|
Post by Snaptastic on Dec 27, 2012 8:45:18 GMT -5
Replace "Cena" with "Ryback" and I'm cool with this.
Do what Rock did for Lesnar at SummerSlam 2002. Right now, the idea of having Cena/Rock v2.0 at WM29 is the dumbest idea in the world. The outcome of that match was telegraphed the second Chioda's hand hit the mat for 3 at WM28.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,284
|
Post by The Ichi on Dec 27, 2012 9:01:55 GMT -5
Comparing Rock to Hogan is dumb. Rock appears to be in the best shape of his life and he's only slightly older than Cena. He's not some washed up old timer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2012 9:24:46 GMT -5
Right now, the idea of having Cena/Rock v2.0 at WM29 is the dumbest idea in the world. The outcome of that match was telegraphed the second Chioda's hand hit the mat for 3 at WM28. Let's be real here, if the top 3 matches at Wrestlemania end up being Rock/Cena 2, Punk/Ryback for the title and an Undertaker match then Rock/Cena would be the least predictable of the bunch. Cena/Rock 2 would make more money than any other match except maybe Rock/Brock or Cena/Undertaker. To say having a rematch of the highest grossing professional wrestling match in history is the dumbest idea in the world is just absurd. It would be the dumbest idea in the world NOT to do a rematch of something that made that much money.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 27, 2012 9:28:07 GMT -5
Comparing Rock to Hogan is dumb. Rock appears to be in the best shape of his life and he's only slightly older than Cena. He's not some washed up old timer. Hogan could go back in 2002. There's a world of difference between Hogan in 2002 and Hogan in 2006 or 2011. Rock's in better shape now than Hogan was then, but he wasn't silly or a joke. Watching that stuff again just recently I found it kind of detrimental how much they tried to force him into a "nostalgia" box.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Free Moon-Down with Burger on Dec 27, 2012 9:44:09 GMT -5
Right now, the idea of having Cena/Rock v2.0 at WM29 is the dumbest idea in the world. The outcome of that match was telegraphed the second Chioda's hand hit the mat for 3 at WM28. Let's be real here, if the top 3 matches at Wrestlemania end up being Rock/Cena 2, Punk/Ryback for the title and an Undertaker match then Rock/Cena would be the least predictable of the bunch. Cena/Rock 2 would make more money than any other match except maybe Rock/Brock or Cena/Undertaker. To say having a rematch of the highest grossing professional wrestling match in history is the dumbest idea in the world is just absurd. It would be the dumbest idea in the world NOT to do a rematch of something that made that much money. Ding ding ding! To say that doing a rematch is dumb just because you personally don't want to see it is ridiculous and it's only the second one. It's not like we're hinting towards Cena/Big Show or something that's been done a trillion times.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 27, 2012 9:49:06 GMT -5
Its amazing that two of the most bitched about possible Mania matches are matches that only happened ONCE each and did good business for the respective PPV they were on.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 27, 2012 10:02:04 GMT -5
Its amazing that two of the most bitched about possible Mania matches are matches that only happened ONCE each and did good business for the respective PPV they were on. And they were good matches too! Like, if I was gonna draw up a list of things wrong with wrestling The Rock and Brock Lesnar sure wouldn't appear on it, and Cena and HHH would be pretty far down the list themselves.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 27, 2012 10:10:00 GMT -5
Its amazing that two of the most bitched about possible Mania matches are matches that only happened ONCE each and did good business for the respective PPV they were on. And they were good matches too! Like, if I was gonna draw up a list of things wrong with wrestling The Rock and Brock Lesnar sure wouldn't appear on it, and Cena and HHH would be pretty far down the list themselves. Not sure if sarcasm, but I thought both were alright, Cena/Rock was pretty damn good, and both are worth a second shot if Rock and Lesnar are willing to do those matches. Seems like a no brainer.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Dec 27, 2012 10:11:08 GMT -5
Its amazing that two of the most bitched about possible Mania matches are matches that only happened ONCE each and did good business for the respective PPV they were on. And they were good matches too! Like, if I was gonna draw up a list of things wrong with wrestling The Rock and Brock Lesnar sure wouldn't appear on it, and Cena and HHH would be pretty far down the list themselves. I don't think it's so much that people don't want to see the matches because they'll be bad, they don't want to see it because of (apparently)... {Spoiler}Cena and HHH wins
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Dec 27, 2012 10:12:09 GMT -5
And they were good matches too! Like, if I was gonna draw up a list of things wrong with wrestling The Rock and Brock Lesnar sure wouldn't appear on it, and Cena and HHH would be pretty far down the list themselves. I don't think it's so much that people don't want to see the matches because they'll be bad, they don't want to see it because of (apparently)... {Spoiler}Cena and HHH wins Thats kinda what I was thinking. They both lost last time, so rematch is likely meaning that they both might win. Nevermind the fact that neither of those two guys have won a Mania match since 26.
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Dec 27, 2012 10:17:11 GMT -5
And they were good matches too! Like, if I was gonna draw up a list of things wrong with wrestling The Rock and Brock Lesnar sure wouldn't appear on it, and Cena and HHH would be pretty far down the list themselves. I don't think it's so much that people don't want to see the matches because they'll be bad, they don't want to see it because of (apparently)... {Spoiler}Cena and HHH wins Exactly. Nobody is denying that Cena/Rock did fantastic business and it would no doubt pull a decent buyrate if done again. I personally don't want to see it however because the outcome is a given. I want unpredictability in the matches I watch. Now whilst Mania doesn't cost any more for me than a typical PPV (UK); why should someone pay $65 for a show with a main event that is decided before you press "order"?. Rock/Cena last year was great because I was convinced Cena was winning...and I marked like a 12 year old at Christmas when Rock won. This year I'll be sat there waiting for the 2nd or 3rd AA and the 3-count. I'll then turn my TV off, stand up, throw the remote on the sofa and sulk away to bed. I don't want it....not now, not ever.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Dec 27, 2012 10:33:14 GMT -5
Its amazing that two of the most bitched about possible Mania matches are matches that only happened ONCE each and did good business for the respective PPV they were on. I have no desire to see Rock/Cena II when everything about the first sucked horribly. I don't care about how much it drew (which ignores that 28 was the best Mania card in ages) when the first was one of the worst things I've seen in wrestling. As for Trips/Lesnar II, I wouldn't mind it as I loved everything about it but I see no purpose to it other than $$$. I don't know of any kayfabe reason for it to happen which makes sense and them going the Taker/HBK/HHH route of just wanting to know who is better won't work either. So basically, I want to be entertained and I want there to be something I can think the match is about other than $$$$$ showing up in Vince's eyes.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 27, 2012 10:34:47 GMT -5
And they were good matches too! Like, if I was gonna draw up a list of things wrong with wrestling The Rock and Brock Lesnar sure wouldn't appear on it, and Cena and HHH would be pretty far down the list themselves. Not sure if sarcasm, but I thought both were alright, Cena/Rock was pretty damn good, and both are worth a second shot if Rock and Lesnar are willing to do those matches. Seems like a no brainer. No sarcasm at all. They've done a stellar job with the upper card matches on the big shows since Summerslam 2011, even if I haven't personally enjoyed all of them, especially Undertaker vs HHH HiaC. I guess my position is that when Raw has become a show about AJ Lee I can't fathom complaining about anything to do with Brock Lesnar or The Rock.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 27, 2012 10:35:35 GMT -5
No one would argue that if you didn't like Cena/Rock or HHH/Lesnar that you have to want to see it again. But let's not pretend like it would make no sense for Vince to want to do it again.
|
|
AdamAFL was sooooo wrong
Hank Scorpio
note to all: he's a pants-less heathen
I Survived The Impact Spoilers 7/22/15-7/30/15
Posts: 7,095
|
Post by AdamAFL was sooooo wrong on Dec 27, 2012 10:35:35 GMT -5
People are acting like there is only one variable to making a star. Some are claiming that just beating the biggest star (Cena) is enough, but that's not always the case, see Sheamus' fall from grace after winning his first WWE Title from Cena. Others are claiming that ending Punk's reign because of it's longevity is enough to make a star on it's own, but it's not. If Kofi Kingston was to come out on some random RAW and end the longest title reign in a while, we'd all complain and the casuals would be confused.
As Ric stated earlier, you have to take a bunch of variables into account (e.g. the person you beat, the stage you beat them on, the build to the match, the capitalisation after the victory etc.). This is wrestling, it's up to the writers to make the victory mean something. Beating Cena clean randomly is not enough, and neither is ending Punk's title reign despite it being mammoth in size.
You build someone up to beat Punk in a well hyped match (doesn't even have to main event, just has to be billed as somewhat important) at WrestleMania that will be as much a star making performance as beating Cena for the belt would be, could be even more star-making, depending on the writing.
Personally, I think Punk dropping the belt to The Rock is a waste of a good opportunity to make a new star. Usually you have to force pieces in to place to build a new star, by giving him a big winning streak and booking him as a legitimate threat to one of your biggest superstars (your Triple H's, Shawn Michaels' and John Cena's of the world). However, with Punk's title reign being touted as such a monumental achievement by the commentators and WWE themselves they have a ready made springboard to launch someone into the stratosphere. Punk has not lost to John Cena in the last five matches the two have had on PPV, they may not have all been clean but it means that, despite their hatred of him, the casuals do perceive Punk as being a legitimate star.
They can make someone with this, choosing to put the title on The Rock smacks of short-sighted booking to give a slight boost to ratings for a minimal amount of time and a minor boost to the Wrestlemania buyrate. If that's all WWE want to do then putting the title on The Rock makes the most sense, but if they want to have someone other than Cena and Punk to fall back on once the Attitude Era stars finally hang their boots up for good then they'd be wise to give someone else the rub of ending something that they themselves have pushed as being massively important.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 27, 2012 10:46:00 GMT -5
As Ric stated earlier, you have to take a bunch of variables into account (e.g. the person you beat, the stage you beat them on, the build to the match, the capitalisation after the victory etc.). This is wrestling, it's up to the writers to make the victory mean something. Beating Cena clean randomly is not enough, and neither is ending Punk's title reign despite it being mammoth in size. It's also up to the wrestler in question, and I think people forget that this is arguably the most important ingredient. Commentators can hype Punk's title reign up all they want, but at the end of the day it's a fake title reign in a scripted television show. Few people are going to be any more inclined to buy into a guy who ends it just because he ended it. It's not a waste if Rock beats Punk for the belt because it's all fake, and there's no opportunity to be blown except for perhaps a fun story. Shawn Michaels didn't need to hold the title for a year in order for Austin winning it to matter, because people were already buying into Austin no matter what. The title reign wasn't important, the guy who won the title was important. It's the same for Hogan, Cena, Rock, etc. And the same will apply to whoever the next big star is. If Ryback is going to be the next star on the level of Cena, then it won't matter if he beats Punk and ends the 400+ day title reign. The fans will just be happy if Ryback gets his title. He could win it off a guy that's been champion for one day, one month, or a year and they'll buy into him all the same.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,328
|
Post by bob on Dec 27, 2012 10:53:03 GMT -5
I don't see "ending the long reign" as being a big rub or any better than just winning the title after someone has had a few months reign. I'd say that no big one moment can "make" a guy as a star - Batista beating HHH for the title at WM 21 Hogan ending Andre's undefeated streak at WM 3 Taker beating Hogan for the title at Survivor Series 1991 say otherwise
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 27, 2012 10:57:54 GMT -5
I'd say that no big one moment can "make" a guy as a star - Batista beating HHH for the title at WM 21 Hogan ending Andre's undefeated streak at WM 3 Taker beating Hogan for the title at Survivor Series 1991 say otherwise Batista and Hogan were already plenty popular before either of those things happened. 'Taker enjoyed a 6-day title reign and then slid right back down the card once his feud with Hogan ended. None of those are really good examples.
|
|
AdamAFL was sooooo wrong
Hank Scorpio
note to all: he's a pants-less heathen
I Survived The Impact Spoilers 7/22/15-7/30/15
Posts: 7,095
|
Post by AdamAFL was sooooo wrong on Dec 27, 2012 11:03:20 GMT -5
As Ric stated earlier, you have to take a bunch of variables into account (e.g. the person you beat, the stage you beat them on, the build to the match, the capitalisation after the victory etc.). This is wrestling, it's up to the writers to make the victory mean something. Beating Cena clean randomly is not enough, and neither is ending Punk's title reign despite it being mammoth in size. It's also up to the wrestler in question, and I think people forget that this is arguably the most important ingredient. Commentators can hype Punk's title reign up all they want, but at the end of the day it's a fake title reign in a scripted television show. Few people are going to be any more inclined to buy into a guy who ends it just because he ended it. It's not a waste if Rock beats Punk for the belt because it's all fake, and there's no opportunity to be blown except for perhaps a fun story. Shawn Michaels didn't need to hold the title for a year in order for Austin winning it to matter, because people were already buying into Austin no matter what. The title reign wasn't important, the guy who won the title was important. It's the same for Hogan, Cena, Rock, etc. And the same will apply to whoever the next big star is. If Ryback is going to be the next star on the level of Cena, then it won't matter if he beats Punk and ends the 400+ day title reign. The fans will just be happy if Ryback gets his title. He could win it off a guy that's been champion for one day, one month, or a year and they'll buy into him all the same. That's essentially what I'm saying. Making a new star is like baking a cake. You can't make a cake with just eggs, but if you already have the eggs (Punk's title reign), then there is no point in wasting those eggs and having to go out and buy new one's. Ending Punk's title reign on it's own will not create a new star, but it certainly would help put them over more. This title reign may be scripted, but the writers have scripted it to be important, to waste it on The Rock would be strange to me.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 27, 2012 11:09:35 GMT -5
I really think Punk is going to get by The Rock at Royal Rumble.
|
|