|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Oct 30, 2013 14:44:03 GMT -5
Again, you're still insisting that WWE is giving the fans what they want by keeping Bryan around with something to do. The same thing happened with a guy called Zack Ryder. While I was never a fan of his, it was painfully obvious that WWE was writing the character short of his goal simply because they had no goal for him. They gave him a big moment, a moment the fans wanted, and then immediately put him in a goofy feud with Kane...the guy who was the biggest heel in the company at the time. They continually whittled down the fans interest and he slowly disappeared. Now, I don't think Bryan is going to follow that exact template, but slowly but surely they're trying to refocus Bryan's heat to someone else they deem to be a bigger star. They've done it many times before. It's what WWE wants, not what the fans want. Fool me once.. So what you're saying is Bryan isn't fit to play the role? Well, I'd have to disagree with that, big time. Yeah, he isn't some major player on the mic, but he's certainly better than Bret Hart, Sycho Sid, Rob Van Dam and yes...Randy Orton. And YOU'D be mad if Big Show wasn't feuding with Orton? Wouldn't feuding with Triple H first make more sense? Where does Big Show have beef with Orton? The storyline never really dictated that. WWE isn't abandoning anything, because more times than not, they don't give us the best explanations for most things anyways, and drop shit all time. Why is it okay with some people and not others? You're acting like WWE doesn't have a choice in dictating where the story goes, which is funny since Vince has a tendency to change things on the fly depending on what he sees out of it. The difference between WWE and most other shows is you still have a live audience that IS going to tell you what is and isn't of interest to them. I think the stupidest thing any wrestling company could do is always make the decision for us, because that's how you get polarizing reactions. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I think Bryan isn't fit to play a certain role. I think that certain role you're talking about is in your imagination. Again, you're acting like Main Eventer is this this mythical important state of being. It's like, you've just made up your mind that if someone isn't competing for the title, then they must be considered a loser by both the fans and the writers, but... that really doesn't seem to be the way things actually are. Hey, I'm mad about what happened with Ryder, too. But that's not because I believe there's some inborn Deserving that he possessed and the booking didn't live up to, but because that entire concept is absurd. In fact, a big pet-peeve of mine around here is people who blame his depush on some inherent lack of talent. The problem was, as you said, they had no long-term plan for him. I'm having a really hard time understaning your point of view, I think because it seems like half the time, you're comparing things to an impossible standard, and the other half you're comparing things to the WWE's worst tendencies. You seem to like long-term planning when it's in favor of guys you like and dislike long-term planning when it isn't. It's like, if Bryan isn't on top forever, then he'll be a loser forever. Not only is that way too black and white, it's also assuming concepts like "the top" exist. Me, I'm comparing things to the way things have gone the past six to nine months or so. They've had story consistency, a really good mix of characters involved on all sorts of levels. I want them to keep that up. Tell me an interesting story, guys. Here's the real issue, I think. Inherent in what you're saying is that the WWE is actually some sort of meritocracy, with the people at the (real) top possessing the (kayfabe) symbols of success. That's such a strange way of looking at it, to me. Why are you thinking there's a real competition going on between these actors?
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Oct 30, 2013 15:27:16 GMT -5
I don't understand people over the age of 10 who watch pro wrestling for the storylines. Wrestling without storylines and characters is nothing at all. I disagree. You would still have the matches. Pro Wrestling without the matches = Soap Opera
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Oct 30, 2013 16:14:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I think Bryan isn't fit to play a certain role. I think that certain role you're talking about is in your imagination. Again, you're acting like Main Eventer is this this mythical important state of being. It's like, you've just made up your mind that if someone isn't competing for the title, then they must be considered a loser by both the fans and the writers, but... that really doesn't seem to be the way things actually are. Hey, I'm mad about what happened with Ryder, too. But that's not because I believe there's some inborn Deserving that he possessed and the booking didn't live up to, but because that entire concept is absurd. In fact, a big pet-peeve of mine around here is people who blame his depush on some inherent lack of talent. The problem was, as you said, they had no long-term plan for him. I'm having a really hard time understaning your point of view, I think because it seems like half the time, you're comparing things to an impossible standard, and the other half you're comparing things to the WWE's worst tendencies. You seem to like long-term planning when it's in favor of guys you like and dislike long-term planning when it isn't. It's like, if Bryan isn't on top forever, then he'll be a loser forever. Not only is that way too black and white, it's also assuming concepts like "the top" exist. Me, I'm comparing things to the way things have gone the past six to nine months or so. They've had story consistency, a really good mix of characters involved on all sorts of levels. I want them to keep that up. Tell me an interesting story, guys. Here's the real issue, I think. Inherent in what you're saying is that the WWE is actually some sort of meritocracy, with the people at the (real) top possessing the (kayfabe) symbols of success. That's such a strange way of looking at it, to me. Why are you thinking there's a real competition going on between these actors? Wow...you keep going in circles. As I said before, RIGHT NOW BRYAN IS IN THE PEAK OF HIS CAREER, it's the absolute best time to push him as such and go from there. Pulling 2 false finishes to give Bryan the title, only to quickly snatch it away and switch gears is stupid. It's not about imaginary positions, it's about cashing in on momentum, and not just letting it fade. He isn't a loser, nor will he be a loser if he doesn't compete for the title. The point again is they're selling him short at a time when people are ready for him to be champion. They're selling him short at a time when people are ready for him to be champion. They're selling him short at a time when people are ready for him to be champion. Like I said before, if he won the title and proceeded to lose it at Survivor Series or something...it wouldn't be a big deal. Fact of the matter is, this IS Ryder all over again, but not to such a sharp degree. I have been watching WWE long enough to know how they produce shit, and this is EXACTLY what they have done time and time and time again. Bryan's moment is over. If I shouldn't be upset about that, then you shouldn't be upset about Ryder. So please...quit insisting on saying I want something that I don't want. All I want...all I ever want is for WWE to do good business and to jump at the opportunity to push a guy when the audience shows their support. Is that so hard? The thing that bothers me here is...you keep presenting that putting forth any effort in caring about soemthing, giving a different scenario or disagreeing with anything that WWE does is markish. Well, if that's the case, you're going to be disagreeing with about 80% on this website in one way or another. I think it's insulting. There is no impossible standard here. WWE is able to do a lot of things. They have the monopoly on the wrestling business. They have a staff of writers that should be able to fill a slot of 5 "important" wrestling hours each week. Wrestling isn't hard. In fact it should be easier now than ever, considering WWE's monopoly. It's not about what I want, because I'd rather take Christian or Seth Rollins as WWE champion. But that won't happen, because there isn't an opportunity for either, nor would it make sense. I guess that must stay in my "imagination". As to your closing remarks...again, you are so so way off track to what I'm saying, I don't even know where to begin. Again, there's no real competition...only a basis of competition from the fan's perspective. WWE doesn't stick with that. Quit using analogies that don't fit.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Oct 30, 2013 16:43:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I think Bryan isn't fit to play a certain role. I think that certain role you're talking about is in your imagination. Again, you're acting like Main Eventer is this this mythical important state of being. It's like, you've just made up your mind that if someone isn't competing for the title, then they must be considered a loser by both the fans and the writers, but... that really doesn't seem to be the way things actually are. Hey, I'm mad about what happened with Ryder, too. But that's not because I believe there's some inborn Deserving that he possessed and the booking didn't live up to, but because that entire concept is absurd. In fact, a big pet-peeve of mine around here is people who blame his depush on some inherent lack of talent. The problem was, as you said, they had no long-term plan for him. I'm having a really hard time understaning your point of view, I think because it seems like half the time, you're comparing things to an impossible standard, and the other half you're comparing things to the WWE's worst tendencies. You seem to like long-term planning when it's in favor of guys you like and dislike long-term planning when it isn't. It's like, if Bryan isn't on top forever, then he'll be a loser forever. Not only is that way too black and white, it's also assuming concepts like "the top" exist. Me, I'm comparing things to the way things have gone the past six to nine months or so. They've had story consistency, a really good mix of characters involved on all sorts of levels. I want them to keep that up. Tell me an interesting story, guys. Here's the real issue, I think. Inherent in what you're saying is that the WWE is actually some sort of meritocracy, with the people at the (real) top possessing the (kayfabe) symbols of success. That's such a strange way of looking at it, to me. Why are you thinking there's a real competition going on between these actors? Wow...you keep going in circles. As I said before, RIGHT NOW BRYAN IS IN THE PEAK OF HIS CAREER, it's the absolute best time to push him as such and go from there. Pulling 2 false finishes to give Bryan the title, only to quickly snatch it away and switch gears is stupid. It's not about imaginary positions, it's about cashing in on momentum, and not just letting it fade. He isn't a loser, nor will he be a loser if he doesn't compete for the title. The point again is they're selling him short at a time when people are ready for him to be champion. They're selling him short at a time when people are ready for him to be champion. They're selling him short at a time when people are ready for him to be champion. Like I said before, if he won the title and proceeded to lose it at Survivor Series or something...it wouldn't be a big deal. Fact of the matter is, this IS Ryder all over again, but not to such a sharp degree. I have been watching WWE long enough to know how they produce shit, and this is EXACTLY what they have done time and time and time again. Bryan's moment is over. If I shouldn't be upset about that, then you shouldn't be upset about Ryder. So please...quit insisting on saying I want something that I don't want. All I want...all I ever want is for WWE to do good business and to jump at the opportunity to push a guy when the audience shows their support. Is that so hard? The thing that bothers me here is...you keep presenting that putting forth any effort in caring about soemthing, giving a different scenario or disagreeing with anything that WWE does is markish. Well, if that's the case, you're going to be disagreeing with about 80% on this website in one way or another. I think it's insulting. There is no impossible standard here. WWE is able to do a lot of things. They have the monopoly on the wrestling business. They have a staff of writers that should be able to fill a slot of 5 "important" wrestling hours each week. Wrestling isn't hard. In fact it should be easier now than ever, considering WWE's monopoly. It's not about what I want, because I'd rather take Christian or Seth Rollins as WWE champion. But that won't happen, because there isn't an opportunity for either, nor would it make sense. I guess that must stay in my "imagination". As to your closing remarks...again, you are so so way off track to what I'm saying, I don't even know where to begin. Again, there's no real competition...only a basis of competition from the fan's perspective. WWE doesn't stick with that. Quit using analogies that don't fit. Not to start anything, but I'm legitimately curious: Does Daniel Bryan really NEED the WWE Championship right now if he's still at the top of the card, getting almost unanimous support from fans, and even made Shawn Michaels tap on worldwide TV? I don't disagree that it should happen and if it doesn't, it'd be a huge missed opportunity, but I look back on his WHC reign and (cash-in aside), it didn't feel like it did anything for him until "18 seconds" happened.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Oct 30, 2013 17:19:42 GMT -5
Not to start anything, but I'm legitimately curious: Does Daniel Bryan really NEED the WWE Championship right now if he's still at the top of the card, getting almost unanimous support from fans, and even made Shawn Michaels tap on worldwide TV? I don't disagree that it should happen and if it doesn't, it'd be a huge missed opportunity, but I look back on his WHC reign and (cash-in aside), it didn't feel like it did anything for him until "18 seconds" happened. Does he need it? No. Does anyone need it? No. Would it hurt to actually book a legitimate reign. Absolutely not. Should they have done so? With total certainty.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Oct 30, 2013 17:38:08 GMT -5
Wrestling without storylines and characters is nothing at all. I disagree. You would still have the matches. Pro Wrestling without the matches = Soap Opera I think wrestling done right is equal parts both. I had to care about Hogan and Savage to care about them breaking up their team and feuding. I had to buy into Vince being a totalitarian dictator first, so Austin smashing him made it all the more satisfying. The actual wrestling is fueled by the drama of the audience wanting to see the villain vanquished and the hero prevail. And a great match, with a few exceptions like the TLC matches, is built upon the right peaks and valleys during said match; that story that holds us captive the entire time. Even WWE's most celebrated matches like Savage vs Steamboat or Bret vs Austin was not just built on the holds exchanged; but on melodrama. That being The Dragon's quest for revenge against Randy for crushing his throat, and the strange dichotomy of Bret vs. Austin wherein Bret was actually totally morally in the right, but he suddenly found himself portrayed as a passe caricature in his feud with the much-more-cool-and-bad-ass Steve Austin. The matches being AWESOME on top of that were just icing on an already delicious cake.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Oct 31, 2013 7:54:59 GMT -5
Wrestling without storylines and characters is nothing at all. I disagree. You would still have the matches. Pro Wrestling without the matches = Soap Opera Matches are the means of telling the stories. Matches are wrestling's version of Alexis walking into that courtroom with her huge hat. Pro wrestling WITH matches is soap opera.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Dec 16, 2013 0:54:46 GMT -5
(Better to bump this thread than start a new one)
So, Bryan lost 1-on-3 to The Wyatt Family, his first clean loss since the start of summer. Logical in terms of looking at the hard numbers of number of opponents and size of said opponents, but still disappointing.
There's plenty of time to recover for the Rumble, but I think there are many feeling mighty pessimistic about that after tonight.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,992
|
Post by Sparkybob on Dec 16, 2013 1:05:53 GMT -5
(Better to bump this thread than start a new one) So, Bryan lost 1-on-3 to The Wyatt Family, his first clean loss since the start of summer. Logical in terms of looking at the hard numbers of number of opponents and size of said opponents, but still disappointing. There's plenty of time to recover for the Rumble, but I think there are many feeling mighty pessimistic about that after tonight. I would prefer Bryan winning and Punk losing his, but as shown last year by Cena, you can lose at TLC and still win that current program and win the rumble.
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Dec 16, 2013 1:38:17 GMT -5
I now expect three weeks of Bryan berrying the Wyatts.
|
|
|
Post by Kayfabe FAN don't want none on Dec 16, 2013 2:21:21 GMT -5
I'd love to see Punk main event WM (he deserves it), but the title should be Bryan's.
Punk is already the sixth longest, yet Bryan have yet to have his legit reign.
|
|