Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 14:59:13 GMT -5
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 This rough idea has been suggested a few times in other threads (and maybe this one, but I'm going off memory): Cena shows his never give up attitude by coming out taped up, saying he won't be competing until NoC, but that he's smarter and finding what to aim for on Brock in order to give himself a fighting chance as he didn't believe a part-time champion could be as devastating as Brock was, which was why the Summerslam match was so one sided. It's not much, but the damage to Bray Wyatt, the obnoxious verbal fellatio from the commentary team (and auto-fellatio by Cena himself in the opening segment) made it seem that Cena wasn't quite selling the devastating beat down he took. Well, Cena said he was, but he was moving around fine/saying he's willing to take on someone seen as a kayfabe threat without worry, taking down the 3 man Wyatt team almost single handedly. I don't think Cena being a coward is the way forward either, but for the sake of not damaging the standing of other wrestlers who aren't as established as Cena there are many easier/simpler/less awkward routes they could have gone down. Just stick the DDP rib tape on him, or have Cena mention his neck is a bit ruined from the multiple Germans, then have Cena not cleared to compete by a kayfabe doctor until NoC etc. Let the physical toll on Cena sell the damage but also sell his determination.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 26, 2014 14:59:43 GMT -5
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 The problem is that the circumstances never change. He appears so strong, even after a defeat that he's less of an underdog character who never quits, but rather a dominant character who will simply dismiss the significance of losing, which is problematic in a wrestling context where wins and losses should always matter.
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,487
|
Post by r. on Aug 26, 2014 14:59:59 GMT -5
No it isn't. In your wording Cena is a mack loser who hates life and will wear black eye liner to the ring.
In my scenario its a slow build of Cena getting his confidence back but in a way where when you get the big match it isn't a just a formality for Cena to run, taunt, smile, yabadoo, STF, win.
It's called adding drama to a match.
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,487
|
Post by r. on Aug 26, 2014 15:01:00 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. That is an alien concept to some, It's either all or none. Either Cena beats everyone or he has to be a heath slater level jobber. There is a happy medium and sadly it's ignored all too often.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 26, 2014 15:12:43 GMT -5
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. Except the previous argument I'm responding to of yours was not based on the world of pro wrestling, it was on other legit sports analogies you had used. So pick a stance. If you're trying to say in real life, if we view it as such, Cena is capable of accomplishing what he did last night, you are wrong. In MMA for example, he would not be cleared to compete, and let alone be able to dominate on the level he did last night. He was suplexed 16 times and pounded into mush. It's a physical impossibility. However, if we're just going by WWE logic and world I agree. But detest it. That's where my personal opinion comes into play. I hate that WWE can book Lesnar as somehow being scary legit over everyone else, and Cena just shows up unscathed and kicking ass the next week. They're having their cake and eating it too, and my (maybe strange) need to have logic therein makes me roll my eyes. I can't help it. It's just bad storytelling. I begrudgingly accept that it won't change, and that it is likely not geared toward me (despite the fact that the majority of the audience is my demo), but it still bothers me that WWE can deliver something so raw and real one week, and then f*** it up so bad the next. The story with Cena not quitting was beautiful. That was a hero. That was a guy that no matter how much a monster kicked his ass, he never gave up. In one match, Cena not only put over Lesnar as the needed company final boss, but finally made himself likeable and real. He lived up to his mantra. He never quit. But last night was like someone with ADD decided to undo all that and wreck that story; the logical progression that in the rematch, even though physically breakable, Cena would keep coming. And keep coming. And keep coming. It was complete Rocky. Lesnar could and would eventually mentally break like a bully does and Cena would then start to fight back, and start to win. It would be classic hero underdog. But now? We just got Super Poochie feeding off the sustenance of others to make up for the fact that Vince doesn't want to tell that (organic and originally intended via the "Never give up" exposition) story. As for thinking that I'm smarter or better than you, I don't. By your writing you clearly intelligent. But I just can't understand how you can't at least see how someone *could* think last night was ridiculous based on the story that was being told.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 15:15:55 GMT -5
He revealed the monster that Wyatt said was in him the entirety of their feud. I doubt that will be mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 15:19:02 GMT -5
He revealed the monster that Wyatt said was in him the entirety of their feud. I doubt that will be mentioned. If we get a backstage segment which features Bray sitting in the trainers room behind someone being interviewed muttering "erm, guys, I won! I did it! Yes! You proved me right, Cena!" whilst no one pays him any heed it'll be wonderful.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Aug 26, 2014 15:19:31 GMT -5
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 OK, so then logic says "I just got my ass kicked, but I'm not afraid of you, I can beat you any time I want to". That's deluded insanity, and fits the Cena character if, and only if, he then goes out and beats Brock clean. Problem here is, if he does, then you have just undercut what was done at Mania. They booked themselves into a corner, they had Taker lose at Mania, and so they have two options. Brock can be an unstoppable killing machine, or Cena can react to Brock like he does to everyone else while the announcers agree with him, which will in turn make Brock's win over Taker look less important over time while the narrative is "See, Brock's nothing, he's really afraid of John, that's what it is". So which will make them more money and which will serve them better?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Aug 26, 2014 15:21:34 GMT -5
I was hoping they were pushing for Cena to turn delusional from the beatdown.
"Not only can I defeat him, I did defeat him, as well as Bigfoot and Hulk Hogan in a mech suit to be the WWE Champion! Now, I've been invited by Scarlett Johansonn to a trip to the moon to join the Green Lantern Corps!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 15:22:03 GMT -5
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 OK, so then logic says "I just got my ass kicked, but I'm not afraid of you, I can beat you any time I want to". That's deluded insanity, and fits the Cena character if, and only if, he then goes out and beats Brock clean. Problem here is, if he does, then you have just undercut what was done at Mania. They booked themselves into a corner, they had Taker lose at Mania, and so they have two options. Brock can be an unstoppable killing machine, or Cena can react to Brock like he does to everyone else while the announcers agree with him, which will in turn make Brock's win over Taker look less important over time while the narrative is "See, Brock's nothing, he's really afraid of John, that's what it is". So which will make them more money and which will serve them better? Lesnar has to win - you open up the open to move Cena's character again and you leave open the move to let Reigns beat Lesnar and make him the new top star. Reigns has no injuries on him and he is new. You have to prioritise him over Cena now as Cena is older and has a lot of major injuries on him.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Aug 26, 2014 15:24:53 GMT -5
It's delusional if Cena loses again. If he wins, he was right!
|
|
barelybeastmode
Trap-Jaw
I don't have haterz, only fans and deniers...
Posts: 494
|
Post by barelybeastmode on Aug 26, 2014 15:25:31 GMT -5
He revealed the monster that Wyatt said was in him the entirety of their feud. I doubt that will be mentioned. That thought crossed my mind briefly last night and I just had to shake my head.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Aug 26, 2014 15:49:37 GMT -5
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 OK, so then logic says "I just got my ass kicked, but I'm not afraid of you, I can beat you any time I want to". That's deluded insanity, and fits the Cena character if, and only if, he then goes out and beats Brock clean. Problem here is, if he does, then you have just undercut what was done at Mania. They booked themselves into a corner, they had Taker lose at Mania, and so they have two options. Brock can be an unstoppable killing machine, or Cena can react to Brock like he does to everyone else while the announcers agree with him, which will in turn make Brock's win over Taker look less important over time while the narrative is "See, Brock's nothing, he's really afraid of John, that's what it is". So which will make them more money and which will serve them better? Cena is losing to Brock at Night of Champions. In order for this to serve a purpose, Cena can't go into the rematch questioning himself. Because if he does, then you don't get a unique matchup where Cena is more competitive and looks like he stands a chance. Besides the fact that he has the ability to say "You kicked my ass once and I found a way to pull it out. It may not have happened the last time, but it's going to happen the next time." I'd rather see the killing machine go up against someone who puts doubt into your mind as to whether or not he's going to win. Do I think Brock is going to win? Yes. But you have to admit, it does make you wonder if Cena may actually beat Brock at NOC. Would it be the right thing to do? No. But the sheer thought of it does make it more intriguing than "Cena can't win and doesn't."
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Aug 26, 2014 16:03:12 GMT -5
Cena could have easily been the same doofus he always is but selling the beating he got. Play up HBK and Flair talking about how Brock changes you while Hogan still believes. Cena talks about being hurt but he cannot give up and let Lesnar just walk all over him like that, that he has to fight for his own good as well as WWE's. Later Cena goes into the match with Bray and looks good until Bray takes advantage and wins. Spend the next couple of weeks with Cena talking about making changes and getting better while people doubt him. Then on the go home show Hogan can be threatened by Brock until Cena makes the save and shows he can take down Brock. The announcers can flip out on Cena getting the upper hand and being ready for NOC.
Cena stays the same character-wise, gets a huge redeeming moment prior to Night of Champions, and you keep Summerslam meaningful.
|
|
ronin705
Dennis Stamp
All Might
Posts: 4,277
|
Post by ronin705 on Aug 26, 2014 16:13:37 GMT -5
Do you guys not understand Cena is a Saiyan? Took an ass whuppin', healed up, then had SSJ2 level powers without even needing to transform. Duuuuh, The Wyatts were the Ginyu Force lol
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Aug 26, 2014 16:15:51 GMT -5
OK, so then logic says "I just got my ass kicked, but I'm not afraid of you, I can beat you any time I want to". That's deluded insanity, and fits the Cena character if, and only if, he then goes out and beats Brock clean. Problem here is, if he does, then you have just undercut what was done at Mania. They booked themselves into a corner, they had Taker lose at Mania, and so they have two options. Brock can be an unstoppable killing machine, or Cena can react to Brock like he does to everyone else while the announcers agree with him, which will in turn make Brock's win over Taker look less important over time while the narrative is "See, Brock's nothing, he's really afraid of John, that's what it is". So which will make them more money and which will serve them better? Cena is losing to Brock at Night of Champions. In order for this to serve a purpose, Cena can't go into the rematch questioning himself. Because if he does, then you don't get a unique matchup where Cena is more competitive and looks like he stands a chance. Besides the fact that he has the ability to say "You kicked my ass once and I found a way to pull it out. It may not have happened the last time, but it's going to happen the next time." I'd rather see the killing machine go up against someone who puts doubt into your mind as to whether or not he's going to win. Do I think Brock is going to win? Yes. But you have to admit, it does make you wonder if Cena may actually beat Brock at NOC. Would it be the right thing to do? No. But the sheer thought of it does make it more intriguing than "Cena can't win and doesn't." See, that's the thing I have against the idea of a rematch so soon. After their match at SummerSlam (and to a lesser degree, their match at Extreme Rules in 2012), there's really no doubt WWE can put into my mind that Cena could win if the match is a standard bout. Not to mention that the only way Cena was able to win the first time isn't allowed and Brock has the Championship advantage, but they've shown that no finishing move Cena has even kept Brock down for any length of time. I get what they're trying to do by showing a more intense John Cena and having him use suplexes to show that he can do them too, but what's the point when the actual match takes place? The only thing I could see working is adding a No DQ stipulation which would at least create some doubt, but as it is now I don't see where the marketability of a rematch is.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Aug 26, 2014 16:31:05 GMT -5
"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. Except the previous argument I'm responding to of yours was not based on the world of pro wrestling, it was on other legit sports analogies you had used. So pick a stance. If you're trying to say in real life, if we view it as such, Cena is capable of accomplishing what he did last night, you are wrong. In MMA for example, he would not be cleared to compete, and let alone be able to dominate on the level he did last night. He was suplexed 16 times and pounded into mush. It's a physical impossibility. However, if we're just going by WWE logic and world I agree. But detest it. That's where my personal opinion comes into play. I hate that WWE can book Lesnar as somehow being scary legit over everyone else, and Cena just shows up unscathed and kicking ass the next week. They're having their cake and eating it too, and my (maybe strange) need to have logic therein makes me roll my eyes. I can't help it. It's just bad storytelling. I begrudgingly accept that it won't change, and that it is likely not geared toward me (despite the fact that the majority of the audience is my demo), but it still bothers me that WWE can deliver something so raw and real one week, and then f*** it up so bad the next. The story with Cena not quitting was beautiful. That was a hero. That was a guy that no matter how much a monster kicked his ass, he never gave up. In one match, Cena not only put over Lesnar as the needed company final boss, but finally made himself likeable and real. He lived up to his mantra. He never quit. But last night was like someone with ADD decided to undo all that and wreck that story; the logical progression that in the rematch, even though physically breakable, Cena would keep coming. And keep coming. And keep coming. It was complete Rocky. Lesnar could and would eventually mentally break like a bully does and Cena would then start to fight back, and start to win. It would be classic hero underdog. But now? We just got Super Poochie feeding off the sustenance of others to make up for the fact that Vince doesn't want to tell that (organic and originally intended via the "Never give up" exposition) story. As for thinking that I'm smarter or better than you, I don't. By your writing you clearly intelligent. But I just can't understand how you can't at least see how someone *could* think last night was ridiculous based on the story that was being told. I can't comment on the Cena/Wyatt match because I didn't watch it. I get why people are mad Cena dispatched a top heel so close to the beating he took (though it had to happen at some point. You need a moment where Cena gets his mojo back before the PPV). What I've been bitching about is this argument that it makes no sense for Cena to talk tough before his match with Lesnar. That's it. I brought in the real world stuff to provide evidence that athletes still have faith in themselves even after suffering a humiliating defeat. Now, a person can think that's dumb of him to feel that way. They can think WWE is wrong taking this track with the story, and that they should have him doubting himself. I get it. My disagreement comes from the assertion that having him do the usual "HLR" schtick after being humbled by Brock flies in the face of reason.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Aug 26, 2014 16:38:04 GMT -5
It would have at least kind of made sense if instead of Cena going out there and showing "ruthless aggression" that he goes out there and says that after he beat Lesnar the first time, albeit after taking a ton of punishment, that he could go out there again and do the same thing. It would show he was putting his best effort forward, but that Lesnar had become better and he was going to need to up his game if he stands a chance at him again.
But no...we'll have everyone act like scared dogs around Cena so that we can put the build on two guys while destroying three others.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Aug 26, 2014 16:43:42 GMT -5
OK, so then logic says "I just got my ass kicked, but I'm not afraid of you, I can beat you any time I want to". That's deluded insanity, and fits the Cena character if, and only if, he then goes out and beats Brock clean. Problem here is, if he does, then you have just undercut what was done at Mania. They booked themselves into a corner, they had Taker lose at Mania, and so they have two options. Brock can be an unstoppable killing machine, or Cena can react to Brock like he does to everyone else while the announcers agree with him, which will in turn make Brock's win over Taker look less important over time while the narrative is "See, Brock's nothing, he's really afraid of John, that's what it is". So which will make them more money and which will serve them better? Cena is losing to Brock at Night of Champions. In order for this to serve a purpose, Cena can't go into the rematch questioning himself. Because if he does, then you don't get a unique matchup where Cena is more competitive and looks like he stands a chance. Besides the fact that he has the ability to say "You kicked my ass once and I found a way to pull it out. It may not have happened the last time, but it's going to happen the next time." I'd rather see the killing machine go up against someone who puts doubt into your mind as to whether or not he's going to win. Do I think Brock is going to win? Yes. But you have to admit, it does make you wonder if Cena may actually beat Brock at NOC. Would it be the right thing to do? No. But the sheer thought of it does make it more intriguing than "Cena can't win and doesn't." Exactly. Going into Night of Champions, it makes sense for WWE to give Cena fans hope (and his detractors dread) he might win. Its something they try all the time in feuds where one guy is so clearly dominant. How often do we see a spot on a show before a PPV where the villain stands tall over the top face in order to give the impression he has a chance? Most of the time we shrug it off because its cliche, but with Cena standing up to Brock, it's much more likely to work, because its John Cena.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 26, 2014 16:45:08 GMT -5
They could have simply ripped off Rocky III and IV
They should have started with a confident Cena saying that's beaten Lesnar before and can do so again. Heyman would say Cena has lost his edge. He used to be a doctor of thugonomics but is now just a corporate mascot whose main purpose is selling merchandise, making sick kids happy and being a company man. Cena will deny this and say that he just tries his best to please his fans. Vignettes play for weeks on end showing Lesnar training hard in a "street" setting, while Cena trains using high tech shit in relative luxury. The match takes place, Cena gets killed and is carried out by refs as a beaten and broken man
The next night, Lesnar and Heyman gloat like hell over their win. Saying Cena is finished. Lesnar has ended the Cena myth. WWE airs an update on Cena. He's in hospital with multiple injuries. May never return, depending on the medical assessment. This makes Heyman and Lesnar even more jubilant. Over the next few weeks, more updates are given. Cena is still recovering from his injuries but checked himself out of hospital and his whereabouts are currently unknown.
Eventually he shows up on RAW. No merchandise. Just street clothes. Still showing visible injuries, pain and discomfort. He delivers a softly spoken speech. He acknowledges that people who hate him will be happy to see him like this, and really he can't blame them. He apologises to his fans for letting them down, and says that maybe people are right. Maybe he can't wrestle, maybe he does suck, maybe he has sold out and is now nothing more than a corporate puppet. He leaves tearfully.
Afterwards, Heyman announces that in the absence of Cena, Lesnar is now the #1 guy in the company. He goes on a rampage, attacking defenceless people whenever he feels like it, and only defending the title against hand picked jobbers. Weeks go by, perhaps even months. Things get worse. He begins mocking the Make a Wish Foundation and Cena's kid fans. Heyman torments them, with mock tears saying that their hero is dead and buried and will never come back
Eventually Cena loses his temper and one night on RAW drives to the arena and confronts Heyman. He says that he may be literally committing suicide but he has to try. He challenges Lesnar and promises that this time, he will fight with the same kind of ruthlessness that Lesnar does. Heyman laughs but Cena looks serious. Heyman looks scared and backs down. He says he's on, and they'll face each other at the Survivor Series in a street fight. A new set of vignettes airs showing training, but this time Cena looks more dedicated and trains like Rocky, on the streets etc....
He eventually faces Lesnar. Again, no merchandise and all that shit. Just him in street clothes. The fight is violent. It goes everywhere, through the fans, outside, then back into the ring where Cena musters every last morsel of strength he has and wins.
|
|