Johnny Sorrow Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 Bryan has beaten everyone he's been in a match with except for Big Show. They keep having Shield and Orton attack after matches and tell the story in the ring instead of backstage shit for the most part. And people who normally complain about in ring stuff playing second fiddle to backstage stuff have a problem. This whole deal is fascinating. Put simple, it's Internet Jesus vs Internet Hitler, where Jesus is gonna win...and people still bitch. "How dare you give us what we want !"
Dylan Waco Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 People don't think they are going to get what they want.
Loss Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 That's really what it comes down to. People don't have faith in WWE to pay off their storytelling, because of all the times they haven't.
JerryvonKramer Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 I've seen a fair bit of this stuff. I keep catching bits of Raw and even I've found it quite compelling. I think with the two big storylines, WWE have come as close to restoring kayfabe as is possible in 2013. Got to applaud them really.
Johnny Sorrow Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 That's really what it comes down to. People don't have faith in WWE to pay off their storytelling, because of all the times they haven't.No promotion has always given the fans completely what they want, but how about the times they have? Negative nellies stink.
Dylan Waco Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 I think most wrestling fans have been trained to be negative about storyline payoffs over the course of the last twelve years. I know I have and I am a guy who watches dam near everything
Johnny Sorrow Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 People don't think they are going to get what they want.And truly, those people are a minority who for the most part aren't filling those seats and buying shit.
Johnny Sorrow Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 I think most wrestling fans have been trained to be negative about storyline payoffs over the course of the last twelve years. I know I have and I am a guy who watches dam near everythingI learned at the young age of 13 to not expect what I want when Muraco won the cage match against Snuka.
Dylan Waco Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 People don't think they are going to get what they want.And truly, those people are a minority who for the most part aren't filling those seats and buying shit. What do you base this on? I'm asking this quite seriously because one thing that I notice in my discussions with casuals (which are pretty constant because I"m a completely uncloseted fan) they are FAR more down on storylines in the modern WWE than I am, let alone you. It's true that most of the children fans are going to pester their parents to death to buy them shit, go to shows, et, but that is likely to happen no matter what because of how the product is presented, marketed and developed.
Dylan Waco Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 I think most wrestling fans have been trained to be negative about storyline payoffs over the course of the last twelve years. I know I have and I am a guy who watches dam near everythingI learned at the young age of 13 to not expect what I want when Muraco won the cage match against Snuka. That's not even close to what I mean.
Johnny Sorrow Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 I think most wrestling fans have been trained to be negative about storyline payoffs over the course of the last twelve years. I know I have and I am a guy who watches dam near everythingI learned at the young age of 13 to not expect what I want when Muraco won the cage match against Snuka. That's not even close to what I mean. Why not?
Dylan Waco Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 I will answer when I'm not stealing computer time at work, but I would note that there is a big difference between a storyline paying off in a way you don't like but it makes sense and advances the careers or broader strength of a show and storylines that are lazily put together and peter out without helping anyone (and often hurting people in the process)
Johnny Sorrow Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 I will answer when I'm not stealing computer time at work, but I would note that there is a big difference between a storyline paying off in a way you don't like but it makes sense and advances the careers or broader strength of a show and storylines that are lazily put together and peter out without helping anyone (and often hurting people in the process)Not my point. If the stupid finish to that cage match had pissed me off to the point where I said "fuck this shit" that'd be fine. But I'd then have precluded myself from honestly ever commenting on the shit I don't watch anymore.
rovert Posted September 4, 2013 Report Posted September 4, 2013 Triple H discusses his "burden" as WWE COO, locker room unrest and a special gathering on SmackDown, in an exclusive interview with Michael Cole. http://www.wwe.com/videos/wwe-coo-triple-h...ar-fir-26146347 Hunter is pretty fabulous here
goc Posted September 5, 2013 Report Posted September 5, 2013 Triple H discusses his "burden" as WWE COO, locker room unrest and a special gathering on SmackDown, in an exclusive interview with Michael Cole. http://www.wwe.com/videos/wwe-coo-triple-h...ar-fir-26146347 Hunter is pretty fabulous here I found this to be very enjoyable. Watch it.
Smack2k Posted September 5, 2013 Author Report Posted September 5, 2013 WOW...that interview was FANTASTIC....and I love how Cole brought up his past, stuff with Shawn...etc... HHH is hte best "leader" of WWE ever in terms of character...even better than Vince was (to me) as he looks serious, honest and not over the top....Corp Leader stereotype at tis best... "I work for them...if they do the right things, It makes me want to work for them..." - Fuckin great! Smackdown should be good.
Loss Posted September 5, 2013 Report Posted September 5, 2013 That interview was indeed great. It should air in installments throughout RAW.
bradhindsight Posted September 5, 2013 Report Posted September 5, 2013 You know what would really put this angle over the top? If they brought in Sean Waltman to just stooge in the background of all of Hunter's promos. How about Triple H getting his own stooges a la Patterson and Brisco, but the old DX crew? Why not have Dogg / Gunn / X-Pac be their pack of dogs and let the Shield go get back to their own thing... Again, if they could split the shows, they have soo much to use right now that both shows could be really good on their own. It's much more believable when the Shield beats down Bryan as they've been built as huge threats that have had a good amount of success. Having old dudes out there fending off the top babyfaces would be disastrous. The internet would implode.
Matt D Posted September 5, 2013 Report Posted September 5, 2013 I think it should just be Waltman stooging in the background getting X-Pac heat as a hanger-on'er getting the ol' X-Pac heat. For the sake of the angle, however, Billy Gunn might be a better choice since he was loathed by the internet crowd in the early 00s when he was getting pushed over other people.
Marty Posted September 5, 2013 Report Posted September 5, 2013 Dogg's a road agent, Gunn's a trainer and Waltman is an evaluator. They don't need to do this right away, since the main angle is the new WWE Corporate reinforcing to Daniel Bryan what his role is, but perhaps the integrity of the new regime can be put into question with Hunter creating jobs for his old buddies. I also dug that interview a lot.
Smack2k Posted September 5, 2013 Author Report Posted September 5, 2013 You know what would really put this angle over the top? If they brought in Sean Waltman to just stooge in the background of all of Hunter's promos. How about Triple H getting his own stooges a la Patterson and Brisco, but the old DX crew? Why not have Dogg / Gunn / X-Pac be their pack of dogs and let the Shield go get back to their own thing... Again, if they could split the shows, they have soo much to use right now that both shows could be really good on their own. It's much more believable when the Shield beats down Bryan as they've been built as huge threats that have had a good amount of success. Having old dudes out there fending off the top babyfaces would be disastrous. The internet would implode. I am with you there...just figure that 3 guys beating down 1 wouldnt matter who did it....and it woudl get hte Shield out of being their pitbulls and back into a meaningful main event level role.
Loss Posted September 5, 2013 Report Posted September 5, 2013 Do you think they'll be able to get a few years out of HHH and Bryan like they did with Austin and Vince? The great thing about that feud was that it also made Rock and Foley stars, revitalized Undertaker and jump started HHH's push. At some point, I feel like there needs to be some overlap between this feud and the Punk vs Heyman stuff.
Matt D Posted September 5, 2013 Report Posted September 5, 2013 I will be really impressed if they can make it to Mania in one piece. It's just so damn hard with all the TV time they have to fill, even if they didn't have a writing staff mostly pulled from soap operas or whatever and all the egos involved. I think there's a pretty clear line to Mania with a few bumps given the PPV choices (Battleground/Survivor Series/hell in a cell) along the way.
Lee Casebolt Posted September 5, 2013 Report Posted September 5, 2013 I am with you there...just figure that 3 guys beating down 1 wouldnt matter who did it....and it woudl get hte Shield out of being their pitbulls and back into a meaningful main event level role. This angle is the main event. Taking them out of it would be a demotion.
evilclown Posted September 5, 2013 Report Posted September 5, 2013 12 year old friend meant "your friend of 12 years." Except it doesn't. Besides when it does. It may have sounded awkward, but she obviously was saying that they've been friends for 12 years. No. You kind of lose any semblance of an effective voice when you are an apologist for literally everything that happens in a WWE ring. Based on every context clue, she was saying that Show was there when she was growing up. Now, she was likely remembering legitimate moments with Andre, and the fictional long history between them was supposed to make the moment poignant and emotional. There's nothing at all to suggest she meant "friends for 12 years," which is also wrong. All of this is fine....it's a story after all. It's just funny, because it suggests that either Stephanie is much younger or Show much older than they actually are.
Recommended Posts