Page 1 of 2
Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Tue Jun 5, 2012 6:59 pm
by Cliff Levingston
ICLO, this is a big enough topic to be separated from the TV thread. As you probably know by now, Raw is taking a page out of WCW's dusty old playbook and going 3 hours, "permanently." By "permanently", Cliff Levingston assumes they mean "until they realize it's a terrible idea." So, you know where Cliff Levingston stands. What say you?
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Tue Jun 5, 2012 7:13 pm
by Celtics_Champs
Yeah, I too am not a fan. The Raw shows have been less than stellar more than not, going all the way back to pre-wrestlemania.
It really depends what they're going to do with that third hour, is it going to be a mix of social media bullcrap/unfunny bits/and jobbers, or are they going to re-vamp the tag division or do something most on here are craving for.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Tue Jun 5, 2012 7:59 pm
by Stanford
Definitely bad.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Tue Jun 5, 2012 8:30 pm
by CapeCrusader
If they keep moving along with the tag division and develop stars with that extra hour and develope interesting story lines then it could possibly be the best thing. If its the John Cena little Jimmy crap I saw last night then i'll change my vote.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Tue Jun 5, 2012 8:50 pm
by Stanford
http://withleather.uproxx.com/2012/06/t ... raw-6412/3I seriously might have to give up this column when Raw goes to three hours in July. Or I’ll just cover the first hour, and the last five pages will be the Best And Worst Of Whatever Episode Of Adventure Time Is On. Not sure I’m mentally prepared to write about the same 20-minute sneak peek of Common Law I’m gonna have to recap every week.
Officially bad.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Tue Jun 5, 2012 10:06 pm
by Christophersp10
Stupid Vince and his cast of failed SNL and Soap Opera writers cant even book 2 hours of tv. Can you imagine 3?
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Thu Jun 7, 2012 5:33 pm
by Cliff Levingston
Christophersp10 wrote:Stupid Vince and his cast of failed SNL and Soap Opera writers cant even book 2 hours of tv. Can you imagine 3?
C'mon. It can't be that hard. Just stretch out the Ryback and Bordus Clay squashes a couple minutes. Add in a few more Santino backstage segments. Add a "worthless" tag match between the Usos and some scrubs like Kidd and Barretta. A few more minutes of commercials. No problem.
Now, if they planned on dedicating the extra hour solely to Ambrose and Sandow promos, then it would be a great idea.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Thu Jun 7, 2012 9:24 pm
by Christophersp10
Maybe we can get 40 minutes of Cena being a bully and pouring BBQ sauce on Cole instead of wasting 20 minutes.
Maybe we can get HHH boring people to death with a long winded promo that goes 20 minutes to open the show.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Fri Jun 8, 2012 1:09 am
by ChicagoStrong
Bad thing.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Fri Jun 8, 2012 2:43 am
by spykelee
Love the idea, but only because I have hope that WWE will know what to do with it. As Cliff Levingston mentioned, more Sandow promo's, sign me up. Cena/HHH/Santino/Same garbage just extended, big fat hearty no. Please develop that tag division and maybe re-establish a cruiseweight division or something...
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Fri Jun 8, 2012 3:53 am
by Dunthreevy
CAN it be good? Hell yes. WILL it be good? Most likely no.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Fri Jun 8, 2012 4:12 am
by pduh01
Don't like the idea because I know the product is still going to be bad, and WWE won't take anything as advantage which I will explain right now.
The three hours could be a good idea if the WWE use sense, and ways to not only evaluate but push talents lower cards, mid carders for instinct, and make other titles more meaningful again like the IC Title, and the United Stated Title plus an opportunity push the tag team division make it more meaningful again too. Same with the "Diva division." even though they need more divas that can actual wrestle first though.
They could use three hours for interesting storylines to have lowercards, and mid carders to be involve not one of those comedy/cheesey angles/storylines that we usually do, and we will see lot of those comedy/cheesey crappy storylines once the three hours start in July.
However, the WWE won't use those ideas, and very likely the matches going to suck worst, the talent is going to be push down, maybe some talents may get push, but probably involve in cheesey/comedy skit, we may see more horswoggle than ever for a while. Its going to suck.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Fri Jun 8, 2012 4:39 am
by spykelee
It'll probably be absorbed with 1 more match and 30 minutes of more promotion and more looks at what's been happening in the previous weeks and earlier on Raw... That will be the absolute worst of all.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Fri Jun 8, 2012 6:51 am
by studcrackers
we've talked about this endlessly and no it wont be a good idea b/c nobody (here, likely anywhere else) believes in the wwe's ability to create and develop good storylines outside of cena and whoever has the titles. dont really see why this'll change. if it allows the us/intercontinental titles to finally have meaning again along w/the tag team, then yea, im all for it
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Fri Jun 8, 2012 3:39 pm
by Coach Smiley
I doesn't even matter if the storylines are good (which they won't be) 3 hours + overrun is just too much wrestling, I can't even get through 2 hour weekly wrestling shows anymore, 3 hours would be such a chore
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Fri Jun 8, 2012 4:29 pm
by Stanford
I think you're right. Ultimately it's going to fail. I can't imagine we'll have 3 hours Raws this time next year. 3 hours of Raw per week, PLUS SD!, PLUS NXT, PLUS Superstars is just overexposing your talent.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Sat Jun 9, 2012 5:50 am
by pduh01
Stanford wrote:I think you're right. Ultimately it's going to fail. I can't imagine we'll have 3 hours Raws this time next year. 3 hours of Raw per week, PLUS SD!, PLUS NXT, PLUS Superstars is just overexposing your talent.
And plus don't forget they have three hours pay per view every month to top of that.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:20 am
by blazza18
Going to be awful. 2hrs is horrible atm but 3. Fark. Wont last long.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 2:01 am
by Kahn_2001
Awful idea, I barley watch right now.
Re: Debate: Raw going 3 hours a good or bad thing?
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:15 am
by Christophersp10
wwe proves week after week that they can't even book 2 hours