|
Post by Cela on Jan 15, 2013 20:48:42 GMT -5
I liked the Kane/Cena/Ryder/Eve angle in general for the wrestle crapness of it all, even if I felt it was purposely punching holes in Ryder's boat. I don't think they purposely screwed Ryder, I think they saw an opportunity to push MEGA FACE OF THE COMPANY FOR OVER 10 YEARS by using a guy who just got popular, by using him as his "little brother", his stupid clueless and not able to win anything little brother. Pretty much.
|
|
H-Virus
Hank Scorpio
A Real Contagious Experience
Posts: 5,968
|
Post by H-Virus on Jan 15, 2013 23:42:20 GMT -5
Can't speak for anyone else, but I initially started having doubts about Ryder the night after he won the US Title, when he came out and stood in the ring with Punk and Bryan. Before he even spoke, I was already humming the 'One of These Things is Not Like the Others' song in my head, but you know: whatever, this was his big moment, the accumulation of all his hard work to get noticed, his time to shine.
And then he used his big moment to... mention his dad, say his catchphrase, aaaand that was pretty much it.
And I thought: "...Huh."
Then, of course, it wasn't long after that the Embrace The Hate angle started, and it was all downhill from there.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 16, 2013 0:02:00 GMT -5
I seem to remember many people expressing negative opinions of Ryder during the angle. I don't understand why those complaints not coming BEFORE the Eve angle means anything. It wasn't until that angle that we got to see how terribly he acted. Pretty much. The whole "chase to the US Title" thing worked because that was just a classic feud that anyone could be plugged into and get super over. It's when you win the Championship that you have to keep working on your mic and wrestling skills, which is something that Ryder didn't know.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 16, 2013 1:45:59 GMT -5
Pretty much. The whole "chase to the US Title" thing worked because that was just a classic feud that anyone could be plugged into and get super over. It's when you win the Championship that you have to keep working on your mic and wrestling skills, which is something that Ryder didn't know. I don't agree the this is the case (I say he was fine, and then the combination of the popularity-backlash and the bad angle turned people on him), but think about the argument you're making. You're saying the WWE put someone who was good at one thing into another situation that he wasn't good at, and then AIRED IT ON TELEVISION. How completely screwed-up, if that's true. Instead of making sure their performers are acceptable in the roles they're going to have, they just throw them out there and make us watch it. It's everyone job to put on a good show; why would you blame Ryder if he wasn't cast correctly?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 2:38:08 GMT -5
Pretty much. The whole "chase to the US Title" thing worked because that was just a classic feud that anyone could be plugged into and get super over. It's when you win the Championship that you have to keep working on your mic and wrestling skills, which is something that Ryder didn't know. I don't agree the this is the case (I say he was fine, and then the combination of the popularity-backlash and the bad angle turned people on him), but think about the argument you're making. You're saying the WWE put someone who was good at one thing into another situation that he wasn't good at, and then AIRED IT ON TELEVISION. How completely screwed-up, if that's true. Instead of making sure their performers are acceptable in the roles they're going to have, they just throw them out there and make us watch it. It's everyone job to put on a good show; why would you blame Ryder if he wasn't cast correctly? I don't think that's the argument he's making. To put it the way you did takes a lot of responsibility away from Ryder. It sounds more like they gave him a shot and it didn't work. It might not be all his fault, but to make it sound like he was just led to slaughter doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Jan 16, 2013 2:42:29 GMT -5
I don't agree the this is the case (I say he was fine, and then the combination of the popularity-backlash and the bad angle turned people on him), but think about the argument you're making. You're saying the WWE put someone who was good at one thing into another situation that he wasn't good at, and then AIRED IT ON TELEVISION. How completely screwed-up, if that's true. Instead of making sure their performers are acceptable in the roles they're going to have, they just throw them out there and make us watch it. It's everyone job to put on a good show; why would you blame Ryder if he wasn't cast correctly? I don't think that's the argument he's making. To put it the way you did takes a lot of responsibility away from Ryder. It sounds more like they gave him a shot and it didn't work. It might not be all his fault, but to make it sound like he was just led to slaughter doesn't make sense to me. He won the title like a day before they embarked on the Kane angle. Even him losing it was just a plot-point so Cena could beat up Jack Swagger, to prove he was "embracing the hate". It's like they were building him up right, and then decided "ah f*** it" and made him the goof in a silly horror movie send-up. There's alot of revisionist history in how he got booked. I'm not even saying he's any good, just that being put in *that* spot, in *that* angle, you can't look good, it's impossible.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 16, 2013 2:42:38 GMT -5
I don't agree the this is the case (I say he was fine, and then the combination of the popularity-backlash and the bad angle turned people on him), but think about the argument you're making. You're saying the WWE put someone who was good at one thing into another situation that he wasn't good at, and then AIRED IT ON TELEVISION. How completely screwed-up, if that's true. Instead of making sure their performers are acceptable in the roles they're going to have, they just throw them out there and make us watch it. It's everyone job to put on a good show; why would you blame Ryder if he wasn't cast correctly? I don't think that's the argument he's making. To put it the way you did takes a lot of responsibility away from Ryder. It sounds more like they gave him a shot and it didn't work. It might not be all his fault, but to make it sound like he was just led to slaughter doesn't make sense to me. He kind of was. Why not protect him from getting exposed by limiting his talking to pre-tapes? Why are they making him "act"? Ryder was just a lower midcarder. There was no real reason for him to be involved in the Kane angle. The Embrace The Hate story DID kill him.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 16, 2013 10:45:11 GMT -5
I don't think that's the argument he's making. To put it the way you did takes a lot of responsibility away from Ryder. It sounds more like they gave him a shot and it didn't work. It might not be all his fault, but to make it sound like he was just led to slaughter doesn't make sense to me. He kind of was. Why not protect him from getting exposed by limiting his talking to pre-tapes? Why are they making him "act"? Ryder was just a lower midcarder. There was no real reason for him to be involved in the Kane angle. The Embrace The Hate story DID kill him. There's only so much protecting you can do though before you have to put a guy out there. I'm not saying it's all Ryder's fault or that the Kane angle wasn't a bad start for him, but it's up to the performer to make even a bad storyline work.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 16, 2013 12:43:32 GMT -5
I don't think that's the argument he's making. To put it the way you did takes a lot of responsibility away from Ryder. It sounds more like they gave him a shot and it didn't work. It might not be all his fault, but to make it sound like he was just led to slaughter doesn't make sense to me. Responsibility doesn't matter. What matters is putting on a good show, however you do it. That is kind of the point I was making: The WWE really wants to maintain this illusion that if an individual wrestler succeeds, then it's because of his own innate talents and hard work. And first of all that's ludicrous, but more importantly, they're willing to do it even if it leads to bad TV. And that's just unprofessional. But, as Ryder himself proves, it's apparently worked. His push didn't last, and lots of people assume instantly that it must be his own fault, because that's the way the business works.
|
|