anarchistxx Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 They've done a fantastic job of saving Reigns from being a total dead duck. Come on - they have literally done the exact opposite. He has gone from getting a clean, decisive win against the biggest heel in the company after a violent brawl, to getting pinned by a chicken shit heel in a screwy finish. One of these two scenarios turned Reigns into a dead duck, and it isn't the one you are praising. But it's a nice get out of jail free card for the booker. The booker shouldn't need a safety blanket. They have complete control over the product - if they need a get out of jail free card they are incompetent and short sighted, like I have been saying. They should do the time if they do the crime. If they are intent on booking Roman Reigns as the company ace, go for it. Don't go with half measures like last night where nobody comes out of it looking better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Actually the Russo way is to break kayfabe and admit that the product is scripted and fake. You've also got to look at your history a bit too since you're so keen on it. If you follow every single thing you've been asking for, WWE would be booked like 90s All Japan. When in US wrestling history has the product been booked like that? Not in Crockett. Not in Florida (Graham went to ref bump practically every match). Not in GCW. Not even in Watts. You're literally asking for Sam Muchnick-booked St. Louis-style, and EVEN THERE screwy finishes and so on were par for the course. My point is, to an extent, "get real". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 They've done a fantastic job of saving Reigns from being a total dead duck. Come on - they have literally done the exact opposite. He has gone from getting a clean, decisive win against the biggest heel in the company after a violent brawl, to getting pinned by a chicken shit heel in a screwy finish. One of these two scenarios turned Reigns into a dead duck, and it isn't the one you are praising. I don't see that as being what's happened though. He's gone from getting booed and being seen as "their guy" to getting genuine babyface heat after a brutal match and then being cruelly denied the win by getting screwed by his former buddy. NOW people have a reason to care about him whereas before he seemed like a corporate-champion in waiting. I honestly don't see how you think him winning and getting booed would have been better. Baffling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Want to know something else? If the fans weren't such fucking dicks misbehaving and not cheering and booing who they are meant to (like the GREAT marks of old), doing "this is awesome" chants trying to get themselves over, and wanting to be "smart" all the fucking time, maybe the company wouldn't have to resort to all this cutesy booking. They've been forced into it by fans who are, in my view, idiots. Fans who are the product of Russo and kayfabe-breaking horribleness from 15 years ago. But what can they do now? This is what the situation is. The genie can never go back in the bottle. It's this way or the Russo way. What do you want? I don't disagree with this entirely (there's certainly a level of obnoxiousness you get from some fans that's clearly being done for the sake of it), but I don't get the whole "misbehaving" thing and the totalitarian "you'll cheer who we tell you to cheer" notion of expecting people to pay for the privilege of being a mark, especially with the industry as exposed as it is. If you pay for your ticket, you can boo and cheer whoever you like. I'm not saying you should chant "CM Punk" during Diva matches because you think it's cool or any dumb shit like that, but if you're a Brock Lesnar fan, you shouldn't be forced to boo him like you're a paid plant when you're the one who's coughing up an entrance fee. It's tantamount to robbing you of the right to an opinion, wherein you're only allowed to express yourself if it jives with what you're being spoonfed. I'm sure Luke 'strong supporter of freedom of speech (unless it's contrary to my own personal opinion)' Hawx would love to have it that way, but I get the feeling that's a minority viewpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Actually the Russo way is to break kayfabe and admit that the product is scripted and fake. Which they do continually, in a 'wink wink' way. How much WWE do you actually watch? Seems like you treated the events last night in complete isolation. Russo started the trend of short sighted, short term booking working towards a quick buzz, a quick fix - Money In The Bank is the culmination of that, and the opposite of running a well booked, meaningful product where the belt means something and there is something at stake. If you follow every single thing you've been asking for, WWE would be booked like 90s All Japan Wrong again. I praised Cena vs Rollins at the end of last year for being an exciting, overbooked hot mess. I don't want all my matches to be pure sports and have definite finishes - I love garbage wrestling and overbooked screwy finishes if they are well executed and most importantly in the right context i.e. Kurt Angle vs Steve Austin at Summerslam, the psychotic, paranoid, cheating heel attacking referees in desperation so he doesn't lose the belt to the fiery, bloody babyface. But when you have built a guy up as the new ace for twelve months, put him through a war where he has finally proved himself and got to a believable, cathartic moment of winning the championship at your biggest show of the year, is is just utter folly to stall his momentum and devalue the entire match by chasing some cheap heat, just because you are scared to go all in with anyone. You're literally asking for Sam Muchnick-booked St. Louis-style, and EVEN THERE screwy finishes and so on were par for the course. Jerry, you are constructing a whole persona and set of views for me on the basis of my thoughts for this one match. There is a right time for screwy finishes, and last night wasn't it for so many reasons. Not least for the fact that with Seth Rollins as champion you are going to have an immensely tedious, repetitive, regurgitated product going forward, because of how they book authority heels. He's gone from getting booed and being seen as "their guy" to getting genuine babyface heat after a brutal match and then being cruelly denied the win by getting screwed by his former buddy. Or they had finally built him up to a point where he might be accepted by the fans as champion after proving himself, to the point where he is eating a pinfall after a screwy finish and spends the next few months getting screwed over again and again in repetitive storylines that destroy any heat he had. Roman Reigns doesn't need babyface heat all the time to be the top guy - he just needs a loud reaction one way or the other, which he got. people cared about him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Actually the Russo way is to break kayfabe and admit that the product is scripted and fake. Which they do continually, in a 'wink wink' way. How much WWE do you actually watch? Seems like you treated the events last night in complete isolation. Russo started the trend of short sighted, short term booking working towards a quick buzz, a quick fix - Money In The Bank is the culmination of that, and the opposite of running a well booked, meaningful product where the belt means something and there is something at stake. I'm only watching the PPVs at the moment. I've watched Rumble and Fast Lane. I don't watch Raw. I absolutely despise the "wink wink" elements you're talking about and wish that all such elements could be dropped from the product. Wrong again. I praised Cena vs Rollins at the end of last year for being an exciting, overbooked hot mess. I don't want all my matches to be pure sports and have definite finishes - I love garbage wrestling and overbooked screwy finishes if they are well executed and most importantly in the right context i.e. Kurt Angle vs Steve Austin at Summerslam, the psychotic, paranoid, cheating heel attacking referees in desperation so he doesn't lose the belt to the fiery, bloody babyface. But when you have built a guy up as the new ace for twelve months, put him through a war where he has finally proved himself and got to a believable, cathartic moment of winning the championship at your biggest show of the year, is is just utter folly to stall his momentum and devalue the entire match by chasing some cheap heat, just because you are scared to go all in with anyone. Okay fair enough. But I guess we disagree over whether this was the right time to pull the trigger. CLEARLY Vince or the booking team felt that he isn't ready yet. In fact, speaking of All Japan, it's actually a leaf out of Giant Baba's book. They are being patient. He's Tenryu in 88, not 89. Needs more time. Jerry, you are constructing a whole persona and set of views for me on the basis of my thoughts for this one match. There is a right time for screwy finishes, and last night wasn't it for so many reasons. Not least for the fact that with Seth Rollins as champion you are going to have an immensely tedious, repetitive, regurgitated product going forward, because of how they book authority heels. We probably agree on a lot of this stuff, I'd prefer the heel authority figure to vanish too. I am, as you say, extracting based on what you've said during this debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soup23 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Parv, the gate argument is offensive. People but tickets and are planning mania trips in droves months before a main event match is announced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 JerryVonKramer saying Rusev going over Cena would kill business is just an absurd ridiculous statement. Rusev absolutely should've won last night, he would've been a made man for life, especially with that entrance. Cena can afford to do the job, he's John Cena. Rusev going through the summer with the question of who can finally beat him is great booking. Also, for someone who whined about to much current wresting talk, you sure are posting a lot in this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 The point is that if all of this amounted to "heat against the company" they wouldn't do that. But they do. Heat against the company in real terms is not spending money with the company. All other heat is business-generating heat if the fans are still spending money. A truth of the modern paradigm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 JerryVonKramer saying Rusev going over Cena would kill business is just an absurd ridiculous statement. Rusev absolutely should've won last night, he would've been a made man for life, especially with that entrance. Cena can afford to do the job, he's John Cena. I don't agree because they'd already gone to that well twice recently. Once vs. Brock, once vs. Rusev. Another job and Cena starts to lose his aura. Losses don't matter? Look at Undertaker this year. One loss and no aura left at all. Job out the ace enough and he loses his aura too. Rusev can take the loss, he's a heel who got his comeuppance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It wasn't time yet for Rusev to lose, and they should've used Rusev's loss to elevate someone. Not John Cena. No, Cena doesn't lose his aura because he's John Cena. Undertaker is a bad example, because his gimmick was that he never lost for 21 years. And the crowd still seemed into him last night, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share 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. They actually spent one whole episode of Raw built around the idea of Rollins cashing in and making it a Triple Threat. It was heavily teased. That changes my perspective. If the idea that this just might become a Triple Threat match was part of the hype, then I don't have that criticism anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 John Cena is "John Cena" because he won a lot of matches. I said it earlier, do you really think even Hogan or Bruno could withstand being jobbed out with that regularity? I don't get that thinking that says Cena is just totally untouchable. I can't think of any aces ever that jobbed out that much. Heels can lose because they lie and cheat and can spin that into a form of win anyway (see: Flair, Horsemen, etc.), babyface aces can't lose too often because it chops their balls off. Cena NEEDED that win to retain a sense of being "the man". I don't see why people think he didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Yea, Rollins definitely was teasing it leading up to the show and his cashing in was in no-way like the Orton-D-Bry matches. Picked a weird hill to die on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't necesarrily agree with it, but, I can see Loss' point about turning the match into a triple threat being a bit of false advertizing to a extent. From a logic point of view, why would Rollins cash in during the match, when he can wait a few minutes and cash in afterwards and only have to worry about one person instead of two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't necesarrily agree with it, but, I can see Loss' point about turning the match into a triple threat being a bit of false advertizing to a extent. From a logic point of view, why would Rollins cash in during the match, when he can wait a few minutes and cash in afterwards and only have to worry about one person instead of two? Because then he gets a kayfabe Wrestlemania Main Event payday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 John Cena is "John Cena" because he won a lot of matches. I said it earlier, do you really think even Hogan or Bruno could withstand being jobbed out with that regularity? I don't get that thinking that says Cena is just totally untouchable. I can't think of any aces ever that jobbed out that much. Heels can lose because they lie and cheat and can spin that into a form of win anyway (see: Flair, Horsemen, etc.), babyface aces can't lose too often because it chops their balls off. Cena NEEDED that win to retain a sense of being "the man". I don't see why people think he didn't. Cena's always been the man. He survived the loss to Brock just fine and he survived an incredibly one sided feud with The Rock (until he won in the end) just fine too. They had a chance to make Rusev a made man last night and just blew it. It would've been Cena's first real loss in 200 days. I think he'd do okay. I'm not saying Cena needs to job all the time but he would've easily survived the Rusev loss because he's John Cena, while Rusev becomes the unstoppble main eventer and you can keep building him up until it's finally time for him to lose. Mania wasn't the time, especially like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerpride Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't necesarrily agree with it, but, I can see Loss' point about turning the match into a triple threat being a bit of false advertizing to a extent. From a logic point of view, why would Rollins cash in during the match, when he can wait a few minutes and cash in afterwards and only have to worry about one person instead of two? He wanted to cash in when both guys were down and he didn't want do it when he might have to face Brock one on one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 John Cena is "John Cena" because he won a lot of matches. I said it earlier, do you really think even Hogan or Bruno could withstand being jobbed out with that regularity? I don't get that thinking that says Cena is just totally untouchable. I can't think of any aces ever that jobbed out that much. Heels can lose because they lie and cheat and can spin that into a form of win anyway (see: Flair, Horsemen, etc.), babyface aces can't lose too often because it chops their balls off. Cena NEEDED that win to retain a sense of being "the man". I don't see why people think he didn't. Cena's always been the man. He survived the loss to Brock just fine and he survived an incredibly one sided feud with The Rock (until he won in the end) just fine too. They had a chance to make Rusev a made man last night and just blew it. It would've been Cena's first real loss in 200 days. I think he'd do okay. I'm not saying Cena needs to job all the time but he would've easily survived the Rusev loss because he's John Cena, while Rusev becomes the unstoppble main eventer and you can keep building him up until it's finally time for him to lose. Mania wasn't the time, especially like that. The win wasn't entirely clean though. It was an old-school manager-mixup-on-the-apron finish. So he has an excuse. Is this feud done now then? 1-1 by my count, with one "tainted" win on either side. Next step would be the cage match blow-off? Who will Rusev feud with otherwise? Bryan for the IC belt? Babyface Lesnar? I suspect too that Cena going over there was as much to do with Rollins going over in the main event. You can't have a heel walk out with the title AND have your ace lose to the evil Russian on the same card. If I'd done that in my 1983 booking I'd never ever hear the end of it. Shit, I put DiBiase over Bruno and never heard the end of it. And all I was trying to do was exactly this. And DiBiase was a bigger name in 1983 than Rusev is in 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I don't necesarrily agree with it, but, I can see Loss' point about turning the match into a triple threat being a bit of false advertizing to a extent. From a logic point of view, why would Rollins cash in during the match, when he can wait a few minutes and cash in afterwards and only have to worry about one person instead of two? Because then he gets a kayfabe Wrestlemania Main Event payday? Touche, sir. Excellent point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Rusev will be Miz' tag team partner a year from now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhindsight Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I'll say this about the main event, agree with Charles and Soup in how great it was - and somehow the commentary....helped? Such a foreign topic but all three guys were really good at putting over the small things Reigns was doing. Even Kevin Dunn with the replays (like the knee to Brock's face) did well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blak Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 They should do the time if they do the crime. If they are intent on booking Roman Reigns as the company ace, go for it. Don't go with half measures like last night where nobody comes out of it looking better. Doesn't Seth Rollins come out of this looking better? He's the new WWE Champion, he's the first guy to cash in MITB at Wrestlemania (and in the main event, no less!), and all of his character motivations for breaking up the Shield are paid off in full. He has reams of material to fuel his chickenshit heel act for months or even years, if they play it right. Rollins has never wowed me as a heel -- I think his actual performance has been less of a factor in his success than the super careful booking and presentation of his character (such as the addition of J&J security) -- but he is unquestionably in a better place than he was six months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 From a WrestleMania brand standpoint, last night's finish worked quite well. It seemed momentous. Would it have worked even 15 years ago, when they had to protect matches? No Except, to be honest, this was not a match worth "protecting." Very few people wanted to see Brock Lesnar vs. Roman Reigns main event WrestleMania. Yes, granted, they got us into the match as it was happening, but too little too late by then. Seth Rollins cashing in was an incredible ending. As tired as people might be of the Money in the Bank formula, this particular cash-in was handled perfectly. Also, a cash-in has never happened at WrestleMania itself, so that was novel too. In the end, everyone came out stronger - even Reigns, who was struggling before the match. They all have far more character and storyline possibilities now than they did even before the match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Star Ratings from moi: Fatal Four Way Tag Match: *** Andre Battle Royal: ** 3/4 Intercontinental Ladder Match: *** 1/2 Randy Orton vs. Seth Rollins: *** 3/4 Triple H vs. Sting: *** (for spectacle only) AJ and Paige vs Bella Twins: ** 3/4 John Cena vs. Rusev: *** Undertaker vs. Bray Wyatt: *** Brock Lesnar vs. Roman Reigns (and eventually Seth Rollins): **** 1/4 Some Thoughts - Undertaker is (currently) in far better ring shape than Sting. Sting may look better, but Taker was the better performer of the two last night. There is no way that those two men would have an epic (possible double retirement) match next year at Mania. I think realistically Taker either needs to face Cena or Bryan in his final match. Both those men are safe workers, world class talent, and capable of making up for Taker's physical limitations. - Triple H looked ridiculously huge, even Dave and Bryan commented on this on the after-Mania radio. - The Rock was actually pretty sub-par in that segment. - Roman Reigns was the perfect opponent for Lesnar from a physicality point of view. Reigns and his background in Football, is probably one of the only people on the roster who can endure Lesnar working at maximum intensity. Both men had a really stiff match, they weren't pulling blows in the early going. I wonder if that was an arrangement they came to, in an attempt to get Reigns over as "tough"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.