Lust Hogan Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2283701-inside-wwe-an-exclusive-look-at-how-a-pro-wrestling-story-comes-to-life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Retrospectively, the end of the Streak really looks like a complete nothing, if you except the live reaction (which was shock over a total anticlimatic finish after a shitty and boring match). Especially if Taker comes back this year for yet another probably terrible match against Bray (that would make quite a bunch of awful Mania Taker matches if we're realistic). What a waste. If Taker wrestles again, what a waste. If Brock loses the title before Mania, what a waste. 2014 from the day after WrestleMania going forward was been wasted opportunity after wasted opportunity. The only person who could had booked this worse was Vince Russo. At least we get good matches. It also seems a waste if he drops the belt to Reigns who just isnt ready yet. The streak ending was a big deal and Brock losing to Reigns at mania wont look as important to last years moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2283701-inside-wwe-an-exclusive-look-at-how-a-pro-wrestling-story-comes-to-life Wow. Incredible write up. Answers a ton of questions. We were right on pretty much all of them. Bryan was taken out of the main event scene because of the Summerslam buyrate. Not really surprising but interesting to see in print. Bryan revealing Hunter wanted to work with him at Mania to finish the story. Steph revealing she has improved because she was away for awhile and got corporate boardroom experience and had a new perspective on life as a mother. This was said several times on this board. Again it seems Hunter and Steph were fighting for him against Vince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Hypothetically, it makes the most sense for Taker to appear at Mania (or the post-Mania Raw) in a non-wrestling capacity to start a year long build to his official retirement at next year's Mania where he'll undoubtedly go into the HOF. A year gives them time to assemble a big time match with someone who can work and for Taker to get into the best shape he possibly can. The guy already has a year in between all his matches and he looks worse and worse ever year. Waiting 2 years isn't going to get him into better shape, it's just going to make him look older. He isn't GOING to get in any better shape, it's why he's essentially already retired. He's completely broken down and they should never put him in the ring again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 I think Undertaker should train even longer, keep him away for at least five years so that he can come back for a big WrestleMania match with Steve Austin. Maybe Steve's career ending neck problems will have healed by then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 My problem with The Undertaker is that his aura is gone. His Streak was his last hurrah and WWE killed it for no real reason. So now all the matches that otherwise would have had some intrigue (Cena, Sting) don't matter anymore. What's the point? To see who can beat 'Taker second? The mystique is gone. He has nothing left. Ending the Streak before having one of those big money matches was a total waste & completely short-sighted. A 20-year build blown on a whim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2283701-inside-wwe-an-exclusive-look-at-how-a-pro-wrestling-story-comes-to-life Wow. Incredible write up. Answers a ton of questions. We were right on pretty much all of them. Bryan was taken out of the main event scene because of the Summerslam buyrate. Not really surprising but interesting to see in print. Bryan revealing Hunter wanted to work with him at Mania to finish the story. Steph revealing she has improved because she was away for awhile and got corporate boardroom experience and had a new perspective on life as a mother. This was said several times on this board. Again it seems Hunter and Steph were fighting for him against Vince WWE ended up releasing a revised Summerslam buyrate at about this time last year that showed numbers only slightly behind the big 2012 number with Brock-HHH. That didn't get much play when it was reported in the WON for reasons I never understood, as the original number set the events in motion that led to the WM30 main event. I guess he might have won it earlier had the original projected number of buys for Summerslam been accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 It's pretty insane that the net had it basically all right in terms of what was going on behind the scenes last year. And again after reading that its hard not to like Hunter and Steph as human beings. They might not have Vince's business acumen but they come off so much better in the press. Yeah I'm sure Bryan would have won the title at HIAC last year if the correct number was released. But then he doesn't get to have that mania moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I think they're a little crazy not to run Sting vs Cena. That's easily the biggest match they could run in March, 2015, the one that would get the most mainstream attention and network buys, and it doesn't exactly salt the Earth or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmare007 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2283701-inside-wwe-an-exclusive-look-at-how-a-pro-wrestling-story-comes-to-life Wow. Incredible write up. Answers a ton of questions. We were right on pretty much all of them. Bryan was taken out of the main event scene because of the Summerslam buyrate. Not really surprising but interesting to see in print. Bryan revealing Hunter wanted to work with him at Mania to finish the story. Steph revealing she has improved because she was away for awhile and got corporate boardroom experience and had a new perspective on life as a mother. This was said several times on this board. Again it seems Hunter and Steph were fighting for him against Vince WWE ended up releasing a revised Summerslam buyrate at about this time last year that showed numbers only slightly behind the big 2012 number with Brock-HHH. That didn't get much play when it was reported in the WON for reasons I never understood, as the original number set the events in motion that led to the WM30 main event. I guess he might have won it earlier had the original projected number of buys for Summerslam been accurate. Yeah. Summerslam buys went from 296,000 (the bad number) to 332,000 as the final number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WashingtonFB Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 My problem with The Undertaker is that his aura is gone. His Streak was his last hurrah and WWE killed it for no real reason. So now all the matches that otherwise would have had some intrigue (Cena, Sting) don't matter anymore. What's the point? To see who can beat 'Taker second? The mystique is gone. He has nothing left. Ending the Streak before having one of those big money matches was a total waste & completely short-sighted. A 20-year build blown on a whim. They killed it for good reason, unfortunately they couldn't capitalize on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the good reason? To shock people? Or 'cause 'Taker can't really go anymore? I guess it could be both. Either way, if that were the case, there had to have been a better opponent than Brock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I think they're a little crazy not to run Sting vs Cena. That's easily the biggest match they could run in March, 2015, the one that would get the most mainstream attention and network buys, and it doesn't exactly salt the Earth or anything. Whats the prediction for Mania? Do you reckon Hunter really will put Sting over? Id like Sting to appear on TV a bit more but I guess his contract dates doesnt help that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the good reason? To shock people? Or 'cause 'Taker can't really go anymore? I guess it could be both. Either way, if that were the case, there had to have been a better opponent than Brock. Based on what Dave reported around the time , the feeling seemed to be that Vince looked at Taker and decided he wasn't "looking good". At the same time, Vince started to view Brock Lesnar as a "special attraction" of sorts and I guess he intended to transition Lesnar into Taker's role as a Wrestlemania special attraction when the time came for Taker to hang up the boots. Some quotes from the Observer: It was reported here that a few years back, when Undertaker and Lesnar first talked about doing the angle for this match at WrestleMania 27, that Undertaker had said he would want to put Lesnar over. Mark Calaway is a 49 year old man whose body turned on him more than a decade ago, but when he had his nights, like WrestleMania the previous several years, he simply denied the pain and became The Undertaker. I can recall having dinner with one of WWE’s biggest names, telling me how badly Calaway was hurting and that he probably only had a year or two left. That was in the early fall of 1997. Whether Undertaker does another match or not, Vince McMahon was going on the assumption that this was his last hurrah, and he could either win, or lose. McMahon chose the idea that it was better to lose on your way out. But McMahon thought, and was probably correct, that he had no more streak matches left. And he may not have really had this one left in his body. At that point, it’s just a call. Do you end the storyline in a shocking way, or a predictable way? From a business standpoint, if he was never going to come back for a streak match, neither decision was better than the other. They also needed to put Lesnar over in a really big way, since seemingly, the intention had been since Summer 2013 for Brock to have a big title run in 2014. Being defeated by Undertaker at Wrestlemania would have somewhat diminished the build towards this title run. I mean think about it, Brock wins the series with Triple H 2-1, goes over CM Punk (arguably the most popular wrestler not named John Cena at the time) at Summerslam, beats the crap out of Mark Henry, demolishes Big Show and comes away looking unstoppable in the process... Only for him to all to Undertaker at Wrestlemania. What then? Brock comes back following a huge loss, gets a title shot without any reason and resumes his path of destruction beginning with Cena as it happened? No, that would suck, because the fact this trail of destruction was briefly postponed by a high profile loss to Taker would always be there. So in hindsight, even though Brock didn't need to end the streak (he could have taken on anybody at Wrestlemania, although it wouldn't have been as high profile, unless it was John Cena), he did need to win his match at Wrestlemania. Taker wanted to face Brock, Vince decided that the streak was going to end here, and Taker agreed to it. If things were different (and Bryan wasn't injured), I would have had Wyatt vs Taker with Taker winning to preserve the streak and Lesnar destroying John Cena at Wrestlemania. Then in the Summer, Bryan would fall to Lesnar like Cena did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 It was never planned, but I remember that Undertaker wanted to work with Daniel Bryan last year. If he knew it was going to be the year the streak ended, I wonder what his thoughts were there. Bryan is the type of character that might actually be hurt by a win like that more than he's helped, but I do wonder if that's what Undertaker had in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the good reason? To shock people? Or 'cause 'Taker can't really go anymore? I guess it could be both. Either way, if that were the case, there had to have been a better opponent than Brock. very strongly disagree the issue as i see it was that the streak had become TOO big to make a new star. doesn't seem like that makes any sense at first...but do you really think the fans would buy a roman reigns or even daniel bryan being the one to end it? giving that honor to a newer guy puts way too much pressure on him - he can't ever job again without it seeming ridiculous, basically, and you don't know whether he'll work out as a top star in the long run. the problem with continuing a winning streak this long is that you leave yourself with almost no credible ways of ending it. a "special attraction" type like brock (or andre in his prime, etc. etc.) is really the only good option there, as you at least know what you're getting with those guys and they haven't been as deeply mired in the 50/50 booking as the rest of the roster has. the only alternative i see an argument for is never ending the streak, which is honestly what i was expecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the good reason? To shock people? Or 'cause 'Taker can't really go anymore? I guess it could be both. Either way, if that were the case, there had to have been a better opponent than Brock. very strongly disagree the issue as i see it was that the streak had become TOO big to make a new star. doesn't seem like that makes any sense at first...but do you really think the fans would buy a roman reigns or even daniel bryan being the one to end it? giving that honor to a newer guy puts way too much pressure on him - he can't ever job again without it seeming ridiculous, basically, and you don't know whether he'll work out as a top star in the long run. the problem with continuing a winning streak this long is that you leave yourself with almost no credible ways of ending it. a "special attraction" type like brock (or andre in his prime, etc. etc.) is really the only good option there, as you at least know what you're getting with those guys and they haven't been as deeply mired in the 50/50 booking as the rest of the roster has. the only alternative i see an argument for is never ending the streak, which is honestly what i was expecting. Using it to turn Cena heel would had been the best option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 the issue as i see it was that the streak had become TOO big to make a new star. doesn't seem like that makes any sense at first...but do you really think the fans would buy a roman reigns or even daniel bryan being the one to end it? giving that honor to a newer guy puts way too much pressure on him - he can't ever job again without it seeming ridiculous, basically, and you don't know whether he'll work out as a top star in the long run. the problem with continuing a winning streak this long is that you leave yourself with almost no credible ways of ending it. a "special attraction" type like brock (or andre in his prime, etc. etc.) is really the only good option there, as you at least know what you're getting with those guys and they haven't been as deeply mired in the 50/50 booking as the rest of the roster has. the only alternative i see an argument for is never ending the streak, which is honestly what i was expecting. Very good point. Only an established talent in a class of their own could have gone over Taker last year, narrowing it down, only three (active - thereby excluding Michaels) men on the roster could have ended the streak without it potentially negatively impacting upon them in years to come: Brock Lesnar (as it happened, a special attraction type with nothing left to prove or accomplish, just a guy with a huge name that shows up to deliver awesome special exhibition matches) John Cena (although this would make him an instant heel, something which WWE wants to avoid, it seems) Triple H (somewhat of an equivalent of Ric Flair in the late 1990's, in his formative wrestling years, with an awesome career legacy behind him. Although unlike Flair, Hunter is in a lot better shape, limits his wrestling appearances so they all become meaningful, and isn't so profoundaly affected by taking time away from the spotlight.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 With good enough booking they could have made someone like Reigns or Bryan do it. I just don't know if they're capable of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 With good enough booking they could have made someone like Reigns or Bryan do it. I just don't know if they're capable of that. For Reigns or Bryan, You'd need a long build, a slow burn towards it, because inevitably, the talent ending the streak - if babyface - would probably have to turn heel, unless it's made clear that the Undertaker is retiring and wants one last match to defend the streak against the individual he considers the "best that the WWE has to offer". This is completely akin to Flair in 2008, where Michaels was chosen by Flair to wrestle his "retirement" match against, because he's "Mr Wrestlemania". Even then, HBK has dabbled with mini turns during his eternal babyface run from 2002-2010, inevitably the crowd just refuses to buy him as anything other than a face after he ends a program working as a pseudo-heel (Hogan in 05, Flair in 08, etc). Would the audience react similarly to Daniel Bryan? This is the guy after all, that got massively over during a heel run, to the point WWE had no choice but to turn him face again. Reigns has already been rejected in a fashion by the audience, he is still showing visible green patches and hasn't reached the level of popularity as a singles guy that he had as a member of The Shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakeplastictrees Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 People talk about Taker at Mania and the stakes being too high, but WWE needing to justify Taker's contract- simple solution: book him on a B level PPV. WWE has so many hours of TV an Undertaker squash match, surprise appearance, multi-man tag match is what is needed in the 'colder' WWE months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 People talk about Taker at Mania and the stakes being too high, but WWE needing to justify Taker's contract- simple solution: book him on a B level PPV. WWE has so many hours of TV an Undertaker squash match, surprise appearance, multi-man tag match is what is needed in the 'colder' WWE months. If Taker's first match back after losing to Brock is on a Battleground type ppv it would probably help more than a Mania. People are going to buy Mania anyway. Of course you would need month's of someone like Bray calling him out to set it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 What was the good reason? To shock people? Or 'cause 'Taker can't really go anymore? I guess it could be both. Either way, if that were the case, there had to have been a better opponent than Brock. very strongly disagree the issue as i see it was that the streak had become TOO big to make a new star. doesn't seem like that makes any sense at first...but do you really think the fans would buy a roman reigns or even daniel bryan being the one to end it? giving that honor to a newer guy puts way too much pressure on him - he can't ever job again without it seeming ridiculous, basically, and you don't know whether he'll work out as a top star in the long run. the problem with continuing a winning streak this long is that you leave yourself with almost no credible ways of ending it. a "special attraction" type like brock (or andre in his prime, etc. etc.) is really the only good option there, as you at least know what you're getting with those guys and they haven't been as deeply mired in the 50/50 booking as the rest of the roster has. the only alternative i see an argument for is never ending the streak, which is honestly what i was expecting. Using it to turn Cena heel would had been the best option. I totally agree on this! Cena should have been the one to end the streak. Lesnar was a terrible choice considering Taker put him over almost a decade ago in that HIAC match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sporadic Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Cena should have been the one to end the streak. Lesnar was a terrible choice considering Taker put him over almost a decade ago in that HIAC match. I don't think Lesnar was a terrible choice; the economics just didn't work out like they thought to make this work. They also didn't have another big name like Sting to work with Taker. Cena makes so much sense vice putting him in with Bray and going over him. C'est la vie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Cena turning heel and ending the streak could have been a moment on par with Hulk Hogan joining the nWo if done right. Of course we all know WWE is highly allergic to anything that even suggests turning Cena, no matter how big the payoff could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts