Smackdown Vs. Raw: Who Has Better Camera Work?

WWE's camera work has been a topic of discussion among fans, with some expressing frustration over rapid zoom/tilt/pan moves that can be nauseating and take away from the wrestling action. The hard cameras, which provide steady shots, are preferred by some as they allow the wrestling to take centre stage without excessive camera movements. The camera work during matches has been described as shaky cam and jarring, with frequent cuts between different camera angles. Some fans believe that the camera work is done intentionally to cover up botched moves or to make the action seem more impactful. Others attribute it to the transition to HD TV, where it is harder to spot missed punches or strikes. The length of the shows also plays a factor, with Raw's three-hour format feeling drawn out and filled with unnecessary segments. SmackDown's two-hour format is preferred by some as it feels more focused and doesn't suffer from the same pacing issues. Overall, the camera work during matches is a divisive topic among WWE fans, with some finding it annoying and others understanding its purpose in enhancing the viewing experience.

The length of the shows impacts the quality of the content

The length of the shows can have a significant impact on the quality of the content. WWE Raw and Smackdown are both professional wrestling television programs that air on different days and have different run times. Raw is a three-hour-long program, including commercials, while Smackdown is two hours long.

The extra hour on Raw can make the show feel drawn out, and by the third hour, the crowd may lose interest. A Reddit user commented that "you can't book a consistently great 3-hour wrestling show". The longer duration of Raw may contribute to a perception of lower quality content in comparison to Smackdown, which has been described as "must-watch" by another Reddit user.

Additionally, the longer run time of Raw may result in more filler content. Some viewers have reported fast-forwarding through the filler and replays to get to the more exciting parts of the show. Hulu, which streams Raw the day after it airs, offers a condensed version of the show, cutting out some of the filler while still including all the main storylines and matches. This condensed version is preferred by some viewers who feel that the full three hours is too long.

On the other hand, the shorter format of Smackdown may result in a more concise and focused presentation. With less time to fill, Smackdown may be able to deliver a tighter show with less extraneous content.

The difference in length between the two shows can also affect the storylines and character development. With an extra hour, Raw has more time to devote to storylines and character arcs, which can result in a more complex and nuanced narrative. Smackdown, with its shorter format, may need to streamline its storylines, potentially resulting in a simpler or more fast-paced narrative structure.

In conclusion, the length of the shows can have a significant impact on the quality and structure of the content. While a longer show may provide more opportunities for complex storylines and character development, it also runs the risk of feeling drawn out and losing the interest of the audience. A shorter show, on the other hand, may benefit from a more concise and focused presentation but may have to streamline its narratives.

The camera work in SmackDown and Raw is used to cover up botched moves

The camera work in WWE's SmackDown and Raw has been used to cover up botched moves. A "botch" in professional wrestling refers to the failure of a scripted move or line due to a mistake, miscalculation, or error in judgment. While some botches are harmless, others have resulted in serious injuries and even deaths.

Camera work can play a crucial role in mitigating the impact of botched moves. For example, WWE broke out new 8k cameras on SmackDown, which enhanced the cinematic look and feel of the show. However, these cameras can still be pointed at the wrong things at the wrong times, potentially capturing or accentuating botched moves.

During a backstage segment on Raw, there was a camera botch when Lashley stomped on Riddle's foot. The cameraman anticipated the stomp and positioned the camera to capture the action, but Lashley missed Riddle's foot by a mile. Despite the miss, Riddle sold the move anyway, and the camera angle likely helped to conceal the botch from viewers.

In another instance, the camera work during an Asuka promo on SmackDown was described as "odd", suggesting that it may have been used to cover up a mistake or distraction. Additionally, WWE staff members have accidentally been captured in camera shots, such as during Mace and RETRIBUTION's entrance on SmackDown, which can take away from the immersion of the show and potentially reveal behind-the-scenes details.

While the camera work in SmackDown and Raw can help cover up minor botches, more significant mistakes or injuries may require improvised endings or the cancellation of a match. In the case of Stone Cold Steve Austin and Owen Hart at SummerSlam 1997, Hart botched a piledriver, breaking Austin's neck. Hart had to improvise an extended taunt sequence to allow Austin to recover and continue the match.

In summary, the camera work in SmackDown and Raw can be a valuable tool for covering up minor botched moves or lines, but more significant issues may require alternative solutions to maintain the flow of the show and ensure the safety of the wrestlers.

The camera work in SmackDown and Raw is excessive and detracts from the viewing experience

The camera work in SmackDown and Raw has been a source of frustration for many viewers, with some even claiming that it is "excessive" and "detracts from the viewing experience." The issue has prompted fans to take to online platforms, such as Reddit, to express their dissatisfaction and engage in discussions about the impact of the camera work on their enjoyment of the shows.

One of the main concerns raised by fans is the frequent use of rapid zoom, tilt, and pan moves during matches. These dynamic camera movements are often used to punctuate every single move, and some viewers find them unnecessary and distracting. The constant shifting of camera angles can make it challenging to follow the action, particularly during high-intensity moments or when multiple wrestlers are involved. Some fans have compared the experience to motion sickness, leading them to fast-forward through matches or even avoid watching certain segments altogether.

In contrast, the hard cameras, which provide steady shots of the wrestling action, are generally preferred by these viewers as they allow the storytelling aspect of the matches to shine through. Fans appreciate being able to appreciate the wrestlers' performances without the distraction of excessive camera movements. They believe that the rapid cuts and zooms can make the action feel disjointed and take away from the impact of certain moves.

The camera work has also been criticized for its potential role in covering up botched moves or missed punches and strikes. Some fans speculate that the frequent camera changes and shaky cam techniques are intentionally used to mask these imperfections in the performances. While this may be effective in preserving the illusion of a flawless performance, some viewers find it frustrating as it can be difficult to fully understand what is happening in the ring.

The issue of camera work has sparked debates among fans, with some acknowledging the challenges of filming live wrestling matches and understanding the need to cover up certain aspects. However, others argue that the excessive camera movements take away from the authenticity of the performances and make the shows harder to watch. Some fans have even suggested that the camera work in SmackDown and Raw has contributed to their decreased interest in the shows, with some opting to fast-forward through matches or switch to other wrestling promotions that offer a more traditional viewing experience.

Overall, while the camera work in SmackDown and Raw may have its defenders, there is a significant portion of the audience that finds it excessive and detrimental to their viewing experience. These fans long for a more static and straightforward approach to filming the matches, allowing them to fully immerse themselves in the storytelling and performances of their favorite wrestlers without the distraction of constant camera cuts and zooms.

The commentators in SmackDown and Raw are uninteresting

One reason for this could be the frequent changes to the commentary teams. For example, in August 2023, it was announced that Michael Cole and Wade Barrett would move from SmackDown to Raw, with Kevin Patrick and Corey Graves going in the opposite direction. Cole also remained part of the SmackDown team, creating a complex dynamic that may be confusing for viewers. This constant shuffling of announcers can make it challenging for audiences to develop a strong connection with any particular commentator, potentially leading to a perception of dullness.

Another factor contributing to the perceived uninteresting nature of the SmackDown and Raw commentators is their performance and delivery. While some announcers have received praise, such as Samantha Irvin, who has been described as "INCREDIBLE" and adding "so much to the show", others have faced criticism. For instance, Michael Cole's work has been described as "divisive", indicating a lack of consensus among fans regarding his commentary style.

The commentators' ability to enhance the viewing experience is crucial, especially considering the other production elements at play. For instance, camera cuts have been a notable issue in WWE programming, and when combined with lackluster commentary, it can further detract from the overall presentation.

It's worth noting that the assessment of commentators as uninteresting is a subjective matter and may vary across the audience. However, the frequent changes in commentary teams and the mixed reactions to specific announcers suggest that WWE could explore new approaches to enhance the appeal of their broadcasting talent.

The women's division in SmackDown needs more top stars

The women's division in SmackDown has been criticised for its lack of top stars. While Charlotte Flair is a notable name, there is a perceived lack of rivals for her, with one source suggesting that Rhonda could be a potential competitor. However, it is argued that she has not been performing well recently.

There is a general consensus that the division needs more top stars to be built up, with names such as Shayna, Raquel, Asuka, Alexa, Becky, and Bianca being mentioned. However, some of these stars are tied up with other factions or shows, making a move difficult.

One suggestion is to bring in some fresh blood from NXT, with names such as Asuka, Billie Kay, and Peyton Royce being mentioned as potential additions. It is also noted that the division needs more stories and better character development to give viewers a reason to care and invest in the wrestlers.

The SmackDown women's division has been criticised for its short matches, lack of significant character depth, and lifeless feuds. There is a perceived need for more wrestlers to avoid rematches and to build stars by having them climb the ranks. The tag team division is also mentioned as being virtually non-existent, with the titles rarely travelling between brands.

Overall, while the SmackDown women's division has some star power, there is a need for more top stars to be built up and better storytelling to engage viewers and elevate the division.

Frequently asked questions