|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Sept 25, 2013 5:57:31 GMT -5
Are people really complaining about a group of people who have contestnly ganged on their opponents, ambushed people backstage etc for the past several months getting a taste of their own medicine.
Seesh its almost like some people want to the faces to act like freaking gandhi whenever a heel attacks them.
|
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,615
|
Post by trollrogue on Sept 25, 2013 5:57:37 GMT -5
The Usos have been steadily pushed for a while, so I kind of expected them to look good. But it does seem kind of suspect that Darren put up decent fight compared to most of the other low carders in the match while his own tag team partner was taken out rather quickly. Especially since the crowd popped rather huge at the prospect of seeing a Reigns/Titus "Power vs. Power" brawl. And then didn't really get much of it. Titus going up against the Wyatt Family and the Shield all in the same night, not to mention main eventing RAW and being included in the hottest storyline (featuring HHH and Stephanie McMahon) currently in the WWE is totally a step forward for him. The incredible part is that Wyatts and the Shield, like the PTPs, are all from NXT and they are all pretty much at that upper-mid/main event level already this fast in their young careers.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Sept 25, 2013 6:10:21 GMT -5
I'd like to think that HHH was counting on the Yes Union to be weakened a day demoralized enough for the Shield to pick apart for the main event. That's why we had those matches featuring members of the Union early on. I'd also like to think that said plan blew up in H's face, on the account of unexpected occurrences like the Rhodes family attacking Shield before the match. plus didn't he make a comment during making the match suggesting maybe Bryan wouldn't try hard for them in the match, trying to sew some dissent.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Sept 25, 2013 7:18:20 GMT -5
Threads like this, folks, are why WWE can never do right, ever, because no one will ever be happy, ever. You can't please everyone all the time.
The match had heat, the fans were into it. And The Sheibd are upper-midcard heels on the cusp of the main events, and an extremely gifted stable. The other lot were a mix of midcard/main event faces (one of which was injured and another of which didn't actually get pinned) and midcard faces and lower, who by rights should be getting brutalised by The Sheibd.
I do, however, agree that this match being booked by Trips was stupid. It's such a babyface move to make.
|
|
|
Post by Friday Night SmackOwn on Sept 25, 2013 7:32:34 GMT -5
Threads like this, folks, are why WWE can never do right, ever, because no one will ever be happy, ever. You can't please everyone all the time. The match had heat, the fans were into it. And The Sheibd are upper-midcard heels on the cusp of the main events, and an extremely gifted stable. The other lot were a mix of midcard/main event faces (one of which was injured and another of which didn't actually get pinned) and midcard faces and lower, who by rights should be getting brutalised by The Sheibd. I do, however, agree that this match being booked by Trips was stupid. It's such a babyface move to make. The announcers did imply that he probably booked the match to take the "heat" off himself as a perceived dictator of a boss, to quash the revolt.
|
|
|
Post by Mesousa287793 on Sept 25, 2013 7:55:38 GMT -5
ONE TIME someone from the Shield gets a taste of their own medicine, and OF COURSE people take it the wrong way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2013 9:06:56 GMT -5
"Getting a taste of your own medicine" is a phrase I seen used a lot here.
Let's be clear - their "medicine" is basically ganging up on people and showing no empathy or mercy. Now, I'm the first to admit that that is WRONG. It makes them look like bad guys, for sure.
So, as viewers of the morality play that is wrestling, SOME PEOPLE, not all - but SOME expect the people who are supposed to represent good to operate on a higher moral plane. Take the high road - even when the people they're going against deserve the low road. It is, well, was, what used to separate the righteous from the villainous.
I don't think anyone is saying the Shield doesn't deserve to get defeated - BIG TIME - but when its 11 on 3, that's not "justice," that's just more injustice in the name of revenge.
This wasn't a match where the playing field was leveled to allow the good guys to get a clean win over the cheating villains, it was the people who were victimized by the Shield doing EXACTLY what the Shield does without the smallest hint of irony.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 26, 2013 10:12:49 GMT -5
"Getting a taste of your own medicine" is a phrase I seen used a lot here. Let's be clear - their "medicine" is basically ganging up on people and showing no empathy or mercy. Now, I'm the first to admit that that is WRONG. It makes them look like bad guys, for sure. So, as viewers of the morality play that is wrestling, SOME PEOPLE, not all - but SOME expect the people who are supposed to represent good to operate on a higher moral plane. Take the high road - even when the people they're going against deserve the low road. It is, well, was, what used to separate the righteous from the villainous. I don't think anyone is saying the Shield doesn't deserve to get defeated - BIG TIME - but when its 11 on 3, that's not "justice," that's just more injustice in the name of revenge. This wasn't a match where the playing field was leveled to allow the good guys to get a clean win over the cheating villains, it was the people who were victimized by the Shield doing EXACTLY what the Shield does without the smallest hint of irony. I'm just not seeing what's considered bad here. They were put in a match by HHH, well after HHH established what happens when you don't do what the corporation tells you to do (see Show, Big and Rhodes, Cody). This situation just happens to involve putting them against the group that was more than willing to tear Dusty Rhodes apart on corporate orders. He even tried to divide the heroes throughout the night. Until those 11 start beating down Dean Ambrose's grandmother, they don't reach the villainy threshold that The Shield has reached. At the end of the day, it's a posse, a posse forming to neutralize a threat to the entire roster. Yes, the final four did surround Rollins and attack him at once, but to me that's no different from a hero taking out a villain in a movie after the villain has done so much worse. Saying that they're being bullies or bad guys would be like saying John McClane is a villain for killing Hans Gruber. You can allow your hero to step beyond the lawful good without them losing their hero status, you have to take the context of the situation into account. I do see what you're saying. They did use the Shield's tactics in that match once Rollins was alone (I don't think you can blame them for 11 on 3, that was HHH). But I don't think that puts them on the same moral plane as the Shield because their actions have a much nobler purpose in that they're out to stop those who are, essentially, terrorizing the company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2013 10:52:16 GMT -5
"Getting a taste of your own medicine" is a phrase I seen used a lot here. Let's be clear - their "medicine" is basically ganging up on people and showing no empathy or mercy. Now, I'm the first to admit that that is WRONG. It makes them look like bad guys, for sure. So, as viewers of the morality play that is wrestling, SOME PEOPLE, not all - but SOME expect the people who are supposed to represent good to operate on a higher moral plane. Take the high road - even when the people they're going against deserve the low road. It is, well, was, what used to separate the righteous from the villainous. I don't think anyone is saying the Shield doesn't deserve to get defeated - BIG TIME - but when its 11 on 3, that's not "justice," that's just more injustice in the name of revenge. This wasn't a match where the playing field was leveled to allow the good guys to get a clean win over the cheating villains, it was the people who were victimized by the Shield doing EXACTLY what the Shield does without the smallest hint of irony. I'm just not seeing what's considered bad here. They were put in a match by HHH, well after HHH established what happens when you don't do what the corporation tells you to do (see Show, Big and Rhodes, Cody). This situation just happens to involve putting them against the group that was more than willing to tear Dusty Rhodes apart on corporate orders. He even tried to divide the heroes throughout the night. Until those 11 start beating down Dean Ambrose's grandmother, they don't reach the villainy threshold that The Shield has reached. At the end of the day, it's a posse, a posse forming to neutralize a threat to the entire roster. Yes, the final four did surround Rollins and attack him at once, but to me that's no different from a hero taking out a villain in a movie after the villain has done so much worse. Saying that they're being bullies or bad guys would be like saying John McClane is a villain for killing Hans Gruber. You can allow your hero to step beyond the lawful good without them losing their hero status, you have to take the context of the situation into account. I do see what you're saying. They did use the Shield's tactics in that match once Rollins was alone (I don't think you can blame them for 11 on 3, that was HHH). But I don't think that puts them on the same moral plane as the Shield because their actions have a much nobler purpose in that they're out to stop those who are, essentially, terrorizing the company. There's a big difference in the Die Hard example. Gruber had his wife held hostage and was going to kill her. This would be more like if Hans Gruber told Karl to leave his gun behind and take a run at a fully armed McClane and then McClane riddled him with bullets. Regarding the whole "nobler" purpose thing, you're basically treading into "the ends justify the means" territory - which, I'm pretty flexible on to be honest. Also, saying that HHH set the match up so its not really on the Faces is kind of a cop out considering their whole thing on Monday was DEFYING HHH's orders. Look, I'm not saying that the Yes Union are a bunch of dirty heels like the Shield, just that, when you're trying to get justice and fairness you have to start by being just and fair yourself. If you're just out for revenge and/or vigilante justice, then by all means, Let's Get Nuts!/KeatonBatman
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Sept 26, 2013 10:58:50 GMT -5
Seriously, if the "faces are jerks!" meme wasn't old before, it most certainly is now. The Shield had their beatdowns coming, the faces are still sympathetic, and y'all have nothing more than kindergarten-level arguments left to use. Give it a rest.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 26, 2013 11:11:11 GMT -5
There's a big difference in the Die Hard example. Gruber had his wife held hostage and was going to kill her. This would be more like if Hans Gruber told Karl to leave his gun behind and take a run at a fully armed McClane and then McClane riddled him with bullets. Regarding the whole "nobler" purpose thing, you're basically treading into "the ends justify the means" territory - which, I'm pretty flexible on to be honest. Also, saying that HHH set the match up so its not really on the Faces is kind of a cop out considering their whole thing on Monday was DEFYING HHH's orders. Look, I'm not saying that the Yes Union are a bunch of dirty heels like the Shield, just that, when you're trying to get justice and fairness you have to start by being just and fair yourself. If you're just out for revenge and/or vigilante justice, then by all means, Let's Get Nuts!/KeatonBatman You could fit in most any murderer in movies and it'd be the same thing though. The entire point is that it's not wrong to kill a villain in a movie if the villain has acted in such a way that makes him a danger to society. Wrestling logic follows entertainment logic more than real life logic, so you have to look at it from that way. I think people try to apply real world logic to it in cases like this (when they try to villify the heroes actions), and if we do that then there are some real big problems with pretty much every angle. When I talk about a nobler purpose, I'm not arguing that they can necessarily do anything, but I am saying that beating down villains to get them to think twice about assaulting senior citizens isn't a bad thing. They can be beaten in matches, they have been before. But that hasn't stopped them from doing what they're doing. So you have to send a stronger message. Ganging up on Rollins was justified in that way, because they're not going to stop just from getting pinned.
|
|
|
Post by Bootista on Sept 26, 2013 11:16:40 GMT -5
Shiebd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2013 11:19:00 GMT -5
There's a big difference in the Die Hard example. Gruber had his wife held hostage and was going to kill her. This would be more like if Hans Gruber told Karl to leave his gun behind and take a run at a fully armed McClane and then McClane riddled him with bullets. Regarding the whole "nobler" purpose thing, you're basically treading into "the ends justify the means" territory - which, I'm pretty flexible on to be honest. Also, saying that HHH set the match up so its not really on the Faces is kind of a cop out considering their whole thing on Monday was DEFYING HHH's orders. Look, I'm not saying that the Yes Union are a bunch of dirty heels like the Shield, just that, when you're trying to get justice and fairness you have to start by being just and fair yourself. If you're just out for revenge and/or vigilante justice, then by all means, Let's Get Nuts!/KeatonBatman You could fit in most any murderer in movies and it'd be the same thing though. The entire point is that it's not wrong to kill a villain in a movie if the villain has acted in such a way that makes him a danger to society. Wrestling logic follows entertainment logic more than real life logic, so you have to look at it from that way. I think people try to apply real world logic to it in cases like this (when they try to villify the heroes actions), and if we do that then there are some real big problems with pretty much every angle. When I talk about a nobler purpose, I'm not arguing that they can necessarily do anything, but I am saying that beating down villains to get them to think twice about assaulting senior citizens isn't a bad thing. They can be beaten in matches, they have been before. But that hasn't stopped them from doing what they're doing. So you have to send a stronger message. Ganging up on Rollins was justified in that way, because they're not going to stop just from getting pinned. It seems like a very uncreative way to send a stronger message though. Pretty much doing what exactly what the bad guys do? Its not like they're going to wake up on Tuesday and go, "Oh man, is THAT what that feels like? Huh. I guess we should stop." I mean, all ganging up on them really does is show them that ganging up works - you just need MORE people. You make it sound like ganging up on them is the ONLY option. They could outwit/outsmart them in SO many other ways that would be A) more creative B) less morally ambiguous and C) really show the bad guys that their tactics aren't the best option. If the faces out-smarted the heels that led to a victory for the faces then the heels would see that having superior numbers isn't everything. That's how you send a message. Look, I see what you're saying, in movies its okay to kill the killer or torture the torturer, but even in the good versions of those types movies the hero will often questions their actions. Its only in the campy/cheesy action films that the good guy rides off into the sunset after killing tons of bad guys without a care in the world. But wrestling is pretty campy/cheesy so, there ya go. hahaha!
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 26, 2013 11:30:51 GMT -5
You could fit in most any murderer in movies and it'd be the same thing though. The entire point is that it's not wrong to kill a villain in a movie if the villain has acted in such a way that makes him a danger to society. Wrestling logic follows entertainment logic more than real life logic, so you have to look at it from that way. I think people try to apply real world logic to it in cases like this (when they try to villify the heroes actions), and if we do that then there are some real big problems with pretty much every angle. When I talk about a nobler purpose, I'm not arguing that they can necessarily do anything, but I am saying that beating down villains to get them to think twice about assaulting senior citizens isn't a bad thing. They can be beaten in matches, they have been before. But that hasn't stopped them from doing what they're doing. So you have to send a stronger message. Ganging up on Rollins was justified in that way, because they're not going to stop just from getting pinned. It seems like a very uncreative way to send a stronger message though. Pretty much doing what exactly what the bad guys do? Its not like they're going to wake up on Tuesday and go, "Oh man, is THAT what that feels like? Huh. I guess we should stop." I mean, all ganging up on them really does is show them that ganging up works - you just need MORE people. You make it sound like ganging up on them is the ONLY option. They could outwit/outsmart them in SO many other ways that would be A) more creative B) less morally ambiguous and C) really show the bad guys that their tactics aren't the best option. If the faces out-smarted the heels that led to a victory for the faces then the heels would see that having superior numbers isn't everything. That's how you send a message. Look, I see what you're saying, in movies its okay to kill the killer or torture the torturer, but even in the good versions of those types movies the hero will often questions their actions. Its only in the campy/cheesy action films that the good guy rides off into the sunset after killing tons of bad guys without a care in the world. But wrestling is pretty campy/cheesy so, there ya go. hahaha! The Shield has lost before though. They've lost matches, they've been pinned, they've submitted, they had their ass kicked by DB pretty much on his own, and it's had no effect on their actions. So I don't think outsmarting and scoring a victory is going to have too much an effect. But if a large chunk of the roster stands up and says they're not going to take it then, if done well (and this is the WWE, so it won't be done well), it does send the message that they can't do it because they'll have to worry about getting attacked by the swarms of people who come to defend whoever they're ganging up on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2013 11:40:29 GMT -5
It seems like a very uncreative way to send a stronger message though. Pretty much doing what exactly what the bad guys do? Its not like they're going to wake up on Tuesday and go, "Oh man, is THAT what that feels like? Huh. I guess we should stop." I mean, all ganging up on them really does is show them that ganging up works - you just need MORE people. You make it sound like ganging up on them is the ONLY option. They could outwit/outsmart them in SO many other ways that would be A) more creative B) less morally ambiguous and C) really show the bad guys that their tactics aren't the best option. If the faces out-smarted the heels that led to a victory for the faces then the heels would see that having superior numbers isn't everything. That's how you send a message. Look, I see what you're saying, in movies its okay to kill the killer or torture the torturer, but even in the good versions of those types movies the hero will often questions their actions. Its only in the campy/cheesy action films that the good guy rides off into the sunset after killing tons of bad guys without a care in the world. But wrestling is pretty campy/cheesy so, there ya go. hahaha! The Shield has lost before though. They've lost matches, they've been pinned, they've submitted, they had their ass kicked by DB pretty much on his own, and it's had no effect on their actions. So I don't think outsmarting and scoring a victory is going to have too much an effect. But if a large chunk of the roster stands up and says they're not going to take it then, if done well (and this is the WWE, so it won't be done well). That's the other issue. If this were a spontaneous roster uprising, that'd be one thing, but because HHH set it all up, it also adds another level of shadiness to the entire ordeal. True, the Shield have lost before, via fair methods, but that goes back to the whole "this is WWE, so it won't be done well" thing. Also, they're never going to reveal what "justice" they're after are they? That's the real injustice of all this: the absolute lack of any kind of character for the Shield beyond, "We beats ups dudes good!" When Ryback has more personality than your group, that's a clear sign something's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Friday Night SmackOwn on Sept 26, 2013 12:28:11 GMT -5
Everyone's just looking at this merely at its surface and not looking deep into why HHH set this little experiment up. It was clear that by tossing the Shield to the wolves, so to speak, it'd make him look like a swell guy in the eyes of his biggest detractors. In saying that, it could later come back to haunt Hunter with either the rebellion not taking any of his shit, or the Shield themselves no longer willing to do his dirty work. Or perhaps even both.
|
|
Essential1
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Essential1 on Sept 26, 2013 13:07:47 GMT -5
Well, payback is a bitch.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Sept 26, 2013 17:17:00 GMT -5
The Shield has lost before though. They've lost matches, they've been pinned, they've submitted, they had their ass kicked by DB pretty much on his own, and it's had no effect on their actions. So I don't think outsmarting and scoring a victory is going to have too much an effect. But if a large chunk of the roster stands up and says they're not going to take it then, if done well (and this is the WWE, so it won't be done well). That's the other issue. If this were a spontaneous roster uprising, that'd be one thing, but because HHH set it all up, it also adds another level of shadiness to the entire ordeal. True, the Shield have lost before, via fair methods, but that goes back to the whole "this is WWE, so it won't be done well" thing. Also, they're never going to reveal what "justice" they're after are they? That's the real injustice of all this: the absolute lack of any kind of character for the Shield beyond, "We beats ups dudes good!" When Ryback has more personality than your group, that's a clear sign something's wrong. I think DNBryan hit the nail on the head. The entire point of this isn't so much 'HHH vs. Daniel Bryan' but 'the roster needs to know their place.' So he's trying to quell what he sees as this roster uprising that came in to save Bryan by making himself out to be not a bad guy, which is what he's been doing from the beginning. But he did try to at least help the Shield out by putting several guys in matches and trying to sew seeds of discord. It just didn't work out. As far as what the Shield is looking for... uhh... Maybe... no more apples in the vending machine?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2013 18:17:38 GMT -5
Threads like this, folks, are why WWE can never do right, ever, because no one will ever be happy, ever. You can't please everyone all the time. The match had heat, the fans were into it. And The Sheibd are upper-midcard heels on the cusp of the main events, and an extremely gifted stable. The other lot were a mix of midcard/main event faces (one of which was injured and another of which didn't actually get pinned) and midcard faces and lower, who by rights should be getting brutalised by The Sheibd. I do, however, agree that this match being booked by Trips was stupid. It's such a babyface move to make. When it comes down to it, that is my only problem with the match, that Triple H booked it. It made no sense, and I've outlined why in other posts. But the Shield getting ganged up on? That was great! It just didn't need to happen within the context of a match, unless a "good guy" authority figure booked it.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Sept 27, 2013 3:28:33 GMT -5
Justice would have been it being 3 or 2 in favor of Shield. And then the rest of the babyface roster stops the Shield from leaving after one is eliminated, and the odds are evened. They then toss two back into the ring, and Bryan and whomever proceed to kick the shit out of Rollins and Reigns straight up while Ambrose is held at bay outside, kept from interfering. That way the faces stop the Shield fair and square, they catch a beating in a just manner, and the rest of the roster is shown as a unified front in keeping gang-attacks from happening ever again.
In morality tales, its custom to have the hero overcome odds. The odds should never be stacked against the villains. It's not as satisfying. It's just not done like that. It tells a better story in reverse.
|
|