|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 26, 2013 22:13:15 GMT -5
I don't care about him being the face of the company. I just wanted a logical conclusion to the storyline.
Daniel Bryan, being dismissed and mocked by an evil authority figure with a favoured and less worthy champion at their side should have eventually overcome his enemy, defeated the corporate champion conclusively, then had a lengthy and dynamic title reign where he took on all comers and eventually proved (with the authority figure's acknowledgement) that he is worthy of that status.
That was how the story should have played out.
But like I've said over the last few days, there is a pattern of booking in WWE where anyone who generates a groundswell of support or challenges the establishment or main antagonist, is eventually sidelined, watered down or outright buried by the establishment and they return to the status quo. If you applied WWE's booking to films (which is perfectly appropriate since they label themselves as an entertainment company) then the following things would have happened.
- Jaws would have killed everyone on the Orca - Hans Gruber would have killed John McClane - Apollo Creed would have won the second match with Rocky Balboa.
This is WWE's mentality.
|
|
|
Post by botchingitup on Nov 26, 2013 22:14:38 GMT -5
"Empathy"? We're talking about a dumb show where people fake fight, it's not like we're discussing serious issues. Nah, we're not, but empathy doesn't have to pertain to just super serious issues. You're not really understanding that people are fed up and generally haven't been able to grasp across many threads. If people are passionate in their dislike and boredom, they should not really be responded to with "but they're just so GOOD at their job!" Because you do. This thread is one giant exercise in trying to support the status quo in the most passive-aggressive way possible. "Well, I mean, do these guys REALLY need to be at the top?" Yes, they do. Someone else does. Because the alternative is Cena, and another year of Cena is another year of the status quo - and another year of the status quo just ingrains it deeper and makes it harder and harder to break out anyone new because the audience has been conditioned like salivating hounds. It's one giant exercise in basically teaching learned helplessness to the talent pool and the audience both. But hey, HE'S JUST HAVING SO MUCH FUN, RIGHT GUYS? That's what matters!
|
|
|
Post by Straight Edge Scrotum on Nov 26, 2013 22:16:29 GMT -5
It could be worse. Bryan could be doing what Ziggler (a former 2-time champ) is doing.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Nov 26, 2013 22:18:26 GMT -5
John Cena is the hero WWE deserves but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a Chain Gang Soldier. A Doctor of Thuganomics. The Champ.
|
|
ASYLUMHAUSEN
Fry's dog Seymour
GIFs | Shitposts | Fun
Posts: 24,759
|
Post by ASYLUMHAUSEN on Nov 26, 2013 22:19:51 GMT -5
...what does making this thread every month do for you? Honestly. People here are wrestling fans. Most of them here don't like John Cena. They like Daniel Bryan. They know he's worked his ass off for years and years to get where he is today, and want to see him get rewarded with what they believe he deserves, a run as the top guy as opposed to two title reigns that combined last less than a day. John Cena, on the other hand, has unflinchingly been the top guy since 2005. It's been eight years of an act that he by and large hasn't changed up. And yes, WWE's casual audience may not be bored with it, but a vocal audience here is bored with it, therefore it comes up quite a bit that we'd like to see a change. It's not complicated. well said.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Nov 26, 2013 22:22:04 GMT -5
John Cena is the hero WWE deserves but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a Chain Gang Soldier. A Doctor of Thuganomics. The Champ. Big Tim Kingman is back? Talk about full circle.
|
|
Johnny B. Decent
Patti Mayonnaise
Had one once
Everybody's Favorite Arizonian.
Posts: 31,180
|
Post by Johnny B. Decent on Nov 26, 2013 22:24:01 GMT -5
I posted this is another thread, but I suppose it has merit to be posted here:
|
|
|
Post by jjdash on Nov 26, 2013 22:31:03 GMT -5
Where I object is the attitude of a lot of YouTube dumbasses and elsewhere This is the line where the argument broke down for me.
|
|
|
Post by gnr123 on Nov 26, 2013 22:38:24 GMT -5
Does WWE have to have Daniel Bryan be the face of the WWE for fans to be pleased? Not exactly. Even though John Cena is the main focus of the show, there till is room for more top stars as well.
It's not that people want Bryan as the top guy, they just want him to get a lengthy WWE Championship reign. I mean, looking back at the crowd reaction after Bryan won at Summerslam, it's obvious there were many, many people behind Bryan and were happy he won, even if he beat the top face of the company. Bryan is very talented, charismatic, and has a great underdog aura around him. People just want change, people want something different. After the whole storyline that Bryan couldn't do it, he was to small, or not talented enough, he got the job done. That's the kind of stuff WWE books right, the stuff with someone finally getting to a goal. Unfortunately, Bryan is a 2 time WWE Champion in a span of 2 days. Sure, he has those accolades under his belt, but that's nothing to gloat about. If Daniel Bryan doesn't leave WrestleMania as WWE Champion, there will be a lot of people upset. Trust me.
And as a fan, I want to see Bryan get a WWE Championship reign and everybody to be happy. I think the bitterness for the WWE currently comes from the fact that they have such a great storyline, and added Big Show into it and now Bryan's doing f*** all. Sure, he's featured a lot, but he's not the main focus now, John Cena and Randy Orton are. Two guys who have been high on the card for many years now. People just want something fresh, and Daniel Bryan is that something that people want. And it's not just smarks either (like it was with CM Punk) Bryan has fans across multiple demographics. If he doesn't leave WrestleMania 30 with the WWE Championship or a win over Triple H, you will resentment. And it's towards John Cena, it's towards the WWE for having such a real good storyline with a very talented wrestler and ruining it.
I hope Daniel Bryan wins the Royal Rumble, I really do. He deserves it, for all the stuff he's done, all the matches he's had, he deserves a lengthy WWE Championship run. He's one of the most talented and over guys on the entire roster, if WWE don't push him now, they missed on a great opportunity to please everyone.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Nov 26, 2013 22:40:12 GMT -5
I posted this is another thread, but I suppose it has merit to be posted here: This is so true that it's scary. Get ready, even stevens booking is coming back soon.
|
|
|
Post by xxshoyuweeniexx on Nov 26, 2013 22:44:14 GMT -5
Does he need to be the top face? No. I never believed he would usurp Cena's spot as the top guy, just like Punk, just like Sheamus, just like Batista and countless other never did.
But having a bunch of WCW 2000 style PPV endings, screwjobs, shenannigans, and then the guy who gets the loudest cheers in the arena get shot down into a random feud with hillbillies while John Cena unifies the titles...yeah. If Bryan comes back and wins the Unified Whatever It'll Be Called Title at Mania, then I'll admit I was wrong. But if Bryan isn't involved in it, the toppling of the Authority, or getting revenge on the people screwing with him, and John Cena is the man for this? Then it's failure.
Yes Bryan got two title reigns...that didn't even combine for a day. You're telling your audience that unless you're John Cena, you won't be the conquring hero of the story. And that's just f***ing sad.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Nov 26, 2013 22:56:23 GMT -5
- Jaws would have killed everyone on the Orca - Hans Gruber would have killed John McClane - Apollo Creed would have won the second match with Rocky Balboa. This is WWE's mentality. That's villains over heroes, which isn't what WWE is doing at all. WWE booking is more, say, if Rocky III was Rocky effortlessly beating the shit out of Clubber Lang in their first match, then again in their second match, then having a third match where he's effortlessly winning again until he's distracted by Mickey's heart attack and loses, then Rocky's all "lol wut" and cracking jokes about it afterwards before effortlessly beating the shit out of Mr T again in the final match.
|
|
|
Post by Brickstone Kid on Nov 26, 2013 23:26:47 GMT -5
I don't really care about "face" of the WWE, because to me that will always be a bit subjective. I just want to see him with the title.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 26, 2013 23:55:06 GMT -5
I don't care about him being the face of the company. I just wanted a logical conclusion to the storyline. Daniel Bryan, being dismissed and mocked by an evil authority figure with a favoured and less worthy champion at their side should have eventually overcome his enemy, defeated the corporate champion conclusively, then had a lengthy and dynamic title reign where he took on all comers and eventually proved (with the authority figure's acknowledgement) that he is worthy of that status. That was how the story should have played out. But like I've said over the last few days, there is a pattern of booking in WWE where anyone who generates a groundswell of support or challenges the establishment or main antagonist, is eventually sidelined, watered down or outright buried by the establishment and they return to the status quo. If you applied WWE's booking to films (which is perfectly appropriate since they label themselves as an entertainment company) then the following things would have happened. - Jaws would have killed everyone on the Orca - Hans Gruber would have killed John McClane - Apollo Creed would have won the second match with Rocky Balboa. This is WWE's mentality. Only time will tell, and I could be wrong, but the thing that's missing in much of this discussion -- to me, at least, and I chose this post because it seemed to best sum up a point of view I'm addressing -- is that it's entirely possible that we're in the middle of the film and not watching the closing credits. The shark was eating everybody (including two out of three on the Orca) ... up until the payoff. Hans Gruber (love that guy) all but killed John McClane and was on the verge of getting away with all sorts of nasty things ... until the hero came through at the end. Rocky lost the first fight, was humiliated time after time and ended up cleaning up spit buckets in the gym, his wife was in a coma, he was half-hearted in training and he took a horrific beating in the rematch ... until he rallied and the underdog won. If Bryan doesn't get payback and doesn't come out on top over the Authority in the end -- and in my mind that would be better accomplished by making Triple H tap than in beating Orton for the belt -- then I agree they botched the storyline. BUT, if WWE eased its foot off the pedal because they want his big payoff to come at Wrestlemania to give him a crowning moment that will make him in a big way rather than a forgettable title reign from Summerslam to Survivor Series, then this is a case of walking out halfway through the movie and saying, "How stupid, I want the people of Amity to win and they booked that stupid shark to go over." Difference being, of course, that we have a feel for when (and how) the movie will end in all those cases ... there was never any fear on any viewer's part that the hero would end up eaten, shot or beaten to a pulp by the antagonist. It could just be that someone said, 'This is hot, Bryan is going to be a star, let's take this all the way to WM. But we can't do that and have him be screwed for the next six months straight, people are already reacting badly to the PPV finishes. How about we put him with Punk for a while, another guy who is really over ... it will give him something meaningful to do (one of those midcard storylines that people insist WWE never does?) and keep the crowd behind him -- and then we can have him win the Rumble or otherwise go on a mission to get his revenge on the authority and have it culminate in the biggest show of the year." I understand why some people don't have faith that it will happen -- but how many of those expected Punk to really hold the belt for more than 400 days? How many who griped about the tag team division being treated with less importance than the diva division would have believed that we'd have such a hot tag division right now? I also believe some of it is the microwave element of our society -- "If Bryan doesn't get over in three months against the combined might of the Authoriity, then it's over, forget it, I don't care if he does get what I want if it doesn't happen when I want it to." Heck, some of the past stuff that has been cited on this thread took forever to play out -- Austin feuded with Hart for a year, and that didn't even start until after King of the Ring, which is seen as the real beginning of Austin's rise. The fact that Bryan overcame everything the Authority threw at him, even if he didn't come out with the belt, doesn't weaken him in my eyes. It only legitimizes a strong run later, assuming it comes. I'm not saying WWE always gets it "right," although there seems to be enough disagreement on what "right" is in any given case that I'd submit that it's in the eye of the beholder. I'm just saying that I'm not giving up on the idea that there wll be a payoff.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 27, 2013 0:01:48 GMT -5
- Jaws would have killed everyone on the Orca - Hans Gruber would have killed John McClane - Apollo Creed would have won the second match with Rocky Balboa. This is WWE's mentality. That's villains over heroes, which isn't what WWE is doing at all. WWE booking is more, say, if Rocky III was Rocky effortlessly beating the shit out of Clubber Lang in their first match, then again in their second match, then having a third match where he's effortlessly winning again until he's distracted by Mickey's heart attack and loses, then Rocky's all "lol wut" and cracking jokes about it afterwards before effortlessly beating the shit out of Mr T again in the final match. Those were just three examples of stories being skewed in ways that defy narrative logic. It could easily work with heroes defeating villains too easily, such as Cena prevailing over Nexus.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 27, 2013 0:07:32 GMT -5
I don't care about him being the face of the company. I just wanted a logical conclusion to the storyline. Daniel Bryan, being dismissed and mocked by an evil authority figure with a favoured and less worthy champion at their side should have eventually overcome his enemy, defeated the corporate champion conclusively, then had a lengthy and dynamic title reign where he took on all comers and eventually proved (with the authority figure's acknowledgement) that he is worthy of that status. That was how the story should have played out. But like I've said over the last few days, there is a pattern of booking in WWE where anyone who generates a groundswell of support or challenges the establishment or main antagonist, is eventually sidelined, watered down or outright buried by the establishment and they return to the status quo. If you applied WWE's booking to films (which is perfectly appropriate since they label themselves as an entertainment company) then the following things would have happened. - Jaws would have killed everyone on the Orca - Hans Gruber would have killed John McClane - Apollo Creed would have won the second match with Rocky Balboa. This is WWE's mentality. Only time will tell, and I could be wrong, but the thing that's missing in much of this discussion -- to me, at least, and I chose this post because it seemed to best sum up a point of view I'm addressing -- is that it's entirely possible that we're in the middle of the film and not watching the closing credits. I'm just saying that I'm not giving up on the idea that there wll be a payoff. There are two problems with this. Firstly, we've seen this film before. Time and time again WWE sabotages the big angle of the year, in order to reassert the establishment and the status quo, and the pay-off never comes. Secondly, if we are in the middle of the story, and not the end, then this second act is ludicrously and unnecessarily complicated and I question whether anyone really wanted it. So much so, that by the time the pay-off comes, the audience would have either lost interest in the initial hero's struggle, or resentful that they had to sit through months of muddled chaos and tangents before they got their satisfying conclusion, which has come so late, it is no longer satisifying.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 27, 2013 0:10:51 GMT -5
Only time will tell, and I could be wrong, but the thing that's missing in much of this discussion -- to me, at least, and I chose this post because it seemed to best sum up a point of view I'm addressing -- is that it's entirely possible that we're in the middle of the film and not watching the closing credits. I'm just saying that I'm not giving up on the idea that there wll be a payoff. There are two problems with this. Firstly, we've seen this film before. Time and time again WWE sabotages the big angle of the year, in order to reassert the establishment and the status quo, and the pay-off never comes. Secondly, if we are in the middle of the story, and not the end, then this second act is ludicrously and unnecessarily complicated and I question whether anyone really wanted it. So much so, that by the time the pay-off comes, the audience would have either lost interest in the initial hero's struggle, or resentful that they had to sit through months of muddled chaos and tangents before they got their satisfying conclusion, which has come so late, it is no longer satisifying. Both of which I addressed. Sometimes WWE doesn't follow through ... and sometimes it gives Punk the title for a thousand years. And if they carried it on all the way to WM without tangents and breaking it off for a while, the same people dissatisfied now would have rioted anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 27, 2013 0:21:19 GMT -5
There are two problems with this. Firstly, we've seen this film before. Time and time again WWE sabotages the big angle of the year, in order to reassert the establishment and the status quo, and the pay-off never comes. Secondly, if we are in the middle of the story, and not the end, then this second act is ludicrously and unnecessarily complicated and I question whether anyone really wanted it. So much so, that by the time the pay-off comes, the audience would have either lost interest in the initial hero's struggle, or resentful that they had to sit through months of muddled chaos and tangents before they got their satisfying conclusion, which has come so late, it is no longer satisifying. Both of which I addressed. Sometimes WWE doesn't follow through ... and sometimes it gives Punk the title for a thousand years. And if they carried it on all the way to WM without tangents and breaking it off for a while, the same people dissatisfied now would have rioted anyway. It didn't need to be carried all the way to Wrestlemania. It could have been a "strike-while-the-iron-is-hot" storyline to take advantage of Daniel Bryan's popularity now. Then by Wrestlemania they could have built on his newly gained status as a top guy in order to come up with another big story for 2014. Unfortunately they haven't. Viewing this storyline as being anything else strikes me as wishful thinking while ignoring their previous record of doing shit like this.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Nov 27, 2013 0:21:22 GMT -5
Every time I see threads like this, I get to thinking about what it is that has so many wrestling fans feeling such a disconnect from the product they watch (be it WWE, TNA, or whatever else).
Honestly, I think it's time to get away from the mentality that there's fan consternation because of whichever wrestler is or isn't on top of the company. Cena's been on top for years, Orton right behind him, but there's been some times where other guys have gotten the spotlight (albeit very briefly) and it's not like fans came clamoring back again or anything like that.
My opinion, and maybe I'm totally off-base, is that John Cena himself isn't hated; Cena is simply an avatar for a company that is beyond stale, and fans take their annoyance out on him for it.
I admit that I don't watch Raw, but I do keep up with it, and I get to see a couple of major PPV's a year. Take a look at the way Raw is booked, take a look at the way it's presented, hell, take a look at the set/stage/atmospherics they use to showcase it...has it really changed much at all in the past decade? Think honestly about this.
WWE has basically been putting on the same show for years now, but the individuals who are put into certain roles simply change with the passing of years. The shows still usually open with a long-winded promo, the faces all act like stereotypical high school jocks, the heels are cowardly and ineffectual, the main event will usually be a tag match, people will talk backstage and pretend there isn't a camera RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES, at some point a heel will lose a match by intentionally leaving the ring to take a countout loss...this could go on and on, and it's basically been the same format since the end of the Monday Night Wars era.
John Cena isn't a bad wrestler, isn't a bad talker, isn't a bad performer...quite the contrary, he's overall pretty damn good at what he does, though he does require some carrying to reach the more elite levels. However, John Cena represents an era marked by repetition and a formula that has hardly shifted in what must feel like eons in television years, and he'll take the brunt of the fans' anger for this.
Making Bryan champion would change almost none of this, really. The show would still be booked the same way, still presented with the same stage/camerawork/announcing/pyro, still written the same way, etc. etc. etc. But a new face atop the heap would at least present fans with the hope that things could change at some point, that the show could feel unique and different again, instead of the same show but with different names filling in the booking slots.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Nov 27, 2013 0:33:13 GMT -5
I don't need him to be the face....but following through on the WWE title reign he was poised for would have worked. He was so f***ing over....and still is. How don't you follow through?
If they ignored Stone Cold's response and kept pushing Bret Hart instead, it would be fine. Hart would have been great and Austin would have been a fine mid card act. But instead they capitalized and boom. I'm not saying Bryan would be that successful, but listening to fans would be a good idea.
|
|