|
Post by molson5 on Jan 29, 2013 13:57:30 GMT -5
I think it would of been better for a hard fought match, then Cena wins. Makes your number one contenders to the tag belts look good and makes Cena look stronger. They could have made the match a few minutes longer, but if it was 6 minutes long, we'd be having a thread about why it couldn't have been 9 minutes. And if it were against Jack Swagger, we'd have a thread about why it couldn't have been JTG or a "local" enhancement guy. Really, it's not that big a deal either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 14:41:10 GMT -5
Timing issues.
It seemed like they were scrambling for the match part of the segment to be over by 9pm so that Cena's Royal Rumble/Wrestlemania address could begin exactly at the top of the hour when any new viewers would be tuning in.
When they were doing the Rhodes Scholars/Hell No singles matches on TV a few weeks ago Cody tapped out to Daniel Bryan in a minute (and Sandow lost to Kane in like 3 minutes). Were they being buried? Probably not. It's just that WWE is awful with time management for their matches, especially on Raw. They usually have one fairly long match (involving Sheamus half the time) and everything else is crap.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jan 29, 2013 14:46:52 GMT -5
Where was this thread when he was losing singles matches to Kane and DBry in 2 minutes?
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jan 29, 2013 14:49:41 GMT -5
Where was this thread when he was losing singles matches to Kane and DBry in 2 minutes? Because Cena.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jan 29, 2013 14:53:24 GMT -5
Yeah, and where's the weekly ZIGGLER BURIED thread since Kane beat him pretty easy because he was mad?
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,650
|
Post by The Ichi on Jan 29, 2013 14:55:08 GMT -5
Why do all matches have to last a while? Real life fights can sometimes end quickly even if they're between two good fighters. All it takes is a good shot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2013 15:00:48 GMT -5
Honestly I'd rather they just get to it rather than screw around for an extra 5-10 minutes with restholds to pretend that a midcarder can hang with a main eventer.
It doesn't change my opinion of anything, it doesn't trick me for even a second, all it does is make me consider tuning out for a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Jan 29, 2013 15:16:25 GMT -5
It wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't just Cena hitting his 5 moves of doom and then winning. I hate the five moves of doom/comeback routine concept. Always makes the opponent look like a chump when they continue to get hit by it.
|
|
|
Post by Sumbody Gon' Get Dey Kneelift on Jan 29, 2013 15:17:20 GMT -5
Honestly? Cody has moves I like to see. I wanted to see them.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jan 29, 2013 15:18:36 GMT -5
It wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't just Cena hitting his 5 moves of doom and then winning. I hate the five moves of doom/comeback routine concept. Always makes the opponent look like a chump when they continue to get hit by it. I get that, but on one hand, Cena's stuff gets reversed and kicked out of so often in big matches you kinda have to let him win with it on TV to make those kickouts mean something. Thats why 1 AA beats Dolph. Just setting it up for the kickout Mania against the likes of Punk and Rock.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 29, 2013 16:29:48 GMT -5
This is... I'm trying to think of a good way to phrase it. I mean, you're mixing up having an attention span of longer than five seconds with overanalyzing, first of all. This isn't a glance. Cody/Goldust had an extended interaction during the rumble that had several spotlit moments, and Cole wouldn't shut up about them during that time. Second, anyway, yes there HAS always been something wrong with having nothing moments, because it's a waste. Having cool moments doesn't preclude having longer storylines. Why not script cool moments...... and THEN script storylines that come from them? It's not an either/or. Seriously, I can't understand this mindset that it's good to NOT have people involved in something over time, and it's good to avoid any thought that a midcarder might be, lest you be overanalyzing. It's just continuity. Cody and Goldust have had segments in the past, some funny, some played straight (the funny ones were better). They didn't lead to full on angles in the past, and we were all better for it. when you have 30 people and more than an hour, you can do that. I don't even know what you're talking about in the last part. No one said that midcarders shouldn't have angles or that you can't have confrontations lead to angles. You're acting like I'm railing against the notion of Cody Rhodes being involved in anything, which is ridiculous. I'm against the idea of a feud with Goldust, and I don't agree with the notion that not being on TV after having a cool rumble is better than being squashed after having a cool rumble moment. I don't know how you go from that to "midcarders shouldn't have feuds." And really, I just disagree about the Rumble. There isn't anything wrong with having interactions in the Rumble that don't lead to anything. There isn't anything wrong with just trying to entertain for that one match without constantly being driven to turn everything into an angle. There isn't anything wrong with having one tag team member eliminate another and not have it lead to tension or a break up between them. There isn't anything wrong with recognizing that these two superstars were angry at each other before without starting a new feud between them. There isn't anything wrong with booking a Rumble without micromanaging every aspect and making sure all the cool moments go to the main eventers and uppercarders that you have wrestlemania ideas for. And that line of thinking is far from being what's wrong with the WWE. In fact, in many ways, things would be better if they'd be willing to spend some time in random, feudless matches than to make every match and promo and segment a guy has be with the person he's feuding with. He didn't do a single comedic thing Sunday night, and I'd say he was in the top five (maybe top 8) of overness. I think his elimination got the second biggest boo after Jericho. Also, I can't believe you remembered his horrible tourettes gimmick but DIDN'T remember all the real sympathy he had during Bookdust, or during ECW. Just because they keep GIVING him comedy gimmicks, that doesn't mean that's all that works. That's circular reasoning It's a nostalgia pop. Surprise entrances, especially those from the attitude era, tend to get those in the Rumble. Having a crowd that's into it adds to the match, but there's a difference between that and being excited to see a guy in a singles feud. And even in Bookdust (I watched Goldust in ECW and really don't recall any major angle he was in) he was still primarily a comedy character. People tend to get attached to comedy characters as much as any other, so seeing that character getting ridiculed or talked down to can get them sympathy, but it doesn't mean they buy them as a serious character. Meanwhile, he tried being serious in WCW and it didn't work, and he tried... something that was different in TNA and it didn't work. There's a reason he keep coming back as Goldust, and it's not really because he just chooses to ignore the vastness of range that he's hiding. And that's bad.... but are you arguing that it's BETTER for him to show up only to immediately lose? Do you think that's going to gain him any fans? The WWE has trained their audience to hate losers, even as they have people win and lose willy-nilly. Yes, it is better. It's not ideal, it's not the very best thing they could have done for him, but it's better to be on TV and lose quickly to the face of the company than to not be on TV at all. It's better to get an entrance and actually have the crowd be forced to remember that you exist than to sit at home and have no one thinking about you in a business that is entirely about based around being noticed. Cody is a midcard heel, losing in a squash to Cena doesn't hurt him, and it's far better than to not exist to the crowd. No, I said that it's better for him to not be there getting squashed IF they have a plan for him. And if they DON'T have a plan for him, they should have devoted his spotlight time in the Rumble to someone they DO have a plan for. It's whiplash for him to go from Tag-teamer to Singles-wrestler-with-family-issues to Jobber in two nights. Cody could have a feud, here. Instead, they're using him to get squashed by Cena, when that spot could have been taken by someone else. OR someone ELSE could have a feud, and Cody could get squashed. You're defending Cody having that time that leads nowhere and then being squashed. It's that thinking that leads to a lack of midcard feuds. Which is the very thing I find ridiculous. Not being allowed to show off if they don't have anything planned for you just means they don't ever have a reason to plan something for you. Cody could have a feud, and he should have a feud quickly, and it would be better if it was with anyone other than his brother. Their interaction in the Rumble match should be left as nothing more than a fun moment of continuity and trolling Cody. As for the last part, please, that whole condescending thing is complete and total horsecrap. The type of thinking that leads to a lack of midcard feuds is people within the company (of which I am not nor will ever be) thinking that the crowd only cares about the main eventers and thus they should be the only ones ever focused on. Since the plans for future at the time of the Rumble tend to involve the main event more than the midcarders, your reasoning would just lead to only the main eventers and upper-mid carders getting to have cool moments while everyone else is cannon fodder.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Jan 29, 2013 16:36:04 GMT -5
how dare Hulk Hogan beat Boris Zhukov on Superstars in 2 minutes!
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 29, 2013 17:54:27 GMT -5
It's just continuity. Cody and Goldust have had segments in the past, some funny, some played straight (the funny ones were better). They didn't lead to full on angles in the past, and we were all better for it. when you have 30 people and more than an hour, you can do that. I don't even know what you're talking about in the last part. No one said that midcarders shouldn't have angles or that you can't have confrontations lead to angles. You're acting like I'm railing against the notion of Cody Rhodes being involved in anything, which is ridiculous. I'm against the idea of a feud with Goldust, and I don't agree with the notion that not being on TV after having a cool rumble is better than being squashed after having a cool rumble moment. I don't know how you go from that to "midcarders shouldn't have feuds." Wait, so... you're in favor of continuity from years ago, but NOT from Sunday night to Monday night? We just disagree about Goldust, but I cannot wrap my mind around the point you're making. You're saying that there should be things aired on television, during a continuing, serial show, that have nothing to do with anything and won't go anywhere? That's terrible storytelling. Not every tag team has to break up if one eliminates the other, but SOMETHING should happen, otherwise they might as well stamp WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU on their foreheads. But if they HAD these ideas for everyone, they wouldn't just go to the main eventers. See, again, you are doing this weird thing conflating overinvolvement ("micromanaging" for the bookers, "overanalyzing" for the audience) with expecting that the WWE wouldn't have their midcarders be doing pointless things on camera. I'm saying you're against midcard storylines, because Cody's time Monday night was wasted. It COULD have involved something that was somehow related to what happened the night before (feud with Goldust, I suggest, or maybe something with Sandow), but they chose to not write that story. And you seem to be okay with that, because "Eh, he'll be fine." I like you using Kofi as your example, because his Rumble Moment was so obviously just there to be a Rumble Moment, it was DEPRESSING. He might as well have been carrying around a sign that says, "I'm the guy that has Rumble Moments, and that's legit all they have in mind for me." First, I'm sorry that I'm attributing a conclusion to you that you apparently don't agree with, but I think you're reading in that I'm being condescending. Anyway, I'm confused about what you're saying. Cody should get a feud, but also he should be able to get over doing meaningless things without a feud? But... if he had a feud, he wouldn't have to be doing meaningless things to get over. You seem to be trying to have one foot in reality-only-main-eventers-count land and one foot in fantasy-midcarders-get-stories land, and it's confusing. The other thing is, whenever anyone has a question to the plot of a TV show, the answer shouldn't be "Don't think about it." This isn't asking how Joel eats and breathes; this is something that they devoted time and attention to explicitly showing us Sunday night, and it's confusing to the point that people don't even know if the Rhodes Scholars are even still a tag team. It's not good writing if the answer is, "You're not supposed to be thinking about fifty percent of the people on screen right now; just pay attention to Cena."
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jan 29, 2013 18:34:29 GMT -5
I will ignore it and not let it affect my opinion of Cody.
It reminds me of something in the 90's. When WWF was setting up to push Sid against Diesel, Sid squashed Razor Ramon. A year or so later, Sid needed the 1-2-3 Kid's help to win against him.
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Scrotum on Jan 29, 2013 18:41:46 GMT -5
Where was this thread when he was losing singles matches to Kane and DBry in 2 minutes? Because Cena. EXACTLY.
|
|
Cronant
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,556
|
Post by Cronant on Jan 29, 2013 18:45:00 GMT -5
2 weeks ago Daniel Bryan made Cody tap out in 1 minute and 15 seconds.
2 weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 29, 2013 19:33:36 GMT -5
Wait, so... you're in favor of continuity from years ago, but NOT from Sunday night to Monday night? They didn't change continuity from Sunday Night to Monday Night. Not immediately starting a feud with Goldust doesn't mean continuity has been changed or altered, it just means he's not entering a feud. He's had negative interactions with Goldust in the past, it doesn't mean he has to jump into a feud with him as soon as they interact again. First, I'm sorry that I'm attributing a conclusion to you that you apparently don't agree with, but I think you're reading in that I'm being condescending. Anyway, I'm confused about what you're saying. Cody should get a feud, but also he should be able to get over doing meaningless things without a feud? But... if he had a feud, he wouldn't have to be doing meaningless things to get over. You seem to be trying to have one foot in reality-only-main-eventers-count land and one foot in fantasy-midcarders-get-stories land, and it's confusing. Combining response because the length is getting a tad ridiculous. I don't see where you're getting this switch between ME'ers and midcard feuds and such from, it all started with a pretty simple question. "After the rumble, would it be better for Cody to be on TV and lose to Cena than to not be on TV at all." You said no, because he got some focus in the rumble with Goldust and if he's not furthering that, he shouldn't be on. I disagreed, and think it's better for a heel to be on TV against the face of the company than to not be on, even if it's not furthering some feud. How you got "you're saying midcard feuds are pointless, only main eventers matter" out of that is beyond me, but he was on the A-Show, he got an entrance, people saw him, he got a Raw paycheck, and being a heel who loses just about all the time, he's not going to be crushed by jobbing to Cena. I don't think that's a travesty, even if it's not starting a new feud. The second part is the "meaningless" events that happen. You seem adamantly against things that don't relate to a storyline, calling it bad storytelling. I disagree. I'm fine with nods to continuity, fights between people who never got along, and the various winks to the audience. These things are fun, they reward you if you've been around and are paying attention. It's not bad storytelling to have them in there anymore than it's bad storytelling to have an ancillary character in a movie or book with a few lines that you never see again. The Rumble is the absolute perfect time for that these things, because you have 30 guys, an hour+ to burn, and a match that is traditionally really fun. You can do things that make it more interesting without focusing solely and entirely on the next big feud. You can do things that are just done for the short term and not cheapen the product or the guys in it at all. Finally, above all else, they present wrestling as a sport, which gives a built in reason for them to have guys compete. They all want the Wrestlemania main event, regardless of gimmick, regardless allegiances, and since the first Rumble, faces would have to beat faces and heels would have to beat heels if they wanted to win it, which they all do. Because of that, they don't need to explain that people are still friends after a match, they have a built in reason. And I think fans are generally smart enough that they don't need to see, for example, a tag team stare down and then shake hands the next night if they had to fight in the Rumble. To me, it's worse storytelling to hold the audience's hand through everything than to let the audience piece together things that aren't that far apart. And the lack of patience is really just something I can't relate to, I don't need to see Rhodes Scholars together right now to allay fears that they've broken up, nor do I need to see the next feud begin that next night to know that there's going to be a next feud. I know WWE has a tendency to blow their load early, but I'm just fine with waiting a week or two for things to settle down, especially when they decided to do a gimmick the next night that was going to suck life out of the show.
|
|