Back in the day, WWE used to build these things called feuds where it compelled viewers to watch the final act, a match, during a PPV. Sometimes the feud would grow so intense that Vince McMahon would show up and set up a match.
In that guttural, McMahonian voice, Vince would inform the competitors that this match would take place inside “HELL…IN A CELL!” Then the thousands in attendance would pop, along with the millions at home.
Fans would anticipate these matches for weeks and fiend to view the finale. That began to dwindle when WWE, in all of its corporate wisdom, turned the match into an entire PPV.
Now, instead of a match that organically builds towards a sadistic last resort has become a regularly scheduled event that simply features whatever feud the WWE happens to push at the time.
The same goes for TLC, but I will rant about that when the event draws closer in a similar fashion. These matches have an underlying purpose—to draw fans to the storyline.
Instead, we have Seth Rollins taking on Kane for the WWE World Heavyweight Champion, which has drawn little to no interest from the fans. Most of them can already predict the outcome. Besides The Undertaker versus Brock Lesnar, no other match seems to have
“Hell in a Cell” matches now depend on the WWE booking schedule, not a well-crafted narrative. This excludes Undertaker vs. Lesnar, but that match could appear on any PPV and draw. When that happens, the storytelling aspect of professional wrestling compromises any athletic feats that are ultimately accomplished in the ring, the finale.
That’s not to say that all regularly held events detract from the show. PPVs like Elimination Chamber worked because it threw a monkey wrench into the works pre-Wrestlemania. The Royal Rumble has been a staple for years. King of the Ring would work as a PPV, if the winner received more than a velour cape and a plaster scepter.
Yet at the end of the day, most people hate moves with horrible endings and plots, so why should wrestling be different?
Editor’s Note: Disagree with my opinion? Let me know. Just don’t be so mean about it! Follow Bill Kline on Twitter @RealBillKline or on Facebook.
MORE IN WRESTLING
-
7 Wonderful Ways Randy Orton’s Injury Changes WWE
Blogs -
KB’s Review: Coming Attractions
Blogs -
7 Divas Who Can Become Queen of the Ring
Blogs -
7 Candidates For The Undertaker’s Retirement Match
Blogs -
7 Superstars Who Won a Championship in Their First Match
Blogs -
7 Most Amazing Triple Threat Matches in WWE History
Blogs -
7 Awesome Ways to Write John Cena Off WWE TV
Blogs -
7 Ways to Better Organize Raw and Smackdown
Blogs -
7 Best Match Ideas For a NXT/WWE Crossover Special in December
Blogs -
7 Examples of John Cena Legitimately Putting Over Other Wrestlers
Blogs
Opinion: “Hell in a Cell” Should be a Match, Not a PPV
BY Bill Kline – ON October 23, 2015
In that guttural, McMahonian voice, Vince would inform the competitors that this match would take place inside “HELL…IN A CELL!” Then the thousands in attendance would pop, along with the millions at home.
Fans would anticipate these matches for weeks and fiend to view the finale. That began to dwindle when WWE, in all of its corporate wisdom, turned the match into an entire PPV.
Now, instead of a match that organically builds towards a sadistic last resort has become a regularly scheduled event that simply features whatever feud the WWE happens to push at the time.
The same goes for TLC, but I will rant about that when the event draws closer in a similar fashion. These matches have an underlying purpose—to draw fans to the storyline.
Instead, we have Seth Rollins taking on Kane for the WWE World Heavyweight Champion, which has drawn little to no interest from the fans. Most of them can already predict the outcome. Besides The Undertaker versus Brock Lesnar, no other match seems to have
“Hell in a Cell” matches now depend on the WWE booking schedule, not a well-crafted narrative. This excludes Undertaker vs. Lesnar, but that match could appear on any PPV and draw. When that happens, the storytelling aspect of professional wrestling compromises any athletic feats that are ultimately accomplished in the ring, the finale.
That’s not to say that all regularly held events detract from the show. PPVs like Elimination Chamber worked because it threw a monkey wrench into the works pre-Wrestlemania. The Royal Rumble has been a staple for years. King of the Ring would work as a PPV, if the winner received more than a velour cape and a plaster scepter.
Yet at the end of the day, most people hate moves with horrible endings and plots, so why should wrestling be different?
Editor’s Note: Disagree with my opinion? Let me know. Just don’t be so mean about it! Follow Bill Kline on Twitter @RealBillKline or on Facebook.
MORE IN WRESTLING
7 Wonderful Ways Randy Orton’s Injury Changes WWE
BlogsKB’s Review: Coming Attractions
Blogs7 Divas Who Can Become Queen of the Ring
Blogs7 Candidates For The Undertaker’s Retirement Match
Blogs7 Superstars Who Won a Championship in Their First Match
Blogs7 Most Amazing Triple Threat Matches in WWE History
Blogs7 Awesome Ways to Write John Cena Off WWE TV
Blogs7 Ways to Better Organize Raw and Smackdown
Blogs7 Best Match Ideas For a NXT/WWE Crossover Special in December
Blogs7 Examples of John Cena Legitimately Putting Over Other Wrestlers
Blogs