Last month, just before WWE's latest Pay-Per-View Breaking Point, I commended the company for attempting to lure viewers into ordering an otherwise throwaway event by trying to make it something unique and different, but felt that, in practice, they were going about it the wrong way.
Now, just one night before WWE's newest conceptual PPV, Hell in a Cell, I feel obliged to borrow one of the company's Attitude slogans by saying that they simply don't "Get it."
Once again, it's admirable that WWE has made efforts into providing their paying audience with something they won't see every month. But the problem lies in the fact that the audience IS seeing the same thing every month. In fact, the three "specialty matches" (as in, the three matches that will take place in the Hell in the Cell) for this upcoming pay-per-view are identical to the three submission matches they saw just the month before: DX vs. The Legacy, Cena vs. Orton for the WWE Championship, and CM Punk vs. Undertaker for the World Heavyweight Championship.
I can't help but think of that classic Simpsons episode when all those 8 year old girls were tricked into buying a new Malibu Stacy doll because it suddenly had a hat. In my opinion, the WWE audience (or, ugh, "Universe") is a little smarter than that. To me, changing the environment won't manipulate people into seeing the same match over and over again.
I'm also not entirely optimistic that fans will be compelled by the whole Hell in a Cell concept. Think of it this way: If there are three matches taking place in the structure, the "Holy Crap" moment surely won't happen in the first match, and likely not the second match either. Otherwise, they essentially screwed the pooch, and the proceeding matches will fall short. I don't think I'm the only person making this assumption. Therefore, I can easily see viewers disinterested in the first two cell matches -- which does nothing but damage the credibility of the stipulation.
At the very least, next month's Bragging Rights at least seems to offer something different (evidently Raw vs. Smackdown matches -- not sure where this leaves the red headed stepchild ECW, though). If that's the case, we may hopefully get a reprieve from these three matches.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Why WWE just doesn't "Get It"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Not only do we not get a reprieve, we get them for a whole 60 minutes!
It's funny because when I thought the PPV was going to be Raw VS Smackdown, I was thinking of ordering it to see some fresh matches, but now, not a chance. I don't like Cena (no edge to the character anymore and I'm sorry, his in ring moves look so weak, like he's barely hitting guys and there's no "power" to his moves) and Orton can't even go 15 minutes without a rest hold most of the time, so how is he going to go 60? I not only don't have interest in this match but it's made me decide NOT to order the PPV. Hopefully I'm wrong and it's an amazing match with Cena losing and going to Smackdown so we don't have to see more Cena VS Orton, but I won't be watching it.
It's sad that 100% of my emotional attachment to the conclusion of these matches have been to ensure that there's no rematch. When I read that Orton beat Cena, I wanted to smash my head against a wall. Not because I had any special feelings for one of them beating the other -- but because it ensured that there'd be ANOTHER month of this crap.
And the most discouraging thing of all is that they openly couldn't even promise to not do the match again. Cena said "If I win, no rematch" and Orton straight out said "no" (which, quite honestly, makes sense from his perspective).
And this booking has come across as very unusual, because for the first time in recent memory, SmackDown actually doesn't need another face (they already have Undertaker, Batista, and Mysterio -- as well as Edge when he returns). So where on earth do they go from here?
Post a Comment