dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
Post by dav on Apr 30, 2012 8:36:46 GMT -5
Their ratings are not high.  One way out of this is a double-turn. But that means Brock would turn at a rate that TNA would think was too much. Actually the ratings have been at a high point these last few weeks. Nothing ground breaking but still doing well. |
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Apr 30, 2012 8:37:40 GMT -5
Cronant is ignoring my post.
If Orton RKO's Henry in the first match between the two, how does 1) that build Henry and 2) make me have any desire in seeing the classic Sting/Vader story redone.
That freaking MADE Mark Henry, the jolly kool aid man who was the father of a hand, f***ed his sister, and got blown by a tranny.
We're talking about f***ing Brock Lesnar here, if you did that build with Brock Lesnar, the result would be legendary.
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Apr 30, 2012 8:38:38 GMT -5
Damn 4 pages already
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Apr 30, 2012 8:38:49 GMT -5
This isn't Sting/Vader or Orton/Henry. That was my response. Its not the same, it doesn't have to be the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Apr 30, 2012 8:39:06 GMT -5
You don't book things the same way every time. You can change depending on the situation. So please, chill with the "booking 101". After the match last night, a rematch months down the line is going to be way more hyped than if Lesnar just came out and destroyed Cena. Booking 101 has worked every time people get into trouble when they try to out think the business which at its core is basic as can be. What would get more of a pop and hook peoples emotions. Brock losing and Cena leaving only to come back with no heat on Brock or Brock winning and Cena leaving only to come back super pissed and looking for revenge for the guy who beat him down and put him out. Cena has nothing to fight for or nothing to prove. If you're dead set on Brock losing before mania get maximum value from it. |
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Apr 30, 2012 8:40:40 GMT -5
You don't book things the same way every time. You can change depending on the situation. So please, chill with the "booking 101". After the match last night, a rematch months down the line is going to be way more hyped than if Lesnar just came out and destroyed Cena. Booking 101 has worked every time people get into trouble when they try to out think the business which at its core is basic as can be. What would get more of a pop and hook peoples emotions. Brock losing and Cena leaving only to come back with no heat on Brock or Brock winning and Cena leaving only to come back super pissed and looking for revenge for the guy who beat him down and put him out. Cena has nothing to fight for or nothing to prove. If you're dead set on Brock losing before mania get maximum value from it. Pretty much. Cena no longer has anything to prove, there aren't any stakes to the match. |
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Apr 30, 2012 8:41:34 GMT -5
I think it's funny how people are upset that a guy like Brock who literally dominated the entire time he was there, lost a match that he was also dominating and then (from my point of view) got cocky during. Cena hit the guy with a chain wrapped around his fist, guys. It's not like he rose up shouting "I WILL NOT DIE"  |
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Apr 30, 2012 8:42:14 GMT -5
You don't book things the same way every time. You can change depending on the situation. So please, chill with the "booking 101". After the match last night, a rematch months down the line is going to be way more hyped than if Lesnar just came out and destroyed Cena. Booking 101 has worked every time people get into trouble when they try to out think the business which at its core is basic as can be. What would get more of a pop and hook peoples emotions. Brock losing and Cena leaving only to come back with no heat on Brock or Brock winning and Cena leaving only to come back super pissed and looking for revenge for the guy who beat him down and put him out. Cena has nothing to fight for or nothing to prove. If you're dead set on Brock losing before mania get maximum value from it. Cena seemed to get a pretty big pop last night. A rematch can be built effectively with either result. Thats my point. I don't think there was a 'right' answer, because the match was booked perfectly. Thats why I think the "no interest for a rematch" is bulls***. That match last night guaranteed a super hyped rematch. Its that simple. They can take multiple angles with it, stop thinking to black and white here. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Apr 30, 2012 8:45:40 GMT -5
Not really, you sort of failed to me. If the villain wins, it forces the hero to look at why they lost. They have to change their strategy, they have to get refocused, they have to get over the mental hurdles that come from getting their asses kicked, because thye know that they're going to be in for a brawl and they have to get into the right mindset to win. If there's a rematch, you're not seeing it to see Lesnar destroy Cena, you're seeing it to see if Cena can overcome getting destroyed. Now, if they do have Brock go through a tear and have to call on Cena to take him out again, it literally is the exact same match. Brock is the monster and tears into Cena, and Cena somehow pulls deep within to do what it takes to win. Or Brock tears into Cena, pins him and leaves, which he could have done yesterday. Either way, it's the same, only the mystique of whether Cena can pull out a win is gone. Brock vs. other people can still be huge, but Brock vs. Cena II just isn't as interesting. The villain doesn't always start at the top though. Sometimes, the s*** they have to go through to get to the top is just as interesting and part of the story. The slight resistance now gives Lesnar reason to take everything seriously, unlike what he did with Cena. Sometimes, the interest is in what happens when the bad guy doesn't get what he wants right off the bat. While that's true, it greatly depends on the type of villain. If we're looking at Christian or Barrett or Bryan, then that's totally fine, they're the type of guys who will be conniving and cheat on their way to the top, so seeing them gradually become more and more of a threat works. But that doesn't work that well when the villain is meant to be a monster, which is what Lesnar is supposed to be. A monster is less threatening after they've lost, and Lesnar has lost to Cena. Now, Brock can get that back, but the allure of whether Cena in particular can beat him is pretty much gone, since he already did. It was the same with his UFC stint too, buyrates for PPV's that he was the main even dropped once he stopped being dominant. People wanted to see him destroy his opponents and wanted to see if anyone would be able to stand up and beat him. Once cracks began to show, they were lost, and his last match after losing the title had a significant drop in buyrate from the previous one. |
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Apr 30, 2012 8:46:30 GMT -5
30 pages before 8:00pm Central.
|
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Apr 30, 2012 8:47:23 GMT -5
Booking 101 has worked every time people get into trouble when they try to out think the business which at its core is basic as can be. What would get more of a pop and hook peoples emotions. Brock losing and Cena leaving only to come back with no heat on Brock or Brock winning and Cena leaving only to come back super pissed and looking for revenge for the guy who beat him down and put him out. Cena has nothing to fight for or nothing to prove. If you're dead set on Brock losing before mania get maximum value from it. Pretty much. Cena no longer has anything to prove, there aren't any stakes to the match. Rocky should beaten everyone the first time out, it would have made the movies better. Conventional booking 101 is what it is because it WORKS. How did Henry go to what he was to what he became before he got hurt. And let's say they finished the story and Orton beat him at WM, that would have been huge. And look at that, Mark Henry actually brought in ratings. The writers and whoever tells them what to do thinks they're smarter than an industry's history of bookers, they're not. |
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Apr 30, 2012 8:47:30 GMT -5
The villain doesn't always start at the top though. Sometimes, the s*** they have to go through to get to the top is just as interesting and part of the story. The slight resistance now gives Lesnar reason to take everything seriously, unlike what he did with Cena. Sometimes, the interest is in what happens when the bad guy doesn't get what he wants right off the bat. While that's true, it greatly depends on the type of villain. If we're looking at Christian or Barrett or Bryan, then that's totally fine, they're the type of guys who will be conniving and cheat on their way to the top, so seeing them gradually become more and more of a threat works. But that doesn't work that well when the villain is meant to be a monster, which is what Lesnar is supposed to be. A monster is less threatening after they've lost, and Lesnar has lost. It was the same with UFC too, buyrates for PPV's that he was the main even dropped once he stopped being dominant. People wanted to see him destroy his opponents and wanted to see if anyone would be able to stand up and beat him. Once cracks began to show, they were lost. It think it works great when the villain is supposed to be a monster. The fact that he's pissed now and won't play around like he did with Cena only makes it better. He was truly scary and will still be that way, even moreso if he's after something he didn't get. |
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Apr 30, 2012 8:50:05 GMT -5
While that's true, it greatly depends on the type of villain. If we're looking at Christian or Barrett or Bryan, then that's totally fine, they're the type of guys who will be conniving and cheat on their way to the top, so seeing them gradually become more and more of a threat works. But that doesn't work that well when the villain is meant to be a monster, which is what Lesnar is supposed to be. A monster is less threatening after they've lost, and Lesnar has lost. It was the same with UFC too, buyrates for PPV's that he was the main even dropped once he stopped being dominant. People wanted to see him destroy his opponents and wanted to see if anyone would be able to stand up and beat him. Once cracks began to show, they were lost. It think it works great when the villain is supposed to be a monster. The fact that he's pissed now and won't play around like he did with Cena only makes it better. He was truly scary and will still be that way, even moreso if he's after something he didn't get. Except...I know he's not gonna get it. He had it, and lost it. Why should I believe he's gonna get it "next time"? |
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Apr 30, 2012 8:50:08 GMT -5
Pretty much. Cena no longer has anything to prove, there aren't any stakes to the match. Rocky should beaten everyone the first time out, it would have made the movies better. Conventional booking 101 is what it is because it WORKS. How did Henry go to what he was to what he became before he got hurt. And let's say they finished the story and Orton beat him at WM, that would have been huge. And look at that, Mark Henry actually brought in ratings. The writers and whoever tells them what to do thinks they're smarter than an industry's history of bookers, they're not. You are taking a different situation and applying it here. Its unrelated. Despite how strong Henry looked, he was still an underdog to Orton, because he'd never won a World title and most were skeptical that he'd win it, especially from Orton. Its a different thing than Cena/Lesnar. |
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Apr 30, 2012 8:50:47 GMT -5
I felt the pop for Brock losing was mild to say the least.
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Apr 30, 2012 8:52:55 GMT -5
Does anyone remember the episode when Edge attacked Evan Bourne before they were live? They didnt do the opening intro they just cut straight to the segment. I would say do that with Brock abusing someone else
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Apr 30, 2012 8:53:16 GMT -5
It think it works great when the villain is supposed to be a monster. The fact that he's pissed now and won't play around like he did with Cena only makes it better. He was truly scary and will still be that way, even moreso if he's after something he didn't get. Except...I know he's not gonna get it. He had it, and lost it. Why should I believe he's gonna get it "next time"? Well why would I care about Lesnar if he's already there from day 1? If I know ahead of time he's not going to lose for months if at all why care? Just saying, this "Why should I care" can be used in nearly every situation. If people are going to continually say that because Cena won then people will say that for Lesnar winning. |
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Apr 30, 2012 8:55:34 GMT -5
Rocky should beaten everyone the first time out, it would have made the movies better. Conventional booking 101 is what it is because it WORKS. How did Henry go to what he was to what he became before he got hurt. And let's say they finished the story and Orton beat him at WM, that would have been huge. And look at that, Mark Henry actually brought in ratings. The writers and whoever tells them what to do thinks they're smarter than an industry's history of bookers, they're not. You are taking a different situation and applying it here. Its unrelated. Despite how strong Henry looked, he was still an underdog to Orton, because he'd never won a World title and most were skeptical that he'd win it, especially from Orton. Its a different thing than Cena/Lesnar. This weakens your point. Henry was beyond damaged goods and the Vader/Sting ripoff made him a star. It made him credible. Wrestling should never try to be complex. Complex does not often = good. For every "Flair must retire if he loses, evolving into evil Chris Jericho overcomes Shawn Michaels, featuring Batista" you get, you get 10 "what the hell happened to CM Punk and what is Kevin Nash doing here?" You have someone who is already credible. You can make him incredible. Instead, have him lose act 1. His nemesis HAS to win the story and has won the first act. Who cares where's it's going? These are the things that make you have to dump a bottle of JD on someone, call their sister and drug addict and call their mom a slut. So it means now the feud has to be salvaged through ENTERTAINMENT, not wrestling. Not much good is coming out of that. |
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Apr 30, 2012 8:56:38 GMT -5
Who says this is complex?
Lesnar destroys RAW trying to get another chance at Cena. Does something heinous to bait him. Money made.
In any multi-match series there are plenty of options for any result. How many more times must it be said?
|
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Apr 30, 2012 8:57:43 GMT -5
Who says this is complex? Lesnar destroys RAW trying to get another chance at Cena. Does something heinous to bait him. Money made. Not really, Cena's already done it. And "does something heinous" is what I'm talking about, entertainment has reared its ugly head. I mean if he kills Apollo Creed in wrestling terms, does anyone actually believe Cena is losing THAT encounter? |
|
helped $lim jinx NXT. Woops
