|
Post by MichaelMartini on Dec 19, 2013 15:09:59 GMT -5
Because when an angle starts, it's largely and usually a surprise, and fans don't have pre-conceived specific ideas about what's supposed to happen. It's just something new and exciting and different, and who doesn't like that in pro wrestling? Once a storyline starts, the more cynical fans have a specific idea about what has to happen every step along the way after that. If the WWE doesn't manage to conform with their expectations exactly, the fans aren't going to like it. And of course, it's impossible to fulfill the expectations of every fan. I don't even see the objective "problem" with how Nexus evolved and eventually ended. But ask that certain type of fan what they didn't like about it, they'll tell you what was "supposed to happen", and since that exact thing didn't happen, it was terrible. Yes, you're right. It's the fan's fault when angles get screwed up. WWE always books every storyline totally logically.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 19, 2013 15:19:46 GMT -5
It's because going all the way with big stories would result in change, which would require WWE to actually innovate. WWE prefers to maintain a holding pattern, which means things always resort to the status quo, usually with an establishment guy going over, or assuming the focus of the angle. change is not automatically innovation. Everyone watching these angles hopes they'll result in the next big thing/ next major star popping up. But considering WWE is constantly airing if every major angle resulted in the new next big thing then that means every previous big thing is a choke artist who fails when it's his turn to stand up to pressure and a lot of previous NBTs are put out to pasture with a ton of shelf life on them, I think they should concentrate on presenting the next natural arc in the stories they tell, instead of blowing their loads too early or altering organic progression to suit their flawed and broken booking. Star Wars Ep 4 built up toward the big destruction of the death star, with a matured and focused Luke Skywalker putting aside his grief of Obi-Wan's death to take his advice and use the force to accomplish what could not be accomplished by regular means. It built over two hours to lead to that end. WWE's problem is that they'd have had Obi-Wan find Luke, they'd blow up the death star the next week, and somewhere in the middle Han Solo would now be the chosen one fist fighting Vader while Luke was off doing nothing of significance. WWE doesn't let stories build, flow and end properly. They don't follow the fundamental rules of storytelling that any university student taking writing learns in the first lesson. All the recent botched angles had proper endings based on the exposition and players. (like HHH needed to be the heel in the Punk angle. That was the natural and organic direction). But WWE, as Hit Girl said, is too obsessed with status-quo or presenting corporate corruption in the winning light. To write a story properly, you have to know conclusively what your ending is ahead of time. And you build backwards from there. You don't start with an idea, then make it up as you go along. That's how a 5 year old writes.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 19, 2013 15:22:44 GMT -5
Because nothing came of it. No one benefitted from it. It got no one over, and even if it did, most ended up as jobbers, with the exception of Daniel Bryan who got over due to non-Nexus factors. There was no bigger picture, no purpose and the entire group seemed like the pins for the bowling ball John Cena to knock over, which is a hell of a waste of seven guys just to redundantly make one guy look stronger. I don't even count the "new" Nexus. A few mooks for Punk. Nothing more.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 19, 2013 16:06:35 GMT -5
change is not automatically innovation. Everyone watching these angles hopes they'll result in the next big thing/ next major star popping up. But considering WWE is constantly airing if every major angle resulted in the new next big thing then that means every previous big thing is a choke artist who fails when it's his turn to stand up to pressure and a lot of previous NBTs are put out to pasture with a ton of shelf life on them, I think they should concentrate on presenting the next natural arc in the stories they tell, instead of blowing their loads too early or altering organic progression to suit their flawed and broken booking. Star Wars Ep 4 built up toward the big destruction of the death star, with a matured and focused Luke Skywalker putting aside his grief of Obi-Wan's death to take his advice and use the force to accomplish what could not be accomplished by regular means. It built over two hours to lead to that end. WWE's problem is that they'd have had Obi-Wan find Luke, they'd blow up the death star the next week, and somewhere in the middle Han Solo would now be the chosen one fist fighting Vader while Luke was off doing nothing of significance. WWE doesn't let stories build, flow and end properly. They don't follow the fundamental rules of storytelling that any university student taking writing learns in the first lesson. All the recent botched angles had proper endings based on the exposition and players. (like HHH needed to be the heel in the Punk angle. That was the natural and organic direction). But WWE, as Hit Girl said, is too obsessed with status-quo or presenting corporate corruption in the winning light. To write a story properly, you have to know conclusively what your ending is ahead of time. And you build backwards from there. You don't start with an idea, then make it up as you go along. That's how a 5 year old writes. where was the corporate corruption in the Summer of Punk angle? That whole story was that despite Punk's beliefs the WWE itself was NOT out to screw him over.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 19, 2013 16:08:55 GMT -5
Because nothing came of it. No one benefitted from it. It got no one over, and even if it did, most ended up as jobbers, with the exception of Daniel Bryan who got over due to non-Nexus factors. There was no bigger picture, no purpose and the entire group seemed like the pins for the bowling ball John Cena to knock over, which is a hell of a waste of seven guys just to redundantly make one guy look stronger. I don't even count the "new" Nexus. A few mooks for Punk. Nothing more. expect the Nexus angle didn't really job out seven guys. It only jobbed out Barrett Skip and Tarver were injured and had to be removed. Young was pulled early. Slabriel really didn't have that much interacgtion with him
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 16:10:46 GMT -5
It always comes to one of two things A) Hot angle, but has nothing to do with Triple H - insert Triple H. B) If Triple H is in the big angle - He can never ever look bad.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Dec 19, 2013 16:13:01 GMT -5
Because nothing came of it. No one benefitted from it. It got no one over, and even if it did, most ended up as jobbers, with the exception of Daniel Bryan who got over due to non-Nexus factors. There was no bigger picture, no purpose and the entire group seemed like the pins for the bowling ball John Cena to knock over, which is a hell of a waste of seven guys just to redundantly make one guy look stronger. I don't even count the "new" Nexus. A few mooks for Punk. Nothing more. expect the Nexus angle didn't really job out seven guys. It only jobbed out Barrett Skip and Tarver were injured and had to be removed. Young was pulled early. Slabriel really didn't have that much interacgtion with him OK then, one jobber and five injured or meaningless guys. That changes everything.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 19, 2013 16:13:58 GMT -5
I think they should concentrate on presenting the next natural arc in the stories they tell, instead of blowing their loads too early or altering organic progression to suit their flawed and broken booking. Star Wars Ep 4 built up toward the big destruction of the death star, with a matured and focused Luke Skywalker putting aside his grief of Obi-Wan's death to take his advice and use the force to accomplish what could not be accomplished by regular means. It built over two hours to lead to that end. WWE's problem is that they'd have had Obi-Wan find Luke, they'd blow up the death star the next week, and somewhere in the middle Han Solo would now be the chosen one fist fighting Vader while Luke was off doing nothing of significance. WWE doesn't let stories build, flow and end properly. They don't follow the fundamental rules of storytelling that any university student taking writing learns in the first lesson. All the recent botched angles had proper endings based on the exposition and players. (like HHH needed to be the heel in the Punk angle. That was the natural and organic direction). But WWE, as Hit Girl said, is too obsessed with status-quo or presenting corporate corruption in the winning light. To write a story properly, you have to know conclusively what your ending is ahead of time. And you build backwards from there. You don't start with an idea, then make it up as you go along. That's how a 5 year old writes. where was the corporate corruption in the Summer of Punk angle? That whole story was that despite Punk's beliefs the WWE itself was NOT out to screw him over. The corporate corruption was the story they botched. They wrote it so HHH was really vindicated and Punk a fool, despite the opposite scenario capturing the imagination and interest of the fans. There being a conspiracy to hold certain stars back was a storyline that was believable, because it's actually been true in some cases before Punk. And HHH is regarded by many a shady politician, Vince insane, Johnny Ace a corporate stooge and kiss up and Stephanie talentless. It all had seeds of reality to it, spun within a kayfabe context. That's why people got hooked. Them vindicating the "soul crushing status quo" was an absurd and horribly short-sighted ending to an interesting arc. Especially now wherein they've decided to go that direction anyway long after the bloom's been off the rose. It was a fail of a storyline. Punk succeeded in spite of it, not because of it.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 19, 2013 16:24:42 GMT -5
I happen to think Punk being proven right would have been far more soul crushing
I mean I hate to point this out but of the guys evil boss Mr. mcMahon feuded with who's still around? Austin is forcibly medically retired. So is Foley. Rock walked away. Mr. McMahon is bascially still the boss.
A corrupt corporate boss storyline, where you need the corporation to stick around, does not allow for a long term happy ending.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,016
|
Post by nate5054 on Dec 19, 2013 16:56:15 GMT -5
WWE failed geometry. Can you blame them? Working with all those shapes and shit. Vince definitely lacks a protractor.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Dec 19, 2013 16:59:34 GMT -5
I happen to think Punk being proven right would have been far more soul crushing I mean I hate to point this out but of the guys evil boss Mr. mcMahon feuded with who's still around? Austin is forcibly medically retired. So is Foley. Rock walked away. Mr. McMahon is bascially still the boss. A corrupt corporate boss storyline, where you need the corporation to stick around, does not allow for a long term happy ending. Punk proven right? That HHH was holding people down? But he was right since that's the storyline they've been running with this year. But it would've made more sense in 2011.A face Punk vs Heel HHH simply made the most sense. I know you're always pro-"whatever WWE is right" but do you really think HHH vs Nash was the best way to book that storyline? Your second point is ridiculous. The Mcmahon character was one upped and humiliated time and time again by Austin, Rock, Taker, HHH, HBK, Hogan. Plus, those guys are retired because they got old/injured/went on to other things. Who says the corporation needs to stick around? What are you even arguing?
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Dec 19, 2013 17:02:10 GMT -5
I happen to think Punk being proven right would have been far more soul crushing I mean I hate to point this out but of the guys evil boss Mr. mcMahon feuded with who's still around? Austin is forcibly medically retired. So is Foley. Rock walked away. Mr. McMahon is bascially still the boss. A corrupt corporate boss storyline, where you need the corporation to stick around, does not allow for a long term happy ending. I think WWE realized that to some degree and that's part of why we ended up with lesser authority figures like commissioners, general managers, etc. to work the TV shows. Even if they pale in comparison to Vince as a character, unlike Mr. McMahon, guys like Bischoff, Heyman, Angle, Regal, Vickie, Big Johnny, Mad-Ox, etc. ARE capable of being "ultimately defeated".
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Dec 19, 2013 17:07:00 GMT -5
I happen to think Punk being proven right would have been far more soul crushing I mean I hate to point this out but of the guys evil boss Mr. mcMahon feuded with who's still around? Austin is forcibly medically retired. So is Foley. Rock walked away. Mr. McMahon is bascially still the boss. A corrupt corporate boss storyline, where you need the corporation to stick around, does not allow for a long term happy ending. Punk proven right? That HHH was holding people down? But he was right since that's the storyline they've been running with this year. But it would've made more sense in 2011.A face Punk vs Heel HHH simply made the most sense. I know you're always pro-"whatever WWE is right" but do you really think HHH vs Nash was the best way to book that storyline? Your second point is ridiculous. The Mcmahon character was one upped and humiliated time and time again by Austin, Rock, Taker, HHH, HBK, Hogan. Plus, those guys are retired because they got old/injured/went on to other things. Who says the corporation needs to stick around? What are you even arguing? doing something now, does not mean you were doing something then. A Punk vs nash match would have been better, or them not putting Trips job on the line in their match so Punk could logically beat him. That's right, all those guys are retired because of whatever. And who knows how much the stuff Vince threw in their way shortened their careers. But one upped or humiliated he's still the boss and if they want to come back for an appearance, he's still the guy they've got to ask. Why does the corporation need to stick around? How are WCW's face war against Eric Bischoff's corrupt nWo regime going? Oh, right, WCW doesn't exist anymore. For matches against the WWE's storyline corporate structure to happen, WWE's real corporate structure has to exist. Therefore it can never go away which means the faces can never completely win.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Dec 19, 2013 17:13:57 GMT -5
Because when an angle starts, it's largely and usually a surprise, and fans don't have pre-conceived specific ideas about what's supposed to happen. It's just something new and exciting and different, and who doesn't like that in pro wrestling? Once a storyline starts, the more cynical fans have a specific idea about what has to happen every step along the way after that. If the WWE doesn't manage to conform with their expectations exactly, the fans aren't going to like it. And of course, it's impossible to fulfill the expectations of every fan. I don't even see the objective "problem" with how Nexus evolved and eventually ended. But ask that certain type of fan what they didn't like about it, they'll tell you what was "supposed to happen", and since that exact thing didn't happen, it was terrible. Yes, you're right. It's the fan's fault when angles get screwed up. WWE always books every storyline totally logically. When the majority of a message board will hate any angle regardless of how it plays out unledss it conforms to their individual, precise, expectation of how things have to happen, then yes, is they're fault for being miserable and whiny about EVERYTHING. There's people who look at movies and tv the same way, but the attitude is somehow even more prevalent. I honestly believe it is litterally impossible to please that segment of the fanbase. No major wrestling company has done it since maybe 1998 or so, when the internet was a very different place.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 19, 2013 17:15:43 GMT -5
I happen to think Punk being proven right would have been far more soul crushing I mean I hate to point this out but of the guys evil boss Mr. mcMahon feuded with who's still around? Austin is forcibly medically retired. So is Foley. Rock walked away. Mr. McMahon is bascially still the boss. A corrupt corporate boss storyline, where you need the corporation to stick around, does not allow for a long term happy ending. The evil corporation continuing to exist and grow is soul crushing. And by that I mean how its ran; not the company itself. People get behind those who try to topple totalitarian regimes in hopes that those regimes fall and crumble, because only then can justice prevail and progression begin. It's the driving force behind every story ever written featuring that arc. No one (normal, anyway) pulls for the haves. The end result of the storyline is the evil McMahon characters being humbled and either being forced to change or being removed entirely from TV. That's the end result. You write them out as characters or end that role entirely if there's still value in them (like HHH as a performer). The evil authority figure character needed a final, definitive end. Not an excuse to continue under the twisted assumption that its really just and correct.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Dec 19, 2013 17:25:22 GMT -5
Yes, you're right. It's the fan's fault when angles get screwed up. WWE always books every storyline totally logically. When the majority of a message board will hate any angle regardless of how it plays out unledss it conforms to their individual, precise, expectation of how things have to happen, then yes, is they're fault for being miserable and whiny about EVERYTHING. There's people who look at movies and tv the same way, but the attitude is somehow even more prevalent. I honestly believe it is litterally impossible to please that segment of the fanbase. No major wrestling company has done it since maybe 1998 or so, when the internet was a very different place. At the same time, there is right and wrong ways to morally end an angle based on the story being told. People for example could try and justify HHH winning at WrestleMania 19 over Booker T from a story perspective, but it is absolutely impossible based on how the story was told and the moral implications involved. Sometimes, when it comes to stories, things ARE black and white. People can like or dislike what they want, but natural conclusion is obvious in morality tales. Good wins when its belief system is up against the wall and challenged. Evil can win battles, but never be proven correct.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Dec 19, 2013 17:28:05 GMT -5
It's because the booking team is made up of failed Hollywood writers. If they could write a good story, they'd still be in Hollywood. basically this. any writer whose actually decent would be out of their mind to put up with the WWE's borderline abusive scheduling when they can be better payed with better working conditions elsewhere. so WWE has to make do with the scraps they do get. and on top of that, the hack writers they do have work 70+ hours weekly in terrible conditions so they're tired, and turnover in creative is through the roof. it's no wonder things always peter out or get forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Dec 19, 2013 17:28:16 GMT -5
Punk proven right? That HHH was holding people down? But he was right since that's the storyline they've been running with this year. But it would've made more sense in 2011.A face Punk vs Heel HHH simply made the most sense. I know you're always pro-"whatever WWE is right" but do you really think HHH vs Nash was the best way to book that storyline? Your second point is ridiculous. The Mcmahon character was one upped and humiliated time and time again by Austin, Rock, Taker, HHH, HBK, Hogan. Plus, those guys are retired because they got old/injured/went on to other things. Who says the corporation needs to stick around? What are you even arguing? doing something now, does not mean you were doing something then. A Punk vs nash match would have been better, or them not putting Trips job on the line in their match so Punk could logically beat him. That's right, all those guys are retired because of whatever. And who knows how much the stuff Vince threw in their way shortened their careers. But one upped or humiliated he's still the boss and if they want to come back for an appearance, he's still the guy they've got to ask. Why does the corporation need to stick around? How are WCW's face war against Eric Bischoff's corrupt nWo regime going? Oh, right, WCW doesn't exist anymore. For matches against the WWE's storyline corporate structure to happen, WWE's real corporate structure has to exist. Therefore it can never go away which means the faces can never completely win. Wait, you're saying the evil corporation has to stick around, and then you point out how that happening in WCW drove them out of business. Again, do you even know what you're arguing? As to your last point, the corporation on tv are characters. It should have little to do with what's going on behind the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Dec 19, 2013 17:31:51 GMT -5
Yes, you're right. It's the fan's fault when angles get screwed up. WWE always books every storyline totally logically. When the majority of a message board will hate any angle regardless of how it plays out unledss it conforms to their individual, precise, expectation of how things have to happen, then yes, is they're fault for being miserable and whiny about EVERYTHING. There's people who look at movies and tv the same way, but the attitude is somehow even more prevalent. I honestly believe it is litterally impossible to please that segment of the fanbase. No major wrestling company has done it since maybe 1998 or so, when the internet was a very different place. You're generalizing about a very specific, small portion of wrestling fans attitudes. You're lumping in everyone that has a complaint into a group that complains about everything. From what I've seen it's not people wanting an exact thing to happen so much as it is them envisioning countless other ways a story or push could've been better.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Dec 19, 2013 17:57:41 GMT -5
change is not automatically innovation. Everyone watching these angles hopes they'll result in the next big thing/ next major star popping up. But considering WWE is constantly airing if every major angle resulted in the new next big thing then that means every previous big thing is a choke artist who fails when it's his turn to stand up to pressure and a lot of previous NBTs are put out to pasture with a ton of shelf life on them, I think they should concentrate on presenting the next natural arc in the stories they tell, instead of blowing their loads too early or altering organic progression to suit their flawed and broken booking. Star Wars Ep 4 built up toward the big destruction of the death star, with a matured and focused Luke Skywalker putting aside his grief of Obi-Wan's death to take his advice and use the force to accomplish what could not be accomplished by regular means. It built over two hours to lead to that end. WWE's problem is that they'd have had Obi-Wan find Luke, they'd blow up the death star the next week, and somewhere in the middle Han Solo would now be the chosen one fist fighting Vader while Luke was off doing nothing of significance. WWE doesn't let stories build, flow and end properly. They don't follow the fundamental rules of storytelling that any university student taking writing learns in the first lesson. All the recent botched angles had proper endings based on the exposition and players. (like HHH needed to be the heel in the Punk angle. That was the natural and organic direction). But WWE, as Hit Girl said, is too obsessed with status-quo or presenting corporate corruption in the winning light. To write a story properly, you have to know conclusively what your ending is ahead of time. And you build backwards from there. You don't start with an idea, then make it up as you go along. That's how a 5 year old writes. Han Solo fist fighting Darth Vader sounds pretty cool.
|
|