Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 14:15:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 12:23:59 GMT -5
While I was upset with how quickly Bryan went out to the point I shut off the ppv after he was eliminated, I'm not canceling the network. There is enough stuff on there that you can watch in place of the current product. If you happen to decide to cancel it and you have all the right too, its your money I suggest finding a wrestling company you enjoy and putting your money toward it. There is a ton of really good wrestling companies out there running on demand services for wrestling now.
|
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Jan 26, 2015 12:24:11 GMT -5
As I said last night (and got blasted for) I too wanted Bryan to win. And I do not think Reigns is ready (though I like him) nor do I think he's being booked properly, but I think some people are overreacting a bit. 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. That's exactly how I'm looking at it. They had a long term plan and I'll let it fully play out before I make my judgement. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 26, 2015 12:27:09 GMT -5
WWE hasn't gotten a dollar out of me since punk's reign ended, and they're yet to put forward a product that deserves my payment.
lol @ people saying it's 'these types of fans' that is wrong with wrestling. just no....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Jan 26, 2015 12:33:39 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. 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. Correct, and again I say, it's not about the hardcore internet fans. We all know they aren't here to cater to us. I bring up Bryan because he is over with every demographic. Kids like Bryan. Internet fans like Bryan. Women cheer for Bryan. Men cheer for Bryan. The casual fan cheers for Bryan. I'm not gonna talk about Philly, because that's one show. However, week in and week out, Bryan is more over then Reigns and everyone else. Hell, Ambrose is more over too but that's besides the point. Bryan is over with everyone, not just internet fans so that argument is invalid. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 26, 2015 12:36:02 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. I love everything about this post and I'm in the same boat. |
|
|
|
Post by tarver89 on Jan 26, 2015 13:36:44 GMT -5
This actually made me laugh a lot.
|
|
MikeMillenium
Main Eventer
I LOVE THE WWE AND EVERYTHING ABOUT IT
Joined on: Jul 21, 2010 13:45:54 GMT -5
Posts: 1,622
|
Post by MikeMillenium on Jan 26, 2015 13:43:36 GMT -5
I don't think anyone can deny that Bryan is over. However, I'm not dissatisfied he lost. The way he lost. 10 minutes in the rumble and eliminated in the middle? Then WWE tries to cover it up online:
Roman Reigns winning isn't bad. Kayfabe wise, he's the next best bet to beat Lesnar. However, they're doing a horrible job booking him. Why does he need to talk? He got over being explosive in the ring as a soft spoken powerhouse. They need to understand every wrestler connects with the audience in different ways. They keep looking at John Cena (Elite on mic, good in ring, great charisma) and keep trying manufacture those same qualities. If a wrestler doesn't have that, in WWE's eyes they aren't over. Yes, John Cena is best for the job as face, but the job changes with the times. Cena and Austin don't have the same qualities that got them over.
To clarify, think about it like this: What if Cena, who was early on coined to be the next big deal like Reigns is, was booked just like Stone Cold Steve Austin? Because that's what worked before right? It would have went horrendous. They're trying to make Roman Reigns the next John Cena when he should be the next Roman Reigns. THAT's my biggest problem with this whole situation. Let him destroy people in the ring because THAT is his storyline.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey1974 on Jan 26, 2015 13:49:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Wrestling Entertainment on Jan 26, 2015 13:57:52 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. 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. In fairness, #CancelWWENetwork was the #1 worldwide trend last night and, indeed, trended for 8 straight hours (which includes a period throughout the night in both the US and the UK - the two major demographics). Hopefully that puts into perspective for you that they may have annoyed a few more people than you and a few others think. And I would say to you that you also can't speak for more than a fraction of the fans. With that said, however, a #1 worldwide trend on Twitter and the crowd reaction garnered last night definitely speaks louder than your derogatory post. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 26, 2015 14:04:44 GMT -5
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. Make up your mind, brother. Earlier, your line to Anvil Fan was "hey, I'm just a fan, I'm allowed to be upset that my guy lost, don't make fun of me or disagree." Now, it's "I know wrestling better than Vince McMahon, and Daniel Bryan was objectively and absolutely the right person to have won the Royal Rumble." Are you speaking as the emotive upset fan who just likes Bryan, or are you the logical armchair booker/critic who knows the business better than the people running it and concludes that Bryan is genuinely best for business? Does it just coincidentally happen to be both? I'd have loved to see Bryan vs Lesnar at WrestleMania, personally. But I'm not going to be upset that WWE are actually taking a chance on someone new for a change instead of going with the safe, established star option like they did the last two years. And Bryan's already a made man. When the company's crying out for new headliners, putting Cena or Bryan in the spot Reigns is in would be wasteful. People have had two straight Royal Rumbles where they've known what was going to happen, given the complaining they did before the event, yet they still watched it and pulled Angry Miz Girl faces when their predictions came true. |
|
|
|
Post by Boy Wonder on Jan 26, 2015 14:06:41 GMT -5
The only people who cheer for Reigns are casual idiots who would cheer for an inanimate rod because Vince wants to push it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sleazyness on Jan 26, 2015 14:09:08 GMT -5
Remember when people were cheering for Reigns to win the Rumble last year?
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 26, 2015 14:10:27 GMT -5
To clarify, think about it like this: What if Cena, who was early on coined to be the next big deal like Reigns is, was booked just like Stone Cold Steve Austin? Because that's what worked before right? It would have went horrendous. They're trying to make Roman Reigns the next John Cena when he should be the next Roman Reigns. THAT's my biggest problem with this whole situation. Let him destroy people in the ring because THAT is his storyline. They did try to book Cena like Austin at first. It took a while before Cena found his character. The responsibilities of the top guy have evolved. Paul Heyman talked about this on Austin's podcast last week (well, months ago really but it was uploaded last week). Austin had way more responsibilities than Bruno. Cena has more than Austin. Reigns has to be able to do Cena's job if he's to take Cena's spot. If he can't woo the sponsors and talk show hosts and do the Nickelodeon show material, he can't take the spot. Over time, they may well rewrite the rules, but right now, he has to learn the job to be able to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Jan 26, 2015 14:10:53 GMT -5
Remember when people were cheering for Reigns to win the Rumble last year? No. But I do remember when people were cheering for Batista not to win. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 26, 2015 14:11:30 GMT -5
Remember when people were cheering for Reigns to win the Rumble last year? That was because he wasn't Batista. This year, they cheered for Rusev to win because he wasn't Reigns. Next year, if Rusev's the top babyface, they'll cheer for someone else because he's not Rusev. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Jan 26, 2015 14:12:04 GMT -5
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. Make up your mind, brother. Earlier, your line to Anvil Fan was "hey, I'm just a fan, I'm allowed to be upset that my guy lost, don't make fun of me or disagree." Now, it's "I know wrestling better than Vince McMahon, and Daniel Bryan was objectively and absolutely the right person to have won the Royal Rumble." Are you speaking as the emotive upset fan who just likes Bryan, or are you the logical armchair booker/critic who knows the business better than the people running it and concludes that Bryan is genuinely best for business? Does it just coincidentally happen to be both? I'd have loved to see Bryan vs Lesnar at WrestleMania, personally. But I'm not going to be upset that WWE are actually taking a chance on someone new for a change instead of going with the safe, established star option like they did the last two years. And Bryan's already a made man. When the company's crying out for new headliners, putting Cena or Bryan in the spot Reigns is in would be wasteful. People have had two straight Royal Rumbles where they've known what was going to happen, given the complaining they did before the event, yet they still watched it and pulled Angry Miz Girl faces when their predictions came true. I didn't tell him not to make fun of me or disagree. I welcome the disagreements. I just didn't want him to group me into the fans who were running #cancelwwenetwork. As an emotional fan, I wanted Bryan, Ziggler or Ambrose because they're my favorites. As an armchair booker, I believe Bryan was the best choice. Just because we know what's going to happen beforehand, doesn't mean we have to enjoy it. We knew Rock/Cena II was coming but that still sucked and we were still disappointed in the outcome. As a fan, we're allowed to not be happy with what is handed to us. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Jan 26, 2015 14:12:47 GMT -5
To clarify, think about it like this: What if Cena, who was early on coined to be the next big deal like Reigns is, was booked just like Stone Cold Steve Austin? Because that's what worked before right? It would have went horrendous. They're trying to make Roman Reigns the next John Cena when he should be the next Roman Reigns. THAT's my biggest problem with this whole situation. Let him destroy people in the ring because THAT is his storyline. They did try to book Cena like Austin at first. It took a while before Cena found his character. The responsibilities of the top guy have evolved. Paul Heyman talked about this on Austin's podcast last week (well, months ago really but it was uploaded last week). Austin had way more responsibilities than Bruno. Cena has more than Austin. Reigns has to be able to do Cena's job if he's to take Cena's spot. If he can't woo the sponsors and talk show hosts and do the Nickelodeon show material, he can't take the spot. Over time, they may well rewrite the rules, but right now, he has to learn the job to be able to do it. There's a recent Austin podcast with Heyman? I must have missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 26, 2015 14:15:39 GMT -5
As a fan, we're allowed to not be happy with what is handed to us. Indeed we are, but when we decide that it's give me what I want or everything sucks, then we really might as well be lumped in with the #cancelwwenetwork people. For me... If I know what happens on Smackdown and I think it would upset me, I don't watch that Smackdown. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Jan 26, 2015 14:17:00 GMT -5
They did try to book Cena like Austin at first. It took a while before Cena found his character. The responsibilities of the top guy have evolved. Paul Heyman talked about this on Austin's podcast last week (well, months ago really but it was uploaded last week). Austin had way more responsibilities than Bruno. Cena has more than Austin. Reigns has to be able to do Cena's job if he's to take Cena's spot. If he can't woo the sponsors and talk show hosts and do the Nickelodeon show material, he can't take the spot. Over time, they may well rewrite the rules, but right now, he has to learn the job to be able to do it. There's a recent Austin podcast with Heyman? I must have missed it. It's not more recent than the last one -- it's from just after SummerSlam, but they lost the recording and redid it. Austin found the original recording and put it out on the family-friendly Tuesday show last week. Worth a listen, they cover mostly different stuff to the one that they put out in August. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Jan 26, 2015 14:18:08 GMT -5
As a fan, we're allowed to not be happy with what is handed to us. Indeed we are, but when we decide that it's give me what I want or everything sucks, then we really might as well be lumped in with the #cancelwwenetwork people. For me... If I know what happens on Smackdown and I think it would upset me, I don't watch that Smackdown. I was holding out hope that my guy would win. I agree that it shouldn't be "give me what I want or everything sucks" and that's not the type of fan I like. I'm still a fan who will continue to watch because I love it. I don't agree with everything that happens, but for the most part, I like the shows. |
|
