Cena's Little Helper
Mid-Card Championship Winner
Yes, you read the thread title right. I have been assigned the task of arguing that WWE's Survivor Series concept should be replaced with another gimmick-themed PPV. I believe that this should be the case for two reasons: one, as should already be obvious, Survivor Series IS a gimmick itself; two, WWE no longer has the colorful personalities nor a writing staff creative enough to make Survivor Series work.
Reason 1: Survivor Series IS a gimmick itself
With all due respect to the gentlemen at Chair Shot Reality, saying that Survivor Series shouldn't be replaced by a gimmick-themed PPV is very misleading, precisely because Survivor Series matches (i.e., either 4-on-4 or 5-on-5 elimination matches) are gimmick matches themselves. What's wrong with replacing one type of gimmick with another? I don't think there's anything wrong with it, although my opponents could object to my thought on at least two grounds: one, Survivor Series is a traditional "Big Four" WWE PPV that has been around for 22 years; two, Survivor Series matches allow many different singles or tag-team angles to come together in the most efficient way possible. Why these objections wouldn't work brings me to the second part of my argument.
Reason 2: WWE no longer has the colorful personalities nor a writing staff creative enough to make Survivor Series work.
Personally, I think the Survivor Series PPVs of the late 80s and early 90s were some of the best that the WWF/WWE ever produced. Why this is so has everything to do with such personalities as Gorilla Monsoon and Bobby Heenan and what I can only assume was the WWF's writing staff at that time.
Unfortunately for current WWE fans, they don't have the benefit of watching such syndicated shows as Tuesday Night Titans and WWF Challenge. While some may see these programs as nothing more mere recap shows, their main purpose, in my opinion, was to sell you on the WWF's upcoming PPVs, and the banter and joint commentary of Gorilla Monsoon and Bobby Heenan masterfully accomplished this end. By utilizing the face vs. heel commentator angle that they themselves perfected, Monsoon and Heenan fully informed you, with match and promo clips and their own biased opinions, of the reasons behind each and every match on a PPV's card. By the end of each syndicated show they hosted, you knew why each match on a PPV's card was taking place and why you should care about it. In stark contrast to Monsoon and Heenan, Michael Cole, Matt Striker, Todd Grisham, and (today's) Jerry Lawler are little more than mediums for ads, product placements, and shit one-liners. Besides being unable to sell viewers on PPVs like the commentators of yore could, I would go so far as to say that these men couldn't do it even if they had the syndicated talk/commentating shows that Monsoon and Heenan had.
On a closing note, I'd like to say that the blame for WWE's inability to successfully market and handsomely profit from a PPV like Survivor Series shouldn't be solely placed on the shoulders of WWE's current commentators. Part, if not all, of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of WWE's writing staff. Week in and week out, WWE's current writers show that they are incapable of booking more than three to four decent storylines at one time for Raw and for Smackdown. If they can't even create 10 to 15 concurrent storylines, what makes you think that they'd be able to pare a comparable number of storylines down into two or three carefully detailed and organized Survivor Series matches?
Reason 1: Survivor Series IS a gimmick itself
With all due respect to the gentlemen at Chair Shot Reality, saying that Survivor Series shouldn't be replaced by a gimmick-themed PPV is very misleading, precisely because Survivor Series matches (i.e., either 4-on-4 or 5-on-5 elimination matches) are gimmick matches themselves. What's wrong with replacing one type of gimmick with another? I don't think there's anything wrong with it, although my opponents could object to my thought on at least two grounds: one, Survivor Series is a traditional "Big Four" WWE PPV that has been around for 22 years; two, Survivor Series matches allow many different singles or tag-team angles to come together in the most efficient way possible. Why these objections wouldn't work brings me to the second part of my argument.
Reason 2: WWE no longer has the colorful personalities nor a writing staff creative enough to make Survivor Series work.
Personally, I think the Survivor Series PPVs of the late 80s and early 90s were some of the best that the WWF/WWE ever produced. Why this is so has everything to do with such personalities as Gorilla Monsoon and Bobby Heenan and what I can only assume was the WWF's writing staff at that time.
Unfortunately for current WWE fans, they don't have the benefit of watching such syndicated shows as Tuesday Night Titans and WWF Challenge. While some may see these programs as nothing more mere recap shows, their main purpose, in my opinion, was to sell you on the WWF's upcoming PPVs, and the banter and joint commentary of Gorilla Monsoon and Bobby Heenan masterfully accomplished this end. By utilizing the face vs. heel commentator angle that they themselves perfected, Monsoon and Heenan fully informed you, with match and promo clips and their own biased opinions, of the reasons behind each and every match on a PPV's card. By the end of each syndicated show they hosted, you knew why each match on a PPV's card was taking place and why you should care about it. In stark contrast to Monsoon and Heenan, Michael Cole, Matt Striker, Todd Grisham, and (today's) Jerry Lawler are little more than mediums for ads, product placements, and shit one-liners. Besides being unable to sell viewers on PPVs like the commentators of yore could, I would go so far as to say that these men couldn't do it even if they had the syndicated talk/commentating shows that Monsoon and Heenan had.
On a closing note, I'd like to say that the blame for WWE's inability to successfully market and handsomely profit from a PPV like Survivor Series shouldn't be solely placed on the shoulders of WWE's current commentators. Part, if not all, of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of WWE's writing staff. Week in and week out, WWE's current writers show that they are incapable of booking more than three to four decent storylines at one time for Raw and for Smackdown. If they can't even create 10 to 15 concurrent storylines, what makes you think that they'd be able to pare a comparable number of storylines down into two or three carefully detailed and organized Survivor Series matches?
