mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 3, 2014 16:19:42 GMT -5
that's what always drives me crazy. I've never been interested in interactive stories. I may not like the story someone tells but to me it's there job to tell it to me. I didn't even like choose your own adventure books as a kid. Your preferences, again, are statistically insignificant to a consumer-driven product. WWE is not giving a charity performance. They charge money to see the culmination of their stories and have crowds in attendance who are encouraged (as John Cena puts it) to cheer, boo or react as they want. So, ergo, they are the consumer, and WWE is supplying the demand. A business doesn't decide what should be consumed, and hide or sabotage the products that the company CEO doesn't personally enjoy the taste of in favor of that which he does. The crowd is the customer. It's WWE's job to cater to them, not vice versa. The issue is only not black and white in the examples of like say Cena, where both haters and fans are equal, and completely catering to one over the other is alienating. If there is a clear cut disconnect (hypothetically) from what the majority of the fans want and what the office wants , then the office needs to submit and concede. the audience doesn't decide who plays in the movie. The fans do not decide who is drafted or signed by the team. The biggest problem for WWE is that if you took a group of 100 fans who didn't like the product and asked them what they wanted you would be more likely to get ten groups of ten with ten ideas than one group of 75 wanting one thing and the rest as smaller outliers.
|
|
BigJerichool222
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
THE BIG DOG!
#NotInMySalad
Posts: 17,424
|
Post by BigJerichool222 on Jul 3, 2014 16:24:27 GMT -5
Roman Reigns is awesome. 2012 Ryback was awesome.Sometimes WWE knows what they're doing, and sometimes the internet needs to get their heads out of their asses and realize that you don't need mic skills or an elaborate moveset to have charisma or to have "it." Obviously Ryback was proof that WWE does not always know what they're doing, because it was them that botched Ryback (and not fans) three consecutive times to the point where he means nothing for business today. Oh I agree, I just meant his push AT FIRST was not a mistake when most people complained about how much he sucked or how little he wrestled; dude was on fire in terms of crowd reaction. They knew what they were doing in terms of creating a new star, but their big problem always seems to be following through on it. In the case of Roman Reigns, he isn't quite at Ryback over levels yet, but he also doesn't have to have a rocket strapped to his ass out of desperation yet like they did with the Big Guy. PLUS, Lesnar's shot is only a month or so away and they have Roman working at a main event level, whereas Ryback was absolutely screwed by inevitable The Rock/Punk match at the Rumble because the superpush itself was a large factor in him being so over. But that doesn't make 2012 Ryback any less awesome and WWE any more wrong for going with him in that initial situation. Ryback NEEDED to win at Hell in a Cell, if only to have the Shield cost him the title and winning streak and make their debut a month later that more impactful. Roman Reigns is in a much better position here with a slow build that's been happening for years. Different situations, Ryback short-term/Roman long-term, but as of right now it remains to be seen whether or not WWE will f*** up following through on what momentum Roman has right now. Honestly, if they wait till WRESTLEMANIA to pull the trigger on Roman, it might be way too late. Then again, it all depends on the booking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 16:24:48 GMT -5
Roman Reigns is awesome. 2012 Ryback was awesome. Sometimes WWE knows what they're doing, and sometimes the internet needs to get their heads out of their asses and realize that you don't need mic skills or an elaborate moveset to have charisma or to have "it." Everyone is just paranoid that poor little Dean Ambrose might get lost in the shuffle and so they're taking it out on Leakee. I believe in Roman Reigns, but I also believe in Ambrose and Rollins as well; it's not like only one of them can succeed in the longterm. Eh, that's not really it. If you have Roman Reigns going over Randy Orton, Triple H, winning the Rumble, Brock Lesnar (the man who conquered The Steak) and then win the title at Wrestlemania in 8 months....how do you think fans will react? Let's be real here. Even if you're not an "internet wrestling fan" that doesn't seem good for the casual audience. People aren't as stupid as they once were. People can tell when the booking is in play, people know when something is manufactured and people start going against guys like this. They don't like things being shoved down their throats and no matter how long these older guys have been on top, having someone topple them like that isn't what people want to see. Reigns is over now but do you honestly think that this will continue with this booking? While Orton is a heel, the fact is he has tons of fans. The same with the others. You just cannot have 1 guy topple all of these major accomplishments like that otherwise there will be major bashlash. The same would apply to Daniel Bryan if he were in Reigns' shoes. And someone tell me something, really now... Once Reigns eventually feuds with Bryan, what do you people think will happen? The most over guy on the roster losing to someone like Reigns....do people think Reigns will be heavily cheered? No, the fans will go against that heavily. He cannot win going against Bryan, no can right now. If you're a heel, you're getting booed. The reality of the situation is that the WWE will either be forced to keep them apart otherwise Reigns' stock will go down or, sadly enough, they'll have to turn Bryan in order to protect Reigns. If Bryan beat Orton, Triple H, won the Rumble, Brock Lesnar and got the title in a very short amount of time, really now, how do you think people would have reacted? Even Bryan would have been turned on had he done that in a few years of being with the company. Bryan, the sole reason he has the fans on his side is because of his uphill battle with the company since the beginning. You then add the fact that they've literally done him wrong repeatedly, I mean we've seen Bryan's rise, it's natural. His rise is similar to Bret, Shawn and Edge in the fact he had to work hard for it and in the end the fans respected him for it. People respect this type of thing. Even Triple H, for all the crap he gets, wasn't main eventing until years down the line after he earned it. Reigns is making all of these major accomplishments in a very short amount of time and that was obvious given how they booked him at Survivor Series, it's only increased since then. Reigns can be CM Punk on the mic, have Bryan's wrestling skills, have Lesnar's presence and even be as badass as Taker and still be turned against with this type of booking. There hasn't been a wrestler in over a decade who's recovered from bad booking hell who's thrived on booking like this. There isn't one person who's been at that level within a few years since the 90s and hell. That last guy to come close to that, The Rock, was at least in the company for over 3 years until they put him in that main spot. Reigns is doing this in less than 2 years in an era that isn't even the Attitude Era (where the cheers were louder, more guys were over and overall it was a far more thriving business than today) and in an era where he doesn't have The Rock's talents. The Rock wasn't even hotshotted like Reigns is now. He lost, a lot, he built himself and overall he was a greater talent. I'm not hating on Reigns, that's the truth. That type of booking doesn't work anymore. Really, it just doesn't work anymore. It doesn't deal with Reigns as a wrestler, it's out of his hands. It's all about the booking surrounding him.
|
|
|
Post by The Beast Disincarnate on Jul 3, 2014 16:30:56 GMT -5
It's a pavlovian reflex. Superman Cena traumatized a generation of wrestling fans. Now everytime someone is handpicked by the management, people start to reject, and hate. See, Sheamus, and now Reigns. That and the fact that people want to have the illusion that THEY choose the guy who will be the top star. That's why they systematically support "comes from behind indy guy" over "handpicked WWE product". ...or, people who disagree with you have good reasons for doing so, many articulated in this very thread, and so these people can't be caricatured as just responding instinctively and illogically. Really, what it mostly boils down to is: Do you enjoy big, tough, hard-hitting bad-ass faces (even though they're horrendously boring and pointless)? Then you'll probably like Reigns's push. At the end of the day, this is REALLY about what kind of wrestling you prefer. The "chosen one" thing strengthens it, and it frustrates people who hate the kinds of wrestlers who get chosen, but it's about the wrestling. ....or, yeah, those mean ol' indie fans are just closed-minded because they only want Ambrose to succeed! yeah or you can believe that. I wasn't voicing my opinion on whether Reigns has to be pushed or not, I was just pointing the fact that the "chosen one' thing does not only stengthens the sentiment of reject, but is the biggest part of it. The indie fans are more able to experience rebel like sentiment of reject against the "Management" or the "authority" (not the kayfabe stable) of the "Big Company" like the guys who reject the Big blockbusters from Holywood and prefer indie movies, or indie music over big studio force fed bands etc. When you're into counter culture, you reject the main culture that is most of the time stereotypical. It makes you feel special, and different from the mass. But at the end of the day, counter-culture enthousiasts represent only a small to average part of the total (even if they represent the majority here). They can be loud though, that's why you have to throw them a bone from time to time (Benoit, Bryan, Ambrose, etc...)
|
|
BigJerichool222
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
THE BIG DOG!
#NotInMySalad
Posts: 17,424
|
Post by BigJerichool222 on Jul 3, 2014 16:31:31 GMT -5
Roman Reigns is awesome. 2012 Ryback was awesome. Sometimes WWE knows what they're doing, and sometimes the internet needs to get their heads out of their asses and realize that you don't need mic skills or an elaborate moveset to have charisma or to have "it." Everyone is just paranoid that poor little Dean Ambrose might get lost in the shuffle and so they're taking it out on Leakee. I believe in Roman Reigns, but I also believe in Ambrose and Rollins as well; it's not like only one of them can succeed in the longterm. Eh, that's not really it. If you have Roman Reigns going over Randy Orton, Triple H, winning the Rumble, Brock Lesnar (the man who conquered The Steak) and then win the title at Wrestlemania in 8 months....how do you think fans will react? Let's be real here. Even if you're not an "internet wrestling fan" that doesn't seem good for the casual audience. People aren't as stupid as they once were. People can tell when the booking is in play, people know when something is manufactured and people start going against guys like this. They don't like things being shoved down their throats and no matter how long these older guys have been on top, having someone topple them like that isn't what people want to see. Reigns is over now but do you honestly think that this will continue with this booking? While Orton is a heel, the fact is he has tons of fans. The same with the others. You just cannot have 1 guy topple all of these major accomplishments like that otherwise there will be major bashlash. The same would apply to Daniel Bryan if he were in Reigns' shoes. And someone tell me something, really now... Once Reigns eventually feuds with Bryan, what do you people think will happen? The most over guy on the roster losing to someone like Reigns....do people think Reigns will be heavily cheered? No, the fans will go against that heavily. He cannot win going against Bryan, no can right now. If you're a heel, you're getting booed. The reality of the situation is that the WWE will either be forced to keep them apart otherwise Reigns' stock will go down or, sadly enough, they'll have to turn Bryan in order to protect Reigns. If Bryan beat Orton, Triple H, won the Rumble, Brock Lesnar and got the title in a very short amount of time, really now, how do you think people would have reacted? Even Bryan would have been turned on had he done that in a few years of being with the company. Bryan, the sole reason he has the fans on his side is because of his uphill battle with the company since the beginning. You then add the fact that they've literally done him wrong repeatedly, I mean we've seen Bryan's rise, it's natural. His rise is similar to Bret, Shawn and Edge in the fact he had to work hard for it and in the end the fans respected him for it. People respect this type of thing. Even Triple H, for all the crap he gets, wasn't main eventing until years down the line after he earned it. Reigns can be CM Punk on the mic, have Bryan's wrestling skills, have Lesnar's presence and even be as badass as Taker and still be turned against with this type of booking. There hasn't been a wrestler in over a decade who's recovered from bad booking hell who's thrived on booking like this. It just doesn't work anymore. It doesn't deal with Reigns, it's out of his hands. It's all about the booking surrounding him. Well when you put it that way, it makes it seem like Daniel Bryan has essentially KILLED WWE because his fans won't allow anyone else to be pushed over him for the next few years. Great. Fantastic. If anyone's becoming the next polarizing/Cena-esque superface, it's going to be Daniel Bryan.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 3, 2014 16:37:02 GMT -5
I wasn't voicing my opinion on whether Reigns has to be pushed or not, I was just pointing the fact that the "chosen one' thing does not only stengthens the sentiment of reject, but is the biggest part of it. The indie fans are more able to experience rebel like sentiment of reject against the "Management" or the "authority" (not the kayfabe stable) of the "Big Company" like the guys who reject the Big blockbusters from Holywood and prefer indie movies, or indie music over big studio force fed bands etc. When you're into counter culture, you reject the main culture that is most of the time stereotypical. It makes you feel special, and different from the mass. But at the end of the day, counter-culture enthousiasts represent only a small to average part of the total (even if they represent the majority here). I... don't think you have any evidence for any aspect of this. I'd also just like to note that the exact same thing can be levied at people who DO like Reigns: "Oh, they're just going along with the majority because it's cool and they never question what they're told!" It helps nothing and no one to caricature any segment of any audience as just reacting to trends or authority, either by accepting them unquestioningly or by rejecting them just as automatically. Because first of all, no one really thinks that way, and second, it just makes it easy to find reasons why people who disagree with you aren't as thoughtful as you are. People like what they like; it's always equally idiosyncratic for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Jul 3, 2014 16:37:28 GMT -5
Reigns is talented, and has a charisma that I think can take him places. Problem I have is, WWE isn't happy with that and want him to be something he's not.
What he is, what he has developed into, is a babyface badass, and one of the best "hot tag" guys they've had in a very, very long time. This is good, because there are truckloads of cash to be made from it. Combine that with his heritage, his looks, his charisma, and his crowd-popping moves, and that's a huge plus.
What he is NOT is a stand-alone worker. He's not somebody who can go out there solo and make you feel like he's speaking to you. He can make you realize he's cutting a promo, and that's fine as part of an act, but not so great as a solo worker.
His short and to the point stuff with The Shield, the stuff with Rene backstage even, that worked because you saw something that felt more natural. What we got with him and Ambrose cutting the final Shield promo, Ambrose felt like an angry psychopath laying out his demented plans, Reigns felt like a guy cutting a wrestling promo.
I know I use the Rock 'n Roll Express analogy from time to time, but when Gibson came in and cleaned house, people LOVED him. It drew money, LOTS of money, and they were legit main eventers. That's because he had someone to sell for him, he had Morton out there bumping and making the women and kids cry because he was getting beaten so badly. Then the hot tag, and Gibson just beat all kinds of ass, and people threw money at them.
That's a legit star, and that's a legit main eventer, but that is NOT a solo act. Reigns, at this stage in his career, is NOT a solo act. He's not doomed to be Jannetty'ed, he's currently a big money draw as a tag team guy, not a "specialist" or some derogatory bullshit, but a legitimate top of the card tag guy who can get that hot tag and murder people while the fans line up to buy tickets every night.
Guess I never thought that was a bad thing, but I'm not WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 3, 2014 16:39:28 GMT -5
Your preferences, again, are statistically insignificant to a consumer-driven product. WWE is not giving a charity performance. They charge money to see the culmination of their stories and have crowds in attendance who are encouraged (as John Cena puts it) to cheer, boo or react as they want. So, ergo, they are the consumer, and WWE is supplying the demand. A business doesn't decide what should be consumed, and hide or sabotage the products that the company CEO doesn't personally enjoy the taste of in favor of that which he does. The crowd is the customer. It's WWE's job to cater to them, not vice versa. The issue is only not black and white in the examples of like say Cena, where both haters and fans are equal, and completely catering to one over the other is alienating. If there is a clear cut disconnect (hypothetically) from what the majority of the fans want and what the office wants , then the office needs to submit and concede. the audience doesn't decide who plays in the movie. The fans do not decide who is drafted or signed by the team. Apples and oranges. The team example is based on legitimate competition, not storytelling; so that analogy can be thrown out immediately. As far as your movie example, you can look at movies or most other tv shows as 'closed system' of sorts where wrestling is much more an 'open system' wherein the paying crowd very much does, and SHOULD influence what happens. It's literally the only thing that matters. If it wasn't, no one would care about getting over, and they'd just film in empty arenas. The one and only thing important in wrestling is how the fans react to it.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jul 3, 2014 16:41:17 GMT -5
Your preferences, again, are statistically insignificant to a consumer-driven product. WWE is not giving a charity performance. They charge money to see the culmination of their stories and have crowds in attendance who are encouraged (as John Cena puts it) to cheer, boo or react as they want. So, ergo, they are the consumer, and WWE is supplying the demand. A business doesn't decide what should be consumed, and hide or sabotage the products that the company CEO doesn't personally enjoy the taste of in favor of that which he does. The crowd is the customer. It's WWE's job to cater to them, not vice versa. The issue is only not black and white in the examples of like say Cena, where both haters and fans are equal, and completely catering to one over the other is alienating. If there is a clear cut disconnect (hypothetically) from what the majority of the fans want and what the office wants , then the office needs to submit and concede. the audience doesn't decide who plays in the movie. The fans do not decide who is drafted or signed by the team. The biggest problem for WWE is that if you took a group of 100 fans who didn't like the product and asked them what they wanted you would be more likely to get ten groups of ten with ten ideas than one group of 75 wanting one thing and the rest as smaller outliers. Producers show post-production films to test audiences before release all the time and criticisms cause changes ranging from new shots, rewrites to even cast change. So your point is irrelevant. As for the team sports analogy. We don't get to decide who is on the team period. WWE hires who they want. And as an example, baseball is a sport wherein actual ability and high skill level is the sole purpose of building your team. Its in no way based around charisma, talking ability or any sort of ability to interact with said audience outside the game itself like wrestling. Its purely on athletic skill and competency and winning. Which means if wrestling followed its example literally, the majority of the people pushed throughout time would not be, in favor of purely technical wrestlers since they are better at the athletic mechanics of their sport. And as for your last point, you don't take a 100 people and poll anything. You simply listen to who the crowds support most, and count up how much money that person is earning for the company. So, if Roman Reigns is box office, the most popular guy, merch mover and a TV ratings grabber, it's a no brainer. He's the guy. But if say, again, Daniel Bryan is back, and he's much more loved and popular, and it can be gauged easily and consistently, you can't justifiably push Reigns anyway (or whomever) over him. Those days are over. WWE doesn't get to swim against the current anymore. Fans will react and cheer and boo, or even wreck those things that are being stubbornly pursued anyway. And they will deserve it in that case for not learning their lesson from the last time. That said, I hope Reigns gets huge, stays over, keeps capturing people's imagination, and does so for years to come. But my point that I keep making, that some keep ignoring to post hackneyed kneejerk opinions, is that WWE just came off a year wherein what they wanted was forced to be changed because fans became wise to their machinations and heavy-handeness in pushing their agenda so obviously. Today's WWE, and the new kayfabe, needs to be built around allowing these fans to *think* they're choosing who they want; all the while WWE is just cleverly pulling the strings and really in control. But that means, no Cena-writing, and no Lashley-pushing. SUBTLETY is the key. Bryan should be the new business model as far as approach goes. Not Diesel or Lex Luger.
|
|
|
Post by xxshoyuweeniexx on Jul 3, 2014 16:44:29 GMT -5
It's a pavlovian reflex. Superman Cena traumatized a generation of wrestling fans. Now everytime someone is handpicked by the management, people start to reject, and hate. See, Sheamus, and now Reigns. That and the fact that people want to have the illusion that THEY choose the guy who will be the top star. That's why they systematically support "comes from behind indy guy" over "handpicked WWE product". that's what always drives me crazy. I've never been interested in interactive stories. I may not like the story someone tells but to me it's there job to tell it to me. I didn't even like choose your own adventure books as a kid. Dude without interactive crowds, we would have gotten Dave Batista in the main event and Rocky Maivia would have been out a job quicker than you can say Marty Jannetty. Interaction helps things, if crowds weren't interactive and they didn't mean anything, we'd all be watching WCW on Mondays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 16:45:16 GMT -5
Eh, that's not really it. If you have Roman Reigns going over Randy Orton, Triple H, winning the Rumble, Brock Lesnar (the man who conquered The Steak) and then win the title at Wrestlemania in 8 months....how do you think fans will react? Let's be real here. Even if you're not an "internet wrestling fan" that doesn't seem good for the casual audience. People aren't as stupid as they once were. People can tell when the booking is in play, people know when something is manufactured and people start going against guys like this. They don't like things being shoved down their throats and no matter how long these older guys have been on top, having someone topple them like that isn't what people want to see. Reigns is over now but do you honestly think that this will continue with this booking? While Orton is a heel, the fact is he has tons of fans. The same with the others. You just cannot have 1 guy topple all of these major accomplishments like that otherwise there will be major bashlash. The same would apply to Daniel Bryan if he were in Reigns' shoes. And someone tell me something, really now... Once Reigns eventually feuds with Bryan, what do you people think will happen? The most over guy on the roster losing to someone like Reigns....do people think Reigns will be heavily cheered? No, the fans will go against that heavily. He cannot win going against Bryan, no can right now. If you're a heel, you're getting booed. The reality of the situation is that the WWE will either be forced to keep them apart otherwise Reigns' stock will go down or, sadly enough, they'll have to turn Bryan in order to protect Reigns. If Bryan beat Orton, Triple H, won the Rumble, Brock Lesnar and got the title in a very short amount of time, really now, how do you think people would have reacted? Even Bryan would have been turned on had he done that in a few years of being with the company. Bryan, the sole reason he has the fans on his side is because of his uphill battle with the company since the beginning. You then add the fact that they've literally done him wrong repeatedly, I mean we've seen Bryan's rise, it's natural. His rise is similar to Bret, Shawn and Edge in the fact he had to work hard for it and in the end the fans respected him for it. People respect this type of thing. Even Triple H, for all the crap he gets, wasn't main eventing until years down the line after he earned it. Reigns can be CM Punk on the mic, have Bryan's wrestling skills, have Lesnar's presence and even be as badass as Taker and still be turned against with this type of booking. There hasn't been a wrestler in over a decade who's recovered from bad booking hell who's thrived on booking like this. It just doesn't work anymore. It doesn't deal with Reigns, it's out of his hands. It's all about the booking surrounding him. Well when you put it that way, it makes it seem like Daniel Bryan has essentially KILLED WWE because his fans won't allow anyone else to be pushed over him for the next few years. Great. Fantastic. If anyone's becoming the next polarizing/Cena-esque superface, it's going to be Daniel Bryan. You're putting too much blame on Bryan, that's just how it is with him. He's become so popular that his fans will like him regardless. This happens with a lot of superstars such as Punk, Taker, Cena and others. Jericho had the same thing happen to him. It really looks like you're blaming too much of it on Bryan when really it's about Reigns' booking as a whole. It's really not how it should be. Bryan's got nothing to do with this because the reality is if he had the same booking as Reigns in the beginning, he'd be turned against as well. Like I said before, Reigns can be CM Punk on the mic, have Bryan's wrestling skills, have Lesnar's presence and even be as badass as Taker and still be turned against with this type of booking. There hasn't been a wrestler in over a decade who's recovered from bad booking hell who's thrived on booking like this. There isn't one person who's been at that level within a few years since the 90s and hell. That last guy to come close to that, The Rock, was at least in the company for over 3 years until they put him in that main spot and that was when Austin was out. Reigns is doing this in less than 2 years in an era that isn't even the Attitude Era (where the cheers were louder, more guys were over and overall it was a far more thriving business than today) and in an era where he doesn't have The Rock's talents. The Rock wasn't even hotshotted like Reigns is now. He lost, a lot, he built himself and overall he was a greater talent. I'm not hating on Reigns, that's the truth. Just about everyone in the topic doesn't want Reigns to fail but the thing is with our years of wrestling, we see something just isn't "right". Sure people can say "well let's wait and see and it can go anywhere" but we've seen that said plenty of times through these years. I like Reigns but I hate the way this guy is booked.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 3, 2014 16:51:53 GMT -5
Well when you put it that way, it makes it seem like Daniel Bryan has essentially KILLED WWE because his fans won't allow anyone else to be pushed over him for the next few years. Great. Fantastic. If anyone's becoming the next polarizing/Cena-esque superface, it's going to be Daniel Bryan. You're putting too much blame on Bryan, that's just how it is with him. He's become so popular that his fans will like him regardless. This happens with a lot of superstars such as Punk, Taker, Cena and others. Jericho had the same thing happen to him. It really looks like you're blaming too much of it on Bryan when really it's about Reigns' booking as a whole. It's really not how it should be. Bryan's got nothing to do with this because the reality is if he had the same booking as Reigns in the beginning, he'd be turned against as well. Like I said before, Reigns can be CM Punk on the mic, have Bryan's wrestling skills, have Lesnar's presence and even be as badass as Taker and still be turned against with this type of booking. There hasn't been a wrestler in over a decade who's recovered from bad booking hell who's thrived on booking like this. There isn't one person who's been at that level within a few years since the 90s and hell. That last guy to come close to that, The Rock, was at least in the company for over 3 years until they put him in that main spot and that was when Austin was out. Reigns is doing this in less than 2 years in an era that isn't even the Attitude Era (where the cheers were louder, more guys were over and overall it was a far more thriving business than today) and in an era where he doesn't have The Rock's talents. The Rock wasn't even hotshotted like Reigns is now. He lost, a lot, he built himself and overall he was a greater talent. I'm not hating on Reigns, that's the truth. Just about everyone in the topic doesn't want Reigns to fail but the thing is with our years of wrestling, we see something just isn't "right". Sure people can say "well let's wait and see and it can go anywhere" but we've seen that said plenty of times through these years. I like Reigns but I hate the way this guy is booked. fans liking someone regardless is a good thing. If they liked him regardless then they'd like him feuding with Bray Wyatt, they'd like the WWE tossing out a Bryan/Slater match on Raw for the hell of it. I think in these kinds of threads there's plenty of people who want Reigns to fail. There's to many people who would prefer to be right and miserable than wrong and happy. And Rock became a consistent main eventer a year before Austin went out with his injury
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jul 3, 2014 16:55:30 GMT -5
Eh, that's not really it. If you have Roman Reigns going over Randy Orton, Triple H, winning the Rumble, Brock Lesnar (the man who conquered The Steak) and then win the title at Wrestlemania in 8 months....how do you think fans will react? Let's be real here. Even if you're not an "internet wrestling fan" that doesn't seem good for the casual audience. People aren't as stupid as they once were. People can tell when the booking is in play, people know when something is manufactured and people start going against guys like this. They don't like things being shoved down their throats and no matter how long these older guys have been on top, having someone topple them like that isn't what people want to see. Reigns is over now but do you honestly think that this will continue with this booking? While Orton is a heel, the fact is he has tons of fans. The same with the others. You just cannot have 1 guy topple all of these major accomplishments like that otherwise there will be major bashlash. The same would apply to Daniel Bryan if he were in Reigns' shoes. And someone tell me something, really now... Once Reigns eventually feuds with Bryan, what do you people think will happen? The most over guy on the roster losing to someone like Reigns....do people think Reigns will be heavily cheered? No, the fans will go against that heavily. He cannot win going against Bryan, no can right now. If you're a heel, you're getting booed. The reality of the situation is that the WWE will either be forced to keep them apart otherwise Reigns' stock will go down or, sadly enough, they'll have to turn Bryan in order to protect Reigns. If Bryan beat Orton, Triple H, won the Rumble, Brock Lesnar and got the title in a very short amount of time, really now, how do you think people would have reacted? Even Bryan would have been turned on had he done that in a few years of being with the company. Bryan, the sole reason he has the fans on his side is because of his uphill battle with the company since the beginning. You then add the fact that they've literally done him wrong repeatedly, I mean we've seen Bryan's rise, it's natural. His rise is similar to Bret, Shawn and Edge in the fact he had to work hard for it and in the end the fans respected him for it. People respect this type of thing. Even Triple H, for all the crap he gets, wasn't main eventing until years down the line after he earned it. Reigns can be CM Punk on the mic, have Bryan's wrestling skills, have Lesnar's presence and even be as badass as Taker and still be turned against with this type of booking. There hasn't been a wrestler in over a decade who's recovered from bad booking hell who's thrived on booking like this. It just doesn't work anymore. It doesn't deal with Reigns, it's out of his hands. It's all about the booking surrounding him. Well when you put it that way, it makes it seem like Daniel Bryan has essentially KILLED WWE because his fans won't allow anyone else to be pushed over him for the next few years. Great. Fantastic. If anyone's becoming the next polarizing/Cena-esque superface, it's going to be Daniel Bryan. Unfortunately, I think the problem with Bryan is because of a freak injury, he never had a chance to get his proper run and for it to play out to the point where fans had a chance to finally be satisfied or fulfilled. His Cinderella story ended before it really had a chance to begin. I think had Bryan not been injured and had a good, strong 6 month reign before going out valiantly on his shield to Lesnar, people would be ready for something else. The crux of the Bryan movement after all was getting him to BE the top guy. And he never really had that chance. And if he returns, those same fans will still want it continued since its an organic unfinished story. So, what happens if someone else gets in the way of that? That's been my main worry with this Reigns thing. It's like he's been handed the gauntlet from a guy who will be returning (hopefully) to reclaim it. Who gets to keep it? Who will fans back? Who will be seen as hero or usurper? And what happens if Reigns gets pushed over Bryan to the fans dismay? I think this is what is confusing people. Right now, it's Roman's yard. The only roadblock is a guy, Cena, that half the crowd hates. And maybe Dean Ambrose if WWE is so clueless to not see him building an organic groundswell. But if and when Bryan comes back, we will likely get that whole Highlander quandary as far as who will be "the one".
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 3, 2014 16:56:59 GMT -5
I think in these kinds of threads there's plenty of people who want Reigns to fail. There's to many people who would prefer to be right and miserable than wrong and happy. Why on earth would it make people happy to have the company's sole top star and only important person be someone they don't find entertaining? Why would it make people happy to see that person portrayed as way more important and get more screentime than people they DO find entertaining? The only way this could at all make sense is if you're just assuming that everyone would agree with you about what's entertaining if only they weren't so stubborn.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 3, 2014 17:14:31 GMT -5
I think in these kinds of threads there's plenty of people who want Reigns to fail. There's to many people who would prefer to be right and miserable than wrong and happy. Why on earth would it make people happy to have the company's sole top star and only important person be someone they don't find entertaining? Why would it make people happy to see that person portrayed as way more important and get more screentime than people they DO find entertaining? The only way this could at all make sense is if you're just assuming that everyone would agree with you about what's entertaining if only they weren't so stubborn. isn't that what everyone who complains about mainstream vs the alternative stuff they like not being appreciated does? But I was responding to someone saying the people on this thread don't want Reigns to fail but expect him to. I figure they must like him to supposedly not want him to fail. But I'm saying they're predicting him to fail whether they like him or not, because of WWE booking strategy. And that they'd rather be right about him being a failure and getting to criticize WWE booking strategy than wrong and Reigns and the booking strategy working and them being wrong
|
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Jul 3, 2014 17:20:49 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more on Reigns being the weakest member of Shield. Outside of his looks and family tree, I'm not sure what they see in him. He could very well get better and prove us naysayers wrong, but I think it's going to take a hell of a turnaround.
Speaking personally, there's nothing about him that makes me want to watch when he's on the screen. I can't say the same for Ambrose or Rollins.
|
|
|
Post by Pillman's Pencil on Jul 3, 2014 17:25:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2014 17:29:43 GMT -5
You're putting too much blame on Bryan, that's just how it is with him. He's become so popular that his fans will like him regardless. This happens with a lot of superstars such as Punk, Taker, Cena and others. Jericho had the same thing happen to him. It really looks like you're blaming too much of it on Bryan when really it's about Reigns' booking as a whole. It's really not how it should be. Bryan's got nothing to do with this because the reality is if he had the same booking as Reigns in the beginning, he'd be turned against as well. Like I said before, Reigns can be CM Punk on the mic, have Bryan's wrestling skills, have Lesnar's presence and even be as badass as Taker and still be turned against with this type of booking. There hasn't been a wrestler in over a decade who's recovered from bad booking hell who's thrived on booking like this. There isn't one person who's been at that level within a few years since the 90s and hell. That last guy to come close to that, The Rock, was at least in the company for over 3 years until they put him in that main spot and that was when Austin was out. Reigns is doing this in less than 2 years in an era that isn't even the Attitude Era (where the cheers were louder, more guys were over and overall it was a far more thriving business than today) and in an era where he doesn't have The Rock's talents. The Rock wasn't even hotshotted like Reigns is now. He lost, a lot, he built himself and overall he was a greater talent. I'm not hating on Reigns, that's the truth. Just about everyone in the topic doesn't want Reigns to fail but the thing is with our years of wrestling, we see something just isn't "right". Sure people can say "well let's wait and see and it can go anywhere" but we've seen that said plenty of times through these years. I like Reigns but I hate the way this guy is booked. fans liking someone regardless is a good thing. If they liked him regardless then they'd like him feuding with Bray Wyatt, they'd like the WWE tossing out a Bryan/Slater match on Raw for the hell of it. I think in these kinds of threads there's plenty of people who want Reigns to fail. There's to many people who would prefer to be right and miserable than wrong and happy. And Rock became a consistent main eventer a year before Austin went out with his injury There might be people like that but it isn't most. Most want Reigns to succeed but they think he won't considering how the booking is presented. It's like when you see a the breakup of a relationship early. You want it to succeed but you think it'll fail based on what your experiences and instincts. Regardless, it's not based on what we think but what we've dealt with in the past along with instinct. Besides that, I haven't really read anything in this thread that makes me think differently. Carp's response to the other comment is perfect. Most people want the head guy, top guy to be a guy they like watching, find entertaining and someone they're interested in. If we don't find that with Reigns then why would we want him at the head of the table ahead of other stars that fit our interests? Why would we want him feuding with another huge star? Same applies to others so really putting them with someone who's lower on the card, less important than him and what not might not be what's good in the long run unless you're trying to build the other star up. We want to see people who we enjoy on our television otherwise there's no reason to tune in. There's a difference between The Rock being a main eventer and The Rock being "the guy". He was main eventing but he wasn't "the guy" then. Triple H was main eventing but he wasn't "the guy". Bryan was main eventing but he wasn't "the guy". Reigns even said he's main evented some house shows overseas but he's still not "the guy". They're trying to make Reigns "the guy" here.
|
|
|
Post by g1megatronfan on Jul 3, 2014 17:30:55 GMT -5
I kinda see his push failing. There's nothing to Roman Reigns. What's the reason to like him? I can't see anything yet. Dean Ambrose on the other hand...I see a reason to like. He's a face with a heelish personality who has an edge to him. I enjoy faces with that type of vibe to them. Reigns just seems like a one dimensional guy so far. They need to give him something to work with in order to become huge.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 3, 2014 17:35:12 GMT -5
Why on earth would it make people happy to have the company's sole top star and only important person be someone they don't find entertaining? Why would it make people happy to see that person portrayed as way more important and get more screentime than people they DO find entertaining? The only way this could at all make sense is if you're just assuming that everyone would agree with you about what's entertaining if only they weren't so stubborn. isn't that what everyone who complains about mainstream vs the alternative stuff they like not being appreciated does? I guess so, since when you imagine up an entire group of people, you can make them do whatever you want.
|
|