I Sincerely Couldn't Be The Only One That Enjoyed Last Night

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2016 7:04:41 GMT -5 Wolfman Rose said:

I liked parts.

Just a warning though OP, no matter how many negative threads are on the first page, people who hated the show will swarm this one anyway. You're not allowed to like something that the hivemind didn't.

It's perfectly okay to like the show. By all means, if you did, good for you. The main thing people are arguing against is when people go around berating others for not praising it or being dismissive of those who didn't enjoy themselves.

[Deleted]

I think it was a fun show to watch unfold but if you start actually thinking about any of what's happening for a second it opens up Pandora's box and you can start deconstructing almost everything about it. I had fun watching it with my group, but sure enough when the replay started I watched the thing again being all analytical and shit and this show does not hold up to scrutiny much at all. I'm all over the place as far as this Wrestlemania goes, because I enjoyed watching it but I still really hated it for the decisions they made.

[walterharrow]

There were some good to great matches on the show, but the booking was awful and there really isn't anything for me to look forward to coming out of Wrestlemania.

I don't care about Zack Ryder and im really not expecting them to start giving him a serious push all of a sudden. He will likely lose the belt after a few weeks to someone like the Miz. They could have had Owens or Zayn win, which would then lead to a long feud between the two for the title. That would have been something to look forward to

Jericho winning either leads to yet another match between him and AJ, or leads to Jericho as the first challenger for Reigns. AJ winning would have ended the feud and could have lead to AJ being pushed to the main event, which again would be something to keep me interested. Now though, I don't know what they are doing with AJ

I was really hoping that Becky Lynch would get her moment and she would have been a great face champion, but Charlotte winning changes nothing (I don't really have a problem with her winning but Wrestlemania should be the end of long heel reigns IMO). Becky (or even Sasha) winning would have been a great way to begin a new era for the women but they stuck with the heel

Roman Reigns winning the title also doesn't lead anywhere interesting IMO. We have seen him as champion before and there really aren't any interesting challengers for him (other than Jericho and maybe Owens). Turning him heel would have made me interested to see what they are doing with him but Reigns as a face champion does nothing for me

Im glad Undertaker won (and never want to see him lose at WM again) but that's another result that doesn't really lead anywhere and changes nothing. Undertaker isn't go to be a full timer and the Authority are still in power so the match was pointless

Wrestlemania should be unmissable and must watch but this years could easily be skipped and nothing major would be missed (other than Reigns winning the title once again). Reigns and Ryder were the only faces who won and one of those guys was booed more than the majority of heels. There were no real big celebrations for a big babyface win, which is what Wrestlemania should be about in my opinion. Zayn, Becky, AJ all winning would have led to emotional celebrations, but everything was anticlimactic

[Mikoto Misaka]

Its odd. The matches were great, but some of the finishes just seemed off. It feels like this Wrestlemania was just used to most continue feuds instead of ending them.

[wisdomwizard]

Apr 4, 2016 8:00:44 GMT -5 spagett said:

Apr 4, 2016 7:04:41 GMT -5 Wolfman Rose said:

I liked parts.

Just a warning though OP, no matter how many negative threads are on the first page, people who hated the show will swarm this one anyway. You're not allowed to like something that the hivemind didn't.

Ah so if you didn't like the show you're part of the hivemind but if you did like the show you're a free thinker?

The only one coming across as bitter here is you

You're the one helping what said come true. A positive thread with two others vs. however many that outnumber it and rather than let this one go and keep to the other negative threads, here you are jumping on him. Hivemind may not be the right word, but I think over reactionary fits.

[spagett]

Apr 4, 2016 14:12:12 GMT -5 wisdomwizard said:

Apr 4, 2016 8:00:44 GMT -5 spagett said:

Ah so if you didn't like the show you're part of the hivemind but if you did like the show you're a free thinker?

The only one coming across as bitter here is you

You're the one helping what said come true. A positive thread with two others vs. however many that outnumber it and rather than let this one go and keep to the other negative threads, here you are jumping on him. Hivemind may not be the right word, but I think over reactionary fits.

No if people enjoyed the show last night that's fine everyone is entitled to their opinion.

He was the one insulting people for no reason, how is that positive. Just say why you liked the show, you don't have to disparage those that didn't enjoy it.

[domrep]

The show was enjoyable up through the Hell in a Cell match. From that match on, everything stunk.

[Perfect Timing]

I had no issues with the show outside of Rock's lame appearance and whatever Lesnar/Ambrose was.

It's just a pain in the arse watching on the network and having it freeze every 30 seconds during the opener.

[Nikki Heyman]

The wrestling was mostly sound, some things were indeed "Off", but this won't crack my top ten.

And I'm usually pretty easy to please.

I think my issue is colored by the Network being incredibly spotty at times and the millions (and millions) of negative posts about Roman/HHH and ANYTHING That even remotely related to it. I legit blew up on people before and after the match about it.

[The Ichi]

It was similar to 29 for me. Some good wrestling, but terrible results.

[sonofblaine]

I've mellowed in my old age. 10 years ago, I'd be writing rage filled posts, threatening to quit watching, etc (hell, I did quit from 04 - 10 and so there's a chunk of WWE history I don't know much about). But now it's just a show, like any other. Sure, stuff happens that I don't like, but I also get enjoyment from it. I had fun watching it and I'll always want to see what happens next.

[Hurbster]

I'd give it a B as well. Thoroughly enjoyed each match.

[joeiscool]

Apr 4, 2016 13:52:23 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

Apr 4, 2016 7:04:41 GMT -5 Wolfman Rose said:

I liked parts.

Just a warning though OP, no matter how many negative threads are on the first page, people who hated the show will swarm this one anyway. You're not allowed to like something that the hivemind didn't.

It's perfectly okay to like the show. By all means, if you did, good for you. The main thing people are arguing against is when people go around berating others for not praising it or being dismissive of those who didn't enjoy themselves.

I think it goes both ways. Lots of people are calling this the worst Wrestlemania ever, and dismissing anyone who likes the show.

Also I know in wrestling a lot of things are subjective, but I feel like there were a lot of objective things that keep this from being the worst. The fact that people are willing to ignore great wrestling, because their guy didn't win says a lot about some of the people who are posting.

[thegame415]

To me, it wasn't bad. It wasn't the way I think they should've booked it. In the ranking of Mania's, I think it will end up being one like 7 or 21 that a lot of times is kind of just lost in the shuffle.

[edgestar]

For the way it was booked, it ended up being a very good show, imo.

[Deleted]

Apr 4, 2016 16:24:02 GMT -5 joeiscool said:

Apr 4, 2016 13:52:23 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

It's perfectly okay to like the show. By all means, if you did, good for you. The main thing people are arguing against is when people go around berating others for not praising it or being dismissive of those who didn't enjoy themselves.

I think it goes both ways. Lots of people are calling this the worst Wrestlemania ever, and dismissing anyone who likes the show.

Also I know in wrestling a lot of things are subjective, but I feel like there were a lot of objective things that keep this from being the worst. The fact that people are willing to ignore great wrestling, because their guy didn't win says a lot about some of the people who are posting.

Well, one, it's debatable if a match was great or not. Personally I thought a lot of the show was just decent - the only matches I'd feel comfortable calling great are the ladder match and the triple threat, and there were some like Ambrose / Lesnar, the Hell in a Cell, and Triple H / Reigns that were just straight-up bad in my view.

And beyond that, no, I don't buy that good matches make up for a night of bad finishes. Wrestling is still about storytelling and you can't excuse bad writing by saying, "Well, the fight scenes were good!"

If you liked it, fine, whatever. I'd still definitely put this Mania in the bottom five (and I'd probably call it the one I would least want to ever rewatch, because it's five f***ing hours long while most of the other really terrible Manias are just three) and say in my view it was the worst Mania main event ever.

[Dave the Dave]

Apr 4, 2016 16:33:31 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

Apr 4, 2016 16:24:02 GMT -5 joeiscool said:

I think it goes both ways. Lots of people are calling this the worst Wrestlemania ever, and dismissing anyone who likes the show.

Also I know in wrestling a lot of things are subjective, but I feel like there were a lot of objective things that keep this from being the worst. The fact that people are willing to ignore great wrestling, because their guy didn't win says a lot about some of the people who are posting.

Well, one, it's debatable if a match was great or not. Personally I thought a lot of the show was just decent - the only matches I'd feel comfortable calling great are the ladder match and the triple threat, and there were some like Ambrose / Lesnar, the Hell in a Cell, and Triple H / Reigns that were just straight-up bad in my view.

And beyond that, no, I don't buy that good matches make up for a night of bad finishes. Wrestling is still about storytelling and you can't excuse bad writing by saying, "Well, the fight scenes were good!"

If you liked it, fine, whatever. I'd still definitely put this Mania in the bottom five (and I'd probably call it the one I would least want to ever rewatch, because it's five f***ing hours long while most of the other really terrible Manias are just three) and say in my view it was the worst Mania main event ever.

I agree with some of what you said but did not agree with some. OMG which one of us gets kicked out of the hivemind!!?!?!?!

[Deleted]

It's one of those shows that's going to age well through time. Like you have some Wrestlemania's that were booked well like 20, 23, 26 but haven't aged well feeling like one giant 4 hour episode of Raw.

This one had some cool unpredictable moments (Ryder and Corbin winning), great matches, and some memorable Wrestlemania moments.

Maybe it's because I watch wrestling PPV's with a group of friends and some friends are so busy with their lives we don't see each other until these events so it always a fun time at least.

[Psychoblue]

I had a good time because the chat I was in featured a Cowboys fan who proceeded to get every single one of his wrestlemania predictions wrong made all the funnier by where Wrestlemania was taking place.

Roman vs HHH wasn't amazing but I definitely enjoyed it more than HHH vs Orton at WM25. Hopefully this finally shuts the door on the Authority mess and opens up the door to fresh feuds and the opportunity for new challengers to make great money in main event programs with Roman. Just like Cena, Roman will grow by working with the best.

[joeiscool]

Apr 4, 2016 16:33:31 GMT -5 Lizuka #BLM said:

Apr 4, 2016 16:24:02 GMT -5 joeiscool said:

I think it goes both ways. Lots of people are calling this the worst Wrestlemania ever, and dismissing anyone who likes the show.

Also I know in wrestling a lot of things are subjective, but I feel like there were a lot of objective things that keep this from being the worst. The fact that people are willing to ignore great wrestling, because their guy didn't win says a lot about some of the people who are posting.

Well, one, it's debatable if a match was great or not. Personally I thought a lot of the show was just decent - the only matches I'd feel comfortable calling great are the ladder match and the triple threat, and there were some like Ambrose / Lesnar, the Hell in a Cell, and Triple H / Reigns that were just straight-up bad in my view.

And beyond that, no, I don't buy that good matches make up for a night of bad finishes. Wrestling is still about storytelling and you can't excuse bad writing by saying, "Well, the fight scenes were good!"
.

I'd be hard pressed to call the finishes bad finishes.

A bad finish is Hogan beating Yokozuna in a un announced match, or David Aquett winning the world Heavyweight title in a tag team match, the Montreal screwjob ... or the finger poke of Doom.

What we have here are competitors that have largely been booked as equals entering into a match, and the one you wanted to win loses.

If the possibility of the person/people you like losing cleanly to a person/people who is booked as an equal or better is enough to make it the worst event ever even after they put on a good match , you might want to reevaluate why you watch. I think, you are setting yourself up to be disappointed.