funkdoc Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 show was better than i expected, especially the main event obv. so not into rollins as champ but yea, not many options there. only thing i could see is rollins cashing in and getting pinned by brock, but that would kill him off instead of reigns which they clearly wouldn't want. really reigns needed not to be booked into a world title match until summerslam, but o well~ Quote
Bierschwale Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 I tried to make this point on Twitter, but that's awfully tough with the character limits. I really see that main event as a case of WWE failing to deliver a finish to their promised main event on the biggest show of the year. The booking felt like a similar fan ripoff to the Fingerpoke of Doom or Orton-Bryan at Night of Champions 2013 with the Dusty finish. Cashing in after the main event has concluded is a booking choice. Cashing in via insertion into the match is dishonest promoting of what the main event is. It left a sour taste in my mouth at the end of an otherwise terrific show. When people were arguing for this outcome over the last few months, I made the comparison to it as a reverse version of WM IX. It's an ego stroke before it's anything else. Quote
Ricky Jackson Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 I thought this was a great show. Definitely one of the best of the last decade or more that I've seen Quote
Matt D Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 This is a case where I think the heat is on the heel and not the company though. They introduced a creative element that exists in their fictional world and it came into play at the exact moment where the fans started to think that maybe they wanted Reigns after all. It was fair game. Quote
Timbo Slice Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 So lying to fans about what matches are going to be on a card is okay if people like how it turns out? My issue is an ethical one in terms of false advertising, not so much a criticism of the booking itself. Where did they lie about what matches were going to be on the card? Quote
Childs Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 I'm not getting the great show hype from various corners. First hour (not the pre-show but the 7-man and Rollins-Orton) was entertaining but nothing memorable. Trips-Sting was amusing black comedy for students of the WWE mindset but not actually good. Divas match was fine. Cena-Rusev was good but no better than their Fastlane match and possibly a tad worse. The Rousey thing was interminable and set up a Rock-Trips feud that I can't fathom anyone wanting. Taker match was awful on multiple levels. And the main was great until a finish that at least created a lot of buzz. I'd concede it was a show that exceeded low expectations. A good show even. But one of the best of recent times? I don't see that. Quote
Loss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 On a more positive note, Roman Reigns proved himself in a major way tonight, and I hope that fans will get off of his case now. He absolutely belongs as a main eventer, and really worked like he had something to prove (and he did). Quote
Jmare007 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 So lying to fans about what matches are going to be on a card is okay if people like how it turns out? My issue is an ethical one in terms of false advertising, not so much a criticism of the booking itself. The Triple Threat lasted like a minute. Is it such a big deal considering it was done to not pin Lesnar and give an ending that people weren't going to dread more than lying to fans? I don't know man, you really think people feel ripped off after what happened? Quote
Loss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 No, I don't. But I think people are being hypocritical because they like the outcome. What do you say to fans who wanted to see a winner and loser in a Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns match? Quote
Timbo Slice Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 I think you're overestimating the amount of fans who wanted to see that. The majority of fans wanted to see Brock eviscerate Roman, didn't want to see a competitive match, etc. Considering the options, Reigns going over like he did would have killed a lot of what Brock did dead where he stood considering how that match was laid out. Quote
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 No, I don't. But I think people are being hypocritical because they like the outcome. What do you say to fans who wanted to see a winner and loser in a Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns match? Buy a ticket to see it next time. Quote
Loss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 They bought a ticket to see it this time. Quote
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 Yeah but this is wrestling, the most carny form of entertainment in the known universe. Quote
Loss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 I think you're overestimating the amount of fans who wanted to see that. The majority of fans wanted to see Brock eviscerate Roman, didn't want to see a competitive match, etc. Considering the options, Reigns going over like he did would have killed a lot of what Brock did dead where he stood considering how that match was laid out. I'm not even saying more than 50 fans wanted to see that (just throwing out a number). I'm saying that you can't claim people who wanted a victor in that match are somehow wrong for wanting that. That's what the show was advertised to be, for better or for worse. Quote
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 Tim is right though, there weren't that many of those fans to begin with, and now there are. I thought you'd be higher on the idea of great wrestling creating a match people now want to see. Before the match, they were booing Regins. Quote
Death From Above Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 So lying to fans about what matches are going to be on a card is okay if people like how it turns out? Is this a joke question? You are so far off the mark on this it just absolutely boggles me. Quote
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 The only thing now is that I think this looks weird: World Champ - Seth Rollins U.S. Champ - John Cena IC Champ - Daniel Bryan Arguably one of the riskiest things Vince has ever done. It's the equivalent of making Mr Perfect champ when Hogan and Savage were still around, or something like that. Stuck in the past? It's very very forward-looking if you think about it. Quote
Loss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 No. Summerslam 2013: We got John Cena vs Daniel Bryan and it reached a conclusion. Then Randy Orton cashed in. The advertised main event was delivered to a conclusion and there was a bonus angle. This: We got Brock Lesnar vs Roman Reigns and it did not reach a conclusion because they didn't want either guy to do a job. They used an angle to get out of jail. I don't want to die on this cause. I just think it's inconsistent to think this is great and have a problem with Nash vs Goldberg being advertised at the Georgia Dome and Hulk Hogan walking out as champ. A lot of people had a problem with that it turns out. I'm not debating the merits of the booking. Seth Rollins has three potential opponents as heel champ and there are more directions they can go now. I am debating the ethics of not delivering a finish to the advertised main event on the biggest show of the year. This is the only time someone has cashed in by inserting themselves in an ongoing match instead of letting that match conclude and then acting as an opportunist. Quote
Death From Above Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 Was Alfred Hitcock's Psycho a rip-off and a terrible movie because the star gets murdered somewhere other than the predictable time it usually happens in movies? Quote
Loss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 Who said anything about good or bad? I'm talking about people getting what they paid for. Quote
Bierschwale Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 Rollins is Triple H's personal Scott Thorson. Quote
Jmare007 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 I think you're overestimating the amount of fans who wanted to see that. The majority of fans wanted to see Brock eviscerate Roman, didn't want to see a competitive match, etc. Considering the options, Reigns going over like he did would have killed a lot of what Brock did dead where he stood considering how that match was laid out. I'm not even saying more than 50 fans wanted to see that (just throwing out a number). I'm saying that you can't claim people who wanted a victor in that match are somehow wrong for wanting that. That's what the show was advertised to be, for better or for worse. Mmm. But that small number of fans is probably way bigger now and I don't think the minority that wanted a victor in the match doesn't want to watch a rematch. Isn't the point of wrestling work the fans to keep watching? Seems to me like they succeeded (in a good way, for once). Quote
ohtani's jacket Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 Was Hogan winning the belt at Wrestlemania IX better because there was a conclusion to Bret vs. Yoko? Quote
Loss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Posted March 30, 2015 I am making points about ethics and I'm getting responses about booking. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.