|
Post by Chestnutrice on Jan 1, 2014 2:30:29 GMT -5
I'll wait and see on this one, but the reason that people are pissed is because WWE tends to f*** up anything that lasts more than a month. The last guy they really made was Punk in 2011, and they still f***ed that storyline up. Bryan's entire run in WWE has been him overcoming otherwise shitty booking, but when the guy is getting the loudest reaction from the crowd, why the f*** are you still trying to force him to pay his dues?
As for the "kayfabe wins and losses". The fact that Daniel Bryan actually reacts when he wins and loses, is what got him over in the first place. The enitre Shield storyline was him being pissed that he lost, and that Orton called him a weak link.
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Jan 1, 2014 5:46:12 GMT -5
Because we remember. Look at Punk. He was white hot in 2011. A true superstar. Then about a month and a half into his great angle, we get a Kevin Nash return and Alberto Del Rio wins the title. Slowly he becomes more and more watered down, there's a forced heel turn, and then a reluctant "alright, we know you're not going to boo him" face turn, and now Punk is just another guy. His promo on RAW this past week was brutally generic. A million miles away from where he was a couple of years ago.
Personally, I don't think Bryan's character could ever come close to touching "Summer of Punk" CM Punk, but the point still stands. WWE has a history of screwing these things up...
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 1, 2014 5:58:00 GMT -5
You'll know there's something to really worry about this time when he comes out next week walking bow-legged, with his hand covering his ass. I wish this were an official WWE shirt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 7:30:58 GMT -5
So... were "smart" fans able to wrap their heads around Mick Foley back in the Attitude Era, or did he inspire a similar constant barrage of blithering whining that management was trying to bury him and destroy his momentum because they resented him getting over? What a lot of people don't seem to grasp is that the reason there isn't going to be a big "star-making" angle for Bryan coming up isn't that he's getting held down and denied it, it's because he's already a star. This is his schtick, being the plucky underdog who fights the good fight and gets beaten up and then people hate the heels who took him down. His occasional moments of genuine victory will always be quickly followed by more grief and punishment from villains. That isn't a burial, that's his character, and it's a valuable character to have in a pro wrestling promotion. Mick Foley wasn't more popular in arenas than Steve Austin was, to the point where when Austin & Rock were scheduled to wrestle, people were chanting "Foley". That's the difference. The crowds want Daniel Bryan over WWE's chosen golden boys. And they're often hijacking segments to show that support and shitting on WWE's ham-fisted booking plans because they're not getting it. That said, I myself am reserving all judgment on WWE until we see where Bryan is going at WrestleMania. WWE will deserve the scorn and ridicule IF they don't finish the natural and logical progression of Bryan's arc and have him become champion at WrestleMania and triumph undisputedly over the corrupt regime. Anything else other than that will be undefendable. That's where I come out too. They're booking him like Foley, which is nothing to sneeze at...but their Rock and Stone Cold are two guys that are way past it in terms of feeling interesting or on the rise. And I guess CM Punk is just Ken Shamrock or something I don't know.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 1, 2014 7:55:12 GMT -5
So... were "smart" fans able to wrap their heads around Mick Foley back in the Attitude Era, or did he inspire a similar constant barrage of blithering whining that management was trying to bury him and destroy his momentum because they resented him getting over? What a lot of people don't seem to grasp is that the reason there isn't going to be a big "star-making" angle for Bryan coming up isn't that he's getting held down and denied it, it's because he's already a star. This is his schtick, being the plucky underdog who fights the good fight and gets beaten up and then people hate the heels who took him down. His occasional moments of genuine victory will always be quickly followed by more grief and punishment from villains. That isn't a burial, that's his character, and it's a valuable character to have in a pro wrestling promotion. Mick Foley wasn't more popular in arenas than Steve Austin was, to the point where when Austin & Rock were scheduled to wrestle, people were chanting "Foley". That's the difference. The crowds want Daniel Bryan over WWE's chosen golden boys. And they're often hijacking segments to show that support and shitting on WWE's ham-fisted booking plans because they're not getting it. That said, I myself am reserving all judgment on WWE until we see where Bryan is going at WrestleMania. WWE will deserve the scorn and ridicule IF they don't finish the natural and logical progression of Bryan's arc and have him become champion at WrestleMania and triumph undisputedly over the corrupt regime. Anything else other than that will be undefendable. are you sure modern fans aren't just a bit more loudmouthed than they were back then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 8:12:04 GMT -5
Mick Foley wasn't more popular in arenas than Steve Austin was, to the point where when Austin & Rock were scheduled to wrestle, people were chanting "Foley". That's the difference. The crowds want Daniel Bryan over WWE's chosen golden boys. And they're often hijacking segments to show that support and shitting on WWE's ham-fisted booking plans because they're not getting it. That said, I myself am reserving all judgment on WWE until we see where Bryan is going at WrestleMania. WWE will deserve the scorn and ridicule IF they don't finish the natural and logical progression of Bryan's arc and have him become champion at WrestleMania and triumph undisputedly over the corrupt regime. Anything else other than that will be undefendable. are you sure modern fans aren't just a bit more loudmouthed than they were back then? Fans now definitely aren't louder than Attitude Era crowds and it's irrelevant to the point that was made anyway. If Austin or late 1998 Rock were put under Marc Mero & Mark Henry (I'm using what Mick Foley said in his book re: determined victors in the kayfabe standing of things) and cheered over them, yet weren't put beyond them then yes, it'd be comparable, but the company didn't seem as outright out of touch as they do now. I'm happy Bryan is in a good spot, I'm a Cena fan, but when the more popular character for 2 years has been shrugged off whilst the latter just saunters into bigger storylines any time he fancies regardless of how out of place it is then it is a problem. Note: I'm speaking as a fan on this too, I care less than Paul Heyman does over merchandise sold, I love when fans are cheering/booing guys wholesale in a way that makes sense in story terms so that's why it's confusing to me.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Jan 1, 2014 8:12:13 GMT -5
I still don't like the whole "this semgment should be booked like this or we riot" attitude. There's a huge difference between supporting the guy you like and crapping over any match/segment that doesn't go the way you wanted it to. I mean what's the next step, having whole shows booked entirely by audience vote?
It's a television show with characters and writers. Just as fans of Boardwalk Empire mightn't be happy at Nucky Thompson never getting his comeuppance, each episode isn't filled with 8,000 people chanting 'Nucky sucks' or insisting on crapping over every scene if they don't like the immediate direction of a particular character. There isn't a "He should be in this scene!!" demand if a fan favourite isn't in the culminating storyline of a particular week's episode.
As I say there is a difference between fans getting behind a wrestler and what's happening now which is almost a fan's sense of entitlement to micromanage every god damn element of storyline. If you like where the character is going cheer, if you don't boo and chant his name to make it clear he is popular but this "I want him in this match, this storyline, want this angle to end this way, want this promo to be about him, wnant this match to end this way" stuff is fans trying to mico-manage storyline and that's simply unacceptable. The whole point of booking and character development is to have twsit and turns, up and downs. You can't do that if fans have this mentality that somehow they have a right not only to dictate who is popular (which is their right) but also how everything should be booked, who should be in a title match, who should be the focus of a promo etc. It's a newly found sense of entitlement I think is fairly arrogant.
Also if you were trying to book a show that got crapped over because one person wasn't Poochie being in every match that counted, every promo, every important storyline - regardless of how over that guy was - unless he was Austin/Hogan level over - taking him out of the scene in order to cool the chanting wouldn't be a million miles from your mind. Unless Bryan had or has a history of serious spikes in ratings or buys wouldn't you (as booker) ask whether this one character is worth over shadowing the entire product/roster?
If people are honest that thought wouldn't be very far from your minds at all.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 1, 2014 8:13:58 GMT -5
are you sure modern fans aren't just a bit more loudmouthed than they were back then? Fans now definitely aren't louder than Attitude Era crowds and it's irrelevant to the point that was made anyway. If Austin or late 1998 Rock were put under Marc Mero & Mark Henry (I'm using what Mick Foley said in his book re: determined victors in the kayfabe standing of things) and cheered over them, yet weren't put beyond them then yes, it'd be comparable, but the company didn't seem as outright out of touch as they do now. I'm happy Bryan is in a good spot, I'm a Cena fan, but when the more popular character for 2 years has been shrugged off whilst the latter just saunters into bigger storylines any time he fancies regardless of how out of place it is then it is a problem. Note: I'm speaking as a fan on this too, I care less than Paul Heyman does over merchandise sold, I love when fans are cheering/booing guys wholesale in a way that makes sense in story terms so that's why it's confusing to me. not louder, more loudmouthed. Opinionated, obnoxious No one ever held up a If _____ wins we riot sign during the Attitude Era
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 8:37:39 GMT -5
Fans now definitely aren't louder than Attitude Era crowds and it's irrelevant to the point that was made anyway. If Austin or late 1998 Rock were put under Marc Mero & Mark Henry (I'm using what Mick Foley said in his book re: determined victors in the kayfabe standing of things) and cheered over them, yet weren't put beyond them then yes, it'd be comparable, but the company didn't seem as outright out of touch as they do now. I'm happy Bryan is in a good spot, I'm a Cena fan, but when the more popular character for 2 years has been shrugged off whilst the latter just saunters into bigger storylines any time he fancies regardless of how out of place it is then it is a problem. Note: I'm speaking as a fan on this too, I care less than Paul Heyman does over merchandise sold, I love when fans are cheering/booing guys wholesale in a way that makes sense in story terms so that's why it's confusing to me. not louder, more loudmouthed. Opinionated, obnoxious No one ever held up a If _____ wins we riot sign during the Attitude Era Again, that's an irrelevant point, but if you find frat boys who cheer for puppies half an hour every PPV to be less loudmouthed than people cheering their favourite wrestlers I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
ZERO
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,933
|
Post by ZERO on Jan 1, 2014 8:43:43 GMT -5
Because we remember. Look at Punk. He was white hot in 2011. A true superstar. Then about a month and a half into his great angle, we get a Kevin Nash return and Alberto Del Rio wins the title. Slowly he becomes more and more watered down, there's a forced heel turn, and then a reluctant "alright, we know you're not going to boo him" face turn, and now Punk is just another guy. His promo on RAW this past week was brutally generic. A million miles away from where he was a couple of years ago. Personally, I don't think Bryan's character could ever come close to touching "Summer of Punk" CM Punk, but the point still stands. WWE has a history of screwing these things up... I concur. I used to be a "wait and see" guy, but I've been burned too many times now.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 1, 2014 8:44:09 GMT -5
not louder, more loudmouthed. Opinionated, obnoxious No one ever held up a If _____ wins we riot sign during the Attitude Era Again, that's an irrelevant point, but if you find frat boys who cheer for puppies half an hour every PPV to be less loudmouthed than people cheering their favourite wrestlers I don't know what to tell you. strongly opinionated people can be harder to get along with than people who just want to cheer. It's like a political rally vs a concert. The people at the rally want a specific result to be happy, the people at the concert are there for a band they like but probably don't care what order the songs are played in.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 1, 2014 9:26:01 GMT -5
The tv show analogy doesn't really work though, as wrestling is unique in that your storylines can, and should, change to cater to what the majority of your audiences want.
Furthermore, in regular shows, there are stories and characters that are 'locked in' because of the story the writer is telling. The viewer has a much more passive relationship to the material.
Apples-oranges comparison.
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Jan 1, 2014 10:06:59 GMT -5
It's a television show with characters and writers. Just as fans of Boardwalk Empire mightn't be happy at Nucky Thompson never getting his comeuppance, each episode isn't filled with 8,000 people chanting 'Nucky sucks' or insisting on crapping over every scene if they don't like the immediate direction of a particular character. There isn't a "He should be in this scene!!" demand if a fan favourite isn't in the culminating storyline of a particular week's episode. Every TV show would be much much more different if they were filmed in front of a live audience that could cheer and boo and bring signs, you can't really apply normal TV show arguments to RAW as it just doesn't really fit. The thing is time and again WWE and it's staff loudly praise us for cheering for what we want, telling them what it is we want to see, this is most prevalent during Attitude Era documentaries but they make us out to the best audience in the world because of that. Currently almost everyone is telling them what we want and they are only hearing what they want to hear.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Jan 1, 2014 10:25:39 GMT -5
Every TV show would be much much more different if they were filmed in front of a live audience that could cheer and boo and bring signs, you can't really apply normal TV show arguments to RAW as it just doesn't really fit. The thing is time and again WWE and it's staff loudly praise us for cheering for what we want, telling them what it is we want to see, this is most prevalent during Attitude Era documentaries but they make us out to the best audience in the world because of that. Currently almost everyone is telling them what we want and they are only hearing what they want to hear. WWE Entertainment isn't a democracy. We don't get to vote for who gets to be champion. That's up to a McMahon and it always has. That's how it should be. By and large, WWE does listen to the fans when we REACT to who we really like or who we have zero interest. Sometimes they'll try to push their own story lines and take risks, but WWE is entitled to that since they give away hundreds of hours of free TV every year. WWE has listened to their fans because Bryan is the 2013 Superstar of the Year, he is their most protected star, having cleanly defeated Cena and Orton and they haven't beat him in return, he's won the WWE Title twice this year, and he main events more than most of the roster. If people feel THAT is somehow not good enough, then perhaps they should go have a good cry under a pillow and then wake up to the excellent WWE programming they're getting each week. Because the matches are top shelf now and better than it's been in a long long while.
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Jan 1, 2014 10:33:33 GMT -5
WWE has listened to their fans because Bryan is the 2013 Superstar of the Year, he is their most protected star, having cleanly defeated Cena and Orton and they haven't beat him in return, he's won the WWE Title twice this year, and he main events more than most of the roster. If people feel THAT is somehow not good enough, then perhaps they should go have a good cry under a pillow and then wake up to the excellent WWE programming they're getting each week. Because the matches are top shelf now and better than it's been in a long long while. Oh my post wasn't about Bryan necessarily, more so the show as a whole. There's a lot of talent on the roster that has gotten pushed or de-pushed despite the crowds response to that performer.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Jan 1, 2014 10:52:35 GMT -5
WWE has listened to their fans because Bryan is the 2013 Superstar of the Year, he is their most protected star, having cleanly defeated Cena and Orton and they haven't beat him in return, he's won the WWE Title twice this year, and he main events more than most of the roster. If people feel THAT is somehow not good enough, then perhaps they should go have a good cry under a pillow and then wake up to the excellent WWE programming they're getting each week. Because the matches are top shelf now and better than it's been in a long long while. Oh my post wasn't about Bryan necessarily, more so the show as a whole. There's a lot of talent on the roster that has gotten pushed or de-pushed despite the crowds response to that performer. Right, well it's still dependant on those Superstars to be reliable employees, too. That's something that's lost on 99% of wrestling fans. Shockingly enough, the measuring stick for success in WWE isn't JUST based on whether fans cheer loudly or not. As Jim Ross has mentioned countless times, talents are measured by their willingness to continue to get better every day, they're willing to stay on track and be professional and hopefully stay injury free. If a Superstar can't check off all those boxes, then why would WWE trust them with a key role on WWE TV, let alone the main event?
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 1, 2014 10:56:12 GMT -5
a lot of people like to talk about politics holding people back and sure there's some but not everyone is signed to be the top guy and so some will never get the shot. Your LT isn't going to get a chance to start at QB, your centerfielder will never throw a no hitter, the TV star in his first big screen role isn't going to get billing over George Clooney.
None of that's politics
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 1, 2014 10:56:25 GMT -5
The idea that somehow the audience owes gratitude/obedience to the WWE is hilarious coming from a Mine Fuhrer. Nice work if it was intentional.
If not, it's a really odd view to take. Every business is a democracy, people "vote" with their dollars.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 1, 2014 11:27:52 GMT -5
Also, the free entertainment isn't a 100% true, as everyone that watches is at least paying for cable/satellite/internet to view it. Semantics maybe, but you're not watching a cable show sans contributing $ somewhere.
Not to mention ad revenue etc. Free entertainment makes it sound like they're putting on shows out of altruism. Clearly that's not the case, they're a very successful business that sometimes provides top notch entertainment to the consumer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 12:34:04 GMT -5
Again, that's an irrelevant point, but if you find frat boys who cheer for puppies half an hour every PPV to be less loudmouthed than people cheering their favourite wrestlers I don't know what to tell you. strongly opinionated people can be harder to get along with than people who just want to cheer. It's like a political rally vs a concert. The people at the rally want a specific result to be happy, the people at the concert are there for a band they like but probably don't care what order the songs are played in. Believe me, most hardcore concert goes are hard on bands (and sound engineers when we end up pushing something too high or too low...) for not playing certain things, even more so for bands of former pop standings. And political rallies, well, I've had less of a problem attending & taking part in those, people unify easily over beliefs of freedom & care and equality for people. Anyway before I get lost in the mockery of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influence on the world... most fans aren't asking for specific things in regards to Bryan, the consistent chanting of Daniel Bryan over main events on Raw/PPVs shows it's not so much a niche angry fan group who want Bryan to be facing CM Punk in an hour long Iron Man every night, the vast majority of the WWE Universe[TM] believe he deserves to be in the main event over Cena/Orton/Big Show (all of whom I like so I'm not projecting my own views here) and pretty much every other guy. I'm not very picky, I love the Wyatt Family as a filler feud for Bryan and I don't think the WWE are holding Bryan down but at the same time -whether it's for badly paced storyline purposes or just outright confusion over how to manage popular members of the roster- it does feel like the company doesn't know what to do with popular breakout guys most of the time. On that note let's look at Ryback and wonder how he went from hero to zero in a year.
|
|