|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Nov 27, 2013 19:04:40 GMT -5
Yes, yes they do. And they resent Daniel Bryan and CM Punk for getting themselves over in the face of corporate resistance, the way Triple H never could. Don't you want to see Punk and Bryan trounce all those pricks and claw their way to the top? Will they make it??? Keep watching the shows and buying their merchandise to find out! Marks.SHOW. OFF.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Nov 27, 2013 19:14:07 GMT -5
Being fair on the "Bryan: Given a chance or not?" thoughts:
Daniel Bryan's entire push was WWE doing what would have already happened with Bryan anyway. Every part of it- the shots Michael Cole took, the stupid angles, the firing, 18 seconds- it all was done for one reason: To make Daniel Bryan CM Punk.
-A lot of times in the current era, it seems like the fans won't LET the WWE make anyone a new star who isn't one of OUR GUYS. Maybe that's an unfair blanket statement, but with how the IWC tends to react sometimes, you can't blame the WWE if they believe that's how the IWC is.
-CM Punk went from being one of OUR GUYS, to a capable WWE superstar, to a main eventer, to one of the faces of the franchise in WWE. There IS proof that WWE can turn someone who's OUR GUY into THE WWE UNIVERSE'S GUY.
-However, WWE, for better or worse, has their own distinct recipes to make main eventers. We see too often some of these recipes: The Shawn Michaels (tag team gets pushed, gets a buzz, team gets split up, and one of the two embarks on a singles career and gets pushed to the moon) and the Dwayne Johnson (babyface debuts as a generic happy-go-lucky babyface, doesn't get over, turns heel, then is allowed to show a personality- then is turned face again and pushed to the moon) are two of their favorite recipes.
CM Punk, however, has dictated the newest recipe WWE has, and Bryan is the first example of how it works:
1-Hire standout on the independent scene. 2-Once they're under contract, do everything you can to make the fans truly believe that the WWE hates this wrestler, thinks they're terrible, and has no intent to see this guy succeed in WWE. Whether it's keeping them in development longer than possible, leaking reports to dirtsheets that the guy has "nuclear heatz", or whatever you have to do- MAKE THE FANS BELIEVE YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO SUCCEED. 3- Know that the IWC will then say "WE'LL SHOW YOU! We know how good [INDY STANDOUT] (NOT! [Copyrightable WWE-ized name] is, SCREW YOU VINCE!)is, and WE WILL MAKE YOU MAKE THIS GUY A SUPERSTAR!" 4- Watch the fans then proceed to be invested in whatever cockamamie story or angle you put this guy in, whether it's good or bad, solely because pretending to be invested in the story will get this wrestler over so that the fans will also believe in the guy without knowing his skills on the indy scene. 5- Everyone ends up happy. The indy star becomes a top guy, the WWE laughs their way to the bank knowing they turned the smaaaaaaaaart marks into marks with high IQs again, and the smarks get to feel like THEY were the ones who put one over on the WWE by making this guy a superstar.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 27, 2013 19:51:35 GMT -5
De-pushing isn't necessarily the word I should have chosen, but for arguably their best technical wrestler to lose like that at their biggest PPV seemed to strike a chord with fans. Technical wrestling skill is completely meaningless in the context of character story telling like that. I don't care how good of a wrestler someone is, I care about their character. That's what matters first. Daniel Bryan's character at the time was that of a cocky asshole who thought he was better than everyone and acted like he could do anything he wanted. Sheamus proved him wrong at the biggest show of the year. The idea was to put Sheamus over as this huge babyface who finally put Bryan in his place, only because of that ONE crowd, it got ruined LOL@ ruined. If there was any juice to this supposed pivotal, career defining put-Bryan-in-his-place moment, Sheamus would have been that star, instead of becoming less and less popular to the point where everything they wanted him to be now belongs to Daniel Bryan. It's kind of poetic justice, really. WWE screwed people out of a great WrestleMania match (Their 2/3 falls one was amazing), and nothing they wanted came of it in the end. Winners: Smart crowd.
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Nov 27, 2013 20:15:24 GMT -5
They didn't screw anybody out of anything, they just tried something but didn't build it up enough beforehand. Try not being so bloody entitled sometime.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 27, 2013 20:26:44 GMT -5
They didn't screw anybody out of anything, they just tried something but didn't build it up enough beforehand. Try not being so bloody entitled sometime. If that many people in the crowd were angry, and people were furious about it online, and on RAW the next night, then , yes, they did screw people over. Oh, and I'll do what I want, when I want. Especially if it bothers you. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Nov 27, 2013 20:31:09 GMT -5
They didn't screw anybody out of anything, they just tried something but didn't build it up enough beforehand. Try not being so bloody entitled sometime.Hold up, hold up, hold up... What does this even mean? We are the consumers. WE are the ones who pay for the product. You're goddamn right we're gonna expect certain things out of a company. If I think something is bullshit, I'm gonna say so. I ain't Tommy Dreamer. I'm not gonna let WWE cane me in the back while I say "thank you sir, may I have another?" You can argue that "18 seconds" was the right thing but to say that people shouldn't be so "entitled" because they don't like something is just...no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 20:37:25 GMT -5
They didn't screw anybody out of anything, they just tried something but didn't build it up enough beforehand. Try not being so bloody entitled sometime. You may feel differently if you spent a ton of money/time/energy to go to that show and was really, REALLY anticipating that match. And if you were in that arena, and realized how NUTS it was for Bryan. Pepole think that YES stuff started the next night on Raw. Where it really started was in the hours leading up to the show theree there were people skpping around the concourse and chanting it all over the place. It was pure insanity, it was beautiful, it was REAL. I felt pretty damn screwed over. You don't SD Jones World Heavyweight Champion, who's on fire with the crowd, at the biggest show of the year. And lo and behold, since then the belt has meant absolutely dick. And, it hurt Sheamus by making him the face of stupid booking. It was either done out of spite or ignorance. Either way, bad call. It's not entitled, it's common sense, it's being right.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 27, 2013 20:44:23 GMT -5
They didn't screw anybody out of anything, they just tried something but didn't build it up enough beforehand. Try not being so bloody entitled sometime.Hold up, hold up, hold up... What does this even mean? We are the consumers. WE are the ones who pay for the product. You're goddamn right we're gonna expect certain things out of a company. If I think something is bullshit, I'm gonna say so. I ain't Tommy Dreamer. I'm not gonna let WWE cane me in the back while I say "thank you sir, may I have another?" You can argue that "18 seconds" was the right thing but to say that people shouldn't be so "entitled" because they don't like something is just...no. Exactly. I think that some people, because they either don't like a wrestler, or care about their fans, don't realize that some people ARE invested in things they may not be, and are thus justified in that anger. I hate how everything seems to be one big polarization wherein it's ok to f*** someone over if its not someone you like, but it's a crime if it happens to your guy. It's stupid no matter who it happens to. These guys are all performers, and this is the biggest stage there is, and they deserve, if they're booked, to show their stuff. I bought WrestleMania 28, looking forward to a match between the best technical wrestler in the company, Bryan, and that year's workhorse, Sheamus, because I wanted to see both guys tear the house down and potentially steal the show. I was infuriated when that finish happened, not because I wanted Bryan to win, but because I wanted to see him and Sheamus wrestle. I felt unfulfilled in the payoff, because A) Bryan hadn't really been booked well, and B) If this was Sheamus's WrestleMania moment, he deserved better. That's about all there is to it. The fact it fell flat means it was the WRONG decision, no matter what contrived or stupid reason some might come up with to defend it.
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Nov 27, 2013 20:59:32 GMT -5
You can argue that "18 seconds" was the right thing but to say that people shouldn't be so "entitled" because they don't like something is just...no. People are free to dislike whatever they want. But if someone is just whining about something because it didn't go the way they wanted it to, then yes, they are acting entitled. If that many people in the crowd were angry, and people were furious about it online, and on RAW the next night, then , yes, they did screw people over. Take a step and back and actually think about what WWE were going for and realise they were trying to entertain people instead of ripping people off. You are acting like they did it intentionally. They tried something and it failed. Everybody f***s up eventually.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Nov 27, 2013 21:02:15 GMT -5
I'll tell you this much, if swap Bryan out of WrestleMania 28 with someone else, who was doing JUST as good as Bryan was and you do 18 seconds, I can guarantee you there wouldn't have been a backlash like that. It's only cuz it was Daniel Bryan (or CM Punk, he'd have probably had it too) that that happened. It's a double standard
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Nov 27, 2013 21:04:01 GMT -5
The fact it fell flat means it was the WRONG decision Not true. Its just trial and error. Something went wrong in the execution of it but it doesn't mean the idea itself has no merit.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 27, 2013 21:05:23 GMT -5
They didn't screw anybody out of anything, they just tried something but didn't build it up enough beforehand. Try not being so bloody entitled sometime. You may feel differently if you spent a ton of money/time/energy to go to that show and was really, REALLY anticipating that match. And if you were in that arena, and realized how NUTS it was for Bryan. Pepole think that YES stuff started the next night on Raw. Where it really started was in the hours leading up to the show theree there were people skpping around the concourse and chanting it all over the place. It was pure insanity, it was beautiful, it was REAL. I felt pretty damn screwed over. You don't SD Jones World Heavyweight Champion, who's on fire with the crowd, at the biggest show of the year. And lo and behold, since then the belt has meant absolutely dick. And, it hurt Sheamus by making him the face of stupid booking. It was either done out of spite or ignorance. Either way, bad call. It's not entitled, it's common sense, it's being right. in previous years the IC and ECW champs had had that happen to them and you had a challenger with a one move knockout finish.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 27, 2013 21:07:09 GMT -5
it's quite possible. The fans who are the loudest at their shows tend to chant for things that don't do much good for trying to appeal the stay at home fan.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Nov 27, 2013 21:07:39 GMT -5
They didn't screw anybody out of anything, they just tried something but didn't build it up enough beforehand. Try not being so bloody entitled sometime. I can be entitled whenever I want,I'm a Straight White Male,we invented it!
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 27, 2013 21:09:16 GMT -5
You can argue that "18 seconds" was the right thing but to say that people shouldn't be so "entitled" because they don't like something is just...no. People are free to dislike whatever they want. But if someone is just whining about something because it didn't go the way they wanted it to, then yes, they are acting entitled. If that many people in the crowd were angry, and people were furious about it online, and on RAW the next night, then , yes, they did screw people over. Take a step and back and actually think about what WWE were going for and realise they were trying to entertain people instead of ripping people off. You are acting like they did it intentionally. They tried something and it failed. Everybody f***s up eventually. They booked it. So they did do it intentionally. They just didn't think it would end up the abject failure it was. And that's the bottom line, really. We CAN criticize it now, because hindsight has revealed it to have been the wrong decision, and it having not entertained the majority of people. What it did do, positively, however, was create a groundswell springboard that eventually led Bryan to becoming the star WWE had envisioned for Sheamus. So, ya. People were screwed over if it merited a negative response. Which it did. We're not talking about something people thought was great here in hindsight. It was a booking mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Nov 27, 2013 21:09:57 GMT -5
You can argue that "18 seconds" was the right thing but to say that people shouldn't be so "entitled" because they don't like something is just...no. People are free to dislike whatever they want. But if someone is just whining about something because it didn't go the way they wanted it to, then yes, they are acting entitled. Ummm...no? That's called giving your opinion. If I don't like something, what am I supposed to do? Smile and pretend I like it because others do? In the same way that someone is free to complain about something, you're right to disagree with their opinion. To call it entitlement is horseshit.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 27, 2013 21:12:42 GMT -5
I'll tell you this much, if swap Bryan out of WrestleMania 28 with someone else, who was doing JUST as good as Bryan was and you do 18 seconds, I can guarantee you there wouldn't have been a backlash like that. It's only cuz it was Daniel Bryan (or CM Punk, he'd have probably had it too) that that happened. It's a double standard Maybe it would. But it would still be wrong. I don't think anyone deserves to be jobbed out lke that. If it was someone I didn't care for, but I knew it bothered a ton of people, I wouldn't justify it, I'd try and understand their position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 21:14:13 GMT -5
You can argue that "18 seconds" was the right thing but to say that people shouldn't be so "entitled" because they don't like something is just...no. People are free to dislike whatever they want. But if someone is just whining about something because it didn't go the way they wanted it to, then yes, they are acting entitled. If that many people in the crowd were angry, and people were furious about it online, and on RAW the next night, then , yes, they did screw people over. Take a step and back and actually think about what WWE were going for and realise they were trying to entertain people instead of ripping people off. You are acting like they did it intentionally. They tried something and it failed. Everybody f***s up eventually. Except that WWE f***s up all the time. They screwed up on Fandango, turning a potential rising star into a stagnant stumble by forcing a one-note joke on the audience. They screwed up with ADR by refusing to build him up correctly and have created a voracious monster; neglecting him means all their input on him as a main eventer will be wasted, but using him means that he continues to produce nothing. They screwed up CM Punk as WWE champion by forcing a needless Triple H/Diesel texting himself angle on fans who did not care, and then turning Punk heel as he bitched about "respect" that the fans were giving him. They screwed up Ryback, turning him heel for no reason despite him outpopping Cena on live shows, and even then after months of a wasteful losing streak. They've screwed up Daniel Bryan too--a man with near-unanimous support as a main eventer by relegating him to a feud with a gaggle of lame cultists while Cena and Orton, who the fans are rejecting, are now the focal point of the show. What you don't understand is that WWE--and professional wrestling on the whole--depends entirely on fan support for its success. It's the fans who buy tickets, and buy merch to support the shows. They pay for PPVs, they tweet, post on the interwebs, you name it. Satisfying them is part of the deal. If you satisfy the fans, they pay for everything. If you don't satisfy them, they don't pay. They have every right to bitch. It's just like any other TV show. If the ratings fall through the floor, it's going to be canceled. It doesn't matter if the director is a virtuoso with visionary direction. If he can't get people to watch, the show is doomed no matter what, because advertisers aren't going to pay for airtime no one sees. Whether or not you like the viewers, it doesn't matter. It's a fact that the ratings will save or doom the series. And whether you hate the fans or you don't, too bad. If you screwed up or did it intentionally, it doesn't matter. Failure to satisfy the audience is failure.
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Nov 27, 2013 21:16:27 GMT -5
I'll tell you this much, if swap Bryan out of WrestleMania 28 with someone else, who was doing JUST as good as Bryan was and you do 18 seconds, I can guarantee you there wouldn't have been a backlash like that. It's only cuz it was Daniel Bryan (or CM Punk, he'd have probably had it too) that that happened. It's a double standard Agreed, It just turned out Bryan was horribly miscast for that. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that WWE try it again sometime in the new few years with someone who doesn't have Bryan's reputation in order to provide foil for a new babyface.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 27, 2013 21:19:22 GMT -5
The fact it fell flat means it was the WRONG decision Not true. Its just trial and error. Something went wrong in the execution of it but it doesn't mean the idea itself has no merit. The idea didn't have enough build to make it satisfying. Sheamus was literally programmed against Bryan a month before, and there was zero animosity or rivalry between them wherein Seamus winning that quick would mean anything or even be fulfilling. It's not like they'd had Bryan be a dick for 6 months straight. He had virtually just started to have a discernible character in like late January. He wasn't exactly Honky Tonk Man ducking and cheating contenders for a year to the point where the crowd was begging him to get beat. The story had just started. It was a weak finish to a weak reign. No one looked good.
|
|