Do you think the WWE needs to replace all the PPV shows named after gimmick matches?

[Aztecwarrior480]

Replacing them with old PPV shows like Judgement Day, Unforgiven, Bad Blood, etc. Replacing PPV shows like Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, TLC, etc.

I'm honestly kinda tired of WWE overusing these specialty matches as yearly PPV events, thus devaluing these type of matches and forcing dull, pointless matches for them. On top of that, a lot of the Hell In A Cell matches from the past several years are very watered down in intensity(Less violence and less wrestling moves executed) compared to the ones from the Attitude Era and Ruthless Aggression Era. I missed the days when they saved special matches like Hell In a Cell for heated wrestling feuds instead of yearly forced PPV event matches. I also missed the level of intensity that these type of matches used to have like The Undertaker vs Mankind(Hell In A Cell, King of the Ring), The Undertaker vs Brock Lesnar(Hell In a Cell, No Mercy), and The Hardy Boyz vs, Edge & Christian vs The Dudley Boyz(TLC, Summerslam).

What do you guys think?

 

[Solid Snake]

I like having the staple ones... WM, RR, SS... Aside from those three, I would not mind them changing things up every once in a while. Try out some new things. You don't NEED to keep the same PPV's every single year.

 

[Aztecwarrior480]

I like having the staple ones... WM, RR, SS... Aside from those three, I would not mind them changing things up every once in a while. Try out some new things. You don't NEED to keep the same PPV's every single year.

Oh, there's definitely nothing wrong with Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble. Those PPV shows have always been the same traditional WWE PPV events(since the 80s) that should always be left as is. It's only the PPV events named after gimmick matches like Hell in a Cell or TLC that I think needs to be replaced.

 

[Solid Snake]

Oh, there's definitely nothing wrong with Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble. Those PPV shows have always been the same traditional WWE PPV events(since the 80s) that should always be left as is. It's only the PPV events named after gimmick matches like Hell in a Cell or TLC that I think needs to be replaced.

Fair enough. I mean what would you put in place of HiaC and TLC (or the others mentioned)?

I mean like if they did decide to make a brand new PPV I am all for that but I wouldn't trust Raw's creative to pull that off lol

 

[Aztecwarrior480]

Fair enough. I mean what would you put in place of HiaC and TLC (or the others mentioned)?

I mean like if they did decide to make a brand new PPV I am all for that but I wouldn't trust Raw's creative to pull that off lol

Maybe bring back the Great American Bash, New Years Revolution and No Way Out and replace all the gimmick PPVs with them. I don't mind gimmick matches like Hell In a Cell, Elimination Chamber and TLC. I just don't like them being forced into in actual match just for the sake of the name of a PPV.

For instance, I honestly dislike how Sasha Banks vs Charlotte Hell In a Cell match was so obviously forced because of not only for the name sake of the PPV show they wrestled in but because they tried to make a first ever women's Hell In a Cell match happen in a WWE(which I don't mind that), only for bookers and script writers to screw it up. Another example of a poorly forced gimmick match(for the name sake of a PPV event) I disliked was the whole Money In the Bank 2013 event(especially with Damien Sandow's victory). I liked gimmick matches better when they were meant to be surprises and conclusions for intense rivalries. I liked Money In the Bank matches better when they were exclusively only for Wrestlemania events.

 

[Solid Snake]

Maybe bring back the Great American Bash, New Years Revolution and No Way Out and replace all the gimmick PPVs with them. I don't mind gimmick matches like Hell In a Cell, Elimination Chamber and TLC. I just don't like them being forced into in actual match just for the sake of the name of a PPV.

For instance, I honestly dislike how Sasha Banks vs Charlotte Hell In a Cell match was so obviously forced because of not only for the name sake of the PPV show they wrestled in but because they tried to make a first ever women's Hell In a Cell match happen in a WWE(which I don't mind that), only for bookers and script writers to screw it up. Another example of a poorly forced gimmick match(for the name sake of a PPV event) I disliked was the whole Money In the Bank 2013 event(especially with Damien Sandow's victory). I liked gimmick matches better when they were meant to be surprises and conclusions for intense rivalries. I liked Money In the Bank matches better when they were exclusively only for Wrestlemania events.

Ya know I have to agree with that. When it builds and helps to finish a story, then it means so much more. But when you have it just there to be done, it doesn't mean as much. Char vs Sasha (the cage match) would have meant more had they done it at another PPV. Certainly would not have seen it coming either.

 

[Aztecwarrior480]

Ya know I have to agree with that. When it builds and helps to finish a story, then it means so much more. But when you have it just there to be done, it doesn't mean as much. Char vs Sasha (the cage match) would have meant more had they done it at another PPV. Certainly would not have seen it coming either.

Yeah, not only that. Char vs Sasha's Hell In a Cell match looked like it had a lot of potential to be great but instead, it looked like they were forced by the creatives to water their violence down just to be family-friendly and because it's a womens wrestling match(since for some reason, creatives hate to see women wrestlers in more realistic violence and would rather over-sexualize them than let them do a few "manly" things like blading or executing wrestling slams that felt very impactful and powerful). Poor built-up for the match is another thing that killed it for me(I've felt no intensity from Sasha and Charlotte during their built-up segments).

 

[Solid Snake]

Yeah, not only that. Char vs Sasha's Hell In a Cell match looked like it had a lot of potential to be great but instead, it looked like they were forced by the creatives to water their violence down just to be family-friendly and because it's a womens wrestling match(since for some reason, creatives hate to see women wrestlers in more realistic violence and would rather over-sexualize them than let them do a few "manly" things like blading or executing wrestling slams that felt very impactful and powerful). Poor built-up for the match is another thing that killed it for me(I've felt no intensity from Sasha and Charlotte during their built-up segments).

Well hopefully they learn from this and when they do more matches for women, they do it in a better way. I mean it was great they finally got a cage match but it could have meant so much more. I can bet the next cage match the women have stands out a lot more and is done better... Or at least I would hope so.

 

[edge4ever]

I agree that only the bigger PPV's should stay the same. Then you could have elimination chamber, HIAC, MITB, TLC, Falls count anywhere, Exteeme rules, street fight, last man standing, etc.

 

[Mr. Roman Empire]

Money in the Bank should stay the same. It's kind of like Royal Rumble, where it only happens once a year.

TLC, Hell in a Cell, and Elimination Chamber shouldn't be PPVs. Those matches should happen when the storyline falls into place for a big match like that to make it feel like something special

 

[edge4ever]

Money in the Bank should stay the same. It's kind of like Royal Rumble, where it only happens once a year.

TLC, Hell in a Cell, and Elimination Chamber shouldn't be PPVs. Those matches should happen when the storyline falls into place for a big match like that to make it feel like something special

I actually change my opinion. I agree with this. Let these matches happen when it feels needed or the storyline fits. Then again, having these types of PPV does help with their sales and stuff in sure and organizing. That way they what's happening when.

 

[Snowman1]

Unpopular opinion: I honestly don't think they NEED to. I like the variety in PPV's, even if it is forced.
MITB and RR are staples that definitely need to stay.

Very unpopular opinion: You can't end a feud inside an Elimination Chamber. (Argued that with so many people lol)

 

[Crithu]

You have the obvious Royal Rumble and Survivor Series PPVs that need to stay. I would say that TLC, Hell in a Cell, and Extreme Rules need to go. However, I do like MITB and Elimination Chamber (Although EC does not need to happen every year).

 

[Gman003]

I'm 100% with you @Aztecwarrior480 !

I can't stand the forced gimmick ppvs and miss the days of the spontaneous.

But I do agree with keeping the big 4 intact. And mitb. Or have that at summerslam every year maybe?

 

[Rosie]

Other than keeping the obvious big 4 ones and perhaps MITB, I say remove the rest and do Monthly PPVs with each show alternating what PPV they have.

Spoiler

Or MITB at Wrestlemania again?