|
|
Post by derrtaysouth95 on Apr 16, 2010 22:49:38 GMT -5
Booker T should of won for sure.
Also, the race bit wasn't necessary to the feud at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Apr 16, 2010 23:25:26 GMT -5
Where are people getting all this news about who said and did what? It's the nature of the IWC. They are wrestling's equivalent of Anonymous, before Anonymous became relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by BorneAgain on Apr 17, 2010 0:13:45 GMT -5
Beyond from a business sense, the whole thing was just a downer and really hurt my enjoyment for the rest of the PPV.
Thank god he got the King Booker run later. It was that main event stint that allowed me to get over it, and wash away whatever resentment I might have had for HHH. Yeah, I know its a mark-ish thing, but its the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto) on Apr 17, 2010 0:39:53 GMT -5
I don't know if HE did, but the storyline sure as hell did. Two months of being told "your people" aren't champions and how Booker was never good enough to be on Triple H's level. Booker T couldn't be champion. It's just common sense, you NEVER do that storyline if you don't intend to give the people the big pay off. I don't care if it took the entire army to defeat Booker T that night. What do you think people remember? That he got cheated, or that after that entire horrible, racially driven storyline he NEVER got to win the belt from Hunter? They never got the image of Booker being triumphant and debunking all of Hunter's claims by winning the World Title. One of WWE's most hideous booking moves I can ever remember. From start to finish. I agree with everything you said here. As a black male who followed Booker's career since his early time in WCW, I couldn't help but dislike HHH immensely after this whole angle ended. And not because he was good at being the typical heel. In fact, I have never seen him as a guy who I could get behind since then. Everything about the end to that match was wrong. |
|
Reg the Veg
AC Slater
I SPIT ON YOUR CAPSLOCK... despite using it just then.
Posts: 205
|
Post by Reg the Veg on Apr 17, 2010 6:00:38 GMT -5
i have no problem with things like race being brought into storylines. race is a very real issue, and touches people's lives. people can relate to it, and therefore you get way more emotion out of an angle. plus, if done correctly, it can send a good message to the kids watching at home.
BUT
you don't book the racist as being proven right. triple h said that "someone like you" doesn't deserve to be world champion because of his "nappy hair and dancing". and then booker lost. so for all intents and purposes, triple h just got proven correct. had booker won, it would've been great. just watching the clip posted of the first promo of the feud, when booker says "somebody like me is gonna... win to the world title", that was an awesome moment, when i instantly rooted for booker. had he actually won, it would've been even better. regardless of anything about buyrates, ratings, who is or isn't over, when you have a storyline like this, ethics has to take over, and you have to let the good guy win, for the sake of setting an example for the kids watching at home if nothing else.
i'm not usually into hating triple h's "reign of terror", since i think he played the smug, successful heel really well, but this should've been his comeuppance.
|
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Apr 17, 2010 7:29:55 GMT -5
i have no problem with things like race being brought into storylines. race is a very real issue, and touches people's lives. people can relate to it, and therefore you get way more emotion out of an angle. plus, if done correctly, it can send a good message to the kids watching at home. BUT you don't book the racist as being proven right. triple h said that "someone like you" doesn't deserve to be world champion because of his "nappy hair and dancing". and then booker lost. so for all intents and purposes, triple h just got proven correct. had booker won, it would've been great. just watching the clip posted of the first promo of the feud, when booker says "somebody like me is gonna... win to the world title", that was an awesome moment, when i instantly rooted for booker. had he actually won, it would've been even better. regardless of anything about buyrates, ratings, who is or isn't over, when you have a storyline like this, ethics has to take over, and you have to let the good guy win, for the sake of setting an example for the kids watching at home if nothing else. i'm not usually into hating triple h's "reign of terror", since i think he played the smug, successful heel really well, but this should've been his comeuppance. This always gets said. Triple H was not 'proven right'. Booker had him beat twice in the match but H needed Flair to interfere and injure Booker so he couldn't cover him for the win. Saying Booker never got to give the fans the pay off to the angle is fair enough, but saying HHH was proven right isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Apr 17, 2010 7:39:56 GMT -5
Giving them value for money in that they think it's can't miss event and therefore buy it, the company is in the business of making money and they wanted to make Mania look stacked. The result was unfortunate but as has been explained, it looked like they weren't sure on Booker being the one to beat HHH or whether they were going to give that honour to Goldberg, so there's a lot of factors into play. They could have not added the storyline and not put as much heat on HHH and the match itself, and risked even lower buy-rates. They could have let Booker win which would then cheapen the effect of Goldberg's win. Or they could let HHH win, which is unfortunate for Booker but for the company as a whole it made the most sense. If they wanted to get the title onto Goldberg would it really have been better for Booker to have beat HHH, then Nash, then lose to Goldberg? HHH can make a star better than Booker can. No one said Booker had to be Champion. It was the angle that burned people. And think about what you're saying about "adding buyrates". Now think about how those "extra buyrates" felt when the villain won and their hero was vanquished forever. Is that good long-term business? I only say that because you seem to believe that WWE HAD to book that angle to help sell that show. I disagree. And had they just treated it like a battle of WCW vs. WWE, there'd have been significantly less anger over the result. Now, I agree that Booker wasn't the right man for the belt. But I think nothing was accomplished by booking it the way that it was since in reality, Goldberg played ZERO FACTOR for 6 months anyway--and when he did get the belt with all this so-called "rub", it meant nothing anyway since he was immediately booked as a transitional champion so H's could heal his broken penis and marry Steph. There is no proof to say they thought Goldberg was their savior. If anything, based on how they dropped the ball there, too, I'd think it was obvious that they were just throwing s*** against the wall for 3 years until Big Dave accidentally got over. WWE stumbled into success there. It wasn't some master plan unfolding over 3 years. Hell, Batista pretty much confirmed as much on his DVD. Was there really anyone decent to make a real good feud out of? RVD was a guy for HHH to beat to establish the belt. Kane? Not really quality feud material. Steiner? Same. Booker? They did what they could. Nash? Meh. Goldberg, Benoit and the initial Orton match were all good. Batista was a great feud that ended the rain of terror. Give HHH some good people to feud with and he will do well. Late 02 to late 03 was a period where the WWE had lost their top stars form their most successful era, and were using guys that could only ever be mid-carders really as main eventers. HHH's reign on 08 wasn't anywhere near as hated as he had decent enough opponents and the company as a whole wasn't so bear on stars. In today's world where WWE makes main eventers out of just randomly putting a World title on people at their absolute coldest, how can you say that those guys would only be career midcarders? If anything, WWE has proven that if you push someone stubbornly enough, eventually people will accept them. Now picture doing that with people (like RVD or Booker) whom they actually care about already.[/quote] People have said that WM19 was their lowest drawing of the decade, so that suggests others were higher draws. Are people really going to not order the show where after 20 something years Benoit finally becomes 'the man' just because last year HHH beat Booker T in a semi-main? Most people will still order 20. It was just about making 19 seem as stacked as possible. I'm not going to argue that they couldn't have done another angle, of course they could have, but as I said, not every angle is perfect. Made the point in the other thread about current WWE talent, that they are now reaping the rewards of having their roster packed full of talent from their own developmental system, so if they get called up they know they can be stars in the WWE. Guys like Swagger and Sheamus are produced to be big players in this WWE. Guys like Booker and RVD were more natural in other organisations, but my point wasn't that they couldn't main event, because they did, but rather that I don't think they matched up to HHH's star power on WWE programming, and that's why the feuds weren't as big or well received. Give HHH someone like Cena or Batista, rather than Nash and Steiner, and he has a good feud. |
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Apr 17, 2010 7:41:40 GMT -5
I'm not going to try and say the angle was perfect, no angle ever will be, but they gave one. Booker T vs Triple H was never going to be a massive money spinner to retain the companies boom audience, whatever they served up, so that's what I meant by doing what they could. As for him being a main eventer, well being one in the failing years of WCW doesn't really mean to me he definitely deserves to be the flagship ahead of HHH or even Goldberg who was clearly a bigger star. As for them not knowing the outcome, well with the other main events, it was pretty clear why they were happening. Angle vs Brock was there to launch Brock as the flagship of the company, he was always going to win. Hogan was always going to beat Vince. They could have decided to definitely launch Booker at Mania, or they could have left it open. Positive and negatives to both, but the company has to go with what will benefit them long term. They decide to launch Booker, and it can go off without a problem, and he gets the pay off. Fair enough. But what if Booker wasn't taking off as well as they would have hoped when they started the storyline? Do they follow through anyway, knowing he's not the right champion to drop to Goldberg or even be the flagship himself? It's irresponsible to not adapt when you know you need to. If Booker T being a champion five times over in WCW meant nothing, why did they constantly refer to it? Why was it the main accolade he and announcers always touted? To you personally, it meant nothing but in the "WWE Universe" they treated it like it meant something and made him legitimate. The nature of the angle dictates Booker had to win. I'm sorry, but you're trying to tell me that they felt it was worse to have Booker win a feud that he NEEDED to win, given the story they presented than to just have him win and then get screwed over by the nefarious Hunter at a later date? Given this thread and the fact that 7 years later, people not only still remember it, but also remember it negatively, indicates maybe otherwise. And again, I just don't buy that they were so unsure and uneasy about everything regarding Booker when a) it's their biggest show of the year and b) they had weeks to not do that type of angle. Booker's reactions didn't dissipate once the angle with Hunter began. If they felt he was in the right position before the program started, then he was at the very least in the same position during it. Because it's something to make Booker look good to the fans, but that's not what I was saying. Being a multi time world champ in another organisation isn't going to convince Vince that he can be the flagship of his company. |
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Apr 17, 2010 7:49:59 GMT -5
This is something that drives me nuts that I've seen more than once in this thread. This ridiculous notion that Booker wasn't over or wasn't catching on with the people. Am I the only one who remembers the video package for the match they did that more or less focused on Booker's rise up the fan charts? They kept showing people holding up the "5x 5x 5x 5x 5x" signs like they were the old Flair "W-O-O-O-O-O" signs. Booker was never more over in WWE as a face than he was in those two months. So I don't buy this theory that he just wasn't over enough at all. The crowds themselves at the time shoot that theory in to pieces. However, when the match and the pedigree of death were done? Yeah, he slipped back down. Much like anyone would when you treat them like garbage for two months then leave you to get hammered on the biggest show of the year. Maybe it wasn't because Booker wasn't getting over enough, maybe the decision was taken to make Goldberg the flagship, and therefore they didn't want Booker doing something that Goldberg only was supposed to be able to do. Maybe they didn't know if Goldberg was going to be the flagship on Raw until he signed, and by that time they had already started the angle, or maybe he signed but they weren't sure how far they wanted to go with him. Maybe they regret that decision now, but at the time Goldberg was a true big star and Booker just wasn't on that level. |
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on Apr 17, 2010 7:53:12 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over?
If you run a company and are about to promote someone only for them to tell you that they're considering being 'done' some months down the line do you offer them the promotion? That's the thing that some fans in their dislike for a certain main eventer, in this case HHH, don't bother considering. That the company may actually want any potential headliners to be 100% reliable and a guy actually considering quitting even when he knows he's going to be pushed isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobrafan on Apr 17, 2010 8:00:42 GMT -5
Yes, but at this point...HHH was doing this to all the babyfaces on the roster. Nobody hardly ever gave that dastardly Triple H his comeuppance during this period. Heels aren't supposed to dominate the entire feud and then win at the big showdown. Just where's the fun in that  It's like watching a movie where it ends with the evil bastard lives and the hero dies. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on Apr 17, 2010 8:03:54 GMT -5
I always thought Triple H's thing about "someone like Booker T" not being able to beat him meant "a former WCW main eventer" or something like that, but I guess I was naive about it or something. YOu're not nieve. But when that type of comment comes up, many automatically jump to the race card in their interpetation. I interpreted it like you did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 8:51:56 GMT -5
I always thought Triple H's thing about "someone like Booker T" not being able to beat him meant "a former WCW main eventer" or something like that, but I guess I was naive about it or something. YOu're not nieve. But when that type of comment comes up, many automatically jump to the race card in their interpetation. I interpreted it like you did. So mentioning Booker's nappy hair was due to his time in WCW? Where was Bill Goldberg's "people like you" comment from HHH? Look, people might interpret racism when it isn't there some times, but the theme of that promo was entirely based on race. I believe in another segment HHH threw a dollar bill in Booker's face and said "get me a towel" or something along those lines. Like others have said, I don't mind a racism angle as long as the pay-off makes sense. Have Booker win (even by fluke) and then drop it the next PPV or even the night night. Storytelling with a live audience is very important. You can't tell the fans to invest their emotions into something like that and then pull the carpet out from under them. I believe Hogan and Tony Atlas (before my time) had a feud where Hogan (pre-Hulkamania) was the racist in the feud. Atlas won the feud in the end. That's the way it should be if you bring a topic that strong into a feud. |
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Diamond on Apr 17, 2010 10:17:18 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over? If you run a company and are about to promote someone only for them to tell you that they're considering being 'done' some months down the line do you offer them the promotion? That's the thing that some fans in their dislike for a certain main eventer, in this case HHH, don't bother considering. That the company may actually want any potential headliners to be 100% reliable and a guy actually considering quitting even when he knows he's going to be pushed isn't. Nobody thought HBK would have wrestled to 2010. He originally said he was only going to work part-time and wouldn't stay for a long period in the WWE yet he got the title from HHH in 2002. Why didn't that apply to him? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Apr 17, 2010 10:52:27 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over? Putting it in big letters for EMPHASIS. I also agree with the Goldberg statement. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2010 11:16:50 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over? Putting it in big letters for EMPHASIS. I also agree with the Goldberg statement. Easy. Give him the most recent Jeff Hardy send off. It's not like Booker T wins at Wrestlemania then goes to TNA and throws the WHC title in the trashcan. I'm sure he had a few months left in his contract after Wrestlemania or didn't' mind sticking around for couple more weeks, month, year, or two. |
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,480
|
Post by metylerca on Apr 17, 2010 11:19:53 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over?HHH = EVIL |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on Apr 17, 2010 11:46:06 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over? If you run a company and are about to promote someone only for them to tell you that they're considering being 'done' some months down the line do you offer them the promotion? That's the thing that some fans in their dislike for a certain main eventer, in this case HHH, don't bother considering. That the company may actually want any potential headliners to be 100% reliable and a guy actually considering quitting even when he knows he's going to be pushed isn't. Nobody thought HBK would have wrestled to 2010. He originally said he was only going to work part-time and wouldn't stay for a long period in the WWE yet he got the title from HHH in 2002. Why didn't that apply to him? Booker was going to be given a title. HBK wasn't. Easier to move on from someone without a title than a champion. |
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on Apr 17, 2010 11:52:21 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over? If you run a company and are about to promote someone only for them to tell you that they're considering being 'done' some months down the line do you offer them the promotion? That's the thing that some fans in their dislike for a certain main eventer, in this case HHH, don't bother considering. That the company may actually want any potential headliners to be 100% reliable and a guy actually considering quitting even when he knows he's going to be pushed isn't. Nobody thought HBK would have wrestled to 2010. He originally said he was only going to work part-time and wouldn't stay for a long period in the WWE yet he got the title from HHH in 2002. Why didn't that apply to him? Because the intended push into the main event was supposed to be long term for Booker even if he'd have lost the title the month after back to Trips. LONG. TERM. PLANS. Michaels victory was nothing more than a 'Thank you' from the company whilst Jeff Hardy, by comparison, only properly informed the company that he was thinking of leaving after winning the title last year and besides wasn't definitively stating that he was retiring permanently hence the possibility that he would come back (of course we know what happened there). |
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Apr 17, 2010 12:24:53 GMT -5
Why are people ignoring the fact that Booker was actually thinking about RETIRING later that year (he says so in the deleted portion of the 'Mania doc on the WM XX DVD) even when he was told he was going over?Bret HartClark = EVIL |
|
It's like watching a movie where it ends with the evil bastard lives and the hero dies.
