The build up to the Royal Rumble often causes a lot of
excited chatter and discussion between fans about who WWE are planning to strap
a jetpack to for the main event of Wrestlemania. For the past two years it’s
been disappointing to see them waste the achievement on already established
stars such as John Cena and Batista but despite any missteps I’ve often enjoyed
the Royal Rumble matches and the whole event surrounding it. Preceding the
Royal Rumble is another gimmick PPV titled Tables, Ladders and Chairs and ever
since its inception I’ve been against the whole concept. This isn’t the only
event on the WWE calendar that makes me cringe as every October I get to
witness the writers take another dump on the concept of the Hell in a Cell
match. While it’s easy for me to simply say that gimmick PPVs are crap, there’s
obviously a way to pull them off successfully. As I’ve said before, the Royal
Rumble PPV is often entertaining to watch and the recent main event of Survivor
Series was thoroughly enjoyable. WWE’s eagerness to push gimmick PPVs came
about a few years back around when they decided to go PG. In 2009 we were
introduced to events surrounded around submission matches (Breaking Point),
Hell in a Cell matches and the first TLC pay per view. Sadly, this was the year
when a lot of the presence surrounding the latter two gimmick matches was
thrown out the window.
At Hell in a Cell 2009 we saw THREE matches inside the cell.
At that point, we were used to only seeing the bone chilling structure on a
once per year basis but there was nothing wrong with that. The matches that
took place inside the cell were CM Punk vs the Undertaker, John Cena vs Randy
Orton and Legacy vs the aging D-Generation X. All three of those feuds weren’t
exactly the most visceral rivalries of that year, nor were they particularly
captivating. Prior to that year, we saw Edge vs Undertaker duke it out in the
cell which saw the conclusion of a story that lasted over a year. The reason
why the Hell in the Cell was so effective in its first 12 years was because it
made sense in storyline. The very first Hell in a Cell between Shawn Michaels
and Undertaker took place because it provided a scenario in which Shawn could
not rely on his cronies or find a way to escape; this provided ample situation for
Taker to beat the holy shit out of HBK for as long as he pleased. Other famous
Hell in a Cell matches include Mick Foley vs Triple H, Randy Orton vs
Undertaker, Shawn Michaels vs Triple H and Brock Lesnar vs Undertaker.
While I could go on to analyse all of them, it’s easier to
explain the real reason why the gimmick was more suitable than the formula that
WWE utilizes now. Those feuds that I just mentioned had reached a boiling point
where it had become so heated and intense that the Hell in a Cell was used as
the nuclear option in order to end the whole and leave only one wrestler
standing. In short, Hell in a Cell was basically the feud killer. CM Punk vs
Undertaker and Legacy vs DX did not even scrape the magnitude of animosity or
insanity in order to require such a dangerous structure to accommodate their
battles. While John Cena vs Randy Orton might have shared quite a bit of bad
blood between them, we certainly know that they would go on to wrestler each
other again...and again….and again….
Ever since 2009, there haven’t really been many classic Hell in a Cell matches except for Triple H vs The Undertaker. The magic in setting that match up was because it was supposed to be the final battle between the two and since they were both notorious for their antics inside the cell in the past, it made sense for them to fight it out in their preferred setting to see who was the best. Ryback vs CM Punk in 2012 kind of made sense but there was no heat between the two and felt more like a diluted cage match (Which is another gimmick match that’s been overused by TNA). When the Hell in a Cell was announced it was often expected to be the grand finale but now it’s just another match.
The original TLC match was not created out of a yearly schedule, it was a combination of the anarchy raised by the three most prolific tag teams at the time – The Hardy Boys, Edge & Christian and the Dudley Boys. Each team’s weapon of choice was tossed into the battleground and we all watched them kill each other because we’re sadistic assholes. The repetition of TLC became kind of concerning when WWE threw it together on Smackdown without any build up because Triple H got injured for the planned main event that night and they had to come up with something quick. This was the third TLC match in the past 12 months and it was getting kind of redundant at this point; the whole match reeked of its concept and name value being accepted on its own without any sufficient back story. After the fourth edition in 2002, TLC went away for a few years until 2006. Two of these matches took place and Edge appeared in both of them.
Ever since 2009, there haven’t really been many classic Hell in a Cell matches except for Triple H vs The Undertaker. The magic in setting that match up was because it was supposed to be the final battle between the two and since they were both notorious for their antics inside the cell in the past, it made sense for them to fight it out in their preferred setting to see who was the best. Ryback vs CM Punk in 2012 kind of made sense but there was no heat between the two and felt more like a diluted cage match (Which is another gimmick match that’s been overused by TNA). When the Hell in a Cell was announced it was often expected to be the grand finale but now it’s just another match.
The original TLC match was not created out of a yearly schedule, it was a combination of the anarchy raised by the three most prolific tag teams at the time – The Hardy Boys, Edge & Christian and the Dudley Boys. Each team’s weapon of choice was tossed into the battleground and we all watched them kill each other because we’re sadistic assholes. The repetition of TLC became kind of concerning when WWE threw it together on Smackdown without any build up because Triple H got injured for the planned main event that night and they had to come up with something quick. This was the third TLC match in the past 12 months and it was getting kind of redundant at this point; the whole match reeked of its concept and name value being accepted on its own without any sufficient back story. After the fourth edition in 2002, TLC went away for a few years until 2006. Two of these matches took place and Edge appeared in both of them.
 |
| Hell in a Cell made sense for these two but are we likely to see more from them in the future? |
The second one could be considered the best instalment and
how it came about was excellent. Edge would only let John Cena have a WWE
championship match if he could choose the match stipulation. Choosing the TLC
match was a great idea because it was Edge’s familiar territory; this strategy
was also chosen when Edge was feuding with the Undertaker. Like the Hell in a
Cell matches, the TLC concept was used because it made sense for the characters.
The spots can be great and everything but the backstory matters too and using
these stipulations just because the poster says so is so token and predictable.
There’s no more shocking announcements anymore when we know that two guys are
going to kill each other in the wackiest setting.
Now that we have TLC in December, we know that whatever is the big feud going into December will most likely feature the eponymous stipulation. It ruins the surprise of announcing it and if you decide to carry on the feud afterwards (Like John Cena vs Randy Orton last year) then you sort of ruin the matches’ climax. John Cena and Randy Orton wrestled each other in a standard match in the following year at the Royal Rumble after their earlier TLC match and it was kind of hilarious how they tried to sell it as an exceptional situation by titling it as a “One fall match”. It’s just like….every other match! If a shit load of weapons or a demonic structure isn’t going to end it all then is there really any point? The only way that Edge vs Undertaker could top itself after the TLC match in 2008 was ending it all with Hell in a Cell.
Selling TLC on a PPV is one thing but it’s also insane how they litter the card with other similar match types: Tables matches, ladder matches and the laughably conceived “Chairs Match”. These particular matches don’t really need the most deep or profound build up or settings but it’s the notion that WWE just throws the feuds into these situations and expecting it to work. It might do occasionally but the token nature of it ruins the speciality of the settings and just doesn’t make sense in the long run.
What makes a good gimmick PPV then? With match types like the Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, Survivor Series etc. the common theme is the number of competitors. It can be kind of hard to come up with a storyline containing 30 guys to settle it with a Royal Rumble. It’s also hard to come up with a story for why an Elimination Chamber should be introduced other than “Hey, the Elimination Chamber is cool, right?” That strategy of promotion doesn’t bother me at all. Both of these PPVs are handy to switch around the title picture to set up the Wrestlemania main event too, so if you want a guy to go into ‘Mania as the champ, just have them win the Chamber. Money in the Bank is another acceptable PPV because it doesn’t really need much of a story behind it. So it appears that WWE have blown their load in terms of match promotion and booking in recent years. There may be suitably written TLC and Hell in a Cell matches in the future but I feel like the point has become kind of lost now. The funny thing is, if WWE are so eager on these gimmick shows then where the hell is my King of the Ring tournament? Probably because that’d require long term planning and actual build up so I suppose they prefer the old “throwing darts” approach; why else would they turn Big Show heel for the 342nd time?
Now that we have TLC in December, we know that whatever is the big feud going into December will most likely feature the eponymous stipulation. It ruins the surprise of announcing it and if you decide to carry on the feud afterwards (Like John Cena vs Randy Orton last year) then you sort of ruin the matches’ climax. John Cena and Randy Orton wrestled each other in a standard match in the following year at the Royal Rumble after their earlier TLC match and it was kind of hilarious how they tried to sell it as an exceptional situation by titling it as a “One fall match”. It’s just like….every other match! If a shit load of weapons or a demonic structure isn’t going to end it all then is there really any point? The only way that Edge vs Undertaker could top itself after the TLC match in 2008 was ending it all with Hell in a Cell.
Selling TLC on a PPV is one thing but it’s also insane how they litter the card with other similar match types: Tables matches, ladder matches and the laughably conceived “Chairs Match”. These particular matches don’t really need the most deep or profound build up or settings but it’s the notion that WWE just throws the feuds into these situations and expecting it to work. It might do occasionally but the token nature of it ruins the speciality of the settings and just doesn’t make sense in the long run.
What makes a good gimmick PPV then? With match types like the Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, Survivor Series etc. the common theme is the number of competitors. It can be kind of hard to come up with a storyline containing 30 guys to settle it with a Royal Rumble. It’s also hard to come up with a story for why an Elimination Chamber should be introduced other than “Hey, the Elimination Chamber is cool, right?” That strategy of promotion doesn’t bother me at all. Both of these PPVs are handy to switch around the title picture to set up the Wrestlemania main event too, so if you want a guy to go into ‘Mania as the champ, just have them win the Chamber. Money in the Bank is another acceptable PPV because it doesn’t really need much of a story behind it. So it appears that WWE have blown their load in terms of match promotion and booking in recent years. There may be suitably written TLC and Hell in a Cell matches in the future but I feel like the point has become kind of lost now. The funny thing is, if WWE are so eager on these gimmick shows then where the hell is my King of the Ring tournament? Probably because that’d require long term planning and actual build up so I suppose they prefer the old “throwing darts” approach; why else would they turn Big Show heel for the 342nd time?
No comments:
Post a Comment