|
Post by Rule 30 on Jan 26, 2015 11:07:58 GMT -5
Let's see if you can comprehend this. Yes the fans wanted someone new. However, the fans would like someone that they want to win. You know, common sense. Roman has LOADS of potential but the fans are more invested and care more about Bryan, Ambrose and Ziggle. They are upset because they are being told who to like. There is no crying going on from a lot of us. Some yes, but some are just stating their opinions on the matter and are considered to be crybabies. This if the biggest ing insult. Oh look, the tired "don't like, don't watch" response. How original? I will watch wrestling because I'm a wrestling fan. I may not like the outcomes but there are still a ton of things I enjoy. Even the people who cancel their network, most will still watch because there are a lot of things that they enjoy. Because Roman won, myself and others won't stop watching Seth Rollins (the MVP of last night and 2014 in general). Yes, pro wrestling is a fun hobby, but that doesn't mean we are just supposed to accept everything that happens and be satisfied with it. The incredibly annoying posts, not just by you, but by a lot of people insulting the intelligence of people with valid thoughts and tossing them aside as "angry wrestling fans" or "crybabies" is sickening. Fans have been pining for new stars for years, and the WWE are finally making them and they're crying because it's "the wrong one". Despite the fact that over the past year, Reigns was hot stuff and beloved by the fans, when it became known that the machine was behind him the fans inexplicably turned on him. "cancelwwenetwork" is one of the biggest twitter trends right now. There is unquestionably crying from fans. The "don't like, don't watch" reasoning is perfectly valid. If you find yourself complaining about something more than you enjoying it, why continue? What's the point? If again, the fans deluded themselves with possibilities that were never going to happen, then it's really nobody's fault but their own. It's like the equivalent of expecting Crush to win the 1994 Royal Rumble and throwing a tantrum when he didn't win it, even though it was written in the stars that either Luger or Bret were going to win. Being occasionally dissatisfied and non-stop complaining about EVERY. SINGLE. THING are two completely things entirely. People liked Reigns in the Shield because he was a solid upper micard act that had his shtick and did it well. Now he's out there cutting some of the worst promos of all time, tripping over his lines, beating people like Rollins clean for no reason, and he's only got one decent singles match to his name. People see the writing on the wall for Cena 2.0 and they don't want to see that again. Just because you need to build new stars doesn't mean you can stick anyone out there against Lesnar and make it work. Reigns is going to get slaughtered by Heyman on the mic in the next two months, and Brock will wrestle circles around him come March. It's going to be bad. Bryan, Ziggler, Ambrose... those are three guys who can go. Three guys who would make this a hell of a story to experience.
|
|
|
Post by Yambag Jones on Jan 26, 2015 11:10:48 GMT -5
Why don't you enjoy what YOU enjoy and let other people make their own decisions based on what THEY enjoy? I don't see why "rallying" the troops to cancel their subscriptions does anything productive.
Who am I kidding, I'm talking to a "smart" fan. WWE can't do anything to make you guys happy.
|
|
|
Post by Irish Wrestling Entertainment on Jan 26, 2015 11:16:38 GMT -5
Why are people responding with 'don't like it, don't watch it?' Isn't that the point of cancelling the subscription?
I see no problem with fans who don't think WWE are worthy of their money. I haven't given WWE any money in a while because the product isn't deserving of it. When it becomes better, I will give them my money again. Why are consumers not allowed to dislike the product?
|
|
|
Post by Rule 30 on Jan 26, 2015 11:19:52 GMT -5
Why are people responding with 'don't like it, don't watch it?' Isn't that the point of cancelling the subscription? I see no problem with fans who don't think WWE are worthy of their money. I haven't given WWE any money in a while because the product isn't deserving of it. When it becomes better, I will give them my money again. Why are consumers not allowed to dislike the product? Who knows, maybe they're right. At this point it's clear if we want a good story, we're gonna have to go somewhere else. Good thing we're living in a golden age of television.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 16:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 11:38:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MacReady on Jan 26, 2015 11:49:20 GMT -5
Cena wins two years ago... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!"
Batista wins last year... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!"
Roman Reigns, a new star, wins... "THIS SUXS REIGNS SUXS!"
Literally impossible to please people, unless it's Tyson Kidd VS Cesaro VS Ziggler Vs DBry in a 43 hour iron-man submission match for every single title in the company.
Reigns Vs Lesnar is unfounded territory, territory that I, for one, am excited as hell to see how it plays out!
|
|
|
Post by King Bálor (CM)™ on Jan 26, 2015 11:49:30 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure it was because they (or just Vince, I guess) thought if Bryan went out halfway, the butthurt would die down by the time the match got to its closing stages, and the crowd would be going crazy for Reigns to overcome Kane and Big Show. Otherwise they could have put DB in the actual Ryder spot, as one of the guys who just comes down to get quickly thrown out by Bray. 100% correct. Having Bryan out early was done to get the crowd's booing out of the way in order for Reigns to not suffer from it. In fact, I think having Rock there was carefully plotted as well. Rock was the ONLY thing that crowd cheered for after Bryan's elimination. Their hope was Rock would give Reigns the rub. It didnt work. I completely understand what WWE was thinking and honestly, I would have thought it would have worked too. Guess not. On the same note, I think the heat Reigns got last night is more of a product of an angry Philly crowd than it is of the overall fan base. Though, it does seem WWE was trying to make Reigns "Cena-esque" in recent weeks with his promos. Its bad enough how Reigns never loses. But to have him cut promos telling bad PG jokes doesnt help either. What got Reigns, Rollins and Ambrose so over originally was because they were seen as anti establishment bad asses. With The Authority in power, this is a perfect spot for Reigns. And I think the backlash wouldnt be as bad if Reigns was still being that bad ass and not telling Porky Pig jokes.
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jan 26, 2015 11:52:44 GMT -5
I am one of the better examples of resistance to WWE's booking.
I have paid more money for indy wrestling shows than I have for live WWE events over the past 5 years, if not longer.
I haven't spent a single penny on tickets in the same amount of time. And I haven't watched RAW consistently (if at all, I can't remember the last time I watched a full episode of Monday Night RAW) probably since the first season of Ringside or Riot. Turning it off and watching or doing something else is the only way to send a message.
However, the Royal Rumble is my favorite wrestling event (moreso than Mania even) and I watch each and every year, regardless of what kind of fan I am or feel like. My biggest issue last night was Bubba Ray's showing, which wasn't strong or even horribly entertaining. Probably one of the better heels of the past decade, completely wiped away for a cheap pop in a hometown crowd. This is the kind of stuff that makes it unwatchable for me.
Expand your minds. I'm not saying for WWE to reference or even acknowledge TNA. But say last night, Bully Ray showed up instead of Bubba Ray. A complete repackage to the WWE fan who has no idea who Bully Ray is, a fresh character on that stage, and proven strength. He lasts, eliminates Daniel Bryan before he's eliminated by Reigns. One of a million possibilities. None of which were even remotely close to what ended up happening.
I really don't have a problem with (or care) about Reigns winning. But Daniel Bryan's early elimination and the 'dumping' of the bodies at the end of the Rumble were the two glaring examples of horrific 'writing.'
It really does just boil down to Vince being out of touch and still being in complete control. If you listen to the Punk shoot, he references trying to let him know what a horrible main event Batista vs. Randy Orton for Mania 30 was and how Vince just completely did not understand. I think that pretty much sums it up.
Until he's gone, nothing will change and I won't be watching regularly. The Network's not what you need to shut off, though. RAW is.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 16:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 11:54:21 GMT -5
If last year was the year where WWE got a reality check that they were out of touch with their fans, then this year was the year WWE realized its fans expectations are actually out of touch with them.
Expectation as in, what the fans expect WWE to provide them with as a minimum standard of entertainment. Which adheres to long term story progression, character development, and aspects of spontaneity to keep the product fresh.
Roman Reigns as an individual performer has barely put a foot wrong during his brief WWE career. WWE recified the mistake they made in 2014 by installing the prestige of winning this years Royal Rumble into a prosperous up and coming superstar, instead of 'playing it safe' by booking an already established headliner to win the Rumble like they did last year with Batista.
Now, Roman Reigns may not be everyone's preferred break out star among the likes of Dean Ambrose, Dolph Ziggler etc, but that is no fault of his own. Anybody's discontent towards Reigns comes from the uncomfortable forced manner in which he has been packaged in the last 6 months. This is evident prior to his solo push, and can clearly be evidenced by logging into the WWE Network (for only £9.99) and watching how effortlessly Reigns translated to the audience at Survivor Series '13.
Regardless of individual preference, the tried-and-tested format of building a new headline performer is clearly the desired affect that has successfully elevated Roman Reigns to this stage in his young career. All the boxes are ticked, and he has been built and protected carefully up until now. After winning the Rumble he's gotta stand on his own two feet and there's only one thing that's going to stop it from happening.. The Audience.
There is one reason why everybody is pissed at the rumble, and that's because Daniel Bryan didn't win. Reigns, Rock, The Authority, Rusev, Curtis Axel scenarios etc are all irrelevant. 12 months after they legitimately made a out-of-touch booking mistake, they gave us what we wanted by creating a star for the future, and we throw it back in their face.
Why? Because among a select few of 'us', its Daniel Bryan or nobody.
It's funny how many of the people boycotting their Network right now are the same ones complaining about how so much talent is misused and not given chances on a weekly basis. Moaning about part-timers taking spots, and when a legitimate new star is packaged with no real reason for negativity, they spit it back out.
Why? Because they aren't the chosen 'indy-darlings' of the IWC? Because the awkwardly cut promo's which the likes of Reign's have to sink or swim delivering? These are the same fans who get behind an incredible in-ring talent like Cesaro, but he still completely fails to connect with an audience on a microphone! And Cesaro has been given some chances to do so, so why should it matter if it's somebody else? It's genuine double standards!
I know I come across very Pro-Vince in this long winded rant, but believe me I'm gutted DB didn't win the Rumble either. But does that mean I refuse to invest my interest in elevated talent headlining upcoming shows? Of course not.
Am I prepared to boycott the Network including all its On-Demand and future events? How bloody ridiculous.
I wont be pathetic enough to cut off my nose to spite my face.
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jan 26, 2015 11:54:22 GMT -5
Fans have been pining for new stars for years, and the WWE are finally making them and they're crying because it's "the wrong one". Despite the fact that over the past year, Reigns was hot stuff and beloved by the fans, when it became known that the machine was behind him the fans inexplicably turned on him. "cancelwwenetwork" is one of the biggest twitter trends right now. There is unquestionably crying from fans. The "don't like, don't watch" reasoning is perfectly valid. If you find yourself complaining about something more than you enjoying it, why continue? What's the point? If again, the fans deluded themselves with possibilities that were never going to happen, then it's really nobody's fault but their own. It's like the equivalent of expecting Crush to win the 1994 Royal Rumble and throwing a tantrum when he didn't win it, even though it was written in the stars that either Luger or Bret were going to win. Being occasionally dissatisfied and non-stop complaining about EVERY. SINGLE. THING are two completely things entirely. People liked Reigns in the Shield because he was a solid upper micard act that had his shtick and did it well. Now he's out there cutting some of the worst promos of all time, tripping over his lines, beating people like Rollins clean for no reason, and he's only got one decent singles match to his name. People see the writing on the wall for Cena 2.0 and they don't want to see that again. Just because you need to build new stars doesn't mean you can stick anyone out there against Lesnar and make it work. Reigns is going to get slaughtered by Heyman on the mic in the next two months, and Brock will wrestle circles around him come March. It's going to be bad. Bryan, Ziggler, Ambrose... those are three guys who can go. Three guys who would make this a hell of a story to experience. ^^^^
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Jan 26, 2015 11:56:40 GMT -5
Cena wins two years ago... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!" Batista wins last year... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!" Roman Reigns, a new star, wins... "THIS SUXS REIGNS SUXS!" Literally impossible to please people, unless it's Tyson Kidd VS Cesaro VS Ziggler Vs DBry in a 43 hour iron-man submission match for every single title in the company. Reigns Vs Lesnar is unfounded territory, territory that I, for one, am excited as hell to see how it plays out! I think people's point is that Reigns is not ready. How is he supposed to be believable to beat Brock Lesnar? Roman Reigns has had ONE meaningful singles match in his career (SummerSlam vs. Orton and Reigns looked like crap in that match). Unless Reigns does NOT win the Title and it involves some sort of swerve finish that results in Seth Rollins cashing in and thus Reigns takes the belt off Rollins instead.... But if Vince McMahon rolls Roman Reigns into Mania as his new Golden Boy and has him beat Lesnar straight up for the belt....that would be ridiculous. Lesnar has beaten Triple H 2 times. Demolished Cena. Demolished Big Show. Demolished CM Punk. Demolished Undertaker. I'm supposed to believe that there is anything Roman Reigns can do to stop him? The whole thing is just embarrassing that Vince McMahon is just obsessed with the guy and is determined to have it his way regardless of how the fans feel or how absurd it appears.
|
|
|
Post by Rule 30 on Jan 26, 2015 12:03:19 GMT -5
If last year was the year where WWE got a reality check that they were out of touch with their fans, then this year was the year WWE realized its fans expectations are actually out of touch with them. Expectation as in, what the fans expect WWE to provide them with as a minimum standard of entertainment. Which adheres to long term story progression, character development, and aspects of spontaneity to keep the product fresh. Roman Reigns as an individual performer has barely put a foot wrong during his brief WWE career. WWE recified the mistake they made in 2014 by installing the prestige of winning this years Royal Rumble into a prosperous up and coming superstar, instead of 'playing it safe' by booking an already established headliner to win the Rumble like they did last year with Batista. Now, Roman Reigns may not be everyone's preferred break out star among the likes of Dean Ambrose, Dolph Ziggler etc, but that is no fault of his own. Anybody's discontent towards Reigns comes from the uncomfortable forced manner in which he has been packaged in the last 6 months. This is evident prior to his solo push, and can clearly be evidenced by logging into the WWE Network (for only £9.99) and watching how effortlessly Reigns translated to the audience at Survivor Series '13. Regardless of individual preference, the tried-and-tested format of building a new headline performer is clearly the desired affect that has successfully elevated Roman Reigns to this stage in his young career. All the boxes are ticked, and he has been built and protected carefully up until now. After winning the Rumble he's gotta stand on his own two feet and there's only one thing that's going to stop it from happening.. The Audience. There is one reason why everybody is pissed at the rumble, and that's because Daniel Bryan didn't win. Reigns, Rock, The Authority, Rusev, Curtis Axel scenarios etc are all irrelevant. 12 months after they legitimately made a out-of-touch booking mistake, they gave us what we wanted by creating a star for the future, and we throw it back in their face. Why? Because among a select few of 'us', its Daniel Bryan or nobody. It's funny how many of the people boycotting their Network right now are the same ones complaining about how so much talent is misused and not given chances on a weekly basis. Moaning about part-timers taking spots, and when a legitimate new star is packaged with no real reason for negativity, they spit it back out. Why? Because they aren't the chosen 'indy-darlings' of the IWC? Because the awkwardly cut promo's which the likes of Reign's have to sink or swim delivering? These are the same fans who get behind an incredible in-ring talent like Cesaro, but he still completely fails to connect with an audience on a microphone! And Cesaro has been given some chances to do so, so why should it matter if it's somebody else? It's genuine double standards! I know I come across very Pro-Vince in this long winded rant, but believe me I'm gutted DB didn't win the Rumble either. But does that mean I refuse to invest my interest in elevated talent headlining upcoming shows? Of course not. Am I prepared to boycott the Network including all its On-Demand and future events? How bloody ridiculous. I wont be pathetic enough to cut off my nose to spite my face. Oh, you mean all those indy darlings like Dolph Ziggler, Bray Wyatt, Rusev, Ryback, Damien Sandow, Tyson Kidd, and Bad News Barrett?
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Jan 26, 2015 12:12:21 GMT -5
Cena wins two years ago... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!" Batista wins last year... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!" Roman Reigns, a new star, wins... "THIS SUXS REIGNS SUXS!" Literally impossible to please people, unless it's Tyson Kidd VS Cesaro VS Ziggler Vs DBry in a 43 hour iron-man submission match for every single title in the company. Reigns Vs Lesnar is unfounded territory, territory that I, for one, am excited as hell to see how it plays out! Or, and this could me speaking my crazy little smark mind, but maybe we don't want Kidd/Cesaro/Bryan in an Ironman match because that would be dumb and not all fans who didn't like the Rumble are dumb. Maybe, fans would be pleased if the WWE listened to them. They've had two straight Royal Rumbles where they went against what people wanted. Daniel Bryan would have made the fans happy and it's not because he's an indy darling or some ridiculous claim like that. It's because he's the best guy for the job. He's arguably the best worker in the company and he got over with every single demographic. In 1998, would the WWE have had anyone but Austin win the Rumble? In 2000, would anyone but the Rock win the Rumble? Even in 1996, HBK was the most over face act that wasn't already the Champion and he won. They got to win because they were the hottest acts and deserved it. Could you imagine if the WWE said "we know you guys want Austin, but instead the Rumble is gonna go to a guy who has one PPV singles match under his belt and needs more time to develop?" It's nota case of "fans can't be pleased" so let's not make it out to be that way.
|
|
theafricandream
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jan 15, 2014 15:56:38 GMT -5
Posts: 265
|
Post by theafricandream on Jan 26, 2015 12:14:49 GMT -5
As for Reigns winning the rumble, I'm just happy to see the WWE stick to a long term booking plan that they've had in place for over a year. No need to audible out yet, just see how it plays out. Also, Reigns/Orton at SS was actually a pretty awesome match. It received quite a lot of praise.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 16:32:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 12:18:19 GMT -5
If last year was the year where WWE got a reality check that they were out of touch with their fans, then this year was the year WWE realized its fans expectations are actually out of touch with them. Expectation as in, what the fans expect WWE to provide them with as a minimum standard of entertainment. Which adheres to long term story progression, character development, and aspects of spontaneity to keep the product fresh. Roman Reigns as an individual performer has barely put a foot wrong during his brief WWE career. WWE recified the mistake they made in 2014 by installing the prestige of winning this years Royal Rumble into a prosperous up and coming superstar, instead of 'playing it safe' by booking an already established headliner to win the Rumble like they did last year with Batista. Now, Roman Reigns may not be everyone's preferred break out star among the likes of Dean Ambrose, Dolph Ziggler etc, but that is no fault of his own. Anybody's discontent towards Reigns comes from the uncomfortable forced manner in which he has been packaged in the last 6 months. This is evident prior to his solo push, and can clearly be evidenced by logging into the WWE Network (for only £9.99) and watching how effortlessly Reigns translated to the audience at Survivor Series '13. Regardless of individual preference, the tried-and-tested format of building a new headline performer is clearly the desired affect that has successfully elevated Roman Reigns to this stage in his young career. All the boxes are ticked, and he has been built and protected carefully up until now. After winning the Rumble he's gotta stand on his own two feet and there's only one thing that's going to stop it from happening.. The Audience. There is one reason why everybody is pissed at the rumble, and that's because Daniel Bryan didn't win. Reigns, Rock, The Authority, Rusev, Curtis Axel scenarios etc are all irrelevant. 12 months after they legitimately made a out-of-touch booking mistake, they gave us what we wanted by creating a star for the future, and we throw it back in their face. Why? Because among a select few of 'us', its Daniel Bryan or nobody. It's funny how many of the people boycotting their Network right now are the same ones complaining about how so much talent is misused and not given chances on a weekly basis. Moaning about part-timers taking spots, and when a legitimate new star is packaged with no real reason for negativity, they spit it back out. Why? Because they aren't the chosen 'indy-darlings' of the IWC? Because the awkwardly cut promo's which the likes of Reign's have to sink or swim delivering? These are the same fans who get behind an incredible in-ring talent like Cesaro, but he still completely fails to connect with an audience on a microphone! And Cesaro has been given some chances to do so, so why should it matter if it's somebody else? It's genuine double standards! I know I come across very Pro-Vince in this long winded rant, but believe me I'm gutted DB didn't win the Rumble either. But does that mean I refuse to invest my interest in elevated talent headlining upcoming shows? Of course not. Am I prepared to boycott the Network including all its On-Demand and future events? How bloody ridiculous. I wont be pathetic enough to cut off my nose to spite my face. Oh, you mean all those indy darlings like Dolph Ziggler, Bray Wyatt, Rusev, Ryback, Damien Sandow, Tyson Kidd, and Bad News Barrett? It's just an example. 12 months ago, there would have been far less negativity over Daniel Bryan's non involvement had CM Punk won the Royal Rumble. As soon as Bryan was eliminated last night, long before the involvement of Ziggler, Ryback etc, the crowd made it very clear they were not prepared to invest in anybody else.
|
|
|
Post by wyleecyotee on Jan 26, 2015 12:19:59 GMT -5
Cena wins two years ago... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!" Batista wins last year... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!" Roman Reigns, a new star, wins... "THIS SUXS REIGNS SUXS!" Literally impossible to please people, unless it's Tyson Kidd VS Cesaro VS Ziggler Vs DBry in a 43 hour iron-man submission match for every single title in the company. Reigns Vs Lesnar is unfounded territory, territory that I, for one, am excited as hell to see how it plays out! Or, and this could me speaking my crazy little smark mind, but maybe we don't want Kidd/Cesaro/Bryan in an Ironman match because that would be dumb and not all fans who didn't like the Rumble are dumb. Maybe, fans would be pleased if the WWE listened to them. They've had two straight Royal Rumbles where they went against what people wanted. Daniel Bryan would have made the fans happy and it's not because he's an indy darling or some ridiculous claim like that. It's because he's the best guy for the job. He's arguably the best worker in the company and he got over with every single demographic. In 1998, would the WWE have had anyone but Austin win the Rumble? In 2000, would anyone but the Rock win the Rumble? Even in 1996, HBK was the most over face act that wasn't already the Champion and he won. They got to win because they were the hottest acts and deserved it. Could you imagine if the WWE said "we know you guys want Austin, but instead the Rumble is gonna go to a guy who has one PPV singles match under his belt and needs more time to develop?" It's nota case of "fans can't be pleased" so let's not make it out to be that way. To be fair, last year most people said they'd have been happy if Bryan was just in the Rumble. And the comparison with previous years is here and there, 93,95,97,99,05,09,11,12,13,14 all had people win who weren't "the most over face" It's like if Rock won in 98, not exactly a bad choice. Or if Austin won in 97... Its not all about being over, Mizdow is one of the most over people in years but no ones expecting him to headline WrestleMania.
|
|
|
Post by Boy Wonder on Jan 26, 2015 12:20:26 GMT -5
I sincerely hope that the crowds in the coming weeks completely crap all over everything WWE does. I know they won't be the Philly crowd, but hopefully they'll try to ride the hate wave.
|
|
|
Post by PJ on Jan 26, 2015 12:22:23 GMT -5
Everybody knew going in Roman was going to win the Rumble so why would you think it would be any different now? Hell last year going into WM half this board want Taker to either lose to Reigns, "because that would make him" or have Brock beat Taker and have Reigns beat Brock this year "because that would make him" well now these fans are getting what they wanted and are still p!$$ed. Like someone said above if the WWE feels like doing it is the simple fix is flopping Brock and Roman's roles. I doubt they do it because they are hoping Roman will be the new Cena for this generation...because the kids seem to like him. Plus what would that do to Rollins? I know people want David vs Goliath at WM. But I don't want that, because there's no way that is believable. Personally I would rather see Reigns beat Brock. Have Rollins beat Reigns and then have Bryan and Ziggler trying to beat Rollins for the title throughout 2015.
As far as Roman's ability goes. He's solid, but nothing overly special. And I do think he can be a main event guy, but never as "The guy". I've said since day one of the Shield debut Rollins was the star of the group and here we are a couple years later and to me he is the star of the group.
So no I'm not canceling my subscription unless they did away with all the classic programming. Did the Rumble end how I had hoped? Hell no. But it did end how I expected it to. My big complaints was Mizdow being eliminated so fast and Orton not appearing.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Jan 26, 2015 12:22:22 GMT -5
Or, and this could me speaking my crazy little smark mind, but maybe we don't want Kidd/Cesaro/Bryan in an Ironman match because that would be dumb and not all fans who didn't like the Rumble are dumb. Maybe, fans would be pleased if the WWE listened to them. They've had two straight Royal Rumbles where they went against what people wanted. Daniel Bryan would have made the fans happy and it's not because he's an indy darling or some ridiculous claim like that. It's because he's the best guy for the job. He's arguably the best worker in the company and he got over with every single demographic. In 1998, would the WWE have had anyone but Austin win the Rumble? In 2000, would anyone but the Rock win the Rumble? Even in 1996, HBK was the most over face act that wasn't already the Champion and he won. They got to win because they were the hottest acts and deserved it. Could you imagine if the WWE said "we know you guys want Austin, but instead the Rumble is gonna go to a guy who has one PPV singles match under his belt and needs more time to develop?" It's nota case of "fans can't be pleased" so let's not make it out to be that way. To be fair, last year most people said they'd have been happy if Bryan was just in the Rumble. And the comparison with previous years is here and there, 93,95,97,99,05,09,11,12,13,14 all had people win who weren't "the most over face" It's like if Rock won in 98, not exactly a bad choice. Or if Austin won in 97... Its not all about being over, Mizdow is one of the most over people in years but no ones expecting him to headline WrestleMania. I know it's not all about being over. Nobody expects Mizdow, Ziggler or Ambrose to win. I do feel that Bryan was the best choice in the same way that Austin was in '98 or Rock in '00.
|
|
|
Post by MacReady on Jan 26, 2015 12:23:05 GMT -5
Cena wins two years ago... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!" Batista wins last year... "THIS SUXS WE NEED NEW STARZ TO WIN!" Roman Reigns, a new star, wins... "THIS SUXS REIGNS SUXS!" Literally impossible to please people, unless it's Tyson Kidd VS Cesaro VS Ziggler Vs DBry in a 43 hour iron-man submission match for every single title in the company. Reigns Vs Lesnar is unfounded territory, territory that I, for one, am excited as hell to see how it plays out! Or, and this could me speaking my crazy little smark mind, but maybe we don't want Kidd/Cesaro/Bryan in an Ironman match because that would be dumb and not all fans who didn't like the Rumble are dumb. Maybe, fans would be pleased if the WWE listened to them. They've had two straight Royal Rumbles where they went against what people wanted. Daniel Bryan would have made the fans happy and it's not because he's an indy darling or some ridiculous claim like that. It's because he's the best guy for the job. He's arguably the best worker in the company and he got over with every single demographic. In 1998, would the WWE have had anyone but Austin win the Rumble? In 2000, would anyone but the Rock win the Rumble? Even in 1996, HBK was the most over face act that wasn't already the Champion and he won. They got to win because they were the hottest acts and deserved it. Could you imagine if the WWE said "we know you guys want Austin, but instead the Rumble is gonna go to a guy who has one PPV singles match under his belt and needs more time to develop?" It's nota case of "fans can't be pleased" so let's not make it out to be that way. Make it out however you want, but that's EXACTLY the case here... fan's CAN'T be pleased.... Look at what you said "what the fans wanted" are you or ANYBODY here more than a FRACTION of the entire WWE fan-base? No, so you can't speak for "what the fans wanted" other than what YOU wanted. I will concede and say Reigns is BAD on the mic, but to be honest Bryan isn't much better... He's not some superstar on the mic, he's average at best. Yes, he's better than Reigns in the ring, but not everybody needs to be a technical wizard to have a shot at the title. Reigns is popular with some kind of fan base (don't give me that Philly booed him malarky, they booed the entire show after Bryan got eliminated, save a few spots here and there), so to some fans out there, this WAS what they wanted. WWE is NOT out to cater to the hardcore internet fans, no matter how much they want them to be; it's that simple.
|
|