Working my way through the 'Manias, and just wrapped up number ten. This show is universally praised (I recall Dave stating in the Observer that it was the greatest WWF PPV of all time) based on the strength of two matches: The opener with Bret and Owen and the ladder match. The funny thing is, outside of those two fantastic bouts, the rest of the card ranges from mediocre to complete junk.
So I ask you: What do you need from a show to feel like it delivered? Can an event earn your recommendation if the main event is great and the rest is garbage (WM XV with Rocky and Austin comes to mind)? I've noticed lately you don't really give overall opinions of the shows anymore. It's more "Make sure you catch x, y, and z. Skip the rest."
What separates the "recommend" shows from the "recommend to avoid" shows in Scott Keith's world?
It’s a different world now, my friend. Basically now in the Network era I’m looking for one good to great match and nothing bad for an overall recommendation. At $9.99 the NXT shows justify the price on their own and the main PPV shows are literally just a bonus. That’s why I’m more on the side of “Just watch match X on the Network or YouTube or Twitch” and I’m not so married to the concept of sitting through a whole show these days. I do it because it’s me, but most shows outside of Takeover don’t lend themselves to repeat viewing very well.
Maybe I need a new rating system? Like, a scale from “watch one match” all the way up to “Binge the whole thing”,kind of like the Completionist?