Wrestling Forum banner

WWE should limit the amount of P-P-Vs.

1490 16
WWE should limit the amount of P-P-Vs per year as there are just too many IMO. With there being 13 P-P-Vs a year, 1-2 a month, there just isn't enough time for build-up. They only get like 2-3 weeks worth of build-up to a P-P-V accompanied with a 2 week span before the next P-P-V. So, the fueds seem rushed and not well put together. I think there should be aleast 6-7 P-P-Vs a year, with 1 P-P-V per 1-2 months. Also, they should get rid of these gimmick P-P-Vs, Hell-in-a-Cell, TLC, & Elimination Chamber matches used to be special & not occur very often, so they would end up being a big deal. Now they happen every year because of the gimmick P-P-Vs, & having almost every match being a Hell-in-a-Cell or Elimination Chamber match is overkill if you ask me. They should turn King of the Ring back into a P-P-V, as it being every other year on a one-off Monday Night Raw doesn't do it justice. Mabey they should bring back a P-P-V from WCW or create a new one since they got rid of most of their own. Then there would be Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, & Survivor Series as the 'big four', then you would have a few WCW/new P-P-Vs to fill out the year. Incase tl;dr, WWE should limit amount of P-P-Vs as there isn't enough build-up between them. Feel free to give your thoughts & opinions on the topic.:)
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
534 Posts
This an idea I would actually support. Very well put together.

7 a year should be fine along with bringing back King Of The Ring and getting rid of the gimmick PPVs!

...

Royal Rumble, No Way Out (bring it back!), WrestleMania, King Of The Ring, Summerslam, Survivor Series and one other PPV (not bragging rights, please!) Would be awesome.

...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,111 Posts
There are way too many a year. They don't have the proper time to build up the matches. And when you have proper time to build up matches, you generally get more people interested in ordering it. Seems like common sense doesn't it? I'd be happy with one every 2 months.

That being said, they're not going to cut back.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,204 Posts
if you want to remove the gimmick theme ppvs then you might as well dump the Rumble

how about the pointless ones, the ones without identity like Backlash(the start of the season?) Bragging Rights(nothing at stake, should be reserved for Mania) Over The Limit(Breaking Point 2.0?) Summerslam(tradition is the only thing its got going for it), Night Of The Champions(not enough belts) MITB(we already have a ppv involving ladders)

trimming the fat and all that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
They need to cut it to maybe 6 a yr. That would be the best option i think.

But of course WWE is trying to make the most money possible so that wont happen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
I agree that there isn't a good built up with the 13 PPV's a year.

But I think a better way of solving the solution is to this problem, if WWE went back to having SD and Raw exclusive PPVs minus the big four. Doing this would create a better build up between PPV's and it would also reestablish the prestige to the SummerSlam and Survivor Series PPV's which really seem to blend in with the rest of the events nowadays. It would also give lower profile superstars a chance to get over on a PPV stage.

Not sure how it would effect PPV buys or revenue, but I would definitely mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Yes, I mentioned this in another thread somewhere. When I first started watching wrestling, there were the big four - Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam and Survivor Series and that was only from 1988 onwards. Saturday Night's Main Event was mainly used to bridge everything together from one event to the other. The 'In Your House' series from 1995 started the one PPV a month situation and I believe this was merely to compete with WCW at the time. I remember 1995 was so bad for the WWE that the first 'In Your House' offered a house as a prize for the winning caller.

Reducing the PPVs would:

- increase build-up and hype to wrestler's feuds without unneccessary effort

- reduce the amount of gimmick/personality changes that occur when wrestlers go stale because people wouldn't get so bored in such a short period of time

- it could significantly reduce the amount of injuries wrestlers get week in and week out

- give more time for the creative team to create more complex plots and angles rather than the usual one-dimensional 'this has got sooooo personal' thing.

I would say 4 or 5 PPVs at the most a year would be enough. I guess the 12 PPVs a year must still be very lucrative for Vince McMahon Jnr so, despite the product itself suffering, he believes if it's not broke don't fix it?
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top