In recent history, there has been an influx of themed PPV's that have been termed as gimmick PPV's. Mostly in WWE over the past year, although TNA has been guilty of doing it as well. The idea of these pay-per-views is a certain match type is featured on each card. In all honesty, they have been around since the beginning of PPV's really, with Survivor Series and Royal Rumble being prime examples. But recently they have grown in useage, to the point where, not counting the Rumble or Survivor Series, as they've been around for a time, they occupy a good half of the WWE calendar. Hell in a Cell, where the main event matches are all Hell in a Cell, TLC, where last year there was a tables match, a chairs match, a ladder match, and a TLC match, Elimination Chamber, where there are two Elimination Chamber matches, each for one of the World Titles. Last year, Breaking Point (which is absent from this year's schedule, however), which were submission themed. Night of Champions, which has been around since I believe 2007, where it was Vengence: NOC, before being rebranded as just Night of Champions the following year. Bragging Rights, where it seems each year will be center of a RAW vs. Smackdown fued. This year being introduced are Money in the Bank, which will almost surely be centered around the WrestleMania exclusive (at least until now) match-up, and Fatal-Four Way, which will likely center around most four-man matchups. TNA is not innocent of it either, where they advertise Lockdown as the only event in wrestling where every single contest is inside a steel cage (Six Sides of Steel until now), and Slammiversary, which every year features the King of the Mountain match. So the question I pose now is, do these "gimmick PPV's" cheapen the quality and meaning of certain match types and storylines?
Let's take a look at the types of pay-per-views. First you have the type of PPV's centered around a certain match type. Examples include Hell in a Cell, Breaking Point, TLC, Elimination Chamber, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, and Lockdown. Royal Rumble and Survivor Series are different than the others though, in my opinion, as they were never match types that were specifically used in wrestling beforehand before coming matches specific to their PPV, and are not meant to be match types to be blow-off matches for fueds or to intensify rivalries (although you could argue Survivor Series matches can be used for this reason. So let's focus on the others now. I view PPV's like Hell in a Cell, TLC, Breaking Point, and Elimination Chamber detrimental to the match types which are held as main attractions for the PPV. I view it as the same way I viewed it when New Year's Revolution held an Elimination Chamber as it's main event, or how Bad Blood had a Hell in a Cell as the main event each of the three years a PPV was held under that name. For a year or two, I view it as fine, as long as it is never specifically stated the pay-per-viw is going to revolve around the same match type in the main event each year. But after two-three years you realize what is happening and it just becomes predictable and takes away from both the meaning and quality off the match. But now writers aren't even clever enough to do a gimmick as a main event each year or two then switch it up, keping PPV's under creative names such as Armageddon or Judgment Day (those are just ex. names, by the way). Now PPV's are being generically named like Hell in a Cell or Elimination Chamber, you basically know when and where a certain match type, ones that in some cases used to be very important in fueds, are going to take place each year. In cheapens the meaning of a match as a whole, as matches such as ladder (TLC) and Cage (Lockdown) used to intensify fueds and rivalries or end them in some cases, and matches like Hell in a Cell and TLC (self explanatory what events those are) were used the same as the aforementioned, only on bigger scales, and were very rare, but now you know you'll see them every year, at the same time, at the same event, in the same night. It cheapens the value, simply. And, by making them only main event and by having different people in main event each year, you might not have rivalries or wrestlers that fit the match. Say Sheamus and John Morrison, men with no experience in a Hell in a Cell match, start a fued in October for the WWE Championship and their first match in a fued is at HiaC. It lessens the quality of the match and mkes no sense whatsoever for two men with no experience and a new rivalry emerging to be in this match. And even if you try to build fueds each year at certain points and maybe even try to put certain wrestlers in main event fueds to build to this PPV, it would make for awfully predictable booking. So basically these type of PPV's are very detrimental for the match types. I'm not saying these PPV's are bad, they can be great if booked and worked properly. I'm just saying it is very cheapening of the match types themselves. Of course, there are always exceptions. Slammiversary works because it can feature many different wrestlers, combine different fueds that don't even have to be deeply personal, and is overall more versatile to book. King of a Mountain has also never been a blow-off match for a fued, and it doesn't have a history of being such a match. While not all of Lockdown works for me, Lethal Lockdown works for the same reasons as King of the Mountain does at Slammiversary (I don't feel like repeating myself). The Rumble and Survivor Series both work well, for reasons I stated earlier.
Now on another hand we have PPV's such as Night of Champions and Bragging Rights. Pay-per-views that focus around a certain storyline or title picture. I also feel that these two (the only ones I can think of at the moment like this) are also very cheapening of what they represent. I feel that Bragging Right has the same problems as many of the match-type centered pay-per-views have, and that is that it will continue to focus on one storyline, at the same time, on the same pay-per-view, each year. Now I have always enjoyed how on a few occasions there have been fueds between the two brands for supremeacy in the WWE. But I enjoyed how they were spaced out over a few years time, how they were unpredictable and never really held at the same PPV or series of them. Now we know each year at the same time we will have this storyline, and eventually it will get tiresome and drwan out seen each year. It becomes tedious and predictable, and takes away from the quality this storyline could posess if used as it always has been. Night of Champions, though, is a different story. It has been booked very well, but I believe that the main problem is that if the main fueds don't fit into the title scene, you wither have to throw fueds into title scenes that will mostly make no sense, or not focus on certain main fueds for a PPV, which could de-value and take interest away from a fued. But, as I said earlier, it has been booked well, and as I said in the last paragraph, I'm not saying these pay-per0views are bad, but that they just cheapen the values of certain fueds or storylines.
So, overall, I feel that gimmick pay-per-views do cheapen the value, quality, and meaning of match types, fueds, and storylines. Some, as in KOTM at Slammiversary, the Rumble, Survivor Series, and Lethal Lockdown at Lockdown, can work well and be easily booked making much sense and not cheapening things. But overall I feel that gimmick pay-per-views are extremly detrimental to the match-tpe, fueds, or storylines that they focus on. I feel they do much more damage than good, and that's why I believe they should be done away with.
Let's take a look at the types of pay-per-views. First you have the type of PPV's centered around a certain match type. Examples include Hell in a Cell, Breaking Point, TLC, Elimination Chamber, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, and Lockdown. Royal Rumble and Survivor Series are different than the others though, in my opinion, as they were never match types that were specifically used in wrestling beforehand before coming matches specific to their PPV, and are not meant to be match types to be blow-off matches for fueds or to intensify rivalries (although you could argue Survivor Series matches can be used for this reason. So let's focus on the others now. I view PPV's like Hell in a Cell, TLC, Breaking Point, and Elimination Chamber detrimental to the match types which are held as main attractions for the PPV. I view it as the same way I viewed it when New Year's Revolution held an Elimination Chamber as it's main event, or how Bad Blood had a Hell in a Cell as the main event each of the three years a PPV was held under that name. For a year or two, I view it as fine, as long as it is never specifically stated the pay-per-viw is going to revolve around the same match type in the main event each year. But after two-three years you realize what is happening and it just becomes predictable and takes away from both the meaning and quality off the match. But now writers aren't even clever enough to do a gimmick as a main event each year or two then switch it up, keping PPV's under creative names such as Armageddon or Judgment Day (those are just ex. names, by the way). Now PPV's are being generically named like Hell in a Cell or Elimination Chamber, you basically know when and where a certain match type, ones that in some cases used to be very important in fueds, are going to take place each year. In cheapens the meaning of a match as a whole, as matches such as ladder (TLC) and Cage (Lockdown) used to intensify fueds and rivalries or end them in some cases, and matches like Hell in a Cell and TLC (self explanatory what events those are) were used the same as the aforementioned, only on bigger scales, and were very rare, but now you know you'll see them every year, at the same time, at the same event, in the same night. It cheapens the value, simply. And, by making them only main event and by having different people in main event each year, you might not have rivalries or wrestlers that fit the match. Say Sheamus and John Morrison, men with no experience in a Hell in a Cell match, start a fued in October for the WWE Championship and their first match in a fued is at HiaC. It lessens the quality of the match and mkes no sense whatsoever for two men with no experience and a new rivalry emerging to be in this match. And even if you try to build fueds each year at certain points and maybe even try to put certain wrestlers in main event fueds to build to this PPV, it would make for awfully predictable booking. So basically these type of PPV's are very detrimental for the match types. I'm not saying these PPV's are bad, they can be great if booked and worked properly. I'm just saying it is very cheapening of the match types themselves. Of course, there are always exceptions. Slammiversary works because it can feature many different wrestlers, combine different fueds that don't even have to be deeply personal, and is overall more versatile to book. King of a Mountain has also never been a blow-off match for a fued, and it doesn't have a history of being such a match. While not all of Lockdown works for me, Lethal Lockdown works for the same reasons as King of the Mountain does at Slammiversary (I don't feel like repeating myself). The Rumble and Survivor Series both work well, for reasons I stated earlier.
Now on another hand we have PPV's such as Night of Champions and Bragging Rights. Pay-per-views that focus around a certain storyline or title picture. I also feel that these two (the only ones I can think of at the moment like this) are also very cheapening of what they represent. I feel that Bragging Right has the same problems as many of the match-type centered pay-per-views have, and that is that it will continue to focus on one storyline, at the same time, on the same pay-per-view, each year. Now I have always enjoyed how on a few occasions there have been fueds between the two brands for supremeacy in the WWE. But I enjoyed how they were spaced out over a few years time, how they were unpredictable and never really held at the same PPV or series of them. Now we know each year at the same time we will have this storyline, and eventually it will get tiresome and drwan out seen each year. It becomes tedious and predictable, and takes away from the quality this storyline could posess if used as it always has been. Night of Champions, though, is a different story. It has been booked very well, but I believe that the main problem is that if the main fueds don't fit into the title scene, you wither have to throw fueds into title scenes that will mostly make no sense, or not focus on certain main fueds for a PPV, which could de-value and take interest away from a fued. But, as I said earlier, it has been booked well, and as I said in the last paragraph, I'm not saying these pay-per0views are bad, but that they just cheapen the values of certain fueds or storylines.
So, overall, I feel that gimmick pay-per-views do cheapen the value, quality, and meaning of match types, fueds, and storylines. Some, as in KOTM at Slammiversary, the Rumble, Survivor Series, and Lethal Lockdown at Lockdown, can work well and be easily booked making much sense and not cheapening things. But overall I feel that gimmick pay-per-views are extremly detrimental to the match-tpe, fueds, or storylines that they focus on. I feel they do much more damage than good, and that's why I believe they should be done away with.
