Money in the Bank 2015... Live as it Happens

[Slasher]

Matt has the right idea. If Cena is busting out new moves to show that he still has aces up his sleeves it would be nice to see him bust out strong transitional moves or moves that would get people to go "Whoa that we haven't seen John do that before" without needing to go overboard with it. It reminds me of Austin's complaint of the springboard stunner. Cena is busting out those moves to convince people he has moveZ but they are going to end up meaning nothing in the short term AND long term. I think Cena is a great worker and I think he is better than this shit.

 

edit: As a point of comparison, this is like when Kurt Angle did that 450 splash with knees in that TNA match and it popped the crowd but it was ultimately treated like a nothing move and he got killed for it online. But hey it is John Cena so let's all run up and pat him on the back for this psychological masterpiece!

[C.S.]

People criticizing Cena's use of the Code Red Fruity Pebble are missing the point entirely. Maybe you don't like the move and/or don't like Cena using "finishers" as random high spots - and that's fair enough - but the story of the match was a desperate Cena doing anything and everything to beat Owens, and that came across perfectly through the move, Cena arguing with the ref, showing frustration, etc. It has nothing to do with "OMG, Cena pulled out an ROH/PWG/whatever move." Yeah, okay, that's "nice," but it means nothing if there's no story or logic behind it, and there was in this case.

[The Man in Blak]

People criticizing Cena's use of the Code Red Fruity Pebble are missing the point entirely. Maybe you don't like the move and/or don't like Cena using "finishers" as random high spots - and that's fair enough - but the story of the match was a desperate Cena doing anything and everything to beat Owens, and that came across perfectly through the move, Cena arguing with the ref, showing frustration, etc. It has nothing to do with "OMG, Cena pulled out an ROH/PWG/whatever move." Yeah, okay, that's "nice," but it means nothing if there's no story or logic behind it, and there was in this case.

 

For what it's worth, this is why I said I'd like to see it in the context of the match. I think there's still room to discuss how well the move matches with the storyline presented, but context obviously matters here.

[Hollinger.]

Is Barrett on the way out?

 

FWIW, he's getting ready to film a movie in London, so they might be doing something to get him off of TV for a while.

[Seej]

I've read some comments on social media about Cena "burying" Owens..... *sigh*. These people, man.

[Sean Liska]

The word "bury" should have been eliminated from internet conversation after HHH cut that promo vowing to bury Daniel Bryan. It doesn't mean anything anymore.

[LariatMMBOPPO]

The word "bury" should have been eliminated from internet conversation after HHH cut that promo vowing to bury Daniel Bryan. It doesn't mean anything anymore.

That's one side effect of the brand meaning more than the wrestler/no competition. With the workers from the territorial/early 90s era being pretty much phased out completely, we have a generation of guys who are fine with doing clean jobs. You don't hear stuff like Hogan doesn't want to lose the title to Bret, Shawn is going out with a questionable injury and has to vacate [x] title, Nash is booking himself over Goldberg, Austin doesn't want to be pinned for the IC title, Undertaker "isn't feeling it" when asked to lay down for Brock etc. They're either yes men like Cena or are so afraid of losing their job, they'd lay down clean for the Brooklyn Brawler.

[Russellmania]

 

People criticizing Cena's use of the Code Red Fruity Pebble are missing the point entirely. Maybe you don't like the move and/or don't like Cena using "finishers" as random high spots - and that's fair enough - but the story of the match was a desperate Cena doing anything and everything to beat Owens, and that came across perfectly through the move, Cena arguing with the ref, showing frustration, etc. It has nothing to do with "OMG, Cena pulled out an ROH/PWG/whatever move." Yeah, okay, that's "nice," but it means nothing if there's no story or logic behind it, and there was in this case.

 

For what it's worth, this is why I said I'd like to see it in the context of the match. I think there's still room to discuss how well the move matches with the storyline presented, but context obviously matters here.

 

maybe stop discussing the match until you've seen it then

[goodhelmet]

For the record, I thought a Code Red and Canadian Destroyer were the same move. Going back on youtube, one is a sunset flip pin and one is a sunset flip piledriver.

[Parties]

What we don't acknowledge in these types of debates is that context matters in the moment. That move was better because it was Cena doing it. It wouldn't be as effective if some indie scrub hit it in a meaningless match. It was horrible when Petey Williams did his variation of it, because in the context of all the other horrible stuff that Petey Williams did, it was preposterous.

 

Cena is a phenomenal worker. Which means that when he tries something new, in a wildly surprising context, we're more apt to give him the benefit of the doubt. That's not hypocrisy. That's acknowledging the amazing thirteen year career the guy's had, and enjoying the moment because of that context: on a WWE pseudo-PPV, in a highly anticipated match against a major league opponent with huge potential. Ric Flair bleeding buckets against Big Show in ECW was better than CZW Idiot X bleeding the same buckets. Vader powerbombing Foley on the floor is not the same thing as Nash lazily hitting his Jacknife. If I botch myself? Very well then, I botch myself.

 

Legends get away with stuff that failures don't get away with. If you think that's unfair, welcome to Western Civilization.

[ohtani's jacket]

Why does Cena need to bust out a new move to handle a repackaged Indy guy on a WWE B show? I don't get it. It's like fan fiction or something. Shouldn't that kind of thing happen on a bigger show or am I hopelessly out of touch? Or he just used a different move and people are overreacting from all corners?

[BillThompson]

He busted out the move on a PPV/special event, and it fits within the larger narrative they've been pushing for a while of Cena being older and having more trouble keeping up with younger talent. He's having to try new things and change up his approach somewhat, so you get things like the Code Red, the Springboard Stunner, arguing with the ref, etc.

[C.S.]

Why does Cena need to bust out a new move to handle a repackaged Indy guy on a WWE B show? I don't get it. It's like fan fiction or something. Shouldn't that kind of thing happen on a bigger show or am I hopelessly out of touch? Or he just used a different move and people are overreacting from all corners?

 

Because Owens is not being presented as "a repackaged indy guy on a WWE b-show." How you perceive Owens vs. his actual character and push are are two wildly different things, apparently.

[ohtani's jacket]

He's an indy guy who went through development, isn't he? Money in the Bank is a B-show.

[Jimmy Redman]

What's that got to do with anything though? You're saying those things as if it's "only" an indy guy (how is where he came from even relevant to his WWE career or how strongly he can be portrayed?) and "only" developmental, when the entire point is that Owens has been booked as a threat, he's been a dominant champion in NXT and has now come in at Cena's level, beating him clean on PPV in their first match. Cena had to bust out something new to beat him because he LOST to him the first time.

[BillThompson]

It's a PPV/special event. They build to it, they treat it like it matters. It's not one of the big 3, but in the context of how WWE presents their product it's an important event, not a B show. As for the "he's a repackaged indie guy," watching the product regularly would reveal that they do not present Owens as such. He's presented as a legitimate tough guy and killer heel. Your comment is more you forming your own narrative.

[El-P]

Talking about forming your own form of narrative, saying that the move was used right in the context of the match because it fits the "storytelling" is quite funny. Because really, the match was a spotfu. There was not much in term of storytelling apart from : move kickout, move kickout, try AA kickout, try powerbomb kick out, try submission escape, try AA again kickout, etc… That's the definition of a movez (for you haterz) match. Which can be fine if you dig that.

 

Now, if we're assuming the idea that Cena had to dig up and use new moves to beat the younger generations (and really ? He beat Rusev with one AA at Mania), then why would he use a move that apparently, in WWE context, has never even been a finisher (as Loss said, used as a thrown-away spot in Zayn vs Cesaro before, used by JTTS Goldust since 2013) ?

 

The answer is simple : because it's a cool looking move that pops the crowd, even more since it's a shocker to see Cena use that move. Period. It's just a cool (although stupid) indy looking move used for a kickout (let's not say nearfall, because it wasn't) in the middle of a dozens of other moves/kickouts. There was no great thoughts behind it other than : "Fuck, Cena just did a Code Red !". And that can be perfectly fine. I, for one, found the moment quite cool in the context of a mindless spotfu. I wouldn't try to pass this as a proof Cena was a brillant worker reinventing himself (well, and they did botch it up too, although apparently even that fact was a positive… okay…), nor that it was great psychology or anything of that ilk. It was a cute/stupid move that popped the crowd because it looked cool and surprising. And that can be enough to enjoy it for what it is. But apparently, everything has to pass for some great psychological ploy these days when favourites are involved. So yeah, "forming your own narrative" definitely applies to some stuff around here.

And again, I didn't hate the move nor the match. And I like Cena.

[Quentin Skinner]

That's not forming your own narrative when the commentary team was putting that over as well. They pointed out during the match that Cena said he was going to bust out things we've never seen from him before. Obviously that was in their minds as well.

[WingedEagle]

And again, I didn't hate the move nor the match. And I like Cena.

 

Curious about this last part from people critical of the match. Did you just take issue with what they did or found it silly? Or did you really not like the match? I can't tell from some of the comments others are posting if they actively hated it, or for all I know thought it was great but didn't like how they got there.

[El-P]

 

And again, I didn't hate the move nor the match. And I like Cena.

 

Curious about this last part from people critical of the match. Did you just take issue with what they did or found it silly? Or did you really not like the match? I can't tell from some of the comments others are posting if they actively hated it, or for all I know thought it was great but didn't like how they got there.

 

 

The match was a spotfu. Move/kickout move/kickout. Like I said, they worked a good mindless X-Division match, going overboard with the kickouts spamming at the end. I enjoyed it to some degree, for what it was. I enjoyed Cena's antics (as I often do). I don't think it was a very good match, because at some point that formula gets old. But for what they were aiming, it was good. Not as good as the previous one, which I thought was very good. That's pretty much what I think about the match itself.

[Jimmy Redman]

Yeah I'm curious to know how it's us forming our own narrative when we're the ones actually following the story that WWE are telling, through the results, Cena's promos and the announcers, and ohtani is the one who is characterising Owens as a "repackaged indy guy" and not what he is actually portrayed as on TV.

 

Cena busting out new moves makes perfect narrative sense because "Cena is busting out new moves to try to beat a guy he lost to two weeks ago" was exactly the story they were going for. If you weren't aware of that or aren't interested in that or don't think they executed that well then fair enough, but it's pretty off-base to suggest that people are making it up, when they were literally telling us that that's what was happening.

[El-P]

With which move did John Cena defeated Owens already ?

[Jimmy Redman]

I don't think Cena winning in the end with another FU really negates the story of him having to bust out new moves against this guy. He had already kicked out of the FU so he was trying new things, seeing if they worked, and in the end he found an opening to hit a stunner-FU combo and it did the job.

[Quentin Skinner]

That's not the point at all. The commentary team is telling you Cena is busting out new moves to win this match, nobody here or anywhere else is making that narrative up when it's coming straight from the commentary team who we all know has Vince in their ears.

[ohtani's jacket]

What's that got to do with anything though? You're saying those things as if it's "only" an indy guy (how is where he came from even relevant to his WWE career or how strongly he can be portrayed?) and "only" developmental, when the entire point is that Owens has been booked as a threat, he's been a dominant champion in NXT and has now come in at Cena's level, beating him clean on PPV in their first match. Cena had to bust out something new to beat him because he LOST to him the first time.

 

Why is this one particular guy forcing John Cena to change his game plan? Because he beat him? Is this supposed to have been built to in a meaningful way? In a year's time when people are complaining about the way they company have handled Owens and the whole thing is a flash in the pan are people still going to say it as a strong narrative? Maybe it's good TV on a week-to-week basis. I don't know. I was kind of asking for an explanation how it's different from Cena vs. Wyatt or Cena vs. Rusev, since you'd think (or hope) that Cena having to bust out new moves would be a bit more memorable than a string of B show matches, but I'm not pretending to be in the loop.