PDA

View Full Version : Do you like the way they're doing these GIMMICK PPV's?

The Naitch
10-28-2010, 05:58 PM
Didn't pay attention to most of 2009 btw

I'm flipping through thew chronological order of all these new PPV's on wiki and ie. I'm noticing that No Way Out is now the ELIMINATION CHAMBER PPV,

Breaking Point replaced Unforgiven

Hell In A Cell replaced No Mercy

Do you think it's better knowing these gimmicks are coming up (next) because you know the next PPV is a gimmick PPV or was it better when there was no gimmick PPV's so when a GM announced the match as an (ie. Hell In A Cell) match, there was more surprise to it?
Supreme Olajuwon
10-28-2010, 06:00 PM
Sometimes.
Xero
10-28-2010, 06:04 PM
We've had a thread discuss this like yesterday, and two or three weeks ago.
The Naitch
10-28-2010, 06:31 PM
discuss
Xero
10-28-2010, 06:38 PM
No.
Jeritron
10-28-2010, 06:46 PM
I like Elimination Chamber and Money In The Bank.

I don't like Hell in a Cell or Breaking Point.

I'm not sure how I feel about TLC.
The Naitch
10-28-2010, 06:48 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/brVVsAOUyKc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/brVVsAOUyKc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
DLVH84
10-28-2010, 07:35 PM
No. I think WWE is jumping the shark with multiple gimmick PPVs.
Fignuts
10-28-2010, 07:57 PM
Breaking Point and Elimination Chamber are fine. MITB and Hell in the Cell can fuck right off.

MITB should be a wrestlemania thing imo, and Hell in a Cell should be reserved to end the most heated of feuds. It has lost it's luster thanks to these PPV's
Xero
10-28-2010, 07:59 PM
Breaking Point is bad because no one really has any submissions, and after the PPV the majority stopped using them. It was a terrible concept for the WWE.
dronepool
10-28-2010, 08:00 PM
I don't buy PPV's but no, I can't say that I like the onslaught on gimmick PPV's.
Joey Slugs
10-28-2010, 08:14 PM
Wish they would drop the gimmicks and bring back the old "In Your House" PPVs
Perry Saturn
10-28-2010, 08:18 PM
I don't buy PPV's but no, I can't say that I like the onslaught on gimmick PPV's.
Fignuts
10-28-2010, 08:25 PM
Breaking Point is bad because no one really has any submissions, and after the PPV the majority stopped using them. It was a terrible concept for the WWE.

Yeah, good point. I enjoyed it as a one off.
Schlomey
10-28-2010, 08:39 PM
I liked Breaking Point except some of the finishes.
RiX1024
10-29-2010, 12:35 PM
I agree with bringing back In Your House, I agree with scrapping HIAC and MITB as PPV because MITB is a once-a-year thing and HIAC is more of a blow off match for a feud. Elimination Chamber is decent, Breaking Point is good, Extreme Rules is not that Extreme anymore. We need a Wargames PPV and King of the Ring back full-time.
RiX1024
10-29-2010, 12:38 PM
a Brawl for All PPV would be good (WWE goes MMA).
Kane Knight
10-30-2010, 08:23 AM
I think things like HIAC have more of an effect when they're a grudge match. When the champion is going into "Hell in a Cell," it has less impact than when one guy "spontaneously" challenges another to it or the GM/CEO/Santa Claus says those magic words.

Building a PPV around an event can work: I mean, the Rumble has been one of my fave PPVs for years, but it's not the sort of thing one challenges someone to. Similarly, MitB. I'd prefer MitB be a Mania thing, but as far as basing a PPV around it, it works. A basic ladder match? Cage match? A little more ambiguous. I think they still work better as "spontaneous" challenges.
XL
10-30-2010, 09:38 AM
I hate them. Full stop.

Elimination Chamber should pop up once in a while when there are 5 legitimate contenders foreither title. Two on one show (between Rumble and Mania no less) is overkill. Same goes for Fatal Fourway, a match concept that should only come into play when the story demands it.

Likewise for a the Cell/TLC, only use them to end a fired that need a big payoff match.

MitB as a PPV means that we have 3 briefcases floating around throughout the course of the year. This will kill the gimmick.

Rumble is the exception to the gimmick PPV rule as it's an institution in its own right.

I think this system does make things easy for WWE through. The 2/3/4 weeks between PPVs can be filled with qualification matches for ECs, MitBs, Fatal Fourways, etc. Pretty boring for the fans though.
Calamondin
10-30-2010, 10:13 AM
Other than MITB/HIAC, I don't like them. Seems really lazy, but I can understand why they'd do it when you have 3 weeks between PPV's. Money in the Bank/Elimination chamber matches aren't feud enders, so they deserve their own PPV.

I like the Elimination Chamber. It makes things a little less predictable as far as Wrestlemania goes. I know last year it was obvious that Shawn Michaels was going to cost Undertaker the title, but they *could* have went with a CM Punk/Mysterio win over Jericho. Though honestly, I'd rather it wasn't two EC matches in one night.

I think the Money in the Bank is a perfect PPV. But they need stop doing it twice a year. Either do it at 'Mania or center a PPV around it. Once again, I don't think there should be two matches for each show.