Themed PPVs, Good or Bad?

Australia
February 26, 2010 3:03pm CST
Okay so starting last year it looked like WWE was really getting into doing themed Pay-Per-Views such as TLC, Hell In A Cell, Elimination Chamber etc. I also heard that they are in talks of doing an entire Money In The Bank PPV. I really want to know what ever happened to the original PPVs like No Mercy, No Way Out, Vengaence, Unforgiven, Judgement Day etc. I really wish they would go back to using those instead of these gimmicks. What is your opinion? Do you like the themes or do you want the old ones back? Thoughts everyone? If you do like them? Why? Which is your favourite?
2 responses
@MrKennedy (1994)
2 Mar 10
I don't like the themed Pay-Per-Views at all With the themed PPVs, you are limited to certain match-types, whereas with the old PPVs, you could expect any type of match to be on the card. Also, I hate the names of the themed PPVs. They lack originality and don't feel as special, if you catch my drift. And having an ENTIRE PPV based on Money in the Bank is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Why not just keep it as WrestleMania's traditional event?
• Australia
23 Apr 10
I know what you mean. i only themed PPv I really ever liked is Survivor Series but I heard that they might not even have one this year which is totally bunk. I truly miss the old PPVs like judgement Day, No Mercy and Unforgiven. I mean now we are stuck with names like Elimination Chamber and Fatal Four Way. I mean come on WWE they can do better.
@megamatt (14327)
• United States
27 Feb 10
I think the themed Pay Per Views are just one major problem regarding Pay Per Views. However, it is a big problem. I think by having certain gimmick matches at certain points of the year on a themed Pay Per View is really restricting the possibilities for story telling. I mean, if there was a really great feud, the thrill that it could lead to Hell in a Cell at any time. And Big Boss Man/Undertaker aside, the Hell in a Cell normally was reserved for the really big feuds. Now there is going to be a certain level of Hell in a Cell matches in October, whether or not those matches deserve it or not. It really limits what WWE can do from a storyline perspective. The only Pay Per View out of the themed Pay Per Views I would keep is the Elimination Chamber. Shelve the rest of them and just have standard Pay Per Views. However, as I said, there is a very good reason that these themed Pay Per Views are put in place and they are going to get old pretty quickly but its an attempt to freshen up the stale product without looking at the issue of not doing the same old matches in the main event. The fact remains, you could have John Cena against Randy Orton in an Exploding Barbed Wire C4 Match inside a shark tank but it's still the same main event we've see, just with different gimmicks. I think WWE made a huge mistake in doing away with the single brand Pay Per Views. It allowed matches to seem fresher and not as played out. Now granted, they do not have the roster depth on both shows that they did a couple years ago to have the single brand Pay Per Views. Still it can still be done with 4-5 match Pay Per Views and those matches that do happen are longer. And with a cheaper price tag. In my ideal world, here is what the WWE Pay Per View schedule would be. January: Royal Rumble(both RAW and Smackdown) February: Badd Blood(RAW branded Pay Per View) March: No Way Out(Smackdown branded Pay Per View) April: Wrestlemania(both RAW and Smackdown) May: Backlash(RAW branded Pay Per View) June: Vengeance(Smackdown branded Pay Per View) July: Summerslam(Both RAW and Smackdown) August: Unforgiven(RAW Branded Pay Per View) September: No Mercy(Smackdown Branded Pay Per View) October: Survivor Series(Both RAW and Smackdown) November: Armageddon(RAW Branded Pay Per View) December: Judgment Day(Smackdown Branded Pay Per View) I really wanted to keep the Elimination Chamber in there somewhere, as that was the only themed Pay Per View I really liked, but I have a soft spot for Survivor Series and want to keep it around. I feel like this schedule would draw more interest with a single brand Pay Per View for RAW and Smackdown, and then a big super show after it. Moving Summerslam from August to July might be a bit of a shock but that was the only way I could think of to keep the schedule to fit. Still backed to the themed Pay Per Views, they are a good idea in theory, they are really going to get played. Elimination Chamber is good, the rest should be done away with. I do think that if WWE wanted a themed Pay Per View, they should really look towards one of the best ideas that ever came out of WCW. It will never happen in a million years, because Vince McMahon refuses to acknowledge that any good ever came out of his company, but Vince, if you want to really have a themed Pay Per View, I've got two words for you: "War Games." And done right too. Two rings, a double sized steel cage, two five men teams, two men start for five minutes, coin toss(won by the heel team obviously) determines who comes in, then a new man in every two minutes. Once everyone in is the only way to win by surrender or submission. NO PINFALLS! I mean you've got the guy who invented the match on your payroll. So anyway, themed Pay Per Views are not the way to go for me. Bring back the single brand Pay Per Views. Bring back Survivor Series and do War Games at it.