WWE Holds A PPV Event, Internet Fans Get Upset; What Else is New?
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time." --John Lydgate
It's as if it's clockwork around these parts. I still want to find out where this signed doctrine is held where it states the folks of the Internet wrestling community is all-knowing. Every pay-per-view it seems that folks who have no idea what goes on within the Titan Towers walls feel the need to tell the WWE that they are doing things wrong.
Funny, if the WWE, and namely Vince McMahon, did as much silly things as the IWC would like us to believe, why is Vince still rolling in dough like Scrooge McDuck?
There were all the talks about the name changes of pay-per-views.
No, Breaking Point is just a silly concept. That pay-per-view will suck.
Um, last time I checked, the pay-per-view was extremely well done. The matches told stories, the action was great, and we even had CM Punk go down in history for making The Undertaker "tap."
We move on to Hell in a Cell.
Three Hell in a Cell matches... That is overkill... They are watering down the gimmick...Where was the blood?... I need blood... Cut somebody dammit!
The point of any business, and yes, the WWE IS a business, is to make money. The gimmicks are like attractions. People will stop and look if they see a spectacle on display. Perhaps that is what the WWE were going with it.
Who said that a Hell in a Cell match is going to always be used to blow off a feud? Did Booker T and Chris Benoit fight in a Hell in a Cell at the end of their Best-of-Seven feud? No.
Gimmick matches are just that, gimmicks. The very definition of the word states what the WWE was hoping to do: clutter with gadgets or attention-getting details. Did they get the attention of folks? Damn right. We couldn't go to one website without reading someone lambasting the idea of this pay-per-view.
You know what? It was a good event. Read the recaps from those in attendance, talk to those who were there, replay the event. The crowd was, for the most part, heavily invested in the program.
There was no blood. So what? The lack of blood did not take away from the action. Heck, the WWE even planned on giving you guys blood during the WWE Championship match but John Cena lost his blade mid-match.
I wrote this in reply to an article on Bleacher Report, but I think I will repost it:
We've all become accustomed to seeing blood after someone gets hit in the head with something. I've been hit with objects and I've hit others with objects. It doesn't necessarily lead to bloodshed. Now, if there was a spot where someone was getting their head repeatedly slammed into the cage or something, then fine. But, the ppv didn't NEED blood to make things better. The blood is only needed [for] those sick individuals who feel that seeing blood is the only way of showing pain.
Continuing with the Hell in a Cell event, there was the talk about the show opening with a world title match. Did you really think that there would really be three back-to-back matches in the cell?
A smart programmer knows that you can't have the audience completely in one state. Picture when you go to a dance. Does the DJ not usually play a song at some point to allow the dancers that cool down period? That period where they go to the bar and buy a drink or go to the punch bowl?
The WWE had to space out the event that the crowd would go up and down like a roller coaster. If not, they would be too bored or get winded from being too hyped. Yes, that last part can happen.
The show opened with The Dead Man securing the title over CM Punk. Now, everyone is upset because Punk had a short reign. How about we sit back and watch as Punk chases the title. A great performer can be both a title holder and a title chaser.
We never really got the chance to see Punk chase someone as legendary, or of higher stature, as the Undertaker. Yes, he challenged Jeff Hardy, but as popular as Jeff Hardy is, he's no Undertaker.
Yes, the Undertaker getting up there in age, but this is the same guy who delivers when the time calls for it. WrestleMania 25 wasn't that long ago.
And before we all start jumping around saying that Punk lost the strap because of the rumors that he is in the doghouse backstage, let's remember that ever since Punk was being elevated (go back to his first world title reign) there were rumors that he had heat on him. How about we stop following rumors so carelessly, and wait until we see or hear something concrete?
Let's look at the rest of the card from HIAC. Why is R-Truth and Drew McIntyre going second-to-last? Why are we seeing Mickie James and Alicia Fox?
I tell you, for the same group of people who cry over being tired of seeing the same faces over and over, you don't act like you want to see change. Be happy that you are seeing young blood on the ppv. This is their shot to impress not only their employer, but the fans. Yet, the fans crap all over them being there.
From looking at the location of the matches, I came to the conclusion that the WWE was trying to put an emphasis on the future of the company. The show closed with Legacy, though losing, putting on a damn good performance against DX. We had John Morrison and Dolph Ziggler, the triple-threat United States title match, and the two matches I previously mentioned, that all included talent of the future.
Yet, you cry foul.
You cry foul because John Cena lost the title to Randy Orton. Not because you are upset that Cena lost, but because you say, what was the point of having Orton lose three weeks prior. How about, that loss at Breaking Point set up the win at Hell in a Cell?
Go and listen to Orton's promo prior to the match. Or read Ryan Michael's last piece. Orton quit to save himself for when the time is right. Plus, the title change set up what we saw on RAW last night. At Bragging Rights, John Cena versus Randy Orton in an Iron Man Match. If John Cena loses, he is gone from RAW.
Of course, everyone is up in arms again because they say Cena isn't losing because of the stipulation. I beg to differ. No one thought that Triple H and Undertaker would survive on the same brand, yet Triple H went to SmackDown. Nobody thought that Bob Barker would make a good host, yet he was the talk of WWE for a while. And how about this, John Cena will be shooting a movie very soon, so the loss gives him time to "disappear."
You get to see Cena/Orton one more time. Get used to it. I did. And you know what? I enjoy it. These two work extremely well together. And before you state that the feud is boring, go listen to the crowd the past two nights. They don't seem bored to me.
Cena and Orton are money. Why wouldn't you continue to making money if the folks continue to eat it up? Let's not forget that Cena and Orton are not only the present, but they are also the future of the company. Suck it up, you'll be seeing much more of them.
But, no one wants to look at logic. Everyone just wants to bitch and moan as if they are running a profitable billion-dollar company.
WWE, I applaud you. You stick to your guns and you have continued to entertain me.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?