|
|
Post by J12 on Feb 22, 2016 11:20:02 GMT -5
The idea of Roman Reigns just being the Internet's latest crusade is pretty ridiculous to me.
Roman Reigns is largely receiving two reactions at televised events - outright rejection, or total apathy. Some people here like to dismiss that as being "smart crowds", but yet it's happening virtually everywhere. It's not relegated to Chicago, and New York, and Boston, and LA. It's Cleveland, it's Orlando, it's wherever Raw happens to be, and it's growing more consistent and more apparent on a weekly basis.
If these were all "smart" crowds, AJ Styles would be blowing the roof off the place every single night. He isn't.
The audience is rejecting Roman Reigns. The only positive reaction he's receiving are from women and children, and the argument of catering to children is inherently weak, because the children will cheer for whoever you position as the top star. If WWE went on the air tonight, pulled the plug on Roman Reigns, and the told the audience that Heath Slater was the number one babyface in the promotion, and started treating him like it, kids would be eating him up in a week. That's how it works. They're impressionable. They like the guys positioned for them to like.
No matter how corporate attempts to spin the company' latest quarterly numbers, the product is down. And, judging by WWE's reactions in the past, that starts at the top. Somehow, Roman Reigns gets a pass and is impervious to criticism within the company. Ratings are in the toilet. The third hour is falling off on a weekly basis. WWE is having to run more shows than ever to match and exceed their live event revenue from previous years. They claim attendance is up, yet they're running small arenas and advertising available seats for Raw every single week. Something about what they're doing is not working, and while it's silly to suggest that's all the fault of Roman Reigns, it's equally silly to suggest he doesn't have something to do with it.
Everything they've done with Roman Reigns has been counterproductive. Everything Roman Reigns has done himself is counterproductive. They're taking two steps back on a regular basis, and, save for the 48 hour stint back in December, never even moving an inch forward.
Of course they're struggling to reach lapsed fans. From what I see on social media, they largely fall into two categories - the Attitude Era fan who won't watch again until they see a repeat of the Attitude Era, and the fan who is fed up with seeing history repeat itself with increasingly diminished returns. They've seen the Roman Reigns story unfold before with John Cena. It was more believable and far better told the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 22, 2016 11:22:41 GMT -5
you mean, we were okay with bryan being put in the main babyface position of overcoming the odds after clawing at the bits to get him into that position? yep, exactly. WE WANTED BRYAN. WE DO NOT LIKE REIGNS. So the "superman booking" complaints are just smokescreens? Really it's just a case of guys you like are allowed to win and guys you don't like aren't? show me 6 months of raws where daniel bryan consistently goes over the rest of the roster and put over in a superman fashion. wrestlemania 30 was one event where after being continuously held down by the company, daniel bryan finally got his night. was it superman booking on that occasion? possibly, i'd have to rewatch. i wasn't a massive fan of daniel bryan but appreciated what he stood for and represented. i don't even have a problem with roman reigns - but wwe creative's handling of him is atrocious. talk about just forcing a talent down people's throats. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Feb 22, 2016 11:25:01 GMT -5
So the "superman booking" complaints are just smokescreens? Really it's just a case of guys you like are allowed to win and guys you don't like aren't? show me 6 months of raws where daniel bryan consistently goes over the rest of the roster and put over in a superman fashion. wrestlemania 30 was one event where after being continuously held down by the company, daniel bryan finally got his night. was it superman booking on that occasion? possibly, i'd have to rewatch. i wasn't a massive fan of daniel bryan but appreciated what he stood for and represented. i don't even have a problem with roman reigns - but wwe creative's handling of him is atrocious. talk about just forcing a talent down people's throats. So you'd be fine with Roman Reigns if he lost more matches in general but won the WrestleMania main event? |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 22, 2016 11:27:57 GMT -5
you mean, we were okay with bryan being put in the main babyface position of overcoming the odds after clawing at the bits to get him into that position? yep, exactly. WE WANTED BRYAN. WE DO NOT LIKE REIGNS. the fact that people are still using the term 'internet darling' in 2016 is literally cringeworthy, too. that term refers to a time in the late 90s/early 2000s when the average person talking about wrestling on the internet was a more informed fan than your general viewer in terms of the 'going ons' of the business, and contract affairs, etc. it's ALL OUT IN THE OPEN NOW - 12 year olds joining this forum are members of the IWC. those 'internet darlings' are now simply 'current trends'. even wwe acknowledges this with their uses of social media. but, tell me again about how the fans are wrong about a fan-dependent product not being entertaining to them. please. You're playing it very generously with the phrase "overcoming the odds". If you seriously don't think that WM30 was superman booking then I'd suggest you don't actually know what superman booking is. Go back and watch the match, it's far more cringe worthy than anyone using the term 'internet darling'. Fact is, internet marks complain about Cena, don't want Cena near the product. Yet the product suffers in viewership when he's gone. He still sells more merch than anyone else. It's pretty much proof enough that the whiny internet marks are more vocal. That's all there is to it. Roman has been turning in some fantastic performances over the past year, but those same whiny marks aren't going to give Roman credit for that, they'd rather just complain that we can't have a 15 hour Iron Man match between Owens and Cesaro as the main event of Wrestlemania. as i said in another post, perhaps it was superman booking at wrestlemania 30. i'd have to rewatch but i'll take your word for it. with that in mind, what was it that led us to that event? was daniel bryan just crushing everything around him going into that mania? were the fans behind him enough that perhaps weak match booking was overlooked? was it WHAT THE 'WWE UNIVERSE' WANTED? the product has suffered in viewership throughout cena's reign at the top. slowly but surely, the numbers have dropped. if you're going to claim that cena, the man that is the basket which holds all the wwe eggs, sells more than everyone else and is responsible for the company's high points then you must also blame him for the company's lows...and we're in a low, bud. at least cena had his supporters. the crowd would usually at least be a split. but roman? it's just pure lol. once again, try to make whatever points you'd like to, but the fans cannot be wrong. and the fans don't want roman. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 22, 2016 11:30:34 GMT -5
show me 6 months of raws where daniel bryan consistently goes over the rest of the roster and put over in a superman fashion. wrestlemania 30 was one event where after being continuously held down by the company, daniel bryan finally got his night. was it superman booking on that occasion? possibly, i'd have to rewatch. i wasn't a massive fan of daniel bryan but appreciated what he stood for and represented. i don't even have a problem with roman reigns - but wwe creative's handling of him is atrocious. talk about just forcing a talent down people's throats. So you'd be fine with Roman Reigns if he lost more matches in general but won the WrestleMania main event? i'd be more interested in roman reigns if the wwe's creative handling of him was more original and fitting for roman's strengths/weaknesses. if the wwe was creative, i could've seen them making roman into the wwe's top heel by wrestlemania time. kind of like rocky's first heel turn where it's like "i've given you guys my best, and you still say i suck? no, you suck!". |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Feb 22, 2016 11:33:51 GMT -5
So you'd be fine with Roman Reigns if he lost more matches in general but won the WrestleMania main event? i'd be more interested in roman reigns if the wwe's creative handling of him was more original and fitting for roman's strengths/weaknesses. if the wwe was creative, i could've seen them making roman into the wwe's top heel by wrestlemania time. kind of like rocky's first heel turn where it's like "i've given you guys my best, and you still say i suck? no, you suck!". So you'd cheer him if he was a heel? And you'd be happy with the extra year or two of John Cena still on top until Reigns turned face again? |
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Feb 22, 2016 11:37:21 GMT -5
Comparing Daniel Bryan's Wrestlemania 30 superman booking to Roman Reigns 18 month superman booking makes no sense to me.
The fans begged and pleaded for Daniel Bryan. The fans are begging and pleading not to have Roman. And not just on the Internet, in either case.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 22, 2016 11:38:02 GMT -5
i'd be more interested in roman reigns if the wwe's creative handling of him was more original and fitting for roman's strengths/weaknesses. if the wwe was creative, i could've seen them making roman into the wwe's top heel by wrestlemania time. kind of like rocky's first heel turn where it's like "i've given you guys my best, and you still say i suck? no, you suck!". So you'd cheer him if he was a heel? And you'd be happy with the extra year or two of John Cena still on top until Reigns turned face again? you really try too hard with trying to box people in - the whole, 'everybody loves heels for no reason so turn him' thing, right? no, if roman reigns was just a heel and that's the only creative difference they took with him, that would make no difference. i already clarified that this isn't about my taste towards roman's, this is about how he is received amongst the universe. and i also clarified that if the wwe took more creative routes with roman, never mind the entire product, he'd be in a better position |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 22, 2016 11:40:42 GMT -5
Comparing Daniel Bryan's Wrestlemania 30 superman booking to Roman Reigns 18 month superman booking makes no sense to me. The fans begged and pleaded for Daniel Bryan. The fans are begging and pleading not to have Roman. And not just on the Internet, in either case. it really boils down to that some members, specifically Ro Man's Empire but several others, feel the need to belittle not only certain member's opinions but the wrestling community as a whole. why members like him haven't been 'taken behind the barn' is literally beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Feb 22, 2016 11:52:48 GMT -5
So you'd cheer him if he was a heel? And you'd be happy with the extra year or two of John Cena still on top until Reigns turned face again? you really try too hard with trying to box people in - the whole, 'everybody loves heels for no reason so turn him' thing, right? I don't know, you suggested a heel turn as the fantasy booking you'd like for him. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 22, 2016 11:55:05 GMT -5
you really try too hard with trying to box people in - the whole, 'everybody loves heels for no reason so turn him' thing, right? I don't know, you suggested a heel turn as the fantasy booking you'd like for him. did i suggest a heel turn or did i suggest a heel turn accompanied with a direction for his character that would be relevant to how he's currently perceived and would be fresher than what they chose? |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Feb 22, 2016 11:57:51 GMT -5
I don't know, you suggested a heel turn as the fantasy booking you'd like for him. did i suggest a heel turn or did i suggest a heel turn accompanied with a direction for his character that would be relevant to how he's currently perceived and would be fresher than what they chose? In the post I responded to, the thing you would like Roman Reigns to do is a rehash of 1998 Corporate Rock. But would you then be happy with the extra year or two of Top Babyface Cena until Reigns turned face again? |
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Feb 22, 2016 12:04:35 GMT -5
My issue with Roman is that nobody is that not even the casual fans are buying it or liking it and that apathy hurts the show. When the biggest pops of the show are anything bad happening to the whitemeat babyface whether it be a punch or getting hit with a finisher, that is a problem. Even Cena at worst only got heavy boos in super smarky towns, but was usually 50/50 or better. And at least Cena was over with the fans for a while before many turned against him. Roman hasn't really been over with the crowds since The Shield broke up. Roman being booked this way is hurting the product as a whole. I'm not arrogant enough to say I have the answers, but it is clear that putting Roman in the top face role is an experiment that the fans are just not interested in supporting, much like when they tried it with Luger. I like Roman, and I think he can be a top player. But currently for a lot of different reasons, this isn't working. Also unfortunately for them, there isn't really much of an alternative either.
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 22, 2016 12:07:45 GMT -5
In the post I responded to, the thing you would like Roman Reigns to do is a rehash of 1998 Corporate Rock. But would you then be happy with the extra year or two of Top Babyface Cena until Reigns turned face again? i said i'd be inclined to something like that, but overall as long as it was a creative direction that fit to reign's strengths/weaknesses instead of ignoring them like they are currently. as for your other point, it's an interesting one, but i disagree with the argument that the wwe couldn't create a new top babyface within 730 days. austin did it in far less time and so did the rock, for just a few examples. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Feb 22, 2016 12:13:27 GMT -5
In the post I responded to, the thing you would like Roman Reigns to do is a rehash of 1998 Corporate Rock. But would you then be happy with the extra year or two of Top Babyface Cena until Reigns turned face again? i said i'd be inclined to something like that, but overall as long as it was a creative direction that fit to reign's strengths/weaknesses instead of ignoring them like they are currently. as for your other point, it's an interesting one, but i disagree with the argument that the wwe couldn't create a new top babyface within 730 days. austin did it in far less time and so did the rock, for just a few examples. That was almost twenty years ago. And since then, they've made a grand total of one real star. And looking at the roster, the only real shot they have at making one besides Roman Reigns is Apollo Crews. And if Apollo gets that spot within 730 days, same thing is gonna happen again anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Feb 22, 2016 12:18:42 GMT -5
i said i'd be inclined to something like that, but overall as long as it was a creative direction that fit to reign's strengths/weaknesses instead of ignoring them like they are currently. as for your other point, it's an interesting one, but i disagree with the argument that the wwe couldn't create a new top babyface within 730 days. austin did it in far less time and so did the rock, for just a few examples. That was almost twenty years ago. And since then, they've made a grand total of one real star. And looking at the roster, the only real shot they have at making one besides Roman Reigns is Apollo Crews. And if Apollo gets that spot within 730 days, same thing is gonna happen again anyway. i swear, if you turned out to be michael hayes i wouldn't be surprised.  i personally don't see why they can't put some of their eggs in, say, dean ambrose's basket. you don't know if it would work or not unless it's tried - judging his merch sales when he's not being marketed to the level he would be isn't a good factual basis for an argument imo either. |
|
torriefan4life
Superstar
Joined on: Mar 9, 2012 13:27:48 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by torriefan4life on Feb 22, 2016 12:34:33 GMT -5
I am a big fan of wrestling and honestly the main thing that keeps me watching is NXT & the Network. NXT gives me new, exciting, & great matches. The Network allows me to relive all of my favorite past events, and the Network makes it super easy to watch the current PPVs. Honestly if the product we have now was not on the Network for $9.99, I would not have bought a PPV since WrestleMania 31 probably.
The product now is bad in my opinion, and that is a real shame because they have the talent there to make great shows. They need more storylines! The undercard should have storylines just like the main event guys get storylines (never used to be an issue in WWE). I hate to "beat the dead horse" but Raw being 3 hours is just not good, and they can't hold fans for 3 hours of their current product.
As for Roman, I have no idea why they continue to push this guy to the moon. I just don't see anything special in him...He can't talk, he smiles way too much, his move set is bland, the crowd hates him (why not make him heel), & they try to tell us he is an underdog. The difference with Hogan, Austin, & Cena is that to their rise to the top, they had the fans with them. If they want to push Roman, I must continue to wonder why don't they just turn him heel? Make him into a new version of 2003-2004 Triple H, I think he would work much better as a heel.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 0:54:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2016 19:26:30 GMT -5
WWE is so backwards. The audience doesn't want Roman, so they persist with it anyway. That alone is enough to put some people off. Why sign all the big indy stars, have some of them killing it in NXT just for them to become mid card superstars who get lost in the shuffle because nothing of any relevance is going on apart from pointless title matches for belts that the company is disrespecting on a weekly basis.
Of course, not everyone needs or will be WWE champion one day, but at least give them credible booking and story-lines to really see if they do have main event potential and improve the overall quality of the product. Just look at last night, for what reason was the US title match on the pre show or the fact that New day didn't have a title match? There was 20 minutes worth of filler promoting the E&C show, and a pointless jobber vs jobber match.
People can piss and moan all they want about Cena, but at least he got built up properly back in 03/04. He had a gimmick, got over by himself, made the US title feel important, then had natural progression onto the big one because he proved he was a main event superstar in all aspects. Roman hasn't had any of that, but they think because hes big, has cool tattoos, is related to rock and has the look he should go straight into the main event? Thats just insulting to the rest of the roster and the fans who have been vocal enough for the past YEAR now about not wanting Roman at this level yet. Maybe if they let him get over by himself instead of forcing everything, they wouldn't be seeing such big rating drops leading into the "biggest wrestlemania ever".
Like I said, its not just about Roman being forced on the audience. Its the fact that they have 5 hours of television to build other stars in some way and have other interesting things going. Just look at the New Day, got over by themselves and now they're loved because what they're doing is working, they're the only other ones getting decent time because they're the most entertaining thing going in the company.
|
|
|
|
Post by aggressiveperfector on Feb 23, 2016 4:33:23 GMT -5
Wow, seems like a lot of people's feelings have changed about John Cena.
|
|
|
|
Post by KrimV on Feb 23, 2016 4:57:09 GMT -5
I like Reigns and I think he can be good at the top, but what's crippling him is his lack of identity. He's generic. One minute he's a smiling goofy guy and the next he's supposed to be fierce and brooding. He doesn't yet have that defining feature that sets him apart. What I thought they should've done with him post-Shield split was to make him into a Punisher, lone wolf-type character who lets his actions do the talking for him. Whenever The Shield's music hit, you knew stuff was going down. But when Reigns' music hits (even though it's still the same music), it's a coin flip on whether it will be a good segment or a cringeworthy segment. A lot of the time it leans more into the latter category. That will continue to be his biggest problem moving forward.
|
|
