Themed PPVs Possibly Ending

[Jack-Hammer]

I read a report a few minutes ago that alleges WWE is considering doing away with themed ppvs next year. Apparently, there's been lots of talk concering ppv changes for 2013 and this is one of the ideas being talked about the most. The report states that a source states that Vince feels that the theme based ppvs have had a "zero sum gain".

I hope this happens to be honest. All in all, the theme ppvs have run their course. The various gimmick matches, such as TLC or HIAC, simply had a little more impact to them when they could potentially happen at anytime rather than a scheduled ppv. Looking back, WWE might've been testing the waters a little with that idea when they made Taker vs. Triple H at WM this year a Hell in a Cell match. Also, there was talk early this year of scrapping the MITB ppv and going back to having a single MITB match held at WM. That idea was scrapped as Wade Barrett was injured so WWE went a head with the show this year.

 

[GeneralKarim]

I really hope this is true.I mean it is much more interesting and shocking to hear someone challenge someone to a TLC or HIAC or w/e match because they want to not because it happens to be the THEME of the PPV.

 

[DX Mols]

I vote for keeping the $$$ in the Bank PPV and Elimination Chamber as to me they've both been 2 of the best PPVs each year other then 'Mania and the Rumble.

Let's face it...Summerslam and Survivor Series aren't what they used to be. I actually look forward to $$$ in the Bank and E-Chamber as much as 'Mania and the Rumble.

Dump HIAC, TLC, Bragging Rights (if that's still around), etc.

The only theme PPV I'd still like to add to the annual list is Nude Divas but I'm pretty sure that's not PG so nevermind.

 

[#MrScissorsKick]

Agreed. The WWE needs to get rid of these terrible Gimmick PPV's. HIAC? Please. Those matches deserve to be in one of the big 4 PPV's, it doesn't need its own PPV. Extreme Rules? What exactly is "extreme" about it? TLC? I thought honestly that TLC would be a better run PPV but i'm not surprised at all it could be removed. Over the limit? Imo, that is top 3 worst PPV that the WWE currently runs. That PPV definately needs to be scratched off the WWE's schedule for future reference. But if this whole situation was up to me, (it's not) I would only hold 6 PPV's a year. One PPV every 2 Months. I'd keep the big 4, and add in KOTR and another PPV that could be added. But all in all it's good to see the WWE is at least looking to get rid of some of these awful PPV's.

 

[sdelfin]

Good news if they do change course. It was true back in the territory days, if you run a gimmick match too often, it loses its meaning and ability to draw. I don't know if WWE ever drew extra buys, which I'm sure they counted on, but it was not going to last. Hell in a cell became just another match. And their booking of it did not help. You want to talk about HIAC being just another match, just look at the last one. Here we have two guys, Punk and the Ryback, who hadn't yet even begun feuding. Without even there being a single TV match between the two, they have to have a match in the cell because it's on the schedule. Why should anyone buy a show for the Ryback and Punk in a regular match now? WWE should be doing their best to try to sell regular matches. If they can book regular matches for which people will pay money, then obviously they will be doing something right. Doing that would require them to protect characters and create new stars.

 

[TempestH]

I actually think that some themed PPVs, like Hell in a Cell, Money in the Bank, or Elimination Chamber should be done away with.

However, some themed PPVs, such as Extreme Rules or TLC, which have a wider spectrum of match possibilities should stay.

The Money in the Bank match could be a selling point for TLC, as it fits with the Tables, Ladders, Chairs gimmick.

Likewise, the Elimination Chamber or Hell in a Cell could be a selling point of Extreme Rules, while all of the matches have a general stipulation of being no-disqualification or falls count anywhere (even without heavy weapon use).

 

[XXJJ]

This would be great news! Ryback/Punk first match together should of never been in HIAC. It cheapens gimmick matches when you force them.

The only one I really like is the Elimination Chamber. Its your last shot at getting a world or wwe title match at WM. It doesn't make the ppv between the Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania feel useless.

 

[Diet Soda]

Hope so. This year's HIAC proves it. The Cell is supposed to be a match to end feuds, not be an environment for first time meetings. In addition, there was only the one Cell match this year, which seems like it's wasting the theme, especially since it was just a 15 minute bout where the Cell was only really utilised for murdering the ref and Ryback's photo op, after the match had ended.

 

[c13vyper]

Do away with it and have 6 PPV's a year
- Royal Rumble
- Wrestlemania
- KOTR
- SummerSlam
- MITB (One match, Both titles eligible)
- Survivor Series (ATLEAST one 5v5 tradtional Tag and one Elimination Chamber match)

That way since they arent getting 3 weeks to promote a $55 PPV (*Cough Survivor Series*) And changing shit around, maybe the weekly product will get better, as they can start putting on more title matches and more gimmick matches on a weekly basis to get people to tune in and boost ratings, and get more interest in the general product so it will drive the 6 PPV buy rates up.

It is definetly over saturated when one of the big 4, gets only 3 weeks build, HIAC had 6 weeks build and the card and PPV was weak, the Sheamus vs. Big Show match surprisingly good though, kudos to both Atheletes i thought it would be bad going into it.

 

[Mitch Henessey]

I hope this report is 100% accurate.

The gimmick themed match pay per views are beyond the point of overkill, and its been that way for a while now. For years, the Hell In A Cell match was my favorite gimmick match in all of pro wrestling. But Cell matches used to have a legit reason to happen. Trapping the chickenshit heel (Shawn Michaels), settling bitter personal rivalries (Shawn & Triple H from Bad Blood 2004), and ending feuds (Undertaker/Edge from Summerslam '08). Now we've transitioned into the "oh, it's October, time to have a Cell match!" phase. It kills all of the excitement for the match, because Hell In A Cell has just become another match, lost in the routine shuffle of gimmick pay per views.

I question the booking strategy behind Money In The Bank every now and then, but Money In The Bank matches used to be something special. One winner, one briefcase, and Money In The Bank was an exclusive match for Wrestlemania. Now we have two briefcases that are exclusive for Raw and Smackdown. Think back to when Punk cashed in on Edge a few years ago. It was a COMPLETE shock, and nobody saw it coming. The shock value of the case holder cashing in on any champion is gone, because we all know the Smakcdown winner is going after the WHC, and the Raw winner is going after the WWE Championship.

The only one I don't have any real problems with is the Elimination Chamber pay per view. Usually, the matches are outstanding. I just wish they would move the date for this show. Throwing your top main event talents into an extremely dangerous match right before the biggest show of the year is pretty risky and fucking stupid.

 

[Dalinkwent]

Finally. They also need to cut back the amount of PPV'S. They don't have enough creative juice or much a deep roster to have 13 PPV's a year.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Sounds like a good idea but what do they put in their place? I think of a recent non-themed PPV like Capitol Punishment and I wonder if a significant portion of the population can get behind ordering a PPV without the themes/gimmicks. Some PPVs already have the stigma of not being a "Big 4" PPV, that turns fans off. If you take away the themes, what do you do? Numbers? Dates? Cities? "Vengeance" type names?

I think WWE should change slow, tweeking a couple of themes to something else (MitB and HiaC. I'd also like to see Elimination Chamber moved out of the period between RR and WM. I know they want to fill the space but the matches outcomes feel too pre-determined based on their timing pre-WM. Extreme Rules may be a nice Febraury fit since you get some unique action without expecting must change.

 

[Captain Morgan Freeman]

Hallelujah, it's about bloody time.

If there's one thing that's been bugging me about WWE the last few months it's that it's gotten far too predictable. A match like TLC, HIAC or the elimination chamber should only be used when a match is deemed worthy of it(see Undertaker vs HHH at Mania 28) rather then because "It's that time of year again folks!". Perhaps if you save your biggest match types for when you have a really good feud going and keep the stipulation as a surprise until a few weeks before the PPV you might be able to build up enough excitement for people to order the PPV.

The only themed PPV i would keep is Extreme Rules. It's always been very enjoyable but i guess that's because they usually mix it up a bit with the match types Last man standing, 2/3 falls, street fight, extreme rules match etc. It's always been a great PPV for blowing off a lot of the mania feuds while also offering different match types to boot.

So yeah take away the themed PPV's. I wouldn't mind seeing the elimination chamber and TLC once a year but it would be far better if we got the shock of finding out that such big matches were only going to happen at the end of the month. The collective groan around viewers last Monday after the Survivor series match was announced should be proof enough that the predictability is hurting the product. Hopefully's WWE's flip flopping over the Survivor Series man event last night means they realise this too.

 

[Pedigree1]

I hope this is true! 45-55 dollars so spend on a PPV once a month is rather ridiculous IMO! The themed PPVs have run its course awhile ago. I dont like the idea of someone challenging for a title shot every month at some (insert PPV name here). Gimmick PPVs have run its course i.e. TLC,HIAC,Braggin Rights.

If they can knock down the PPVs to six a year to me thats perfect. It would create proper buildup,the story line would mean something and title shots would actually mean something.

I think they should have RR,EC,WM,KOTR,Summerslam and Survivor Series. Keep the MITB match at WM where it belongs to be honest IMO. I hope this happens i really do.

 

[HBsam31]

I hope that this is true to. I like when matches like HIAC could happen at anytime and not at a scheduled ppv. The matches have way more of an impact that way. MITB should go back to being at Mania. I was always a fan of the No Way Out, No Mercy, and so on ppvs. Elimination Chamer is one that I would keep though as it always seems to produce good matches. While we are at it I wish they would cut the number of ppv to 8 or 10 as well, but I can't see that happening. I am all for doing away with the themes though.

 

[EastCoastFan]

WWE should cut back to 6-7 PPV's a year, but they won't. I'd also like to see them get rid of NXT, Superstars & Main Event and cut Raw back to 2 hours, but they won't. I understand that more programming and more PPV's means more profits, but one of WWE's biggest problems right now is overexposure. They need LESS programming, not more. It's not 1998 anymore; pro wrestling isn't the pop culture phenomenon it once was. It's not like it was 10 years ago when even Heat and Velocity were getting good ratings.

 

[kcoe24]

Ok so on wrestling zone main page it says USA network wants wwe to do more themed raws mainly during sweepweeks and vince is in favor of this.

This is a great idea as you need to get more people to watch raw and being able to advertise a show were all champions will defend there title should be able to do that.

Right now the only themed ppv that should stay is EC cause it fits really well in between the rumble and wrestlemania. so they could take most of there themed shows (expect HIAC which should only be used once or twice a year during big feuds) and apply them to raw cause i like cage matchs but not a ppv dedicated to them but if you give it to me for free on raw i'll be more likely to tune in.

Overall very good idea to get rid of themed ppvs and add more themed raws.

 

[tnablows]

As of late, I am very confused with the WWE Product. Although, when PPV's like Money in the Bank, TLC, and Royal Rumble come around I am glued to the TV like a little kidd. These PPV's make for the most entertaining matches without a doubt! Taking them away would be a catastrophic mistake!

 

[kcoe24]

Ok so on wrestling zone main page it says USA network wants wwe to do more themed raws mainly during sweepweeks and vince is in favor of this.

looks like this may have been a false report by wrestlingzone as they have deleted the report. so yeah i still think this would be a good idea but probably another wrestlingzone classic.

 

[das1234]

i dont know, i mean while it is creatively limiting to have set circumstances for your PPV (like at least 1 hell in a cell match that has to happen at HIAC) and you would gain more freedom by abolishing them, you will lose identity for WWE as a whole.
i mean, why name them at all if they are not different anymore, you can literally call them PPV #1, PPV #2 and so on.
if the gimmicks are not clear beforehand, there is no separation between them anymore and naming them will basically be a waste of time.
maybe they should just include new concepts (gasp!), like have big opportunities at PPVs (like the rumble) and focus on these special events instead of a match stipulation.

 

[LeeUHF]

I like the idea of having rid of the themed ones most def

Although getting rid of MITB.. NO! Its easily up there now with Royal Rumble and survivor series.

I also like Elimination Chamber too.

One thing I would like to see change. Is the Survivor Series back to the old old format.

Back in the day It would be brilliant as like the Royal Rumble it was a far cry away from everything else. PPVs nowdays all blend into one. Just all the same old shit.

If they went back to this with Teams pitted against each other then a final with winners of all the teams together. I think this would drum up alot more interest.

Year in and year out they could bill it quite big with a survivor series winning team getting the crown. like King Of The Ring or the smackdown vs raw PPV

 

[HitmanRicks]

I'm really hoping these rumors are true. WWE's themed PPVs are getting very old and too predictable. In the past, WWE was able to use these stipulations when the time called for them (ex. Taker vs HHH from the last 'Mania). With these gimmick PPVs, you have to use the gimmick, even if the situation doesn't call for them (ex. Punk vs Ryback). The PPVs run the booking, not vice-versa like it should be.

To play "fantasy booker" for a moment, drop HiaC, TLC, and MitB. Replace them with PPVs with no gimmicks. They could use old names (ex. Unforgiven, Judgement Day, Backlash, etc.), or even make new ones. Rename Elimination Chamber as No Way Out, same as it started. Put one MitB match at Wrestlemania, or to shake things up, SummerSlam ("The Biggest Party of the Summer" has been lacking in the last few years).

I'm honestly okay with Extreme Rules, since that gimmick allows for many different match types. I'd probably change the PPV's name to something a bit more exciting and less obvious (maybe not "One Night Stand", but something else).

Night of Champions is the exception to my request. It wouldn't hurt NoC to use its gimmick "better", such as when the PPV first started. It doesn't make much sense to name a PPV "Night of Champions" and hype up all the champions, then have half the titles defended in popcorn matches.

Not to mention these changes would supposedly be brought about by USA Network wanting more "themed RAWs", so if you did like the themed shows, tune in to RAW and get them for free.

Of course, my model isn't perfect. Probably isn't even good. However, it's a change (or a regression, considering in hindsight I just remade WWE circa 2007), and change is (occasionally) exciting.

 

[Dagger Dias]

See, here's the thing.... I am in the minority here, but the themed PPV events were a good idea. WWE just got lazy with the booking. Some were clearly better than others. Breaking Point was an abomination. So was Capitol Punishment. Over the Limit usually had stronger cards, but nothing makes it stand out. Extreme Rules is hardly "extreme". TLC is what that show should be like. Hell In a Cell could survive for years if they book it better. So what if you "know" when you are getting the match type? That can be a good thing. Elimination Chamber is the perfect example. WWE fell into a trap of lazy booking for these shows thinking fans will buy it for the gimmick theme no matter how the thing got booked in the end. People anticipate the Elimination Chamber and it only comes on one show per year too. The problem isn't Hell In a Cell having its own show, it's how poorly it is booked.

Then we have Bragging Rights which would have been amazing 6 or more years ago, back when the brand extension mattered. It could still have worked if they did more champion VS champion type matches, or throw in match types such as Iron Man and Last Man Standing as the exclusives to that PPV brand. TLC is by far my favorite of the themed PPV shows and I really would like to see it stay. You know what you are getting. Not one, but four match types in the same show. Tables, ladders, chairs, and TLC. Night of Champions is another to keep, as long as they do not unify the midcard titles and world titles. Once we are down to only 4 championship divisions, "all titles are on the line" will no longer sell as well as it did 4 years ago when we had an entire PPV card's worth of titles to make matches for. Night of Champions 2008 for example, did not need filler such as Cm Punk VS Big Show from the 2010 edition of the show that everyone threw a fit about due to it not being a title match, or the non-title main event in 2011 with Punk VS Triple H.

Money In the Bank is a stronger brand out of these newer gimmick shows, I'd keep it. TLC and Hell In a Cell can also do fine if WWE stop being lazy in the booking. My point is this.... The older shows like Unforgiven, No Mercy, etc.... Why would fans care about those shows? They were clearly less important than the Big Four. My reaction to announcements of there being a Hell In a Cell or a TLC match at a show like No Mercy wouldn't really help me want to order it. At least with the themed shows you know what to expect and it helps you decide far in advance if you will order it. I never felt much interest in the lesser PPV brands, and am quite honestly in favor of keeping the gimmick themed PPV brands in place if it means shows like Unforgiven or No Mercy remain in the past where they belong. WWE need to make each of their PPV events unique in a way they stick out so fans will want to purchase them regardless of how "important" they are in comparison to Wrestlemania or Summerslam.

 

[ComeAtMeBro]

I think getting rid of the themed PPV's is going to be a positive for WWE, however, I have seen some people on here talking about limiting the yearly PPV schedule to 6 or so to allocate some time to build a program between guys. I'm all for that, but it won't happen. There is too much money to lose cutting your PPV schedule in half. This is the way that I would like to see the PPV schedule set up:

Jan.- Royal Rumble
Feb.-In Your House:*Themed PPV
March/April- WrestleMania (Always have 1 MitB match)
May- Backlash
June- King of the Ring
July- Cyber Sunday
Aug.-SummerSlam
Sept.- No Way Out (Steal from TNA here and have all major matches either in a Cage or in a Cell)
Oct.-Judgement Day
Nov.-Survivor Series (Always have at least 1 elimination chamber match)
Dec.-Armegeddon

 

[Honkey_Kong]

I think in general these gimmick PPVs have run their course. I don't think they were great ever to begin with though. The WWE should really only have 3 gimmick PPVs: Royal Rumble, King of The Ring and instead of Survivor Series, bring back the Wargames except make the roof of the cage higher.

Or hell make Wargames a free-TV special and just have 2 gimmick PPVs. I mean Money in The Bank the match concept isn't bad. I actually like the match, what I hate is that the winner is holding the champion hostage for up to a year. It seemed alright at first, but it just got old real quickly and then they keep doing it. It seems like a poor-man's way of booking somebody's rise to a main event. Instead of having them hold the champ hostage for a quick run-in cashing, why don't they take those guys and actually build them up to be a main event challenger by booking them in quality feuds and earning the fan's support?