As someone whose initial bloodening into this form of entertainment took place around the time of the brand split, i've grown to have a tremedious respect for the relevence of the gimmick match (except when falls count anywhere, street fight and no holds barred mean the same thing lol). Matches such as Hell In a Cell, The Elimination Chamber, Last Man Standing, Ironman Match, etc... all have their lil prestigious places and deep histories in the way i see wrestling - so this brings me to two queries about today's product, assuming there are others who think like myself on this matter.
1) Why do the WWE catagorise entire PPVs these days around these gimmick matches?
Part of the relevence for gimmick matches is their usage as pivetal storyline hooks aswell as giving individual characters experience and depth, and even changing their idealogy, e.g. HHH/HBK near 2 year grudge ending inside HIAC, announcing Elimination Chamber when 6 genuine contenders are gunning for the title, Orton winning the title at NM07, conquering his HHH sized demon in which i'll never forget was a Last Man Standing Match, etc...... for a period in time, WWE put tremedious emphasis on the importance of match types in their plans. Forming entire PPVs around a gimmick match is impersonal and totally strips them of their powers to aid a narrative. And as a by-product, devalues the credability of the Royal Rumble PPV which used to be the one exception (notice the Rumble PPVs have all been sub-standard since WWE changed the structure of their PPVs). This goes for events like Night of Champions aswell, why do the WWE feel the need to lebel all their PPV events suddenly???
2) Why do the WWE not acknowledge certain gimmick matches grew up in certain areas, and therefore don't work in others?
Yes, this is a direct response to the Punk vs Ryback match , though i have thought it for some time. The HIAC match, in my mind anyway, is where a character goes to adapt, grow or mentally die. And where a dispute gets settled. With the exception of the HHH vs Taker match at Mania (which was only made prestigious because of both having history in HIAC), how many HIAC matches could've just been regular no DQ matches, or even just regular matches in the last 5/6 years? How many left an sort of impression? In how many was the cell itself an obstruction rather than giving the illusion of a razor sharp prison?
The combination of impersonal PPV events and an age rating which disconnects the suspension of disbelief that the cell is actually a weapon on it's own has effectively retired the HIAC match...... so why do we still get it? Same with Last Man Standing, in today's climate you can't convincingly sell a beating badly enough to warrant the existence of it as a concept, so why is it still floating around?
Any other viewpoints on this?
Agree? Disagree?
HIAC, and gimmick matches in general
posted on 30/10/12
the problem i had with HIAC was there was no cell match apart from one at the end witch went on for .... 9 mims, thats to short even today in PG wwe there was no hell and no cell !!!!!.wwe has backed it self into a corner were it can't do much with the gimmicks becoz they no longer a have head shorts with chairs or long breaks in between ppv so story are really short.they don't give time for fans or wrestlers to get into the story/gimmicks.
posted on 30/10/12
Simply put I thinks it's due to poor writing and a dying brand!
Two men have a major issue, I'm talking a slow cook rivalry built on several carefully crafted steps of narrative strand. E.g taker vs mankind, two guys with a history of destroying each other, Paul bearer etc ( u kno Wht I mean). The hell in a cell was the "straightener" as gypsies call it. It was the place where feuds climaxed after a lengthy conflict.
Drink back to the great matches in that cell! Now look at the depth those feuds had!! The cell represented an honesty that u shouldn't get within the 4 walls of "kayfabe!" it blurred the lines. That combo is what made it special.
Now that the wwe are in the PG era, the hell in a cell in its original form/purpose has had to change.
Pg era - target audience :
has low attention span, so complex narratives need to be dumbed down and superficialized.
Have Little understanding of the very adult theme the one off cell match represents( a brutal end to a conflict).
Easily satiated by the characters competing in the match up( that's another thread about only certain characters can EVER do a hell in the cell match)
In a nutshell, the wwe is either lazy or a victim of its audience. Either way, they go themselves into this mess!!
posted on 31/10/12
woohooo! A Psychologist article
Alas, I'll have to read it properly later.
posted on 1/11/12
For me, the reasoning behind HIAC is that there can be no outside interference. That is what made this match interesting, people were wondering how Punk would weasel out without the interference.
posted on 1/11/12
Gibsy21, unfortunately it may be that simple. But i refer back to the main point of the article which wasn't to condemn WWE for rendering the HIAC match redunant through prioritising other aspects of their business plan which relegate it's importance or impact to their target audience. But why because of this do they leave it floating around like a bad smell, cos that's all it's become...... it's not nestaglic for those of us who appreciated it's legacy because the illusion of it's prestige has been butched, so where's it's place in today's product?
As Makar has referenced, the HIAC has been reduced down to it's most practical of uses, which is sad. Just as it was sad that for a while the WWE were treating it's flagship title like a prop.
posted on 2/11/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/11/12
Yes it's appeal is definitely dwindling. Perhaps they should stop them altogether until the PG era ends to prevent damaging the legacy of these matches.