|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 3, 2014 12:22:39 GMT -5
It will heal in a week
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Sept 3, 2014 12:46:14 GMT -5
You need to build villains to build heroes. That's what the point of Lesnar should be right now. Cena's beaten him before, he's had the WWE title more times than anyone in history, he'll tie Flair for most title wins period (as far as WWE's concerned) the next time he wins it, and he's been THE top hero for the past decade and probably only has a couple of years worth of a career left to show for it judging by all of the injury reports out about him. He is not the person Lesnar should be used to build up, particularly after the beating he took just a month after being absolutely mauled by him. Cena should not be Rocky here. He should be Apollo getting slaughtered to build to someone else avenging the loss and becoming the conquering hero. And with the story they're telling here, Cena needs to tap. If the match gets stopped he's just going to bitch and moan that he got screwed and never really lost. He needs to have his will broken. Brock's built to the point no one can believably beat him at this point. Anyone who does will look fake, especially if they use a normal WWE booking strategy, namely Brock is not someone you can come back against And no hero should ever have their will broke. And it's never been WWE's way to build the heroes before the villains. They destroyed all the competition building the heroes then filling in villains No hero should ever have their will broken? Then there's no point for new heroes because the old ones are still there and will never leave. Thus, in a wrestling company, you're screwed. You can't build anyone because they'll overshadow your established hero, you can't have the hero lose, and you can't have a dominant villain that doesn't get beaten by the hero he demoralized. By that standard, the following things should happen. Taker should come back and beat Brock, and Cena should make Brock tap. For the next 10 years, each show should be the two of them re-enacting the defeat of Brock. I'll make this simple. Rogers gave way to Bruno who gave way to Backlund who led to Hogan who gave way to Warrior, Hart, and Michaels, who gave way to Austin and Rock, who led to Cena. There is your 60 years of progression. Someone HAS to step up, to take the mantle, and for th at to happen, someone has to either fade away or be defeated. No question, no maybe, it has to happen or else the "new hero" will just be Gilligan. Gilligan can't draw.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 3, 2014 12:57:55 GMT -5
Yep, no hero should have their will broken, even if it's a set up for overcoming their enemy triumphantly
It's much more exciting for a hero to easily defeat their enemies with no obstacles or challenges whatsoever to face....said no good writer in world history.
The reason it's not credible for anyone to believably defeat Brock is because WWE have done such a shitty job of building convincing faces.
Maybe if, I don't know, they hyped up their faces instead of labelling them as inferior B+ goat faced trolls or constantly have mid-card champions losing or having their hot new prospects selling for the old stale established stars or making them into inconsistent behaving alpha male proxies for the senile owner, they might actually produce convincing heroes.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 3, 2014 13:17:16 GMT -5
Brock's built to the point no one can believably beat him at this point. Anyone who does will look fake, especially if they use a normal WWE booking strategy, namely Brock is not someone you can come back against And no hero should ever have their will broke. And it's never been WWE's way to build the heroes before the villains. They destroyed all the competition building the heroes then filling in villains No hero should ever have their will broken? Then there's no point for new heroes because the old ones are still there and will never leave. Thus, in a wrestling company, you're screwed. You can't build anyone because they'll overshadow your established hero, you can't have the hero lose, and you can't have a dominant villain that doesn't get beaten by the hero he demoralized. By that standard, the following things should happen. Taker should come back and beat Brock, and Cena should make Brock tap. For the next 10 years, each show should be the two of them re-enacting the defeat of Brock. I'll make this simple. Rogers gave way to Bruno who gave way to Backlund who led to Hogan who gave way to Warrior, Hart, and Michaels, who gave way to Austin and Rock, who led to Cena. There is your 60 years of progression. Someone HAS to step up, to take the mantle, and for th at to happen, someone has to either fade away or be defeated. No question, no maybe, it has to happen or else the "new hero" will just be Gilligan. Gilligan can't draw. Bruno wrestled in WWF till Hogan's first reign was almost over. Backlund beat Hart. Hogan has wrestled while Cena was champ None of these guys, in character, suffered the kind of thing you're talking about
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 3, 2014 13:23:06 GMT -5
Yep, no hero should have their will broken, even if it's a set up for overcoming their enemy triumphantly It's much more exciting for a hero to easily defeat their enemies with no obstacles or challenges whatsoever to face....said no good writer in world history. The reason it's not credible for anyone to believably defeat Brock is because WWE have done such a shitty job of building convincing faces. Maybe if, I don't know, they hyped up their faces instead of labelling them as inferior B+ goat faced trolls or constantly have mid-card champions losing or having their hot new prospects selling for the old stale established stars or making them into inconsistent behaving alpha male proxies for the senile owner, they might actually produce convincing heroes. a broken body is more entertaining, since the kind of introspection needed for a broken will often comes off forced at best. Why did this event break them down compared to previous ones? If whatever brings them back believable as the moment they overcome things? Is the person a good enough actor to pull it off? When they actually do try to build up the heroes people complain about them burying the heels. Or the guy they're trying to build isn't ready And anyway it's not just faces that couldn't believably beat Brock anyway
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 3, 2014 13:29:32 GMT -5
WWE has the patience for neither
If WWE booked Cena to resemble an actual human, they could do it. Since he's always been booked as a programmable robot, they can't.
That can be done with something called good writing.
Cena could if given the right material. Unfortunately the people who provide the material have an insane supervisor.
Again, this is due to WWE's shit writing. They are unwilling or incapable of booking anyone properly anymore. That's why when you stretch all credibility to defend the indefensible, people are baffled and also amused.
|
|
DjZonk
Don Corleone
Where's my cat?
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by DjZonk on Sept 3, 2014 13:43:07 GMT -5
Brock tries to break Cena's arm, something pierces Cena's flesh. We assume its bone coming through which leads to the reveal...
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 3, 2014 13:48:59 GMT -5
You always want the villain to have an edge over the hero. That can take multiple forms: power, intelligence, numbers, weapons et al, but there has to be something for the hero to overcome. Otherwise, you've got a boring story.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Sept 3, 2014 14:11:49 GMT -5
No hero should ever have their will broken? Then there's no point for new heroes because the old ones are still there and will never leave. Thus, in a wrestling company, you're screwed. You can't build anyone because they'll overshadow your established hero, you can't have the hero lose, and you can't have a dominant villain that doesn't get beaten by the hero he demoralized. By that standard, the following things should happen. Taker should come back and beat Brock, and Cena should make Brock tap. For the next 10 years, each show should be the two of them re-enacting the defeat of Brock. I'll make this simple. Rogers gave way to Bruno who gave way to Backlund who led to Hogan who gave way to Warrior, Hart, and Michaels, who gave way to Austin and Rock, who led to Cena. There is your 60 years of progression. Someone HAS to step up, to take the mantle, and for th at to happen, someone has to either fade away or be defeated. No question, no maybe, it has to happen or else the "new hero" will just be Gilligan. Gilligan can't draw. Bruno wrestled in WWF till Hogan's first reign was almost over. Backlund beat Hart. Hogan has wrestled while Cena was champ None of these guys, in character, suffered the kind of thing you're talking about Bruno was a tag guy for the remainder of his run, not THE GUY. Oh, and as for "demoralizing moments", Hulk had his sad walking away after Mania 6, Shawn lost his smile, Backlund had the "throw in the towel" moment where his manager betrayed him, Bret had either his win that turned him heel with Austin or Montreal as demoralizing moments... I get it, I do, Cena is your guy, and you agree with Vince's mindset that the journey means nothing and the result of babyface winning is all that matters. They, therefore, must always be the strongest guy in the room because without it there's nothing to cheer for. I don't agree with that mindset, I think it shorts a great deal of storytelling and atchign someone actually battle through and not just overcome by saying they overcame.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 3, 2014 18:23:54 GMT -5
Cena could if given the right material. Unfortunately the people who provide the material have an insane supervisor. Again, this is due to WWE's shit writing. They are unwilling or incapable of booking anyone properly anymore. That's why when you stretch all credibility to defend the indefensible, people are baffled and also amused. see, I've been watching WWE constantly, as in I don't miss an episode, for at least fifteen years; and fairly often for a couple years before that(I'd missed most of the New Generation and the build to the Attitude Era) and I don't see a lot of differences in the way people are booked. There's the 50-50 booking people complained about is still around a lot of the time, except for losing streak angles. You're complaining about some change, that I just don't see. You always want the villain to have an edge over the hero. That can take multiple forms: power, intelligence, numbers, weapons et al, but there has to be something for the hero to overcome. Otherwise, you've got a boring story. I think it shorts a great deal of storytelling and atchign someone actually battle through and not just overcome by saying they overcame. The problem is it seems once something is done, people seem to view it as being DONE. A four on one attack is still a four on one attack whether it's been done before and fought off or not. Look at the way people react to things like John Cena AA'ing Big Show. If an announcer mentions "Can Cena lift him?" everyone goes nuts with mockery. At the same time they post things on here about Cena getting older, his body wearing down, him having more injuries. That's not a move Show can help with. And he's probably only getting heavier as he gets older. Bruno wrestled in WWF till Hogan's first reign was almost over. Backlund beat Hart. Hogan has wrestled while Cena was champ None of these guys, in character, suffered the kind of thing you're talking about Bruno was a tag guy for the remainder of his run, not THE GUY. Oh, and as for "demoralizing moments", Hulk had his sad walking away after Mania 6, Shawn lost his smile, Backlund had the "throw in the towel" moment where his manager betrayed him, Bret had either his win that turned him heel with Austin or Montreal as demoralizing moments... I get it, I do, Cena is your guy, and you agree with Vince's mindset that the journey means nothing and the result of babyface winning is all that matters. They, therefore, must always be the strongest guy in the room because without it there's nothing to cheer for. I don't agree with that mindset, I think it shorts a great deal of storytelling and atchign someone actually battle through and not just overcome by saying they overcame. Being sad is not being broken. Being angry is not having a broken spirit. I have a lot of problems with the heroes journey with wrestling. Because wrestling doesn't get to end. I think it leads to all sorts of unsatisifying reigns that makes the faces look like chumps. Like Dusty Rhodes against Ric Flair. Or Luger and Sting against Hollywood Hogan. You say I think the face has to look like the strongest guy in the room. Not winning the NWA title supposedly ruined Luger when they did this sort of thing in 88. And I recall hearing RoH took so long to pull the trigger on Tyler Black led to fans turning on him there. In a long running story with no set end I think it ends up making him look like a fool. Victimized by numbers, by rule manipulations, everything has to go his way to finally get what he deserves. And a week or a month later it's back in the heels hands and we have to sit and watch the same stuff over and over again. What happens after Reigns wins the title? Maybe Seth Rollins can cash in and win it the same night, so the next face up can have HIS heroes journey?
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 3, 2014 18:27:47 GMT -5
The problem began in the post-Attitude Era, which just about covers your viewing period, so it's understandable that you'd be ignorant as to how effective wrestling booking used to be.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 3, 2014 18:55:09 GMT -5
The problem began in the post-Attitude Era, which just about covers your viewing period, so it's understandable that you'd be ignorant as to how effective wrestling booking used to be. well I watched plenty of jobber shows in the early 90s. Was it the ability to build up wins with no challenge that helped? I'd agree and I wouldn't even mind seeing some jobber matches. Except I'm not sure that many people would actually watch, which kind of defeats the point of having them. I saw a lot of Attitude Era stuff I just didn't get to watch as consistently. I saw Austin stun tons of people and while he certainly got his ass kicked at times he always came right back the next week no worse for wear.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 3, 2014 19:01:06 GMT -5
It was one of the things that helped.
Fans can be reconditioned. It's why they no longer expect to see blood and chairshots to the head.
That was his character. Vince would throw the kitchen sink at him, but Austin wouldn't go away. It was believable as a blue collar guy raging against his corporate boss, which resonated with the fans. When he got his hands on Vince though, the fans were rewarded with a satisfactory comeuppance, most memorably assaulting the bastard in hospital, hosing down the entire corporation with beer, and making Vince piss his pants in fear in front of millions of fans.
|
|
|
Post by Digital Witness on Sept 3, 2014 19:51:08 GMT -5
Lesnar should be portrayed as the one guy who can make Cena submit. It would defy any sort of normal logic for Brock to bust up Cena's arm and shoulder with a Kimura and not have Cena tap. I almost kinda hope that we see Lesnar counter the STF and somehow transition to the Kimura in the middle of the ring, and instead of Cena passing out from the pain, we get Lesnar snapping off Cena's arm and the ref calling it while Cena writhes in agony.
Lesnar really should be the man that breaks down Cena and everything he stands for. It should be up to someone else to be Lesnar's kryptonite.
|
|
|
Post by boogeyman on Sept 3, 2014 20:02:24 GMT -5
Cena can't just come back and conquer a month after. This builds nothing
If they have Cena get wrecked and leave and then come back with a new attitude. New attire. New moves. I do like how cena's using backdrop drivers and german suplexes now.
If cena starts using a scott steiner moveset i would lol
It doesn't need to be a submission that breaks his arm. The best thing would be for brock to break his face, knock him out. I liked how he broke out the stf and just bashes cena's face in
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 3, 2014 20:12:23 GMT -5
Lesnar should be portrayed as the one guy who can make Cena submit. It would defy any sort of normal logic for Brock to bust up Cena's arm and shoulder with a Kimura and not have Cena tap. I almost kinda hope that we see Lesnar counter the STF and somehow transition to the Kimura in the middle of the ring, and instead of Cena passing out from the pain, we get Lesnar snapping off Cena's arm and the ref calling it while Cena writhes in agony. Lesnar really should be the man that breaks down Cena and everything he stands for. It should be up to someone else to be Lesnar's kryptonite. why? what does it serve? it destroys a character, disappoints some kids
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 20:17:48 GMT -5
Lesnar should be portrayed as the one guy who can make Cena submit. It would defy any sort of normal logic for Brock to bust up Cena's arm and shoulder with a Kimura and not have Cena tap. I almost kinda hope that we see Lesnar counter the STF and somehow transition to the Kimura in the middle of the ring, and instead of Cena passing out from the pain, we get Lesnar snapping off Cena's arm and the ref calling it while Cena writhes in agony. Lesnar really should be the man that breaks down Cena and everything he stands for. It should be up to someone else to be Lesnar's kryptonite. why? what does it serve? it destroys a character, disappoints some kids Simple, as others have said countless times it's an opportunity for a long term recovery/rise from the ashes/Cena becoming as good as he once was storyline. You need to have moments of sadness/doubt of your hero to really get the buzz from said hero recovering and managing to show how they're even stronger/more capable than before. Gives you validation as a fan of a character whilst making for unique situations you may not have seen before.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 3, 2014 21:26:29 GMT -5
why? what does it serve? it destroys a character, disappoints some kids Simple, as others have said countless times it's an opportunity for a long term recovery/rise from the ashes/Cena becoming as good as he once was storyline. You need to have moments of sadness/doubt of your hero to really get the buzz from said hero recovering and managing to show how they're even stronger/more capable than before. Gives you validation as a fan of a character whilst making for unique situations you may not have seen before. his fans seem to like him as is non- fans won't care or will be glad he's gone. Net fans will just wonder what his gimmick change will be and if WWE will waste the opportunity. This isn't Hogan vs Bundy or Quake
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 21:33:43 GMT -5
Simple, as others have said countless times it's an opportunity for a long term recovery/rise from the ashes/Cena becoming as good as he once was storyline. You need to have moments of sadness/doubt of your hero to really get the buzz from said hero recovering and managing to show how they're even stronger/more capable than before. Gives you validation as a fan of a character whilst making for unique situations you may not have seen before. his fans seem to like him as is non- fans won't care or will be glad he's gone. Net fans will just wonder what his gimmick change will be and if WWE will waste the opportunity. This isn't Hogan vs Bundy or Quake His fans do like him as is, but they could get more people to be fans of him if they took a risk on a story arc which stayed consistent for longer than a month. Non-fans will be glad he's gone, yes, but much like when Cena returned at the Royal Rumble in a shocking way, absence makes fans happy they're back, makes non-fans realize what they had (see the cheers from the NYC crowd at said event), and net fans aren't a new breed. They're either fans or non-fans. Add in the storyline and you could have more people cheering Cena. Even then, maybe people never will cheer Cenadue to the horrendous way the company has treated logic in storytelling over the last decade, but we don't know until something like that happens.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 3, 2014 21:34:20 GMT -5
It was one of the things that helped. Fans can be reconditioned. It's why they no longer expect to see blood and chairshots to the head. That was his character. Vince would throw the kitchen sink at him, but Austin wouldn't go away. It was believable as a blue collar guy raging against his corporate boss, which resonated with the fans. When he got his hands on Vince though, the fans were rewarded with a satisfactory comeuppance, most memorably assaulting the bastard in hospital, hosing down the entire corporation with beer, and making Vince piss his pants in fear in front of millions of fans. fans that stop watching can't be. And it always amazes me... WWE tries to get their fans to like something you're in favor of, good thing, something you dislike and it's terrible WWE does that. It's Cena's character to. I happen to think he does it better. Austin never convinced me he was out for anyone but himself
|
|