Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 11:01:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by king1836 on Jan 27, 2014 11:03:27 GMT -5
Fans pissing over the product on live TV might actually make RAW more entertaining. I really hope that the fans chant "DANIEL BRYAN" throughout the night! During matches, promos, etc.
|
|
|
Post by SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids on Jan 27, 2014 11:16:08 GMT -5
Looking back as objectively as possible, the end was justified. Reigns was elevated, which is what they wanted from jump. They see it as the positive it is for them, establishing the next big star.
I suggest D Bry get a starring role in a major motion picture so he can finally win the WWE CHampionship. Even I'm starting to feel he is getting screwed. I don't like the direction of the company right now, but it's not my company.
There is a saying in sports with coaches and team organizations: "If you listen to the fans, you'll be sitting with them next year." This is The E living by this mantra. It's not even a middle-finger, per se, to the fans. It's more like the organization is going to do what it does, and, if fans like what it does, fine, but we're not going to cowtow to the fans, either.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 27, 2014 11:28:57 GMT -5
No but if you don't like the movie, you don't sit in the theater and start chants about how the actors suck and yelling "BORING" midway through the movie No, You get up, you leave the theater and don't support the filmmaker responsible if appropriate. You also tell people when they ask about the movie that you didn't like it. And....You went to see the movie because you WANTED to see THAT movie. Yeah exactly, you don't start screaming during the movie and ruining the enjoyment of others who just wanted to see a good movie and that's what the crowd did to the Rumble for me, that's why I didn't like them
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Jan 27, 2014 11:47:47 GMT -5
No, You get up, you leave the theater and don't support the filmmaker responsible if appropriate. You also tell people when they ask about the movie that you didn't like it. And....You went to see the movie because you WANTED to see THAT movie. Yeah exactly, you don't start screaming during the movie and ruining the enjoyment of others who just wanted to see a good movie and that's what the crowd did to the Rumble for me, that's why I didn't like them Yeah we get it the fans knew what to expect and should have accepted it. However, you too knew what to expect and should know going forward that this is what you will get if things stay par for the course and should accept it or move on because obviously the other side isn't moving. Sucks but WWE's stupidity is ruining it for DB fans and those not interested in DB. We've reached critical mass here.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 27, 2014 11:53:09 GMT -5
No, You get up, you leave the theater and don't support the filmmaker responsible if appropriate. You also tell people when they ask about the movie that you didn't like it. And....You went to see the movie because you WANTED to see THAT movie. Yeah exactly, you don't start screaming during the movie and ruining the enjoyment of others who just wanted to see a good movie and that's what the crowd did to the Rumble for me, that's why I didn't like them It's just tough. It comes with the territory of wrestling, which involves an interactive audience. Doesn't apply to going to see a film, so I'm not sure why you persist in using that comparison.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jan 27, 2014 11:55:27 GMT -5
No, You get up, you leave the theater and don't support the filmmaker responsible if appropriate. You also tell people when they ask about the movie that you didn't like it. And....You went to see the movie because you WANTED to see THAT movie. Yeah exactly, you don't start screaming during the movie and ruining the enjoyment of others who just wanted to see a good movie and that's what the crowd did to the Rumble for me, that's why I didn't like them The problem with that is that crowd reaction is pretty much THE key difference between pro wrestling and every other form of entertainment. The response is immidiate and there for everyone to hear. With a film, you only have until people leave the theatre, same with music (not quite with concerts) and television and such. I can see your point and as a film critic, I expect respect from the people watching until the movie ends but pro wrestling, at it's core, wants people to react to the things that are going on. It's more aggressive pantomime in that sense.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 27, 2014 12:01:45 GMT -5
Yeah exactly, you don't start screaming during the movie and ruining the enjoyment of others who just wanted to see a good movie and that's what the crowd did to the Rumble for me, that's why I didn't like them The problem with that is that crowd reaction is pretty much THE key difference between pro wrestling and every other form of entertainment. The response is immidiate and there for everyone to hear. With a film, you only have until people leave the theatre, same with music (not quite with concerts) and television and such. I can see your point and as a film critic, I expect respect from the people watching until the movie ends but pro wrestling, at it's core, wants people to react to the things that are going on. It's more aggressive pantomime in that sense. Right, but still as I'm saying, there's a difference between "reacting" to what's going on, and doing whatever you can to "ruin" the show because you don't approve of it. What Pittsburgh did to me was the latter, not the former when it came to the Cena/Orton match. It is different because of how far in advance tickets may be bought, but I would also think that no matter how early you bought tickets to a movie, you wouldn't start booing scenes immediately just because your favorite actor didn't show up yet
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 27, 2014 12:04:18 GMT -5
The problem with that is that crowd reaction is pretty much THE key difference between pro wrestling and every other form of entertainment. The response is immidiate and there for everyone to hear. With a film, you only have until people leave the theatre, same with music (not quite with concerts) and television and such. I can see your point and as a film critic, I expect respect from the people watching until the movie ends but pro wrestling, at it's core, wants people to react to the things that are going on. It's more aggressive pantomime in that sense. Right, but still as I'm saying, there's a difference between "reacting" to what's going on, and doing whatever you can to "ruin" the show because you don't approve of it. What Pittsburgh did to me was the latter, not the former when it came to the Cena/Orton match. It is different because of how far in advance tickets may be bought, but I would also think that no matter how early you bought tickets to a movie, you wouldn't start booing scenes immediately just because your favorite actor didn't show up yet*sigh*
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 27, 2014 12:06:17 GMT -5
Right, but still as I'm saying, there's a difference between "reacting" to what's going on, and doing whatever you can to "ruin" the show because you don't approve of it. What Pittsburgh did to me was the latter, not the former when it came to the Cena/Orton match. It is different because of how far in advance tickets may be bought, but I would also think that no matter how early you bought tickets to a movie, you wouldn't start booing scenes immediately just because your favorite actor didn't show up yet*sigh* Listen I'm not the one who used the movie analogy, someone else did and I was responding to it earlier. But come on, that's pretty much what happened with that match. The crowd chose to voice their displeasure essentially before the opening credits even started. AT LEAST give them a chance to put on a good match
|
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Jan 27, 2014 12:24:28 GMT -5
Right, but still as I'm saying, there's a difference between "reacting" to what's going on, and doing whatever you can to "ruin" the show because you don't approve of it. What Pittsburgh did to me was the latter, not the former when it came to the Cena/Orton match. It is different because of how far in advance tickets may be bought, but I would also think that no matter how early you bought tickets to a movie, you wouldn't start booing scenes immediately just because your favorite actor didn't show up yet*sigh* Speaking for myself, I would probably boo if they played the movie I didn't want to see.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 27, 2014 12:32:51 GMT -5
Listen I'm not the one who used the movie analogy, someone else did and I was responding to it earlier. But come on, that's pretty much what happened with that match. The crowd chose to voice their displeasure essentially before the opening credits even started. AT LEAST give them a chance to put on a good match The fans are sick and tired of the same old shit. They've seen Cena vs Orton so many times, they've just had enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 12:35:48 GMT -5
I'm certainly no wrestling expert, but this shit just seems so simple to me. - Wrestler A is probably the most over guy in THIS BUSINESS right now. - Tease that Wrestler A won't be in Royal Rumble if you have to, but have him come in near the end. - Wrestler A wins and finally gets his redemption and legit title reign at WM XXX. Fans are happy at the end of both shows. Fine print: If Wrestler A is not Triple H, ignore the basic layout and push one of Triple H's buddies instead.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 27, 2014 12:39:37 GMT -5
Listen I'm not the one who used the movie analogy, someone else did and I was responding to it earlier. But come on, that's pretty much what happened with that match. The crowd chose to voice their displeasure essentially before the opening credits even started. AT LEAST give them a chance to put on a good match The fans are sick and tired of the same old shit. They've seen Cena vs Orton so many times, they've just had enough. That match happened ONCE since 2010 and that was at TLC, yet for some reason people think WWE should have gone with Orton vs. Bryan on about 5 consecutive pay-per-views after doing it 5 or 6 times on free tv prior to that as well, but that's not same old for some reason
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 27, 2014 12:48:18 GMT -5
The fans are sick and tired of the same old shit. They've seen Cena vs Orton so many times, they've just had enough. That match happened ONCE since 2010 and that was at TLC, yet for some reason people think WWE should have gone with Orton vs. Bryan on about 5 consecutive pay-per-views after doing it 5 or 6 times on free tv prior to that as well, but that's not same old for some reason I don't think they do. What people probably did want is a decisive Bryan victory over Orton that wasn't immediately undermined by some sort of typical shitty WWE swerving.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jan 27, 2014 12:50:38 GMT -5
I'm still laughing that old ass man Batista is gonna headline Mania. I say this as a huge fan, dude is gonna look terrible out there and that match with Orton is gonna be awful.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 27, 2014 12:55:47 GMT -5
That match happened ONCE since 2010 and that was at TLC, yet for some reason people think WWE should have gone with Orton vs. Bryan on about 5 consecutive pay-per-views after doing it 5 or 6 times on free tv prior to that as well, but that's not same old for some reason I don't think they do. What people probably did want is a decisively Bryan victory over Orton that wasn't immediately undermined by some sort of typical shitty WWE swerving. Right but if Bryan beats Orton at HIAC, where do they go from there? There were no other heels high enough on the card to justify them being in the main event and as we saw in 2012 with the Ryback rewrite debacle, WWE wasn't going to put the champion in a random 5 on 5 match. Therefore, Bryan vs. Orton again would be the only match at that point you could do and that would have just been too much. That's why I thought it made sense for Big Show to face Orton so they could keep building up The Authority storyline so that someone at WrestleMania would dethrone Orton and finally stick it in their face, but once the unification came up, all that original storyline went out the window. Right now there are a few people who have legitimate claim to wanting to be Champion, and because of the booking, Bryan in a kayfabe sense SHOULD be behind guys like Cena, Lesnar, and Big Show. You can say that he should have beaten Wyatt, but him losing at this point can't be changed. That's why going forward if Bryan's going to win the title, it should be via means that make progressional logical sense, not in a "Okay fine he's champion, now all of you can shut up already" moment. Whether people like it or not, to me that would have to be done AFTER WrestleMania at some point to compensate for other stories at this point. Then after that's over and the Mania feuds end, Bryan can get back into the title picture or have a match with Triple H at SummerSlam since Punk seems to be getting the Mania match.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2014 12:58:46 GMT -5
I won a royal rumble sweepsteak on Facebook thanks to #28 winning so little bit of good came of the result for me personally
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 27, 2014 13:04:00 GMT -5
I don't think they do. What people probably did want is a decisively Bryan victory over Orton that wasn't immediately undermined by some sort of typical shitty WWE swerving. Right but if Bryan beats Orton at HIAC, where do they go from there? There were no other heels high enough on the card to justify them being in the main event and as we saw in 2012 with the Ryback rewrite debacle, WWE wasn't going to put the champion in a random 5 on 5 match. Therefore, Bryan vs. Orton again would be the only match at that point you could do and that would have just been too much. That's why I thought it made sense for Big Show to face Orton so they could keep building up The Authority storyline so that someone at WrestleMania would dethrone Orton and finally stick it in their face, but once the unification came up, all that original storyline went out the window. Right now there are a few people who have legitimate claim to wanting to be Champion, and because of the booking, Bryan in a kayfabe sense SHOULD be behind guys like Cena, Lesnar, and Big Show. You can say that he should have beaten Wyatt, but him losing at this point can't be changed. That's why going forward if Bryan's going to win the title, it should be via means that make progressional logical sense, not in a "Okay fine he's champion, now all of you can shut up already" moment. Whether people like it or not, to me that would have to be done AFTER WrestleMania at some point to compensate for other stories at this point. Then after that's over and the Mania feuds end, Bryan can get back into the title picture or have a match with Triple H at SummerSlam since Punk seems to be getting the Mania match. You're tying yourself up in knots trying to make sense of WWE's convoluted, chaotic and assbackwards booking. This is part of the problem. What they needed to do was a clear and concise storyline which elevated Bryan. Something easy to follow and with a solid logical conclusion. Not tossing in different guys in crossbooked feuds and angles, thus leading to a post like this where you have to ponder which of four different guys have priority.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 27, 2014 13:10:06 GMT -5
Right but if Bryan beats Orton at HIAC, where do they go from there? There were no other heels high enough on the card to justify them being in the main event and as we saw in 2012 with the Ryback rewrite debacle, WWE wasn't going to put the champion in a random 5 on 5 match. Therefore, Bryan vs. Orton again would be the only match at that point you could do and that would have just been too much. That's why I thought it made sense for Big Show to face Orton so they could keep building up The Authority storyline so that someone at WrestleMania would dethrone Orton and finally stick it in their face, but once the unification came up, all that original storyline went out the window. Right now there are a few people who have legitimate claim to wanting to be Champion, and because of the booking, Bryan in a kayfabe sense SHOULD be behind guys like Cena, Lesnar, and Big Show. You can say that he should have beaten Wyatt, but him losing at this point can't be changed. That's why going forward if Bryan's going to win the title, it should be via means that make progressional logical sense, not in a "Okay fine he's champion, now all of you can shut up already" moment. Whether people like it or not, to me that would have to be done AFTER WrestleMania at some point to compensate for other stories at this point. Then after that's over and the Mania feuds end, Bryan can get back into the title picture or have a match with Triple H at SummerSlam since Punk seems to be getting the Mania match. You're tying yourself up in knots trying to make sense of WWE's convoluted, chaotic and assbackwards booking. This is part of the problem. What they needed to do was a clear and concise storyline which elevated Bryan. Something easy to follow and with a solid logical conclusion. Not tossing in different guys in crossbooked feuds and angles, thus leading to a post like this where you have to ponder which of four different guys have priority. I'm not saying their booking makes perfect sense, I'm saying that you work with what you have and when you pretty much have one main event heel, you can't have the same guy face him 20 times in a row, especially if you're building up to a WrestleMania match where someone finally dethrones his long reign. They already did 3 months worth of Orton vs. Bryan, meaning to give Bryan the title you either have to: A. Throw away the months of Randy Orton storyline that you've been building up for just so Bryan can win the title off of someone different. Or B. Have Daniel Bryan face Randy Orton again, meaning you just spent 7 months building up Orton just to lose to the same guy he already faced 10 times over the last year. Like Eddie Guerrero got screwed over by JBL in 2004, but we didn't keep coming back saying Guerrero had to be the one who beat JBL for the title at WrestleMania since that would just be a waste of a long storyline. Whether you feel Batista is the right guy to do it is one thing, but I've sat through Randy Orton's heel tactics for the last 6 months and want to see someone different take the title from him to pay it all off.
|
|