Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 9:27:40 GMT -5
Quite a few times actually though admittedly they are exceptions and not the rule. I could list at least 5 examples right now. I could. If there are exceptions then the rule is no longer the rule.
|
|
|
Post by BV on Nov 27, 2013 11:18:12 GMT -5
I think a decent one would be Punk as WWE champ not main eventing PPVs initially. Cue the heel turn and boom. A heel turn that didn't remotely catch on with live crowds, even got people around here posting complaints about how grating Punk's character throughout was, and served no real purpose besides setting up Cena winning the title for the bajillionth time before it was promptly undone entirely leading to the Punk / Heyman feud that if there's any justice in this world will get the Gooker? That worked out great. Just another situation of people on here never being happy. Bitched when Punk wasn't main eventing and still bitched when he was. He was getting good matches out of RYBACK for f***s sake. Punk's heel work was really good.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Nov 27, 2013 11:45:56 GMT -5
But I digress: back to Summer of Punk. He comes out and does a "shoot" promo that basically says how bad everything in the WWE is and, well, how HHH and McMahon are bad for business. Now forget about the taking the title with him, going to indy shows with it (never was that going to happen): where was that supposed to go? He comes out every week and talks about how things still stink, how the product is so bad that no one should watch it, how they better do things the way he wants, etc. And what? WWE changes to everything he suggests and he wins and the entire wrestling fan community is happy? Well were they going to put him change of creative, or were the things he cut kayfabe promos about wanting to do in reality be coming from the same power structure he was supposed to be opposing? Were the McMahons going to relinquish control of their company to new "authority" figures? And if so, in kayfabe, umm, wouldn't those people be acting out exactly what the McMahons scripted? The other thing that bugs me: pretty much the same people who applauded the pipe bomb -- which buried WWE and said the product was crap -- are the same people who got upset that the heel Authority said that Daniel Bryan wasn't an A-plus player and couldn't be the Face of WWE. To me, that's a heel putting down a babyface, but the reaction was as if it had been put in the WWE's annual report to stockholders. Yet Punk put down the entire product, in effect saying 'don't watch this,' and it was the best thing ever. I don't get it. The reason it worked wasn't just wrestling- it's all of society with how the media has changed. The country's news is so fragmented right now- on every channel- that by the end, everyone who watches the news (even if you don't think you are, you ARE) have the reaction of "YAAAAY! [news anchor of choice] is saying things I BELIEVE!" The pipe bomb was just pro wrestling's example of it- CM Punk buried the WWE and said the product was crap, and he became beloved for it by people who...not-so-secretly already THOUGHT the WWE product was crap but they watched anyways. The Punk tagline "Voice of the Smarks,er, Voiceless" was the real selling point for the whole thing- he said all the things every smark already believed about WWE, the smarks said "YAAAAAY! CM Punk is saying things I BELIEVE!", and Punk became a hero because of it.
|
|
kevin
El Dandy
Posts: 7,516
|
Post by kevin on Nov 27, 2013 11:52:16 GMT -5
The Nexus one is something i never understood because i felt they were booked perfectly and were the most entertaining part of Raw up till Cena buried Wade under chairs after which there was no where else to go the story was over and if they made a DVD about it i would watch it multiple times. It was a great story from begging to end. What was there to possibly wait for?
The only problem with Nexus was what to do with them next and while what they choose wasn't great it was never going to be as good. Nexus had served its purpose and done it perfectly. What was the problem exactly?
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Nov 27, 2013 11:56:48 GMT -5
Just another situation of people on here never being happy. Bitched when Punk wasn't main eventing and still bitched when he was. He was getting good matches out of RYBACK for f***s sake. Punk's heel work was really good. It's not about "never being happy". It's about doing things at the right time for the benefit of everyone. Did turning heel give Punk new momentum as champion? Yeah it did, it probably doubled his overall title reign...and that's about it. It was the most forced and contrived heel turn since Austin's in 2001. Again, they refuse to understand that the people weren't interested in a heel Punk, so they kept trying and trying and trying to get heat. They'd get some heat, but then they'd go to the next city and he'd be cheered again. I don't know...maybe it's just me, but after about a couple months of that or even a few weeks, I'd come to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it. I remember originally people were saying that Punk wasn't a heel...shades of gray...all that shit, it was funny because I knew that it was only the beginning and that Punk was going to need to jump through the most ridiculous hoops in order to garner the response he wanted, the same as Austin. And less than a year later, Punk is back to being the guy everybody wants him to be. It was a poorly timed turn that nobody outside of those people who only cheer heels wanted. So when people "bitched" about his heel turn, maybe it was because we had the foresight to understand that it wasn't going to work out very well. WWE is a predictable system. It isn't cynicism when someone calls them out on doing the same shit without any ability to think outside of the box or to change their system. And a lot of people continue to fall for it or make excuses for it. If you like it...I guess good for you. But I'd expect more out of a company that makes bold claims about how much they want to grow, yet they continue to regress with the product they put out week after week. When is it enough?
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 27, 2013 11:58:16 GMT -5
The Nexus one is something i never understood because i felt they were booked perfectly and were the most entertaining part of Raw up till Cena buried Wade under chairs after which there was no where else to go the story was over and if they made a DVD about it i would watch it multiple times. It was a great story from begging to end. What was there to possibly wait for? The only problem with Nexus was what to do with them next and while what they choose wasn't great it was never going to be as good. Nexus had served its purpose and done it perfectly. What was the problem exactly? My problem with the Nexus angle was that it made no sense creatively. Have a show that specifically builds them, that's the whole point of it. They debut as the heel stable, a unit that was out to prove itself. The end game? They all got fed to Cena then disbanded. I guess it's just like the Spirit Squad just being DX fodder, except the company didn't have a show that was built for the Spirit Squad.
|
|
Madagascar Fred
El Dandy
TAFKA roidzilla and SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH SON!
Posts: 8,784
|
Post by Madagascar Fred on Nov 27, 2013 11:59:19 GMT -5
besides Shield, nothing has panned out better than expected in the past 2 years or so
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 12:18:06 GMT -5
The Nexus one is something i never understood because i felt they were booked perfectly and were the most entertaining part of Raw up till Cena buried Wade under chairs after which there was no where else to go the story was over and if they made a DVD about it i would watch it multiple times. It was a great story from begging to end. What was there to possibly wait for? The only problem with Nexus was what to do with them next and while what they choose wasn't great it was never going to be as good. Nexus had served its purpose and done it perfectly. What was the problem exactly? It was mostly the last month. It had its spotty moments before then, but it was ridiculous how as soon as was fired Cena was able to effortlessly dismantle the group within weeks, was still getting theme music, and all of that. They had the perfect opening to take it to Mania and make a huge moment where Cena triumphed, with the crowd for once fully behind him, and they blew it in favor of the biggest heel on the roster throughout the year losing in a three minute tag match. That being said, 2010 was far and away my favorite year in WWE in recent memory and I think Nexus easily tops all of the big summer angles that have come in its wake.
|
|
|
Post by kingoftheindies on Nov 27, 2013 12:36:44 GMT -5
I remember when the Real Americans got nothing but criticism (after about three weeks) and how they were going to be disbanded after Swagger's arrest. They are quite over on the midcard. I'm in the "18 seconds turned out to be a good thing for Bryan" crowd. Some deny it, but it was the first domino in a sequence that took him to where he is now, and most of those sequences (Anger Management being one) were crapped upon when they first started. The one I never got was how Summer of Punk was supposed to work in the long run. Yeah, I agree on the Kevin Nash thing but I still think it sparked Punk to true main event status. But I digress: back to Summer of Punk. He comes out and does a "shoot" promo that basically says how bad everything in the WWE is and, well, how HHH and McMahon are bad for business. Now forget about the taking the title with him, going to indy shows with it (never was that going to happen): where was that supposed to go? He comes out every week and talks about how things still stink, how the product is so bad that no one should watch it, how they better do things the way he wants, etc. And what? WWE changes to everything he suggests and he wins and the entire wrestling fan community is happy? Well were they going to put him change of creative, or were the things he cut kayfabe promos about wanting to do in reality be coming from the same power structure he was supposed to be opposing? Were the McMahons going to relinquish control of their company to new "authority" figures? And if so, in kayfabe, umm, wouldn't those people be acting out exactly what the McMahons scripted? The other thing that bugs me: pretty much the same people who applauded the pipe bomb -- which buried WWE and said the product was crap -- are the same people who got upset that the heel Authority said that Daniel Bryan wasn't an A-plus player and couldn't be the Face of WWE. To me, that's a heel putting down a babyface, but the reaction was as if it had been put in the WWE's annual report to stockholders. Yet Punk put down the entire product, in effect saying 'don't watch this,' and it was the best thing ever. I don't get it. See my bigger issue with the Summer of Punk was how Rey and Miz actually had a great match to determine a new champ only to have Rey lose to Cena in the exact same night. The whole thing with Nash ended up getting derailed because Nash was on blood thinners and couldn't compete initially. Yeah it all ended up being a huge mess, but again my bigger issue was that that mini tournament did nothing for anybody. In a similar vein I never got the outburst towards Orton beating Christian. Granted, Christian winning the title was a cool moment, but IMO it was a bad move. 1)Alberto Del Rio was actually really over as a heel back then, and having him lose to Christian and then get drafted to Raw took away any momentum he had. 2)While Christian was over, the win was nothing more than a sympathy victory since his best friend was retiring. I like Christian just fine, but I didn't feel he should have won the title when he did. And even back then on Smackdown he didn't really seem like a main event player to me compared to others.
|
|
|
Post by crowwreak was WRONG on Nov 27, 2013 19:34:23 GMT -5
Big Show winning the ECW belt in 2006 and his title reign. But that sucked harder than Chyna at a porn convention
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Nov 27, 2013 22:27:48 GMT -5
Wait and see...when Steve Austin started in WWE as the ring master and was put with Debiase nobody saw a thing interesting in him. Vince could have cut his losses after a yr or so but he stayed with it. There were some things during his feud later with Bret Hart, that were borderline crazy because of the state of writing at the time. His new attitude had a lot of detractors. But they and we stayed with it. Glad that happened.
Just because an angle of or segment don't immediately pay off your guy does not mean it won't. There are a million reasons for that. He doesn't get the belt when you think he should, well maybe he didn't because they want him in a stronger program with another established star to make him more credible when he does finally get it. Not in WWE but TNA, two yrs ago Bobby Roode was pushed to the moon as a super over baby face. The plan was to give him the belt at BFG. They didn't do it. Fans lost their minds and I said wait and see. I said he would switch heel, get the belt and it would mean more. He did and it did. He went on to have a long rieghn as champion and has ever since, been a main stay of the company. His losing the title to AA galvanized Aries so it meant something. The shame is he has not returned to that level, but because he has been there and I have watched enough wrestling to know, he will get back there BC they made him so strong then. Wait and see does exist and it does work. The follow up to a payoff has to be ready made and if it is not than you cannot and should not do the payoff.
|
|
Talent Name
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway. Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 63,745
|
Post by Talent Name on Nov 27, 2013 22:40:31 GMT -5
@supersweetbotch You brought up a good point with Cody, it also revitalized Goldust as well and he has given his best work in years. I honestly think Batista's first push was an example of this
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Nov 27, 2013 22:46:28 GMT -5
Wait and see...when Steve Austin started in WWE as the ring master and was put with Debiase nobody saw a thing interesting in him. Vince could have cut his losses after a yr or so but he stayed with it. There were some things during his feud later with Bret Hart, that were borderline crazy because of the state of writing at the time. His new attitude had a lot of detractors. But they and we stayed with it. Glad that happened. Just because an angle of or segment don't immediately pay off your guy does not mean it won't. There are a million reasons for that. He doesn't get the belt when you think he should, well maybe he didn't because they want him in a stronger program with another established star to make him more credible when he does finally get it. Not in WWE but TNA, two yrs ago Bobby Roode was pushed to the moon as a super over baby face. The plan was to give him the belt at BFG. They didn't do it. Fans lost their minds and I said wait and see. I said he would switch heel, get the belt and it would mean more. He did and it did. He went on to have a long rieghn as champion and has ever since, been a main stay of the company. His losing the title to AA galvanized Aries so it meant something. The shame is he has not returned to that level, but because he has been there and I have watched enough wrestling to know, he will get back there BC they made him so strong then. Wait and see does exist and it does work. The follow up to a payoff has to be ready made and if it is not than you cannot and should not do the payoff. No. The Ringmaster gimmick is almost completely independent of what Austin became, you can't use that as an example of why anyone should be happy to wait for the end result of a bad storyline. Also the Authority isn't some new or edgy gimmick like Stone Cold was. It's the same old evil boss routine we've seen on and off (more on) over the past years. Plus I will always say their booking of Roode just before that reign was done wrong. They rushed his turn that could have been done over a longer term period and crammed it into about two weeks. Also how was his win on a taped show a more meaningful one than potentially dethroning the heel champion during their marquee show? They till could have had him drop the belt to Storm and turn heel during the rematch and had the same result leading to the same reign. But at least that show wouldn't have had such a downer ending. If you want to use an example of a story that started off slow or questionably then those things that made it that way have to mean something in the end. For example the 2008 Michaels/Jericho feud started off as a kind of awkward feud between Batista and Michaels over the latter retiring Flair, while Jericho played devil's advocate on the sidelines. It ended with Michaels feigning an injury and causing Chris Jericho to turn heel due to that, becoming the man who wanted to out the hyprocrites and liars. Here, the weird Batista/Michaels stuff added to the context of what the feud eventually became, created a fresh new character, and also played tribute to the one that came before it. It also didn't sacrifice entertainment or key story points to get there either ala the TNA example above.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Nov 27, 2013 23:10:57 GMT -5
You guys are all just impatient entitled smarks. The Triple H/Stephanie/Angle love triangle, who ran over Stone Cold, the Invasion, the new nWo, Booker T being proven to be the inferior race, the ECW revival, the Nexus, CM Punk walking out, Kevin Nash's text, Daniel Bryan's main event run, and everything about the John Cena character ever are all going to pay off at the exact same time. Any day now. Remember the Attitude Era? How could the company that gave us the Attitude Era ever let us down? This is going to be the most brilliant culmination of storylines of all time and you're all going to have to eat crow.
|
|
Crimson
Hank Scorpio
Thank you DWade
Posts: 6,511
|
Post by Crimson on Nov 28, 2013 11:14:53 GMT -5
People said CM Punk got ruined by Triple H and Nash, and then he got over a year long title reign.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 28, 2013 11:24:13 GMT -5
People said CM Punk got ruined by Triple H and Nash, and then he got over a year long title reign. Yes, this is true, but even WWE is not powerful enough to hold someone back after they name-drop Colt Cabana in a promo.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 28, 2013 11:48:03 GMT -5
People weren't really saying that Punk got ruined by HHH and Nash; but that that particular story was derailed and ruined, which, well it was. There's zero way to spin the beginning ending up that way as any sorta positive.
Punk's title reign was an entirely different angle.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Nov 28, 2013 11:55:44 GMT -5
People weren't really saying that Punk got ruined by HHH and Nash; but that that particular story was derailed and ruined, which, well it was. There's zero way to spin the beginning ending up that way as any sorta positive. Punk's title reign was an entirely different angle. The way I see it, it could have been the difference between Punk becoming a Hogan/Austin/Rock tier guy or becoming a Hart/HBK tier guy after all is said and done... Being the latter is BY NO MEANS a bad thing whatsoever, but there was quite a bit of lost potential.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 28, 2013 11:58:18 GMT -5
Agreed, it was a case of something that coulda been much better.
And plus let's not act like Punk was the focus for his entire title reign either, dude wasn't even main eventing most of those ppvs.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 28, 2013 15:10:07 GMT -5
Agreed, it was a case of something that coulda been much better. And plus let's not act like Punk was the focus for his entire title reign either, dude wasn't even main eventing most of those ppvs. Perhaps this will sound weird, but if we look at an angle and apply the Checkov's Gun theory, does it prove anything? If something appears, it has to become important, otherwise it's a waste. Nash in the Punk storyline was not needed, because it wound up having no purpose other than giving Triple H a reason to be in the storyline. Punk's mention of Triple H meant that, according to Checkov, he HAD to become involved. As the heel, which I would argue Punk wasn't really a heel at that point but since Triple H was the "face" then Punk had to be the heel, Triple H HAD to win. However, by that very same logic, what we've seen with the Bryan/Authority storyline, it should be over with, and Bryan should have won already. Bryan should have won the title from Orton, and vanquished all three heels in the first meeting. I'm not saying I want to always be that way, but if the Summer of Punk went as it should have, with the babyface coming out and saying "Enough of your crap" and winning, then the Summer of Bryan should end the exact same way. Granted, this would mean that Bryan would get a long title run, but as with Punk, Jericho, He Who Can't Be Named, or any Big Show title run, the focus will remain elsewhere.
|
|