gr1990
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,485
|
Post by gr1990 on Jan 28, 2015 19:50:08 GMT -5
Instead of scraping the bottom and pushing the face that gets mixed reactions, why not push faces that get uniformly cheered such as Ziggler, Bryan, or Ambrose? Then you don't have to hope they happen to be doing a live show from Rural South Dakota or Mississippi, or wherever else it is that pesky "vocal minority" of smarks haven't infiltrated. This is the issue everybody should have. You have babyfaces on the roster that every type of fan goes wild for; casual, smark and everything in between. Sure, there are people who don't care for Ambrose, Bryan and Ziggler, but they're way more of a minority than those who don't care for Reigns or rather don't think he's ready to be in the spot he's in. Why alienate a large section of your audience? Because a guy with Roman's look has more 'mass appeal' than a Bryan or an Ambrose? That provably isn't the case when those two are more universally popular.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,038
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Jan 28, 2015 20:17:08 GMT -5
People keep saying "Cena didn't need the rub" after that match and yet, people flipped their lids when Rock won the year before. So yeah, maybe he did. Cena was (and still is?) the Man. Had the Rock not won at Wrestlemania 28, then the fans in Miami would have gone home unhappy considering the Rock is the hometown guy (plus, it was his first big match as a single wrestler in a very long time, it'd be kind of bad if he lost that match). Yeah, a part-time old guy went over the Man, but that was only because said part-time old guy was to put over the Man, and drop the WWE title to him while we're at it. All roads still lead to Cena, as they always do, and fans booed WWE for it. Cena being put over again meant more to WWE than sending the NY/NJ fans home happy, and such is the problem with Cena booking in general. Lesnar is also a part-time old guy (relatively speaking), and yeah, putting over Reigns at Wrestlemania brings us back to ABC for a lot of fans: anyone but Cena. But ABC could also be WAB, WNZ, or MAY: What about Bryan?; Why not Ziggler?; or Maybe Ambrose, y'know? But it seems WWE is about to run the same plays from the Cena playbook with Reigns without learning from the problems they had with Cena the first time around. When dealing with a part timer who was wrestling one or two matches a year, then yes, all roads should lead back to Cena. The guy who's the leader in the locker room of guys who work all year. I never had any issue with the way they did it if they had him get his win back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 20:25:06 GMT -5
And finally, the WWE isn't stupid. There's no way they're letting Reigns be booed out of WM as champion being a babyface. Something has to be done. It just has to be done. Not even two years ago, WWE had the Rock, who was blown up to the point of being a balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade, put over John Cena, the last person in the world who needed a bit more of a rub, in front of a northeastern crowd who completely crapped on the showing, especially after the amazing CM Punk/Undertaker match that preceded the Rock/Cena debacle. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I can't help but think that, yes, the company is that stupid. It wouldn't be the first time a babyface has won a title at Wrestlemania to a chorus of boos, and the most recent example of that happened less than 104 weeks ago. The difference between Cena and Reigns is that Cena had been in the company almost 10 years by that point and had built up a legacy. Cena was massively over when he first got the title, started to split the fans afterwards but overall reaction-wise yeah that dude was and is still over, majorly over. Cena sells massive merchandise, Cena has great ringwork, Cena's Make-A-Wish accomplishments are insane, Cena's mic skills are incredible, Cena's PR is amazing, Cena works as hard as possible, Cena does whatever the company says and Cena gives his all. Cena is the model employee. Like Austin said, if you had a whole locker room of John Cenas then you'd have no problems. Reigns on the other hand has none of this. Doesn't sell merchandise, doesn't have a legacy, bad ring skills, bad mic skills, his Make-A-Wishes aren't up to Cena's level, his PR is horrible I mean no, you can't compare them. If Cena gets booed at Wrestlemania you have enough to fall back on because of everything John Cena is. If Reigns is booed? You just have another thing he's not great at which won't help him at all. The boos won't damage Cena because he's strong. The boos would cripple Reigns because he doesn't have a solid foundation. Huge difference.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 28, 2015 20:26:09 GMT -5
It's because people want someone else so they'll try and say something blatantly untrue long enough (that Reigns was getting booed out of the building no matter where the Rumble was) until it's an accepted thought in order to justify their reasoning for wanting a different guy.
You know, like how people say they don't care about business reasonings (Ratings, merch, overness, ticket sales) for why they want a guy pushed, but use all those reasonings to justify not giving a push to someone else.
|
|
DIIV
ALF
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 1,017
|
Post by DIIV on Jan 28, 2015 20:28:00 GMT -5
Mainly because Philly is a city like New York and Chicago where they try and be edgy and root against the popular superstar and instead chant for anything and anyone with or without a pulse. Roman will get cheers and boos but so will any star. Lmao @ the reaching in this post. Philadelphia was adamant in voicing their opinion, just like WWE loves boast. They see through the bullshit and they're the lucky few we have to make WWE aware of the shit they're dishing out to us, instead of the crowds who sit on their hands and cheer whatever is put in front of them.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 28, 2015 20:30:40 GMT -5
It's because people want someone else so they'll try and say something blatantly untrue long enough (that Reigns was getting booed out of the building no matter where the Rumble was) until it's an accepted thought in order to justify their reasoning for wanting a different guy. You know, like how people say they don't care about business reasonings (Ratings, merch, overness, ticket sales) for why they want a guy pushed, but use all those reasonings to justify not giving a push to someone else. Uh huh, everyone's a hypocrite except the people who agree with you, I know. Also, "untrue" can't apply to hypotheticals. It doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 28, 2015 20:33:31 GMT -5
It's because people want someone else so they'll try and say something blatantly untrue long enough (that Reigns was getting booed out of the building no matter where the Rumble was) until it's an accepted thought in order to justify their reasoning for wanting a different guy. You know, like how people say they don't care about business reasonings (Ratings, merch, overness, ticket sales) for why they want a guy pushed, but use all those reasonings to justify not giving a push to someone else. It remains to be seen if the reaction to Reigns was a one-time Philly crowd thing. If it becomes a consistent booing, that theory is completely blown out of the water.
|
|
The Yes Man
Unicron
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 2,502
|
Post by The Yes Man on Jan 28, 2015 20:35:10 GMT -5
He was midcard popular, getting a main event push. The only main event reaction he's ever got was negative. I was at the Raw in Dallas a week ago, and it was one of the quietest pops of the night.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Jan 28, 2015 20:42:57 GMT -5
Mainly because Philly is a city like New York and Chicago where they try and be edgy and root against the popular superstar and instead chant for anything and anyone with or without a pulse. Roman will get cheers and boos but so will any star. I didn't hear anyone booing Bryan, Ambrose and Ziggler. Just unanimous crowd support.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Jan 28, 2015 20:44:36 GMT -5
Instead of scraping the bottom and pushing the face that gets mixed reactions, why not push faces that get uniformly cheered such as Ziggler, Bryan, or Ambrose? Then you don't have to hope they happen to be doing a live show from Rural South Dakota or Mississippi, or wherever else it is that pesky "vocal minority" of smarks haven't infiltrated. This is the issue everybody should have. You have babyfaces on the roster that every type of fan goes wild for; casual, smark and everything in between. Sure, there are people who don't care for Ambrose, Bryan and Ziggler, but they're way more of a minority than those who don't care for Reigns or rather don't think he's ready to be in the spot he's in. Why alienate a large section of your audience? Because a guy with Roman's look has more 'mass appeal' than a Bryan or an Ambrose? That provably isn't the case when those two are more universally popular. Hate to sidetrack, but can someone explain to me why it's such a horrible thing for a babyface to be booed by some people but no one ever seems to think it's a problem when a heel (Edge, Punk, etc.) gets cheered? To me it's exactly the same thing. And if the booing is over booking and not over the character, I don't take it very seriously -- it's one thing to boo a face because because you don't like him or because his character is doing something that you think is actually heelish (even if it's portrayed as a babyface action) and quite another to do so because "I disagree with the booking, the guy I like should be in that spot, so I'm going to boo the babyface in protest."
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 28, 2015 20:47:04 GMT -5
This is the issue everybody should have. You have babyfaces on the roster that every type of fan goes wild for; casual, smark and everything in between. Sure, there are people who don't care for Ambrose, Bryan and Ziggler, but they're way more of a minority than those who don't care for Reigns or rather don't think he's ready to be in the spot he's in. Why alienate a large section of your audience? Because a guy with Roman's look has more 'mass appeal' than a Bryan or an Ambrose? That provably isn't the case when those two are more universally popular. Hate to sidetrack, but can someone explain to me why it's such a horrible thing for a babyface to be booed by some people but no one ever seems to think it's a problem when a heel (Edge, Punk, etc.) gets cheered? To me it's exactly the same thing. And if the booing is over booking and not over the character, I don't take it very seriously -- it's one thing to boo a face because because you don't like him or because his character is doing something that you think is actually heelish (even if it's portrayed as a babyface action) and quite another to do so because "I disagree with the booking, the guy I like should be in that spot, so I'm going to boo the babyface in protest." Kayfabe has been so drastically erased, there's nothing wrong with booing due to opposition to booking. WWE have encouraged it by pulling back the curtain.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 28, 2015 20:48:32 GMT -5
And if the booing is over booking and not over the character, I don't take it very seriously -- it's one thing to boo a face because because you don't like him or because his character is doing something that you think is actually heelish (even if it's portrayed as a babyface action) and quite another to do so because "I disagree with the booking, the guy I like should be in that spot, so I'm going to boo the babyface in protest." Oh my god, can we all just agree to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we actually have the opinions that we have? It is getting pretty nuts to see people keep trying to say "These people don't REALLY dislike Reigns's push; they just XYZ."
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 28, 2015 20:49:54 GMT -5
It's because people want someone else so they'll try and say something blatantly untrue long enough (that Reigns was getting booed out of the building no matter where the Rumble was) until it's an accepted thought in order to justify their reasoning for wanting a different guy. You know, like how people say they don't care about business reasonings (Ratings, merch, overness, ticket sales) for why they want a guy pushed, but use all those reasonings to justify not giving a push to someone else. It remains to be seen if the reaction to Reigns was a one-time Philly crowd thing. If it becomes a consistent booing, that theory is completely blown out of the water. Keyword is if, people are treating it as if it's a fact already though.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 28, 2015 20:52:11 GMT -5
It remains to be seen if the reaction to Reigns was a one-time Philly crowd thing. If it becomes a consistent booing, that theory is completely blown out of the water. Keyword is if, people are treating it as if it's a fact already though. Because the theory that Philly is some sort of exceptional smark town is very weak IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 28, 2015 20:54:00 GMT -5
He's not THAT over though.
And I say that as a fan of the guy. He hadn't ascended to the level that that sorta reaction won't hurt him.
|
|
|
Post by SenorCrest on Jan 28, 2015 20:54:11 GMT -5
He was midcard popular, getting a main event push. The only main event reaction he's ever got was negative. I was at the Raw in Dallas a week ago, and it was one of the quietest pops of the night. and I was in Houston for a house show and they went apeshit for Reigns. He has been popular for a while now it was until recently when people started to boo the guy, even before Bryan came back.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Jan 28, 2015 20:58:06 GMT -5
And if the booing is over booking and not over the character, I don't take it very seriously -- it's one thing to boo a face because because you don't like him or because his character is doing something that you think is actually heelish (even if it's portrayed as a babyface action) and quite another to do so because "I disagree with the booking, the guy I like should be in that spot, so I'm going to boo the babyface in protest." Oh my god, can we all just agree to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we actually have the opinions that we have? It is getting pretty nuts to see people keep trying to say "These people don't REALLY dislike Reigns's push; they just XYZ." That's exactly what I'm doing. There have been TONS of posts by people who say they don't really dislike Roman Reigns but "don't think he's ready" or don't like how he's being booked or whatever. I'm taking them 100 percent at their word. If you don't like Roman, I'm not talking about you here. Don't read things into my post that I don't say -- in other words, don't accuse me of what you're doing.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 28, 2015 21:00:17 GMT -5
Thinking that Reigns isn't ready, or that he's been booked stupidly is a valid reason to boo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 21:01:37 GMT -5
Hate to sidetrack, but can someone explain to me why it's such a horrible thing for a babyface to be booed by some people but no one ever seems to think it's a problem when a heel (Edge, Punk, etc.) gets cheered? To me it's exactly the same thing. Because it's usually a babyface that fans boo that leads to the heels being cheered. You don't see heels feuding with Daniel Bryan get cheered, at least not anywhere near the level of a heel feuding with Cena. Or in Punk's case, assuming you're talking about his last heel run, was an issue with his turn being forced. Many fans didn't want to boo him in the first place. A forced turn is a problem whether it's a face or heel turn.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 28, 2015 21:08:07 GMT -5
Oh my god, can we all just agree to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we actually have the opinions that we have? It is getting pretty nuts to see people keep trying to say "These people don't REALLY dislike Reigns's push; they just XYZ." That's exactly what I'm doing. There have been TONS of posts by people who say they don't really dislike Roman Reigns but "don't think he's ready" or don't like how he's being booked or whatever. I'm taking them 100 percent at their word. If you don't like Roman, I'm not talking about you here. Don't read things into my post that I don't say -- in other words, don't accuse me of what you're doing. Your implication that people's reactions has less to do with Bryan and more to do with Reigns is what I was really keying on. Disliking main-eventer Reigns doesn't require you to think he's terrible in all ways. But, if I take you entirely literally, that you just won't take it seriously when people boo a push instead of a character? I... can't really argue with that, except just to say that you have very arbitrary tastes.
|
|