ESPN Takes Shot at Monday’s Raw Episode

Discussion in 'RAW' started by CM Punk, Mar 19, 2013.

  1. I agree and disagree. Some 3 hour RAW's have been good, but last night, it was just shit filler.
     
  2. 3 hours isn't good enough consistently IMO, you're going to run out of ideas quicker obviously. Impact being 2 hours feels like I want to see more no matter how good Raw tends to be I never think wow I need to see more of that.
     
  3. Three hours is only warrant at PPV's in my opinion. I've not once felt "this RAW has been good BECAUSE it's three hours long" under this experiment, unless you count RAW 1000. One of the reasons last weeks TNA was so exceptionally good was because every segment felt relevant and then it ended, and you're like "Omg, what will X do next week then?". Two hours is the perfect amount of time to produce a wrestling show with meaningful content, and 3 hours needs to stop asap imo.
     
  4. For the most part I'm not entertained the entire three hours of Raw. What irritates me is there can be many filler matches that don't hold any substance. The storylines for those matches aren't invested in and the matches themselves are typically very short. If it was all action and super entertaining the whole time then that would be a different story. Since it's not then it just doesn't make any sense to keep Raw this long. I don't blame ESPN for taking a shot at it.
     
  5. I agree and disagree like always, as the first post said, some are good and others are crap. Well, this week's one was a little boring but some others like the old school was a lot better imo. Loved the promo between Rocky and Cena
     
  6. I'd prefer to see it last 2 hours, we could get better matches and I wouldn't have to stay up so late.
     
  7. RAW as three hours doesnt work as WWE just dont involve the midcard in decent feuds storylines they just balls it up constantly. 3 hours would work if they could sort some decent feuds for the midcard and the US, IC and Divas belts so i gave a monkeys about them. Imagine a world where Barrett, Cesaro, Miz, Jericho, Kofi, Orton, Sheamus all had decent feuds. Include Kaitlyn and Team Hell No in there with Natalya, Tamina, Rhodes Scholars, The Usos, an any other underused talent.
     
  8. I can't even tune in anymore Three hours is just way too much.
     
  9. 2 hours is perfect. Drop the constant recaps and movie plugs and you can fit everything into two hours and then some.
     
  10. Since only about 6 people in WWE are relevant (probably 3 or 4 of which are part timers btw) a three-hour show will have looots of filler which is bad. And it's sort of too much to sit through even without commercials when you go to sleep early like me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Seem to remember us all complaining when the 3 hours was announced... We hated the 2 hour show because there was so damn much filler on it, now they wanted to add a THIRD? The only thing us optimists were saying was "hey, more time for guys like Riley, Tyson Kidd, the Usos, the Divas, or even things like longer matches and more backstage segments!" lol @ those of us that thought that, including myself.

    It's been a catastrophe, and everyone saw it coming to an extent except the braintrusts in WWE that thought it was a good idea and probably still do. But the problem remains that the 2 hour shows sucked too.
     
  12. It doesn't matter how long the show lasts, they still need better content and need to utilize their talent better. They should spend more of their time giving face-time to those on the roster who could most benefit from it. Kind of like Rain mentioned, the 2-hour shows often still sucked because there was so much filler and short matches. Now there's an extra hour to accommodate even more filler, more recaps, movie trailers/hype and a few good matches here and there. I agree two hours would be better than three, but in my opinion even if they revert to two hours they still need to improve the content and thereby the quality of the show tremendously. Continuing on as they are isn't working.
     
  13. In my opinion, most RAWs for the past year have been historically bad nights in wrestling television. Just that awful undercard and midcard. No depth, diversity or continuity at all. I mean, how many times have we seen Ryback/Cesaro now?

    Like Leo C said, the WWE have very few relevant stars, the only ones that are full timers being Cena and Punk. Every other wrestler suffers from the 'E's paranoia of keeping everyone looking strong at the expense of continuity and storylines. It's really just a trainwreck to watch.