WWE Creative/ Use of Stipulations

[DDelaware2009]

Long time reader, first time poster...how does every one feel about the way the PPVs have shifted to being so specialized and featuring specific stipulations?

Personally, I look at these upcoming on the calendar and I cant help but think these are all being overexposed and overused. In my opinion, there should be 1, maybe 2, HIAC matches per year (and a HIAC PPV? really?). Same with the Elimination Chamber - we should see that once a year, not twice a PPV, and not at the same time on the calendar each year. The Road to Wrestle Mania should be intense enough without making it all gimmicky. TLC is a great stipulation, but not as a specific PPV. These are supposed to be unique matches with a "special" feel to them, not something that becomes standard and expected. Same with Money in the Bank - now we have two winners? Extreme Rules doesn't bother me too much, but I can't help but think that distributing all of these "special" matches would make other PPVs and weekly shows better instead of having to "save" them. What was wrong with "Backlash" (the whole idea of it was Wrestle Mania fallout, it worked fine) and asking the creative team to BE CREATIVE?

That is what it boils down to in my opinion - the predetermined stipulations are just an easy way out for WWE creative and more standardization of an increasingly "blah" product. Your thoughts?

 

[EssWhyDee]

I do agree with you, the naming of ppvs such as hell In a cell , tlc, etc is dreadful and NOT creative at all. I guess wwe are going for a. 'you get what it says on the tin' sort of feel. Another thing Is that maybe its a way to sell the ppv, to get more buys, because ur guaranteed those 'special' matches...
I think it does remove this extra SPECIALNESS(I know that aint a word) of the stipulations in general. I'd be more excited bout a hell in a cell match e.g. at summerslam to be fitting with a storyline than have it at a fixed point in a year and have storylines built around the ppv...

All in all
I agree
It's the easy way out, and I think a poor marketing strategy. Why not have backlash? What wrong with backlash?

 

[c13vyper]

Gimmick PPV's need to be disposed of. They cheapen the match and are lazy outs for creative.

RR, SS and KOTR, have been gimmick ppv's for years, but they were 3 out of 12. Something different to break up the fueds/Normal matches. Wouldnt mind seeing the following:

RR - Winner gets WM Title shot.
EC - 1 Match, its the main event, talent from both shows, Winner gets the other Title shot at WM.
KOTR/MITB - One match, Main event of the PPV, winner gets Title match in the next year.
SS - 5 on 5. Something different, a fued between 2 factions, a group etc.

Dont need to see every PPV be either Cage themed, HIAC themed, TLC themed, Submission themed. It cheapens the stipulations. The idea of HIAC was to settle long running fueds with the most brutal match.

 

[DDelaware2009]

C13vyper- you make a great point highlighting the Royal Rumble reward - winner gets a title shot at Wrestle Mania - there is nothing more annoying than when they don't honor that straight up. No one would "use it early" or "put it on the line" for a title shot at No Way Out/ Elim Chamber - that seriously cheapens both RR and WM

Also, with all the focus on stipulation PPVs, why NOT bring back KOTR?

 

[GrandSword]

I don't want to just write exactly what the OP has stated, but I'm sure most of us on here very much agree with them.

I think veiwers do want to go along the ride of a well crafted feud which is so heated that will finally end in a Cell match instead of guys being thrown in a Hell IN A Cell because it was that time of year.

As a fan of all pro-wrestling not just the WWE, I don't really concern myself too much with what they produce. I just want to watch wrestling, however I do acknowledge that the WWE could be a better product by removing these types of ppvs and renaming/rebranding them as Backlash or Ground Zero or Unforgiven etc.

Back in the 90's we had titles as In Your House: A Cold Day in Hell - which described Stone Cold Steve Austin taking on the Champion Undertaker for the title, which was very cool.

In any case I want to see the WWE doing better and this could be a way in which the WWE creative can be just that instead of being lazy and using stipulation ppvs.