Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 9:38:26 GMT -5
It was obvious how last nights main event was going to go because everyone knows that in November its Hell In A Cell.
Watch tonights Raw where there is a huge announcement that Daniel Bryan will fight Orton in a wait for it........... Hell in a cell match at the Hell In A Cell PPV.
Gimmick matches should only be used when its logical in the fued which I'll admit it kind of is with this one but only because they shoehorned the fueds booking around the fact that next month they have to do a hell in a cell match.
Also they'll probably stick Del Rio in one that has no rhyme or reason for it and it will probably open the show.
|
|
|
Post by highfivessteve on Oct 7, 2013 10:03:44 GMT -5
Agreed. I heard this is the last HIAC ppv.
I also agree that Bryan/Orton makes perfect sense to have in the cell. It would be very odd for ADR to have a cell match, but maybe The Rhodes take on The Shield in the other one?
|
|
|
Post by SparkyPlugg on Oct 7, 2013 10:36:51 GMT -5
I seriously don't understand why there are no WCW PPV names used?
Halloween Havoc would be awesome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 10:43:18 GMT -5
I agree.
Though - gotta give WWE credit on that branding. They basically TM'd the Cage Match in their own WWE way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 11:43:04 GMT -5
As usual with most WWE ideas in this day and age, the themed PPV's were done as a short-term solution to increase buyrates. The first Hell in a Cell and TLC events did well because of the novelty, but buyrates have decreased year on year ever since to the point where HIAC barely does any better than the rest of the normal 'B' PPV's.
The shoe-horning of gimmick matches into feuds is the absolutely worst thing about it. Orton vs. Sheamus in 2010 barely warranted a No DQ match, and yet they were put in the cell because 'well, the PPV is called Hell in a Cell, we need it to be that gimmick.' And of course it led to a match which nobody remembers because the feud had no heat. Just like all the random Tables/Chairs matches they have at TLC for the midcard feuds nobody could care for.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Oct 7, 2013 12:26:12 GMT -5
I don't think themed PPVs in GENERAL have to go, I just think WWE is overdoing it.
Lest we forget, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble are themed PPVs, really.
Elimination Chamber works well as a PPV, but having two Chamber matches per night much. It should really be that a shot at whichever belt isn't being challenged for at Mania already is up for grabs. Bryan wins the Rumble for example, challenges for the WWE title, so the winner of the Chamber challenges the WHC.
I also like Extreme Rules because it's got some variety to it. You know everything's going to be no DQ at least and it retains an air of unpredictability.
TLC also I think could stay. Hell in a Cell shouldn't, because it's gone from a bitter feud ender type match to a 'welp, it's October' match.'
|
|
|
Post by muzzle on Oct 7, 2013 17:44:36 GMT -5
I don't think themed PPVs in GENERAL have to go, I just think WWE is overdoing it. Lest we forget, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble are themed PPVs, really. Elimination Chamber works well as a PPV, but having two Chamber matches per night much. It should really be that a shot at whichever belt isn't being challenged for at Mania already is up for grabs. Bryan wins the Rumble for example, challenges for the WWE title, so the winner of the Chamber challenges the WHC. I also like Extreme Rules because it's got some variety to it. You know everything's going to be no DQ at least and it retains an air of unpredictability. TLC also I think could stay. Hell in a Cell shouldn't, because it's gone from a bitter feud ender type match to a 'welp, it's October' match.' Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, MITB and Survivor series are different though. Those aren't gimmick matches with 2 competitors but multiple where there is no specific fued that is focused on.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Oct 7, 2013 17:57:42 GMT -5
I think that they need to reshuffle and shake-up the PPV line-up. I'd like to see King of the Ring return, along with War Games, and maybe even Clash of the Champions.
#Shrugs
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Oct 7, 2013 17:58:26 GMT -5
As usual with most WWE ideas in this day and age, the themed PPV's were done as a short-term solution to increase buyrates. The first Hell in a Cell and TLC events did well because of the novelty, but buyrates have decreased year on year ever since to the point where HIAC barely does any better than the rest of the normal 'B' PPV's. Hell in a Cell last year got more buys than Survivor Series. Only shows that year that did better were the Big 3 and Extreme Rules (which featured Lesnar vs. Cena).
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Oct 7, 2013 19:29:48 GMT -5
As usual with most WWE ideas in this day and age, the themed PPV's were done as a short-term solution to increase buyrates. The first Hell in a Cell and TLC events did well because of the novelty, but buyrates have decreased year on year ever since to the point where HIAC barely does any better than the rest of the normal 'B' PPV's. Hell in a Cell last year got more buys than Survivor Series. Only shows that year that did better were the Big 3 and Extreme Rules (which featured Lesnar vs. Cena). Yeah, Hell in a Cell was one of their big success stories last year. I can't imagine they would get rid of it, though I think after two absolute shit PPVs in a row they're putting that record of success in jeopardy this year.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Oct 7, 2013 19:34:13 GMT -5
Hell in a Cell should go.
Money in the Bank should go, and the Money in the Bank ladder match should instead be made as part of either Extreme Rules or TLC.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Oct 7, 2013 19:38:05 GMT -5
I seriously don't understand why there are no WCW PPV names used? Halloween Havoc would be awesome. Because there's literally millions of other name combinations that can be used in lieu of bringing back a name associated with a company that's been dead since 2001. Halloween Havoc was a WCW thing. Bringing back the Bash was their attempt at using WCW names but they stopped using it.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Oct 7, 2013 19:40:27 GMT -5
Hell in a Cell should go. Money in the Bank should go, and the Money in the Bank ladder match should instead be made as part of either Extreme Rules or TLC. I think that's the last thing that would happen. MITB and HIAC are probably in the top 3 B PPVs in terms of buys even if TLC is a consistently better show than either of them (it is truly the Alex Riley of PPVs). I think if they were going to knock off two shows it would be the random June PPV and the random early October PPV, not established successful brands like HIAC and MITB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 19:43:01 GMT -5
Watch tonights Raw where there is a huge announcement that Daniel Bryan will fight Orton in a wait for it........... Hell in a cell match at the Hell In A Cell PPV. *watching Raw right now...* PROPHET!! PROPHET!!Genuflect before our prophet!!!
|
|
|
Post by bootytea on Oct 7, 2013 19:48:19 GMT -5
They really do need to go, but we are in a generation with people that have a short attention span.
It also helps casuals know what to expect instead of some vague name.
WWE lacks the kind of star power to get casual viewers to catch the show, plus professional wrestling may never be the cool thing to watch again.
Yes, I get why they do it, but for a guy that likes spontaneity, it is irritating.
At least they tried to make an otherwise predictable main event for the next pay per view interesting by giving viewers the choice to pick a celebrity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2013 19:59:25 GMT -5
They really do need to go, but we are in a generation with people that have a short attention span. It also helps casuals know what to expect instead of some vague name. There's a workaround for this. Give the PPV's a name that is used in all the advanced promotional material and whatnot and then if its going to have a gimmick match then affix it as a secondary title during the weeks leading up to the show. Like say its October next year and they decided a few weeks before that a fued warrants TLC they can title it as Battleground: Tables Ladders And Chairs but when the event was announced it was just announced as Battleground and the early commercials and posters just say Battleground the Commercials can then be amended to include: Tables Ladders And Chairs and it can be referred to as it during the show and on the DVD cover. And in Febuary: No Way Out: Elimination Chamber
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2013 1:07:29 GMT -5
As usual with most WWE ideas in this day and age, the themed PPV's were done as a short-term solution to increase buyrates. The first Hell in a Cell and TLC events did well because of the novelty, but buyrates have decreased year on year ever since to the point where HIAC barely does any better than the rest of the normal 'B' PPV's. Hell in a Cell last year got more buys than Survivor Series. Only shows that year that did better were the Big 3 and Extreme Rules (which featured Lesnar vs. Cena). Hell in a Cell 2012 (with 6 weeks of build) did 199,000 buys. Survivor Series 2012 (with 3 weeks of build) did 208,000 buys.
|
|
|
Post by Instant Classic on Oct 8, 2013 1:08:48 GMT -5
I remember when Austin made Triple H vs Kevin Nash hell in a Cell, the emotion behind the announcement. Then there's Maddox announcing Orton and bryan.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Oct 8, 2013 1:16:52 GMT -5
Hell in a Cell last year got more buys than Survivor Series. Only shows that year that did better were the Big 3 and Extreme Rules (which featured Lesnar vs. Cena). Hell in a Cell 2012 (with 6 weeks of build) did 199,00 buys. Survivor Series 2012 (with 3 weeks of build) did 208,000 buys. Huh, I thought I remembered the initial HIAC 2012 buyrate projections putting it at 228k, but I must have been mistaken. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Oct 8, 2013 1:21:25 GMT -5
I remember when Austin made Triple H vs Kevin Nash hell in a Cell, the emotion behind the announcement. Then there's Maddox announcing Orton and bryan. I think Maddox was trying to sell the fact that he was in the doghouse with HHH and Steph. Plus the general gist of his gimmick is that he's a subpar performer with stars in his eyes. I think someone described him as a "heel Zack Ryder".
|
|