|
Post by lookout on Aug 14, 2012 10:13:15 GMT -5
If he loses, I think it hurts his credibility. You can't keep hyping him and then keep losing. It would put him over in a big way too.
|
|
Kalmia
King Koopa
Happy to be here
Posts: 11,856
|
Post by Kalmia on Aug 14, 2012 10:32:48 GMT -5
I think it depends on what the long term plan is with Brock. If they want to build him strong for another match (Survivor Series, WM, whenever) and he's not going to be around on RAW much in the build up, then he should win. He's not a regular wrestler who can get his heat and aura back next week. You pay the money for him, then you have to protect him in a different way.
If they're not trying to build Brock up and just want a proper ending to the angle with Triple H, then maybe Triple H should win.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Aug 14, 2012 10:43:41 GMT -5
I think it depends on what the long term plan is with Brock. If they want to build him strong for another match (Survivor Series, WM, whenever) and he's not going to be around on RAW much in the build up, then he should win. He's not a regular wrestler who can get his heat and aura back next week. You pay the money for him, then you have to protect him in a different way. Same applies to Triple H. Just like Lesnar, he's a special attraction and needs to be protected too, since he won't be at the next show. Getting his ass kicked after having his best friend destroyed doesn't make him look very strong. Triple H will probably lose, but I doubt it's going to be the decisive, one-sided ending everyone wants it to be.
|
|
zeez
Patti Mayonnaise
Yeah. That's right.
Posts: 32,702
|
Post by zeez on Aug 14, 2012 11:11:51 GMT -5
It's a tough predicament. WWE wants Brock to win to help build him up for a monumental clash at Wrestlemania, but Vince wants him to lose to stick it to that bastard for leaving in the first place. What to do, what to do.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Aug 14, 2012 11:33:55 GMT -5
Storyline wise, they've booked it into a hole much like they did with the HHH/Orton Mania match where Trips already had the title. HHH almost has to win to avenge his friend and family and manhood and all that shit.
Not that that makes any sense at all for any long term plans for Brock..
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,900
|
Post by Legion on Aug 14, 2012 11:44:13 GMT -5
I'm calling Brock to destroy HHHunter, possibly lose via DQ due to brutality, then beat up on HBK some more if HBK is at ringside. Then, BONG! Undertaker to make the save, perhaps Heyman eats a Tombstone. Lesnar/Undertaker is the big selling hook for Survivor Series, as with Rock involved at WM, I'm suggesting that whomever isn't facing him out of Cena/Punk would get Brock there. I can definitely see this happening, actually. It makes a lot of sense
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Aug 14, 2012 13:30:42 GMT -5
I want Brock to win. For the longest time we haven't had a true dominant monster heel, we need to get back to the basics and they need to start booking the old school way. My perspective? Vince, "Creative", and etc need to stop with this belief that the "good guy always comes out on top."
Sometimes the good guy loses and sometimes it's in a horrific, brutal, and vicious fashion. If they have Brock just decimate Hunter, then in the process destroy Shawn again, and anyone else who tries to save them it would generate massive heel heat.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Aug 14, 2012 13:31:21 GMT -5
Then again, Brock should've beat Cena too and we all know how that turned out. That's what concerns me more and more about this match.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Aug 14, 2012 13:42:57 GMT -5
I want Brock to win. For the longest time we haven't had a true dominant monster heel, we need to get back to the basics and they need to start booking the old school way. My perspective? Vince, "Creative", and etc need to stop with this belief that the "good guy always comes out on top." Sometimes the good guy loses and sometimes it's in a horrific, brutal, and vicious fashion. If they have Brock just decimate Hunter, then in the process destroy Shawn again, and anyone else who tries to save them it would generate massive heel heat. But WWE is not dominate heel territory. It was build a heel up and feed him to the top face. They've only had one guy be a top dominating heel and that was Triple H which people claim was the worst period in WWE history. They built Brock up and had Cena conquer him and now they are building him up different for Triple H. I completely expect Brock to win this one, move on to Cena again at Sur. Ser and win there before Taker puts him down at Mania.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2012 13:45:17 GMT -5
It's never a surprise when spoilerhhhwins but it'd be kinda weird for Brock to go 0-2.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Aug 14, 2012 15:40:54 GMT -5
I want Brock to win. For the longest time we haven't had a true dominant monster heel, we need to get back to the basics and they need to start booking the old school way. My perspective? Vince, "Creative", and etc need to stop with this belief that the "good guy always comes out on top." Sometimes the good guy loses and sometimes it's in a horrific, brutal, and vicious fashion. If they have Brock just decimate Hunter, then in the process destroy Shawn again, and anyone else who tries to save them it would generate massive heel heat. But WWE is not dominate heel territory. It was build a heel up and feed him to the top face. They've only had one guy be a top dominating heel and that was Triple H which people claim was the worst period in WWE history. They built Brock up and had Cena conquer him and now they are building him up different for Triple H. I completely expect Brock to win this one, move on to Cena again at Sur. Ser and win there before Taker puts him down at Mania. WWF/E became the only true national promotion with the superhuman babyface, yet somehow people think they should adopt the formula of companies they destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Aug 14, 2012 16:30:06 GMT -5
It's not so much most of us want them to emulate ANY formula really; just solid story-telling and booking.
|
|
JTH
Dennis Stamp
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 3MB
Posts: 4,467
|
Post by JTH on Aug 14, 2012 16:38:35 GMT -5
It's a tough predicament. WWE wants Brock to win to help build him up for a monumental clash at Wrestlemania, but Vince wants him to lose to stick it to that bastard for leaving in the first place. What to do, what to do. Survey Says: Match never offically starts!!!!
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Aug 14, 2012 16:44:21 GMT -5
But WWE is not dominate heel territory. It was build a heel up and feed him to the top face. They've only had one guy be a top dominating heel and that was Triple H which people claim was the worst period in WWE history. They built Brock up and had Cena conquer him and now they are building him up different for Triple H. I completely expect Brock to win this one, move on to Cena again at Sur. Ser and win there before Taker puts him down at Mania. WWF/E became the only true national promotion with the superhuman babyface, yet somehow people think they should adopt the formula of companies they destroyed. The success of the WWF as a national promotion during the 1980s thanks to its promotion of a superhuman babyface promotion doesn't necessarily prove that the formulae other companies used to make money during this time are inherently wrong or flawed just because those companies are now out of business. Before Vince went national with his company, many promotions were able to sustain themselves and draw a profit. Vince turned the wrestling business into a zero-sum gain. On one hand, because of it, wrestling was able to make more money and have more exposure than it ever had before. But on the other hand, it took killing what made wrestling successful for so long (the territory system) to do it. Somewhat related to this point, just because a formula was successful in the past doesn't mean it will always be successful. True, WWE today isn't at the levels of the New Generation, but WWE financially and creatively could be a lot better than it is now. Today's superhuman babyface, John Cena, has been on top for an extended period of time when ratings and buyrates have dropped substantially. Does this disprove the formula? Maybe, maybe not. Even then, there really haven't been a lot of cases in the WWF/in WWE over the past 15 years of dominant heel champions. As such, dominant babyface champion is always the control model (or default model) of booking. I can think of five examples of heel champions who looked pretty strong, to varying degrees, during this time: Bret Hart in 1997, the Rock in 1998-1999, Triple H in 1999-2000, Triple H from 2002-2005, and JBL from 2004-2005 (a case might be made for a sixth, Steve Austin in 2001). Only the last two examples are known for being lengthy heel reigns. So, there really hasn't been enough experimentation with long heel runs to see if that can draw ratings, buyrates, and money. Even then, Triple H and JBL had these long runs when the business wasn't hot, so that has to be taken into account also. I wouldn't deny that the WWF in the past and WWE today has always been a babyface territory. But in itself being a babyface territory historically doesn't prove why other territories went out of business, nor does being a babyface territory today prove that the formula of having the Hulk Hogans or John Cenas of the world on top of the card is still financially and creatively viable (or, at least inasmuch as it was in the past also).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2012 17:05:31 GMT -5
This thread title made me laugh pretty hard for some reason. I think it was one of those plaintive "wow.....he's right!" kind of laughs. I think criticizing fans for wanting Brock to take out HBK and still wanting him to win is pretty silly. What, are we only supposed to want WWE to do formulaic things? formulaic things become formulaic because they make sense. I like when things make sense Making sense is one thing, but formulaic is something else. The way we can always predict "so and so wins at the PPV" because his opponent "got the upper-hand" on the last TV show is not a good thing. Making sense doesn't have to be predictable. Subverting audience expectations is a hallmark of good writing, as long as it's not completely pulled out of nowhere. If this all leads to a clean, convincing win for Brock, I will put on a hat in order to tip it to Triple H and WWE for playing expectations like a damned fiddle.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Aug 14, 2012 17:12:40 GMT -5
It's just like in 2009 during that Batista/Orton feud.
A couple weeks before these guys faced off in a cage match, Randy Orton absolutely destroyed Batista's buddy Ric Flair and made him bleed profusely. Batista HAD to win to avenge Ric Flair, but Batista was injured and him winning the title wasn't a good idea either so both options had their flaws. They went with giving Batista the title since letting a guy like Flair who is so beloved to get destroyed like that and have his attacker get away with it probably wasn't going to sit well with most people.
Hence why I think Triple H has to win at this point.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Aug 14, 2012 21:35:07 GMT -5
formulaic things become formulaic because they make sense. I like when things make sense Making sense is one thing, but formulaic is something else. The way we can always predict "so and so wins at the PPV" because his opponent "got the upper-hand" on the last TV show is not a good thing. Making sense doesn't have to be predictable. Subverting audience expectations is a hallmark of good writing, as long as it's not completely pulled out of nowhere. If this all leads to a clean, convincing win for Brock, I will put on a hat in order to tip it to Triple H and WWE for playing expectations like a damned fiddle. the problem is that if they don't stick to that booking fans start complaining about people being buried
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,230
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Aug 14, 2012 21:43:08 GMT -5
It's never a surprise when spoilerhhhwins but it'd be kinda weird for Brock to go 0-2. Go look at other heels win loss records this year.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 15, 2012 0:25:45 GMT -5
HHH HAS to lose. Bottom line. This isn't about him getting revenge (at least right now), it's about him heating up Lesnar for the big WrestleMania blowoff. There is no formula that implicitly states that a babyface has to win, even if the heel humiliated and pulverized him already. HHH's own heel history is FILLED with these moments:
y the logic of everyone here defending a potential and nonsensical HHH win this sunday, Mick Foley should have beat HHH in the Hell in a Cell in 2000. Foley had been fired, humiliated, and even defeated at Royal Rumble before he put his career up for a title rematch with the Game at No Way out that year. But, HHH was primed for the big push and bigger money programs, so Foley lost, despite all of the things that happened to him, and the feel good sentimentality a Title win would have brought. Business came first.
Booker T also lost at WrestleMania 19, when the build up was that he was basically just an uppity negro with no business being in HHH's world, and was undeserving of a title opportunity in the first place. Booker clearly should have won, but, again, HHH was primed for an eventual showdown with Goldberg, whom WWE just signed. So Booker lost to see that come to fruition.
Randy Orton, after becoming the youngest World Champ ever, gets kicked out of Evolution. He then loses the title to HHH (just because), to chase, but again, that chase flounders because in the interim, a much bigger match in HHH vs Batista arises from nowhere. So Orton loses (when he should have won for all the shit Hunter did to him) to facilitate that match.
And CM Punk, red-hot new defiant babyface, loses to HHH, because they need to build to the much bigger and demanded HHH vs. Kevin Nash ladder match that ...ok, I can't say this one with a straight face...
But seriously. These are just a few exceptions in HHH's own career, where he was in the role of the heel who should lose, but NEEDED to win to build credibility for the much bigger match. So I ask, why does HHH HAVE to win, when his own career as a heel suggests that this doesn't have to be the case?
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,230
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Aug 15, 2012 2:57:59 GMT -5
Sure, logically, Lesnar should probably go over, but would it really be so bad if it was a close match?
It's not everyone, but it seems like some here want them to basically make The Passion Of Triple H, have a twenty minute one sided beating where Trips gets in no offense.
Hell, a couple people not only want that, but they want it to be a shoot.
And even that wouldn't bother me as much if they didn't specifically want Brock Lesnar to do it.
All evidence points to Brock Lesnar being not a very good person and regardless of how anyone feels about a wrestling storyline or a performer, they should not be rooting so viciously for a thug to legitimately harm someone.
Hell, even during Extreme Rules, I wanted Lesnar to just pin Cena at a certain point because it was getting a little hard to watch, and I loathe Cena as much as others loathe Hunter if not more.
The bloodthirstiness of the most rabid anti-Trips fans makes me uncomfortable.
|
|