Jump to content

Sensai of Mattitude

Members
  • Posts

    1,575
  • Joined

Posts posted by Sensai of Mattitude

  1. I'm not trying to defend them but with only four matches I expect some sort of surprise, if not then they it would be a big let down since I couldnt see both EC's going an hour (just waaay to long) but I've never ordered a WWE so my thoughts dont really matter anyway :p

     

    Yeah, I feel exactly the same. I won't be ordering either, but if there's genuinely just four matches then that would suck.

  2. I thought I read somewhere last week they were going to add a 5th but I guess not. Keep in mind the EC matches typically go half an hour or long so its the same amount of PPV time, just less matches.

     

    Only two of them are Elimination Chamber matches though, aren't they? So an hour or so on EC matches, and then around another two hours (likely a bit less) that need to be filled with two other matches. Surely more matches will be added to the card.

  3. I think in general its killing the spirit of what the PPV's should be, and instead of the shows having stories that drive to the PPVs, the PPV's are creating the stories for the shows to drive to now. Does that make sense? Anyway, its going to kill some of the interest in what match John Cena and Randy Orton are having this month, because now we know if its at Hell In A Cell well its probably a HIAC match.

     

    Not a fan, but I'm guessing a few guys at the top saw increases in buys for the few PPV's that have been gimmicked and this is the result.

     

    This was exactly my thought. It completely ruins the spontaneousness of gimmick matches; a Hell in a Cell match used to happen once a year, and before spoilers came along I never knew when they were going to happen. The epic excitement of the announcement alone was brilliant. By knowing when it's going to happen, it just ruins that aspect of it.

     

    Like you said, concept PPVs in moderation can work; I used to think that TNA's Lethal Lockdown (I think it was called that?) was a really good idea. But WWE have overdone it, both in quantity and the prestige (for the lack of a better word - the rarity?) of the matches being turned into concept PPVs.

  4. Back to that discussion about themed pay-per-views, they've announced some changes to the schedule: Extreme Rules moves to April to replace Backlash, Wild Card replaces Extreme Rules in May, and Fatal Four Way replaces The Bash. In July, they added Money In The Bank. MITB is obvious and I'm guessing Wild Card is the Roulette event they talked about, but Fatal Four Way...really? An entire event of four way matches? Wow, they're really desperate now.

     

    That's rather cringeworthy.

  5. I know I'm a page or so late, but is there an explanation as to why WWE are making every single event a specialised, concept event? I fail to see the point. I'd get a lot more excited if a Hell in a Cell match was spontaneously announced in the run-up to a Pay Per View, rather than knowing that I won't see one until a specific event.

     

    Also, while I know it was a concept event itself, stopping a prestigious event like Survivor Series seems stupid. I haven't seen it since 2007, I think, but I used to enjoy the five versus five matches (well, I enjoyed the ones when it was the result of good storylines banding together; not Raw superstars randomly attacking Smackdown superstars for a month, with the only reason being that Survivor Series was coming up).

×
×
  • Create New...