|
Post by gmanquik on Sept 18, 2007 13:48:29 GMT -5
I'm not arguing, man. Just discussing. Bouncing my thoughts off of people. It's cool. You're the first. You should have been here last night, when about 3 guys were trying to discount every word I said...(and still couldn't get the job done, might I add ;D) You can say that I am the Triple H of this argument, and they were the midcard. j/k (NOTE: Just meant to be a harmless joke. I'm expecting plenty of whisper flaming. )
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Sept 18, 2007 13:49:42 GMT -5
Then the roster got thinner, and now we're out of decently over midcarders, because the show has been focused on the World Titles and on the McMahons for such a long time that all the rest has become worthless at the eyes of the fans. I think this is definitely true. But what I just saw makes the problem worse. It was as far from a solution as you could get. I know, but it seems like it's not something WWE intend to work on. The crowd pay to see Cena v Orton, Khali v Batista (brrrr) or Vince's antics; just like 20 years ago they paid to see Hogan v Andre or Savage v Steamboat. If the crowd is silent during Londrick v C&M, but back then used to be into Hart Foundation v British Bulldogs, is a relative problem for the Office... They won't push any of these 4, should the need/circumstance arise. It's deadly wrong, but that's how it is now. Midcard stopped being important when: 1) The infamous weekly Superstar v Superstar routine began 2) Champions wrestling on "free" TV every other day 3) Tag Team Division became a "parking lot" for Superstars whose career was "on hold"
|
|
|
Post by gmanquik on Sept 18, 2007 13:51:48 GMT -5
I think this is definitely true. But what I just saw makes the problem worse. It was as far from a solution as you could get. I know, but it seems like it's not something WWE intend to work on. The crowd pay to see Cena v Orton, Khali v Batista (brrrr) or Vince's antics; just like 20 years ago they paid to see Hogan v Andre or Savage v Steamboat. If the crowd is silent during Londrick v C&M, but back then used to be into Hart Foundation v British Bulldogs, is a relative problem for the Office... They won't push any of these 4, should the need/circumstance arise. It's deadly wrong, but that's how it is now. You and I are certainly on the same page. We're saying the exact same things, just different examples. It works nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by T.J. "the Crippler" Stevens on Sept 18, 2007 13:54:25 GMT -5
I just watched the recording of the show a few minutes ago. I stayed away from the board last night because I didn't want spoilers. I don't need to see any of those guys pushed to the moon. Or even pushed any further than they already are. I just don't want to see them buried. I know there's nothing I can do about it. That's why I come to the Wrestlecrap forum. At least I have somewhere to talk about it.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,408
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Sept 18, 2007 13:55:59 GMT -5
I think this is definitely true. But what I just saw makes the problem worse. It was as far from a solution as you could get. I know, but it seems like it's not something WWE intend to work on. The crowd pay to see Cena v Orton, Khali v Batista (brrrr) or Vince's antics; just like 20 years ago they paid to see Hogan v Andre or Savage v Steamboat. If the crowd is silent during Londrick v C&M, but back then used to be into Hart Foundation v British Bulldogs, is a relative problem for the Office... They won't push any of these 4, should the need/circumstance arise. It's deadly wrong, but that's how it is now. Midcard stopped being important when: 1) The infamous weekly Superstar v Superstar routine began 2) Champions wrestling on "free" TV every other day 3) Tag Team Division became a "parking lot" for Superstars whose career was "on hold" It is wrong, and the fact that Londrick is outselling some of their main eventers in terms of merchandise means that it is very stupid on their part as well.
|
|
|
Post by TRUTH TELLER on Sept 18, 2007 14:16:26 GMT -5
Because there are actually people who are defending the act itself, and not stating your (correct) opinion that nothing will change. And these people are doing it, not because of some logic based argument wherein their points prove that an already superover babyface is going to draw more money because of it, but rather just because A) they like Triple H. And B) don't care about who it is that's getting annihilated. That's really it. There's no logical defense for why it had to happen. And I don't buy the previous arguments that this somehow gives Londrick a "character". A character of two complete dorks who get killed. Ya, that's the gimmick that'll get them over. Seriously though, as I mentioned way earlier in the thread, I think the problem is not the idea of Triple H being a tweener who kicks ass, but the sheer amount of ass he kicked at one time. You can't really logically defend that with a "so and so did it" because it was wrong then, too. But people saying it's OK because they just happen to love Triple H is an asinine argument. Can people for one minute not put aside blind fandom (And I'm a huge Triple H fan) to see that at the root of it, it made no sense and ended up being a terrible idea? Saying it one time doesn't mean that you have to burn your Triple H posters and throw out your King of Kings T-shirts. Come on. Sometimes I think some people just like to be contrary just for the sake of going against popular opinion.
|
|
|
Post by gmanquik on Sept 18, 2007 14:16:36 GMT -5
I just watched the recording of the show a few minutes ago. I stayed away from the board last night because I didn't want spoilers. I don't need to see any of those guys pushed to the moon. Or even pushed any further than they already are. I just don't want to see them buried. I know there's nothing I can do about it. That's why I come to the Wrestlecrap forum. At least I have somewhere to talk about it. Talking about it like you do is one thing. Bitching and crying about it like the majority of the forum and blaming all of the WWE's problems on other things and refusing to do a damn thing about it in even a microscopically measurable way is another thing. I don't want to see guys buried on a consistent basis either, so I've decided to stop watching RAW for a few weeks, and I'll likely pick it up after a short while. I'm going to do my part, no matter how tiny it is. However, the majority of people who hate what is happening refuses to acknowledge this, and will actually watch even more and buy more of the product, hence defeating the purpose. It's going to take a full-scale mutiny to change things, and hardly anyone is prepared for that, so it won't happen. That is the truth of it all... EDIT: And to mikebowski, the 'complete dork who always gets killed' gimmick has only worked twice in my memory: Mikey Whipwreck (SP?) in the old ECW, and Rey Mysterio a year or two back. Just wanted to note that.
|
|
The QC Loser
Hank Scorpio
Come on follow my Twitter I'm cool!
Posts: 6,241
|
Post by The QC Loser on Sept 18, 2007 14:27:36 GMT -5
It's like Hogan beating Demolition clean with a big boot or a legdrop. It's not good booking. This was my exact thought I had right here.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Sept 18, 2007 14:35:16 GMT -5
Because there are actually people who are defending the act itself, and not stating your (correct) opinion that nothing will change. And these people are doing it, not because of some logic based argument wherein their points prove that an already superover babyface is going to draw more money because of it, but rather just because A) they like Triple H. And B) don't care about who it is that's getting annihilated. That's really it. There's no logical defense for why it had to happen. And I don't buy the previous arguments that this somehow gives Londrick a "character". A character of two complete dorks who get killed. Ya, that's the gimmick that'll get them over. Seriously though, as I mentioned way earlier in the thread, I think the problem is not the idea of Triple H being a tweener who kicks ass, but the sheer amount of ass he kicked at one time. You can't really logically defend that with a "so and so did it" because it was wrong then, too. But people saying it's OK because they just happen to love Triple H is an asinine argument. Can people for one minute not put aside blind fandom (And I'm a huge Triple H fan) to see that at the root of it, it made no sense and ended up being a terrible idea? Saying it one time doesn't mean that you have to burn your Triple H posters and throw out your King of Kings T-shirts. Come on. Sometimes I think some people just like to be contrary just for the sake of going against popular opinion. I like HHH. I have no reason to like him so much and defend him all the time. I don't know him personally. I have never met him. He has never signed me his autograph. I defend this because I understand business, and senseless acts do not happen on a business' TV show if there was not a reason for it. I also like Londrick and think they can put on entertaining matches. I have no blind fandom for either side. Really though, the most over guy - bar Cena - on his roster giving his finisher to two guys who are no whear near as over is not as bad as people are making it out to be. The crowd popped when he gave the pedigree to both of them. Doesn't that tell you who the fans actually cared about? It was not the Londrick. The goal of the show is to please the fans, and them popping for HHH doing what he did showed they were pleased. You may ridicule my character argument but you have no clue that this won't give them another dimension. I'm not saying they will suddenly be dorky guys that just get beat up. Maybe they will crank it up to become attention seekers who have a habit of over stepping the line and have it bite them in the ass because they want so much attention. I don't know, but I know there was some reason for doing that they did. There is now a 16 page thread full of wannabe booking geniuses, crapping all over a decision from the WWE team when there hasn't even been another Raw to let the situation develope! People are describing it as senseless without even letting the situation play out and be explained. Everything on a wrestling show happens for a reason. Production meetings go on before shows to make sure it goes how they want it. Now I repeat, what exactly did they say in that meeting? 'Here is the segment where Hunter can build his ego, because he feels a bit low today' or can you open your minds from the newz bollocks and try to believe that WWE is a business, and everything happens for a reason, and maybe there was a reason for that to happen. And whoever said someone is a 'post modern eye rolling smark' just because they are defending this is being unfair. Just because they are smart, but also defend the WWE's decisions because they can accept there is a reason for why things happen, it does not mean they need to be packaged off and segregated into a group that the rest of the board can laugh at. You can bet when Londrick come out next week JR or Lawler will mention what happened. The fan reaction will be interesting, and they will develop the situation in some way. It was not just a way for HHH to boost his ego.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Sept 18, 2007 14:37:36 GMT -5
I like HHH. I have no reason to like him so much and defend him all the time. I don't know him personally. I have never met him. He has never signed me his autograph. I defend this because I understand business, and senseless acts do not happen on a business' TV show if there was not a reason for it. I also like Londrick and think they can put on entertaining matches. I have no blind fandom for either side. Really though, the most over guy - bar Cena - on his roster giving his finisher to two guys who are no whear near as over is not as bad as people are making it out to be. The crowd popped when he gave the pedigree to both of them. Doesn't that tell you who the fans actually cared about? It was not the Londrick. The goal of the show is to please the fans, and them popping for HHH doing what he did showed they were pleased. You may ridicule my character argument but you have no clue that this won't give them another dimension. I'm not saying they will suddenly be dorky guys that just get beat up. Maybe they will crank it up to become attention seekers who have a habit of over stepping the line and have it bite them in the ass because they want so much attention. I don't know, but I know there was some reason for doing that they did. There is now a 16 page thread full of wannabe booking geniuses, crapping all over a decision from the WWE team when there hasn't even been another Raw to let the situation develope! People are describing it as senseless without even letting the situation play out and be explained. Everything on a wrestling show happens for a reason. Production meetings go on before shows to make sure it goes how they want it. Now I repeat, what exactly did they say in that meeting? 'Here is the segment where Hunter can build his ego, because he feels a bit low today' or can you open your minds from the newz bollocks and try to believe that WWE is a business, and everything happens for a reason, and maybe there was a reason for that to happen. And whoever said someone is a 'post modern eye rolling smark' just because they are defending this is being unfair. Just because they are smart, but also defend the WWE's decisions because they can accept there is a reason for why things happen, it does not mean they need to be packaged off and segregated into a group that the rest of the board can laugh at. You can bet when Londrick come out next week JR or Lawler will mention what happened. The fan reaction will be interesting, and they will develop the situation in some way. It was not just a way for HHH to boost his ego. You quoted yourself? Bah gawd only Dr. Claw is allowed to do that it's his schtick!
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Sept 18, 2007 14:38:15 GMT -5
Give it a chance to play out is all I'm saying. The WWE is running a business here. They do not decide to let HHH vent is ego on their flagship show. There is reason behind it. I mean, what do you think was said when they went over the segment in production meetings? 'This is where HHH beats them down for no reason'?. I can't see that personally. There was a reason behind it, even if it isn't obvoius yet. Then um, pray tell, what was the marketing genius behind his half-hour promos in '03? 'Um', gaining fan heat? Making them despise him more? Making them want to cheer for whoever his rival was? Building the feud with whoever he is feuding with. He is now super over, so it's not as if the promos were a bad idea. Maybe if the half hour promos bored people so they stopped reacting to him when he came then I would think you had a point, but him getting the loudest pops and chants of a night suggest that really, HHH done quite a good job of being despised in 03', and the WWE done a pretty good job of keeping him over.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 17,085
|
Post by BRV on Sept 18, 2007 14:38:40 GMT -5
London and Kendrick were not ready to play the game.
That is all.
|
|
|
Post by gmanquik on Sept 18, 2007 14:39:33 GMT -5
Because there are actually people who are defending the act itself, and not stating your (correct) opinion that nothing will change. And these people are doing it, not because of some logic based argument wherein their points prove that an already superover babyface is going to draw more money because of it, but rather just because A) they like Triple H. And B) don't care about who it is that's getting annihilated. That's really it. There's no logical defense for why it had to happen. And I don't buy the previous arguments that this somehow gives Londrick a "character". A character of two complete dorks who get killed. Ya, that's the gimmick that'll get them over. Seriously though, as I mentioned way earlier in the thread, I think the problem is not the idea of Triple H being a tweener who kicks ass, but the sheer amount of ass he kicked at one time. You can't really logically defend that with a "so and so did it" because it was wrong then, too. But people saying it's OK because they just happen to love Triple H is an asinine argument. Can people for one minute not put aside blind fandom (And I'm a huge Triple H fan) to see that at the root of it, it made no sense and ended up being a terrible idea? Saying it one time doesn't mean that you have to burn your Triple H posters and throw out your King of Kings T-shirts. Come on. Sometimes I think some people just like to be contrary just for the sake of going against popular opinion. I like HHH. I have no reason to like him so much and defend him all the time. I don't know him personally. I have never met him. He has never signed me his autograph. I defend this because I understand business, and senseless acts do not happen on a business' TV show if there was not a reason for it. I also like Londrick and think they can put on entertaining matches. I have no blind fandom for either side. Really though, the most over guy - bar Cena - on his roster giving his finisher to two guys who are no whear near as over as people are making it out to be. The crowd popped when he gave the pedigree to both of them. Doesn't that tell you who the fans actually cared about? It was not the Londrick. The goal of the show is to please the fans, and them popping for HHH doing what he did showed they were pleased. You may ridicule my character argument but you have no clue that this won't give them another dimension. I'm not saying they will suddenly be dorky guys that just get beat up. Maybe they will crank it up to become attention seekers who have a habit of over stepping the line and have it bite them in the ass because they want so much attention. I don't know, but I know there was some reason for doing that they did. There is now a 16 page thread full of wannabe booking geniuses, crapping all over a decision from the WWE team when there hasn't even been another Raw to let the situation develope! People are describing it as senseless without even letting the situation play out and be explained. Everything on a wrestling show happens for a reason. Production meetings go on before shows to make sure it goes how they want it. Now I repeat, what exactly did they say in that meeting? 'Here is the segment where Hunter can build his ego, because he feels a bit low today' or can you open your minds from the newz bollocks and try to believe that WWE is a business, and everything happens for a reason, and maybe there was a reason for that to happen. And whoever said someone is a 'post modern eye rolling smark' just because they are defending this is being unfair. Just because they are smart, but also defend the WWE's decisions because they can accept there is a reason for why things happen, it does not mean they need to be packaged off and segregated into a group that the rest of the board can laugh at. You can bet when Londrick come out next week JR or Lawler will mention what happened. The fan reaction will be interesting, and they will develop the situation in some way. It was not just a way for HHH to boost his ego. By reading your post, it sounds like you are a...*GASP!* wannabe booking genius, especially with that last paragraph. Not hypocritical in the least. We've not been all arguing about how things should be booked. I for one, am trying to present a solution that goes past wrestling storylines, and is something that we could do for ourselves, and nobody else. Flamebaiting will not change my opinion in the least. I'm just saying that we have to do what we believe we should do, as individuals, and as an audience. Whatever comes from it, will come to pass, and that's all we can do.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Sept 18, 2007 14:39:35 GMT -5
You quoted yourself? Bah gawd only Dr. Claw is allowed to do that it's his schtick! Meant to click edit, do apologise! ;D
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Sept 18, 2007 14:42:57 GMT -5
I like HHH. I have no reason to like him so much and defend him all the time. I don't know him personally. I have never met him. He has never signed me his autograph. I defend this because I understand business, and senseless acts do not happen on a business' TV show if there was not a reason for it. I also like Londrick and think they can put on entertaining matches. I have no blind fandom for either side. Really though, the most over guy - bar Cena - on his roster giving his finisher to two guys who are no whear near as over as people are making it out to be. The crowd popped when he gave the pedigree to both of them. Doesn't that tell you who the fans actually cared about? It was not the Londrick. The goal of the show is to please the fans, and them popping for HHH doing what he did showed they were pleased. You may ridicule my character argument but you have no clue that this won't give them another dimension. I'm not saying they will suddenly be dorky guys that just get beat up. Maybe they will crank it up to become attention seekers who have a habit of over stepping the line and have it bite them in the ass because they want so much attention. I don't know, but I know there was some reason for doing that they did. There is now a 16 page thread full of wannabe booking geniuses, crapping all over a decision from the WWE team when there hasn't even been another Raw to let the situation develope! People are describing it as senseless without even letting the situation play out and be explained. Everything on a wrestling show happens for a reason. Production meetings go on before shows to make sure it goes how they want it. Now I repeat, what exactly did they say in that meeting? 'Here is the segment where Hunter can build his ego, because he feels a bit low today' or can you open your minds from the newz bollocks and try to believe that WWE is a business, and everything happens for a reason, and maybe there was a reason for that to happen. And whoever said someone is a 'post modern eye rolling smark' just because they are defending this is being unfair. Just because they are smart, but also defend the WWE's decisions because they can accept there is a reason for why things happen, it does not mean they need to be packaged off and segregated into a group that the rest of the board can laugh at. You can bet when Londrick come out next week JR or Lawler will mention what happened. The fan reaction will be interesting, and they will develop the situation in some way. It was not just a way for HHH to boost his ego. By reading your post, it sounds like you are a...*GASP!* wannabe booking genius, especially with that last paragraph. Not hypocritical in the least. We've not been all arguing about how things should be booked. I for one, am trying to present a solution that goes past wrestling storylines, and is something that we could do for ourselves, and nobody else. Flamebaiting will not change my opinion in the least. I'm just saying that we have to do what we believe we should do, as individuals, and as an audience. Whatever comes from it, will come to pass, and that's all we can do. Christ man, I'm not flamebaiting! I just composed a rather long post, trying to defend my argument. I'm trying to be decent here. If I wanted to flamebait I wouldn't have wasted my time writing that. I don't think I'm a wannabe booking genius. I am defending the WWE's decision because they actually know how to book wrestling shows. People are crapping all over a decision to have the most over guy on the brand give his finisher to two guys that live crowds barely care about when they have NO idea about how it will play out because there hasn't even been another Raw yet! Give it a chance is all I'm saying, and stop believing the newz that HHH is some egomaniac. I mean, maybe that isn't the case and he, like Vince and anyone else who was in that production meeting actually knows how to book a show? Heaven forbid that be the case.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Sept 18, 2007 14:44:34 GMT -5
It weird, because I've written like 5 posts analyzing all the wrong turns WWE has taken in booking the midcarders, but I still think having Triple H beating up (not BURYING because it's not like we won't see Carlito or Londrick or C&M ever again...) some midcarders isn't the end of the world.
Triple H has been out for months, the crowd love to see him back, and he's "sending a message" to Cena (and or Orton). Kayfabe wise it makes sense: he's back, he's as strong as he has ever been, and he's on a rampage. We've seen that before, and with less credible guys.
We can discuss (and we have done that) for ages whether it's smart or silly booking, but that the way WWE have been working for years now.
It's not the worst power trip ever.
|
|
|
Post by gmanquik on Sept 18, 2007 14:46:14 GMT -5
By reading your post, it sounds like you are a...*GASP!* wannabe booking genius, especially with that last paragraph. Not hypocritical in the least. We've not been all arguing about how things should be booked. I for one, am trying to present a solution that goes past wrestling storylines, and is something that we could do for ourselves, and nobody else. Flamebaiting will not change my opinion in the least. I'm just saying that we have to do what we believe we should do, as individuals, and as an audience. Whatever comes from it, will come to pass, and that's all we can do. Christ man, I'm not flamebaiting! I just composed a rather long post, trying to defend my argument. I'm trying to be decent here. If I wanted to flamebait I wouldn't have wasted my time writing that. I don't think I'm a wannabe booking genius. I am defending the WWE's decision because they actually know how to book wrestling shows. People are crapping all over a decision to have the most over guy on the brand give his finisher to two guys that live crowds barely care about when they have NO idea about how it will play out because there hasn't even been another Raw yet! Give it a chance is all I'm saying, and stop believing the newz that HHH is some egomaniac. I mean, maybe that isn't the case and he, like Vince and anyone else who was in that production meeting actually knows how to book a show? Heaven forbid that be the case. For one, I don't have to give anything a chance. If I like the product, I'll stand by it. If I don't, I won't. This is not an argument in which we are forced to take sides. All I am saying, is if people don't like the problem, they either need to take their complaints up with the problem, not with a bunch of people on the internet who have no influence on the problem. I've decided to give up RAW for a little while, and this isn't just because of the HHH thing. I thought the whole show, other than the flag match, was very lackluster at best, and I was not entertained by it, so I shall seek my entertainment elsewhere. That's all I've had to say about it. But that would be too easy for most other people.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Sept 18, 2007 14:57:47 GMT -5
Christ man, I'm not flamebaiting! I just composed a rather long post, trying to defend my argument. I'm trying to be decent here. If I wanted to flamebait I wouldn't have wasted my time writing that. I don't think I'm a wannabe booking genius. I am defending the WWE's decision because they actually know how to book wrestling shows. People are crapping all over a decision to have the most over guy on the brand give his finisher to two guys that live crowds barely care about when they have NO idea about how it will play out because there hasn't even been another Raw yet! Give it a chance is all I'm saying, and stop believing the newz that HHH is some egomaniac. I mean, maybe that isn't the case and he, like Vince and anyone else who was in that production meeting actually knows how to book a show? Heaven forbid that be the case. For one, I don't have to give anything a chance. If I like the product, I'll stand by it. If I don't, I won't. This is not an argument in which we are forced to take sides. All I am saying, is if people don't like the problem, they either need to take their complaints up with the problem, not with a bunch of people on the internet who have no influence on the problem. I've decided to give up RAW for a little while, and this isn't just because of the HHH thing. I thought the whole show, other than the flag match, was very lackluster at best, and I was not entertained by it, so I shall seek my entertainment elsewhere. That's all I've had to say about it. But that would be too easy for most other people. Fair enough, don't disagree with anything you say. It's just when some people see a perfectly reasonable situation (for the reasons described by Loki in the above post) on a show then immediately attribute it to a HHH ego trip, when there is no proof whatsoever that it was anything of the sort, it really annoys me. When did the actual 'newz' of HHH being an egomaniac come out anyway? Was it because he married Steph and started using that stroke? Was it because he had a long reign as a champ in 02/03? (even though JBL and others have had long reigns as champs since and that hasn't been put down to being egomaniacal)
|
|
|
Post by TRUTH TELLER on Sept 18, 2007 15:00:30 GMT -5
Because there are actually people who are defending the act itself, and not stating your (correct) opinion that nothing will change. And these people are doing it, not because of some logic based argument wherein their points prove that an already superover babyface is going to draw more money because of it, but rather just because A) they like Triple H. And B) don't care about who it is that's getting annihilated. That's really it. There's no logical defense for why it had to happen. And I don't buy the previous arguments that this somehow gives Londrick a "character". A character of two complete dorks who get killed. Ya, that's the gimmick that'll get them over. Seriously though, as I mentioned way earlier in the thread, I think the problem is not the idea of Triple H being a tweener who kicks ass, but the sheer amount of ass he kicked at one time. You can't really logically defend that with a "so and so did it" because it was wrong then, too. But people saying it's OK because they just happen to love Triple H is an asinine argument. Can people for one minute not put aside blind fandom (And I'm a huge Triple H fan) to see that at the root of it, it made no sense and ended up being a terrible idea? Saying it one time doesn't mean that you have to burn your Triple H posters and throw out your King of Kings T-shirts. Come on. Sometimes I think some people just like to be contrary just for the sake of going against popular opinion. I like HHH. I have no reason to like him so much and defend him all the time. I don't know him personally. I have never met him. He has never signed me his autograph. I defend this because I understand business, and senseless acts do not happen on a business' TV show if there was not a reason for it. I also like Londrick and think they can put on entertaining matches. I have no blind fandom for either side. Really though, the most over guy - bar Cena - on his roster giving his finisher to two guys who are no whear near as over is not as bad as people are making it out to be. The crowd popped when he gave the pedigree to both of them. Doesn't that tell you who the fans actually cared about? It was not the Londrick. The goal of the show is to please the fans, and them popping for HHH doing what he did showed they were pleased. You may ridicule my character argument but you have no clue that this won't give them another dimension. I'm not saying they will suddenly be dorky guys that just get beat up. Maybe they will crank it up to become attention seekers who have a habit of over stepping the line and have it bite them in the ass because they want so much attention. I don't know, but I know there was some reason for doing that they did. There is now a 16 page thread full of wannabe booking geniuses, crapping all over a decision from the WWE team when there hasn't even been another Raw to let the situation develope! People are describing it as senseless without even letting the situation play out and be explained. Everything on a wrestling show happens for a reason. Production meetings go on before shows to make sure it goes how they want it. Now I repeat, what exactly did they say in that meeting? 'Here is the segment where Hunter can build his ego, because he feels a bit low today' or can you open your minds from the newz bollocks and try to believe that WWE is a business, and everything happens for a reason, and maybe there was a reason for that to happen. And whoever said someone is a 'post modern eye rolling smark' just because they are defending this is being unfair. Just because they are smart, but also defend the WWE's decisions because they can accept there is a reason for why things happen, it does not mean they need to be packaged off and segregated into a group that the rest of the board can laugh at. You can bet when Londrick come out next week JR or Lawler will mention what happened. The fan reaction will be interesting, and they will develop the situation in some way. It was not just a way for HHH to boost his ego. I understand what you are saying. But this is WWE you're talking about. What you're saying is spot on, but I dare say that it will all just be swept under the rug and not mentioned, because to do what you're describing, the company would have to care about its midcarders. My guess is that it's never mentioned and footage is never shown of it, and that Londrick will be right where they were before being pedigreed, in the title hunt against champions that were put over prior to the handicap match as the "best team in the business right now” by JR, only to be beaten by one man 5 minutes later with his set-up hold. That's not infinitely devastating or anything, but I'd rather it happened differently. I'm not so much angry with Triple H winning, so much as how he won. I'd have loved it if he brained one of them with the sledgehammer, thus equalizing the odds, instead of just beating them clean. And as for the Londrick thing, I think I'd rather Trips just have left the ring without shaking their hands, thus hammering home the point that he's a loner without adding two more corpses to an already outrageously unrealistic list of causalities. I mean, really, how hard would it have been to have Triple H actually give Londrick the rub by putting them over? That's what stars are supposed to do for guys who aren't on their level. As much as we bash Hogan, he was always teaming up with midcarders and by proxy that gave them the feel that maybe, yes, they deserved to get a little attention. Look at Survivor Series '90 with Warrior, Hogan and Tito Santana as a team. They treated him as an equal in the prematch interview, even though he wasn't really, and by proxy of this, Tito seemed legit in there after actually doing 4 straight years of jobs. That's how the business works. I don't think Triple H should necessarily be jobbing, but instead, they shouldn't book him as so infinitely better than anyone else that they're seen as worthless and expendable. I mean, why should we even watch midcard matches then? And wasn't Triple H himself once a midcard guy? I'm sure he didn't appreciate Warrior making him look like a complete and utter tool at Wrestlemania 12. I mean, he did go back prior to the Warrior match and try and go over the match and his spots because he was a hungry young guy wanting to look at the very least credible, only to be told flat out that he was going to kick out of his finisher and pin him in under a minute. That's a wee bit of hypocrisy. You'd think that a guy who was heir apparent to RUNNING the company, would use that stroke just so one day it could be stocked with a full roster of over guys, of every star level. You know, so when he's retired and sitting in Titan Tower, there will be new main eventers to make his company money.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Sept 18, 2007 15:01:44 GMT -5
In all seriousness, this has to be the wordiest thread ever.
|
|