heyman being opposed to using superstars over age 40, but who knows but him.
I can see Heyman motivating Orton actually. Orton and Lesnar are both loners but from the same cloth and Heyman is great at appealing to guys who may be jacka**es in real life. I'd like Dutch Mantell thrown in the mix as a consultant.
I can see Heyman motivating Orton actually. Orton and Lesnar are both loners but from the same cloth and Heyman is great at appealing to guys who may be jacka**es in real life. I'd like Dutch Mantell thrown in the mix as a consultant.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2011
- Messages
- 39,124
- Reaction score
- 5,642
- Points
- 118
- Age
- 30
- Location
- God's Country, Sheffield UK
I used Orton mainly due to his name power really, id like to phase him out after 18 months to 2 years and build the show around Reigns, it could probably be quicker given how well Roman has caught on. The main logic behind it was having core names which are well known to the audience and blending them with NXT. I'd make tag wrestling a huge part of it (this is where you could use Henry but still limit his ring work, I agree he's injury prone and honestly he's a poor worker in the ring) his flaws are covered and the investment is there.
Yeah, it's tragic when every booking decision has to take into account the stupidity of the WWE universe. The idea is, that if you can acclimate the audience to a particular format it will catch on. I. personally, am a fan of smash mouth wrestling. Heyman encourages intensity (which Axel and Ryback lacked), which those six have. Henry also drew pretty good numbers as WHC for SD.