Roman Reigns as the ace post-Wrestlemania

[Loss]

The interesting thing about your last point, TTK, is that Roman has a rep for being quick-witted, funny, and really likable in one-on-one interactions. The locker room loves him.

[SomethingSavage]

I believe it, too. Roman came across really witty and likeable when he was on Jericho's podcast. Admittedly, I haven't heard much from him in other settings.

 

Regarding the character evolution thing, I think it's much more relevant today than it was in the 80s. I understand your point, and I don't necessarily disagree with those characters. But it was already becoming an issue in the nineties.

 

Flair is one of a kind. The man, the gimmick, etc is fucking money & a timeless treasure. There's a reason gangster rap is writing hooks to name drop the man just this year.

 

Dusty ran into problems. So did Hogan. And even Piper eventually. They all became stagnant and less over with time. Of course, it's silly for me to suggest that's completely due to a lack of character evolution, but I certainly believe it played a part.

 

In today's system, it's very much a big consideration - bigger than ever before. There's such a saturation of content and television. Roman Reigns alone has been on TV almost every week for 5+ years and has barely changed a thing. If this were a legitimate sport and he was just an athlete, okay. But when you're in the business of telling stories and creating compelling television, you can't really get away with that. There needs to be some growth, some progression, and some sort of change.

 

The few times Roman has shown his teeth (the Hunter pummeling, the Vince knockout on Raw, and some of the Lesnar stuff) he's come across like a HAYOOOJ fan favorite. He's a fantastic baby face performer, but he's on a treadmill going nowhere if he's stuck as this character that's never allowed to change a thing.

 

Maybe I am overemphasizing the importance of character evolution. Even so, at the very least, it's frustrating as a viewer to see.

[The Thread Killer]

The interesting thing about your last point, TTK, is that Roman has a rep for being quick-witted, funny, and really likable in one-on-one interactions. The locker room loves him.

 

Excellent point, and I think when considering that information Loss, it can lead to only one of two possibilities. Either WWE is so reliant on their written, carefully scripted promos that they are now unwilling to let the actual character of the WWE superstar be shown unless it is one that they created...or poor Roman Reigns has Brad Armstrong syndrome.

 

I often wonder that if Steve Austin of 1995/1996 came to the WWE of today, would Stone Cold ever have been born? I doubt it. Back then, they still allowed guys to shoot from the lip with their promos. Hence the "Austin 3:16" promo. Today, Vince would have sent Austin out there with a script, and I don't think the fans would have showed up to Raw the next day with signs that said "THE guy 3:16." I do believe that material is more believable if the guy speaking it actually thought it up himself. Maybe Roman isn't allowed to express his personality. I consider the promos he did against John Cena. They were hardly "shoot" promos but I think Reigns was getting legit pissed off that Cena was being allowed to go out there and tee off on him. I know what Reigns said was scripted, but you could tell he sure meant parts of it and - surprise - he came across as legitimate and convincing.

 

It's such basic Pro Wrestling 101. If a guy is good on the microphone, let him talk. If he isn't, give him a mouthpiece. Vince's bizarre decision to stop using managers never made sense to me. Hell, in the 80's the WWF was crazy with managers. Aside from Jake Roberts and Roddy Piper, if you were a heel - you had a manager whether you needed one or not. Now, Lesnar gets Heyman...everybody else gets a script written by somebody who probably never even watched wrestling to begin with.

 

OR...

 

I have heard from a bunch of different guys (including Brian James himself) that backstage, Brad Armstrong was the coolest, funniest guy you ever wanted to meet. He was apparently hilarious, and Road Dogg went so far as to claim that when the cameras weren't rolling, Brad was much livelier and funnier than he was. But get him in front of a microphone or camera and he became like a deer in the headlights. (Which was a shame, because when you consider his work, imagine if Brad could cut a promo?) I have heard something similar about Dean Malenko of all people. Apparently, he was a total cut-up and hilarious backstage, but he froze up doing promos and became The Iceman. Could be that is the case with Reigns, but I'm more inclined to think they just don't want to take his training wheels off.

 

Because if you can talk for yourself, then what does WWE need with a bunch of writers and writers assistants?

[Sean Liska]

How does that affect UFC?

Perception. UFC's biggest drawing cards are either in WWE or have gone crazy like Conor.

 

Hey I'm reaching but I'm trying to figure out their main event booking like everyone else.

[The Thread Killer]

Loss and SomethingSavage make interesting points about the need for character evolution - how Reigns hasn't evolved and how some of the classic guys never did or never needed to. The only arguments I can see to those points are that the classic guys seemed to have characters that worked for them, so they didn't have to change. Reigns isn't really working now.

 

Secondly, guys in the 70's and 80's weren't ridiculously overexposed the way they are now. Any of those big names would have become stale if they had been on a three hour show once a week in addition to monthly Pay Per Views. That was what was great about the territory system. Once a guy got stale he could go somewhere else for a few months, then when he came back he was fresh. Guys like Flair and Andre were constantly moving around. I know Flair had JCP, but I don't think he was being overexposed on TV the way Reigns is.

 

Also, Flair would have been better if he had gotten a haircut and changed his name to Spartacus.

[Robert S]

It seems to me like wrestling did well for a long time without character evolution. Ric Flair never changed. Dusty Rhodes never changed. Randy Savage changed his ring attire and look, but not really his madman persona. Roddy Piper never changed. The Road Warriors never changed. I don't want to write off the point because I think there's something to it. It's how Chris Jericho has stayed relevant. It played a role in Daniel Bryan getting over. It revitalized Matt Hardy. But why didn't it matter in the past? I think the bigger creative issues are wins and losses, who gets pushed and who doesn't, and the obsession with size. Whether everyone on both sides fully realizes it, this is a battle between a fanbase that wants full control over creative decisions and a promoter who still feels, rightfully so in some ways, that it's up to him to manipulate his audience into wanting to see what he plans to present. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

All on your list except Dusty turned between heel and face at least once. Plus the above mentioned "not-staying-too-long-at-one-place" thing.

[Jimmy Redman]

I think the difference between then and now is the structure. To reiterate the point, back in the day there was a LOT less television exposure, and a lot more opportunities to move to another territory and a fresh audience. That was how they "changed" even if they remained consistent characters.

 

Nowadays changing character, or between heel/face, or some sort of storyline-based development has to replace that "leave the territory" move to freshen up. Because these guys are going to be on TV like twice a week every week for years and years on end. That's how someone like Chris Jericho, for example, has managed to stay fresh, and relevant, and in demand over such a long period of time. It's like he's creating his own little mini-territory runs by doing something different each time. And on the other hand, someone like Randy Orton, who has been around a few less years than him and is ostensibly a bigger star, has felt completely stale as a character for a long time now and there's no interest in anything he does. Because there's no break, he's just the same guy, indefinitely. And at some point, you just don't need to see it again.

 

It's not necessarily that it always has to be as drastic as Jericho. But with so much TV these days and such lazy writing for the most part, you feel like you're watching a show where nothing actually happens. Nothing means anything. You could tune in to WWE in any given month of the year, and see the same guys having the same matches with each other, with no sense that their careers have progressed or regressed or moved in any direction. It's so static.

 

And it's been true for Roman for three years. Whatever the nuts and bolts of his win-loss record actually are, it FEELS like he always wins because he inevitably gets put back in the title picture or main event on a regular basis (and particularly when Mania rolls around) and it feels like there's no real rhyme or reason why beyond "we're going back to Roman." I mean, Roman was trading wins with Miz in the IC Title division in January, had no momentum in kayfabe, and then suddenly, he wins the Elim Chamber and he's in the main event of Wrestlemania? People claimed this was a three year story but it wasn't. It was ten months of a bunch of stuff that meant nothing, and then "hey it's Mania season we need to put Roman in the main event." Like it is every year since 2015. And the constant coronation attempts with Roman just reinforce the fact that nothing that happens the rest of the year on TV actually means anything going forward. It happens one month, they do a rematch next month, then they move to the next program, rinse, repeat. Has anything that happened to Roman on TV since WM31 actually affected his character in any way? Has anything happened to Brock to affect him? Aren't they the exact same people they were 3 years ago?

 

You need development and change or things just get so stale.

[El-P]

Really enjoying the latest posts on the issue. Tons of very interesting stuff, right on the point too.

[Matt D]

Re: Dusty:

 

He was exceptionally good at keeping himself fresh through branding. He'd take a whole summer and say that it was part of the Stardust 83 Tour or whatever, or would find ways to liken himself to whatever was going on in pop culture. He had an ear to the ground and even though he was basically doing the same thing, he was trying to sell it to the fans as something different, each and every year. There was some element of that to Hogan too. One year he wore the the Fist Helmet. He went from being the Incredible Hulk Hogan to the Immortal Hulk Hogan. He went super patriot in 91, etc.

 

With more modern guys, some of it ends up driven by merchandise. With Austin, you needed new shirts, so you'd get stuff like the bionic redneck, etc.

 

Unless I'm mistaken, Reigns is pretty much exactly the same as he he was three years ago. I couldn't tell you one different bit of his act, in ring or out. Does he have a new nickname? There was maybe a hint of it when he beat Taker and said it was his yard now, but he didn't exactly run with that.

[Mad Dog]

I don't feel like he really has much of a character to begin with honestly. He's kind of the golden boy that acts like he's the golden boy except when they are trying to pretend the golden boy is an underdog. He's not like Joe, Ambrose or Lesnar where you kind of just understand who they are. Like I've watched Reigns promos and matches and if you wanted me to actually nail down his character I don't think I could.

[The Thread Killer]

That's how someone like Chris Jericho, for example, has managed to stay fresh, and relevant, and in demand over such a long period of time. It's like he's creating his own little mini-territory runs by doing something different each time. And on the other hand, someone like Randy Orton, who has been around a few less years than him and is ostensibly a bigger star, has felt completely stale as a character for a long time now and there's no interest in anything he does. Because there's no break, he's just the same guy, indefinitely. And at some point, you just don't need to see it again.

 

That's an excellent point and Jericho is an excellent example. Chris Jericho is kind of the anti-Roman, isn't he? He's a guy who manages to stay fresh and relevant by pretty much constantly reinventing himself. There is no way Jericho would still be as popular as he is right now if he was still working the exact same character he had back when he first made his WWF debut all those years ago - or even if he had stuck with one of his previous incarnations. His frequent breaks from the business help him sure, but he is constantly evolving. It's actually quite amazing that he has done that right under their nose, yet nobody there has looked at him as an example and thought to apply some of those creative techniques to Roman Reigns.

[Boss Rock]

I think the difference between then and now is the structure. To reiterate the point, back in the day there was a LOT less television exposure, and a lot more opportunities to move to another territory and a fresh audience. That was how they "changed" even if they remained consistent characters.

 

Nowadays changing character, or between heel/face, or some sort of storyline-based development has to replace that "leave the territory" move to freshen up. Because these guys are going to be on TV like twice a week every week for years and years on end. That's how someone like Chris Jericho, for example, has managed to stay fresh, and relevant, and in demand over such a long period of time. It's like he's creating his own little mini-territory runs by doing something different each time. And on the other hand, someone like Randy Orton, who has been around a few less years than him and is ostensibly a bigger star, has felt completely stale as a character for a long time now and there's no interest in anything he does. Because there's no break, he's just the same guy, indefinitely. And at some point, you just don't need to see it again.

 

It's not necessarily that it always has to be as drastic as Jericho. But with so much TV these days and such lazy writing for the most part, you feel like you're watching a show where nothing actually happens. Nothing means anything. You could tune in to WWE in any given month of the year, and see the same guys having the same matches with each other, with no sense that their careers have progressed or regressed or moved in any direction. It's so static.

 

And it's been true for Roman for three years. Whatever the nuts and bolts of his win-loss record actually are, it FEELS like he always wins because he inevitably gets put back in the title picture or main event on a regular basis (and particularly when Mania rolls around) and it feels like there's no real rhyme or reason why beyond "we're going back to Roman." I mean, Roman was trading wins with Miz in the IC Title division in January, had no momentum in kayfabe, and then suddenly, he wins the Elim Chamber and he's in the main event of Wrestlemania? People claimed this was a three year story but it wasn't. It was ten months of a bunch of stuff that meant nothing, and then "hey it's Mania season we need to put Roman in the main event." Like it is every year since 2015. And the constant coronation attempts with Roman just reinforce the fact that nothing that happens the rest of the year on TV actually means anything going forward. It happens one month, they do a rematch next month, then they move to the next program, rinse, repeat. Has anything that happened to Roman on TV since WM31 actually affected his character in any way? Has anything happened to Brock to affect him? Aren't they the exact same people they were 3 years ago?

 

You need development and change or things just get so stale.

 

Spot-on.

[Victator]

About Brad Armstrong. Brad was a fine promo, not as good as his dad (which is good company) or his brother, but fine on his own.

Roman never recovered from that video playing tea party.

[Boss Rock]

I'd say "Suffering succotash" and "Donkey dung for brains" were the ones that did irreparable damage to his promo reputation. The tea party thing was just a cute PSA on fatherhood.

[Matt D]

This is a ring of hell:

 

[Boss Rock]

That was awful. It just sounded like a bad imitation of a Rock line that would sound ridiculous but he would get over regardless because of his charisma.

[Matt D]

He just have just punched Rollins in the face and left.

[Boss Rock]

 

This one also.

[brocklock]

The way they had Roman act like The Rock in late 14/early 15 reminds me of when they had Randy Orton cutting bad Rock ripoff promos doing HHH caveman impressions after Evolution turned on him. That stuff never works.

[Coffey]

There's a lot of things that are different nowadays. Firstly, not to overlook it, is the damn internet. You can look up & watch wrestling 24/7 now. You can talk about wrestling 24/7. You can always find a show if you want. Secondly, as mentioned (and partially because of the internet I would argue, but also the TV) is straight-up overexposure. NO ONE feels like a star when you see them ALL the time. RAW is too long. Smackdown is unneeded. And there's no competition so there's not a spark to light a fire under anyone's ass. It's just a job. Also Vince McMahon is 72-years-old now. You can't work that hard for that long forever. He had to slowdown sometime.

 

WWE is publicly traded. The PPV model is gone. It's all about shareholders & WWE Network Subscribers now, so the way they present the show has changed significantly. Heels have merch & break kayfabe on Twitter & show that they're cool people... and no one wants to boo them when they're on TV because they're cool. Then a guy like Roman comes out & he's supposed to be a 1980's Bob Backlund or Hulk Hogan babyface & that shit just doesn't work like that anymore. It's dull. It's predictable. It's repetitive. And the fans turn on it, so then WWE keeps pushing him like he's Hogan but has him lose the Wrestlemania blow-off matches. Is Hogan the same Hogan if he loses to Andre, Savage & Slaughter?

 

[SomethingSavage]

I think the difference between then and now is the structure. To reiterate the point, back in the day there was a LOT less television exposure, and a lot more opportunities to move to another territory and a fresh audience. That was how they "changed" even if they remained consistent characters.

 

Nowadays changing character, or between heel/face, or some sort of storyline-based development has to replace that "leave the territory" move to freshen up. Because these guys are going to be on TV like twice a week every week for years and years on end. That's how someone like Chris Jericho, for example, has managed to stay fresh, and relevant, and in demand over such a long period of time. It's like he's creating his own little mini-territory runs by doing something different each time. And on the other hand, someone like Randy Orton, who has been around a few less years than him and is ostensibly a bigger star, has felt completely stale as a character for a long time now and there's no interest in anything he does. Because there's no break, he's just the same guy, indefinitely. And at some point, you just don't need to see it again.

 

It's not necessarily that it always has to be as drastic as Jericho. But with so much TV these days and such lazy writing for the most part, you feel like you're watching a show where nothing actually happens. Nothing means anything. You could tune in to WWE in any given month of the year, and see the same guys having the same matches with each other, with no sense that their careers have progressed or regressed or moved in any direction. It's so static.

 

And it's been true for Roman for three years. Whatever the nuts and bolts of his win-loss record actually are, it FEELS like he always wins because he inevitably gets put back in the title picture or main event on a regular basis (and particularly when Mania rolls around) and it feels like there's no real rhyme or reason why beyond "we're going back to Roman." I mean, Roman was trading wins with Miz in the IC Title division in January, had no momentum in kayfabe, and then suddenly, he wins the Elim Chamber and he's in the main event of Wrestlemania? People claimed this was a three year story but it wasn't. It was ten months of a bunch of stuff that meant nothing, and then "hey it's Mania season we need to put Roman in the main event." Like it is every year since 2015. And the constant coronation attempts with Roman just reinforce the fact that nothing that happens the rest of the year on TV actually means anything going forward. It happens one month, they do a rematch next month, then they move to the next program, rinse, repeat. Has anything that happened to Roman on TV since WM31 actually affected his character in any way? Has anything happened to Brock to affect him? Aren't they the exact same people they were 3 years ago?

 

You need development and change or things just get so stale.

Bingo. Bullseye. Yahtzee.

 

100% right on target.

 

This is precisely what I tried saying in my previous two or three posts, but you streamlined it and made it all sound so much better. Great post.

[Jmare007]

People leaving in droves while he's main eventing.

 

Honestly,what else is left?

[Matt D]

People leaving in droves while he's main eventing.

 

Honestly,what else is left?

 

Beating Brock? He still hasn't done that. Isn't that crazy when you think about it?

[Mad Dog]

People leaving in droves while he's main eventing.

 

Honestly,what else is left?

Don't worry, Brock/Roman IV at Mania is going to finally get him over with the fans.

[Jmare007]

 

People leaving in droves while he's main eventing.

 

Honestly,what else is left?

 

Beating Brock? He still hasn't done that. Isn't that crazy when you think about it?

 

 

 

Don't worry, Brock/Roman IV at Mania is going to finally get him over with the fans.

 

 

That Irom Man match were you can only score a pin after a Spear or F-5 will have the crowd going wild....for the exit.