HELL IN A CELL PPV

[PEDIGREE69]

Question.

I read on this site where as of now only one match will take place inside the steel cage at Hell in A Cell.

Why advertise a PPV that is based on the HIAC Match, and only have one match inside the cell.

I would like to see all championship matches take place inside the the cell.

Just My thoughts, what are yours.

[Kane]

TBH Hell in a Cell is one of the most brutal matches the WWE have created, that said i've never liked it being a PPV. I think it should be rare and only feuds that are worthy should be in the cell.

[Codebreaker]

Probably just to make the main event seem more special. I was hoping for a HITC match for Show/Sheamus. Now I am thinking Ziggler will do the cash-in on one of them, no cell makes it easier to jump in the ring and do it. He could still do it after the cell goes up, but that gives them more time to recover. Just better to do it right after the bell.

[Falcone]

It's come to this.

People are complaining about WWE advertising Hell in a Cell, and delivering on that advertising.

I weep for the IWC.

[L.T.D]

It's fine, it reminds me of the old In Your House PPV's which were most of the time named after one match on the card. In Your House No Holds Barred for example. If anything, having all the title matches in the cell makes it even worse.

However, I hate the fact that they have the PPV still. I feel like they should ditch it and bring in an old PPV or a new concept for the PPV to be based around. I miss the days of a long personal feud boiling to the point where the only way to settle it once and for all was in Hell In A Cell. I also miss Money In The Bank being exclusive to WrestleMania as well.

[The Champ]

It's come to this.

People are complaining about WWE advertising Hell in a Cell, and delivering on that advertising.

I weep for the IWC.

No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that if they're going to base a pay-per-view around the match, then they might as well have more than one.

And I agree. It's pointless to just have one HIAC match at a PPV that's named after the damn thing.

[Falcone]

The Royal Rumble is named after the match. Does that mean there should be more than one Rumble?

[The Industry]

It's come to this.

People are complaining about WWE advertising Hell in a Cell, and delivering on that advertising.

I weep for the IWC.

Don't waste your tears

[The Champ]

The Royal Rumble is named after the match. Does that mean there should be more than one Rumble?

There's never been more than one Rumble.

More than one HIAC has been the standard for the last three years. Why not this year?

Not to mention the fact that the Rumble takes a fucking hour, and HIAC, you know, doesn't.

[Darkmania]

For the amount of money they are asking people to pay there should be at least 2 HITC matches. Maybe it's time to retire the HITC PPV, like many others have said I would love to see ithe cell used for a when a feud is really ready to come to an end rather then base it around a once a year timeline.

[Falcone]

Because for the last 3 years, out of every 2 cell matches, only one was worth watching and the other was pretty dull. Sheamus/Show is going to suck enough, do we need it to be in the cell?

[kingoftheworld]

I think they've realised that having three HIAC matches on the same card kinda dilutes the novelty of it...

[Heteroflexible]

I think they've realised that having three HIAC matches on the same card kinda dilutes the novelty of it...

Yeah. Hopefully it'll go as far as the PPV name disappearing to.

[Doc Wallaby]

The Royal Rumble is named after the match. Does that mean there should be more than one Rumble?

Hardly a comparable situation. The Royal Rumble is a colossal match, and suggesting that they have more than one is as preposterous as suggesting a King of the Ring Pay-Per-View with two separate King of the Ring Tournaments running.

A better comparison should be to Survivor Series, which (arguably) functions just as well with one Survivor Series Elimination Match as it does with several, but people prefer seeing more than one such match on the card.

For the record, Hetero is right that WWE needs to give up this whole stupid idea of naming non-major PPVs after matches that were designed to function as the expression of a feud reaching its climax. The only one that has really worked well is TLC, and that's only because they are able to design the whole PPV around the gimmick. The other such PPVs just plain suck and remove creative's motivation to create compelling stories.

[BaraaKhalaf92]

I thought Sheamus vs show is going to be inside HIAC.....

[Codebreaker]

The Royal Rumble is named after the match. Does that mean there should be more than one Rumble?

The majority of the roster is in the Rumble. They don't have enough people for two.

[Big Pete]

Shows like Elimination Chamber & Hell in a Cell shouldn't even exist in the first place.

The feuds should make the matches and not the other way around.

Glad there's only going to be one match this year for all the reasons Falcone said. Even then, I don't believe that match needs to be in a Cell but hey I can live with it.

[Stefan]

Further devalues the World title and Sheamus.

[Vince Mcmahon]

Shows like Elimination Chamber & Hell in a Cell shouldn't even exist in the first place.

The feuds should make the matches and not the other way around.

This is true and its only being done to justify all these ppv shows and not to make it look like all the same.

[Codebreaker]

It was a lot better when these matches just popped up randomly. Now we see it coming a year ahead cuz it's the damn ppv theme. How boring and predictable.

[Jake]

Maybe there is only one at HIAC because usually there is two a year, and one happened at Mania. Just my thoughts...