Bring It To The Table

[AkydefGoldberg]

Caught glimpse of the trailer for this show on RAW and it looked fairly decent with guests like Rosenberg and topics of discussion including MMA. Apparently it was suggested to make RAW two hours by JBL and Heyman

[Str8Shooter]

Caught glimpse of the trailer for this show on RAW and it looked fairly decent with guests like Rosenberg and topics of discussion including MMA. Apparently it was suggested to make RAW two hours by JBL and Heyman

I watched it and it really wasn't that interesting. Neither Heyman or JBL said anything about Raw being two hours. The style of the show is to take "hot topics" and have the guests debate or give their opinion. They pretty much took several IWC complaints and then had JBL and Heyman tell them they're all idiots for thinking that. Including JBL defending the three hours because of the money it brings in.

They also went after people for not liking Sasha and Charlotte swapping the titles and Lesnar being squashed by Goldberg making Taker's streak loss look less important.

I thought Rosenberg did well as host but the guests were too much flipping from kayfabe to their real personalities and their clearly wasn't going to be any actual debate of substance here.

[SlightlyJames]

Apparently it was suggested to make RAW two hours by JBL and Heyman

The opposite actually. Both of them seemed to support the third hour because of the money it makes the company. Heyman in particular seemed really bloody tired of the criticism the third hour gets. Rosenberg said he would prefer the show to be 2 hours but Heyman basically shouted him down and didn't let him explain why.

[Hanley!]

I watched about 30 seconds of it and it just felt like it was going to be so cringe that I turned it off. I hate when WWE makes these shows that pose as genuine platforms for open discussion, but everyone is so clearly both playing their character and just towing the company line. If this isn't a show for these guys to be honest and have a proper debate about these topics, then why fucking bother making it in the first place? It serves no purpose.

As I said, I didn't watch the show, but I reckon they would have been hard pressed to find two guests that would come off as less sincere too. This seems like exactly the sort of environment that Heyman and JBL would be awful in.

I guess there are so many other shows on Youtube that discuss this sort of stuff, along with subscription services like the Wrestling Observer, that WWE are trying to get in on the action. But the most interesting discussions about WWE are always going to be conducted by third parties, because they don't have the same agenda and can be more objective. So a show like this is always going to be inferior to a wrestling review by a semi-talented Youtuber.

[KaiserGlider]

I liked it. There were some good questions for discussion and the show has potential. It seems to me that the format and how the show turns out is entirely dependent on what guests are on. Heyman didn't wanna break character for the most part and had his holier-than-thou persona dialed up to 1000, and JBL was never likable even before his soul was gradually consumed by Vince McMahon behind the commentator's desk. So they probably weren't the best choices for the pilot episode. JBL did a good job defending why Raw is 3 hours though.

I'd forward to another episode with people who can truly bring something different to the table, "babyfaces" like Daniel Bryan or Edge who give less of a fuck about towing the line.