PPV's!

[TheBottomLine]

The question I would like to ask is, does anyone here miss the old PPV's? I'm talking about all the ones WWE got rid of for their new gimmick PPV's? I really really miss having Backlash straight after Wrestlemania! Then there was No Way Out before Wrestlemania which was always a great PPV imo. Other forgotten ones that I can think of off the top of my head are Judgement Day, Armageddon,Vengeance,Unforgiven and No Mercy.

As much as I like the idea of having a gimmick match be the main event of a PPV, the whole surprise element is taken away when you know it will be a Hell in a Cell because that's what the PPV is called and based on. Very rarely now will a GM or Superstar come out and inform someone that in the main event of a non-gimmick PPV that they will face them in a TLC or Hell in a Cell. I used to love the Elimination Chamber when it was announced randomly to be schedueled for a PPV before it became a PPV in itself! Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I can see the point behind them, and MITB, Extreme Rules, Elimination Chamber & TLC usually deliver. But gimmick PP's mean that people are thrust into gimmick matches with make no sense. Hell In A Cell matches for the first match of a feud, pointless.

WWE needs variety, not gimmick shows to sell PPVs. For example decide who are going to challenge for the two world titles in time for the February PPV and have either the two champions team against the two challengers or the two Mania opponents team up. It's a simple and effective way of promoting WrestleMania.

In fact, WWE has their gimmick PPVs in completely the wrong order. It's a worthless PPV like No Way Out that needs Elimination Chamber matches to see it, not a show just before WrestleMania.

 

[TheBottomLine]

I actually enjoy MiTB, at WM it was just a card-filler. I just prefer the element of surprise when it comes to gimmick matches at PPV's. I'd prefer on RAW the week leading up to,say, SummerSlam, that someone will be defending the title in a TLC match, rather than knowing for months, and when it comes to the PPV itself, it's usually drab, nothing too exciting, the only element of surprise is who will win the title. I guess with the PG era,guys can't really push the bar any higher because moves in the gimmick matches are sorta limited.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I actually think MITB serves a purpose. But the problem being is that they have two matches. Last year one involved Tensai (who was already a lost cause by then), Tyson Kidd, Sin Cara and other making up the numbers. Then in the 2nd one they didn't have enough headline guys to make up the numbers.

They should have one, make it exclusive, with competitors that could all feasibly win it. For example Ryback, Barrett, Cesaro as non-former world champion participants and guys like Punk, Cena & Del Rio making up the rest.

Other than that though, most of the gimmick shows don't exist for a particular reason.

 

[TheBottomLine]

Agreed, MiTB should be used to give guys a deserved push in title contenders. Having jobbers fill the match is pointless. There's no point in putting people in it that have no hope, at least when there's believable title contenders involved it leaves you guessing and without any real clue who will win as they are all deserving.

 

[King Patrick Star]

I do and I don’t. I do, because naming the PPV after a stipulation is kind of lazy. I don’t because naming the PPV after the stipulation is, I guess giving the benefit of the doubt, easier to market. How about a compromise like merging the name of a PPV and then subtitling it with the Main Event stipulation??

 

[TheBottomLine]

I dunno it just seems lazy to me if I'm being honest, if they want to market PPV's, make good feuds and matches worth seeing and if they want even more buyers, add a stipulation such as TLC or HIAC. That's how WWE used to work, now they rely on people buying PPV's becasue they know they're gonna see a TLC match but not a good match.

 

[Airehk]

I'm just going to say I really miss the King of the Ring. Getting rid of that, to me, is like getting rid of the Royal Rumble. In all honesty, Money in the Bank is just a gimmick ladder match which can be applied on any generic PPV.

In regards to the other gimmick PPV's, Elimination Chamber is stupid because if it stayed as No Way out, it would make just as much sense — There's no way out of the chamber!

Then we have TLC. What is this? A limited hardcore match with the possibility of something dangling above the ring.. Just like money in the bank.. Why not fuse the two? Are chairs and tables illegal in a Money in the Bank match? Are kendo sticks and fire extinguishers illegal in a TLC? Get real..

Then Hell in a Cell. A PPV dedicated to something that is supposed to be really special turned to exhibition mode in a smackdown game. They should just save the match for when its actually important.

The very notion of having gimmick ppv's every month only tells me that they have no substance to any feuds and just try to increase buys with stickers, glitter and sparkles. There's an old saying: You can polish a turd for ever and ever, but in the end, its still a turd. Conversly, what really makes Summerslam so damn special? What is it? Wrestlemania Junior?

 

[Mr. HD]

I personally think the gimmick pay-per-views take from the seriousness that use to come with the announcement of a Hell in a Cell, or Elimination Chamber match. When Hell in a Cell was announced, it was an OMG moment, when Elimination Chamber was announced, it was an OMG moment. They use to come once every few months or 2 years. Once in a while is good, but having 2 of these matches every year takes away how special the match type is.

These gimmick pay-per-views also cheapen the value of them. The Hell in a Cell doesn't get utilized anymore, and barely talked about in promos. When a match is Hell in a Cell, that is the foremost prominent storyline. It should not be ignored. Punk vs Ryback was in a Hell in a Cell and they didn't mention it once. When a feud was so personal and had reached its peak, Hell in a Cell would be the place to settle it. Shame how they treat it now. Replace it with No Mercy, or even Halloween Havoc. WWE likes to be kid friendly these days. So, bring that ppv back and let everybody come dressed in Halloween costumes. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Money in the Bank is fine. That's been one of the better gimmick pay-per-views as of late. My only gripe is that they need to stop putting 8-10 guys in these matches. 6 would suffice. 10+ is an overkill.

Elimination Chamber is a ONE match type of show. A few years back, it would come once in a while. Survivor Series, Summerslam, New Year's Revolution, etc. They don't need this match to determine a #1 contender. I say replace it with King of the Ring. The winner gets to face that brand's Champion at WrestleMania. Give them an incentive to fight for. Not only will they be King of the Ring, but they'll have a chance to become World Champion or WWE Champion at WrestleMania. No Way Out could be the May ppv.

I miss Backlash after Mania. I even miss GAB in July and Bad Blood/Vengeance being the June ppv. The fact that WWE has had to constantly change the names of the spring ppvs tells me they should've just stuck with the format they had beforehand.

 

[The Perfect Max]

Again, like others have said, some gimmick PPV's I enjoy, others... not so. Afterall, Royal Rumble is a gimmick pay-per-view. But, it is successful. It serves a giant purpose and makes sense. This sort of gimmick pay-per-view is a good one because it isn't just thrown in there randomly; it serves a giant purpose for WrestleMania and is a very enjoyable show to watch - probably most enjoyable of the year.

Others such as Extreme Rules and TLC make no sense. How can a feud open with these sorts of matches? Plus, the two are very similar. What difference is there between Extreme Rules and TLC, especially nowadays when weapon use is restricted? I feel like this for most other gimmick pay-per-views. I don't enjoy Hell in a Cell as that match should be reserved for special, main-event bouts. That is no longer the case. I gues what I am saying is that gimmick pay-per-view events are ruing the matches. The enjoyment, excitement and unpredictability.

So, I would like to see old events return. No gimmick. Just a cool name and an unpredictable event.
On a side note - King of the Ring would be the only other gimmick pay-per-view I would enjoy. The rest I can live without.

 

[Jerichoholic8894]

For the most part, yes. But I wish they'd replace MITB for King of the Ring. But i'll admit that TLC and Elimination Chamber usually deliver.

Putting MITB at Wrestlemania makes sense because you can fit the talent that should make it that wouldn't end up in a one on one type of match.

Having KOTR before SummerSlam gives you an opportunity to find a challenger for SummerSlam.

 

[IrishSpring]

KOTR to me was much better then summer slam and wish Survivor Series would go back to the way it was originally.......Judgement day usually was good.

 

[FlairFan2003]

when everything is a gimmick then the gimmick itself ceases to be special. Hell In A Cell, TLC, those should be saved for main events and premiere rivalries, rivalries that are close to ending. Matches like that are best with tremendous build, enhancing their special nature, which in turn makes them draw better.

The problem is PPV numbers have been declining for awhile, so WWE started the gimmick match events to pump up ratings. Once you desensitize the audience to such matches and they cease to be special, what do you do next to generate revenue ?

 

[TBT]

It should be a balance of gimmick and non-gimmick PPV's. I would have a calendar year that looked something like this:

Jan - Royal Rumble
Feb - Elimination Chamber
March/April - WrestleMania
April - Backlash
May - Money in the Bank
June - Night of Champions
July - The Great American Bash
August - Summerslam
September - Extreme Rules
October - No Mercy
- Halloween Havoc
November - Survivor Series
December - Starrcade

 

[rerun406]

I might be in the minority, but IMO having a PPV every month (minus March this year) just seems a bit excessive

read somewhere that TNA only had .. or was planning to have just 4 PPV's in the whole year

IMO PPV's are supposed to be special events, and having so many, kind of waters it down

have them every 3 months or so, so they're fresh. The Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, Wrestlemania and SummerSlam would obviously stay .. and maybe those 4 plus Starrcade and Night of Champions

**I too miss King of The Ring, and would really like to see it return in some form or another. Shucks if KOTR can't be it's own PPV like old times why not start the tourney up 4-5 weeks away from Wrestlemania and have the Semi's and Finals at Wrestlemania? That'd add another three matches to Wrestlemania and give the fans something else to look forward to year in and year out.

 

[TheBottomLine]

**I too miss King of The Ring, and would really like to see it return in some form or another. Shucks if KOTR can't be it's own PPV like old times why not start the tourney up 4-5 weeks away from Wrestlemania and have the Semi's and Finals at Wrestlemania? That'd add another three matches to Wrestlemania and give the fans something else to look forward to year in and year out.

I wouldn't have the semi-finals at mania, have the final at mania and the winner faces their brands champ later on that night. This won't happen if they keep Elimination chamber as the PPV before it. Also with Royal Rumble a PPV before EC, maybe the KOTR would be better off to have around SummerSlam or Survivor Series

 

[Dagger Dias]

PPV brands that I miss
King of the Ring
Cyber Sunday
The Great American Bash
Bragging Rights


PPV brands that I do NOT miss
December to Dismember
New Year's Revolution
Unforgiven
No Mercy
Backlash
Judgment Day
Breaking Point
Vengeance
No Way Out
Capitol Punishment


I really do not have a problem with most of the modern PPV brands. I don't miss the old names since nearly all of those shows were the same other than the name. Nothing set a No Mercy show apart from a Judgment Day show to me, for example. Whereas in those same spots you now have shows like Hell In a Cell compared to other shows like Money In the Bank where you know exactly what you are getting. I do miss Cyber Sunday although with all of the fan voting WWE does this brand is no longer needed. Bragging Rights is no longer needed either, now that the brands lines of Raw/Smackdown mean nothing, it's all the same show today.

One change that I would make is to move Over the Limit back to the spring. They could get rid of Extreme Rules and replace it with Over the Limit. Seriously. Extreme Rules hasn't been "extreme" in years and I am never interested in seeing a bunch of Wrestlemania rematches unless there are awesome stipulations. At least with Over the Limit they could throw in expected I Quit or Last Man Standing stipulations. Having it October when Hell In a Cell is already there is extremely pointless. Why does WWE keep trying to have 2 PPV events that month and then wonder why they do not get the desired number of purchases? It's not rocket science.

The PPV calendar could look something like this:

January - Royal Rumble
February - Elimination Chamber
March/April - Wrestlemania
May - Over the Limit
June - Money In the Bank
July - The Great American Bash or King of the Ring
August - Summerslam
September - Night of Champions
October - Hell In a Cell
November - Survivor Series
December - TLC

They can have one event per month this way, with Wrestlemania taking up both March and April's monthly spot so the build up can be as big as needed. This gets rid of the pointless second October PPV, the nearly as pointless Extreme Rules, and I replaced whatever the hell "Payback" is going to be with Money In the Bank so that July can have the more fitting Great American Bash in that spot. The real one that is, the original red/white/blue themed one and not the horrendously generic "The Bash" that it turned into. Or they can bring back King of the Ring with the winner getting a Summerslam Championship match for either the WWE or World Heavyweight Championship. That's how it should look in my opinion, no need to bring back most of the old PPV brands. Or they could even not bring back anything and keep trying with new ideas. My bigger issue is with constant attempts at two October PPV's and the ever pointless Extreme Rules. Those need to be dealt with before we worry about bringing back old PPV brands that aren't necessarily needed. As long as they NEVER bring back Breaking Point or December to Dismember.

 

[HBKperfect23]

I'm a fan of the classic 4 or 5. King of the Ring was cool, I like the winner to get a shot at the title at Summerslam. Add in some super cards, 2-3 In Your Houses (2hrs) or a few SNME/Clashes. Keep MITB, put it on the Summerslam card.

Todays ppv set up is such an overkill. Keep 4/5 and use other events to build to them.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Frankly, I don't give a shit what a company name's it's ppvs. People are far too concerned with nitpicking over aspects such as a ppv name or whether or not it has a gimmick match name in its title.

What I care about as far as ppvs are concerned are good wrestling matches and feuds. That's all that should matter in regards to a ppv as far as I'm concerned. I don't care what they call it, I don't care what month of the year it takes place, I don't particularly care how many matches are on the card as long as the ppv delivers interesting feuds and quality wrestling matches.

 

[#tamale]

People seem to want to trash PPVs like Extreme Rules and TLC without realizing that Extreme Rules was the best PPV event last year and TLC was in the top 5.

I have noticed that this is a common thing that fans overreact to. Honestly, I don't care if it's a gimmick PPV or not, if the storylines are great going in, I'm sold. Last year at Extreme Rules, we had Lesnar/Cena, Punk/Jericho, Bryan/Sheamus, and Orton/Kane, 3 great main event feuds and 1 good undercard feud. A great storyline is all you need.

 

[Brocky maivia]

I enjoyed the format for Ppvs about year after the brand split where the big four were the only joints ppvs and the other 8 were brand only. Of course back then they had a roster deep enough to sell ppvs off rivalries but i think as times gone bye snd failure to build stars they went with the quick fix of gimmick events. I remeber when i found out there was a hell in a cell ppv i almost creamed but if you look back at the great cell matches its the intensity of the rivalry and the story that took us thrre that made the match. Otherwise youvr just got a cell round a cage. The gimmick ppv concept has killed some rivalry ending matches in my view. I rekeber when a elimibation chamber match got announced it was because there was a lot of established contenders at the tope of the card. Now i dont feel the need for it. No way out was a perfectly fine ppv to wrap up any lose ends. The mitb ppv has been one of the better ppvs over the uears but i would prefer it if there was one briefcase. It makes it that much mote exiting wondering who it would get cashed in on and imagine the buzz if ziggler, and im not a ziggler fanboy, came out and cashed in the briefcase on cena at wm. You instantly create a WWE title contender in a shallow pool