Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 7:54:55 GMT -5
If a TV show had a protagonist the equivalent to Roman Reigns. It would most likely be canceled after a season as the character wouldn't engage viewers and convince them to watch. With the WWE you have something thats embedded so hard into the culture. That unless they start booking WCW 2000 style, they'll always have a certain number of fans. So basically HHH's mentality is that Reigns has maintained the status quo with the WWE and hasn't bankrupted the company, so he's a huge success!
|
|
|
Post by Hobby Drifter on Mar 29, 2017 7:55:55 GMT -5
Austin was a heel that gained the audience's respect for being a tough SOB and benefited *immensely* from that perfectly-timed double-turn. The Rock was boo'd unmercifully until he turned heel and found several years' worth of exceedingly-marketable ways to tell the audience to go **** themselves. Kurt Angle parlayed an incredible heel run into an epic ass-kicking face run. Ditto with Brock Lesnar. The Shield were cheered like mad when they were heels and the crowd was ready to cheer them when the face turn came. HHH himself was over as arguably the greatest heel of the modern era before his rather-well received face turn.
It has worked OVER and OVER and OVER again. Make your dudes heel. Let the audience warm to them, then pull the trigger when the time is right. Roman HAS the talent. He CAN be what you want him to be. Just let him spend the next 20 months merking your babyfaces. Let him insult the crowd who "ruined what should have been his birthright". Then turn him face again shortly before Mania 35 and then, FINALLY, you can have your frickin' coronation when he rescues Ambrose from getting squished into pulp by BRAAAAAAAUUUUN. The beauty of the Shield is that you've got a ready-made story to turn any or all of them face or heel based on the whims of any of the other guys.
|
|
|
Post by Hobby Drifter on Mar 29, 2017 8:02:02 GMT -5
If a TV show had a protagonist the equivalent to Roman Reigns. It would most likely be canceled after a season as the character wouldn't engage viewers and convince them to watch. With the WWE you have something thats embedded so hard into the culture. That unless they start booking WCW 2000 style, they'll always have a certain number of fans. So basically HHH's mentality is that Reigns has maintained the status quo with the WWE and hasn't bankrupted the company, so he's a huge success! If Marvel treated their characters the way WWE does, characters like Wolverine, Deadpool, Venom, the Guardians of the Galaxy, and freaking SPIDER-MAN never would have become as prominent as they are. "Fans THINK they want the teenager with the powers of an annoying bug, but he's too scrawny and meek to be valuable. The book with his story in it was cancelled, ffs. What fans REALLY want is an obvious Superman clone!"
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,450
|
Post by Dub H on Mar 29, 2017 8:30:49 GMT -5
If a TV show had a protagonist the equivalent to Roman Reigns. It would most likely be canceled after a season as the character wouldn't engage viewers and convince them to watch. With the WWE you have something thats embedded so hard into the culture. That unless they start booking WCW 2000 style, they'll always have a certain number of fans. So basically HHH's mentality is that Reigns has maintained the status quo with the WWE and hasn't bankrupted the company, so he's a huge success! If Marvel treated their characters the way WWE does, characters like Wolverine, Deadpool, Venom, the Guardians of the Galaxy, and freaking SPIDER-MAN never would have become as prominent as they are. "Fans THINK they want the teenager with the powers of an annoying bug, but he's too scrawny and meek to be valuable. The book with his story in it was cancelled, ffs. What fans REALLY want is an obvious Superman clone!" Roman Reigns is the equivalent of the freaking Sentry Except marvel had the decency to write off that void(pun intend) of interest. if Marvel was like the WWE.We would have 5 Sentry Comics running at the same time right now, while Miles Morales would be killed off
|
|
|
Post by Hobby Drifter on Mar 29, 2017 9:02:32 GMT -5
If Marvel treated their characters the way WWE does, characters like Wolverine, Deadpool, Venom, the Guardians of the Galaxy, and freaking SPIDER-MAN never would have become as prominent as they are. "Fans THINK they want the teenager with the powers of an annoying bug, but he's too scrawny and meek to be valuable. The book with his story in it was cancelled, ffs. What fans REALLY want is an obvious Superman clone!" Roman Reigns is the equivalent of the freaking Sentry Except marvel had the decency to write off that void(pun intend) of interest. if Marvel was like the WWE.We would have 5 Sentry Comics running at the same time right now, while Miles Morales would be killed off Marvel have (almost) always been good with doing what was "best for business". They've got no problem throwing their support behind a surprise hit and dropping something they thought was a good idea when it bombs. Guess you could bring up the Spider-Man marriage thing thing, but (as much as I personally disagree) that probably *is* best for business, all things considered.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Mar 29, 2017 9:04:46 GMT -5
Roman Reigns is the equivalent of the freaking Sentry Except marvel had the decency to write off that void(pun intend) of interest. if Marvel was like the WWE.We would have 5 Sentry Comics running at the same time right now, while Miles Morales would be killed off Marvel have (almost) always been good with doing what was "best for business". They've got no problem throwing their support behind a surprise hit and dropping something they thought was a good idea when it bombs. Guess you could bring up the Spider-Man marriage thing thing, but (as much as I personally disagree) that probably *is* best for business, all things considered. I think Renew Your Vows was doing better than the main book during Secret Wars. Which is why it got it's own book.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Mar 29, 2017 9:25:57 GMT -5
The dilemma with Reigns not turning is that he actually would make a far better heel. His attitude, the greasy looks, everything about the guy screams out "cocky heel." At this point I don't even know what WWE is trying to do with Reigns. Let's say he goes over Taker on Sunday. What does that accomplish? Make him even more hated only to not turn him? Have him against Lesnar in the battle of the two guys who beat Taker?
Never mind the Marvel comparisons, you know what WWE reminds me of? Warner Bros. with the DC properties. Let's face it, last year Batman vs. Superman and Suicide Squad were both crapped on by fans and critics alike, yet you look at the year end numbers and Warner Bros. made a ton of money. It's like both make money in spite of themselves, but could make so much more if they put out a competent product.
|
|
|
Post by karoline94 on Mar 29, 2017 11:10:04 GMT -5
Booking him as a face and forcing him down our throats is not the kind of "hate" you want someone to have for your heel.
|
|
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Mar 29, 2017 11:35:05 GMT -5
What's HHH's username here?
How does he know about Super Cena?
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 29, 2017 19:20:40 GMT -5
Glad this discussion is being had here, so many different interesting directions to take the conversation.
-Firstly, while I doubt this is 100% Trips' true feelings on the matter, such a belief would speak to WWE's true weakness in recent history: un utter lack of concern for storytelling, narrative, character development, all the trappings of story that human beings have gravitated toward since the birth of language. People booing Roman isn't the same as people being invested in what Roman is doing; people who hear a story want a catharsis by the end, whether it's a good, bad, happy, sad, or enigmatic ending, but there is no catharsis in "you hate this guy, we're ignoring you, watch him succeed as we portray him as a hero."
I mean, that COULD work in a given film/show/book/show/whatever if it was being presented in a knowing way, if it was a story meant to frustrate your expectations, but this is professional wrestling, a storytelling medium that historically functions well as a basic morality play, not as a complex, highly abstracted narrative. Fans go into it knowing it's fake but seeking a simple catharsis similar to what pro sports delivers, so no, nobody's interested in dropping tons of money to watch the story of a conquering hero that the crowd isn't behind. An arthouse movie for $10 a ticket, sure, but not pro wrestling.
That's not to say that pro wrestling cannot be complex, but the complexity of pro wrestling revolves around what performers bring to their matches and to their promos; those performers are thus best served by simpler "A-to-B-to-C" booking and story structure, so they can focus on what they must deliver in the ring and on the mic to add layers and interest to the proceedings. Playing the "Roman is just a heel we book and completely present as a face!" card subverts that something fierce and puts the performers in a no-win situation.
Not to say Roman has to be a "good guy", though; all he has to be is a protagonist, a focal point character the audience can latch onto. That was Austin circa '97-'99; the show was tailored to take this awful guy, a sociopathic would-be serial killer, and make him the top face by pitting against foils like Hart and McMahon. The current WWE product doesn't do that for Roman; hell, it didn't even do that for Cena. WWE has booked itself, the company, as the biggest heel since the late 90s, so getting over "chosen one" champions can't work in that context, the audience won't accept them as protagonists.
-The notion that "any response is a good response" is flawed when you go and track the continued plummeting of WWE's viewing and paying audience. Triple H, John Cena, now Roman...none were/are bad performers, but business has continued to drop with each of them at the top, no matter how loud the fans who are sticking around are when they enter.
This line of thinking avoids having to comprehend things like historical contexts and cultural zeitgeists. For example, if we argue "Fans cheered heel Undertaker, nWo, Austin, etc.", that's true, but that's missing key historical aspects of their story. I think we lose sight of the fact that most popular mainstream wrestling since the 80s has largely been booked to appeal to the same age bracket since the day Hulkamania blew up across North America...hell, this is true of a lot of pop culture that ranged from the 80s-early 00s.
Consider the timeline: the Undertaker was a heel in '91, yes, but he stood out amid a sea of loud, yelling, steroid-bodied cartoon characters in such a way that nobody noticed how silly the idea of a "zombie mortician" was, and instead focused on how damn eerie and different this guy was. It helped his case quite a bit that he debuted in the WWF around the time that Hulkamania and everything it stood for on the show was beginning to enter its twilight, opening up the door for something different. The nWo and Austin rose to prominence when those same younger Hulkamania fans were hitting young adulthood (early 20s) or down to junior high, the age when everybody wants to show they're not little kids anymore, and that struck a chord. Today, the audience has dropped, and those same Hulkamania kids/Monday Night War teens and 20-somethings are now 20-30 something fanatics/collectors/convention types who will spend huge amounts on their hobbies of choice...WWE now draws less overall fans, but the ones who have stuck around are in that age range where they'll spend more money, thus making up some of the difference.
Point is, you can't look at what worked when your core fanbase was 8 years old, or 14 years old, or 20 years old, and just assume it will work now that many of them are in their 30s, or that it will appeal to today's generation of younger viewers you need to replenish your fanbase. The nWo worked because it was a rejection of Hulkamania. Austin worked because he had the perfect foils in Bret Hart and Vince McMahon to get his particular character over as a face. You can't just replicate these situations by sheer will.
There's a lot more to discuss, but my brain is scattered from too much work and some cold medication this week, so I'm just going to stop now and maybe revisit it later.
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Mar 29, 2017 20:14:29 GMT -5
It's probably been said already, and theres absolutely truth that any reaction > no reaction (though I'd love to know how they know fans pay for tickets to see Roman), but for me at least, it's not 'heel heat'. It's "I've stopped watching". Theres' a reason all I see of WWE tv now is segments off their Youtube, because so much has killed interest for me. John Cena did it for a long time, Roman Reigns does it now. They're not the only ones, but when Roman comes on, I switch off.
|
|
Lupin the Third
Patti Mayonnaise
I'm sorry.....I love you. *boot to the head*--3rd most culpable in the jixing of NXT, D'oh!
Join the Dark Order....
Posts: 36,400
|
Post by Lupin the Third on Mar 29, 2017 22:34:08 GMT -5
Yes, that one time the majority of fans didn't buy him as the face (myself included), which he was still presented as. But for the majority of his run? He was the top good guy, and fans at that time had no problem with him being a dick to Vince. Stacy Keibler getting stunned and people not liking it was the exception, not the rule. Roman already got his "well that one thing was a bad idea" moment like five times now. He broke into Pillman's home to attack him. He assaulted his boss a number of times. He pretended to be a doctor so he could assault his boss boss with a piss pan while his boss was in the hospital. He kidnapped his boss; although, he did use a fake gun to do it. He destroyed his boss's car with a concrete mixer. He "blew up" DX's bus. These are just a few examples from the top of my head. Looking at this behavior objectively, it's not really stuff a "good" guy would do. Lol. Don't forget the Monster Truck and The Rock's car.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Mar 31, 2017 13:16:55 GMT -5
also if they are worried that the crowd might start cheering if they actually let him be a heel.
If they do... USE THAT.
Have Roman say something along the lines of NOW you want to cheer for me? I was willing to be the good guy... and you wanted nothing to do with me.... Screw you.
The crowd hate being insulted no matter who is the one doing it.
|
|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Mar 31, 2017 13:29:48 GMT -5
also if they are worried that the crowd might start cheering if they actually let him be a heel. If they do... USE THAT. Have Roman say something along the lines of NOW you want to cheer for me? I was willing to be the good guy... and you wanted nothing to do with me.... Screw you. The crowd hate being insulted no matter who is the one doing it. My thing is, I always thought they should lean harder on his family background to sell him as a heel. Have him cut a promo on someone like Dean saying basically "These fans love you, YOU, and they boo ME? Do they know who I am? Where I come from? I was better than you from BIRTH!", and go from there.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Mar 31, 2017 13:31:29 GMT -5
also if they are worried that the crowd might start cheering if they actually let him be a heel. If they do... USE THAT. Have Roman say something along the lines of NOW you want to cheer for me? I was willing to be the good guy... and you wanted nothing to do with me.... Screw you. The crowd hate being insulted no matter who is the one doing it. My thing is, I always thought they should lean harder on his family background to sell him as a heel. Have him cut a promo on someone like Dean saying basically "These fans love you, YOU, and they boo ME? Do they know who I am? Where I come from? I was better than you from BIRTH!", and go from there. I was mainly saying if the crowd does start cheering him when he's a heel just go back and have him run them down. the crowd booed when the Rock would yell that it wasn't sing along time with the great one and the like.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Mar 31, 2017 13:33:41 GMT -5
If you have no heroes and villains, you have no stories. Without those you cannot create compelling characters, and that leads to a shitty product. No one matters, nothing matters. It's even worse when you have a company like WWE who aren't even aware of what constitutes heroic/villainous behaviour and no awareness of the internal logic of their own product. They don't care, so neither does the diminishing fanbase.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Apr 2, 2017 23:03:22 GMT -5
And to prove their point of how cool they are with Roman being their biggest heel WWE of course mutes the crowd at the end of Taker/Reigns.
|
|
|
Post by xxshoyuweeniexx on Apr 2, 2017 23:08:35 GMT -5
Yeah we can stop with the "They don't care if Reigns gets booed or cheered" thing when they mute boos. I mean they clearly want him to be the real american fighting for the rights of every man hero, let's not lie to ourselves here.
|
|
|
Post by -Lithium- on Apr 2, 2017 23:09:58 GMT -5
Ugh. Just stop it. Just f***ing stop it. He's a failure. No amount of spin and bashing the EVIL INTERNET will make any difference. The window is closed. You want him as top face. You present him as top face. He is not and never will be the top face. Let it the f*** go. You've lost. He's lost. It's f***ing OVER. Let it go. God damn.
|
|
|
Post by JTG Fan on Apr 2, 2017 23:09:59 GMT -5
It's 2017. People still hate Roman Reigns? Grow up.
|
|