segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Aug 26, 2014 13:30:55 GMT -5
No, what happens in the real world is they do that after being shelved for weeks and licking their wounds and actually HEALING. A guy who takes a monumental beating SELLS his injuries and is actually physically INCAPABLE of beating up anyone 8 days later, let alone another top contender. In fact, it would be impossible for him to even be medically cleared in the first place to do so. That's why it's illogical, your stance on sports reality is wrong and your point soundly defeated. (Seriously, you're the one who "wants" something to go their way. I just negated every single thing you said. It's over. Time to move on). If you're going to use sports analogies and reality as your measuring sticks perhaps having an actual concept of their protocol and ramifications would help your argument. Nope. Time between confrontations has nothing to do with how humble a super star is going to be the next time he faces a foe. I do like the false bravado posturing this post includes though. It reeks of desperation and makes your argument that much less convincing. Why don't you tell me again about how you're a "professional writer" and as such have a better understanding of what and what isn't logical storytelling? Absolutely pathetic, hossfan. Just because 'in the real world most anything can happen' doesn't mean that a story driven plot should take a nonsensical route. By your logic, you'd be ok with Cena OHKO'ing Brock Lesnar, because in the real world, that happens all the time, and therefore this story is completely LOGICAL TO PROCEED WITH. We aren't talking about logic in terms of what can actually happen. Of course it is possible for Cena to take a beating and come back a week later and say "now im mad and im gunna win". That's 'logical' But wrestling is driven heavily by the story between two characters. The potential for greater depth into a persons character exists, because it is totally scripted. In sports, you cannot script big dramatic moments, because you don't for sure what will happen. In wrestling, we are talking about the story being told between two men, one who seriously outclasses the other, and in fact outclasses just about everyone on the roster. After a big defeat, it is possible for the hero to learn nothing and just 'try again really hard!' But practically, he HAS to approach it differently to the first encounter, unless he literally slipped and got knocked out on the ramp, or got jumped, in which case his preparation in skill and athleticism wasn't tested. So maybe he could win by doing the exact same thing, because he wasn't given a chance to try out his strategy. But if he has tried it and he didn't just mess up at the finish line, which would lend credence to the 'try harder' line, if he was compeltely dominated, then why on earth should the story follow that he should try the exact same thing again with no change at all? It's not logicall to put this in your story. Logical here is being used in terms of 'sense of the structure of the story, and the resulting conclusion will be coloured by it'. So no it doesn't make sense to book things this way. It's not logical that one would construct a story this way if they are looking to maximize potential and character development. Because doing things this way doesn't make any use of character development, it doesn't flesh out the story at all. The character John Cena is doing the exact same thing he always does, just trying again. Again, it would make sense if he only JUST lost the fight. But he got completely beat, so it follows that he would have to try and change his strategy here. Stop thinking of this as compared to real sports Hossfan. In real life, sure you wouldn't want to show any weaknesses at all, in fact you might keep your gameplan a secret compeletely, and at least appear on the outside to be doing the same thing, when really you have some ace up your sleeve. But it's not engaging to watch as a viewer in the realm of entertainment, especially when the character threatens to do the exact same thing that he always does, try a little harder and win, with no adjustment to his psyche at all. He's basically the perfect wrestler, and that's a 'logical story to tell in the world of pro wrestling' to you huh? It's like a movie, if say in The Dark Knight, Batman didn't have to rise from the ashes against Bane, he just disappeared COMPLETELY FROM OUR SCREENS for a week in movie time and then popped back up and said "this time I'm mad Bane, and I'm going to win." That doesn't make sense in the story told, it comes across as incredibly cheesy and unreal, because WE THE VIEWERS aren't shown any character development, even if the character themselves has had to develop. I don't know how else to explain it to you. The way Cena was beaten, the story suffers from this approach by him again. The only way it can be salvaged is if this is written into the script on Cena's part. So perhaps every week he keeps trying to stand up to Brock and maybe Johgn is a good enough actor to betray an actual fear of the man on the inside that is apparant to viewers, but maintain this false bravado on the outside, so WE AS VIEWERS can see the story being told here. Maybe during the rematch, he can keep trying to beat Brock up and being unable to do so, to a point where he actually starts to back away from Brock. There needs to be a moment where he realises he can't win. And in the interests of storytelling, it is more logical to present it this way, week after week, rather than a Russo Swerve "lol he really is afraide of brock" and show any development of the Cena character in the rematch only. If Cena wasn't so prevalant for this type of attitude, maybe it wouldn;t matter, but it's been done so much that it needs freshening up. We can continue to argue semantics about the word 'logical' if you want, mayer you can also argue that Cena's character is developing, into being the perfect WWE Legend, for doesn't ever match help add to the character, and so 'develop' his character, in which case John Cena's character is developing every match? But it's a waste of time to continue down that road.
|
|
|
Post by Bert Hart on Aug 26, 2014 13:42:02 GMT -5
Let's translate what happened between Cena/Brock to an appropriate medium - the comic book world... Let's put it to DC's Death of Superman arc, had WWE booked it. Doomsday mauls Superman and "kills" him. The next issue would deal with Superman's friends and the citizens of Metropolis grieving while Doomsday gloats. The issue following that deals with how Superman returns, says "lol im good guyz" and beats the Joker, Lex Luthor and Darkseid to death, then promises Doomsday that this time he will beat him because this time he is actually going to try. There is no reason for us to believe that Superman could be triumphant this time, because it is completely illogical for that to happen. In fact, after the beating he took, it would be ludicrous that he was not only walking around at full strength, but demolishing some of the top villains in the publication. If you want a real world example, you see an MMA fighter or a boxer get absolutely brutalized in a fight. They don't forgo recuperation and/or training time to immediately challenge their opponent to a rematch. It makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,600
|
Post by khali on Aug 26, 2014 13:53:47 GMT -5
There are so many problems with the "it happens in sports so it's logical" argument.
Sports aren't about story progression. The two teams are just trying to win, and the vast majority of the time the players/coaches will say the same thing whether they win or lose. I'm Pirates fan. Every time they lose, I can count on the manager to say the same thing: yeah, they lost, but that's over with and they'll win tomorrow. Teams just naturally move on from losses and act confident going forward. They kind of have to do that because coming out and saying "we suck/aren't a hundred percent and I don't think we'll win tomorrow" wouldn't exactly entice your fans to tune in or buy tickets. It won't help the team morale either. Even if they are shaken up by a loss, teams won't say it.
Wrestling doesn't have to abide by those rules and it shouldn't. You can tell interesting stories where someone is shaken up by a loss or perhaps doubt themselves. It's especially an interesting idea for John Cena, a character who has shaken off everything that's ever happened to him. And even if he's not going to doubt himself, he could at least be, you know, INJURED. He got the biggest beating of his career and he was stronger than ever on Raw, destroying a guy he just feuded with. Now you can't even have the story where it's "John Cena demanded his rematch even though Brock destroyed him an he's not a 100%." Instead, Cena got the worst beating of his career and now he's okay again. We're watching now the same exact build as last month now.
In one night they undid the whole significance of Lesnar destroying him.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Aug 26, 2014 14:01:24 GMT -5
then promises Doomsday that this time he will beat him because this time he is actually going to try. When did Cena say he didn't try at Summerslam? This is a good example of how it doesn't matter what they do. There is a subset who will bitch about Cena and the booking generally no matter what. The WWE shouldn't book for those fans. It literally doesn't matter what they do. They'll make up facts if it adds to the narrative.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Aug 26, 2014 14:03:20 GMT -5
Gee, maybe WWE should listen to you guys and have Cena go into the match thinking he's going to lose, and then get his ass kicked again. Because that's what's going to sell subscriptions -_-
|
|
|
Post by Bert Hart on Aug 26, 2014 14:04:07 GMT -5
A point I forgot to make in my last post:
This would also be an entirely different situation if Brock "just barely beat" Cena. Like if they had actually wrestled a point-based wrestling match and Brock had won by a single point in the final seconds of the last round.
Then there would be a reason for Cena to so confidently saunter out and say "I want an immediate rematch". Because he would be confident that he could win, because he had just barely lost last time.
But that didn't happen. Brock, as shown to us, beat Cena within an inch of his life. He made that man his bitch and humbled him in front of everyone. You don't think that would be a little defeating? What would possess Cena to genuinely believe that he stands a chance this time? Did he hit the gym afterwards and dead-lift a new personal best? Did he go on a juice cleanse and is now feeling better than ever? We don't know! For all we know, this is the same man who was being tossed around like a pathetic sack of garbage no more than a week and a half ago. Why are we supposed to believe things are different this time?
For the record, I loved what they did at Summerslam. I thought it would make for an interesting narrative had they built Cena up as a defeated, demoralized underdog going into their next bout, which would have been a couple months away. Hell, I would have even enjoyed seeing cheesy training montages as the conquered hero trains for his big comeback against the monster who took his belt. Anything! Anything would have been better than what they gave us. Well, anything logical of course...
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Aug 26, 2014 14:07:22 GMT -5
The next match should be a lot more even. Maybe Cena hits the AA right off the bat (like Brock hitting the F5 early in the last match) which weakens Brock for the rest of the match.
Brock still kicks Cena's ass for 50/60% of the match and eventually wins clean with an F5.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Aug 26, 2014 14:08:04 GMT -5
A point I forgot to make in my last post: This would also be an entirely different situation if Brock "just barely beat" Cena. Like if they had actually wrestled a point-based wrestling match and Brock had won by a single point in the final seconds of the last round. Then there would be a reason for Cena to so confidently saunter out and say "I want an immediate rematch". Because he would be confident that he could win, because he had just barely lost last time. But that didn't happen. Brock, as shown to us, beat Cena within an inch of his life. He made that man his bitch and humbled him in front of everyone. You don't think that would be a little defeating? What would possess Cena to genuinely believe that he stands a chance this time? Did he hit the gym afterwards and dead-lift a new personal best? Did he go on a juice cleanse and is now feeling better than ever? We don't know! For all we know, this is the same man who was being tossed around like a pathetic sack of garbage no more than a week and a half ago. Why are we supposed to believe things are different this time? For the record, I loved what they did at Summerslam. I thought it would make for an interesting narrative had they built Cena up as a defeated, demoralized underdog going into their next bout, which would have been a couple months away. Hell, I would have even enjoyed seeing cheesy training montages as the conquered hero trains for his big comeback against the monster who took his belt. Anything! Anything would have been better than what they gave us. Well, anything logical of course... But if Cena goes into the rematch all "omg I'm scared I'm gonna die" and does BETTER then it's stupid. He has to go in more confident in order for the match to be slightly more competitive. And if he did go into the match afraid, the story only makes sense if he does WORSE than the first time, which I don't think is the right thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Aug 26, 2014 14:10:45 GMT -5
Nope. Time between confrontations has nothing to do with how humble a super star is going to be the next time he faces a foe. I do like the false bravado posturing this post includes though. It reeks of desperation and makes your argument that much less convincing. Why don't you tell me again about how you're a "professional writer" and as such have a better understanding of what and what isn't logical storytelling? It has everything to do when he is CAPABLE of facing a foe. That's where your sports analogy falls on its ass and dies on the vine. In the real world, Cena would be kicking no one's ass after that beating for weeks, no matter how he wanted to approach the situation psychologically. So real life can't be a talking point for you. It's been squashed. That said, the issue at hand comes not from Cena's attitude, but by the fact he sold nothing. WWE discarded the entire narrative to re-inflate Cena out of fear. They took the natural narrative: Brock, despite being his physical superior, being unable to break Cena and make him quit, and then out fear that he looked weak (and not unbreakably valiant) they made Cena come back, with no wear, and kick the ass of a guy he struggled with for months whilst healthy. It was stupid, irrational, and undefendable. I don't care if it was Cena or anyone else. It's absurd. As for "desperation", you're the one clinging to a ridiculous disproven stance ad nauseam out of pure stubbornness. You keep throwing out the explanation that detractors "want it to be their way" when you are the one doing the same thing -- only without a single shred of actual evidence or reason. You keep repeating the same tired argument, and said argument has been defeated. As for your snarky "writer" thing: there are rules to story structure, pacing, exposition, etc. And WWE breaks those rules. Constantly. And if you actually had a concept of them, you would know and see it. So when I get angry with that, it's because I, unlike yourself obviously, have had those rules drilled into me by those professors I had who knew a whole lot more than I did at the time. It's not my fault that I approach stories from the intended position of proper structure and development, and call out loopholes and flaws therein. Maybe I would enjoy wrestling more if I watched it through a child-like mindset like yourself. In fact I probably would. Because all reason, logic and accountability would be suspended, and I could just take what is being presented at face value no matter how fundamentally flawed and incorrect it was/is. But sadly, I'm not wired that way. But all the power to you for doing so. Keep reaching for that rainbow. "Falls on its ass and dies on the vine?" Did those hoity toity writing professors ever teach you the rule about not mixing your metaphors? But, back to the topic at hand. Obviously, in pro wrestling, the recovery time between fights is truncated when compared to the real world. But so what? Within the context of the reality it creates, the fact someone can return from a brutal beatdown and compete within days is as accepted as the physics of the Irish Whip. My point is, and the one you're clearly not grasping, is that there is no correlation between an athlete recovering from a beating (and notice I never said injury, but beating) and feeling confident. You are setting up a false premise. Now, onto your next point. I never said how I wanted in this feud to move forward(though, for the record, I think it makes the most sense for Lesnar to win at Hell in the Cell). I've never stated how I thought the story should go, just that there's nothing "illogical" about the actions taken and statements made so far by Cena. So you're making stuff up that isn't there. What I did state, and what I think has gotten you so pissed off, is that people who complain about the lack of logic in WWE booking are often doing so because they think it gives their view a veneer of objectivity. They don't want to just have an opinion, they want to prove that they are right (you know, like you did with your weak declaration of intellectual victory that I called out in your last post) when there is no way to do so. As for my snarky comment, suck it up. When you start talking down to somebody, expect to be called out on it. I realize you think you're smarter than me because you have a different view of how a pro wrestling feud should go. But you're really not. You're just another dude who spends too much time overthinking a kid's show.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Aug 26, 2014 14:17:43 GMT -5
I would laugh my ass off if Cena gets demolished again at NoC, but I have an eerie feeling he'll either (a) get a ton of more offense but fall short, (b) win the title in a triumphant display or (c) win the title, get decimated after the match and Seth Rollins is your new champ. I lean towards option A because it appears Rollins will feud with Reigns until Ambrose returns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 14:18:12 GMT -5
He should've just been like, "Yeah - Nikki was acting real strange all week and it really threw me off my game for Summerslam. She told me she was returning some high heels or something and has been real nasty all week."
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Aug 26, 2014 14:19:13 GMT -5
Just because something happens in the real world, doesn't mean it's logical.
If that's the case everything I do and say has logic. And that's just not true.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Aug 26, 2014 14:19:51 GMT -5
People just aren't going to be satisfied with Cena until he's jobbing to everyone they like.
I mean what's the issue with Cena going into this saying "Brock Lesnar beat my ass and I refuse to let that happen again"? Because he's *gasp* being built to still look like a threat to Lesnar?! Please, if Cena didn't look like at least SOMEWHAT of a threat to Lesnar, the rematch would be pointless but they essentially have to fight cuz Lesnar has no one else to face right now. Lesnar vs Cena III with Cena going into it like a pussy and then getting destroyed again is pointless. Cena going into Lesnar vs Cena III like a pussy but being MORE competitive is stupid. They have to make him look confident so that when the rematch is more competitive, it's not completely illogical
|
|
|
Post by Brother Nero....Wolfe on Aug 26, 2014 14:27:40 GMT -5
People just aren't going to be satisfied with Cena until he's jobbing to everyone they like. I mean what's the issue with Cena going into this saying "Brock Lesnar beat my ass and I refuse to let that happen again"? Because he's *gasp* being built to still look like a threat to Lesnar?! Please, if Cena didn't look like at least SOMEWHAT of a threat to Lesnar, the rematch would be pointless but they essentially have to fight cuz Lesnar has no one else to face right now. Lesnar vs Cena III with Cena going into it like a pussy and then getting destroyed again is pointless. Cena going into Lesnar vs Cena III like a pussy but being MORE competitive is stupid. They have to make him look confident so that when the rematch is more competitive, it's not completely illogical Frankly, I don't even care if Cena beats Lesnar. I do however have an issue with the story being told, in that it's defying narrative logic, and mostly importantly being really boring. You know, there's a middle ground between 'being a threat' and 'being a pussy.' He could be a reasonable man understanding his limitations and wanting to push it past them, learning something from past defeats in order to grow as a person and as a character. He could be an actual valiant underdog for once who understands the beast of a man he's facing but that doesn't back down despite the odds and thinks he can beat him. They don't have to make him more confident. They have to sell a good story. If you think that Cena vaguely ignoring his horrible destruction and basically saying "Hang on, do over!" is a good story, then that's great, but personally I am not a huge fan.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,600
|
Post by khali on Aug 26, 2014 14:28:42 GMT -5
A point I forgot to make in my last post: This would also be an entirely different situation if Brock "just barely beat" Cena. Like if they had actually wrestled a point-based wrestling match and Brock had won by a single point in the final seconds of the last round. Then there would be a reason for Cena to so confidently saunter out and say "I want an immediate rematch". Because he would be confident that he could win, because he had just barely lost last time. But that didn't happen. Brock, as shown to us, beat Cena within an inch of his life. He made that man his bitch and humbled him in front of everyone. You don't think that would be a little defeating? What would possess Cena to genuinely believe that he stands a chance this time? Did he hit the gym afterwards and dead-lift a new personal best? Did he go on a juice cleanse and is now feeling better than ever? We don't know! For all we know, this is the same man who was being tossed around like a pathetic sack of garbage no more than a week and a half ago. Why are we supposed to believe things are different this time? For the record, I loved what they did at Summerslam. I thought it would make for an interesting narrative had they built Cena up as a defeated, demoralized underdog going into their next bout, which would have been a couple months away. Hell, I would have even enjoyed seeing cheesy training montages as the conquered hero trains for his big comeback against the monster who took his belt. Anything! Anything would have been better than what they gave us. Well, anything logical of course... But if Cena goes into the rematch all "omg I'm scared I'm gonna die" and does BETTER then it's stupid. He has to go in more confident in order for the match to be slightly more competitive. And if he did go into the match afraid, the story only makes sense if he does WORSE than the first time, which I don't think is the right thing to do. They can tell the story without Cena being afraid. If he at least came out visibly injured, I would feel differently. That way, if he give the same speech, it becomes a different story. Then everyone can see how much it took out of him, but he's too tough and proud to admit it and is going to fight anyway. Instead, he isn't afraid AND there's no signs the match physically bothered him. That negates the beating.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,134
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 26, 2014 14:30:26 GMT -5
I would laugh my ass off if Cena gets demolished again at NoC, but I have an eerie feeling he'll either (a) get a ton of more offense but fall short, (b) win the title in a triumphant display or (c) win the title, get decimated after the match and Seth Rollins is your new champ. I lean towards option A because it appears Rollins will feud with Reigns until Ambrose returns. I figure he'll lose, but while he'll get in more offense, I still think he's going to get the f*** beaten out of him still. Like, if he did an AA and Brock kicks out, I could see him going nuts on Cena and wrecking him, probably an F5 through a table after the match too, or the like.
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,487
|
Post by r. on Aug 26, 2014 14:44:07 GMT -5
Gee, maybe WWE should listen to you guys and have Cena go into the match thinking he's going to lose, and then get his ass kicked again. Because that's what's going to sell subscriptions -_- Well that's not what anyone is saying at all. What we (I'm using this loosely I can't know what the collective we wants, I digress) wanted was for Cena to take a few weeks of, You can show vignettes of him being conflicted about returning after such a monumental beating, Focus on him thinking maybe his time is up and he can't hang any more. When he does return his matches should be telling a story of him making simple mistakes all steaming form his loss, Make Cena his own worst enemy with Brock being played up as a total monster. Continuing you have Brock have a few handicap matches against guys like Show and Henry or Rybaxel which would be total squashes. This way when you get to your blow off match you have this tension, Can Cena win? How Can you stop this guy at all? Instead we got Cena doing what Brock did, Cole masterbating to it and praising it, The utter burial and extinguishing of the last burning embers of a wrestler. So now the story is Cena Angry, Cena beat up guy, Legends blowing Cenas ego, Cena Wins.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Aug 26, 2014 14:44:51 GMT -5
But if Cena goes into the rematch all "omg I'm scared I'm gonna die" and does BETTER then it's stupid. He has to go in more confident in order for the match to be slightly more competitive. And if he did go into the match afraid, the story only makes sense if he does WORSE than the first time, which I don't think is the right thing to do. They can tell the story without Cena being afraid. If he at least came out visibly injured, I would feel differently. That way, if he give the same speech, it becomes a different story. Then everyone can see how much it took out of him, but he's too tough and proud to admit it and is going to fight anyway. Instead, he isn't afraid AND there's no signs the match physically bothered him. That negates the beating. But what if after losing at NOC THEN they show him being bothered by it? You know, like now Cena has to accept that he flat out can't beat Lesnar instead of Lesnar getting the better of him on one night? Gee, maybe WWE should listen to you guys and have Cena go into the match thinking he's going to lose, and then get his ass kicked again. Because that's what's going to sell subscriptions -_- Well that's not what anyone is saying at all. What we (I'm using this loosely I can't know what the collective we wants, I digress) wanted was for Cena to take a few weeks of, You can show vignettes of him being conflicted about returning after such a monumental beating, Focus on him thinking maybe his time is up and he can't hang any more. When he does return his matches should be telling a story of him making simple mistakes all steaming form his loss, Make Cena his own worst enemy with Brock being played up as a total monster. Continuing you have Brock have a few handicap matches against guys like Show and Henry or Rybaxel which would be total squashes. This way when you get to your blow off match you have this tension, Can Cena win? How Can you stop this guy at all? Instead we got Cena doing what Brock did, Cole masterbating to it and praising it, The utter burial and extinguishing of the last burning embers of a wrestler. So now the story is Cena Angry, Cena beat up guy, Legends blowing Cenas ego, Cena Wins. That's exactly what I said. You want Cena to go into this thinking he's a complete loser, which makes the match pointless. I mean if he thinks he should retire, but Triple H, Mark Henry, Big Show, etc. are all still around after taking WORSE beatings from Lesnar, then what does that say about Cena?
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 26, 2014 14:45:56 GMT -5
Gee, maybe WWE should listen to you guys and have Cena go into the match thinking he's going to lose, and then get his ass kicked again. Because that's what's going to sell subscriptions -_- People just aren't going to be satisfied with Cena until he's jobbing to everyone they like. Or perhaps they simply want WWE to book Cena in a way that follows some sort of coherent logic.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Aug 26, 2014 14:52:33 GMT -5
Gee, maybe WWE should listen to you guys and have Cena go into the match thinking he's going to lose, and then get his ass kicked again. Because that's what's going to sell subscriptions -_- People just aren't going to be satisfied with Cena until he's jobbing to everyone they like. Or perhaps they simply want WWE to book Cena in a way that follows some sort of coherent logic. What constitutes coherent logic? Cena's character is that he never gives up, no matter the circumstances. If he came out saying "I'm giving up, I can't beat Lesnar" it makes him look like a bitch and would be completely out of character. In fact, I consider this to be more logical than plenty of things people gawk about all the time
|
|