3 Hour Raws

Discussion in 'RAW' started by Cloud, Apr 20, 2014.

  1. Now as much as many on here hate the whole 3-hour concept of RAW me personally am starting to come round.

    Reason being personally in part the 3-hours gives WWE chance to showcase more stars, keeping things interesting. Yeah I know this means more Fandango and Santino at times. But in recent times its meant more of ppl like The Real Americans which has surely helped Cesaro get over. Its helped the Tag Division become semi relevant again I admit its taken a dive recently but it can be rebuilt with plenty of stars doing nothing at the min and on 3-hour shows they will get screentime.

    They have had time to resolve the issues of going to longer shows and I think they are getting there. If they continue to spotlight people who aren't always some are gonna go over like Cesaro has and this is great for us.

    For me I can deal with the Fandango segments if it means I am seeing a more diverse card week in week out which I think we have and will continue to do so.

    • Like Like x 1
  2. Well if every Raw was like post-Mania instead of the shit Raw (excluding Evolution) from last week, I'd be more satisfied.
  3. This is true of course they wont all be quality but I really believe the 3-hours is giving time to people it wouldn't usually and helping them get tv time and become more popular.
  4. Even though many employees are sill not getting TV time.
  5. There is too much of "I don't really give a shit about this" and "Uhh, sure, that rematch is on next". I'd love to see new, fresh matches most weeks but I'd rather have 2 hour RAW if it means it's not 1 more hour of wrestling I don't care about. And they can make Smackdown and Main Event even better.
  6. This is true but if you compare it to TNA a lot more people are getting quality tv time now. The Uso's, Cesaro, Rybaxel who aint to bad together. Plus its helped groups like The Shield and The Wyatts deliver some great promos and matches that I believe on a shorter RAW we would have seen way less of.
  7. What the WWE needs is an NXT invasion after the Evolution storyline.
  8. Ehh, that might be way too much like NXT 2.0 and the roster is already as packed as ever.
  9. True but it is allowing WWE to cater to all fans in a bigger sense. We get epic Wyatt promos and there is still time for the kids to get something they can buy into with the likes of Sin Cara etc...
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Well, yeah, it's a double edged-sword. If the fact that the show is three hours in itself doesn't bore you (I'm fine with it but I'm aware some people aren't), then it can either be time devoted to putting people over or time devoted to filler! It really depends on what they put in that extra time.
  11. I wouldn't hate a shorter Raw. I get bored during the less important matches and skip through them anyway.

    If they didn't do such shit filler matches it wouldn't be an issue, as it stands though there is a lot of crap like fandango vs Santino and what's worse is the fact we know it'll be on Smackdown and the following Raw. If we're getting feuds having so much time dedicated towards them they at least need to be decent feuds.
  12. A good chunk of the matches end up being lackluster in the three hour Raw. They haven't utilized the time to build feuds outside of the main titles so boring midcard matches have taken its place. It would be better if they seemed to actually care about using the time wisely.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. #13 Snowman, Apr 20, 2014
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2014
    Really can't disagree with a single point you make, Cloud. They're doing a much better job with it and are doing a really nice job with the long segments nowadays (as long as Cena doesn't ruin them). And the Fandango segments are making for okay buffers so no worries. They're doing a better job with it creatively, but I still just think 3 hours is just too long for a wrestling show. Even when there's some pretty good stuff in the 3rd hour - like the Ziggler/Barrett match - often both me and the crowd are just ready to go to bed. (Not to mention how you UK folks must feel, sheesh.) Can't stress how much better the show is on Hulu if y'all can watch it.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Cheers Snow plus got to admit I get a no ads version of RAW the day after due to work. This knocks off a huge time investment.
  15. Oh without the ads Raw isn't that much of a drag to sit through anyway! :yay: Isn't it around 2 hours for you then?
  16. Yeah usually round the 2hr 17min mark.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. I can remove enough filler segments from every 3 hour RAW to make it a 2 hour show without losing any precious TV time that helps younger talent. How much of the extra hour we get is actual TV time for a new performer to get a chance to impress? Think about it. That extra hour has a lot of advertisement time, a lot of replays of segments that has just happened, entrances, filler, etc. A 2 hour show wouldn't give them less of a chance, and it would be far easier and more enjoyable to watch live.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. Three hours is just too much for me personally. I can't do it. Even with Raw at it's best, I still tend to zone out.
  19. I remember the good old days when used to watch an hour long wwf superstars where the big names were fighting jobbers basically with the odd two big names clashing on a show and it was a treat. Then main events were 3 hours long. I was happy just saying lol.

    Anyway i think raw should be two hours long 3 hours or more should be ppv only for me.
  20. I usually watch on Hulu where its condensed down to a 90 minute show with only a few commercials and you STILL get some of the replays, feud recaps, and so on playing, while actual matches get left out from time to time. I am not a fan of that. I feel like WWE has all these commercials they throw up during THEIR part of the show and THEN you have to watch the regular commercials too. Enough with the in house WWE commercials and put on more action! I personally like watching the matches - feud or not.