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.
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!!
woohooo! A Psychologist article
Alas, I'll have to read it properly later.
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.
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.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
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.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
HIAC, and gimmick matches in general
Page 1 of 1
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.
Page 1 of 1