Matt Dunn
Hank Scorpio
It was inevitable.
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by Matt Dunn on Oct 14, 2009 16:20:41 GMT -5
I personally hate the new format ("Hell in A Cell", "Breaking Point") but wanted to see how others felt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fantozzi on Oct 14, 2009 16:26:40 GMT -5
hate it
it's backwards booking IMO
and i don't say it as a "booker wannabe", but as a fan
why should i care about a HIAC punk-taker NOW? gimme one when it's time!
|
|
Spyke the Pacers Fan
El Dandy
Still hates himself for missing the last episode of Murder She Wrote
Go Indiana!
Posts: 8,061
|
Post by Spyke the Pacers Fan on Oct 14, 2009 16:30:00 GMT -5
I honestly don't care. I don't like them, but I'll still go to Buffalo Wild Wings every month to watch them. There's still some parts of every show where I can walk away enjoying it.
|
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,692
|
Post by clifford on Oct 14, 2009 16:32:20 GMT -5
It's stupid, its lazy, its unimaginative, it devalues the unique gimmick matches WWE has, it takes away from feuds and storytelling, and most importantly it forces the booking team into a corner, where they are forced to book certian wrestlers in certain match types.
|
|
Matt Dunn
Hank Scorpio
It was inevitable.
Posts: 5,596
|
Post by Matt Dunn on Oct 14, 2009 16:40:49 GMT -5
It's stupid, its lazy, its unimaginative, it devalues the unique gimmick matches WWE has, it takes away from feuds and storytelling, and most importantly it forces the booking team into a corner, where they are forced to book certian wrestlers in certain match types. My thoughts exactly. They're on auto pilot. Also, is it true they are getting rid of Survivor Series or is that newz? |
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,692
|
Post by clifford on Oct 14, 2009 16:43:18 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Survivor Series is staying. It seems even Vince respects the heritage of the 'Big 4' pay per views so I expect them to stay. Other than them, expect every other pay per view next year to have some form of gimmick attached to it.
|
|
Spyke the Pacers Fan
El Dandy
Still hates himself for missing the last episode of Murder She Wrote
Go Indiana!
Posts: 8,061
|
Post by Spyke the Pacers Fan on Oct 14, 2009 16:46:27 GMT -5
It's stupid, its lazy, its unimaginative, it devalues the unique gimmick matches WWE has, it takes away from feuds and storytelling, and most importantly it forces the booking team into a corner, where they are forced to book certian wrestlers in certain match types. My thoughts exactly. They're on auto pilot. Also, is it true they are getting rid of Survivor Series or is that newz? I think that came from a typo on WWE.com where they had listed the TLC PPV in place of Survivor Series on the schedule. It was fixed soon after. |
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Oct 14, 2009 16:46:39 GMT -5
It's stupid, its lazy, its unimaginative, it devalues the unique gimmick matches WWE has, it takes away from feuds and storytelling, and most importantly it forces the booking team into a corner, where they are forced to book certian wrestlers in certain match types. I'd say this is a pretty good way of putting it. |
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Oct 14, 2009 16:53:20 GMT -5
I'm surprised for all the hate for gimmick pay per views. Especially considering 2 of the 4 original PPVs were introduced as gimmick PPVs. And don't say it's different, because it's not.
|
|
|
|
Post by MyndSkape: A Poor Man's Virgil on Oct 14, 2009 16:56:49 GMT -5
It just screams throwing s*** at a wall and seeing what sticks.
And you know what you get?
A hot, smeared, smelly, runny mess that someone needs to clean up, but no one wants to, or even take responsibilty for making the mess in the first place. No one wants to look at smeared s***, Vince.
He'll just blame it on the dog.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angus Mcloud on Oct 14, 2009 17:02:30 GMT -5
I like it. For now
|
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,692
|
Post by clifford on Oct 14, 2009 17:04:04 GMT -5
I'm surprised for all the hate for gimmick pay per views. Especially considering 2 of the 4 original PPVs were introduced as gimmick PPVs. And don't say it's different, because it's not. But there is a difference. Survivor Series tag matches and the Royal Rumble match are only seen at those specific pay per views. Both match types accomodate already occuring storylines and booking, hell it even lets them overlap and interact. |
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Oct 14, 2009 17:09:18 GMT -5
I'm surprised for all the hate for gimmick pay per views. Especially considering 2 of the 4 original PPVs were introduced as gimmick PPVs. And don't say it's different, because it's not. But there is a difference. Survivor Series tag matches and the Royal Rumble match are only seen at those specific pay per views. Both match types accomodate already occuring storylines and booking, hell it even lets them overlap and interact. They only do the Elimination Chamber once a year. They only do Hell in a Cell once a year now. The submission finishes gimmick, I'll admit, was pretty stupid. But I look it from this perspective. Why on Earth would I even remotely consider buying a PPV for 2 guys fighting a normal match that I'm sure I've already seen ten times before? The real issue I would think isn't the gimmick matches themselves, it's the fact that the talent is spread so thin, I think I've seen Orton feud with just about everybody so there's no need for me to pay for a PPV. BUT, if you force him to fight John Cena on a ferry or a speedboat, I might pay to see that....I MIGHT. |
|
|
|
Post by Fantozzi on Oct 14, 2009 17:11:31 GMT -5
I'm surprised for all the hate for gimmick pay per views. Especially considering 2 of the 4 original PPVs were introduced as gimmick PPVs. And don't say it's different, because it's not. can't you really see the difference between a royal rumble and a HIAC? |
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Oct 14, 2009 17:13:08 GMT -5
I'm surprised for all the hate for gimmick pay per views. Especially considering 2 of the 4 original PPVs were introduced as gimmick PPVs. And don't say it's different, because it's not. can't you really see the difference between a royal rumble and a HIAC? Other than one's in a cage and the other isn't........no. |
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,692
|
Post by clifford on Oct 14, 2009 17:16:04 GMT -5
But even look at the Orton/Cena feud. Bragging Rights theme dictated a submission match of sorts must happen. you can't have Cena quit, it goes against everything he stands for. Booking team forced into a corner. Cena has to win.
Taker Vs. Punk. A four week old (at the time) that in no way warrants a match with a stipulation as big as a Hell in a Cell match. Taker can't lose to Punk cleanly in his own match. Punk can not beat Taker without a screwy finish, which you cant have at a Hell in a Cell. Booking team forced into a corner. Taker has to win.
Just those two examples show that these new gimmick laden pay per views aren't being thought out. Every August now, the booking team will have to remember that that their main feuds will have to have a submission match and a Hell in a Cell match. It forces them to make the stupid decisions that a lot of people have been giving out to them for making.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Oct 14, 2009 17:23:13 GMT -5
But even look at the Orton/Cena feud. Bragging Rights theme dictated a submission match of sorts must happen. you can't have Cena quit, it goes against everything he stands for. Booking team forced into a corner. Cena has to win. Taker Vs. Punk. A four week old (at the time) that in no way warrants a match with a stipulation as big as a Hell in a Cell match. Taker can't lose to Punk cleanly in his own match. Punk can not beat Taker without a screwy finish, which you cant have at a Hell in a Cell. Booking team forced into a corner. Taker has to win. Just those two examples show that these new gimmick laden pay per views aren't being thought out. Every August now, the booking team will have to remember that that their main feuds will have to have a submission match and a Hell in a Cell match. It forces them to make the stupid decisions that a lot of people have been giving out to them for making. I don't think the creative staff or the McMahons for that matter give a s*** about the importance of using the Hell in a Cell match exclusively for the really volatile feuds. They simply look at it in a way in which they could coerce people into forking down 30 or 40 bucks to buy a PPV. The product is so watered down, they might as well be endorsed by light beer. I strongly believe the sole intention of the WWE is to increase buyrates. They realized their format wasn't doing as well as they would have liked. So now they're going in a different direction to make more money. And if it fails, then they'll ditch these formats and go back to the status quo. These changes aren't permanent. |
|
clifford
King Koopa
Shingo Takagi stan
Posts: 10,692
|
Post by clifford on Oct 14, 2009 17:34:04 GMT -5
But even look at the Orton/Cena feud. Bragging Rights theme dictated a submission match of sorts must happen. you can't have Cena quit, it goes against everything he stands for. Booking team forced into a corner. Cena has to win. Taker Vs. Punk. A four week old (at the time) that in no way warrants a match with a stipulation as big as a Hell in a Cell match. Taker can't lose to Punk cleanly in his own match. Punk can not beat Taker without a screwy finish, which you cant have at a Hell in a Cell. Booking team forced into a corner. Taker has to win. Just those two examples show that these new gimmick laden pay per views aren't being thought out. Every August now, the booking team will have to remember that that their main feuds will have to have a submission match and a Hell in a Cell match. It forces them to make the stupid decisions that a lot of people have been giving out to them for making. I don't think the creative staff or the McMahons for that matter give a s*** about the importance of using the Hell in a Cell match exclusively for the really volatile feuds. They simply look at it in a way in which they could coerce people into forking down 30 or 40 bucks to buy a PPV. The product is so watered down, they might as well be endorsed by light beer. I strongly believe the sole intention of the WWE is to increase buyrates. They realized their format wasn't doing as well as they would have liked. So now they're going in a different direction to make more money. And if it fails, then they'll ditch these formats and go back to the status quo. These changes aren't permanent. Agree with you on all fronts. But i still HATE IT GRUUH.  /angry internet minority |
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 122,193
|
Post by Mozenrath on Oct 14, 2009 17:50:58 GMT -5
I personally don't mind that much for the most part. I am more irritated by the sheer number of PPVs, the content hasn't bothered me.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 14, 2009 17:56:17 GMT -5
Its stupid IMO... WWE has been playing the "safe and predictable" formula for a couple years now and its becoming bland and redundant. Now they become even more formulaic by putting all their gimmick matches on planned PPVs.. Nothing is a fued ender, nothing made to push a fued farther... just the ame formula every year culminating at Wrestlemania.... sigh
|
|
/angry internet minority 
