mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 26, 2014 12:19:45 GMT -5
if more wrestlers were like that then the few that still politiced would get everything they wanted. The cure to some people's selfishness is not other's indifference So what if they did? If everyone else is happy and they're making good money, it's a lot better than this system where everyone is too broke and dependent on WWE to ever want to stand up to them if they get wronged. That would actually give most wrestlers more bargaining power if they sought it, because being fired wouldn't throw them out on the streets right away. So what if they did? Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash did stuff like that in WCW. Of the guys opposite them, Golberg was mercenary, Sting apparently doesn't politic much or doesn't do it well I don't know which, and Flair's idea of it seems to be walking out. That is why you don't want the situation I described
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 12:21:19 GMT -5
that's because they're talking about the nature of the work they do, not comparing it to a job. Most words do have multiple meanings. LMAO, how are you so sure of what every wrestler means when they use that word? They are using the word business which is often a place where people go in with the intent of making a lot of money above everything else. That definition also works here. That and it seems that over the years promoters and wrestlers use the term "this business" for duplicitous means, i.e. "you've got to scarifice for this business", "you have to be willing to live in pain for this business" etc, which in turn blurs the lines for guys coming up and instead of thinking to themselves "I've got to make a shitload of money for myself because this is a business" they buy into the whole romantic ideal of a starving artist/wrestler and get their fix from the fans in attendance, and the farther that they push themselves and risk their body the louder that the fans usually are so they continually push themselves harder and farther until they eventually break, all because of "this business"
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 26, 2014 12:36:08 GMT -5
HHH just isn't sympathetic. After all the crap he's done over the year, he's impossible to buy as a dejected hero. He deserves whatever he gets at this point, so Brock beating him was more satisfying than disappointing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 12:37:15 GMT -5
So what if they did? If everyone else is happy and they're making good money, it's a lot better than this system where everyone is too broke and dependent on WWE to ever want to stand up to them if they get wronged. That would actually give most wrestlers more bargaining power if they sought it, because being fired wouldn't throw them out on the streets right away. So what if they did? Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash did stuff like that in WCW. Of the guys opposite them, Golberg was mercenary, Sting apparently doesn't politic much or doesn't do it well I don't know which, and Flair's idea of it seems to be walking out. That is why you don't want the situation I described I'm not sure what you're going for here. WCW's issues mostly stemmed from financial insolvency, not politics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 12:44:23 GMT -5
Cena should go for it after Lesnar beats him, but laugh and make a "haha I know" face when the crowd shits on it.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 26, 2014 12:47:27 GMT -5
So what if they did? Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash did stuff like that in WCW. Of the guys opposite them, Golberg was mercenary, Sting apparently doesn't politic much or doesn't do it well I don't know which, and Flair's idea of it seems to be walking out. That is why you don't want the situation I described I'm not sure what you're going for here. WCW's issues mostly stemmed from financial insolvency, not politics. WCW's financial issues came from loss of fan interest in the product mostly. Sure they wasted money, but they could afford to waste some money when everyone wanted to see them. Imagine if they'd released all the guys they never intended to use. They had over 100 people signed at times. Then they could have not had 0 gate PPVs like Road Wild
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 12:59:09 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you're going for here. WCW's issues mostly stemmed from financial insolvency, not politics. WCW's financial issues came from loss of fan interest in the product mostly. Sure they wasted money, but they could afford to waste some money when everyone wanted to see them. Imagine if they'd released all the guys they never intended to use. They had over 100 people signed at times. Then they could have not had 0 gate PPVs like Road Wild WWF had politics too. That didn't kill them. "Politics" is such a broad term. I mean, like, what do you mean people politicking for? People can politick for better wages (i.e. everyone becomes a mercenary like Lesnar), or they can politick for pushes, or they could politick that Vince make donations to a cancer fund. Politics aren't inherently bad. That's also the beauty of having a mercenary system. If all the midcarders are mercs, they're going to want a lot more money to basically have dead-end careers. They may be okay with that, but only if WWE starts paying them more money. It's better than the current system of "I will crab walk with dog poop on my face for a measly $30k a year because I LOVE WRESTLING!!!!" where people who are less apt at managing their finances post-WWE wind up broke, or with serious nagging injuries. It'll be an encouragement to push people more because they'll probably prefer (A) Less push for more money, or (B) More push for less money. If everyone gets to be a big star, money won't be as big of an issue. If people get less push and more money, they have better post-careers. Either way, everyone is happy. Except maybe WWE, but I'm not going to shed a tear if they have to pay their employees.
|
|
|
Post by SCCB Was Told To Do Steroids on Jul 26, 2014 13:42:49 GMT -5
Oh you guys....
The Rock floats in and out for an in-between movies, quick paycheck. CM Punk becomes Grumpy Smurf and you pine for him. Brock Lesnar, arguably one of the greatest athletes in the modern era, THE LAST PERSON WHO BY ANY RIGHTS WOULD TAKE PRO-WRESTLING SERIOUSLY, and he's nothing more than a "mercenary".
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 26, 2014 14:15:40 GMT -5
Another dude who had "passion for THIS BUSINESS" was Bret Hart. Look what happened.
Whether you agree with Montreal or not, had Bret viewed it as just a job, it never woulda went down.
Plus, he was under no illusions bout how wrestlers are treated when he talked about promoters running you into the ground and putting a bullet in you.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 26, 2014 14:46:19 GMT -5
Another dude who had "passion for THIS BUSINESS" was Bret Hart. Look what happened. Whether you agree with Montreal or not, had Bret viewed it as just a job, it never woulda went down. Plus, he was under no illusions bout how wrestlers are treated when he talked about promoters running you into the ground and putting a bullet in you. Shawn had been doing getting on Bret on non-wrestling issues at that time as well. Like the thing about Sunny. Bret would have had to have viewed it as just a job and had no pride in his personal life either there to lay down for HBK there
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Jul 26, 2014 14:49:18 GMT -5
To parrot something said earlier, Trips' problem as a babyface is that he comes out of the Vince McMahon post-90s School of Face-dom. In this school, a babyface is someone Vince would perceive as an "alpha male" (no, not Monty Brown, sadly), because he takes no guff, never gets outwitted, is always stronger than his opposition, comes up with jokes and comebacks to anything his enemy says to him, goes on roaring rampages of revenge over even the smallest slight, and always gets the last laugh in the end, despite that he has, in fact, been the only one laughing all along. A Vince McMahon babyface is an asshole. It's as if William Zabka would've been the hero in all those Eighties movies. Off topic, but thanks I had no idea of that dude's name.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 26, 2014 14:55:42 GMT -5
No prob. Like Barney Stinson, I'm a Zabka mark.
Actually glad my thread has morphed this way, as I was planning on starting one on the fallacy of the virtue, or or indeed measurability, of 'passion for THIS BUSINESS'.
It taking this route saves me the trouble, and dovetails nicely with the Lesnar discussion generally
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 15:01:02 GMT -5
HHH is poopy.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 27, 2014 8:05:54 GMT -5
I don't think he's poopy at all. He's one of my Top 10 all time. This was still hilarious.
Also, clearly he HAS passion.
Neither approach is inherently bad.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 27, 2014 8:13:07 GMT -5
To parrot something said earlier, Trips' problem as a babyface is that he comes out of the Vince McMahon post-90s School of Face-dom. In this school, a babyface is someone Vince would perceive as an "alpha male" (no, not Monty Brown, sadly), because he takes no guff, never gets outwitted, is always stronger than his opposition, comes up with jokes and comebacks to anything his enemy says to him, goes on roaring rampages of revenge over even the smallest slight, and always gets the last laugh in the end, despite that he has, in fact, been the only one laughing all along. A Vince McMahon babyface is an asshole. it wasn't Vince that came up with the Attitude Era babyface. All those guys who became what you describe became that when Vince let go of some control and let them put themselves into their characters. Austin, Rock, they were themselves turned up to 11, that's what people always say. Is there really any evidence he ever stopped like the superhero babyface style like Hogan?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 8:26:52 GMT -5
To parrot something said earlier, Trips' problem as a babyface is that he comes out of the Vince McMahon post-90s School of Face-dom. In this school, a babyface is someone Vince would perceive as an "alpha male" (no, not Monty Brown, sadly), because he takes no guff, never gets outwitted, is always stronger than his opposition, comes up with jokes and comebacks to anything his enemy says to him, goes on roaring rampages of revenge over even the smallest slight, and always gets the last laugh in the end, despite that he has, in fact, been the only one laughing all along. A Vince McMahon babyface is an asshole. it wasn't Vince that came up with the Attitude Era babyface. All those guys who became what you describe became that when Vince let go of some control and let them put themselves into their characters. Austin, Rock, they were themselves turned up to 11, that's what people always say. Is there really any evidence he ever stopped like the superhero babyface style like Hogan? Not really, but the way he frames them has changed in an odd way in the last decade or so. Austin/Rock/Hogan/Macho would be beaten down, made to look threatened, and then allowed to have retribution in a segment or at a PPV. Austin was the closest to how the Cena archetype is booked out of all of those people (never taking bull/never backing down/always breaking back into buildings to stun whoever or hunt people down) but even he often was made to look like losing was a horrendous thing to him. The entire build to his biggest ever match (against Rock at XVII) was built around that, I mean, he came back post-neck surgery trying to hunt people down, got vengeance, but then The Rock/Triple H/Vince McMahon questioned if he was AS good. The loss to Triple H at the 3 Stages of Hell, the need to align himself with his bitter enemy to take the title from the #1 guy at 'Mania etc. When Austin lost a feud wholesale whether he was face or heel, where it's 1997 against Bret or 2001 against The Rock or Kurt Angle, he freaked out, he sold the loss like a mortal wound. That's what's been missing the last 10 years, not just in Cena, but in other faces like Batista, Mysterio, and others too. I wish the faces would be written to make them more able to lose to their heel equals and react to their losses as if they had lost their pride/status. D-Bry was getting to be that way (sympathy from the crowd being vital to his success in every single moment) but unfortunately due to injury it's meant they've reverted to form. It's odd as many heels who've lost their titles have reacted amazingly, whether it's Brock after losing to Eddie with him wanting to kill Goldberg for that, Batista losing his title to Cena, Punk losing his title to The Rock, Edge losing his title back to Cena etc. They end up more sympathetic half the time, or at the very least more entertaining.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 27, 2014 9:02:39 GMT -5
it wasn't Vince that came up with the Attitude Era babyface. All those guys who became what you describe became that when Vince let go of some control and let them put themselves into their characters. Austin, Rock, they were themselves turned up to 11, that's what people always say. Is there really any evidence he ever stopped like the superhero babyface style like Hogan? Not really, but the way he frames them has changed in an odd way in the last decade or so. Austin/Rock/Hogan/Macho would be beaten down, made to look threatened, and then allowed to have retribution in a segment or at a PPV. Austin was the closest to how the Cena archetype is booked out of all of those people (never taking bull/never backing down/always breaking back into buildings to stun whoever or hunt people down) but even he often was made to look like losing was a horrendous thing to him. The entire build to his biggest ever match (against Rock at XVII) was built around that, I mean, he came back post-neck surgery trying to hunt people down, got vengeance, but then The Rock/Triple H/Vince McMahon questioned if he was AS good. The loss to Triple H at the 3 Stages of Hell, the need to align himself with his bitter enemy to take the title from the #1 guy at 'Mania etc. When Austin lost a feud wholesale whether he was face or heel, where it's 1997 against Bret or 2001 against The Rock or Kurt Angle, he freaked out, he sold the loss like a mortal wound. That's what's been missing the last 10 years, not just in Cena, but in other faces like Batista, Mysterio, and others too. I wish the faces would be written to make them more able to lose to their heel equals and react to their losses as if they had lost their pride/status. D-Bry was getting to be that way (sympathy from the crowd being vital to his success in every single moment) but unfortunately due to injury it's meant they've reverted to form. It's odd as many heels who've lost their titles have reacted amazingly, whether it's Brock after losing to Eddie with him wanting to kill Goldberg for that, Batista losing his title to Cena, Punk losing his title to The Rock, Edge losing his title back to Cena etc. They end up more sympathetic half the time, or at the very least more entertaining. well remember, kids are abig audience for WWE these days so there's certain things they don't want to do. But to be honest I never found whining throwing tantrums or some of the extreme violence they went to. But if Rock/Austin with Austin turning is considered Austin's biggest match(I don't think it is) then that explains WWE's not wanting to do with it with Cena. Fans hated the character they came out of it most of the time
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Jul 27, 2014 10:43:38 GMT -5
To parrot something said earlier, Trips' problem as a babyface is that he comes out of the Vince McMahon post-90s School of Face-dom. In this school, a babyface is someone Vince would perceive as an "alpha male" (no, not Monty Brown, sadly), because he takes no guff, never gets outwitted, is always stronger than his opposition, comes up with jokes and comebacks to anything his enemy says to him, goes on roaring rampages of revenge over even the smallest slight, and always gets the last laugh in the end, despite that he has, in fact, been the only one laughing all along. A Vince McMahon babyface is an asshole. It's as if William Zabka would've been the hero in all those Eighties movies. Well he WAS. [/Barney Stinson]
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 27, 2014 10:52:22 GMT -5
It's as if William Zabka would've been the hero in all those Eighties movies. Well he WAS. [/Barney Stinson]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 10:55:44 GMT -5
Not really, but the way he frames them has changed in an odd way in the last decade or so. Austin/Rock/Hogan/Macho would be beaten down, made to look threatened, and then allowed to have retribution in a segment or at a PPV. Austin was the closest to how the Cena archetype is booked out of all of those people (never taking bull/never backing down/always breaking back into buildings to stun whoever or hunt people down) but even he often was made to look like losing was a horrendous thing to him. The entire build to his biggest ever match (against Rock at XVII) was built around that, I mean, he came back post-neck surgery trying to hunt people down, got vengeance, but then The Rock/Triple H/Vince McMahon questioned if he was AS good. The loss to Triple H at the 3 Stages of Hell, the need to align himself with his bitter enemy to take the title from the #1 guy at 'Mania etc. When Austin lost a feud wholesale whether he was face or heel, where it's 1997 against Bret or 2001 against The Rock or Kurt Angle, he freaked out, he sold the loss like a mortal wound. That's what's been missing the last 10 years, not just in Cena, but in other faces like Batista, Mysterio, and others too. I wish the faces would be written to make them more able to lose to their heel equals and react to their losses as if they had lost their pride/status. D-Bry was getting to be that way (sympathy from the crowd being vital to his success in every single moment) but unfortunately due to injury it's meant they've reverted to form. It's odd as many heels who've lost their titles have reacted amazingly, whether it's Brock after losing to Eddie with him wanting to kill Goldberg for that, Batista losing his title to Cena, Punk losing his title to The Rock, Edge losing his title back to Cena etc. They end up more sympathetic half the time, or at the very least more entertaining. well remember, kids are abig audience for WWE these days so there's certain things they don't want to do. But to be honest I never found whining throwing tantrums or some of the extreme violence they went to. But if Rock/Austin with Austin turning is considered Austin's biggest match(I don't think it is) then that explains WWE's not wanting to do with it with Cena. Fans hated the character they came out of it most of the time But most didn't whine, Austin's paranoid heel character did so sorry if I put that across badly, but Austin didn't whine when he was afraid he wasn't good enough, he cut the backstage interview promo with JR & The Rock, the legendary 'I have to beat you Rock' promo. He didn't even whine when he was a heel for the first few months really, he started that when he & Triple H faced Kane/'Taker etc as his paranoia had deepend at that point (again, proof of great writing at the time). I also think the false myth WWE put across with Austin's heel character not being over needs to be dispelled, if any of us have watched mid to late 2001 PPVs/Raws, Austin was booed massively. He was THE bad guy in the WWE until their own lack of confidence screwed them over and they reset the face/heel alignments. Angle was an amazing face, Austin was a brilliant heel. Wasted potential and excuses put the myth of Austin's heel run failing in the air. They sold worry and sold the impact of losses, and more and more you see this not occuring with face characters. Rey because he never seemed to be capable of putting across how loses bothered him, Cena because his character is the single most inconsistent & contrarian wrestling character in history, Face Batista when he just asked for more matches and never reacted different when he had or had lost the belt. It's one of those strange situations where the bad guys (in kayfabe bad guys, CM Punk got cheered by a ton of the audience during his heel run but was still a bad guy) are just more interesting because they seem to want to achieve things, and if they don't they see they need to try new things to get somewhere. The good guys being too confident makes the bad guys more sympathetic, thus making alignments mixed beyond "grey areas". The writing needs to improve, it's not a condition where the fans are too picky all the time, most of the time hardcore fans (the likes of us on the board) and those in arenas cheer for the same people, we're all marks to some degree, and people liking Daniel Bryan and Cesaro (pre-April this year) and The Shield (pre-break up) proves that. I mean, Brock's reason for wanting to be the champion is so he can make the most money and defend it, whilst proving that he is the outright be(a)st, knowing full well in his own mind along with most other wrestler's kayfabe opinions that he is in the top 1% of wrestlers. He seems driven enough compared to Cena as (in my opinion) Cena with the belt does not act any differently to how he does without the belt, subtlety is important, I don't expect Cena to go on full Money Mayweather with the title, but something...anything.
|
|