Gimmick Shows

[Grimmas]

I am completely conflicted on these right now.

 

On one hand I loved the Survivor Series and Lethal Lottery at the time. On the other hand, I hate Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, TLC, Money in the Bank and Extreme Rules.

 

I think the Rumble gets a free pass, because it is a once a year match to determine the main event of the biggest show of the year. While, the others are frustrating.

 

TLC, Hell in a Cell & Extreme Rules are the laziest of bookings. These type of matches can be cool, when a feud calls for them. Knowing that it is October so it is time for the blow off to the biggest feud i the company, always feels forced. It is never the right time for these type of gimmick matches.

 

Elimination Chamber & Money in the Bank are at least acceptable in the way that they are there to build up something for the future. The Chamber I might be cool with if it gives the #1 Contender for SummerSlam or something, but it's bullshit for the champion to defend the title in that type of match. MITB's gimmick is beyound stale and useless. It's just an excuse to not properly build someone up for the title and usually leads to depushing a guy in the future.

 

Where do you guys stand?

[Steenalized]

I'm with you. The Rumble is fine, but it's sorta grandfathered in. I would prefer Survivor Series have at least one Survivor Series type match, though I don't think it's necessary to have the whole show that way. MITB, EC, and HIAC can happen from time to time, but yearly, pre-planned shows is not how they should be done. The former two should be saved for when there is a legitimate reason for a bunch of contenders to want to lay claim to the title or contendership beyond, "hey, I'm a little above midcard level." HIAC can be a show if it's the main featured match, but I shouldn't know that when November rolls around, it's HIAC time. Make it mean something where one feud has risen to such a level that these two guys need to be locked into a cell. Having multiple matches of that on one show devalues it, so does having it preordained that this is the HIAC show. The gimmick matches are fine by me, even MITB, but having them as calendar staples is crap. The Rumble is the exception, though even there I'd be fine if they changed the reward from guaranteed title shot at Mania to something else.

[WingedEagle]

I enjoyed Survivor Series & Lethal Lottery set-ups as a kid, but never found them remotely interesting as I got older or on a rewatch. They feel like an easy out when you don't want to be creative.

 

Rumble is a great gimmick that hasn't been overdone but as the last couple years show, YMMY depending upon the booking. Its almost always a fun match and due to the suspense one of the best live watches every year.

 

I thought MITB was a spectacular gimmick and concept at first, as it added another element to weekly TV that was previously missing. The matches aren't what they once were because we've seen it all at this point, but with the right booking (see a few days ago) its clearly still a worthwhile storyline piece.

 

HIAC crashed and burned with the the elimination of blood and its installment as a calendar event. No real place for that or cage matches in the PG era. Which is fine, but the way they're promoted given those guidelines almost guarantees a letdown.

[Steenalized]

One of the biggest drawbacks of the HIAC gimmick is that is really killed the need for a cage match. Especially since the WWE uses escape the cage rules, which already sucks.

[KrisZ]

Chamber, HIAC, TLC should be reserved for feuds that need them as blowoff matches not entire PPV's

[stomperspc]

WWE backs themselves into a corner with the TLC and HIAC shows. Those gimmicks should be used when a feud naturally builds up to them and not pigeonholed into a certain month. There are times a feud could use a HIAC blow off but it doesn’t get one because the timing doesn’t fit in within the HIAC show. Same could probably be said for Extreme Rules and Elimination Chamber.

 

Survivor Series would have value in its original form and is the kind of gimmick show they should be doing with the network now. There is not the same pressure there once was to have big singles or title matches every show. A break from the normal format every November would feel fresh. Survivor Series doesn’t have the same issues that TLC and HIAC do because the gimmick is relatively mundane. If an even in February, July, or September calls for a 10-man tag, I am not sure it hurts the specialness of Survivor Series the way running a HIAC match in August would hurt the HIAC show. The matches are also relatively easy to set up if they did 5 matches on a card, they could get 50+ wrestlers on the show which would also be something different from the norm. They could get creative and do an NXT match, a woman’s match, a tag teams match, ect. They certainly have the roster to pull it off now.

 

I think gimmick shows are fine if there are 2-3 a year tops and the gimmick isn’t a match designed to blow off a feud. MITB over the summer, Survivor Series in the fall, and Royal Rumble in the winter would be a good schedule.

[pantherwagner]

I enjoyed Survivor Series & Lethal Lottery set-ups as a kid, but never found them remotely interesting as I got older or on a rewatch. They feel like an easy out when you don't want to be creative.

 

Same here. I think that when you are a kid you love the concept of the superteams (SS) and the random pairings that you'd otherwise never see (Battlebowl). When you are older you realise that with the SS they book themselves into a corner and have to come up with tons of screwy eliminations or uneven teams... otherwise tons of stars in the promotion need to lose a match that they shouldn't be losing.

 

The Lethal Lottery concept died for me at Slamboree 1996 - I was 16 and I had known what was up for a while, but the teams were far too "convenient". Lazy booking and not compelling at all.

[Bierschwale]

I think that the Elimination Chamber has to have a bespoke show. How often at the same time are there really six guys on the same level who would either fight for the title or #1 contendership?

 

I also think that someone "unexpected" making it into the EC match would make for a big deal, and end up as clear evidence that they're being pushed. That actually did happen last year with Cesaro. It ended poorly months later, but him making it into EC and then being in the round-robin series in the run-up was a legitimate push.

[dawho5]

I would agree with the overarching idea in this thread that these things can all be good if they are done at the right time. But with everything set up for this PPV happens this month, you're not getting that. An example of a great use for Survivor Series would have been Shield/Wyatts after Elimination Chamber 2014. Why not have a 3 on 3 SS type match to settle things on a big PPV? My overall feeling on WWE's booking is that they avoid giving too much to midcard guys whenever possible, so I imagine this was actually pitched and rejected as it might make one and/or both of the teams too big. Maybe that's a part of it. Shoehorning these matches into feuds or certain times of the year ends up killing off any long term good effects they might have on guys getting over that the WWE doesn't care to have over. I think a lot of the time we look at wrestling differently than the McMahons do. We think that to make money you need to put on great feuds with great matches in the right spots. They think that making money is all about getting the fans to buy into them and their guys by whatever means necessary. And so we dissect all their decisions with the logic you would apply to something like the Monday Night Wars or the territory days, where you had to put on a good wrestling show to survive. But that's not the game anymore. The game is changing fan expectations to the point that you can put what you want (if you are a McMahon) and keep the majority of the fanbase despite not giving them what they really want in your main events.