saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 27, 2013 0:35:14 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. They didn't do so right away. It played out longer than the Authority thing did.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Nov 27, 2013 0:37:08 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. They didn't do so right away. It played out longer than the Authority thing did. That's true but things tend to move much quicker these days. The hope they turn it around is still there, but I have less hope the longer we go.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 27, 2013 0:39:21 GMT -5
They didn't do so right away. It played out longer than the Authority thing did. That's true but things tend to move much quicker these days. The hope they turn it around is still there, but I have less hope the longer we go. If Bryan and Orton had a year-long feud like Hart and Austin did ... the internet would kill itself. I don't think people today have the patience to watch something play out over that length of time. That's one thing WWE needs to adjust to.
|
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 32,417
|
Post by Perd on Nov 27, 2013 0:40:17 GMT -5
"Face of WWE"? No.
What I wanted was the logical conclusion, of the story that started at SummerSlam. Which is Bryan overcoming Orton and The Authority, and regaining the title that is rightfully his.
Now, that still may happen. But I'm not counting on it.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 27, 2013 0:58:17 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. When we say we want midcard storylines, we mean we want storylines for the actual midcarders. Not filler feuds for the directionless main eventers outside of the title picture. That was pretty much the flaw with the RAW Supershows. We mean that we want to see Zack Ryder and Tyson Kidd doing meaningful things. That was the flaw with the RAW SuperShows and the end of the brand split. The "main event" talents like Orton, Kane, Sheamus, Miz, Ziggler, Show, Henry, Rey, to a lesser extent Barrett, Swagger at certain points, Ryback, Cody Rhodes during his IC title run, part timers like Rock, Lesnar, Jericho, RVD and Goldust, and even Daniel Bryan himself ended up shoving out all of the actual midcarders. And the only way anyone can get over is to be shoved into a program with one of these guys instead of actually working their way up the card (see Shield, Wyatts, etc.). I get that WWE wants the Wyatt Family to be a big deal (to the point that Rowan and Harper can't even properly contribute to the tag division), but why Bryan? Why bring Bryan down to their level? Why not ELEVATE someone to take on the Wyatts. Have the Wyatts go over the REAL midcard (not Kane, not Miz) in solid, competitive efforts. I get that Bryan couldn't stay in the title picture forever, but why give his spot to Big Show. Even if it was just a filler feud, they could've just gotten someone else over in that time. Hell, they should've turned Show heel and let Bryan chase after the giant before finally toppling him. At least that would feel less "midcard-y" and less of a demotion for Bryan.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 27, 2013 1:20:27 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. 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. When we say we want midcard storylines, we mean we want storylines for the actual midcarders. Not filler feuds for the directionless main eventers outside of the title picture. That was pretty much the flaw with the RAW Supershows. We mean that we want to see Zack Ryder and Tyson Kidd doing meaningful things. That was the flaw with the RAW SuperShows and the end of the brand split. The "main event" talents like Orton, Kane, Sheamus, Miz, Ziggler, Show, Henry, Rey, to a lesser extent Barrett, Swagger at certain points, Ryback, Cody Rhodes during his IC title run, part timers like Rock, Lesnar, Jericho, RVD and Goldust, and even Daniel Bryan himself ended up shoving out all of the actual midcarders. And the only way anyone can get over is to be shoved into a program with one of these guys instead of actually working their way up the card (see Shield, Wyatts, etc.). I get that WWE wants the Wyatt Family to be a big deal (to the point that Rowan and Harper can't even properly contribute to the tag division), but why Bryan? Why bring Bryan down to their level? Why not ELEVATE someone to take on the Wyatts. Have the Wyatts go over the REAL midcard (not Kane, not Miz) in solid, competitive efforts. I get that Bryan couldn't stay in the title picture forever, but why give his spot to Big Show. Even if it was just a filler feud, they could've just gotten someone else over in that time. Hell, they should've turned Show heel and let Bryan chase after the giant before finally toppling him. At least that would feel less "midcard-y" and less of a demotion for Bryan. You seem to be saying that there are more than a dozen people at any given time who are main eventers. I don't see it that way. Almost by definition, you position anyone who is in any kind of angle or storyline or feud as not being in the midcard, so obviously there aren't any midcard angles or storylines or feuds. The Real Americans -- heck even Cesaro before he joined with Swagger -- and the Shield and Miz-Kofi and the Rhodes brothers and I could surely list many more over the last six months ... all these are or have been midcard stories or feuds or angles. To me, Tyson Kidd and Zack Ryder are not midcarders, they are the lower card ... enhancement talent for the most part. They get work on main event and their job is to make the people on the midcard look good. And the midcarders make upper-carders look good. That's the food chain. The Wyatts went through several lower-carders and midcarders, attacking R-Truth and 3MB and Justin Gabriel ... then Kofi and Kane and Miz ... and then the uppercard guys. So they did exactly what you're sayinig you wanted them to do. And if they were still doing that, the crowd would get disinterested and they wouldn't be over. To me, the booking of the Wyatts is a perfect model for how to do it right. The reactions support that. The shelf life for someone getting a push and going over lower-card guys is about three weeks. Then people start to complain (on this board and elsewhere) that it's the same thiing every week, when are they going to do something, etc., etc. And if they win one-lose one-win one-lose one -- people complain about that.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 27, 2013 1:57:33 GMT -5
You seem to be saying that there are more than a dozen people at any given time who are main eventers. I don't see it that way. Almost by definition, you position anyone who is in any kind of angle or storyline or feud as not being in the midcard, so obviously there aren't any midcard angles or storylines or feuds. The Real Americans -- heck even Cesaro before he joined with Swagger -- and the Shield and Miz-Kofi and the Rhodes brothers and I could surely list many more over the last six months ... all these are or have been midcard stories or feuds or angles. To me, Tyson Kidd and Zack Ryder are not midcarders, they are the lower card ... enhancement talent for the most part. They get work on main event and their job is to make the people on the midcard look good. And the midcarders make upper-carders look good. That's the food chain. The Wyatts went through several lower-carders and midcarders, attacking R-Truth and 3MB and Justin Gabriel ... then Kofi and Kane and Miz ... and then the uppercard guys. So they did exactly what you're sayinig you wanted them to do. And if they were still doing that, the crowd would get disinterested and they wouldn't be over. To me, the booking of the Wyatts is a perfect model for how to do it right. The reactions support that. The shelf life for someone getting a push and going over lower-card guys is about three weeks. Then people start to complain (on this board and elsewhere) that it's the same thiing every week, when are they going to do something, etc., etc. And if they win one-lose one-win one-lose one -- people complain about that. Because that's how WWE presents those guys. You're right about Cesaro and Swagger and the Rhodes Brothers. The Shield are only midcard as INDIVIDUALS. As a UNIT, they are presented as a top level threat. But despite the massive fall from grace that certain guys like Miz, Ryback, or Ziggler have taken, WWE wants us to suspend disbelief and think that they're "main event" talent on par with John Cena. Cena's THE GUY, but we're supposed to think that any of these guys that you call "midcarders" are capable of having a PPV feud or a marquee match with him. It's the only reason the WHC still existed for two years after the Brand Split, to give off the illusion that a good chunk of these talents are "top guys". They created the mindset that the midcard is meaningless, so they feel they have to maintain a pretense that these talents are "main eventers" for them to be taken seriously. Instead of booking a strong roster from top to bottom, they try to make way too many people look like "big deals". That's why Kofi has to feud with former WWE Champion The Miz to get a storyline instead of having an angle with Fandango or someone more on that level. It's part of why Bryan is stuck slumming it with the Wyatts. If Bryan were feuding with Sheamus, Del Rio, or Miz, then WWE would most likely still play that up as a big time marquee feud. But if he had a one on one feud with Damien Sandow or Fandango, then that would be an obvious demotion.
|
|
|
Post by "Trickster Dogg" James Jesse on Nov 27, 2013 4:05:13 GMT -5
I'm always skeptical when people bring up CM Punk's 434-day reign for the very reason that the WWE champion was booked in a lower spot than the face of the company. In 2012, John Cena, without the WWE title, main-evented Elimination Chamber, Wrestlemania, Extreme Rules, Over the Limit, No Way Out, Money in the Bank, Night of Champions, Survivor Series, and TLC. Two of those Cena main events PPVs featured Punk in the match. Only one other pay-per-view had Punk as the main event, and that was Hell in a Cell. Punk was in 3 of the 12 pay-per-views that year (minus the Royal Rumble because it's the Rumble and minus TLC because he wasn't on the card in a match).
Yeah, he was WWE champion for a long time, that's cool, but Cena was clearly given priority over Punk in 2012. Hell, AJ was given more priority over Punk or anyone else on the roster that summer except maybe Brock Lesnar. CM Punk got a silver-medal WWE title run that only lasted as long as it did because WWE was hell-bent on having the Rock drop the belt to Cena at Wrestlemania.
So in that sense, Punk didn't really prove to anyone whether or not he really deserved that reign and the top spot on the card because he didn't have the top spot on the card. He'll go down in history as one of the longest single-run world champions in memory, sure, and that's cool, but the guy that was worked-shoot pissed that he wasn't going to be in the main event of Wrestlemania... still hasn't been in the main event of Wrestlemania. If he truly had a Diesel-esque run had he been on top as The Guy, okay, fine, then Punk sucks as a main-event draw. I think even his diehard fans could admit that had that been the case. But Cena was still stuck in the Big Show-thrown spotlight. And then anti-IWC posters and Cena fans get indignant that Punk fans are more than a little chaffed that their guy never got to really run with the big boys, but instead was stuck at the kids' table as an after-thought for the better part of a year.
And that's the feeling Bryan fans have now. And this time, Bryan's more over with the fans than Punk was at the time in 2011. Which, you would think, means that WWE has more incentive to push the guy as the champion in the main event. And yet Bryan's still waiting for Cena to have another moment in the sun so Cena can absorb more of its yellow energy. In a kayfabed WWE universe where losing to two Triple H pedigrees without any follow-up somehow makes a guy looks good (remember Night of Champions 2011?), at least Bryan can say, unlike Punk, that he beat Cena clean as a sheet for the title, which leaves the slim possibility of WWE correcting how badly Bryan has been booked since Summerslam, in a he's-still-winning-matches-and-those-matches-are-great-but-still-looks-like-a-yutz-for-not-getting-the-job-done-against-the-Authority-WTF-is-Cena-in-Bryan's-spot-now-and-why-is-Bryan-feuding-with-the-Wyatt-Family sort of way.
EDIT: As for today's supposed microwave society, I'm kind of skeptical of that too. Think of cable television. Breaking Bad got a huge finale rating because it was a tightly-crafted, compelling, character-driven show that regular people and TV/entertainment critics enjoyed and promoted to their friends and family and other potential audience viewers so that they could take part in the experience. BUT! Fans had to wait over a year for the final part of the story to be told. They had to wait years from beginning to end to follow the journey of Walter White. And the show was so good, many people, if they had to catch up, went back and watched the show again all the way through. People are far more patient if you actually give them something worth watching.
When's the last time anyone has gone back and watched an older episode of Raw from the Cena era just because they thought the program was compelling? I dare people to go back to Raw in 2009 and watch every episode and enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Nov 27, 2013 5:38:27 GMT -5
If he truly had a Diesel-esque run Hmm.... - Wins the title from a transitional proxy between the previous top babyface and himself. Bret Hart to Backlund to Diesel, Cena to Del Rio to Punk. - First PPV title defense will be against the previous top babyface, and the new champ will look like a bitch by retaining via draw/Dusty finish in spite of being a face himself. Bret/Diesel at the Rumble. Punk managed to avoid this in his 434-day reign by already having it happen to him during his first WWE title reign in the preceding months. Twice. Then it happened a third time much later at Night of Champions 2012, but after he'd already turned heel. - Gets punked out of a Wrestlemania main event to make room for a celebrity. Hell, I'd say having LT vs an upper-midcard heel going above you is more humiliating than the Rock. - Gets a feud with a heel who he has real life history with, but who's also popular and on the verge of a face turn, leading to mixed crowd reactions arguably favoring the heel. HBK 'n Bryan, another connection between the (fake) mentor and student! - Buggers around to general apathy with either A. a feud against a fat man in purple pajamas who is supposed to be a horrifying threat, or B. a love rectangle storyline. Which is worse? You decide! - Finally loses clean to the original top babyface who he could never, ever beat, restoring the status quo. Diesel dropped the belt, Punk at least got to wait a couple months before getting beaten on RAW by Cena before Wrestlemania. - Gets a lot cooler after a heel turn. Well, yeah. In summary, a Diesel-esque run is exactly what Punk got.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Nov 27, 2013 6:09:15 GMT -5
Unfortunately yes, even though people seem to forget that the most popular guy doesn't necessarily mean "best to main event" I know it's the logic the WWE use, but it doesn't really make sense, if people are reacting to a guy even if they're poorly booked, buying his merchandise, chanting his name during matches and generally enjoying themselves more when he's in action over the long term, it should count for something. If being over doesn't mean you're a good choice for a decent main event title run, what does? I do wonder sometimes if there's some there some magical 'it' factor that guys Sheamus, Del Rio, Orton and HHH himself have that I'm not seeing, that means they should always be booked to be in or around the title picture no matter what the audience want.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Nov 27, 2013 6:46:43 GMT -5
I know this thread has gone a bunch of pages so I hope no-one's made this point before.
I actually agree with the OP, that Bryan is over like f*** and has been booked strong as hell even during losses. It's part of putting someone over. Getting over does not mean winning, and getting a push does not mean winning the title.
However, the reason people won't be satisfied until Bryan is the face of the WWE is not just because people mark for Bryan, but because of the storyline logic.
The obvious, really telegraphed obvious conclusion of this feud was to make Bryan the champion and then have him go on a babyface champion rampage beating everyone the Authority throws his way, the way Austin did (not HOW Austin did). That way, all of the screwjob losses, all of the 'B+ player' comments, all of heel work pays off. That is the logical conclusion. I defended Triple H when he made the 'B+ player' comment because it was clearly a heel trying to get heat, but the thing with a heel is they're supposed to be proved wrong, and if Bryan doesn't prove the heel wrong, then I guess the heel is right. I know that Bryan never lost clean, but he also never won the title, so Triple H may as well be right, and in Triple H's (kayfabe) mind, he probably IS right because Bryan never won the title.
It's the same as the Triple H/Booker T angle. It didn't matter that Triple H was strongly implying that white people are better than black people, because the logical conclusion should've been Booker T beats Triple H, proving that race doesn't come into the equation. But instead, Triple H beat Booker, and in quite an embarrassing fashion, meaning that, yep, white people are better wrestlers than black people. It might've been acceptable if Triple H had needed 100 people interfering to win the match (I can't remember if it was remotely clean, I've not seen the match in a few years) and that had been put over on commentary, but Triple H took a year and a half to pin Booker after the pedigree.
Heels are not supposed to be right.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Nov 27, 2013 7:11:26 GMT -5
I defended Triple H when he made the 'B+ player' comment because it was clearly a heel trying to get heat, but the thing with a heel is they're supposed to be proved wrong, and if Bryan doesn't prove the heel wrong, then I guess the heel is right. I know that Bryan never lost clean, but he also never won the title, so Triple H may as well be right, and in Triple H's (kayfabe) mind, he probably IS right because Bryan never won the title. Triple H's opinion holds no water because he's actively sabotaging the guy trying to prove him wrong. If Bryan was losing these matches straight up, clean and without ANY outside interference or meddling, maybe he'd have a point. But, as you said, he isn't. Why should I believe a man when he says a guy sucks and doesn't deserve to be champion when he's getting involved in the matches to prevent him from winning?
|
|
ededdneddy
Hank Scorpio
ededdandembed
Posts: 5,697
|
Post by ededdneddy on Nov 27, 2013 12:38:19 GMT -5
If Cena was a victim of the start-stop booking that Bryan, Punk, Ziggler and countless others have been killed by, he wouldn't be nearly as over as he is. He was given a chance. The others had their legs cut out from under them before they could ever even have a chance to be "the man". Its this. Just like Punk saying that he hates the idea that John Cena is the best is the big thing. All three guys you mentioned all became red hot for the fans to cheer and get behind that they became more and more popular because the fans were loving everything that they had to offer. So what happens, they get knocked down and pushed back under the glass ceiling were WWE management believes where they belong. Same goes for Zack Ryder. He was becoming popular but obviously he isn't up on John Cenas level of "Perfection" that he gets placed on the back burner never to be heard from again. In WWE's mind they believe that if you are not on Cenas level of the pedistal you belong down below.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Nov 27, 2013 13:05:48 GMT -5
We just want logic to the storyline they set up.
It's like Kaitlyn vs. AJ. The heel continually gets the upper hand and then.......nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 15:00:56 GMT -5
I defended Triple H when he made the 'B+ player' comment because it was clearly a heel trying to get heat, but the thing with a heel is they're supposed to be proved wrong, and if Bryan doesn't prove the heel wrong, then I guess the heel is right. I know that Bryan never lost clean, but he also never won the title, so Triple H may as well be right, and in Triple H's (kayfabe) mind, he probably IS right because Bryan never won the title. Triple H's opinion holds no water because he's actively sabotaging the guy trying to prove him wrong. If Bryan was losing these matches straight up, clean and without ANY outside interference or meddling, maybe he'd have a point. But, as you said, he isn't. Why should I believe a man when he says a guy sucks and doesn't deserve to be champion when he's getting involved in the matches to prevent him from winning? Because like everyone has been saying about this since the story began, Bryan should've had his time no matter how much interference Hunner threw at him. That was the progression of the storyline. That's what should've happened. You can say we shouldn't believe Hunner and all that, but Bryan didn't exactly have a run with the title nor is he still fighting the good fight against Hunner and Orton, is he? By hook or by crook, Hunner was right. Then again, that's why you don't say half the shit he was saying about their then top face...
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Nov 27, 2013 15:29:47 GMT -5
We just want logic to the storyline they set up. It's like Kaitlyn vs. AJ. The heel continually gets the upper hand and then.......nothing. The heel had to get the upper hand in that feud, unless you want the face to hold the title forever. Not to mention, AJ was, and still is the most over diva on the roster, so she deserved a decent length title reign.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 27, 2013 15:38:21 GMT -5
Triple H's opinion holds no water because he's actively sabotaging the guy trying to prove him wrong. If Bryan was losing these matches straight up, clean and without ANY outside interference or meddling, maybe he'd have a point. But, as you said, he isn't. Why should I believe a man when he says a guy sucks and doesn't deserve to be champion when he's getting involved in the matches to prevent him from winning? Because like everyone has been saying about this since the story began, Bryan should've had his time no matter how much interference Hunner threw at him. That was the progression of the storyline. That's what should've happened. You can say we shouldn't believe Hunner and all that, but Bryan didn't exactly have a run with the title nor is he still fighting the good fight against Hunner and Orton, is he? By hook or by crook, Hunner was right. Then again, that's why you don't say half the shit he was saying about their then top face... They "make movies" so let's do that. The main character is in line for a promotion. He gets it, but is immediately demoted in favor of the boss's nephew, who has had many chances in the position and is demoted each time. Movie logic says that the story is the hero working to get back the promotion that he worked for, and the boss and boss's nephew get theirs when the higher ups step in. No where does it say "Second employee who sucked up to the boss because he needed the job so badly then finally says I'm not kissing ass anymore will replace our hero and suddenly be the one pursuing the promotion, only to then be replaced by the company's perennial employee of the month who already has the position that is lateral to the one our original hero wanted so badly". That is the part of the narrative that makes no sense to me, and it's an insert that WWE does frequently. If you remove Big Show and then Cena as the focuses of this specific story arc, and it's just Orton is the top guy while D-Bry jumps through hoops left and right, and Orton gets fed cupcakes or hides behind ridiculous stipulations. Think Hogan vs. Goldberg. What we have here is "Good try, little buddy, you almost reached the top shelf where the cookies are. We're so proud of you, now let the grown ups get them for you, ok?" I don't need Bryan to be "the guy", this isn't about that. This is about a logical story. It's like Savage winning the title at Mania 4, but the very next Saturday we saw Dibiase come out and get handed the title since Jack Tunney reversed the decision. Then we got say six months of Dibiase squashing jobbers while Savage had to face every monster the company had. Mania V rolls around and Hogan beats Dibiase to "right the wrong". What does that do for Savage? The heel still got his comeuppance, the top babyface stood tall at the end of the day, but does it make sense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 15:43:12 GMT -5
I think the only reason Bryan didn't win the title is he'd have literally no one to face.
Think about it, name main event credible heels right now. I can't. Hell Orton isn't even one and regardless of the "face of the wwe" storyline, he hasn't been for quite a while now. But even if you're willing to accept Orton as one, Bryan would have to move on from him so he can't be used anyway.
You could have him wrestle HHH I guess. That's how bad the main event heel scene is, that I'm having to put him against HHH who works a couple matches a year.
Definitely not Alberto Del Rio. Want to watch a Bryan/ADR WWE title feud? That's awful.
Returning Sheamus turns heel could be something, but he's not ready to come back quite yet.
|
|
|
Post by Urfarkendarf on Nov 27, 2013 15:44:01 GMT -5
I'm perfectly content with Bryan not being the face, what will satisfy me is giving me a coherent show. Follow up on storylines. Make what I'm watching compelling. They have really failed to do that in the last 6 months. Raw feels like a 3 hour commercial as of late and their handling of main event storylines have been rehash after rehash combined with clusterf***s and Dusty finishes. There is not one interesting feud in the entire company right now outside of NXT.
I'd love to see Bryan as the "face", but its not necessary for me to be satisfied.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Nov 27, 2013 15:57:41 GMT -5
I think the only reason Bryan didn't win the title is he'd have literally no one to face. Think about it, name main event credible heels right now. I can't. Hell Orton isn't even one and regardless of the "face of the wwe" storyline, he hasn't been for quite a while now. But even if you're willing to accept Orton as one, Bryan would have to move on from him so he can't be used anyway. You could have him wrestle HHH I guess. That's how bad the main event heel scene is, that I'm having to put him against HHH who works a couple matches a year. Definitely not Alberto Del Rio. Want to watch a Bryan/ADR WWE title feud? That's awful. Returning Sheamus turns heel could be something, but he's not ready to come back quite yet. Exactly, this is something a lot of people didn't realize. Bryan has been pushed, and got to main event a match with Cena, as well as pinned him clean. I think WWE is fine with making Bryan a top face, just like Sheamus and Punk have become. The real problem isn't WWE not wanting to book main event faces, it's that there aren't enough top heels on the card for any of them to fight with. Part of that is there have been too many face turns. Henry really shouldn't have turned yet, but I'm guessing they felt it would be easier on their booking if they make him a face and put him in another tag team with Big E because of his recent injuries.
|
|