|
Post by hossfan on Aug 26, 2014 10:02:55 GMT -5
A question for all those who think Cena is acting "illogically". When a sports star gets absolutely beaten in competition, beaten to the point that its quite clear who the better man/team is, how often do you see them admit it the next time the two face? How many show actual doubt before the rematch? Doesn't happen often. Its just as likely they're going to puff up their chest and make some kind of bold prediction about them winning. This is what happens in the real world. If it happens in the real world, you cannot claim it makes no sense, because there are concrete examples of it happening. You know the difference? This is a narrative, a story. You get invested in it for totally different reasons than you do in sports. You're following character progression here, whereas you're not in sports. Besides, the times that does happen, those players/teams are rightly derided for being stupid. I'll give you a recent example of the thing you're talking about-- the Broncos got their asses collectively kicked by the Seahawks in the Superbowl; they got Lesnar-ed. A few weeks ago, one of the Bronocs players was actually talking about how Denver beat themselves and when they play again blah blah blah. He was actually reacting like Cena like you're advocating. People didn't say "yeah, he's right..." they rightly pointed out how stupid he was being. It's a story about competition, and as such, all the general sports tropes apply. One of those tropes is being irrationally confident. What makes a champion a champion is belief in himself/herself. We see that all the time with superstars, even ones past their prime. So, again, its not illogical for a fictional character playing one of the most dominant performers in his sport saying "I can wreck the guy who just wrecked me." You can say they are deluded or wrong for believing it, but them saying it is not in itself illogical.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Aug 26, 2014 10:03:43 GMT -5
Because they're black. Until Rocky 4, it was Rocky playing the Great White Hope. In real life at the time, the heavyweight boxing scene was dominated by black boxers. Rocky was the fantasy outlet for folks who longed the days of Rocky Machiano ruling the roost. *Language* See, now I'm just thinking of calling myself Dexter St. Jacque.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,045
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 26, 2014 10:03:40 GMT -5
I've always wondered why I was supposed to boo Apollo and Clubber Lang? Because they're black. Until Rocky 4, it was Rocky playing the Great White Hope. In real life at the time, the heavyweight boxing scene was dominated by black boxers. Rocky was the fantasy outlet for folks who longed the days of Rocky Machiano ruling the roost. There was the comparison to be made, but not really due to them being black. Apollo was the heel because he was basically a carbon copy of Ali, who was heel to a lot of people because he was a cocky prick, though many loved him for that since he backed it up, as did Apollo. Rocky was the underdog, and Apollo was boo-worthy in that he was trying to get an easy payday out of Rocky and only took the matchup seriously when he was on the verge of getting his ass kicked. In 2, he harasses Rocky nonstop because his ego will not allow him to move on and let Rocky live his life in peace. Clubber was sympathetic in that he, too, was the underdog, but he was also a creep to Adrian, and literally assaults an old man and gives him a heart attack that he ultimately dies from. I know we joke a lot about smarks and their inability to understand why heels aren't the good guys, but what's difficult to get about either of these cases? Also, was there some scene I don't remember where Mickey's pep talk involved "Win one for whitey, kid!" or is the race thing transplanting real life situation into a fictional setting?
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Aug 26, 2014 10:03:53 GMT -5
Because they're black. Until Rocky 4, it was Rocky playing the Great White Hope. In real life at the time, the heavyweight boxing scene was dominated by black boxers. Rocky was the fantasy outlet for folks who longed the days of Rocky Machiano ruling the roost. Partially, and it was clearly a pretty big ancillary benefit obviously; but you could've told the Rocky story with a black character too if they'd have done it. He didn't HAVE to be a white audience avatar really to be an underdog necessarily. You're totally right obviously in the way it was presented though. Although I will say you were also supposed to boo Apollo and Clubber because of their arrogance and ruthlessness respectively, and because Rocky was the protagonist, so you actually saw his entire character rather than just negative traits like the 'villains'. I loved how the videogame "Rocky legends" beefed up the Villain backstories
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 26, 2014 10:05:19 GMT -5
You weren't supposed to boo Apollo in the first film. He was very much portrayed as being a superior and respectable fighter and Rocky didn't think he had much of a chance against him. In the second film, Apollo was more antagonistic, but again it was shown to be a matter of pride, because he doubted himself. By the end of that second fight, there was no doubt that he was an admirable and brave fighter worthy of respect. As far as Clubber was concerned, he was a more outright villain, albeit one with some sympathetic elements because he had been denied a deserved title shot, and Rocky didn't take him seriously enough. For all his arrogance and aggression, one could still admire Clubber's dedication.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 26, 2014 10:06:35 GMT -5
You know the difference? This is a narrative, a story. You get invested in it for totally different reasons than you do in sports. You're following character progression here, whereas you're not in sports. Besides, the times that does happen, those players/teams are rightly derided for being stupid. I'll give you a recent example of the thing you're talking about-- the Broncos got their asses collectively kicked by the Seahawks in the Superbowl; they got Lesnar-ed. A few weeks ago, one of the Bronocs players was actually talking about how Denver beat themselves and when they play again blah blah blah. He was actually reacting like Cena like you're advocating. People didn't say "yeah, he's right..." they rightly pointed out how stupid he was being. It's a story about competition, and as such, all the general sports tropes apply. One of those tropes is being irrationally confident. What makes a champion a champion is belief in himself/herself. We see that all the time with superstars, even ones past their prime. So, again, its not illogical for a fictional character playing one of the most dominant performers in his sport saying "I can wreck the guy who just wrecked me." You can say they are deluded or wrong for believing it, but them saying it is not in itself illogical. Being irrationally confident is fine if the bubble is burst and he learns something from it. Cena's learned nothing. He was irrationally confident, got rinsed, and is still irrationally confident.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 10:08:20 GMT -5
Regardless of what anyone says, Rocky's the heel in the second movie.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Aug 26, 2014 10:08:28 GMT -5
You know the difference? This is a narrative, a story. You get invested in it for totally different reasons than you do in sports. You're following character progression here, whereas you're not in sports. Besides, the times that does happen, those players/teams are rightly derided for being stupid. I'll give you a recent example of the thing you're talking about-- the Broncos got their asses collectively kicked by the Seahawks in the Superbowl; they got Lesnar-ed. A few weeks ago, one of the Bronocs players was actually talking about how Denver beat themselves and when they play again blah blah blah. He was actually reacting like Cena like you're advocating. People didn't say "yeah, he's right..." they rightly pointed out how stupid he was being. It's a story about competition, and as such, all the general sports tropes apply. One of those tropes is being irrationally confident. What makes a champion a champion is belief in himself/herself. We see that all the time with superstars, even ones past their prime. So, again, its not illogical for a fictional character playing one of the most dominant performers in his sport saying "I can wreck the guy who just wrecked me." You can say they are deluded or wrong for believing it, but them saying it is not in itself illogical. Eh, I just gave you a real example of what you're talking about, and how that was correctly looked at as dumb. If you're just gonna handwave that away, there's really not much else I can say to ya. Clearly we're not gonna convince the other, so I'll just say we disagree and leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 26, 2014 10:09:40 GMT -5
Regardless of what anyone says, Rocky's the heel in the second movie. Not entirely. He does a lot of dumb stuff, but he's a poor uneducated guy who suddenly won the jackpot, and wasted all his money. It shows naiveity rather than heelishness.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Aug 26, 2014 10:10:48 GMT -5
Because they're black. Until Rocky 4, it was Rocky playing the Great White Hope. In real life at the time, the heavyweight boxing scene was dominated by black boxers. Rocky was the fantasy outlet for folks who longed the days of Rocky Machiano ruling the roost. Partially, and it was clearly a pretty big ancillary benefit obviously; but you could've told the Rocky story with a black character too if they'd have done it. He didn't HAVE to be a white audience avatar really to be an underdog necessarily. You're totally right obviously in the way it was presented though. Although I will say you were also supposed to boo Apollo and Clubber because of their arrogance and ruthlessness respectively, and because Rocky was the protagonist, so you actually saw his entire character rather than just negative traits like the 'villains'. At that time; if they told Rocky but with Black characters, it would had been written off as Blaxplotation. Apollo was in the vein of Muhammad Ali, the boastful asshole who backed up his talk but you wanted to see get put in his place. Lang was suppose to be the street thug who was uncivilized and a threat to society and boxing. But since I grew up in the hood and fellow ghetto child, I cheered for Clubber because I had a lot in common with him. Rocky lost to Lang because his own arrogance and lackadaisical attitude. Lang straight up owned his ass. It took Rocky going back to his roots before he could defeat him.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,045
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 26, 2014 10:11:35 GMT -5
You weren't supposed to boo Apollo in the first film. He was very much portrayed as being a superior and respectable fighter and Rocky didn't think he had much of a chance against him. In the second film, Apollo was more antagonistic, but again it was shown to be a matter of pride, because he doubted himself. By the end of that second fight, there was no doubt that he was an admirable and brave fighter worthy of respect. As far as Clubber was concerned, he was a more outright villain, albeit one with some sympathetic elements because he had been denied a deserved title shot, and Rocky didn't take him seriously enough. For all his arrogance and aggression, one could still admire Clubber's dedication. Rocky movies usually don't have clear bad guys made out of the guys he is boxing, with the exception of maybe Tommy Gunn, and even his story is somewhat tragic. No, not talking about his actor's AIDS, just since I am sure someone will make that joke. He was basically Icarus and couldn't understand that Rock wasn't trying to hold him back, but prepare him, so his fall from grace was different than just being a straight up villain. Though, that movie sucks so badly, I can't exactly blame anyone for not caring. I think the most unlikable character in the films is probably Pauley, though I guess the Don King stand in wasn't exactly much better.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Aug 26, 2014 10:12:01 GMT -5
You really weren't supposed to boo Apollo... I mean he was the antagonist simply because he was the champ. He was cocky and over-confident but he was the champ going against a nobody. You weren't supposed to boo Apollo in the first film. He was very much portrayed as being a superior and respectable fighter and Rocky didn't think he had much of a chance against him. In the second film, Apollo was more antagonistic, but again it was shown to be a matter of pride, because he doubted himself. By the end of that second fight, there was no doubt that he was an admirable and brave fighter worthy of respect. As far as Clubber was concerned, he was a more outright villain, albeit one with some sympathetic elements because he had been denied a deserved title shot, and Rocky didn't take him seriously enough. For all his arrogance and aggression, one could still admire Clubber's dedication. Rocky movies usually don't have clear bad guys made out of the guys he is boxing, with the exception of maybe Tommy Gunn, and even his story is somewhat tragic. No, not talking about his actor's AIDS, just since I am sure someone will make that joke. He was basically Icarus and couldn't understand that Rock wasn't trying to hold him back, but prepare him, so his fall from grace was different than just being a straight up villain. Though, that movie sucks so badly, I can't exactly blame anyone for not caring. I think the most unlikable character in the films is probably Pauley, though I guess the Don King stand in wasn't exactly much better. What about Drago? He's pretty close to being a straight villain.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Aug 26, 2014 10:12:11 GMT -5
Last night just helped me realize that WWE will never, ever evolve or go in a fresh direction until Cena goes away for good. They always go back to the status quo with the guy, and I'm really beginning to see his existence as something much worse than Reign of Terror Triple H.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,575
Member is Online
|
Post by khali on Aug 26, 2014 10:12:34 GMT -5
Summerslam was completely unique in that you never see a top star, especially the long time face of the company, get his ass handed to him that badly in a match. What's the follow up to the main star looking more vulnerable than he ever has? It's him looking not vulnerable at all, and supposedly stronger than ever. I've seen Cena do this for years. I don't want it any more.
They had something unique and could have used it for new Cena character development. Instead, there's no real change, and the rematch isn't nearly as interesting as it could be.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 26, 2014 10:13:12 GMT -5
Even Drago was partially sympathetic. Roided out of his mind and manipulated into serving the Soviet propaganda regime. At the end of the fight he showed some independent thought. Tommy Gunn, didn't have a pot to piss in, then manipulated by Duke with women and money and cars. Naturally led astray
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Aug 26, 2014 10:13:11 GMT -5
It's a story about competition, and as such, all the general sports tropes apply. One of those tropes is being irrationally confident. What makes a champion a champion is belief in himself/herself. We see that all the time with superstars, even ones past their prime. So, again, its not illogical for a fictional character playing one of the most dominant performers in his sport saying "I can wreck the guy who just wrecked me." You can say they are deluded or wrong for believing it, but them saying it is not in itself illogical. Being irrationally confident is fine if the bubble is burst and he learns something from it. Cena's learned nothing. He was irrationally confident, got rinsed, and is still irrationally confident. Which happens all the time in the real world. So it's not illogical. Again, your complaint is about the story not going the way you want it to, which is fine. But its also subjective. Making claims about something "defying logic" tries to put an objective slant on a statement of opinion in order to turn it into an absolute truth.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,045
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 26, 2014 10:13:38 GMT -5
Partially, and it was clearly a pretty big ancillary benefit obviously; but you could've told the Rocky story with a black character too if they'd have done it. He didn't HAVE to be a white audience avatar really to be an underdog necessarily. You're totally right obviously in the way it was presented though. Although I will say you were also supposed to boo Apollo and Clubber because of their arrogance and ruthlessness respectively, and because Rocky was the protagonist, so you actually saw his entire character rather than just negative traits like the 'villains'. At that time; if they told Rocky but with Black characters, it would had been written off as Blaxplotation. Apollo was in the vein of Muhammad Ali, the boastful asshole who backed up his talk but you wanted to see get put in his place. Lang was suppose to be the street thug who was uncivilized and a threat to society and boxing. But since I grew up in the hood and fellow ghetto child, I cheered for Clubber because I had a lot in common with him. Rocky lost to Lang because his own arrogance and lackadaisical attitude. Lang straight up owned his ass. It took Rocky going back to his roots before he could defeat him. Clubber's one of my favorite characters, so I can agree with that much. I kind of wish the series either stopped at 3 or had the 4th one be Lang winning the title back and Rocky passing the torch, because while some people love 4, and a few like 5, I feel like they pissed all over the first 3.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Aug 26, 2014 10:14:10 GMT -5
Partially, and it was clearly a pretty big ancillary benefit obviously; but you could've told the Rocky story with a black character too if they'd have done it. He didn't HAVE to be a white audience avatar really to be an underdog necessarily. You're totally right obviously in the way it was presented though. Although I will say you were also supposed to boo Apollo and Clubber because of their arrogance and ruthlessness respectively, and because Rocky was the protagonist, so you actually saw his entire character rather than just negative traits like the 'villains'. At that time; if they told Rocky but with Black characters, it would had been written off as Blaxplotation. Apollo was in the vein of Muhammad Ali, the boastful asshole who backed up his talk but you wanted to see get put in his place. Lang was suppose to be the street thug who was uncivilized and a threat to society and boxing. But since I grew up in the hood and fellow ghetto child, I cheered for Clubber because I had a lot in common with him. Rocky lost to Lang because his own arrogance and lackadaisical attitude. Lang straight up owned his ass. It took Rocky going back to his roots before he could defeat him. Oh I know; especially on your first part. That's a failing on H'wood at the time, and attitudes in general. You're 100 percent right; I was just saying story-wise there was no inherent NEED for Rocky to be white. But yeah, you're totally spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 26, 2014 10:15:46 GMT -5
Being irrationally confident is fine if the bubble is burst and he learns something from it. Cena's learned nothing. He was irrationally confident, got rinsed, and is still irrationally confident. Which happens all the time in the real world. So it's not illogical. Again, your complaint is about the story not going the way you want it to, which is fine. But its also subjective. Making claims about something "defying logic" tries to put an objective slant on a statement of opinion in order to turn it into an absolute truth. Wrestling isn't real, so it's not bound to such things. A story has to be told, and if the story is badly told, then it leads to illogical elements, which in this case would be plotholes. If Cena was playing a character who was an oblivious moron, then yes the story may be consistent, but he isn't. He's supposed to be a rise above the odds underdog who fights for what's right and is a champion of the masses, or the children at least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 10:16:00 GMT -5
Being irrationally confident is fine if the bubble is burst and he learns something from it. Cena's learned nothing. He was irrationally confident, got rinsed, and is still irrationally confident. Which happens all the time in the real world. So it's not illogical. Again, your complaint is about the story not going the way you want it to, which is fine. But its also subjective. Making claims about something "defying logic" tries to put an objective slant on a statement of opinion in order to turn it into an absolute truth. Fiction is supposed to make more sense than reality does. It's just a rule of writing.
|
|