This isn't a new storytelling tactic by any means, but there's a clear overreliance on decompression. WWE has also developed a bad habit of ending most of its matches tied to an ongoing storyline with a disqualification or some other type of non-finish. Sometimes, the sum of its parts makes for a greater whole, but it doesn't work when there is so much filler and the angles we're supposed to invest in miss the mark.
Instead, it seems like WWE is just attempting to fill time between matches and significant matches.
WATCH WWE RAW 2002 SERIES
Many of its slapdash and meaningless segments often make the show a slog to get through, while SmackDown is much more concise.įrankly, too many things happen on the flagship series feel inconsequential because viewers don't get an adequate payoff. Raw simply doesn't make good use of its three-hour runtime. So, what exactly is WWE doing right on Friday nights, and what's wrong with the red brand? Let's take a look. Raw, on the other hand, was treading water heading into WrestleMania 37 season, and the boost of excitement following The Showcase of Immortal hasn't helped much at all.
SmackDown struggled after the move to Fox, but the return of Roman Reigns has made it a must-see event again. Similarly, the series excelled after WWE re-implemented the extension in 2016 with AJ Styles as The Face That Runs the Place. In 2002, Paul Heyman and the SmackDown Six proved the blue brand can deliver compelling television, and it has had a strong history since the advent of the brand split. It's hard to understand how the same company can give us superior shows on Wednesdays and Fridays SmackDown is consistently fun to watch even with some similar flaws, and one has to wonder why that is. Wrestling fans have more options than ever before and that's a good thing because WWE's flagship series, Raw, has been difficult to watch for the last few months.