|
Post by Just call me D.j.m. on Oct 2, 2014 21:11:59 GMT -5
Honest question.
What's stopping WWE from putting together a match between Cena and Rollins with the MITB briefcase on the line?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 21:13:07 GMT -5
I hope Cena joins the new nation because he's my favorite black friend.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Oct 2, 2014 21:14:04 GMT -5
Honest question. What's stopping WWE from putting together a match between Cena and Rollins with the MITB briefcase on the line? That would at least make sense and justify Cena's position. He could take out Seth as a factor legally, and force a rematch with Brock at his choosing. The fact WWE has opted for the nonsensical approach instead is baffling to me.
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Oct 2, 2014 21:16:01 GMT -5
Honest question. What's stopping WWE from putting together a match between Cena and Rollins with the MITB briefcase on the line? At this point, common sense. Say if Cena wanted another shot at Lesnar and had actually been denied one, he would have a very good reason to target Rollins besides the fact that he just thinks Seth's "stoopid."
|
|
|
Post by Just call me D.j.m. on Oct 2, 2014 21:21:12 GMT -5
Honest question. What's stopping WWE from putting together a match between Cena and Rollins with the MITB briefcase on the line? That would at least make sense and justify Cena's position. He could take out Seth as a factor legally, and force a rematch with Brock at his choosing. The fact WWE has opted for the nonsensical approach instead is baffling to me. I don't find it baffling, because I refuse to give WWE any credit as far as fluid logical storytelling goes. They have shown time and time and again that they are incapable. They have poetic license and it's not even a crutch, it's their calling card. So f*** it.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Oct 2, 2014 21:22:50 GMT -5
I have no idea who or what mrjl is or was. Was he someone who disagreed wtih your point of view? Now let's look at FACTS: I haven't tried to make it "equal" to Ambrose's "plight.:" I have clearly stated more than once that it doesn't have to be equal. NOBODY on earth thinks that way -- you wrong me, I don't care who else you wronged, that's their problem -- if I can make you, you're going to deal with me. That's where Cena is coming from. He's not comparing his situation to Ambrose's and he shouldn't. I can probably name a dozen, maybe even dozens, of feuds where one guy tried to "kill" the other guy and it didn't mean he always had first dibs. Over the course of quite a few unrelated threads you've gone off on this "he tried to murder Ambrose" thing as if (a) he tried to murder Ambrose, like literally kill him (in which case why did he not check his pulse and keep going until the guy was dead, or bring a gun, etc.) and (b) as if that matters. The guy shook it off with "that was cool," so Ambrose clearly, as I have shown you, is no more hot to get his hands on Rollins than he ever was before. That angle didn't start with Ambrose's head going through cinderblocks, it started long before, and Ambrose has done nothing to say, "OK, everything has changed now, I was just trying to stop you from cashing in your briefcase but you tried to kill me now and this is a blood feud that ends when one of us is DEAD." You deciding to impose more meaning on it is something in your interpretation, not in what has been presented to the viewers. As someone else brought up, why should Cena care what Ambrose thinks or what his "claim" on Rollins is? SInce when are these two best buds? Ambrose is out for himself, pretty clearly, and so is Cena. That sounds reasonable to me. mrjl was a poster that was so annoying in his inability to accept when he was wrong that he eventually had to be banned for it. Whoa, I'm not saying you should be banned for your opinion, even if it's based in some deep hatred of Cena. (He should be sent to the gas chamber, really? He steals candy from babies, or makes them want merch that costs money? Wow.) Your whole construct relies on some fantasy that people's conflicts are measured on some scale and that Cena, out of decency (even though you clearly paint his character as a heel) should say, "Dean, I know we first got to know each other when you and your Shield buddies attacked me and we've never really been friends, but man you were wronged more than me so even though I was also wronged and I believe it cost me the championship and redemption against Brock, I'm going to forget about all of that and step aside so you can continue to chase Rollins for as long as it takes." In what world does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Oct 2, 2014 21:26:07 GMT -5
mrjl was a poster that was so annoying in his inability to accept when he was wrong that he eventually had to be banned for it. Whoa, I'm not saying you should be banned for your opinion, even if it's based in some deep hatred of Cena. (He should be sent to the gas chamber, really? He steals candy from babies, or makes them want merch that costs money? Wow.) Your whole construct relies on some fantasy that people's conflicts are measured on some scale and that Cena, out of decency (even though you clearly paint his character as a heel) should say, "Dean, I know we first got to know each other when you and your Shield buddies attacked me and we've never really been friends, but man you were wronged more than me so even though I was also wronged and I believe it cost me the championship and redemption against Brock, I'm going to forget about all of that and step aside so you can continue to chase Rollins for as long as it takes." In what world does that make sense? Earth. Our world. We're on it.
|
|
ededdneddy
Hank Scorpio
ededdandembed
Posts: 5,697
|
Post by ededdneddy on Oct 2, 2014 21:29:54 GMT -5
I hope Cena joins the new nation because he's my favorite black friend. Why must you destroy any hope of a New Nation.......
|
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 31,996
Member is Online
|
Post by Perd on Oct 2, 2014 21:31:09 GMT -5
Wait, mrjl was banned?
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Oct 2, 2014 21:33:45 GMT -5
Honest question. What's stopping WWE from putting together a match between Cena and Rollins with the MITB briefcase on the line? Because either Cena loses two feuds in a row or wins the briefcase that he doesn't need.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Oct 2, 2014 21:40:19 GMT -5
mrjl was a poster that was so annoying in his inability to accept when he was wrong that he eventually had to be banned for it. Whoa, I'm not saying you should be banned for your opinion, lol, you earned my respect on that line. You're good people, saitpat. I'm being serious. But you are right, I do see the Cena character as a heel. But mostly because everything we're told he stands for as a character is revealed as being inconsistent, untrue and hypocritical. We're told he's a hero with a strict, unbreakable moral code (that yes, they market to children) but said character contradicts it all the time. It sells a lie. I also purposely use the word character if you've noticed when I refer to John so to create a distinction between the real life man whom I hold in high regard, and the poorly written image they have him portraying on TV. The Gas Chamber joke you made mention of was not serious either in another thread. It was a satirical indictment on how some crowds despise John so much that even Hitler might get cheered. It was a joke. That said, while I know I can't change your mind, I'll respect how you view it. But I'll just say this, in this particular angle, when viewed without bias (I swear), I see this thing as this: One guy gets screwed out of a potential title win. (that he can get again.). The other guy gets betrayed, gang attacked and has his head crushed by the same guy who screwed the above guy. If you asked me, based on these descriptions, without any insight into who each man was, who deserved "revenge" more and first, I'd tell you, as I think most would, that the 2nd guy would for the simple fact that the first's plight is not even remotely close to the same level of brutality and betrayal. The first guy can be mad. Hell, he deserves to be mad. But the problem arises when it comes down to him and the other being in each others' way for revenge. And to me, the first guy's problems don't merit the obsessional grudge. In fact, I'd find it morally weird that it does.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh Carlson on Oct 2, 2014 21:47:09 GMT -5
This argument is still going on? The fact is, logically, cena shouldn't care about revenge on rollins, he should care about another shot at lesnar, this time in hell in a cell so there's no chance for rollins to interfere and ruin the match. Story telling.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Oct 2, 2014 21:49:00 GMT -5
Whoa, I'm not saying you should be banned for your opinion, lol, you earned my respect on that line. You're good people, saitpat. I'm being serious. But you are right, I do see the Cena character as a heel. But mostly because everything we're told he stands for as a character is revealed as being inconsistent, untrue and hypocritical. We're told he's a hero with a strict, unbreakable moral code (that yes, they market to children) but said character contradicts it all the time. It sells a lie. I also purposely use the word character if you've noticed when I refer to John so to create a distinction between the real life man whom I hold in high regard, and the poorly written image they have him portraying on TV. The Gas Chamber joke you made mention of was not serious either in another thread. It was a satirical indictment on how some crowds despise John so much that even Hitler might get cheered. It was a joke. That said, while I know I can't change your mind, I'll respect how you view it. But I'll just say this, in this particular angle, when viewed without bias (I swear), I see this thing as this: One guy gets screwed out of a potential title win. (that he can get again.). The other guy gets betrayed, gang attacked and has his head crushed by the same guy who screwed the above guy. If you asked me, based on these descriptions, without any insight into who each man was, who deserved "revenge" more and first, I'd tell you, as I think most would, that the 2nd guy would for the simple fact that the first's plight is not even remotely close to the same level of brutality and betrayal. The first guy can be mad. Hell, he deserves to be mad. But the problem arises when it comes down to him and the other being in each others' way for revenge. And to me, the first guy's problems don't merit the obsessional grudge. In fact, I'd find it morally weird that it does. Fair enough. I don't disagree that Dean "deserves" his revenge first -- never said he didn't -- just don't think it matters. I know of no one in sports or in life who would "step aside" from getting their payback if wronged ... at least not for someone they have no friendship or family relationship with. I see your point, but it doesn't ruin the angle for me.
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Oct 2, 2014 21:55:46 GMT -5
If I'm Cena and I show up at a show and find Rollins, who I feel cheated me out of avenging and reproving myself and winning the title back, and I ALSO find Brock isn't there, I'm going after Rollins. Not only to get payback, but hopefully to get him out of the way so it doesn't happen again. And I'm not going to look around the locker room and say, 'I know I have a grievance with Seth, but before I act on it, let me do a little survey and see if anyone else might be more justified in getting at him first, and if I find someone like that, I'll just take a number and hang out with the Bunny until it's my turn.' If your suspension of disbelief allows you to decide that people who are wronged are put in some kind of pecking order and only try to get back at that person when everyone who might have a 'better' or 'more worthy' grievance have had their shot, well, my belief doesn't suspend like that. It's ludicrous. Cena could just as well assess the situation and say, "Hmmm, Dean has been chasing this guy and trying to do this since Seth won MitB and he hasn't really accomplished anything yet ... so I don't want to wait indefinitely, that could take more months or even years. I think I'll go ahead and take care of it myself." Or he could say, "Dean's too much of a psycho to realize it, but the guy damn near killed him last time. If I take care of it, I might be doing him a favor and saving his life" to put it in a way SC might better understand. It would have been simpler had the Authority given Cena a match against Rollins for the main event at RAW right off the bat, announce it right away. So that you kill the problem right away so that Cena doesn't look selfish for going after Ambrose's enemy and after the match, this little problem they have will be over and Seth can continue his feud with Ambrose afterwards. From an Authority standpoint, they book Cena-Rollins to fix the problem that was created at Night of Champions. And they can mastermind an interference by Orton and Kane on Cena during that match. Kane and Orton could even have had the same backstage promo that they had on RAW "we're tired of having to estinguish the fires that Seth creates".
|
|
|
Post by Just call me D.j.m. on Oct 2, 2014 21:57:59 GMT -5
Whoa, I'm not saying you should be banned for your opinion, lol, you earned my respect on that line. You're good people, saitpat. I'm being serious. But you are right, I do see the Cena character as a heel. But mostly because everything we're told he stands for as a character is revealed as being inconsistent, untrue and hypocritical. We're told he's a hero with a strict, unbreakable moral code (that yes, they market to children) but said character contradicts it all the time. It sells a lie. I also purposely use the word character if you've noticed when I refer to John so to create a distinction between the real life man whom I hold in high regard, and the poorly written image they have him portraying on TV. The Gas Chamber joke you made mention of was not serious either in another thread. It was a satirical indictment on how some crowds despise John so much that even Hitler might get cheered. It was a joke. That said, while I know I can't change your mind, I'll respect how you view it. But I'll just say this, in this particular angle, when viewed without bias (I swear), I see this thing as this: One guy gets screwed out of a potential title win. (that he can get again.). The other guy gets betrayed, gang attacked and has his head crushed by the same guy who screwed the above guy. If you asked me, based on these descriptions, without any insight into who each man was, who deserved "revenge" more and first, I'd tell you, as I think most would, that the 2nd guy would for the simple fact that the first's plight is not even remotely close to the same level of brutality and betrayal. The first guy can be mad. Hell, he deserves to be mad. But the problem arises when it comes down to him and the other being in each others' way for revenge. And to me, the first guy's problems don't merit the obsessional grudge. In fact, I'd find it morally weird that it does. I stopped looking at John Cena within the normal tropes of a typical pro wrestling character a LOOOONG time ago. The dude is essentially the living breathing avatar of World Wrestling Entertainment itself. He is Vince McMahon's ubermensch. He is their poetic license. Inconsistent character and bad writing? Shut up and go back into your mom's basement. Other talents denigrated to make him appear stronger? It's alright because JAWWWWWWWWWWWWN CEEEEEEEEEEEEENAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA makes wishes come true and WWE puts smiles on people's faces. I'm at the point where I enjoy John Cena and by proxy WWE ironically because of how ham-fisted and short-sighted it all is. There's no sense in trying to put him into a logical box because that's not how Vince McMahon's promotion operates. It operates under the guise of the narrative that WWE is perfect and everything makes sense, even when it doesn't...ESPECIALLY when it doesn't. To reiterate...f*** it.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Oct 2, 2014 22:05:08 GMT -5
If I'm Cena and I show up at a show and find Rollins, who I feel cheated me out of avenging and reproving myself and winning the title back, and I ALSO find Brock isn't there, I'm going after Rollins. Not only to get payback, but hopefully to get him out of the way so it doesn't happen again. And I'm not going to look around the locker room and say, 'I know I have a grievance with Seth, but before I act on it, let me do a little survey and see if anyone else might be more justified in getting at him first, and if I find someone like that, I'll just take a number and hang out with the Bunny until it's my turn.' If your suspension of disbelief allows you to decide that people who are wronged are put in some kind of pecking order and only try to get back at that person when everyone who might have a 'better' or 'more worthy' grievance have had their shot, well, my belief doesn't suspend like that. It's ludicrous. Cena could just as well assess the situation and say, "Hmmm, Dean has been chasing this guy and trying to do this since Seth won MitB and he hasn't really accomplished anything yet ... so I don't want to wait indefinitely, that could take more months or even years. I think I'll go ahead and take care of it myself." Or he could say, "Dean's too much of a psycho to realize it, but the guy damn near killed him last time. If I take care of it, I might be doing him a favor and saving his life" to put it in a way SC might better understand. It would have been simpler had the Authority given Cena a match against Rollins for the main event at RAW right off the bat, announce it right away. So that you kill the problem right away so that Cena doesn't look selfish for going after Ambrose's enemy and after the match, this little problem they have will be over and Seth can continue his feud with Ambrose afterwards. From an Authority standpoint, they book Cena-Rollins to fix the problem that was created at Night of Champions. And they can mastermind an interference by Orton and Kane on Cena during that match. Kane and Orton could even have had the same backstage promo that they had on RAW "we're tired of having to estinguish the fires that Seth creates". If Cena and Rollins were booked in a match on RAW, either Cena would lose or there would be shenanigans that would spur him to continue the chase, or he'd beat Rollins and people would complain that he "got Dean's revenge for him" the same way they did with Reigns.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Oct 2, 2014 22:11:30 GMT -5
It would have been simpler had the Authority given Cena a match against Rollins for the main event at RAW right off the bat, announce it right away. So that you kill the problem right away so that Cena doesn't look selfish for going after Ambrose's enemy and after the match, this little problem they have will be over and Seth can continue his feud with Ambrose afterwards. From an Authority standpoint, they book Cena-Rollins to fix the problem that was created at Night of Champions. And they can mastermind an interference by Orton and Kane on Cena during that match. Kane and Orton could even have had the same backstage promo that they had on RAW "we're tired of having to estinguish the fires that Seth creates". If Cena and Rollins were booked in a match on RAW, either Cena would lose or there would be shenanigans that would spur him to continue the chase, or he'd beat Rollins and people would complain that he "got Dean's revenge for him" the same way they did with Reigns. So what's the solution? Since one of those things has to happen eventually.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Oct 2, 2014 22:20:19 GMT -5
If Cena and Rollins were booked in a match on RAW, either Cena would lose or there would be shenanigans that would spur him to continue the chase, or he'd beat Rollins and people would complain that he "got Dean's revenge for him" the same way they did with Reigns. So what's the solution? Since one of those things has to happen eventually. At Hell in a Cell, I would do Ambrose/Rollins first in a Cell match (since this feud should be blown off in that type of match). The Authroity could deny Cena his revenge by saying he'd have to wait his turn. Cena would have to earn his shot at Rollins by defeating Kane, Orton or some other handpicked Authority opponent (they could arbitrarily throw this match in the Cell for the LOLZ if they wanted to). Cena could defeat the chosen heel and "cash in" to face Seth at Survivor Series.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Oct 2, 2014 22:30:55 GMT -5
Cena's entire logic makes no sense.
In the interview on the other thread, he says he is going after Rollins because Rollins stopped Cena from beating Lesnar who will destroy the world or something if Cena doesn't beat him.
It doesn't explain why Lesnar would cease to be a major threat simply by depriving him of an ugly championship belt. Unless his power was bound to the actual physical belt I suppose. Nor does it explain why Lesnar wouldn't be vanquished by being defeated by Rollins, which was clearly going to happen had Cena not prevented it.
Cena offers the reasoning that his grudge against Rollins is more important than Ambrose's because people were questioning his ability to beat Lesnar, which makes no sense at all. Surely Cena's contention then is with those people who doubt him, rather than Rollins. It's also strange to argue that this is comparable with Ambrose, who was betrayed by his friend, beaten to a pulp with a chair repeatedly, then killed with cinder blocks.
In Cena's world, some people doubting him after he lost a one-sided (by his own admission) but ultimately a fair contest to Lesnar is just as serious as attempted murder.
|
|
|
Post by Beets by Schrute on Oct 2, 2014 22:40:29 GMT -5
Cena's entire logic makes no sense. I In Cena's world, some people doubting him after he lost a one-sided (by his own admission) but ultimately a fair contest to Lesnar is just as serious as attempted murder. He's like the John Locke of WWE. Don't tell him what he can't do.
|
|