SURVIVORSEREIS, ROYALRUMBLE, SUMMERSLAM, WRESTLEMANIA: back in the good ol days they would be able to develop better rivalries and storyline, its too watered down now like orton vs hogan but i know its all about money
2006-09-09 10:13:23 · 13 answers · asked by keopci 1 in Sports ➔ Wrestling
My thought on that is, you have the choice on rather or not, you want to get the pay-per-views, regardless of how many they have, we're not obligated to order any of them. I don't think the amount of pay-per-views they have, is affecting any of our lives.
2006-09-09 11:53:35 · answer #1 · answered by A_WWE_FAN_4LYFE 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I watch RAW. I don't get the paperviews, so i really do not know. but the four that you listed are the best from what i hear. the others are just for money purposes only. It really is pathetic that the rivalries do not last. I remember even a couple of years ago when somebody like Chris Benoit was rivals with Chris Jericho. Now you would have Triple H rivaled against Shawn Michaels for about two months and now all of the sudden, they are teamed up and are going against the McMahons. Now there are rumors, they will break apart, and Triple H will team up with the McMahons and go against Shawn Michaels.
2006-09-09 17:22:08 · answer #2 · answered by KC_Meag42 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea there are 12 month per a year so there are four set of three months. WWE should change it to Jan/ Feb/ Mar Wrestlemania Apr/ Ma/ Jun Summerslam Jul/ Aug/ sep Survivorseries Oct/ Nov/ Dec Royal Rumble. So instead of one every three weeks make it one every three months since there are four PPVs.
One last thing, the PPVs have to contain matchs from all three brands.
2006-09-09 21:52:01 · answer #3 · answered by Yangster 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, THey started to add other payperviews which were called In your House. I think they were cheaper to order than the four above. Now all the pay per views cost the same. I think Wrestlemania might cost slightly more.
2006-09-09 18:03:19 · answer #4 · answered by wizard 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I Wish It Was 1 pay per view a month not every 3 weeks.
2006-09-09 18:23:37 · answer #5 · answered by decoyaryan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is soooo true. back in the day rivalry's use to last at least a year. now they last up until the pay per view. look at the freebirds vs the von erichs for example. a great rivalry that lasted for years.
2006-09-09 17:17:20 · answer #6 · answered by motleycrue0880 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. A WWE PPV should be an event that wrestlig fans are eager to see, especially now that all the shows have different wrestlers they should definately make the PPVs so that it contains matches from all three brands. I have to say that it's somewhat like a joke nowadays to even be a wrestling fan, but I am and all of you are because we are true to our colors.
2006-09-09 20:27:07 · answer #7 · answered by Young M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah really you gotta pay more for about 20 pay per views a year if you what to see some really good matchs
2006-09-09 18:03:58 · answer #8 · answered by KeNnEdY a.K.a. Styles clash 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well seen as im in the uk and dont pay for all the ppvs anyway that doesnt bother me, but i do agree that they would have more time to build storylines etc it is so watered down now and i think this would fix it. however like you say it is all about money with them so i dont think it will happen
2006-09-10 16:48:02 · answer #9 · answered by Kirsty 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as they show the other Pay per views for Free
2006-09-09 18:19:55 · answer #10 · answered by J-Kidd "07" 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋