|
Post by joeiscool on Sept 21, 2014 23:16:30 GMT -5
Well I mean people are "threatening" to stop watching wwe all together. I mean watch or don't watch, but what happened tonight is pretty logical, and basic wrestling booking 101. Cena lost a match. Cena pushes himself to be a better wrestler.. Cena wins a match by dq... Cue blow off cage match... I mean you don't have to like it, but you should understand this is standard wrestling story telling. If this really bothers you to the point where you are saying some of the stuff people are saying in this page, WWE wrestling is not the product for you.. Just saying The thing is though, what people are saying is that he didn't "push himself to become a better wrestler." \ Except that was the whole build up. The reason he squashed Bray Waytt, and was completely dominating in that 6 man tag was to show that he was trying to prove that he was on Brock's level. The last 4 weeks Cena pushing himself has been the story of the feud.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 21, 2014 23:18:21 GMT -5
No, man... They needed a MONTAGE of Cena REALLY pushing himself to be able to understand and follow the story.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Sept 21, 2014 23:19:20 GMT -5
I don't really care about the end, I just hated that Cena ignored the entire match basically by not selling shit at the end and the fact that we have to get ANOTHER Cena/Brock match. Seriously, after next month, we will have had 10 Lesnar PPV matches since his return. 4 against Cena, 3 against Triple H, 1 against Big Show (who he fought 900 times when he was actually fully active), 1 against Undertaker (another guy he fought several times when he was actually active) and 1 against Punk. The Punk match is the only one that hasn't been hammered into oblivion with Brock, and they really should try to use him at least somewhat variably and in more interesting ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 23:20:25 GMT -5
Shouldn't "basic wrestling booking" be something more like, I dunno, not completely shattering the invincible aura you've built up around your champion within a single match, so that when he does lose, whoever beats him looks that much more impressive for doing so? Having Ambrose or Reigns or Bryan or whoever beat Lesnar after Lesnar had looked dominant for six months is a hell of a lot more impressive than Ambrose or Reigns or Bryan beating Lesnar after Lesnar won on a technicality against John Cena during his first title defense.
Ah **** it, it's late and I have work tomorrow. Bowing out of the thread for now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 23:21:17 GMT -5
Nah, man. Don't obscure the context of people being paranoid about D. Bryan Danielson's push. D. Bryan was a dude people had to hijack several weeks worth of shows to get him to the top. We're going in about year 10 of John Cena overcoming all of the odds and several years of split crowd reactions. But.. But.. Cena didn't overcome the odds. In fact, the combination of Brock Lesner and Seth Rollins interference proved to be too much, meaning that by definition, Cena was unable to overcome the odds. The odds are safe. And yes, asking why a guy isn't the top guy when he isn't even able to be on the show is pretty stupid. I'm talking about a clear and established pattern when it comes to them booking Cena. And while asking why a guy isn't the top guy even though he's injured is indeed pretty ridiculous on its face with no context. ...that's kinda why I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're talking about how they treated him when he wasn't injured unless stated otherwise, because that doesn't insult anyone's intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 21, 2014 23:24:01 GMT -5
But.. But.. Cena didn't overcome the odds. In fact, the combination of Brock Lesner and Seth Rollins interference proved to be too much, meaning that by definition, Cena was unable to overcome the odds. The odds are safe. And yes, asking why a guy isn't the top guy when he isn't even able to be on the show is pretty stupid. I'm talking about a clear and established pattern when it comes to them booking Cena. And while asking why a guy isn't the top guy even though he's injured is indeed pretty ridiculous on its face with no context. ...that's kinda why I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're talking about how they treated him when he wasn't injured unless stated otherwise, because that doesn't insult anyone's intelligence. Ohhhh, you mean when he beat 3 guys with over 30 world titles between them in 2 different matches at the biggest show of the year. Oh brother.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 21, 2014 23:27:48 GMT -5
No, man... They needed a MONTAGE of Cena REALLY pushing himself to be able to understand and follow the story. No, they needed one to actually TELL that story. It's not that people didn't understand it. It's that that is absolutely not what played out on-screen. You can agree with the way they presented things; that's fine. But let's not act like they told a different sub-textual story that didn't occur, while simultaneously accusing people of not understanding said nonexistent subtext.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 21, 2014 23:30:11 GMT -5
The story was "Lesnar kicked my ass and I have pride and am one of the best ever, so now I am going to comeback and try to kick his ass". Pretty concrete and simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 23:31:40 GMT -5
I think I found a workable explanation of this match, and some subtext that made sense, earlier in the thread. Cena adopted Lesnar's strategy from last month and made it work for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 23:32:44 GMT -5
I'm talking about a clear and established pattern when it comes to them booking Cena. And while asking why a guy isn't the top guy even though he's injured is indeed pretty ridiculous on its face with no context. ...that's kinda why I give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're talking about how they treated him when he wasn't injured unless stated otherwise, because that doesn't insult anyone's intelligence. Ohhhh, you mean when he beat 3 guys with over 30 world titles between them in 2 different matches at the biggest show of the year. Oh brother. Bruh, taking people's comments and using the most ridiculous scenarios and focusing on those does not a discussion make. I guess this isn't a discussion then. So I'm cool with conceding.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 21, 2014 23:36:37 GMT -5
My point was simply that at this point it seems like alot of the IWC are the town's people and WWE is Frankenstein's Monster. And I don't know what is ridiculous about pointing out things that further illustrate that point. I will accept you conceding, however, because a win is a win. Ask John Cena.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 23:37:48 GMT -5
I think I found a workable explanation of this match, and some subtext that made sense, earlier in the thread. Cena adopted Lesnar's strategy from last month and made it work for him. Which is about the closest thing to an explanation. But then that would make Paul Heyman right.... Then I'd wonder what the hell was all this "No, Paul Heyman I will not forsake the three virtues of the Cenation!" promo...but whatever. Whatever explanation they'll use, if they use any is what they'll go with. Unfortunately the bottom line is I'm so past done with Cena vs. Lesnar and I already feel like a real heel for devoting this much discussion to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 23:46:41 GMT -5
Dude, what do you expect? Brock to just kill everything in sight? The bad guy has to look vulnerable to the good guy sometimes. One of the complaints people had about the nWo was how they looked too strong without the good guys ever getting a one up on them. Last year, we had people voicing their complaints about consecutive shows ending with the Authority standing tall over Daniel Bryan. Having the bad guy show some vulnerability against the hero isn't necessarily a bad thing. Well...do you know when having the bad guy show vulnerability is a really good, satisfying thing? It's when he gets to that point because of a logical series of events, instead of something like "The hero tried harder this time, so he won."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 23:49:04 GMT -5
But the hero didn't win.
The hero tried harder, nearly got there and STILL got it ripped away from him because of other jerks. And then the asshole villain still picked the bones because he's a complete jerk. Now he's going to come out and brag about how great he is.
|
|
|
Post by abjordans on Sept 21, 2014 23:51:09 GMT -5
One of the complaints people had about the nWo was how they looked too strong without the good guys ever getting a one up on them. Last year, we had people voicing their complaints about consecutive shows ending with the Authority standing tall over Daniel Bryan. Having the bad guy show some vulnerability against the hero isn't necessarily a bad thing. Well...do you know when having the bad guy show vulnerability is a really good, satisfying thing? It's when he gets to that point because of a logical series of events, instead of something like "The hero tried harder this time, so he won." The hero didn't win because he tried harder, he won because a guy came in and hit him with a briefcase. Then he got beat up some more... Nevermind.. Goodnight.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Sept 21, 2014 23:55:48 GMT -5
Shouldn't "basic wrestling booking" be something more like, I dunno, not completely shattering the invincible aura you've built up around your champion within a single match, so that when he does lose, whoever beats him looks that much more impressive for doing so? Having Ambrose or Reigns or Bryan or whoever beat Lesnar after Lesnar had looked dominant for six months is a hell of a lot more impressive than Ambrose or Reigns or Bryan beating Lesnar after Lesnar won on a technicality against John Cena during his first title defense. Ah **** it, it's late and I have work tomorrow. Bowing out of the thread for now. Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. This. Absolutely this. The sheer lack of understanding this by others is baffling to me. Cena's the Apollo Creed of this particular story, not the Rocky Balboa. He should look competent, but lose. Again. It's not his story to win on any level. His role is the dying hero that creates the "Holy f***, who's going to beat this guy if our superhero can't?" moment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2014 23:59:37 GMT -5
But the hero didn't win. The hero tried harder, nearly got there and STILL got it ripped away from him because of other jerks. And then the asshole villain still picked the bones because he's a complete jerk. Now he's going to come out and brag about how great he is. Um, actually Cena DID win. He just didn't get the title because of those pesky, outdated WWE rules. The hero tried harder and won, but a technicality prevented him from fully realizing his goals. I sure do wonder how the WWE officials will fix such a conundrum!
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 22, 2014 0:00:41 GMT -5
But the hero didn't win. The hero tried harder, nearly got there and STILL got it ripped away from him because of other jerks. And then the asshole villain still picked the bones because he's a complete jerk. Now he's going to come out and brag about how great he is. Um, actually Cena DID win. He just didn't get the title because of those pesky, outdated WWE rules. The hero tried harder and won, but a technicality prevented him from fully realizing his goals. I sure do wonder how the WWE officials will fix such a conundrum! If only there were a structure to prevent interference.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Sept 22, 2014 0:03:25 GMT -5
The story was "Lesnar kicked my ass and I have pride and am one of the best ever, so now I am going to comeback and try to kick his ass". Pretty concrete and simple. And bad. You can't have a guy be that decimated, and then able to win just because he tries harder without doing some sort of change in methods/training/whatever to make him CAPABLE of winning. There ain't a bad sports movie in the world that would have their plucky hero be able to comeback just because.
|
|
khali
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,569
|
Post by khali on Sept 22, 2014 0:06:49 GMT -5
Shouldn't "basic wrestling booking" be something more like, I dunno, not completely shattering the invincible aura you've built up around your champion within a single match, so that when he does lose, whoever beats him looks that much more impressive for doing so? Having Ambrose or Reigns or Bryan or whoever beat Lesnar after Lesnar had looked dominant for six months is a hell of a lot more impressive than Ambrose or Reigns or Bryan beating Lesnar after Lesnar won on a technicality against John Cena during his first title defense. Ah **** it, it's late and I have work tomorrow. Bowing out of the thread for now. Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner. This. Absolutely this. The sheer lack of understanding this by others is baffling to me. Cena's the Apollo Creed of this particular story, not the Rocky Balboa. He should look competent, but lose. Again. It's not his story to win on any level. His role is the dying hero that creates the "Holy f***, who's going to beat this guy if our superhero can't?" moment. Exactly. Summerslam left you with the question "can anyone beat Lesner?".Tonight they gave a resounding yes. It'll only get worse when they hammer home that Cena had him beat.
|
|