Are Gimmicks Good?

Are Gimmicks good?

I would first of all like to apologise to my adoring fans *crickets*, for not posting much this week. I have been absolutely snowed under with a lot of work, and I mean a LOT of work. However, I’m back now. With that in mind, I have had to move my wrestling column from Thursday to today.  Sadly that means there will be no Review Recall this week. So for that, I sincerely apologise, I realise you’re all heartbroken *crickets*.

I’ll stop blabbing now and move on to the column that I’m actually writing. Today’s article concerns the WWE ppv’s. The recent trend with the E’s monthly extravaganzas is that they all have a theme. Whereas PPV’s like Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble have had a certain theme and have been around for years.  

WWE have re themed other PPV’s such as Hell in a Cell, Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank, Extreme Rules and TLC over the last couple of years, bringing five more PPVS with their own theme year in year out. 

First of all, I’d like to say, I completely understand why Vince would do this and to a certain extent I agree with the decision. A few years ago, a lot of the PPV’s felt a bit flat. I know the ideal way to change that is by having compelling stories, making people want to turn into PPV’s that aren’t just the big four.

However, Vince has gone a different root. Instead, he has given most monthly events a theme in order to make it feel special and generate interested. I realise, it’s not the most popular move. To me, a part of it makes sense and I imagine, for some marks out there, it does spice up PPV’s, that otherwise would be flat. 

I think the Money in the Bank PPV is an example of this. At just two years old, the Money in the Bank PPV is quickly being established as one of the more popular WWE PPV’s. I know this year had an extra special feel to it due to the Punk vs. Cena Match, but you can’t deny that the Money in the Bank matches add a special feel to a PPV that would just be another PPV otherwise. 

That being said, I also can see the criticism with that goes with gimmicking every PPV. If you gimmick every PPV then you limit the matches you can use for a feud. An example of this is the Christian vs. Orton feud. That feud got so heated it called for a big match to end the feud on PPV, but what did we get as the final match? A no holes bared math.

I’m not saying the no holds barred match wasn’t good, it was, but I felt the feud could have done with a better ‘big match’ blow off. Ideally, I would have enjoyed a ladder match between the two, due to the fact that Christian had been in many in his career and would give him the upper hand. But, with the TLC and Extreme rules PPVS a ladder match would be overkill on another PPV. 

Personally, I would keep a few of the Gimmick PPV’s, such as the Elimination Chamber and Money in the Bank, whilst scrapping the other ones and just promoting big matches when the feud called for it. Thus, the two Gimmick PPVS would provide a lock in audience that the other PPV’s wouldn’t provide, while the other PPV’s would more concentrate on the bigger storylines at the time. 

What do you think on the subject? Are you a fan of Gimmick PPV’s? Or do you think the Gimmick matches should only be used when a feud needs it? Please feel free to leave your comments at the bottom. 

Don’t forget to follow me on twitter @glamgrunge

Add me on facebook.

Until next time, enjoy the show.

Daniel Morris.