New WWE pay per view format

[fw91]

Like the concepts of Breaking Point, and Extreme Rules, but hate everything else

[Above Average]

I'm all for more gimmick PPVs, but WWE have added too many.

Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, Extreme Rules, Night of Champions, Breaking Point, Hell in a Cell, Bragging Rights, Survivor Series and TLC = 9 gimmick PPVs from 14. Too many.

[Marvelously Mediocre]

I don't like them but i doubt Unforgiven or No Mercy would've been all that better.

[Dr. T is an alien]

Oct 14, 2009 16:53:20 GMT -5 Lancers said:

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.

True, but those gimmicks worked. KotR originally worked as well, and if they were to bring it back and turn it into a tri-branded tournament of the top stars, I would like it again.

I think the reason why I like those gimmick-based PPVs and not the others is that they were designed to be all-encompassing gimmicks. Hell, if they were to turn NWO into a Chamber for every title PPV, or introduce a Scramble for every title PPV, I could dig those as well. HIAC is supposed to be a feud ender that is extremely dangerous, only to be used when blood must be spilled. It is the same flaw that TNA stepped into with their annual Lockdown PPV.

Honestly, what is next, a TLC PPV? Let the supposedly special and "extremely dangerous" gimmick matches mean a damned thing!

[Bubble Lead]

I dislike it. Remember when TNA got flack for using gimmicks all the time? Oh you know, WWE is so much better because they dont have to rely on gimmicks to sell PPVs and feuds all the time, a PPV of all cage matches is stupid, blah blah blah.

Now they are doing it. YAY!

Plus I used to hear all this talk about telling a story in the ring, how that is more important than relying on weapons, gimmicks and spots. You know, the supposed WWE style. I would sit there having to hear how ECW was less of a fed because all their PPVs had extreme and gimmick matches. BAH. I guess if WWE is doing it its okay.

Whatever WWE pushes is the way wrestling is supposed to be.

[Big L]

Wait..there's wrestling on ppv?

[MyndSkape: A Poor Man's Virgil]

Oct 14, 2009 20:00:16 GMT -5 Big L said:

Wait..there's wrestling on ppv?

I don't know, I'm too busy watching UFC

[Deleted]

I like it, but they shouldn't have both Breaking Point and Hell in a Cell so close together. At the very least, move Breaking Point to Backlash's place or something.

[The Captain]

Awful. Completely takes the suspense and impact away from main events when we already know what the matches will be due to a forced format. I like Extreme Rules, No Way Out (not calling it by its stupidified name), and Night of Champions (if you can call the latter a gimmick), but that's it.

I'd like Bragging Rights if it wasn't breathing on top of Survivor Series' neck with a very similar format for the main event.

[skiller]

Oct 14, 2009 18:23:52 GMT -5 Marvelously Mediocre said:

I don't like them but i doubt Unforgiven or No Mercy would've been all that better.

Didn't one of those shows introduce the scramble match concept.

That probably would've been better than either submission matches or hell in a cell.

[EoE: Workin On My Night Cheese]

If they must have 12 big shows a year, have 6 marquee shows and 6 Saturday Night's Main Event-like shows that are either on network TV or shown on PPV at a much cheaper price. PPVs on a Saturday might be an untapped market (or ignored completely, I'm not a business-y type guy):

---

*Jan - Royal Rumble (30-Man Battle Royal for WrestleMania title shot + title matches)
*Feb - SNME
*Mar - SNME
*Apr - WrestleMania
*May - SNME
*Jun - King Of The Ring (One Night 8-Man Tournament for SummerSlam title shot + title matches)
*Jul - SNME
*Aug - SummerSlam (Outdoor Stadium)
*Sep - SNME
*Oct - SNME
*Nov - Survivor Series (10 Man Elimination Tag Matches + title matches)
*Dec - Night Of Champions (Every title defended on the last show of the year)

---

Have your gimmick matches like TLC, Scramble and Hell In A Cell on your SNME shows when you need them.

[Andrew is Good]

I think the problem is there are too many pay per views.

Gimmick pay per views are ok, I'm somewhat on the fence about it.

It established that, every year, this is what happens, and it only happens once a year, etc etc, and that can add to it. But, it's a tad bit on the lame side because it puts too much out there. Having 3 Hell in a Cell matches takes away from the meaning of the Hell in a Cell.

Like, having the Elimination Chamber at No Way Out (though they've changed the name) is ok, and being a yearly tradition, but there only needs to be one, and have that in the main event. Of course, this is what having 1 World Title would help out with. With just 1 World Title, the big gimmick match that the pay per view is built around can be based on that, and if you build the title up and make people want to see a big time match, then having the gimmick matches here and there can be fine.

Wrestling is all about drama, and I've said it a million times. Drama is the most important thing. So, when you have 3 Hell in a Cell matches, how does that add to the drama. Foley vs Undertaker wasn't the best match technically, but the drama was unbelievable. They didn't do much after the two bumps (which they couldn't, Undertaker pretty much had to walk Mick through the match after that.

So, do people care? Will there be drama? TNA is doing a lot of positive things, but constantly putting out gimmick matches isn't one of them. And WWE is stealing this idea from TNA. And it's a bad idea! I mean, if you're going to steal something from another company, steal the good ideas.

Jerry Jarrett in his guest booker asked three questions after every match, and he was critiqued for going to far. Was someone hurt? Did they sell it? Did it mean anything? Well, if you have 3 Hell in a Cell matches in one pay per view, what does it mean.

I think they could do it in some ways. A tournament was suggested before, like, maybe bringing back the King of the Ring. But again, how can the pay per view be sold. Off of drama? How can you build the drama? Make it about the World Title? How can we get people to care about the World Title? Less title changes, so that when one does change, it means something.

I've put over ROH a lot on this topic, but when it comes to their belts, ROH is number 1 with making them mean something. Whenever a title changes hands, it's like an gasp comes over the crowd. It's something special.

[skiller]

Oct 14, 2009 16:53:20 GMT -5 Lancers said:

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.

I don't see how it isn't.

The original gimmick shows Survivor Series and Rumble have matches that were built on top of the gimmick of the match itself. Meaning it wasn't who was in it, but moreso how the match played out. In the case of the Hell in a Cell, it was built as the final resolution between two guys who couldn't settle their feud any other way. Suddenly we've reached a point where it's thrown out as some annual traidion which goes completely against the grain of how and why the match was originally created and used.

It wouldn't be any different than having an all Inferno match ppv. It wouldn't make any sense. Why would these guys go so far as to agree to such a dangerous match when they really didn't have so much on the line.

[Deleted]

Stuff like Night of Champions, Extreme Rules, No Way Out/Elimination Chamber and Breaking Point I like. Crap like Hell in a Cell and TLC I hate. There is no reason to kill off two of your most popular gimmicks like that, especially when you will have had 4 or 5 TLC style matches minimum this year by the time it is over.

[dh03grad]

WWE has to realize that the 14 Tribranded PPV model is not sustainable. WWE saw Rock vs. HHH over and over again in 2000 and it worked. Highly profitable. Ever since the brand split, though, Vince seemed to have the belief that we would indeed pay over and over again for the same guys to wrestle. Even if they arent what Rock and HHH was in 2000. At this point, buy rates are down from where they were as single brand ppvs. Why would ppvs with more stars sell less? Theres no build up to the matches any longer. 3 weeks or so between PPVs, its a very short amount of time to build up a new match. So it is a lose-lose situation. WWE needs to cut back on PPVs and soon.

[Lancers]

Oct 14, 2009 21:42:27 GMT -5 @skiller said:

Oct 14, 2009 16:53:20 GMT -5 Lancers said:

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.

I don't see how it isn't.

The original gimmick shows Survivor Series and Rumble have matches that were built on top of the gimmick of the match itself. Meaning it wasn't who was in it, but moreso how the match played out. In the case of the Hell in a Cell, it was built as the final resolution between two guys who couldn't settle their feud any other way. Suddenly we've reached a point where it's thrown out as some annual traidion which goes completely against the grain of how and why the match was originally created and used.

And as I pointed out later, I don't think the WWE cares. To them, the point is trying to give people a reason to order a PPV. They're trying to figure out a way to get people to shell out 30-40 bucks to watch matches they've probably already seen before. The difference? You put 'em in a cage. You make them use submissions. You make them have sex with Mae Young. Whatever it is to entice more people to order these PPVs.

I still think gimmick PPVs are better than the old formula. Granted, the best solution is to just eliminate all of these PPVs, but that'll never happen.

[perpetualn00b]

Some I like, some I don't. I think Hell in a Cell and TLC are a bad idea, due to these matches having a certain mystique around them that is now largely ruined. Also, simply naming the PPV after the gimmick is incredibly uncreative, certainly they could come up something that evokes the concept without just naming the match. Even "Hell on Earth" works better as a PPV name then Hell in a Cell.

Breaking Point, Extreme Rules, Night of Champions, Bragging Rights, and No Way Out all work, as the gimmicks in them were either already established before the gimmick wave hit, and thus have some legitimacy, or revolve around a match type that remains rarely used without having the aura of the above two. Also, they have more appropriate names, at least before NWO was switched. Likewise, returning to older PPVs with a similar theme (King of the Ring) or reintroducing a match not seen in some time (War Games) have the same sort of legitimacy. Heck, War Games could even get away with the naming the PPV after the match concept, as War Games actually works as a PPV name all on it's own.

[Dean-o]

Ok, I didn't mean to go off on a random late night rant, but here it goes...

I'm scared more then anything. They know their buyrates are in a free fall, so they are trying anything they can to get them back up. I feel this is only going to hurt the product even more. What the hell is the point of a PG-rated Hell In A Cell on a 1-2 month feud?

Also, unless you change the booking of Raw/Smackdown, or lower the prices, there is no way the buyrates are going back up. They are giving away WAY TOO MUCH for free these days. Throw in the fact that the rosters are so small we see the same old s*** almost every single week, everything has been done 100 times over...the product is simply too stale.

Not even to mention how NOTHING EVER MATTERS. Cena & Orton can trade off the WWE Title every month for years, who cares? The title is meaningless. The WWE has never used Win/Loss records, but more so then ever, they mean nothing these days. How many times have we seen Orton pinned on Raw when he was champion? How about when Mickie James lost to Beth Phoenix in 2 minutes on Raw in a non-title match, yet it was never mentioned again.

It's only going to get worse my friends. I'm not too excited to see how bad things will get.

[Bo Rida]

I like no way out using the elimination chambers and I'm also a fan of extreme rules, I think they should have stopped there though.

[GaTechGrad]

I really don't care, but it really seems like they stole TNA's Lockdown ppv idea (an all cage match ppv), and they are taking it to the Nth degree.