Should WWE Do Away With Hell In A Cell? - Wrestle Newz twitter google

Should WWE Do Away With Hell In A Cell?

WWE
After the 2013 version of the Hell In A Cell PPV, I am wondering if the PPV needs to be retired. I have nothing wrong with the “diabolical” structure, and over the years, both on and off of the named PPV, there have been a number of memorable matches. But many of the battles that define the structure were in the mindset of the Attitude Era-and that is an era that WWE suits are not looking to go back to any time soon. Want something to underscore that point? Something I saw noted in several reports and comments off of the HIAC on Sunday, there was no bleeding in any of the cell matches, but there was bleeding from a non-cell match  (Langston/Ambrose). Not that there has to be bleeding in a cell or a cage match…but having the wrestlers wearing the crimson mask was, at one time, expected as a result of participating in one.

So is it time to go away from the PPV? Maybe so. Looking over the history of the structure, it’s been employed numerous times, not always limited to once a year on it’s dedicated PPV. Surely, the structure would not need to be taken away-I kind of prefer it to the regular chain-link steel cage matches. And it’s easily better than the old blue rebar steel cage matches. But do we need a pay per view, once a year, named for it, if the matches are going to struggle to live up to expectations of brutality? I think so. By not having Hell In A Cell as a pay per view, it would do a couple things for WWE. For one, just using the 2013 PPV schedule as an example, WWE did not really need 2 major events in a calendar month. It’s a lot, asking fans to spend for PPV not once, but twice in October, and while neither was an outright stinker, that is a lot of money in one month for WWE programming. This is a year they could have easily skipped one of the two events, spaced things out a bit, used more time to build up feuds and the like. None of the matches inside the structure on Sunday created long-lasting memories for me…OK, I might remember Punk and Heyman on the roof, but in the main event, the structure which is “supposed” to keep outside interference outside, it failed. Understanding that was the COO getting in, and a key to the ongoing storyline, the cell seemed wasted. These two have been in a bitter feud for months. It’s gotten personal. There should have been blood. There were certainly enough chairs.

But, if the Hell In A Cell goes away, what replaces it? For one, WWE could always revive a defunct WCW pay per view moniker (please no not Road Wild). But with Halloween Havoc sitting there, why not resurrect that? Or, if you are trying to be overly sensitive to the use of Halloween, dig up Fall Brawl. I know WWE wouldn’t recreate World War 3-even though it employed three rings, the concept itself is too similar to the Rumble, and I don’t know that the roster could really fill up three rings and be worth watching. I’ve also heard cries for a Starrcade revival. Point is, there are a number of WCW PPV that could be picked from. Or, as WWE has done in the recent past, just come up with a whole new name and run with that. The name doesn’t matter a great deal if it’s just another PPV. If they choose to theme it, then it makes a difference. IE, if WWE ever stopped having true Survivor Series elimination matches on the Survivor Series PPV, I’d pull out the Soap Box and beg for that to be re-branded (here’s hoping that never happens).

I am sure we will see them continue to use the structure, but in this much more toned down era of pro wrestling, where seeing guys bleed is much more rare and, while matches can still be brutal, we won’t likely be seeing Mick Foley-esque bumps from the top of the cell through an announce table again any time soon. Nope, instead we are relegated to seeing Paul Heyman using a scissor lift to get up to the roof and use it as a safe haven.  If that is how the structure is expected to be utilized now, then do away with a HIAC-themed PPV, so that the wrestlers and WWE Creative aren’t saddled with forcing matches to work with a gimmick that they really don’t need.

Would you like to see Hell In A Cell taken off of the yearly rotation? If so, would you resurrect a pay per view or create a new one? Would you have a themed event? Sound off with your thoughts.

Share This on Facebook
  • Vince28

    I agree with all you said. In fact, I would change every gimmick PPV because I think the product was better when those kiind of matches were used for a reason. Hell in a Cell was to end rivalry definitely, ladder match were for smaller agile wrestlers (we see lot of injuries theses days in ladder match), Elimination chamber was when there was lot of hot contenders etc. Now they just do it because it’s THE PPV. I don’t mind having like extreme rules with a couple of gimmick matches but I just find that having Hell in a cell every year in october, EC in february (should be at survivor series by the way, would be more unpredictable), MITB in june (Should have stayed at Mania for every title)… just don’t help the writers to come up with believable growing storyline.
    As for blood, I think that we are watching wrestling, not ballet…I think that if used properly, it can really help push the bar a little higher in a fued. Imagine Daniel Bryan with blood in his big beard, would be epic. Would SCSA vs Bret Hart would have been that intense at WM13 without Austin being bloodied and then passed out! I don’t think so. I think that blood also helped PPV to be a little different from Raw/Smackdown because it was more used at PPV to make the matches more intense. Now, sometime, I pay 50 $ just to see “sunday night raw”…

    • puckdinah1

      i agree about MITB at mania, though if i recall didn’t they have it a couple times at mania and its own ppv? or am i going crazy

      if my memory is right, having 3 cases a year could be kinda neat….especially if the mania case is for any title at all. logic tells you it would always be for a world title, but who knows.

      heck as much as i like MITB, that might need some tweaking too….how much do we speculate about when it will be cashed in? any time there is still a case to be cashed, and the champ is getting attacked….its assumed or expected. thats why when cena gave a week’s notice, or when kennedy gave a lot more than that before he got injured and lost the case, it was actually cool. i mean, kennedy announced he was cashing in to main event mania, not just winning the title on any old raw. i get it, you want to win the title….i just think the current cash ins are somewhat repetitive. its why i wasn’t pissed that sandow lost, because its presumed a cash in against a wounded champ means title change.

      • PlanoStu

        Hmm, interesting concept. MITB PPV with both cases, and a MITB match at WM with winner being able to cash in for either title. Love it! I’m calling Vince now!!

        • puckdinah1

          LOL…i think they did that before…i gotta check.

          without looking, im sure most MITB cash ins have been on RAW or PPV…have any ever been on SD?

          What could be neat is you have a double cash in–having that wild card briefcase in play. say Kane cashes in, same time as winning it. and then the wild card winner cashes in right on Kane as soon as he wins. could not do it more than a time or two, but it could be fun to watch.

          i think they like having MITB as an ace up their sleeve…haven’t they used it in the past to get the title off of an injured champ?

      • Vince28

        About the cashed in, I think that it would be better if the briefcase holder had to announce it before. I don’t care if the champ have two matches at a PPV. + When Orton cashed in on DB, he was already down ! If my memory is ok, wasn’t there a story line before which said that the champion had to be on his feet before the belle ring ? Just wondering.
        I love Sandow cash in because HE put Cena down before cashing it in. He did not just beneficiate from someone else. What I hate about the ending of the match is that Sandow doesn’T uses his You’re Welcome finishing manuver since long and it already looked weak because of Cena. Like someone else said in another post, Cena new finish : the kickout at 2…

  • puckdinah1

    i think punk beating up on heyman on top of the cell was pretty neat, but i wouldn’t be against them getting rid of a dedicated cell themed pay per view….

  • Devon

    There should have never been a HIAC ppv

  • Heelsean

    There shouldn’t be PPV’s named after specific types of matches, it takes away all meaning of the match. It’s hard to do an awesome HIAC match in the PG era though. HIAC should be a once a couple of years match so when we finally do see it the crowd are buzzing for it and not expecting it.

    • Reverend Scurvy

      MITB and Royal Rumble PPVs are the only two that should have the match in their names, and even MITB could go.
      HIAC, Extreme Rules, TLC…they’re all crutches so that creative doesn’t have to decide how to make individual matches different or exciting, but they also kill it by letting us know that HIAC will happen every fall.

  • Trey Doss

    wwe should get rid of the hiac ppv and add more stipulations can you imagine a hiac last man standing or iron man match?

  • Damian Starr

    get rid of all gimmick PPV’s (except NOC but that looks like its being got rid of anyway :/ ) they really do limit what creative can do, for example is there any difference in extreme rules and TLC? To me they are just both a PPV full of no DQ matches basically. MITB can work but i’d rather be surprised to have it announced on a card at a PPV rather than not even the main event at its own PPV. HIAC should be used less often so that it stays fearful? or Taker/kane could pass it on to the Wyatts as their signature match?

  • Ian Naugher

    Bit similar to the hell in a cell concept, but i’d create a new ppv called rage in a cage, have every match be competed in the confines of a steel cage…just a thought

  • zapdan

    There should be one of the matches in question such as MITB and HIAC at the big pay per views I want MITB back at mania one of my favourite matches I watched was when Kennedy one the briefcase

  • Nick Turner

    Hell in a cell has lost all its meaning. It was the end all feuds match and now it is nothing. You need blood in a cell match because its supposed to be brutal. Two competitors fighting tooth and nail to a finish. It doesn’t have the shock factor that it did when a stipulation could be chosen and the words hell in a cell were muttered. Punk tried to do it when he announced his stipulation but most knew it was coming. If its not going to be brutal then why have it? The cage doesnt add much to the story if there are no visual injuries. Wrestling is a very visual form of story telling. Hell in the cell was the ultimate climax in a story and it needed to be told with blood sweat and tears. The stories told within the structure can be very intricate and captivating but the tools to tell them need to be available to the story tellers. And that is something that WWE isn’t willing to do. I am not dogging the PG era because is generally like what I see on tv and see the business side of it. But the hell in a cell is no longer a monster. It has been tamed. And when you can stroll out of it with no battle scars well its hard to believe you went through hell to win your match.

  • sandman14769

    Yes do away with the hell in a cell ppv and bring back Halloween havoc

  • CatchWrestler1

    If the PPV will consist of watered down matches and if the cell will not be used properly, then yes

Follow Wrestle Newz