|
Post by 2CSultan on Oct 26, 2014 22:56:18 GMT -5
But it isn't the same because Rollins is a chickensh*t heel and DB was the most over babyface since The Rock. Orton was the chickenshit heel too, winning his matches over Bryan via outside influences (HHH Pedigreeing DB at SS and Michaels with the SCM at HIAC), never thru his own efforts. And one could say that Ambrose is the most over babyface right now, since the one face that WWE likes to think is over (Cena), is the guy that's hated by half the crowd. Cena has been hated by half the crowd for nearly a decade. He also sells more merch than the entire roster combined. So until money doesn't matter or the kiddies stop buying, the Cena sucks thing doesn't add up completely. By the way, I'm a card carrying Cena hater.
|
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,725
|
Post by nisidhe on Oct 26, 2014 23:06:23 GMT -5
I've grown convinced that Mike Rotundo has something on the McMahons in order that his kids are being featured so prominently at the moment. That's the only way I can explain Wyatt getting shoehorned into this angle so awkwardly and senselessly.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Oct 26, 2014 23:07:23 GMT -5
I strongly disliked the finish, but I'm not mad at anyone who liked it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 23:11:20 GMT -5
I strongly disliked the finish, but I'm not mad at anyone who liked it. Agreed there. I don't take issue with people liking it, I'm annoyed with people saying, "No, no, you're wrong to dislike it, here's how it works."
|
|
|
Post by The Tee Why on Oct 26, 2014 23:11:32 GMT -5
I've grown convinced that Mike Rotundo has something on the McMahons in order that his kids are being featured so prominently at the moment. That's the only way I can explain Wyatt getting shoehorned into this angle so awkwardly and senselessly. They really could have just had SOMEONE win, without Wyatt. Then tomorrow night do this Wyatt thing, more people see it since it's on RAW and it would be a cool memorable moment for RAW(when usually it's 3 hours of meh with slight glimpses of greatness).
|
|
Bang Bang Bart
Ozymandius
The King of North America
Posts: 60,702
Member is Online
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Oct 26, 2014 23:15:25 GMT -5
I can see and do agree with the people wanting the Wyatt stuff going down on Raw tomorrow, but... I still didn't hate the route WWE went with tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Oct 26, 2014 23:16:24 GMT -5
My problem with the finish is the fact it came out of nowhere, didn't give a proper ending to this drawn out feud, and as a result really diminishes what little credibility HIAC has left as a legitimate ending match type.
In 1997, the Kane interference had been teased leading up to the match happening so it made sense. Here it's just so random. We're probably going to get a bunch of incoherent Wyatt promos about nothing in particular while he compares Dean Ambrose to the boil on his dads butt or something. So the Rollins/Ambrose feud suffers because they had to rush right into another angle which could have been started on RAW instead. Or hell, I'd be fine if it even happened after the match had finished. IMO it's just a big FU to the viewing audience to give a non-finish like that to end a show. At least with the network most fans aren't being screwed over by these sort of endings for PPV prices. But it's still a bunch of crap to not deliver a proper ending. It's a swerve at the end for the sake of a swerve.
|
|
Bang Bang Bart
Ozymandius
The King of North America
Posts: 60,702
Member is Online
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Oct 26, 2014 23:17:54 GMT -5
My problem with the finish is the fact it came out of nowhere, didn't give a proper ending to this drawn out feud, and as a result really diminishes what little credibility HIAC has left as a legitimate ending match type. In 1997, the Kane interference had been teased leading up to the match happening so it made sense. Here it's just so random. We're probably going to get a bunch of incoherent Wyatt promos about nothing in particular while he compares Dean Ambrose to the boil on his dads butt or something. So the Rollins/Ambrose feud suffers because they had to rush right into another angle which could have been started on RAW instead. Or hell, I'd be fine if it even happened after the match had finished. IMO it's just a big FU to the viewing audience to give a non-finish like that to end a show. At least with the network most fans aren't being screwed over by these sort of endings for PPV prices. But it's still a bunch of crap to not deliver a proper ending. It's a swerve at the end for the sake of a swerve. I'd say the Wyatt teasers we've had for the past month might count as foreshadowing, even if not directly related to Ambrose.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Oct 26, 2014 23:20:40 GMT -5
Said it in another thread but why not here? So I just read more about the finish and....when did Dallas have a portal to hell under the AAC? Seriously, they used that same finish in Kane/Taker in 2010 at HIAC at the AAC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 23:27:16 GMT -5
Said it in another thread but why not here? So I just read more about the finish and....when did Dallas have a portal to hell under the AAC? Seriously, they used that same finish in Kane/Taker in 2010 at HIAC at the AAC. It did remind me a lot of that - my mind went to that long before it did Taker / Michaels, didn't really make that connection until I saw so many people bringing it up. Though at least there the light blinding Taker actually went somewhere and led to a real finisher to end it, this time around it was all just pointless nonsense then Bray hit an awkward transition move that knocked Ambrose out cold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 23:37:06 GMT -5
The fact that people don't see why Ambrose lost to Rollins this way and also why Bray debuted here is one reason why I hate hearing the opinions of the product from other fans. I just don't get their logic. Someone on another forum said this:
"They could have had Dean beat Seth clean and then do the exact same finish AFTER the match. Ambrose wins, lights go out as he's celebrating in the ring, Bray lays him out post-match. If Dean wins, you get three very over guys: Seth retaining his briefcase while moving on to a different feud, Bray "back on top" having just laid out a fresh and newly minted main event player, and Ambrose triumphant and fully established as a super hot singles main eventer while still looking for revenge upon Wyatt. You don't get over laying out losers, and at show's end, all three of those guys looked like f***ing losers."
Which is ridiculous because there was a whole point of Bray debuting that way.
If Seth lost to Dean cleanly he loses his "chickenshit heel" aura he's had since he turned against him. That's why it could not happen, it makes perfect sense and we've seen this numerous times. Rollins wouldn't still look strong if he lost cleanly to Ambrose. He loses and still has the briefcase which means he'd be in the same position as those who lose and have the briefcase. They had to keep Rollins winning through chickenshit measures so that when he actually does look a big league match it's a more epic moment. That's the same reason why he was going to have the rubbermatch with Roman and that's so Rollins could win through chickenshit measures and eliminate that Raw win Roman got on him.
That's the same reason why HBK beat Taker in the first HIAC. Although Taker could have won, it kept HBK's chickenshit heelness up. Don't tell me you guys think that Taker should have won. That wasn't the point of the finish. The story of that match showed Taker on top, he was going to win but boom, Kane arrives setting up another feud. Michaels wins but Taker was truly the guy who looked to be on top from a physical standpoint. Afterwards, Michaels went on to keep his chickenshit aura up into his next feud. Had he lost, it wouldn't have happened that way. Taker also continued to look strong and he was in a new feud with Kane. Taker didn't drop down 1 bit from losing the HBK match.
And this will only help Ambrose since the crowd was hot on him the entire match. He is the hero that still looks strong even though he was defeated. That type of thing works mostly for faces which is why we rarely see heels "get defeated and look strong" because that's a face situation. It wouldn't be right unless the face turn. It just wasn't going to happen. That's why when I predicted I said I didn't know who'd win and one of the options was Rollins wins through shenanigans which is exactly what happened.
This isn't new stuff. This is common with the WWE.
EDIT: The hating part is an over-exaggeration. Apparently people thought I was being serious about "hating" but this is a forum. It's not that serious.
|
|
|
Post by PsychoGoatee on Oct 26, 2014 23:50:34 GMT -5
The fact that people don't see why Ambrose lost to Rollins this way and also why Bray debuted here is one reason why I hate hearing the opinions of the product from other fans. I just don't get their logic. Everyone has their own views on the merit or fault in the way some fictional entertainment has played out. Personally, I think it played out poorly. It's fine that you disagree or don't understand the logic of other viewers, but c'mon, you "hate" hearing opinions just because you don't agree with their logic? On wrestling?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2014 23:53:40 GMT -5
The fact that people don't see why Ambrose lost to Rollins this way and also why Bray debuted here is one reason why I hate hearing the opinions of the product from other fans. I just don't get their logic. Everyone has their own views on the merit or fault in the way some fictional entertainment has played out. Personally, I think it played out poorly. It's fine that you disagree or don't understand the logic of other viewers, but c'mon, you "hate" hearing opinions just because you don't agree with their logic? On wrestling? I was over-exaggerating the hating part. It's a forum, it's not that serious.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Oct 26, 2014 23:53:38 GMT -5
Here is where I get lost tonight. I saw a lot of, "Wow, that was cool. I'm stoked." I saw a lot of, "Wow, that f***ing sucked. I'm out." I seem to be missing all of the, "That was awful and if you liked it you're a miserable WWE apologist". Yet somehow my wires must be getting crossed, because a lot of people who liked it apparently planned for war and came prepared with over defensiveness and unnecessary attacks. I don't get it. In my world "I hated that" doesn't equate to "I hated that and I hate you if you did you idiot". Maybe it's just me. You got to the heart of it. I haven't watched wrestling in about 2 months, I have been checking results though and reading reviews. I was tracking the PPV tonight through a few websites, but when it got to the main event those feeds all kinda stopped. SO I came in to this thread because I knew the FAN folk will keep that play by play to date. The impression I got right off the bat was that the likers were on the defense and expecting to be attacked. Meanwhile the folks who didn't care for it either left a short comment, or they backed up why they didn't like it. The pro side wasn't backing up much of anything. I cannot recall such a one sided thread for a while. One side trumped the other just by showing up. Pro guys, I am glad you liked it, but back it up with why and don't put down the opposition, back up your piece!
|
|
|
Post by The Tee Why on Oct 27, 2014 0:33:59 GMT -5
Here is where I get lost tonight. I saw a lot of, "Wow, that was cool. I'm stoked." I saw a lot of, "Wow, that f***ing sucked. I'm out." I seem to be missing all of the, "That was awful and if you liked it you're a miserable WWE apologist". Yet somehow my wires must be getting crossed, because a lot of people who liked it apparently planned for war and came prepared with over defensiveness and unnecessary attacks. I don't get it. In my world "I hated that" doesn't equate to "I hated that and I hate you if you did you idiot". Maybe it's just me. You got to the heart of it. I haven't watched wrestling in about 2 months, I have been checking results though and reading reviews. I was tracking the PPV tonight through a few websites, but when it got to the main event those feeds all kinda stopped. SO I came in to this thread because I knew the FAN folk will keep that play by play to date. The impression I got right off the bat was that the likers were on the defense and expecting to be attacked. Meanwhile the folks who didn't care for it either left a short comment, or they backed up why they didn't like it. The pro side wasn't backing up much of anything. I cannot recall such a one sided thread for a while. One side trumped the other just by showing up. Pro guys, I am glad you liked it, but back it up with why and don't put down the opposition, back up your piece! At the same time, it's a television show, I dont think any side should have to justify why they did or didnt like something on a show. So long as they dont disrespect people who thought the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Oct 27, 2014 0:34:54 GMT -5
Fact 2 on Dallas repeating in WWE: The only other Bella v. Bella match (on TV and to my knowledge) took place on ECW from Dallas in 2007 (and I was there for that).
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 39,064
|
Post by fw91 on Oct 27, 2014 1:02:14 GMT -5
Biggest issue for me, is that I feel there was a LOT worse things WWE did in recent memory, and those who didn't like the product have never reacted as harshly (i.e., f*** this company I'm out.) Night of Champions put me to sleep. Don't remember a thing. But most people were just like eh whatever. Yeah maybe I was a bit harsh with the "get over yourselves" line. But at the risk of sounding like an elitist douche, can I really be blamed? It seems like nobody is ever happy unless their favorites come out on top (Daniel Bryan early in the year, now Ambrose.) But I really think Ambrose is going to be okay here. At least with Bryan, the ONLY thing that made sense was to push him to the top spot. Ambrose is not getting ignored like they tried to do with Bryan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 1:09:07 GMT -5
Biggest issue for me, is that I feel there was a LOT worse things WWE did in recent memory, and those who didn't like the product have never reacted as harshly (i.e., f*** this company I'm out.) Night of Champions put me to sleep. Don't remember a thing. But most people were just like eh whatever. Yeah maybe I was a bit harsh with the "get over yourselves" line. But at the risk of sounding like an elitist douche, can I really be blamed? It seems like nobody is ever happy unless their favorites come out on top (Daniel Bryan early in the year, now Ambrose.) But I really think Ambrose is going to be okay here. At least with Bryan, the ONLY thing that made sense was to push him to the top spot. Ambrose is not getting ignored like they tried to do with Bryan. I think the big issue here is most everybody knew going in Cena / Lesnar was going to have a stupid ending. In this case though, for months people have been declaring the Ambrose / Rollins feud the only good thing in the company each week and in the minds of a lot of people - myself included - tonight they f***ed it up. It hits closer to home when it was something you liked in the first place.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 39,064
|
Post by fw91 on Oct 27, 2014 1:18:25 GMT -5
Biggest issue for me, is that I feel there was a LOT worse things WWE did in recent memory, and those who didn't like the product have never reacted as harshly (i.e., f*** this company I'm out.) Night of Champions put me to sleep. Don't remember a thing. But most people were just like eh whatever. Yeah maybe I was a bit harsh with the "get over yourselves" line. But at the risk of sounding like an elitist douche, can I really be blamed? It seems like nobody is ever happy unless their favorites come out on top (Daniel Bryan early in the year, now Ambrose.) But I really think Ambrose is going to be okay here. At least with Bryan, the ONLY thing that made sense was to push him to the top spot. Ambrose is not getting ignored like they tried to do with Bryan. I think the big issue here is most everybody knew going in Cena / Lesnar was going to have a stupid ending. In this case though, for months people have been declaring the Ambrose / Rollins feud the only good thing in the company each week and in the minds of a lot of people - myself included - tonight they f***ed it up. It hits closer to home when it was something you liked in the first place. When it comes to Ambrose/Rollins being the only good thing on TV. I'd day YES and No. It was a GREAT feud, don't get me wrong, but RAW has essentially been the same episode since Night of Champions each week. Everyone/Too Many people tied into the feud. I mean how many variations of Cena and Ambrose vs Rollins/Kane/Orton did we get this past month? The show revolved around one angle which in turn oversaturated what we really wanted to see in Ambrose vs Rollins straight up. No it looks like a lot of feuds will now be heavily featured on RAW. Ambrose/Wyatt. Orton/Rollins Whatever Cena will do as filler with Heyman. Not to mention Rusev's next challenger (Sheamus?) and the happenings of team Hollywood which is starting to take off.
|
|
nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,725
|
Post by nisidhe on Oct 27, 2014 6:22:44 GMT -5
When it comes to Ambrose/Rollins being the only good thing on TV. I'd day YES and No. It was a GREAT feud, don't get me wrong, but RAW has essentially been the same episode since Night of Champions each week. Everyone/Too Many people tied into the feud. I mean how many variations of Cena and Ambrose vs Rollins/Kane/Orton did we get this past month? The show revolved around one angle which in turn oversaturated what we really wanted to see in Ambrose vs Rollins straight up. No it looks like a lot of feuds will now be heavily featured on RAW. Ambrose/Wyatt. Orton/Rollins Whatever Cena will do as filler with Heyman. Not to mention Rusev's next challenger (Sheamus?) and the happenings of team Hollywood which is starting to take off. Let's be realistic here - Ambrose vs. Rollins was really all they had left barreling towards Survivor Series and the Rumble. Cena/Lesnar part 83 was inevitable, as is the cash-in attempt by Rollins. Ambrose was the wildcard that removed that inevitability/certainty and made every conceivable scenario there entertaining. With Wyatt in the mix to distract Ambrose (and for what purpose, really, than for its own sake?) the one possible positive result might be that Orton turns on Rollins and the Authority - but Orton's face turn has a heel motivation, one which opens up the possibility of Bryan coming back as a heel to counter Orton and the Authority once again on top. I know that many fans here prefer the chickenshit heel champion with the chaser model of booking. I am not one of those. Last night should have been one for sending the crowd home happy - if not winning the match, then Ambrose successfully fighting off the stooges and Kane and leaving them bleeding and unconscious in the ring. It is frustrating to see the same outcome of this gang-up week after week after week, then to pay up to $60 only to see the same thing. To me, this type of booking, of pushing the fans' tempers to their absolute limits and beyond without a payoff, needs to stop. I'm not watching Raw tonight; I just have no interest in whatever pittance WWE decides to throw to the peasants to make up for the fact that they've either hired Vince Russo back or someone like him to continue this garbage. WWE no longer deserves the money it's making.
|
|