Specialized Pay Per Views

[Mr. TM]

The WWE has made all of their lesser Pay Per Views specialized, usually under a gimmick match in the past year. Some people love it, some people hate it. But is this new trend positive for the WWE?

Looking back over 20 years ago now, the WWE had 4 pay per views. If you think about it, half of those were specialty pay per views, Survivor Series, and The Royal Rumble.

But now it seems with the innovation of TLC, Hell in a Cell, Breaking Point, Elimination Chamber, and so forth, that all the shows are specialty.

I think it has killed great gimmick matches to be honest. I for one don't want to see every single pay per view to be filled with gimmick matches. I was alright with No Way Out being Elimination Chambers. But Hell in A Cell for midcarders? It takes away from the former great WWE match.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, I think that the WWE is in a stage of experimentation right now when it comes to some of their wrestlers and their ppvs. Some say that the WWE has been stale for a long time and, while I don't necessarily agree with that overall, there are some aspects that have gotten dull and in order to turn that around, sometimes you've got to try a little trial and error sometimes.

From a business standpoint, the only one of the gimmick ppvs that hasn't panned out all that well has been Breaking Point. PPV buys were released a few days ago and Breaking Point had somewhere around 160,000 buys and that was down from around 200,000 from the event BP replaced last year. However, Hell in a Cell is said to have done around 300,000 buys and Bragging Rights did about 200,000 so those two seem to have done alright.

However, as a fan, I think that really the only thing that's hurt some of these matches in my eyes is a lack of blood. I enjoyed the HIAC ppvs, but a cage match just isn't a cage match without some blood. I think for some of these matches, having no blood can be a limiting factor in them.

 

[TakerFan30]

I think that this is a very good idea. They give the midcard division more of an exciting feeling to it; this way, we don't have to see them compete in a regular match 24/7/365. Oh yeah, for those of you who are afraid of exposing your children to violent wrestling matches such as Hell In A Cell, it's just blood, we all have it, get over it already.

 

[shooter_mcgavin]

I dont mind the specialized and themed PPV's as long as the theme is a particular gimmick match. Now Survivor Series, Elimination Chamber, or Royal Rumble matches are fine but my problem with TLC, Breaking Point, or HIAC is that these matches tend to be built around a storyline which adds to the drama. With scheduling these gimmicks it feels like these gimmick matches serve little purpose.

Now I understand from a business standpoint having gimmick matches on PPV works, then again I don't see the diffrence if they can just book a HIAC when the storyline makes it work. We will still be getting at least one PPV featuring a HIAC match.

So far we seem to have the following PPV's that work that could have a specific theme or belongs to big four
Royal Rumble
No Way Out/Elimination Chamber
Wrestlemania
Backlash (WM Rematch)
Extreme Rules
Night of Champions
Summer Slam
Survivor Series

That leaves 4 more PPV's I would say we can have themed PPV's but not work in a way that it revolves around a specific match such as ...

Jan - Royal Rumble
Feb - Elimination Chamber
March/April - Wrestlemania
April - Backlash
May - Extreme Rules
June - King of the Ring
July - Night of Champions
Aug - Summer Slam
Sept - Championship Scramble -> Loved the Srcramble concept I think it could work as a fallout of Summer Slam
Oct - Bragging Rights -> Raw/Smackdown/ECW cross brand war fare!!!
Nov - Survivor Series
Dec - Cyber Sunday -> Return of the interactive PPV

 

[Dagger Dias]

The WWE has made all of their lesser Pay Per Views specialized, usually under a gimmick match in the past year. Some people love it, some people hate it. But is this new trend positive for the WWE?

It's not so much that "themed" PPV's are a bad idea, (I'm one of those who hates them.) but rather that it is overkill to see the same type of match too many times in one night. Elimination Chamber only had 2 when it was No Way Out, and that was few enough for it to work because one was for Raw and the other for Smackdown.... TLC might (stressing the word MIGHT) work because it will have 4 different types of gimmick matches: Tables, Ladders, Chairs, and Tables/Ladders/Chairs. Bragging Rights worked because Raw VS Smackdown matches are often interesting at the very least.

The majority of the "themed" PPV's have led to overkill of the gimmick match. Breaking Point got me bored with Submission matches (at the time, it's been long enough now.) and the same goes for Hell In a Cell. That should be a match we see a handful of times a year, but not more than 2 in the same night. I just don't see most of these PPV's based on gimmick matches doing very well in the long run because fans are going to get sick of them.

 

[BigAdz]

Themed PPVs ruin the "big fight" atmosphere of PPVs for me a lot of the time.

Granted, the Rumble, the Scramble and, to a lesser extent, the Chamber are pretty good gimmicks, I want to be surprised and not really see a big gimmick match coming. I don't want to tune in to RAW and see someone challenge for the title a month before HIAC knowing what kind of match it will inevitably be. Plus, having a gimmick match for a fresh feud is a case of overkill and ruins the build up of a good, solid rivalry.

Then again, WWE hasn't given a shit about feud developments and character progressions for a long time, why start now?

 

[Ask him]

I would prefer more normal PPV's in order to aid storyline development. However I am willing to accept specialised PPV's if WWE rotated their PPV's each year. For Example This years Elimination Chamber February 2010 can be held in July 2011. This will give the writers greater flexibility in regards to character, storyline and match relationship.

 

[Tastycles]

I don't like it, I think it stunts the effect of the gimmick matches that they contain. That being said, early estimates, and they are early, suggest that the WWE drew 300,000 buys for Hell in a Cell, which is astonishingly high, so I'll give them a chance I suppose. I've really enjoyed the past two No Way Outs, and Bragging Rights is an interesting concept, but I think, ironically enough, that Hell in a Cell is the worst. That match is an intense feud ender, but they have made it just another match, which is unfortunate. I'd give it another year, and then see where the quality stands after that.