Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,450
|
Post by Dub H on May 22, 2012 17:05:05 GMT -5
I'd like to see Cena tap out to Bryan. Honestly, tapping out would not undermine Cena's character at all. Yeah, try telling WWE that. Honestly, Cena is at a level were he could lose to pretty much anyone at it wouldn't hurt him at all. Not only it wont hurt cena.It would actually make the wrestler that made him tap,f***ing golden,and pretty much a big deal
|
|
|
Post by Todd's crazy , Man. on May 22, 2012 17:07:56 GMT -5
Can I just pointout the irony in people blindly bashing the IWC for blindly bashing wrestlers who win when many have pointed out multiple legitimate complaints about Sheamus/Cena?
|
|
Krimzon
Crow T. Robot
This guy is the man!
R.I.P. Deadpool
Posts: 43,870
|
Post by Krimzon on May 22, 2012 17:16:51 GMT -5
Punk is not booked like Cena. Punk looks human at times. I don't remember him losing without it being in a fluky manner since he became a main event face. They protect Punk, yes, but CM Punk seems human and vulnerable. Punk has never no-sold a 15-minute beating and shook it off like it never even happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 17:22:09 GMT -5
I was reading the Sheamus thread and alot of people were complaining about his "Cena booking" being a reason why it's hard to support him. I hear people constantly bitch about the WWE not making new stars, but isn't that what they're doing with Sheamus? Also how do you expect someone to be built up as a star if they're not being booked to win a vast majority of their matches? Cena-style booking and winning most of your matches aren't the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Shamrocks on May 22, 2012 17:41:32 GMT -5
Whenever someone makes this complaint, it usually only means that they dislike the wrestler and that he's getting pushed (and probably over their favorites, too), not that WWE is booking him any differently than anyone else they've ever tried to elevate. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it'd be nice of people could just admit that it's their own biases talking and not anything that WWE is doing. I don't know. I get frustrated because sometimes I WANT to like a character, but booking makes them so boring to me I just can't get behind them. It takes a lot out of a match when you know who's going to win.
|
|
AdamAFL was sooooo wrong
Hank Scorpio
note to all: he's a pants-less heathen
I Survived The Impact Spoilers 7/22/15-7/30/15
Posts: 7,164
|
Post by AdamAFL was sooooo wrong on May 22, 2012 17:46:17 GMT -5
For those that are saying Cena and Punk are booked the same lets look at the same PPV two years running:
Over The Limit 2011 - Cena walks in as WWE Champion. Cena gets in minimal offence (about 10/90 if I remember correctly) against Miz and his lackey. Cena overcomes the beating of 20+mins like it was nothing in a terribly boring match and makes Miz tap almost immediately.
Over The Limit 2012 - CM Punk walks in as WWE Champion. In his match with Daniel Bryan they get in roughly the same offence (I'd say 55-45 to Bryan). Punk eventually rolls Bryan up to only just beat him and sells it like Bryan has almost broken him, to top it all off he taps to Daniel Bryan's submission maneuver as soon as the bell rings.
That seems like vastly different booking to me.
Now I wouldn't say that Sheamus is suffering from Cena-style Superman booking just yet (although he's certainly heading in that direction) but his character has been wasted. When he turned face to fight Mark Henry way back last year I was really excited by the development. It looked like Sheamus was going to be this absolutely badass face who just beat the everliving shit out of people who pissed him off rather than your smiley, cookie-cutter WWE babyface who smiles and never gets angry. Fast forward to now and he is generic babyface #109479 so that's why I'm not a fan of Sheamus at the minute. Not because he wins too much but quite simply because he is boring and bland.
|
|
Ryanar
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,429
|
Post by Ryanar on May 22, 2012 17:59:06 GMT -5
I hate this idea that they are called Superman. For the past few animated movies, Superman has gotten his ass handed to him only for Batman to save him. (Superman/Batman Public Enemies, Justice League Doom, etc)
Anyway, the whole wrestlers winning all the time thing can get a bit annoying after a while. It can be productive when they know how to cut it off, but Sheamus has been on this never ending winning spree ever since losing the United States Championship last year.
Although his Win/Loss record isn't as great as people exaggerate.(59%wins over losses) Its the substance of the match that counts in the long run. The Dr. Manhattan thing where he rises from the ashes is just stupid. This past monday, John Cena got the hot tag and went straight for his 5 Moves of Doom. He didn't do any other moves but that. It was boring as all hell even with the lumberjack beatdown. It was just bland as all hell, and its one of the reasons why alot of people said that episode was pretty mediocre.
People took a liking to sheamus last year for one reason and one reason only. He was an asskicking irish machine. He didn't tell jokes, he didn't get all smiley and happy like every other babyface. He just went out there and kicked ass. The Pop he got at MITB for killing Sin Cara was just phenomenal. That spot in his US title match against Bryan was great. Its one of the reasons why people started respecting this guy. Sheamus was the perfect candidate for a tweener if the company ever needed one. But what did they do? They turned him into the typical cliche babyface who kisses babies and hugs fat girls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2012 18:39:47 GMT -5
Yet no one complains that Punk is booked like Cena. Hell, I think Punk's booked too strongly too. The difference though is that Punk will at least bump around a bit and usually need to get resourceful or lucky to pull out the win, while Sheamus always boils down to, "Ha ha, just playing, BROGUE KICK!" I get faces mostly need to win, it's just when it also comes down to pretty much every segment ending with them standing tall that it gets ridiculous, and Punk at least doesn't do that.
|
|
zing
Don Corleone
Talk about him more!
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by zing on May 22, 2012 18:49:30 GMT -5
I prefer a plucky underdog face chasing a supremely dominant heel. Not a boring predictable face who wins all the time. If a heel wins all the time, you want to watch and see him get his comeuppance. If the faces win all the time then....what are you waiting for? Where's the suspense? If you know it's going to happen, where's the incentive to stay tuned?
And I'll definitely agree that Cena during Nexus was the most bearable I've ever seen him because of that vulnerability.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on May 22, 2012 18:58:01 GMT -5
Yet no one complains that Punk is booked like Cena. I can't even imagine Cena tapping to Bryan. Punk didn't tap until he'd won the match. Him tricking Bryan into releasing the hold just makes Bryan look stupid
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on May 22, 2012 19:00:30 GMT -5
Whenever someone makes this complaint, it usually only means that they dislike the wrestler and that he's getting pushed (and probably over their favorites, too), not that WWE is booking him any differently than anyone else they've ever tried to elevate. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it'd be nice of people could just admit that it's their own biases talking and not anything that WWE is doing. I don't know. I get frustrated because sometimes I WANT to like a character, but booking makes them so boring to me I just can't get behind them. It takes a lot out of a match when you know who's going to win. if there's a storyline going and the show is booked even semi-logically you SHOULD know who's going to win
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,450
|
Post by Dub H on May 22, 2012 19:07:19 GMT -5
I don't know. I get frustrated because sometimes I WANT to like a character, but booking makes them so boring to me I just can't get behind them. It takes a lot out of a match when you know who's going to win. if there's a storyline going and the show is booked even semi-logically you SHOULD know who's going to win Not really,it's the magic of SUSPENSE The true mark of a good writer is to surprise whoever is reading/watching.But still keep quality.If you know what is going to happen,why watch?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on May 22, 2012 19:08:01 GMT -5
I think it's people who don't like Sheamus. The World Champion should be winning as much as possible. Him and the WWE Champion should be winning on a regular basis and if they do lose, that person should be an instant contender.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on May 22, 2012 19:34:50 GMT -5
if there's a storyline going and the show is booked even semi-logically you SHOULD know who's going to win Not really,it's the magic of SUSPENSE The true mark of a good writer is to surprise whoever is reading/watching.But still keep quality.If you know what is going to happen,why watch? I watch to see the way it's executed. I'm not a big fan of surprises
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 22, 2012 19:40:31 GMT -5
It wasn't too long ago that people were complaining about Sheamus not being booked strongly enough.
As others have pointed out, the WWE has gone with the dominant face on top philosophy since the 1950s. I don't think Cena is booked any more strongly that Rock, Austin, Warrior, Hogan, Sammartino, or any of the other top faces. In fact, he loses a lot more often than those guys, and gets beat down/is left laying by heels way more often (when Hogan got beat down it was a HUGE deal). The tough thing with him is that he's overexposed. He's on TV way too much. His run is already longer than Hogan's, and on top of that he's on TV probably 10X as often as Hogan was.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 22, 2012 19:45:13 GMT -5
Not really,it's the magic of SUSPENSE The true mark of a good writer is to surprise whoever is reading/watching.But still keep quality.If you know what is going to happen,why watch? I watch to see the way it's executed. I'm not a big fan of surprises Ideally the company does both approaches on occasion because fans like different things. Personally, I lost interest in a wrestling for a while in the mid 90s once I learned the wrestling storytelling language and I knew what was going to happen 5 steps ahead in any storyline. Then the late 90s changed all the rules and it was exciting again, everything I had learned was pretty much out the window. Now, they're balancing that fine line between "too predictable" and "not making sense". A truly compelling storyline can be both suspenseful and make sense, but that's very difficult to pull off and it's pretty rare for any company throughout history to do it. But certainly, if everything is unpredictable, you get a mess like the end of WCW and the last few years of TNA. If everything goes paint-by-numbers traditional booking, it gets dull and stale.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on May 22, 2012 21:27:45 GMT -5
It wasn't too long ago that people were complaining about Sheamus not being booked strongly enough. As others have pointed out, the WWE has gone with the dominant face on top philosophy since the 1950s. I don't think Cena is booked any more strongly that Rock, Austin, Warrior, Hogan, Sammartino, or any of the other top faces. In fact, he loses a lot more often than those guys, and gets beat down/is left laying by heels way more often (when Hogan got beat down it was a HUGE deal). The tough thing with him is that he's overexposed. He's on TV way too much. His run is already longer than Hogan's, and on top of that he's on TV probably 10X as often as Hogan was. what really bugs me is that every type of booking has complainers. I've seen people complain that superman type pushes are boring I've seen people complain that losing constantly means you can't be taken seriously as a threat And I've seen people complain that win loss booking, aka yo-yo booking, makes it impossible for anyone to gain momentum. no one comes out and praises the type of booking they prefer and tries to convince anyone it's worthwhile, just complain about the types you dislike
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on May 22, 2012 21:29:07 GMT -5
People naturally gravitate toward (true) underdogs or at least those whom they can somehow live vicariously through -- i.e. Steve Austin beating up his overbearing boss.
The underdog thing is the most prevalent, though, and it's something we all inherently share for the most part, often without even realizing it. Look at Cena vs. Brock. The entire crux of that angle for Cena haters was the legit Lesnar coming in and beating the shit out of the cartoony, manufactured Cena. Then he did it for real. And again. And again. And again. I mean, Cena took such a monumental (legit) beating that even the hardest heart softened to his plight and toughness that night. It was kind of like in Braveheart where Wallace was so tough and defiant in his slow, torturous death, that even the blood-thirsty mob watching begged for mercy by the end.
WWE had something there. They truly did. Finally. Actual sympathy. Then they wrecked it again with typical Cena buffoonery, jokes and silliness that makes him hated in the first place.
That's what WWE doesn't understand most of the time; and why certain types get hated on after getting the big push. Vince McMahon, as an alpha-male himself, seems incapable of truly relating to vulnerability. Hell, dude can't even let himself sneeze for f***'s sake. And when he pushes most guys, traditionally, he does so with seemingly a similar mindset. Guys go into situations already as favorites, and with little to no true relatable vulnerability. There’s no reason to like them other than maybe you dislike who they’re facing, or you’re told by the announcers that you should. It makes no true, universal connection. It’s not organic.
Take poor Sheamus. Think about the apex of his popularity. It was taking on big bullies like Mark Henry last summer after being one himself. It became relatable to the masses, because here was this bad-ass dude suddenly turning his rage toward bigger, badder-ass dudes.
Then he feuded with Bryan. A guy the company drilled into the fans heads was a nerd and a loser -- but who then won the World title regardless and kept it, and proved that he wasn't boring at all (even if he was booked as an opportunist.). To the layman, Bryan looked like an everyman who worked super hard and beat the system. And then this bigger, stronger, hyper-aggressive guy targets him.
At what point was Sheamus ever perceived as an underdog or even relatable in that feud? To most people I know who aren't fans, they saw it as a bully cheap-shotting a smaller guy, then bragging about it -- despite being presented as the hero.
Face it, if Vince booked the Bible, Goliath would be the face, and he’d have beaten David.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on May 22, 2012 21:34:16 GMT -5
Face it, if Vince booked the Bible, Goliath would be the face, and he’d have beaten David. Why do you think he started his own religion.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on May 22, 2012 21:39:07 GMT -5
That's what WWE doesn't understand most of the time; and why certain types get hated on after getting the big push. Vince McMahon, as an alpha-male himself, seems incapable of truly relating to vulnerability. Hell, dude can't even let himself sneeze for f***'s sake. And when he pushes most guys, traditionally, he does so with seemingly a similar mindset. Guys go into situations already as favorites, and with little to no true relatable vulnerability. There’s no reason to like them other than maybe you dislike who they’re facing, or you’re told by the announcers that you should. It makes no true, universal connection. It’s not organic. To be fair, both Vince and his father made their money and success through pushing superman faces. All the territories that built around the plucky face chasing the heel instead are all long gone. The difference now is, everyone has the expectation that their favorite guy should be on top. The WWF always had fun midcard faces, underdog faces who had serious trouble with the heels who were often defeated or beat up. But it was OK to just enjoy that stuff for what it was, it didn't have to be the focus of the promotion. I know people complain that the "midcard doesn't matter" now but part of that is a reflection on the fans. This started in the late 90s/early 00s. It wasn't enough anymore to enjoy the midcards, no, those guys were being WRONGED, and HELD BACK. So the WWE pushed a lot of them quickly past the midcard, and guess what, big shock, the midcard isn't important anymore. If a guy's in the midcard more than a year now he's "buried". The Junkyard Dog or Ricky Steamboat were hugely over midcard acts for years, but you couldn't have that today, because everyone would be MAD that they weren't given world title runs as soon as they started getting crowd reactions. So now everybody gets a world title run much earlier in their career. Sometimes listening to the short-term desires of the fans isn't great for the long-term of your company. In a perfect world, Sheamus would probably still be an over midcarder on his way up, and Cena would probably have just gotten on top a couple of years ago, and he should be entering his in-ring prime right now. But the call for "new stars on top!" was loud and the company answered it.
|
|