|
|
Post by froggyfrog on Jan 26, 2015 21:50:21 GMT -5
True or False: The current backlash against Roman Reigns is predominately a product of dissatisfaction with the current creative direction in WWE and overall quality of the product rather than actual disdain for Roman Reigns himself.
T/F
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 21:54:30 GMT -5
What if I hate both of them?
|
|
|
|
Post by froggyfrog on Jan 26, 2015 21:59:20 GMT -5
What if I hate both of them? predominately is used as the qualifier |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 22:02:47 GMT -5
I think it's mostly against the company itself, including for pushing him before anyone really wants it, more than due to any active dislike for him. I know I'd be joining in on booing the hell out of him and I'm a fan, I just don't think he's remotely ready for the position he's in.
|
|
H-Virus
Hank Scorpio
A Real Contagious Experience
Posts: 5,961
|
Post by H-Virus on Jan 26, 2015 22:02:56 GMT -5
I, for one, am just sick and tired of being told who I'm supposed to like, and f*** me if I should choose to put my money on someone else instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 22:05:47 GMT -5
I picked false, because it seems like people aren't even willing to give Roman a chance to do his best with this main event spot. I feel like if it were predominantly based on WWE's creative decisions the reaction would be less "Roman Reigns is shit" and more "Damn I wish it was (X) instead." Like you're still pretty pissed but at least willing to give Roman a chance. I guess some sort of mix of the two options, maybe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 22:06:52 GMT -5
I picked false, because it seems like people aren't even willing to give Roman a chance to do his best with this main event spot. I feel like if it were predominantly based on WWE's creative decisions the reaction would be less "Roman Reigns is shit" and more "Damn I wish it was (X) instead." Like you're still pretty pissed but at least willing to give Roman a chance. I guess some sort of mix of the two options, maybe? Based on the quality of work he's been doing in the weeks leading up to the Rumble, why give him that chance? He's not even been doing particularly well in the upper midcard and was already getting some slight boos there. |
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Jan 26, 2015 22:12:18 GMT -5
I, for one, am just sick and tired of being told who I'm supposed to like, and f*** me if I should choose to put my money on someone else instead. That sounds like the guy in Boogie Nights complaining that the songs on albums always come in a certain order, like they want you to play them that way ... as if there was another choice. Who is tellilng you who to cheer for? Someone has to be in the main event. Generally speaking it's one babyface and one heel. In that sense, I guess they're "telling you" who to cheer for ... but you're free to cheer for the heel or to cheer for someone not in the main event instead. How does WWE solve this problem? Not having a main event? Not having anyone go on last? What? |
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 26, 2015 22:12:35 GMT -5
Y'know, truthfully? This is some genius bullshit cooked up by wrestling promoters years ago. The way the business is organized, and with kayfabe the way it is, the performers get all the hate for the writers' bad decisions, and their actual careers actually suffer for it.
Personally, I think Reigns is a pretty terrible wrestler, and forcing fans to cheer for terrible wrestlers in non-storylines is PART of that booking we're all mad at. So yes, Reigns is bad. But that's not Reigns-hate, because the dude should be getting booked in INTERESTING stories that play to his strengths, and the fact that he's not isn't his fault. I'm pretty sure MOST people here get that nuance, but it still seems like some people don't.
The main thing for me? You could see this shit coming TWO YEARS AGO. From the beginning of the Shield, the Reigns backlash was coming like a terrible, fiery, ultra-slow-motion bus explosion. It's like they have been deliberately doing everything possible to create this very exact moment. How stupid do you have to be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 22:12:44 GMT -5
I picked false, because it seems like people aren't even willing to give Roman a chance to do his best with this main event spot. I feel like if it were predominantly based on WWE's creative decisions the reaction would be less "Roman Reigns is shit" and more "Damn I wish it was (X) instead." Like you're still pretty pissed but at least willing to give Roman a chance. I guess some sort of mix of the two options, maybe? Based on the quality of work he's been doing in the weeks leading up to the Rumble, why give him that chance? He's not even been doing particularly well in the upper midcard and was already getting some slight boos there. Because shitting on something (or praising for that matter), in this case the Mania main event, before it happens is kind of silly. |
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 26, 2015 22:13:56 GMT -5
The funny thing about that is the live audience is just as guilty of it... ...what? By... booing? |
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 26, 2015 22:15:52 GMT -5
What I'm curious about is say you take Bryan and Reigns last night and just reverse their positions in the match. The match is booked exactly the same. Does it change the fact that people thought it was booked horribly only because the guy winning is getting cheered? Do people still say "WWE doesn't know how to do anything" because of the way the match was handled, or does it change because the main event is different?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 22:16:11 GMT -5
I, for one, am just sick and tired of being told who I'm supposed to like, and f*** me if I should choose to put my money on someone else instead. That sounds like the guy in Boogie Nights complaining that the songs on albums always come in a certain order, like they want you to play them that way ... as if there was another choice. Who is tellilng you who to cheer for? Someone has to be in the main event. Generally speaking it's one babyface and one heel. In that sense, I guess they're "telling you" who to cheer for ... but you're free to cheer for the heel or to cheer for someone not in the main event instead. How does WWE solve this problem? Not having a main event? Not having anyone go on last? What? By not deliberately avoiding having the most over man in the company win the Rumble two years in a row and instead setting it up just right to have every face except their chosen one look like a complete goober, and by not trotting out one of the most beloved wrestlers ever to give said chosen one a rub and try to keep him from being booed. That's pretty damn obviously telling you that no, you're supposed to cheer for Reigns over everyone else. What I'm curious about is say you take Bryan and Reigns last night and just reverse their positions in the match. The match is booked exactly the same. Does it change the fact that people thought it was booked horribly only because the guy winning is getting cheered? Do people still say "WWE doesn't know how to do anything" because of the way the match was handled, or does it change because the main event is different? Before Bryan was even out there I thought it was a bad Rumble. It'd have been a lot better if only due to not having the crowd revolting and having a sensible ending but it'd still be a bad match. |
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 26, 2015 22:18:15 GMT -5
That sounds like the guy in Boogie Nights complaining that the songs on albums always come in a certain order, like they want you to play them that way ... as if there was another choice. Who is tellilng you who to cheer for? Someone has to be in the main event. Generally speaking it's one babyface and one heel. In that sense, I guess they're "telling you" who to cheer for ... but you're free to cheer for the heel or to cheer for someone not in the main event instead. How does WWE solve this problem? Not having a main event? Not having anyone go on last? What? By not deliberately avoiding having the most over man in the company win the Rumble two years in a row and instead setting it up just right to have every face except their chosen one look like a complete goober, and by not trotting out one of the most beloved wrestlers ever to give said chosen one a rub and try to keep him from being booed. That's pretty damn obviously telling you that no, you're supposed to cheer for Reigns over everyone else. What I'm curious about is say you take Bryan and Reigns last night and just reverse their positions in the match. The match is booked exactly the same. Does it change the fact that people thought it was booked horribly only because the guy winning is getting cheered? Do people still say "WWE doesn't know how to do anything" because of the way the match was handled, or does it change because the main event is different? Before Bryan was even out there I thought it was a bad Rumble. It'd have been a lot better if only due to not having the crowd revolting and having a sensible ending but it'd still be a bad match. What did Bryan have ANYTHING to do with Reigns in the Rumble last night? I mean does Bray Wyatt constitute the chosen one getting the rub you speak of? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 22:20:11 GMT -5
By not deliberately avoiding having the most over man in the company win the Rumble two years in a row and instead setting it up just right to have every face except their chosen one look like a complete goober, and by not trotting out one of the most beloved wrestlers ever to give said chosen one a rub and try to keep him from being booed. That's pretty damn obviously telling you that no, you're supposed to cheer for Reigns over everyone else. Before Bryan was even out there I thought it was a bad Rumble. It'd have been a lot better if only due to not having the crowd revolting and having a sensible ending but it'd still be a bad match. What did Bryan have ANYTHING to do with Reigns in the Rumble last night? I mean does Bray Wyatt constitute the chosen one getting the rub you speak of? There was a running theme through the entire match - Bryan, Ziggler, Ambrose, Mizdow, and Ryback were all disposed of in quick, anticlimactic ways clearly intended to make you see them as not being real contenders. There's a reason Reigns came out very, very shortly after Bryan was tossed, they thought with Bryan gone the crowd would get on Roman's side. |
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Jan 26, 2015 22:20:36 GMT -5
Interesting how Rock being there and coming in for the save is construed as "giving the rub" ... but when Cena does it, he's injecting himself in the main event so he can get the rub off of it.
Same exact action, different interpretation.
|
|
|
|
Post by "I'm Batman..." on Jan 26, 2015 22:20:48 GMT -5
Roman Reigns isn't very enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 26, 2015 22:21:21 GMT -5
Interesting how Rock being there and coming in for the save is construed as "giving the rub" ... but when Cena does it, he's injecting himself in the main event so he can get the rub off of it. Same exact action, different interpretation. ...who said that about Cena? |
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 26, 2015 22:23:12 GMT -5
What did Bryan have ANYTHING to do with Reigns in the Rumble last night? I mean does Bray Wyatt constitute the chosen one getting the rub you speak of? There was a running theme through the entire match - Bryan, Ziggler, Ambrose, Mizdow, and Ryback were all disposed of in quick, anticlimactic ways clearly intended to make you see them as not being real contenders. There's a reason Reigns came out very, very shortly after Bryan was tossed, they thought with Bryan gone the crowd would get on Roman's side. I disagree 100%. The booking to me was not to make them look like chumps, but to build heat on Show and Kane and make them look like an unstoppable duo, so that Reigns being the last babyface was the final chance for someone to stop their dominance. It just so happened that Reigns was f***ed no matter what he did. I also don't think they expected the crowd to "be on Roman's side" after Bryan got eliminated as much as getting Bryan out early they thought would give them 10 minutes or so for them to digest it and say "Well he's out, let's move on and see what happens the rest of the show." I don't think ANYONE expected the crowd to just flat out act like THAT for the last half of the Rumble. |
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Jan 26, 2015 22:24:08 GMT -5
Interesting how Rock being there and coming in for the save is construed as "giving the rub" ... but when Cena does it, he's injecting himself in the main event so he can get the rub off of it. Same exact action, different interpretation. ...who said that about Cena? Last night, no one ... but I'd guess I've seen people complain about Cena doing that about 100,000 times in recent years (let's go with Ziggler multiple times after Survivor Series for a recent concrete example) -- or if he doesn't come out then there are multiple threads about how Cena is a horrible friend/face for not saving whoever is in peril. |
|
.jpg)
