Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 7:21:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2015 2:48:17 GMT -5
When people don't like that the top star comes out and saves the day with an heroic act, it just makes me wonder why they watch WWE, and what exactly ever attracted them to it in the first place. Every top babyface in WWE got over in a similar fashion since the 80s, 90s and 00's, it's the most consistent booking pattern WWE have applied for over 30 years!
Imagine being a kid who's just getting into wrestling, Roman Reigns would hook you. That's their target audience guys. As long as the under 15yo male demographic takes the lion share of new viewership, get used to seeing Superman Roman.
Do I prefer to see it over a "WORKRATE" match? Probably not, but it pays the bills and it's WWEs bread and butter formula that's held them together for years.
If I wanna see wrestling that doesn't focus solely on a superstar that youngsters can get behind due to his classy acts of heroism, I'll simply watch something that isn't WWE, because it's deluded to want them to change the habit of their existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Triple S on Dec 30, 2015 20:39:47 GMT -5
When people don't like that the top star comes out and saves the day with an heroic act, it just makes me wonder why they watch WWE, and what exactly ever attracted them to it in the first place. Every top babyface in WWE got over in a similar fashion since the 80s, 90s and 00's, it's the most consistent booking pattern WWE have applied for over 30 years! Imagine being a kid who's just getting into wrestling, Roman Reigns would hook you. That's their target audience guys. As long as the under 15yo male demographic takes the lion share of new viewership, get used to seeing Superman Roman. Do I prefer to see it over a "WORKRATE" match? Probably not, but it pays the bills and it's WWEs bread and butter formula that's held them together for years. If I wanna see wrestling that doesn't focus solely on a superstar that youngsters can get behind due to his classy acts of heroism, I'll simply watch something that isn't WWE, because it's deluded to want them to change the habit of their existence. Randy Savage, Shawn Michaels. Those were my favorites growing up during the Golden Era. Neither guy took out full factions by themselves. Couldn't stand Hulk Hogan for that exact reason. Which then led to me not liking Steve Austin, The Rock, John Cena, Roman Reigns, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Dec 30, 2015 23:04:00 GMT -5
I wouldn't say I'm sick of Roman Reigns. I would say I am actively hating him and can't stand the show. He comes across as an arrogant cocky jerk. And he's the good guy?
I'm not looking forward to anything with the WWE in 2016. The Rumble? Hey, maybe Big Show can win to fight Roman at WrestleMania for the 900th time.
|
|
|
|
Post by aggressiveperfectpoor on Dec 31, 2015 0:31:07 GMT -5
As has been said time after time after time in this thread thusfar I assume (I only read the first page and I've seen people name examples) it's what's happened for years in pro wrestling. The babyface hits the ring and the heels powder. It's been like that since god knows how long, and chances are it will be that way for god knows how long.
|
|
|
|
Post by aggressiveperfectpoor on Dec 31, 2015 0:33:39 GMT -5
So you're sick of something that's been happening for years? Or is it just you're sick of Roman? The face always prevails. This is the WWE. It's always been that way. They're not going to have their top star lose every match and get beat down all the time. Isn't this what happened with Hulk Hogan and Cena for years? And Rock and Austin and Goldberg and before that Dusty and every top babyface in every territory. Always been that way man. |
|
|
|
Post by aggressiveperfectpoor on Dec 31, 2015 0:37:10 GMT -5
When people don't like that the top star comes out and saves the day with an heroic act, it just makes me wonder why they watch WWE, and what exactly ever attracted them to it in the first place. Every top babyface in WWE got over in a similar fashion since the 80s, 90s and 00's, it's the most consistent booking pattern WWE have applied for over 30 years! Imagine being a kid who's just getting into wrestling, Roman Reigns would hook you. That's their target audience guys. As long as the under 15yo male demographic takes the lion share of new viewership, get used to seeing Superman Roman. Do I prefer to see it over a "WORKRATE" match? Probably not, but it pays the bills and it's WWEs bread and butter formula that's held them together for years. If I wanna see wrestling that doesn't focus solely on a superstar that youngsters can get behind due to his classy acts of heroism, I'll simply watch something that isn't WWE, because it's deluded to want them to change the habit of their existence. Randy Savage, Shawn Michaels. Those were my favorites growing up during the Golden Era. Neither guy took out full factions by themselves. Couldn't stand Hulk Hogan for that exact reason. Which then led to me not liking Steve Austin, The Rock, John Cena, Roman Reigns, etc. Savage, Shawn, and Bret were also never going up against big heel factions either when their runs were going on. Sure Randy had DiBiase and Andre. and Shawn had Camp Cornette but those were different deals than the mega factions that the aforementioned where going up against, actually the one name you have me on was Hogan, but he was normally saving the babyface from a beatdown from one of his rivals. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Dec 31, 2015 0:39:17 GMT -5
I wonder how many people would flip the  out if you put Roman Reigns in Stone Colds shoes in this video |
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Dec 31, 2015 2:03:00 GMT -5
Isn't this what happened with Hulk Hogan and Cena for years? And Rock and Austin and Goldberg and before that Dusty and every top babyface in every territory. Always been that way man. Goldberg was ok. I don't remember anyone who suffered from putting over Goldberg in his big run. |
|
|
|
Post by aggressiveperfectpoor on Dec 31, 2015 2:12:08 GMT -5
And Rock and Austin and Goldberg and before that Dusty and every top babyface in every territory. Always been that way man. Goldberg was ok. I don't remember anyone who suffered from putting over Goldberg in his big run. I'm just saying it was always a thing for the big babyface to cause the heels to powder when they hit the ring. Goldberg had the NWO, The Rock had factions and groups of heels he'd do this with, Austin had the Corporation, and Dusty had the Horsemen. It's been a thing for years and years and years. Watch old Youtube videos or the Network. When a group of heels is delivering a beatdown. Most of the time the babyface is going to come down to the ring and clean house. |
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Dec 31, 2015 2:18:14 GMT -5
Goldberg was ok. I don't remember anyone who suffered from putting over Goldberg in his big run. I'm just saying it was always a thing for the big babyface to cause the heels to powder when they hit the ring. Goldberg had the NWO, The Rock had factions and groups of heels he'd do this with, Austin had the Corporation, and Dusty had the Horsemen. It's been a thing for years and years and years. Watch old Youtube videos or the Network. When a group of heels is delivering a beatdown. Most of the time the babyface is going to come down to the ring and clean house. Oh yeah, absolutely. I just hated it when they did the "babyface beats the faction against all odds" thing in a way that makes the heels look terrible. (example being Cena v Nexus) |
|
|
|
Post by IRS on Dec 31, 2015 7:23:45 GMT -5
"Well, we've been doing this for the past 50 years, let's just keep at it." That's one of the huge reasons the product is so damn boring, stale, and predictable. Because in the end, you always know that Cena/Reigns will "overcome the odds". That's why people grew ing sick and tired of Hogan and Cena. You know that ultimately they will win every feud, and there will never be consequences affecting them, so why care? Instead of circling around in the same goddamn pattern forever, why not try to think of a new way to do it? You can book a babyface strong without making him ing Superman. Considering ratings and attendance is going in the tank, it's pretty clear that it doesn't work anymore. Frankly, that's just a very tired excuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Dec 31, 2015 10:56:12 GMT -5
And Rock and Austin and Goldberg and before that Dusty and every top babyface in every territory. Always been that way man. Goldberg was ok. I don't remember anyone who suffered from putting over Goldberg in his big run. If you took Goldberg's run and put it in the modern context, people would have cried every time he beat a Lance Storm, Raven, Hennig, Finlay, Saturn etc etc. And that's not even getting into the Goldberg/Jericho in WCW fiasco. You can book a babyface strong without making him ing Superman. If your top babyface isn't the toughest guy in the company, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Dec 31, 2015 11:10:07 GMT -5
The two best ways to book a top face....
1) The tough bad-ass that isn't afraid of the insurmountable odds. Always ready to fight.
2) The constant underdog that may stumble along the way but they never give up.
If they insist on keeping Roman face, I'd much rather they book Roman the first way and leave the second option to guys like Bryan, Zayn, & Ambrose. Because no matter how hard they try, guys like Cena & Reigns will never be viewed as an underdog.
|
|
|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Dec 31, 2015 11:47:21 GMT -5
you just nailed down the reason people are backlashing against Reigns. there's a HUGE difference between Austin/Hogan and Reigns. Austin & Hogan were loved by the fans BECAUSE of the fans. Because of the "booking", because it was allowed to happen organically. Vince put Hogan in a big spot and the fans latched on, it was also a different time. If Hogan had bombed, we would have had someone else. Austin was allowed to be himself, he didn't have 27 people writing awful promos for him and he was allowed to grow in the mid-card for years with 3 companies before becoming the biggest star ever he also has a STORY behind him. Reigns has nothing. He's related to the Rock, he was in NXT for awhile, he debuted with The Shield, won a tag title and has been shoved down the fans throats for 2 years as the biggest star in the history of the industry. You cant TELL people WHAT TO LIKE and then expect them to like it. And the WWE instead of doing what they were good at (creating characters, letting their audience basically decide who they like and then push that person) they are just saying "ok here's your new guy kids! love him!" so it's not even CLOSE to the same thing that's been going on in wrestling for years and on top of that, for the most part it was one guy on top doing all the heel beat downs, and we have that already with John Cena Post of 2015 and answers one of the major problems with the WWE...nothing is organic. There is no reason to invest in Reigns. He is related to Rock, still looks and acts like the Shield is around, and sometimes says "bitch" to look badass. I'm not hating on him because I think he has main event potential, but the way the WWE got him to where he is is ridiculous. Compare that to a guy like Ambrose. He's an underdog, something a lot of fans can relate to. We know why his character distrusts others after Seth stabbed him in the back. It's not much character development but it's more than Roman, and enough to give the fans a reason to back him and why he always gets bigger pops and more fan reactions. Now I'm not saying Ambrose is the next top star, but there's no denying that if this were 15 years ago he'd get a fair shake at being one of the top stars. Roman would likely be in the midcard developing his character for an eventual big push of this were 15 years ago. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 18, 2024 7:21:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2015 12:59:54 GMT -5
I'm just sick of WWE in general...
We need HHH & Stephanie in charge, a whole new creative team, Brand Split and the old PPV's back.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Dec 31, 2015 13:04:11 GMT -5
The two best ways to book a top face.... 1) The tough bad-ass that isn't afraid of the insurmountable odds. Always ready to fight. 2) The constant underdog that may stumble along the way but they never give up. If they insist on keeping Roman face, I'd much rather they book Roman the first way and leave the second option to guys like Bryan, Zayn, & Ambrose. Because no matter how hard they try, guys like Cena & Reigns will never be viewed as an underdog. This is so simple and obvious. Yet if you say something like this, certain people look at you like you're stupid and part of the "OMG YOU DONT UNDERSTAND WRESTLING" camp. |
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Dec 31, 2015 13:44:56 GMT -5
Goldberg was ok. I don't remember anyone who suffered from putting over Goldberg in his big run. If you took Goldberg's run and put it in the modern context, people would have cried every time he beat a Lance Storm, Raven, Hennig, Finlay, Saturn etc etc. And that's not even getting into the Goldberg/Jericho in WCW fiasco. You can book a babyface strong without making him ing Superman. If your top babyface isn't the toughest guy in the company, you're doing it wrong. I'm sure we would've complained had we been on wFigs back then, but I was saying looking back no one really was "buried" (except those who were intended to be) by losing to Goldberg. Also, your top babyface has to be exactly what marino13 said. Either the baddest and toughest or the ultimate underdog. There's no way Reigns is an underdog, so he'd have to be the big tough guy. I was just wishing they'd be careful booking him in a way that doesn't make the other guys look ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Yeeter on Dec 31, 2015 14:33:02 GMT -5
The two best ways to book a top face.... 1) The tough bad-ass that isn't afraid of the insurmountable odds. Always ready to fight. 2) The constant underdog that may stumble along the way but they never give up. If they insist on keeping Roman face, I'd much rather they book Roman the first way and leave the second option to guys like Bryan, Zayn, & Ambrose. Because no matter how hard they try, guys like Cena & Reigns will never be viewed as an underdog. Nobody thus far has ever drawn big money as that 2) option. That's more a B guy/"top dog's injured"/nineties-IC titleholder. But even aside from that, booking Reigns in the 1) option is not going to appease the complainers anyway. The people who complain about him being booked to get screwed over by the Authority are the same ones who complain when he's booked to destroy the Authority. Of course, WWE's goal is to make money rather than appease the complainers, and they finally seem to have realised that option 1) is the surest way to do so with Roman Reigns. |
|
|
|
Post by Valbroski on Dec 31, 2015 14:40:18 GMT -5
I'm sick of a lot of stuff. I have no interest in anything right now. I'm not watching I'm just keeping up with it through here, hoping it gets better.
I just want a crap your pants moment that doesn't turn into the same garbage that it always does. Like when Owens beat cena clean I lost my crap. Now I still enjoy him but I'm not invested in him as much. Idk, I honestly don't have the answers. I just feel like the entire program is pure concentrated crap. Excluding NXT because I know dick about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by IRS on Dec 31, 2015 14:48:17 GMT -5
Goldberg was ok. I don't remember anyone who suffered from putting over Goldberg in his big run. If you took Goldberg's run and put it in the modern context, people would have cried every time he beat a Lance Storm, Raven, Hennig, Finlay, Saturn etc etc. And that's not even getting into the Goldberg/Jericho in WCW fiasco. You can book a babyface strong without making him ing Superman. If your top babyface isn't the toughest guy in the company, you're doing it wrong. He can be the toughest guy in the company without being able to lay out four guys by himself every single week. You can still be booked as a badass, and occasionally lose a damn feud, or lose a match clean. |
|
