mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 31, 2013 19:08:42 GMT -5
I think they're portraying them as two-faced, not out of touch. Their making matches people like while pushing people they don't is them sucking up to the fans the way Vicki and Maddox suck up to them. They're like Al Capone opening soup kitchens during the depression. But why now? When they've already shown them earlier as blatantly scummy and underhanded? They're basically telling the story backwards. What's the point of being disingenuous now when they've already been exposed through all their prior machinations with Bryan, Show & the Rhodes family? Makes zero sense. And just confuses the issue. One, the Board of Directors are now characters. Presumably they'd have some say over Hunter and Steph so they don't want to seem to out of control. Two, they aren't such total control freaks they have to run everything, meaning they don't have to be on every show like Vince was, back when. Three they were being two faced before this too. They claimed Bryan had bribed a ref, but didn't flat out fire him and gave him another shot. Because it was something the fans would like. While the Rhodes were trying to get their jobs back, because of the Authority's evil actions, the Authority gave the faces an 11-3 handicapped match in their favor against the Shield. They didn't fire Brad Maddox for booking their top guy in a handicapped match against the Rhodes.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 31, 2013 19:26:11 GMT -5
But why now? When they've already shown them earlier as blatantly scummy and underhanded? They're basically telling the story backwards. What's the point of being disingenuous now when they've already been exposed through all their prior machinations with Bryan, Show & the Rhodes family? Makes zero sense. And just confuses the issue. One, the Board of Directors are now characters. Presumably they'd have some say over Hunter and Steph so they don't want to seem to out of control. Two, they aren't such total control freaks they have to run everything, meaning they don't have to be on every show like Vince was, back when. Three they were being two faced before this too. They claimed Bryan had bribed a ref, but didn't flat out fire him and gave him another shot. Because it was something the fans would like. While the Rhodes were trying to get their jobs back, because of the Authority's evil actions, the Authority gave the faces an 11-3 handicapped match in their favor against the Shield. The board of directors is a fake writing crutch they've used when they've booked themselves into corners, and need to progress a storyline or direction, but don't want to write a logical way out. Its always been filled with numerous absurd inconsistencies. If they were real, and had the actual power to remove Vince and Hunter as they had, they'd just ban the whole McMahon family from having any sort of control ever again, after the ridiculous immoral and corrupt infractions they've perpetuated on camera. So I don't buy that. That said, the whole crux of my original point is that HHH and Steph are not playing the same outright heel characters they were before. There is a level (even if it is potentially disingenuous) of fairness in their actions, and its watering the angle down. In fact, they have not done anything remotely heelish in months, to the point wherein, taken at face value, they're basically playing straight business people with good --albeit flawed-- intentions. Its making "the machine" seem as if its justified and fair, when it should be patently obvious that they're not. They should be subtly putting the screws to people they don't favor still, or what's the point of them at all? Right now it makes no sense considering the direction they're potentially going at WrestleMania.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Dec 31, 2013 19:30:25 GMT -5
I wish the "asshole" chant would come back, because if there are any heels right now who deserve the chant, it would be Triple H and Stephanie.
|
|
|
Post by golding on Dec 31, 2013 19:34:35 GMT -5
They're both too insecure to let it happen.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 31, 2013 19:42:17 GMT -5
One, the Board of Directors are now characters. Presumably they'd have some say over Hunter and Steph so they don't want to seem to out of control. Two, they aren't such total control freaks they have to run everything, meaning they don't have to be on every show like Vince was, back when. Three they were being two faced before this too. They claimed Bryan had bribed a ref, but didn't flat out fire him and gave him another shot. Because it was something the fans would like. While the Rhodes were trying to get their jobs back, because of the Authority's evil actions, the Authority gave the faces an 11-3 handicapped match in their favor against the Shield. The board of directors is a fake writing crutch they've used when they've booked themselves into corners, and need to progress a storyline or direction, but don't want to write a logical way out. Its always been filled with numerous absurd inconsistencies. If they were real, and had the actual power to remove Vince and Hunter as they had, they'd just ban the whole McMahon family from having any sort of control ever again, after the ridiculous immoral and corrupt infractions they've perpetuated on camera. So I don't buy that. That said, the whole crux of my original point is that HHH and Steph are not playing the same outright heel characters they were before. There is a level (even if it is potentially disingenuous) of fairness in their actions, and its watering the angle down. In fact, they have not done anything remotely heelish in months, to the point wherein, taken at face value, they're basically playing straight business people with good --albeit flawed-- intentions. Its making "the machine" seem as if its justified and fair, when it should be patently obvious that they're not. They should be subtly putting the screws to people they don't favor still, or what's the point of them at all? Right now it makes no sense considering the direction they're potentially going at WrestleMania. I'm sorry, I saw that disingenuous fairness from the very beginning of this angle. As for the Board and the McMahons, completely tossing out the people who created the company seems like it would be bad for business, since the McMahons have never had a problem finding investors despite their onscreen corruption The Big Show angle was heelish, that was just a month ago. This past month with Christmas and all they didn't actually have much of a chance to. But actually, weren't they the ones who came up with Punk/Shield and Bryan/Wyatts, not Brad and Vicki. Creating three on 1 handicapped matches that favor the heels is generally the sign of a heel see, for me, the heel is always wrong and I really don't get why more people don't stick with that. The Authority doing a few positive actions, won't get me thinking "Gee, maybe the Authority isn't so bad," which is what you say is happening and is thus watering the angle down. My mindset remains "I know you're corrupt, you're wasting your time trying to convince me you're not," and if more people would retain that POV, then the Authority could do a face act here and there which would make more entertaining booking(by not making every match lopsided against the faces) without hurting anything
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 31, 2013 19:58:50 GMT -5
The board of directors is a fake writing crutch they've used when they've booked themselves into corners, and need to progress a storyline or direction, but don't want to write a logical way out. Its always been filled with numerous absurd inconsistencies. If they were real, and had the actual power to remove Vince and Hunter as they had, they'd just ban the whole McMahon family from having any sort of control ever again, after the ridiculous immoral and corrupt infractions they've perpetuated on camera. So I don't buy that. That said, the whole crux of my original point is that HHH and Steph are not playing the same outright heel characters they were before. There is a level (even if it is potentially disingenuous) of fairness in their actions, and its watering the angle down. In fact, they have not done anything remotely heelish in months, to the point wherein, taken at face value, they're basically playing straight business people with good --albeit flawed-- intentions. Its making "the machine" seem as if its justified and fair, when it should be patently obvious that they're not. They should be subtly putting the screws to people they don't favor still, or what's the point of them at all? Right now it makes no sense considering the direction they're potentially going at WrestleMania. As for the Board and the McMahons, completely tossing out the people who created the company seems like it would be bad for business, since the McMahons have never had a problem finding investors despite their onscreen corruption Dude, it's not real. It exists within its own self-contained storyline universe. The real investors and the fake projection of the company in storylines do not exist within the same conscious stratosphere. If the McMahons were really like they were on TV, not only would investors revolt, and the board panic, but the government would interject and shut the whole company down for human atrocities. People wouldn't need to maintain that "POV" if the company just wrote consistently. It's on WWE to write logical, sensical storylines that keep with the same consistency they start with. Not the audience to make excuses for why they've suddenly stopped.
|
|
krozor
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by krozor on Dec 31, 2013 20:01:15 GMT -5
I think of it more as a slow build that will likely see him get some kind of just desserts at 'Mania The problem is, HHH has continually been on a "slow build that will likely see him get some kind of just desserts at 'Mania" since the build to Wrestlemania 2000.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 31, 2013 20:06:09 GMT -5
As for the Board and the McMahons, completely tossing out the people who created the company seems like it would be bad for business, since the McMahons have never had a problem finding investors despite their onscreen corruption Dude, it's not real. It exists within its own self-contained storyline universe. The real investors and the fake projection of the company in storylines do not exist within the same conscious stratosphere. If the McMahons were really like they were on TV, not only would investors revolt, and the board panic, but the government would interject and shut the whole company down for human atrocities. People wouldn't need to maintain that "POV" if the company just wrote consistently. It's on WWE to write logical, sensical storylines that keep with the same consistency they start with. Not the audience to make excuses for why they've suddenly stopped. Do you feel that in comics DC should never have Lex Luthor trying to build up positive publicity? There's even a trope for this tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainWithGoodPublicityWhy shouldn't WWE expect fans to remember that that is a real thing? I mean maybe they should stop booking storylines with underdogs in them, because people might not remember that underdogs can overcome odds.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 31, 2013 20:06:44 GMT -5
I think of it more as a slow build that will likely see him get some kind of just desserts at 'Mania The problem is, HHH has continually been on a "slow build that will likely see him get some kind of just desserts at 'Mania" since the build to Wrestlemania 2000. Batista, Undertaker, Brock Lesnar.
|
|
|
Post by xxshoyuweeniexx on Dec 31, 2013 20:18:49 GMT -5
The problem is, HHH has continually been on a "slow build that will likely see him get some kind of just desserts at 'Mania" since the build to Wrestlemania 2000. Batista, Undertaker, Brock Lesnar. 3 guys in 14 years, only one of those who actually needed it is pretty terrible...
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 31, 2013 20:26:36 GMT -5
Batista, Undertaker, Brock Lesnar. 3 guys in 14 years, only one of those who actually needed it is pretty terrible... well, let's see he's also lost to Cena, frequently to Shawn, and he didn't get his belt back from Benoit. I don't know where the feud with the Rock stood when it ended Overall, in all that time I think the only people he really hurt were Booker T and Eugene
|
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,304
|
Post by Sam Punk on Dec 31, 2013 20:36:11 GMT -5
Cena's the only one that is currently an active competitor. And the argument could be made that he was already over so it's not like Trips made him a star with that win.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 31, 2013 21:26:16 GMT -5
Dude, it's not real. It exists within its own self-contained storyline universe. The real investors and the fake projection of the company in storylines do not exist within the same conscious stratosphere. If the McMahons were really like they were on TV, not only would investors revolt, and the board panic, but the government would interject and shut the whole company down for human atrocities. People wouldn't need to maintain that "POV" if the company just wrote consistently. It's on WWE to write logical, sensical storylines that keep with the same consistency they start with. Not the audience to make excuses for why they've suddenly stopped. Do you feel that in comics DC should never have Lex Luthor trying to build up positive publicity? There's even a trope for this tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainWithGoodPublicityWhy shouldn't WWE expect fans to remember that that is a real thing? I mean maybe they should stop booking storylines with underdogs in them, because people might not remember that underdogs can overcome odds. Because in comics and other entertainment mediums they show or hint at that duplicity when those villains are not in those situations. They don't create the illusion to us, the reader/viewer that they have actually changed; just to the players involved in the story. We're watching/reading from a detached POV with full realization and a window into their true natures. Its the characters who are not privy. If WWE had done this in reverse, and started this at the beginning, I'd be fine with it, and it'd have fit with the trope. But its ass backwards now. At the very least they should have subtle moments to us the audience wherein we're shown how full of shit they really are, even if the WWE superstars onscreen aren't aware. Keep in mind, not every single viewer has the full reference of us smart fans to know what's being built toward (the whole Vince power struggle angle). To them, the casual, it would seem as if they're just going about regular fair business, or heaven forbid, actually right about how they conduct business and who they choose to push and why. It's conflicting without a wink to show that they're still evil underneath.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 31, 2013 21:30:40 GMT -5
It's called "bad writing". It leads to these sorts of inconsistencies and shifting, poorly or never-explained motivations.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 31, 2013 23:08:15 GMT -5
Do you feel that in comics DC should never have Lex Luthor trying to build up positive publicity? There's even a trope for this tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainWithGoodPublicityWhy shouldn't WWE expect fans to remember that that is a real thing? I mean maybe they should stop booking storylines with underdogs in them, because people might not remember that underdogs can overcome odds. Because in comics and other entertainment mediums they show or hint at that duplicity when those villains are not in those situations. They don't create the illusion to us, the reader/viewer that they have actually changed; just to the players involved in the story. We're watching/reading from a detached POV with full realization and a window into their true natures. Its the characters who are not privy. If WWE had done this in reverse, and started this at the beginning, I'd be fine with it, and it'd have fit with the trope. But its ass backwards now. At the very least they should have subtle moments to us the audience wherein we're shown how full of shit they really are, even if the WWE superstars onscreen aren't aware. Keep in mind, not every single viewer has the full reference of us smart fans to know what's being built toward (the whole Vince power struggle angle). To them, the casual, it would seem as if they're just going about regular fair business, or heaven forbid, actually right about how they conduct business and who they choose to push and why. It's conflicting without a wink to show that they're still evil underneath. this is one of those times I feel sorry for WWE. I've seen plenty of fans ask for subtlety and more maturity in their storytelling, but when they try it... Hell, they even tried a storyline kind of like what you're talking about with the breakup of Evolution. Trips had been trying to push Batista to challenge JBL for the WWE title after the Royal Rumble. He'd tried to make it look like JBL was attacking Batista but we had no confirmation that was the case until Trips told Flair. People then complained it made Batista look like a fool for not figuring it out, despite the fact Batista's expression as he eavesdropped was one of smug superiority. I think the announcing constantly talking about how unfair things are does help with things. How casual is casual, in this theoretical fan? In the past six months Daniel Bryan has gone through three different gauntlet matches, multiple handicapped matches, won the WWE title, gotten the fans to go completely crazy for him. It's hard to claim that Bryan has deserved any of the things that happened to him in that period so they certainly don't seem reasonable
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 1, 2014 1:24:27 GMT -5
Do you feel that in comics DC should never have Lex Luthor trying to build up positive publicity? There's even a trope for this tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainWithGoodPublicityWhy shouldn't WWE expect fans to remember that that is a real thing? I mean maybe they should stop booking storylines with underdogs in them, because people might not remember that underdogs can overcome odds. Because in comics and other entertainment mediums they show or hint at that duplicity when those villains are not in those situations. They don't create the illusion to us, the reader/viewer that they have actually changed; just to the players involved in the story. We're watching/reading from a detached POV with full realization and a window into their true natures. Its the characters who are not privy. If WWE had done this in reverse, and started this at the beginning, I'd be fine with it, and it'd have fit with the trope. But its ass backwards now. At the very least they should have subtle moments to us the audience wherein we're shown how full of shit they really are, even if the WWE superstars onscreen aren't aware. Keep in mind, not every single viewer has the full reference of us smart fans to know what's being built toward (the whole Vince power struggle angle). To them, the casual, it would seem as if they're just going about regular fair business, or heaven forbid, actually right about how they conduct business and who they choose to push and why. It's conflicting without a wink to show that they're still evil underneath. I think their alliegances with Orton, The Shield, Corporate Kane, and The Wyatts (more indirectly, but still) show that they're still plenty evil. Even stuff that makes business sense like bringing Brock Lesnar back when Triple H knows how violent he can be is a good show that he's still evil. I'll admit that to the casual, it'd be tough to tell that they're heels unless Daniel Bryan is involved, but it still works.
|
|
RIHT
Hank Scorpio
Wanted a title with "YOU'RE WELCOME!" Close enough.
Hey-yo.
Posts: 5,897
|
Post by RIHT on Jan 1, 2014 1:36:09 GMT -5
But the thing is, guys like Jericho, Rock, and Stone Cold used to mess with them. Why not now with Bryan, Punk, or even Cena?
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jan 1, 2014 1:38:02 GMT -5
Because in comics and other entertainment mediums they show or hint at that duplicity when those villains are not in those situations. They don't create the illusion to us, the reader/viewer that they have actually changed; just to the players involved in the story. We're watching/reading from a detached POV with full realization and a window into their true natures. Its the characters who are not privy. If WWE had done this in reverse, and started this at the beginning, I'd be fine with it, and it'd have fit with the trope. But its ass backwards now. At the very least they should have subtle moments to us the audience wherein we're shown how full of shit they really are, even if the WWE superstars onscreen aren't aware. Keep in mind, not every single viewer has the full reference of us smart fans to know what's being built toward (the whole Vince power struggle angle). To them, the casual, it would seem as if they're just going about regular fair business, or heaven forbid, actually right about how they conduct business and who they choose to push and why. It's conflicting without a wink to show that they're still evil underneath. I think their alliegances with Orton, The Shield, Corporate Kane, and The Wyatts (more indirectly, but still) show that they're still plenty evil. Even stuff that makes business sense like bringing Brock Lesnar back when Triple H knows how violent he can be is a good show that he's still evil. I'll admit that to the casual, it'd be tough to tell that they're heels unless Daniel Bryan is involved, but it still works. The best use of HHH is the stuff they've done with him on WWE.com. He's just so blatantly full of shit that it's marvelous. A true heel that believes his own lies because he can't admit he is/was wrong. That's the stuff they should be playing on RAW. Totally fleshes out the character perfectly, rather than stupid smiley announcements and getting comically annoyed with Brad Maddox.
|
|
|
Post by xxshoyuweeniexx on Jan 1, 2014 2:01:45 GMT -5
But the thing is, guys like Jericho, Rock, and Stone Cold used to mess with them. Why not now with Bryan, Punk, or even Cena? Punk is kinda messing with them through this stuff with the Shield, but Cena's "messing with them" would involve a lot of bad jokes and kiddy humor that I don't think we really want to hear.
|
|