xxshoyuweeniexx
King Koopa
Going Big and Saying That
Posts: 10,194
Member is Online
|
Post by xxshoyuweeniexx on Nov 27, 2013 21:22:25 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. I will give you that. If it was Heath Slater or Bo Dallas, somebody punchable and making it totally obvious that he was supposed to be a Honky Tonk Man like champion, then yeah it might have. But with Bryan, people wanted to see a really good wrestling match between two really good workers...and didn't get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 21:23:02 GMT -5
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. Yes. Retiring JBL (probably his idea), and Chavo. I wasn't at Mania 24 of whatever it was but I'm gonna take a guess and say there weren't CHA-VI-TO chants all over the arena before the show, and I know for sure that Kane wasn't resented afterward. And I'm sure less people cared about Chavo/Kane than cared about Sheamus/Bryan. I don't understand why people are so hellbent on defending a company, to the point of saying a fan reaction is incorrect. Now if you simply like Sheamus and don't like Bryan and thought it was funny, that's perfectly fine. My cousin was with me at the show and laughed his ass off when 18 seconds happen, but now admits "yeah they did him wrong, that was awful, I feel your pain, if that was Edge I would've lost it". Have the objectivity to realize it was stupid. I don't like Ryback or Zack Ryder, but I acknowledge it was really stupid of WWE to snuff out their popularity.
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Nov 27, 2013 21:24:53 GMT -5
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. If you don't something, don't like it. But if a bunch of artists try something and fail, it's bullshit to act like they intentionally failed just to irritate you.
|
|
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 21:30:42 GMT -5
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. If you don't something, don't like it. But if a bunch of artists try something and fail, it's bullshit to act like they intentionally failed just to irritate you. By the same token, if said artists try something and fail, people need to admit that it was actually a failure and deconstruct the reasons why. Instead of just blindly defending the idea and saying the crowd "ruined it" like one poster did.
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Nov 27, 2013 21:38:22 GMT -5
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. I agree, That was exactly my point when I said they "didn't build it up enough beforehand". I even thought that at the time as I just found here. Just imagine if Sheamus had been in Big Show's position between December to February when he was feuding with Bryan. If it had been Sheamus who Bryan had cashed in on and then embarassed afterwards. If Sheamus had been the one to knock down AJ that one time. It could have worked. If you don't something, don't like it. But if a bunch of artists try something and fail, it's bullshit to act like they intentionally failed just to irritate you. By the same token, if said artists try something and fail, people need to admit that it was actually a failure and deconstruct the reasons why. Instead of just blindly defending the idea and saying the crowd "ruined it" like one poster did. I agree. End of the day it only really works if the crowd goes along with it. I'm sorry for calling you entitled.
|
|
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 21:43:29 GMT -5
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. I agree, That was exactly my point when I said they "didn't build it up enough beforehand". I even thought that at the time as I just found here. Just imagine if Sheamus had been in Big Show's position between December to February when he was feuding with Bryan. If it had been Sheamus who Bryan had cashed in on and then embarassed afterwards. If Sheamus had been the one to knock down AJ that one time. It could have worked. By the same token, if said artists try something and fail, people need to admit that it was actually a failure and deconstruct the reasons why. Instead of just blindly defending the idea and saying the crowd "ruined it" like one poster did. I agree. End of the day it only really works if the crowd goes along with it. I'm sorry for calling you entitled. It's all good, man. Boardin' is serious business sometimes!
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 27, 2013 22:04:40 GMT -5
I agree, That was exactly my point when I said they "didn't build it up enough beforehand". I even thought that at the time as I just found here. Just imagine if Sheamus had been in Big Show's position between December to February when he was feuding with Bryan. If it had been Sheamus who Bryan had cashed in on and then embarassed afterwards. If Sheamus had been the one to knock down AJ that one time. It could have worked. I agree. End of the day it only really works if the crowd goes along with it. I'm sorry for calling you entitled. It's all good, man. Boardin' is serious business sometimes! That post reeks of entitlement.
|
|
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 22:10:04 GMT -5
It's all good, man. Boardin' is serious business sometimes! That post reeks of entitlement. As long as it doesn't just reek, I'm doing my job!
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Nov 27, 2013 22:15:16 GMT -5
WWE thinks they know what the fans want better than the fans themselves do. But they often seem to have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Nov 27, 2013 22:17:47 GMT -5
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. I agree, That was exactly my point when I said they "didn't build it up enough beforehand". I even thought that at the time as I just found here. Just imagine if Sheamus had been in Big Show's position between December to February when he was feuding with Bryan. If it had been Sheamus who Bryan had cashed in on and then embarassed afterwards. If Sheamus had been the one to knock down AJ that one time. It could have worked. By the same token, if said artists try something and fail, people need to admit that it was actually a failure and deconstruct the reasons why. Instead of just blindly defending the idea and saying the crowd "ruined it" like one poster did. I agree. End of the day it only really works if the crowd goes along with it. I'm sorry for calling you entitled. OK, I think I understand your point more now and I actually agree.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Nov 27, 2013 22:26:22 GMT -5
WWE thinks they know what the fans want better than the fans themselves do. But they often seem to have no idea. But what do the fans want? Is there really a hivemind? Bryan is getting great pops. So is Fandango from some crowds. Take that and tell me how to give people what they want.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 27, 2013 22:29:18 GMT -5
WWE thinks they know what the fans want better than the fans themselves do. But they often seem to have no idea. But what do the fans want? Is there really a hivemind? Bryan is getting great pops. So is Fandango from some crowds. Take that and tell me how to give people what they want. and their was a period where Randy Orton was incredibly over, but pushing him to the top resulted in an almost immediate downturn. To the point where you didn't have time to blame the storyline because the storyline hadn't fully set up yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 22:32:18 GMT -5
I think the thing abut the eighteen seconds situation is that the build for Sheamus / Bryan didn't warrant it. If Bryan had been ducking Sheamus for months and sneak-attacking him constantly, or at least running his mouth about him, it'd have fit. Instead, the angle consisted of Bryan spending almost all of his time preoccupied with Punk and AJ, while Sheamus routinely sneak-attacked him only for Bryan to keep ignoring it. Throw in that it was the second year in a row that people eager to see those two in particular face each other at Mania and of course people were pissed.
The core idea can work, though. If Big Show / Cody from the same show were eighteen seconds long, it would have made perfect sense because it fit the storyline they were building.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 27, 2013 22:41:05 GMT -5
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. Yes. Retiring JBL (probably his idea), and Chavo. I wasn't at Mania 24 of whatever it was but I'm gonna take a guess and say there weren't CHA-VI-TO chants all over the arena before the show, and I know for sure that Kane wasn't resented afterward. And I'm sure less people cared about Chavo/Kane than cared about Sheamus/Bryan. I don't understand why people are so hellbent on defending a company, to the point of saying a fan reaction is incorrect. Now if you simply like Sheamus and don't like Bryan and thought it was funny, that's perfectly fine. My cousin was with me at the show and laughed his ass off when 18 seconds happen, but now admits "yeah they did him wrong, that was awful, I feel your pain, if that was Edge I would've lost it". Have the objectivity to realize it was stupid. I don't like Ryback or Zack Ryder, but I acknowledge it was really stupid of WWE to snuff out their popularity. because when that show which was scheduled and had a set time it could run there was no one outside the event at Wrestlemania watching the fans chant for Daniel Bryan. Your cousin laughed at the time. With hindsight, because he sees it upsets you he changed his view. Do you think if he didn't have a cousin who was pissed he'd put that much hindsight out to change his view? WWE doesn't book their shows for hindsight re-examinings. and to be honest I don't think booking someone to lose is snuffing out their popularity and I hate that mindset because it's what leads to periods of 50/50 booking and over protecting certain guys
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Nov 27, 2013 22:42:30 GMT -5
I don't think the company in general does. I DO believe the people running the show (Vince, Steph, Triple H and Kevin Dunn) resent that they aren't getting the demographics that they want though. the show's mostly watched by children and nerds, but they want the alpha male types who watch Football and MMA. and they'll never get those guys, either.
as for Daniel Bryan, he's still booked better than 98% of the roster. the only mistake they made was trying to draw out his big win too long, and then gave up on it. it's not like he's been buried and can't ever be taken seriously as a world champ or something later (and you KNOW they will give him a real run sooner rather than later). if you want to see a guy who really IS getting buried look at Ryback.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 11,003
|
Post by Sparkybob on Nov 27, 2013 22:47:17 GMT -5
I don't think the WWE really resents the fans. I just think the WWE sometimes ignore the fans and push guys who they feel have all the tools to be a star, but for one reason or another can't get over.
I think we can all agree that Del Rio is a failure with the live crowd, but it seems Vince really sees star potential in him and feels he just needs the right push to get over huge. Now this is a very questionable strategy but I can see the merits in it. I'll use Edge as an example here. It was obvious Edge had the look to be a star but he really never clicked with the crowd when he came back in 2004. The crowd never really bought into him but the WWE kept pushing him in hopes that he gets over. Of course it took a while and the whole Lita stuff but he did eventually give great returns on the investment for the WWE.
Now of course this won't always happen for everybody. Guys like Lashley didn't work out but sometimes there are the guys who do make a great return of investment for the WWE in relation to their constant pushing.
And onto the D-Bryan stuff, I don't think the WWE is dense enough to think that D-bryan isn't over enough to be a WWE champ. I just think as an outsider, that the WWE is trying to have D-Bryan have his star making moment at mania when he wins the Undisputed title. The WWE probably knows that Orton vs Show isn't anything but great, but they needed some filler so Bryan gets a break from the title program before he renter during the road to mania. Of course I could be wrong and the WWE truly think Bryan is a mid-carder for life, but we will cross that bridge when we get there.
My main point is that I think the WWE has some trouble balancing the guys they want to push, and the guys the fans want to get pushed in terms of their booking. Sometimes it's fine and entertaining and some other times it's real crappy TV.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Nov 27, 2013 22:50:06 GMT -5
Are there any instances of times when a wrestler was getting de-pushed or punished for being popular when they were not supposed to be? they gave him everything they could and the fans realized he wasn't actually all that great. he's exactly where he should be on the card these days. and I say that as a fan of the guy.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 27, 2013 22:51:57 GMT -5
they gave him everything they could and the fans realized he wasn't actually all that great. he's exactly where he should be on the card these days. and I say that as a fan of the guy. personally I think exactly where Ryder should be is on a midcard tag team
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 27, 2013 22:59:29 GMT -5
I don't think the company in general does. I DO believe the people running the show (Vince, Steph, Triple H and Kevin Dunn) resent that they aren't getting the demographics that they want though. the show's mostly watched by children and nerds, but they want the alpha male types who watch Football and MMA. and they'll never get those guys, either. But those two fanbases are not necessarily mutually exclusive (as shown by this very board and the football/MMA threads). Hell, I think starting into the mid-2000s or so, it became "cool" to be a nerd. I figured that someone backstage would've probably realized that.
|
|
|
Post by Old Jack Burton on Nov 27, 2013 23:01:17 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. This is the post I was looking for in this thread. And while I think there are some more complexities to be discussed, I think it describes the current WWE more than anything so far.
|
|