|
|
Post by Wolf Hurricane on May 22, 2012 22:14:36 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. It's no that they win a lot, it's who they win against. Very few complained about Sheamus until he feuded with Daniel Bryan. Both of these. Booking is just a piece of the pie, but I don't think it's as big as people want to say it is. Case in point being that Stone Cold Steve Austin and just about every other major face in the WWE since Hogan has been booked the same - as a diehard. So it's not about how they're winning; the lionshare is who's winning and who's losing. It's about 45% "I don't like who's winning, 45% "I don't like who they're winning against," and only about ten percent of "I don't like how they're winning." |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on May 22, 2012 22:54:35 GMT -5
Cuz it gets boring. Nothing more to it than that.
That was great when I was a lil Hulkamaniac as a child, now as an adult it gets tiresome. I understand that for the most part I'm not who they're booking for anyway, but it can still be dull to watch on occasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Been burned too many times on May 22, 2012 22:55:36 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? Definitely agree with this. |
|
|
|
Post by Ringmaster on May 22, 2012 23:00:52 GMT -5
Yet no one complains that Punk is booked like Cena. That is because he is a IWC darling. THIS, In no way whatsoever can there be any other explanation for this, I defy anyone to even attempt it. I wish there was a grant I could award you for finally shedding light on the shadowy I.W.C. I can rest easy knowing you basement dwelling smarks got put in your place. Now can this post be stickied. {Spoiler} Sarcasm |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on May 22, 2012 23:00:59 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 Yeah they do. You'll often see people praising a match or angle- the Punk/Bryan match and HHH/Taker this year prime examples of overwhelming positive responses. To your other point of every type of booking is gonna have complainers, well yeah, everyone's gonna have different opinions, hence each type of booking you're gonna have dissent for. Are their probably more "negative" discussion than positive? Sure in general, because of those differing opinions. So if you have someone praising the style of booking they like as you said, you're naturally gonna have people disagree with that. Otherwise this place would be pretty dull |
|
The Sam
El Dandy
The Brainiest Sam of all
Posts: 8,423 
|
Post by The Sam on May 23, 2012 0:12:33 GMT -5
Cuz it gets boring. Nothing more to it than that. That was great when I was a lil Hulkamaniac as a child, now as an adult it gets tiresome. I understand that for the most part I'm not who they're booking for anyway, but it can still be dull to watch on occasion. This pretty much. A good match is one where you can't tell who is going to win. During the Punk/Bryan match, there was a couple of times I thought Bryan was going to win. The unpredictable feeling makes it exciting. With squash matches, it's predictable and not nearly as exciting. |
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on May 23, 2012 5:00:40 GMT -5
For me Cena is ironically one of the more vulnerable top faces they've ever had. I can't imagine Vince booking or indeed allowing Hogan or Austin at their respective peaks to job to the likes of Heath Slater in tag matches, lose 3 PPV matches in a row as he did in 2008 or, clean or not, to the likes of Tensai/Albert on tv.
|
|
mainsupreme
Unicron
World Wildlife Entertainment
Posts: 3,463
|
Post by mainsupreme on May 23, 2012 5:07:34 GMT -5
Predictability is the worst thing that can happen to wrestling.
That's why we hate Cena and Sheamus, because they always win and they always win in the same manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on May 23, 2012 5:08:17 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? This is a promotion that has survived primarily due to booking that has always been far from suspenseful. Even when they've pulled stuff that seemingly came out of leftfield (the way Hogan lost the WWF title to Andre, the debut of the Nexus) time and time again you know the good guy(s) are going to win. Criticising the WWF for predictable 'good truimphs over evil' booking is like criticising Disney animation for being cutesy. PPL act like it only came into being with Cena as top face when it's been inherent since Bruno made Rogers submit in mere seconds in '63. |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on May 23, 2012 5:13:37 GMT -5
For me Cena is ironically one of the more vulnerable top faces they've ever had. I can't imagine Vince booking or indeed allowing Hogan or Austin at their respective peaks to job to the likes of Heath Slater in tag matches, lose 3 PPV matches in a row as he did in 2008 or, clean or not, to the likes of Tensai/Albert on tv. Also as much as Cena "doesn't put anyone over" he's interacted with the midcard quite a bit. I don't think Hogan or Austin would've even glanced in Johnny Nitro, Jack Swagger, Alex Riley, or David Otunga's general direction, much less have multiple one off matches with each of them. |
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on May 23, 2012 5:14:16 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 s*** 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. Punk hasn't cleanly lost in a non-handicap match since Hell In A Cell, Cena lost cleanly at WrestleMania. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on May 23, 2012 5:32:32 GMT -5
The problem with Cena is that people have lost the doubt.
You can book a face strong without them ALWAYS winning.
One of the reasons why Rock is an all-time great is because he could lose. He would lose, often clean, often to heels, without it damaging his character one bit. And it wouldn't matter. Rock never really had a good title reign because of it.
And that is the problem with Cena. It's irreparable damage at this point that people just expect Cena to win no matter how much Cena has lost recently.
The Rock would actually win the majority of the time, but he wasn't untouchable. If Rock was facing Benoit, you'd tune in to see if he'd lose. If he was facing Triple H or Jericho or Austin or Kurt Angle, you'd tune in to see if he'd lose.
And yeah, he'd win most of the time. But you had doubt. The Rock never needed to have a three-on-one handicap match for you to think he might not win something. In a one-on-one match, The Rock was one of the industry's best but there were no guarantees.
At this stage, Cena is at the point that he has won handicap matches and 'overcome the odds' so often that there's no doubt any more.
What have the most anticipated matches been lately? Cena vs. Brock, Cena vs. Rock. Brock was always unstoppable so him being a special attraction doesn't make a big difference to the fact that those two in a match would be competitive and hard to predict. But if Rock was still a regular when Cena went main event, I am willing to bet that Rock would've been counting the lights for Cena pretty often.
With Cena, it is so obvious that he'll win 99% of the time that I don't even bother watching the PPVs unless there's another match I want to see.
Take last year. Money In The Bank 2011 was one of the best angles WWE ever did, but I'm so used to Cena winning that I didn't bother to watch it. Punk's contract was up, it was common knowledge, and the idea that Punk was actually going to beat Cena was ridiculous. Why would a guy that was leaving beat the guy who never loses? I only found out on the internet the morning after that Punk had won and watched the match later on a repeat. Cena wins that often that I can't be a mark any more with his matches, unless he DOES face someone like Rock.
The Rock could lose without it damaging his character. You still knew he was awesome, you still knew he was a threat, and if Rock was facing someone badass, then the match ending was in doubt.
And Cena has lost that doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on May 23, 2012 5:44:46 GMT -5
Is that Cena's fault or everyone else's? I mean in all honesty, if a guy like Swagger or Ziggler pinned Cena cleanly, I don't think I'd be able to believe it. I can see Triple H, CM Punk, The Rock, Randy Orton, and Brock Lesnar being able to do it, but he's just so above and beyond everyone else at this point, I don't think many people buy it when he loses.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on May 23, 2012 5:53:55 GMT -5
I'm not blaming Cena for it, he's been booked badly. Cena is the victim.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone.
Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 24,269
|
Post by Bo Rida on May 23, 2012 6:22:48 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? This is a promotion that has survived primarily due to booking that has always been far from suspenseful. Even when they've pulled stuff that seemingly came out of leftfield (the way Hogan lost the WWF title to Andre, the debut of the Nexus) time and time again you know the good guy(s) are going to win. Criticising the WWF for predictable 'good truimphs over evil' booking is like criticising Disney animation for being cutesy. PPL act like it only came into being with Cena as top face when it's been inherent since Bruno made Rogers submit in mere seconds in '63. Good should triumph over evil in the end. However the face should look vulnerable and maybe suffer some losses before that final victory. The faces (and heels)should also show weakness, like Punk tapping after the bell as it shows that he can be beaten and makes a more interesting storyline and suspenseful match There's a reason script/book writers include a flaw in their characters, even if it's just a clumsy female lead in a rom-com. I loved Sheamus as champion during the Nexus thing as he was too ignorant to understand the danger he was in. There's nothing comparable in his charachter today aside from being a bit hot-headed and that rarely counts against him. |
|
|
|
Post by Miss_Carol on May 23, 2012 7:55:13 GMT -5
What I really hated about Cena during his superman era was not the fact that he won every single match, it's how he won them.
Anyone remember his countless matches against JBL, who 9 out of 10 times was Cena getting the crap beaten out of him for 15 minutes, but then suddenly pulling out the FU (as the AA was called back then) out of "nowhere" and winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by KRUGkiller on May 23, 2012 8:40:35 GMT -5
The problem with Cena is that people have lost the doubt. You can book a face strong without them ALWAYS winning. One of the reasons why Rock is an all-time great is because he could lose. He would lose, often clean, often to heels, without it damaging his character one bit. And it wouldn't matter. Rock never really had a good title reign because of it. And that is the problem with Cena. It's irreparable damage at this point that people just expect Cena to win no matter how much Cena has lost recently. The Rock would actually win the majority of the time, but he wasn't untouchable. If Rock was facing Benoit, you'd tune in to see if he'd lose. If he was facing Triple H or Jericho or Austin or Kurt Angle, you'd tune in to see if he'd lose. And yeah, he'd win most of the time. But you had doubt. The Rock never needed to have a three-on-one handicap match for you to think he might not win something. In a one-on-one match, The Rock was one of the industry's best but there were no guarantees. At this stage, Cena is at the point that he has won handicap matches and 'overcome the odds' so often that there's no doubt any more. What have the most anticipated matches been lately? Cena vs. Brock, Cena vs. Rock. Brock was always unstoppable so him being a special attraction doesn't make a big difference to the fact that those two in a match would be competitive and hard to predict. But if Rock was still a regular when Cena went main event, I am willing to bet that Rock would've been counting the lights for Cena pretty often. With Cena, it is so obvious that he'll win 99% of the time that I don't even bother watching the PPVs unless there's another match I want to see. Take last year. Money In The Bank 2011 was one of the best angles WWE ever did, but I'm so used to Cena winning that I didn't bother to watch it. Punk's contract was up, it was common knowledge, and the idea that Punk was actually going to beat Cena was ridiculous. Why would a guy that was leaving beat the guy who never loses? I only found out on the internet the morning after that Punk had won and watched the match later on a repeat. Cena wins that often that I can't be a mark any more with his matches, unless he DOES face someone like Rock. The Rock could lose without it damaging his character. You still knew he was awesome, you still knew he was a threat, and if Rock was facing someone badass, then the match ending was in doubt. And Cena has lost that doubt. when you look back to raws, smackdowns and ppvs from 1998, 1999 and 2000 the rock seem to only win 60 percent of the time at best, pretty amazing how in 2000 for example he would lose almost as much as he lost, lost 3 wrestlemania main events in a row and never had a real strong run as wwf champ. the rock jobbed TOO MUCH. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on May 23, 2012 8:44:46 GMT -5
Hey, I'll happily accept that Rocky lost too often, but at the same time he stayed over as hell, which shows that a character like that CAN take it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ecabney on May 23, 2012 8:47:30 GMT -5
Yet no one complains that Punk is booked like Cena. Punk just tapped out at a PPV. Not even close to Cena level booking |
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on May 23, 2012 9:07:44 GMT -5
What I really hated about Cena during his superman era was not the fact that he won every single match, it's how he won them. Anyone remember his countless matches against JBL, who 9 out of 10 times was Cena getting the crap beaten out of him for 15 minutes, but then suddenly pulling out the FU (as the AA was called back then) out of "nowhere" and winning. Cena as the underdog actually worked back then. Back then we didn't have a main event scene consisting mostly of cruiserweights. Back then Cena WAS the little man getting knocked around by big brutes like JBL, Triple H, & Umaga. Cena was the underdog in that he was undersized, AND lacked the technical wizardry to make up for it, hence his only chance at victory (in kayfabe) was going for a finisher as soon as he had an opening. |
|
