PWInsider - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE

 
 

GOLDBERG VS. LESNAR, WHY MORE ECW CONTENT?, BALOR, SHANE VS. UNDERTAKER 2 AND MORE

By Mike Johnson on 2016-11-24 11:08:00

Do you see WWE loading lesser known TV content from the past to the WWE network in the future?  Shows such as WWE Confidential, Sunday Night Heat, Superstars from the early 90s, Action Zone, etc.?  Same with WCW and ECW shows, or do you believe they are they focusing more on original content like like Legends House, Camp WWE, etc.?  Thank you for answering!

I think they will continue to roll out older material once they exhaust Raw, Smackdown, etc. but it won't be immediately.  Part of the strategy is to continously give fans a reason to subscriber.  So, they will always produce original content and will always tap into the back catalog for that, but it will be over a course of time.  It's a marathon, not a sprint when it copmes to delivering content.

I would like to get your thoughts on Goldberg being in the Royal Rumble match. In your opinion, do you think there is a chance of him winning the Rumble? I think he’s a great attraction for WWE, but does he really need a championship belt?

I don't see him winning.  It's more likely the Rumble is a backdrop for Lesnar and Goldberg to do an angle to set up the next chapter of their story.

Is there any news on the recovery of Finn Balor? Could there be a surprise return at the Rumble match?

We have heard he would return in the first quarter of 2017.  Obviously, the Rumble would be an awesome way to get him back into the mix, but we have not heard he will be returning that night, yet.  There's always a chance.

I'm writing this the day after Survivor Series as I wanted to read everyone's opinion on the Goldberg/Lesnar match.  It seems after the initial shock some feel a 50 year old beat The Beast while some feel long term it works since Goldberg has signed an extension.  I personally did not care who won who lost. I paid $200 to be at the event and while I enjoyed the show I expected at least 10 minutes for this match.  Sure, I wouldn't be annoyed if I was just a viewer at home but do you think WWE should have given the live attendance a special dark match main event since we had a minute squash?  TNA was criticized for the Sting vs Jeff Hardy match and I kinda feel WWE should be for that.

The Sting vs. Hardy match happened because Hardy was in no condition to perform.  WWE booked their match that way for a reason.  I would agree with you on giving the fans something extra, but the reality is, there was a 70 minute Raw vs. Smackdown match prior to Goldberg vs. Lesnar and that was the actual, true main event.

How about Taker vs Shane @ Wrestlemania for Taker's retirement match.  No one on the roster has to take the heat for retiring Taker?

This won't be happening.

Enough with the ECW stuff already.  Why do people still care and why are WWE and Highspots making new ECW content?

People still want to watch it.  That's why.  People still care, because at that point in time, especially in 1994-1997, there was nothing more fun in pro wrestling than ECW.  At the end of the day, there are a segment of people who will always want to know more about it, because it fascinated them at some point in their lives.  I doubt there will ever be an end to that curiousity.  It was a once in a lifetime occurence.

 

If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more, right now for THREE DAYS free by clicking here!