What exactly is the problem with gimmick-based Pay-Per-Views + BQ?

Question

People have been complaining about WWE's gimmick-based Pay-Per-View style but I tend to enjoy it. It adds another element to a match and raises the suspense. If Backlash still existed in 2012, we would've been subject to seeing Punk vs. Jericho and Sheamus vs. Bryan again though they both happened at Wrestlemania 28. Though I wouldn't have minded that, both matches at Extreme Rules were stellar and the gimmick along with it (Street Fight for Punk/Jericho and 2 out of 3 Falls Match for Sheamus/Bryan) added to that.

Pay-Per-Views like Unforgiven, No Mercy and Judgment Day didn't really interest me. They were just regular Pay-Per-Views.

What's your take?

BQ: What are some secret signals/things you see WWE employees do in the ring that nobody is supposed to notice (example: when referees act like they're checking on wrestlers but actually give them blades to cut their foreheads and bleed)?

Answer 1

As a fan personally, I don't mind them. I tend to really enjoy gimmick matches, I watch a lot of PPV's and just about every weekly show the WWE produces, so for me, they're great. But I am able to look at it objectively and see the rationale behind why people don't like them, and why they largely, beyond Elimination Chamber, haven't succeeded.



A big, big allure of gimmick matches is that they're out of the ordinary, you generally aren't expecting them. When they do come along, it's usually because a feud calls for it. A rivalry has become so big and so heated that it can't be solved or finished by a regular, everyday match. Hell in a Cell is the big one here for this. So when you take a match like that and now schedule it once per year (although HIAC at Wrestlemania clearly proved the WWE is willing to be flexible on that front when they need to be), a big part of the magic is gone. The WWE really, REALLY hurt the prestige of HIAC over the last few years because they took standard, everyday feuds that had no need for a HIAC climax at all and had them have it. That weakens the match.



Money in the Bank and Elimination Chamber are different because they've always been their own PPV-exclusive thing. Money in the Bank was established a Wrestlemania exclusive event (which is how I thought it should have stayed), and as such it wasn't a big leap for it to expand into its own PPV. Elimination Chamber is similar. Plus, both match types have six-plus guys in them.



BQ: When a wrestler takes a huge bump and the referee rushes to their side and makes no show about checking to see if they're alright. They cup the ear and get in tight. A lot of times when they're are holds on the mat, it's used both to give the wrestlers a break and to communicate the next sequence of moves.

Answer 2

Welp



The only problem is is it devalues the meaning of the matches taking place. Take Hell in a Cell for example. Those matches are supposed to end feuds. They're meant to be rare matches that only take place every couple of years. The feud is supposed to be so long, even, an exhausting that it's finally come to this: Hell in a Cell. That's not the case anymore. HHH vs Undertaker is a PERFECT example of how Hell in a Cell is SUPPOSED to be used. We've seen so many god-awful HIAC matches that they've become just another match. These matches were supposed to be feared because they shortened careers. Now, they're just another match everyone seems to take part of. That's lame. You want there to be hype and incredible anticipation for a HIAC match. Having one and even sometimes two take place every year totally diminishes that.



The same theory applies for TLC matches too. You want that type of match to be special. I personally prefer it when the challenger or champion specifically gets to choose a TLC match because they earned that right. Take Cena vs Edge at Unforgiven 2006 for example. Or Cm Punk vs Jeff Hardy at Summerslam. It's become just another match now.



Money in the Bank as well. Having 2 winners is just eh. I liked it better when one guy won MITB at WM, that way BOTH champions had to be on watch at all times. It made things less predictable. I don't mind the MITB PPV, but it was cool to see someone win it at WM, the grandest stage of em all. That match was always one of the best on the card too.



I'm all for an Extreme Rules PPV though. They've had that for quite awhile now.



Hope this helped!

Answer 3

When you have a gimmick P.P.V (in any promotion), with a series of matches (usually based on a no DQ format), it is hard to follow each match. Each match has to out do the one that came before it, giving the audience something that they haven't seen yet, so as that they don't become bored and lose their interest. By the time the main event has started, so much has happened and the wrestlers have to do something not yet seen. So they usually fall back on cheap stunts and shock value, just to keep interest.



The problem with WWE gimmick P.P.V. events, is that they are based on a Hardcore format, yet WWE is PG and has no blood, weapon shots to the head etc. There can not be a series of compelling hardcore style matches, where so much is banned.

Answer 4

People do not enjoy those gimmick ppvs, have you seen the attendance and buyrates? The PPV schedule was just fine, they should have left it alone. The only reason these gimmick ppvs were made was so that every match could be that gimmick match but now thats not the point so why even have them?



and speaking of regular ppvs, like i said, these gimmick pay per views are just regular ppvs now. Just change the names back to the way they were.



BQ: Sometimes I see the referee talks to the wrestler when they are trying to break them apart, like giving him instructions

Answer 5

Royal Rumble is the GREATEST PPV that WWE has.....I think it is better than Wrestlemania. But yeah Money in the Back is not needed.....considering that the people who are in charge have no idea what to do with the winners. And don't get me started on the overabundance of #1 contender gimmick PPVs.....there are too many. And Elimination Chamber is a nice PPV but it should not be so stuck between Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania.....it would be better off in the Fall and not in the Spring season if you will.

Answer 6

Extreme Rules and TLC are great but Hell in a Cell is what's wrong.Why can't all of the matches be Hell in a Cell matches like TNA's Lockdown PPV?It's called Hell in a Cell right?Don't make it a ppv if you don't want to ruin the excitement of the match.



I agree PPVS like Backlash,Unforgiven,No Mercy,Judgement Day all went down hill after 2003.

Answer 7

What's the point of like having,,,

NO DQ

Hardcore style matches when no weapons are being used.



What's the point of having steel cages or hell in the cell matches when wrestlers are not being thrown into the cage.



What's the point of having elimination chamber matches when no wrestlers are being thrown into the chamber.



Pretty much every type of match turns into BS due to poor writing expect for TNA.

Answer 8

it loses excitment, before this, we usually have it unexpected and it also lives to its hype, not anymore. i do enjoy gimmick ppvs, infact i don't know why but championship scramble was awesome, i absolutely enjoyed it but wwe decide not to use it.



i do enjoy elimination chamber and money in the bank, i can watch over and over again but hell in a cell especially in the pg era loses its reputation. maybe wwe should just get rid of hell in a cell matches since it's not hell and it's pg.



gimmick ppvs are enjoyable but certain ones like hell in a cell, fatal 4 way(although it's gone) and tlc doesn't appeal to me



BQ: i hear wrestlers whisper to each other, usually wrestlers suppose to keep it on the low with the help of camera angles.