Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 7:52:01 GMT -5
Out of the three there the only one I wanted to hear talk was Lesnar. He's the only one that sounds genuine. Paul just comes across as cutting a wrestling promo, I hate his style and I hate how he drags everything out for as long as he can "the heavyweight champion of the world", "the one in the one in the one in the one in twenty one in one". Reigns in completely unbelievable. I can't believe he's gonna have to improve WHILST WWE CHAMPION, it's a joke. He has no charisma whatsoever, not on the mic, not in body language, not in facial expressions, he's just completely dull.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 8:25:46 GMT -5
That was a good segment, but it just reiterates the fact that it should have been Lesnar vs. Rock for the title.
Damn you, WWE. I know the Rock is busy and all, but that match would have been money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 8:34:36 GMT -5
That was a good segment, but it just reiterates the fact that it should have been Lesnar vs. Rock for the title. Damn you, WWE. I know the Rock is busy and all, but that match would have been money. Good god no. A title match between two guys who would never appear to promote it? The WrestleMania main event build consists of Paul Heyman in a ring on his own for 20 minutes a week? That is shocking. If that match needs to happen, it needs to be non-title.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,278
|
Post by The Ichi on Jan 27, 2015 8:37:43 GMT -5
Just so we're clear. "I'm the Rock, and I heartily endorse Roman Reigns!" BOOOOOOOOOOOO! Refunds! Cancel the Network! BOOOOOOOOOOO! #OustVince! BOOOOOOOOO! I'm Paul Heyman. I'm going to talk for just a moment about how awesome Roman Reigns is, and where he comes from." B...hmmmmm.... You know what? Maybe. I've said it before but Heyman has the power to sell you on anyone. He sold me on Curtis Axel...very briefly, but still.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 8:41:25 GMT -5
That was a good segment, but it just reiterates the fact that it should have been Lesnar vs. Rock for the title. Damn you, WWE. I know the Rock is busy and all, but that match would have been money. Good god no. A title match between two guys who would never appear to promote it? The WrestleMania main event build consists of Paul Heyman in a ring on his own for 20 minutes a week? That is shocking. If that match needs to happen, it needs to be non-title. Sure, non-title would have been fine, too. But Heyman's promo made me want to see Rock/Brock more than Brock/Reigns. Mainstream movie star vs. legit MMA bad ass writes itself, especially with their 2002 history. Reigns is not credible enough to beat Lesnar. Not yet, anyway. If they weren't going to do Lesnar/Bryan, then anyone Brock goes against at Mania was going to be in a bad spot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 8:44:21 GMT -5
Good god no. A title match between two guys who would never appear to promote it? The WrestleMania main event build consists of Paul Heyman in a ring on his own for 20 minutes a week? That is shocking. If that match needs to happen, it needs to be non-title. Sure, non-title would have been fine, too. But Heyman's promo made me want to see Rock/Brock more than Brock/Reigns. Mainstream movie star vs. legit MMA bad ass writes itself, especially with their 2002 history. Reigns is not credible enough to beat Lesnar. Not yet, anyway. If they weren't going to do Lesnar/Bryan, then anyone Brock goes against at Mania was going to be in a bad spot. But even that is as silly as Reigns. Movie star who has wrestled... 5 matches in over a decade takes on recent MMA World Champ and guy who wrestles at least 3/4 times a year? That description also applies to Brock -v- David Arquette. It would be the epitome of WWE booking it as credible because a guy has muscles. I just don't want that match. I want Brock to stay and wrestle more guys he's never wrestled before. At least Reigns offers that.
|
|
|
Post by TheSchattenjager on Jan 27, 2015 8:52:39 GMT -5
Sure, non-title would have been fine, too. But Heyman's promo made me want to see Rock/Brock more than Brock/Reigns. Mainstream movie star vs. legit MMA bad ass writes itself, especially with their 2002 history. Reigns is not credible enough to beat Lesnar. Not yet, anyway. If they weren't going to do Lesnar/Bryan, then anyone Brock goes against at Mania was going to be in a bad spot. But even that is as silly as Reigns. Movie star who has wrestled... 5 matches in over a decade takes on recent MMA World Champ and guy who wrestles at least 3/4 times a year? That description also applies to Brock -v- David Arquette. It would be the epitome of WWE booking it as credible because a guy has muscles. I just don't want that match. I want Brock to stay and wrestle more guys he's never wrestled before. At least Reigns offers that. The movie star is a former 8 time WWE champion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 8:54:43 GMT -5
But even that is as silly as Reigns. Movie star who has wrestled... 5 matches in over a decade takes on recent MMA World Champ and guy who wrestles at least 3/4 times a year? That description also applies to Brock -v- David Arquette. It would be the epitome of WWE booking it as credible because a guy has muscles. I just don't want that match. I want Brock to stay and wrestle more guys he's never wrestled before. At least Reigns offers that. The movie star is a former 8 time WWE champion. The majority of which happened before a lot of the fans today were born. Why not Brock -v- Kevin Nash then? He was in Magic Mike.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 8:55:44 GMT -5
Sure, non-title would have been fine, too. But Heyman's promo made me want to see Rock/Brock more than Brock/Reigns. Mainstream movie star vs. legit MMA bad ass writes itself, especially with their 2002 history. Reigns is not credible enough to beat Lesnar. Not yet, anyway. If they weren't going to do Lesnar/Bryan, then anyone Brock goes against at Mania was going to be in a bad spot. But even that is as silly as Reigns. Movie star who has wrestled... 5 matches in over a decade takes on recent MMA World Champ and guy who wrestles at least 3/4 times a year? That description also applies to Brock -v- David Arquette. It would be the epitome of WWE booking it as credible because a guy has muscles. I just don't want that match. I want Brock to stay and wrestle more guys he's never wrestled before. At least Reigns offers that. How in the world is The Rock the equivalent of Arquette? Nevermind the fact that Rock is one of the biggest wrestling stars of all-time, but he's jacked (even moreso than his wrestling days) and beats everyone (save for Cena two years ago) every time he comes back. He has the credibility and the look to hang with Lesnar. The fact that he's a movie star doesn't take anything away from him. That would be like saying Austin wouldn't have credibility if he came back. Of course he would.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 8:56:56 GMT -5
But even that is as silly as Reigns. Movie star who has wrestled... 5 matches in over a decade takes on recent MMA World Champ and guy who wrestles at least 3/4 times a year? That description also applies to Brock -v- David Arquette. It would be the epitome of WWE booking it as credible because a guy has muscles. I just don't want that match. I want Brock to stay and wrestle more guys he's never wrestled before. At least Reigns offers that. How in the world is The Rock the equivalent of Arquette? Nevermind the fact that Rock is one of the biggest wrestling stars of all-time, but he's jacked (even moreso than his wrestling days) and beats everyone (save for Cena two years ago) every time he comes back. He has the credibility and the look to hang with Lesnar. The fact that he's a movie star doesn't take anything away from him. That would be like saying Austin wouldn't have credibility if he came back. Of course he would. So why criticise WWE for going for the look with Reigns? Also, Lesnar and Austin has never happened so it's a fresh match I'd like to see. I'd go for it and Austin is more likely to turn up to promote it also.
|
|
|
Post by TheSchattenjager on Jan 27, 2015 9:19:50 GMT -5
The movie star is a former 8 time WWE champion. The majority of which happened before a lot of the fans today were born. Why not Brock -v- Kevin Nash then? He was in Magic Mike. ..uhm, because Nash is not the draw that The Rock is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 9:21:55 GMT -5
The majority of which happened before a lot of the fans today were born. Why not Brock -v- Kevin Nash then? He was in Magic Mike. ..uhm, because Nash is not the draw that The Rock is? I do not care about who is a draw. I do not make money from WWE. I am a fan who wants new and entertaining and Rock offers neither in this situation. He is shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 9:24:19 GMT -5
How in the world is The Rock the equivalent of Arquette? Nevermind the fact that Rock is one of the biggest wrestling stars of all-time, but he's jacked (even moreso than his wrestling days) and beats everyone (save for Cena two years ago) every time he comes back. He has the credibility and the look to hang with Lesnar. The fact that he's a movie star doesn't take anything away from him. That would be like saying Austin wouldn't have credibility if he came back. Of course he would. So why criticise WWE for going for the look with Reigns? Also, Lesnar and Austin has never happened so it's a fresh match I'd like to see. I'd go for it and Austin is more likely to turn up to promote it also. Austin hasn't wrestled in 12 years and has been doing small acting roles and podcasts since then. How is he any different than your criticism of the Rock? Actually, he's worse, since Rock has wrestled the last few years against Cena and Punk, while Austin has been inactive since 2003. The last time Brock/Rock faced each other, it was before Rock became a Hollywood megastar and before Lesnar's MMA success. That main event today (or preferably WM 29) would be mainstream, and the only "big match" they could do with Lesnar that would be a huge draw. Reigns simply lacks credibility. The fans are turning on him, and he hasn't done enough in his career to be a credble threat to Lesnar. In terms of look, Bryan looks like he would have no shot against Brock, but that match (Brock/Bryan) would be more believable and have way more fan support than the current option. If Reigns were booked more like Goldberg was, a silent killer who just destroyed people, then the draw would be there between him and Brock. However, that hasn't been the case. He's Cena Jr, without the years of credibility. Let's face it, Reigns beating Brock is not going to help Reigns (unless he turns heel before or during the match). If he beats Brock and remains a babyface, they've effectively killed him. Having Rock/Brock this year and then saving Roman's big moment for when he actually deserved it would have been the smarter thing to do (again, assuming Rock could/would actually do it).
|
|
MrElijah
Crow T. Robot
Posts: 42,881
Member is Online
|
Post by MrElijah on Jan 27, 2015 9:24:58 GMT -5
I liked this a lot. Granted when Paul Heyman is doing most of the talking it;s always going to be good but it still felt real and important and I thought Roman Reigns did well. This is the version of Reigns that I like and can get behind, not the lame stand up comedian stuff he's been doing recently. WWE should be doing more of these in studio pieces, the controlled nature of them helps get across characters so much better. While it was good, this interview(& Brock's earlier one) shows that Roman is nowhere near on Lesnar's level. On paper Brock should kill 95% of the wrestlers there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 9:28:40 GMT -5
So why criticise WWE for going for the look with Reigns? Also, Lesnar and Austin has never happened so it's a fresh match I'd like to see. I'd go for it and Austin is more likely to turn up to promote it also. Austin hasn't wrestled in 12 years and has been doing small acting roles and podcasts since then. How is he any different than your criticism of the Rock? Actually, he's worse, since Rock has wrestled the last few years against Cena and Punk, while Austin has been inactive since 2003. The last time Brock/Rock faced each other, it was before Rock became a Hollywood megastar and before Lesnar's MMA success. That main event today (or preferably WM 29) would be mainstream, and the only "big match" they could do with Lesnar that would be a huge draw. Reigns simply lacks credibility. The fans are turning on him, and he hasn't done enough in his career to be a credble threat to Lesnar. In terms of look, Bryan looks like he would have no shot against Brock, but that match (Brock/Bryan) would be more believable and have way more fan support than the current option. If Reigns were booked more like Goldberg was, a silent killer who just destroyed people, then the draw would be there between him and Brock. However, that hasn't been the case. He's Cena Jr, without the years of credibility. Let's face it, Reigns beating Brock is not going to help Reigns (unless he turns heel before or during the match). If he beats Brock and remains a babyface, they've effectively killed him. Having Rock/Brock this year and then saving Roman's big moment for when he actually deserved it would have been the smarter thing to do (again, assuming Rock could/would actually do it). Austin is a new match. I've seen Rock and Brock. Austin would also be more interested in the match and promo for it according as opposed to the Rock and his obsession with innuendo suggesting his cock is going in Lillian's ear. I am just tired of the guy.
|
|
Rican
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
July 17, 2011 - HHHe called it
Posts: 16,461
|
Post by Rican on Jan 27, 2015 9:34:39 GMT -5
I thought it was fantastic. Heyman is just so captivating and especially in that environment. I was hanging onto every word he said and he made Reigns/Lesnar sound like a huge deal.
And I thought Roman was fine. I actually kind of liked "I'm gonna take a piece of you with me." Roman works best when he is giving shorter lines like that.
|
|
gr1990
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,485
|
Post by gr1990 on Jan 27, 2015 9:39:01 GMT -5
This was really good, but it doesn't change the fact that NO WAY should Reigns be the one getting this opportunity, and by endorsing this I feel like I'm giving Vince carte blanche to continue booking his guys ahead of who the audience really wants. Even if this programme is saved through a complete change of emphasis in the storyline and Heyman's talents as a performer and storyteller, Vince will still interpret it as 'See! I knew it all along, the audience DID want Roman Reigns, I just had to sell it to 'em right. I'm a genius, haha!'
Just as the Rumble booking was a failed attempt at tricking the fans into endorsing Reigns' win via Rock's patronage and Bryan's early elimination, this is a slightly more intelligent attempt at doing the same thing. Vince will learn nothing if we get behind this.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,927
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Jan 27, 2015 9:51:35 GMT -5
Regarding the above conversation. I would much rather have Reigns vs Brock than Rock vs Brock.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Jan 27, 2015 10:09:41 GMT -5
Imagine how cool the end would have been if Reigns hasn't spent the last two months talking more than a 80's Valley Girl.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Jan 27, 2015 10:30:21 GMT -5
Soft spoken, I'm gonna kick your ass and that's that Reigns works a hell of alot better than wisecracking "believe dat" Reigns.
I enjoyed that.
|
|