Gimmick PPVs

[Checkmate]

With TLC about a week away, WWE will have it's 13th and final PPV of 2015.

Of those thirteen, seven are tied to some type of gimmick: Royal Rumble, Extreme Rules, Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank, Hell in a Cell, Survivor Series, TLC

Five are not: Fastlane, Wrestlemania, Payback, Battleground, Summerslam.

And, Night of Champions could technically be considered either, so we'll keep that one on the side for now.

Some of the gimmick types heavily influence matches on the PPV, such as Hell in a Cell or Elimination Chamber. Some, such as Extreme Rules, offer more flexibility when it comes to booking.

Now, many have been quite critical of the WWE's 50/50 booking. I'd take that a step further and say that I'm quite tired of the three match formula. Typically, a feud runs for about three PPVs. Person A wins a match, then Person B wins a match, and the third PPV is the rubber match. Lots of feuds, especially the higher profile feuds, are booked in this manner. However, these higher profile feuds also feature matches that will be used to fill gimmick match slots on the seven gimmick PPVs. This leads me to my point.

Gimmick matches are typically used to blowoff a feud. That's when their impact is strongest. Violence, aggression, and brutality escalate as feuds progress, not the other way around. But, because of PPV scheduling, and the tendency to book three month feuds, it's quite common to have multiple gimmick matches take place in one feud, unless it passes through at least one generic PPV.

Take for example: John Cena vs Rusev.

- Match 1: Fast Lane. Generic PPV. Generic Match. Rusev wins.
- Match 2: Wrestlemania. Generic PPV. Generic Match. John Cena wins.
- Match 3: Extreme Rules. Gimmick PPV. Gimmick Match. John Cena wins.

At least on paper, that makes sense.

But, in the fall, or at least, post-Summerslam/Night of Champions, every PPV has some type of gimmick attached, meaning some feud has to have a gimmick match at every PPV. This year, the WWE juggled their feuds decently well because Brock Lesnar, Undertaker, and Sting don't fit under 50/50 or three-month booking rules. That's fine, but I wonder if life would just be easier, and make more sense, should gimmicks be used to fit storylines rather than storylines be crafted to fit scheduled gimmicks.

My questions are thus: What do you think about the number of gimmick PPVs? Do they work for you? If so/not, which ones? Should the schedule be changed? Or, should the WWE switch their booking style? Maybe a little from column A and a little from column B?

Any thoughts or opinions are welcome. Thanks for reading.

 

[Jeff Deliverer of Mail]

With TLC about a week away, WWE will have it's 13th and final PPV of 2015.

Of those thirteen, seven are tied to some type of gimmick: Royal Rumble, Extreme Rules, Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank, Hell in a Cell, Survivor Series, TLC

Five are not: Fastlane, Wrestlemania, Payback, Battleground, Summerslam.

And, Night of Champions could technically be considered either, so we'll keep that one on the side for now.

Some of the gimmick types heavily influence matches on the PPV, such as Hell in a Cell or Elimination Chamber. Some, such as Extreme Rules, offer more flexibility when it comes to booking.

Now, many have been quite critical of the WWE's 50/50 booking. I'd take that a step further and say that I'm quite tired of the three match formula. Typically, a feud runs for about three PPVs. Person A wins a match, then Person B wins a match, and the third PPV is the rubber match. Lots of feuds, especially the higher profile feuds, are booked in this manner. However, these higher profile feuds also feature matches that will be used to fill gimmick match slots on the seven gimmick PPVs. This leads me to my point.

Gimmick matches are typically used to blowoff a feud. That's when their impact is strongest. Violence, aggression, and brutality escalate as feuds progress, not the other way around. But, because of PPV scheduling, and the tendency to book three month feuds, it's quite common to have multiple gimmick matches take place in one feud, unless it passes through at least one generic PPV.

Take for example: John Cena vs Rusev.

- Match 1: Fast Lane. Generic PPV. Generic Match. Rusev wins.
- Match 2: Wrestlemania. Generic PPV. Generic Match. John Cena wins.
- Match 3: Extreme Rules. Gimmick PPV. Gimmick Match. John Cena wins.

At least on paper, that makes sense.

But, in the fall, or at least, post-Summerslam/Night of Champions, every PPV has some type of gimmick attached, meaning some feud has to have a gimmick match at every PPV. This year, the WWE juggled their feuds decently well because Brock Lesnar, Undertaker, and Sting don't fit under 50/50 or three-month booking rules. That's fine, but I wonder if life would just be easier, and make more sense, should gimmicks be used to fit storylines rather than storylines be crafted to fit scheduled gimmicks.

My questions are thus: What do you think about the number of gimmick PPVs? Do they work for you? If so/not, which ones? Should the schedule be changed? Or, should the WWE switch their booking style? Maybe a little from column A and a little from column B?

Any thoughts or opinions are welcome. Thanks for reading.

IMO WWE should only have ...

King of the Ring PPV .. winner gets a title shot at Rumble.

Royal Rumble

Wrestlemania

Random Network Special Event

Summerslam

Survivor Series - Traditional Matches and Soul Survivor Finale

Halloween Havoc - Money in Bank , HIAC and Chamber can all be crammed into The Havoc .

Starrcade Lethal Lottery or War Games - Xmas PPV.

 

[Vanilla Midget]

The huge challenge with gimmick PPV's is they just pigeonhole creative. They have no room to deviate or go with the flow of the narrative. You go through the motions of a predetermined gimmick regardless of what suits the story.

You get forgettable MITB winners (Sandow) and snooze-fest Hell in a Cell matches. The Cell in particular used to have this mystique to it, and the point of view might be cynical, but you get lousy ones that just never should have happened. Ryback vs Punk never should have happened, but it certainly didn't need the cage. But let's be clear, there were some pretty stinky ones before they became mandatory in October (lookin' at you Bossman). Another example is the Elimination Chamber, it should only be trotted out when six guys are circling the title, but the need to have it annually resulted in Santino and Mike Knox as combatants in the chamber.

Creative should be allowed to tell the stories that need to be told, not suddenly have an average feud started or blown off in a legendary match type. It's like a minor league team going to the Super Bowl.

Gimmick PPV's can definitely be tied to WWE's decline from the mainstream. When the product was white hot, you could have a vanilla PPV like a Judgement Day or Vengeance and it would sell. You didn't have to add a gimmick to the title, it was a WWE PPV, that's all you need to know.

WWE, like many pop culture entertainment companies, are attempting to focus their energy on bringing back new or lapsed fans. The move to PG has to share some blame as well. You don't have to do as much to sell a ten year old on TLC (Tables, Ladders, and Chairs) than you do selling a PPV named Armageddon or Backlash.

It's basically shock and awe, blam! you get this crazy gimmick, so you better effing subscribe for $9.99! The alternative would be having to book compelling material, and well, we've seen a lot of where that's going.

I believe the gimmick PPV's have run their course, but WWE is stuck between having to announce far in advance their PPV titles, and having creative fluidity. It would be great if WWE just grabbed a gimmick PPV out of the bag when it suited creative. An example would be TLC happens every year, just not necessarily as the December PPV.

The gimmicks are stale, but WWE relies on them as a crutch to sell minor PPVs. The best foot forward would be to return to generic names and let the stories happen, the surprise element will better help sell the shows. More likely though, WWE will come out with more gimmick events in the near future, and creative will continue to suffer.

 

[MTL722]

Not sure if I'm in the minority here, but I wish MITB was just a Wrestlemania match. I always enjoyed the thought that someone would hold it for a full year and cash in for a headlining match at Mania. An RVD style called shot cash in

That being said, Im not a fan of HIAC as a PPV either. This PG Era has killed alot of what that match was supposed to be about, and getting one guaranteed every year just ruins the mystique. Remember when guys would challenge the champion after months of coming up short, only to tell the champ that the match will be inside "HELL....in a Cell". It would usually garner a pretty nice pop just on name alone. Is there a match that does that anymore? The Chamber used to do the same, but they did the same thing with it.

Side note: How weird is it that WWE has a match called The Elimination Chamber? Pretty sure Germany has to call it something else because of how fucked up the name is, especially over there

Rumble is a cornerstone so that obviously stays. Survivor Series is the same, just wish theyd do more with it. Extreme Rules means nothing to me, and TLC is just lazy.

Gone are the days of fun PPV names. Someone already mentioned Halloween Havoc. But remember Bash at the Beach? Armageddon? New Years Revolution? No Mercy, No Way Out, Backlash, St. Valentines Day Massacre. So many awesome PPV names, all gone in place of gimmick matches as a them

Call me crazy, but shouldnt all matches be conducted under the THEME of an event? I get that it'd be too much, but it's just dumb to me that we get regular 1 on 1 matches at a PPV called Hell In a Cell

I hope that with NXT leading the way, things start to become more basic and we go back to some god damn originality and creativity. There's just too much sizzle and not enough substance

Thanks for the strong topic. End rant

 

[Checkmate]

Not sure if I'm in the minority here, but I wish MITB was just a Wrestlemania match. I always enjoyed the thought that someone would hold it for a full year and cash in for a headlining match at Mania. An RVD style called shot cash in

I'm actually of the mindset that unless more variations happen when it comes to cash-ins, that the match type should be retired, or at least put on hiatus. Seth Rollins had a great cash-in. Sheamus, not so much. I can't remember the last great one before Rollins. We're getting to the point where main event level guys are winning, then the WWE doesn't know how and when to have them cash-in because they don't fit in the current storyline. Thus, we get the same old, same old in terms of "surprises".

That being said, Im not a fan of HIAC as a PPV either. This PG Era has killed alot of what that match was supposed to be about, and getting one guaranteed every year just ruins the mystique. Remember when guys would challenge the champion after months of coming up short, only to tell the champ that the match will be inside "HELL....in a Cell". It would usually garner a pretty nice pop just on name alone. Is there a match that does that anymore? The Chamber used to do the same, but they did the same thing with it.

I don't know many who are a fan. Years ago, seeing a Hell in a Cell match was a big deal. Now, it's just another October. The same is definitely true of the Elimination Chamber. Think back to heel Triple H cheating his way through opponents only to be forced into defending against 5 of them in the Chamber. That's a big deal.

Rumble is a cornerstone so that obviously stays. Survivor Series is the same, just wish theyd do more with it. Extreme Rules means nothing to me, and TLC is just lazy.

Agreed. And a point I didn't make about the Rumble is that it's a very fixed storyline for booking. It runs the same time every year, and the match itself is always going to be one match on one card, once a year. If the storyline goes nowhere, it's only going to last a couple of months, and Wrestlemania will sell regardless because of all the other big stuff involved.

Extreme Rules makes sense to me. It's placement feels right coming after 2 1/2 generic PPVs. Lots of feuds that run through Mania get a post Mania gimmick blowoff there, like the John Cena/Rusev example I gave above.

I feel like TLC and Hell in a Cell should switch places. TLC can have lots of variety in terms of gimmicks, and can resolve feuds coming out of Night of Champions. Then, you'd have two months to build a storyline through Survivor Series into Hell in a Cell, which could have another big blowoff for one or two feuds before the New Year resets everything at the Rumble.

Call me crazy, but shouldnt all matches be conducted under the THEME of an event? I get that it'd be too much, but it's just dumb to me that we get regular 1 on 1 matches at a PPV called Hell In a Cell

You're crazy. Okay, not entirely, but the problem is that more than half the time, the feuds taking place inside the bigger matches, like Hell in a Cell, don't even feel like they belong there. If you added the thrown together matches that have only been built for a couple of weeks, then you further diminish an already weakened match type's aura.

Thanks for the strong topic.

You are most welcome.

 

[Jaffa]

I'm a little puzzled by one poster who suggested Hell in a Cell waters down a gimmick match and then suggested all matches should be contested under such rules.

I think gimmick PPVs are fine as they provide something of a change. I can see the point in the variety of gimmick PPVs as you have Raw and Smackdown for a month for the most part with standard matches so it stands to reason that something special should occur to finish off important feuds or in important matches as OP illustrated through his example of Rusev vs Cena.

I personally through enjoy TLC, Extreme Rules, and even miss Elimination Chamber.

All in all I'm quite happy at the moment.

 

[Azane]

The Gimmick match should fit the feud, the feud should not be fit into the gimmick match. Undertaker taking someone to hell and back then declearing a Hell in a Cell match?! Awesome!. Undertaker challenging someone to fight a match inside a HIAC at HIAC and barely even use the Cell? meh.

Royal Rumble and MITB are the types of gimmicks I can get behind, they offer a way to build a champions story, or to give a rising star a shot. Gimmicks like the TLC, mean that we have to find some way for a basic wrestling match to turn into a weapons match. The desensitization of these great gimmicks has done them no favors, I don't get excited over a Ladder match now, like I used to 15 years ago, when I knew it was going to be epic.

Survivor Series is something I think needs to go away, they don't care, or make us care about the elimination matches anymore, rather see it die, than to get the monstrosities of matches we got this year.

 

[Dagger Dias]

People hate on the gimmick themed PPV events, but I prefer them to the days of having generic interchangeable PPV's. There was literally nothing that set shows like Unforgiven apart from others like No Mercy, for instance. At least with Hell In A Cell you KNOW what you're getting. WWE needs to either switch out a couple more shows with more gimmick shows. Fast Lane is 100% useless. Elimination Chamber was fine right where it was. I'd remove Extreme Rules as it stopped being "extreme" years ago, TLC is closer to what Extreme Rules was originally intended for. Battleground has got to go too. People miss King Of The Ring, so why not bring that back for a World Heavyweight Championship shot at Summerslam. I'd also bring back Over The Limit which would be home to matches like "I Quit", "Submissions Only", and "Last Man Standing". Night Of Champions would be kept, but NXT has a once per year chance to showcase their titles there as well so that there is no idiotic non-title filler.

January - Royal Rumble
February - Elimination Chamber
Late March / Early April - Wrestlemania
May - Over The Limit
June - Money In The Bank
July - King Of The Ring
August - Summerslam
September - Night Of Champions
October - Hell In A Cell
November - Survivor Series
December - TLC

This way you KNOW what you are getting at every single show. There are no brands that you go into without having any sort of idea on what the show will be like. The most open of this calendar would be Over The Limit, but given my explanation above on what match types would be featured there, it still stands out like all the others would. Granted, WWE would still have to put forth just as much effort into shows like Hell In A Cell so that they do not fall into the trap they seem to each year of lazy booking during that time of the year.

 

[MTL722]

I'm a little puzzled by one poster who suggested Hell in a Cell waters down a gimmick match and then suggested all matches should be contested under such rules.

It's already been drowned so it couldn't possibly be watered down more. I was merely saying that in my opinion, if you're going to call a PPV Hell In a Cell, why am iturning it on and seeing normal 1 on 1s? Doesn't make sense...to me.

Also said I'd prefer to get rid of that ppv completely

 

[Prince Vee]

I ought to agree with scrapping off the Extreme Rules PPV. In this PG Era, none of the matches seem to be extreme. What's the difference between a Chairs match, a Hardcore Rules match and a Street Fight? There's nothing. This sounds more asinine than the Stairs match that was exclusive on the last years TLC PPV. Instead of Extreme Rules, WWE can bring back the PPVs like Armageddon, No Mercy, Backlash or even the Vengeance. I missed those PPVs and their themes. Mind you, their theme isn't on their Gimmick but by the Time of the year at which they come around and the PPV that either precedes or follows. WWE should scrap off the PPVs like Extreme Rules, TLC and Fastlane and should bring back these sort of PPVs.

 

[WhiplashUnited]

I think they should get rid of a gimmick PPV (preferably the chamber) and bring back the King of the Ring PPV but hold it in July to give the winner a title match at Summerslam.
Would mean a new world title rivalry could start out of WrestleMania and end at a king of the Ring and give the tourney winner a new feud with the champ until Survivor Series.

 

[Soulblazed]

WWE should get rid of Hell In The Cell and replace it with Halloween Havoc, which at least makes sense since it'd be near Halloween anyway.

Also, bring back King Of The Ring as already mentioned..That's long overdue...Get rid of Fast Lane and bring back No Way Out instead..I also agree with getting rid of Extreme Rules, TLC, Elimination Chamber, MITB, Payback, etc

WWE could bring back Backlash, Vengeance, No Mercy and even for the hell of it, In Your House a couple times a year in lieu of say, Payback and TLC so that they'd be spaced out at least 5 months from each other.

 

[LDubz]

This is a great thread.

I don't agree with having to "know" what you are getting by the gimmick of the PPV, to me it devalues the weekly TV Shows and build up and encourages lazy booking.

Money in the Bank is a great concept but could be freshened up by not making it a 6-8 man match that it is every year. It could be done through a tournament format, or fewer contestants. I think it would be better scrapping the PPV and holding the match when and where it calls for it. It could be at Wrestlemania one year, done as a tournament another year, a surprise match on a generic PPV, or even done again the month after its used in rare cases.

As for Elimination Chamber, we got two of those matches this year that were randomly hashed together for a Network special. I liked it where it was in between Rumble and Mania compared to Fastlane, but if it were me, I wouldn't have a PPV in between RR or Mania at all. Raw being 3 hours could easily have a hot special during this time for big matches with consequences going into Mania, the World title changing on Raw which doesn't happen too often.

The problem with Elimination Chamber is you need 6 guys (or 12 if you are counting the tag team one), and mesh them together for a feud, usually. It also needs to be held every year as it costs a fortune. Would be nice to change it up by having a 6 man tag feud in there on occasion, or making it a number 1 contenders match type for Summerslam.

Survivor Series has had its day for many years now and should go. It used to be a way to kick off feuds for the Rumble, or introduce the casuals to most of the WWE wrestlers way back when they had much less programming going on than they do now. It should be scrapped.

The match type PPVs (Extreme Rules, TLC, HIAC) for me were a draw of their own when the matches were announced for a PPV as a surprise. When you heard that a match was going to be a stipulated as a ladder match, or TLC it got a pop of its own. Now it's just because its that time of the year. So we get pigeon holed matches, and formulaic booking and storylines. They should be held when they are ready, and they can all be done once a year at least, just probably not at the same time for full effect.

I want KOTR to be brought back, and for it to be the December PPV, so the winner goes on to face the Champion at the Rumble. It would be logical, as everyone else practically would be in the RR.

Night of Champions could be scrapped as there is not have enough titles IMO to fill out the show without drafting in NXT.

So I'd have:

January - Rumble
March - Wrestlemania
June - Elimination Chamber (winner gets shot at Summerslam)
August - Summerslam
December - King of the Ring
Other months - Named after the big match, or feud at the event.

PPVs can get named after whatever, and the Network is where most people are watch it now. Generic PPV names didn't really have meaning but did have their own branding and style and the gimmick PPVs are over exposing certain match types for no reason. They should have a fairly generic set, maybe use different colours and name the PPVs after the big matches or the main event instead. Then people will know what they are getting/the big draw, and they are not necessarily stuck to an unsuited gimmick match either.

I think mainly what the PPV schedule is to make it easier for Creative to be creative, and not be hamstrung. With Summerslam being pushed now as a massive event, I think it needs its own 'Rumble' of sorts, so that's where I'd put that PPV. Saving the other big two gems (MITB and HIAC) as nice surprises somewhere else would be a cool way to go.