|
What exactly about that ending do you think justifies a $54 priceta
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
sticklefifer posted:When Ambrose loses, he gets more pissed off and he's still over as gently caress. in what way is ambrose "over as gently caress" though
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
I cringe anytime I see someone unironically refer to "the IWC"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:00
|
|
sticklefifer posted:Look, I have problems with WWE. I'm not saying I don't. They have MAJOR flaws. But the constant gloom and doom because of what people THINK is going to happen is tiresome, as is the whining when what they THINK is going to happen doesn't. Plenty of people were fine with the villain escaping to live another day, but dissenters act like that's just wrong by default or is an opinion only held by apologists. I think there's a lot of irony in your post bitching about dissenters who "think something is going to happen" when your entire argument is based upon your own belief of what is going to happen, that there will be a feud going into mania. Now I'm not going to pretend that I know how things will play out, but I can tell you this. A week ago Ambrose was one of the biggest prospects in the company all over the product. Last night he was on the screen for 3 minutes. How on earth you can think this means that the latest twist in the tale has been anything remotely approaching a positive for Ambrose is beyond me. I mean you just need to ask the guy who he hit in the head with a microphone repeatedly last night about how wwe booking can work out for can't miss prospects on the verge of being a big deal. Skinty McEdger fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
for what its worth meltzer said on the most recent observer radio that the current mindset in the company is that with orton turning and roman reigns due back soon ambrose is now the #4 babyface in the company and they didn't want to put him over the #1 heel
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
My acceptance of the ending doesn't hinge on my Wrestlemania prediction though, and neither does my enjoyment. I'm still fine with it if they do something else, so that's not ironic or hypocritical at all. Interestingly though, Bray's and Reigns's promos on Raw both actually support what I said, but ultimately I don't care if it does. The difference between me and the people I'm complaining about is that I don't use constant confirmation bias every single week to prove that X wrestler is being buried or that not getting immediate results = immediate proof of whatever gloom and doom pet theory is widely accepted this month. People didn't like Ambrose's ending and then immediately on Raw it's "SEE!? BURIED!" 
sticklefifer fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:41
|
|
Cardboard Box posted:for what its worth meltzer said on the most recent observer radio that the current mindset in the company is that with orton turning and roman reigns due back soon ambrose is now the #4 babyface in the company and they didn't want to put him over the #1 heel Oh it's totally obvious that Ambrose is more over than they would like, and that they would rather push his heat onto their pet projects. Honestly I would be shocked if they didn't turn him in the new year.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Whether that is actually the case in this instance or not, I have never understood that mentality. If somebody is already doing well with your audience as they are, why try to knock them down to put somebody else in the same spot? Save yourselves the bother, if someone is already on their way to the top spot you might as well just roll with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
pressedbunny posted:Whether that is actually the case in this instance or not, I have never understood that mentality. If somebody is already doing well with your audience as they are, why try to knock them down to put somebody else in the same spot? Save yourselves the bother, if someone is already on their way to the top spot you might as well just roll with it. Politics ect. Remember people get paid (not very well these days apparently) on their card position so no one whos above in the pecking order is going to go here you go dean ambrose have my spot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:Oh it's totally obvious that Ambrose is more over than they would like, and that they would rather push his heat onto their pet projects. Honestly I would be shocked if they didn't turn him in the new year. i really don't think it's a case of him being more over than they'd like because realistically he's not that over. this isn't a daniel bryan-like situation where crowds go crazy for dean ambrose and chant for him all the time. they like him but they don't treat him like a major superstar. it's just that the company has more interest in other guys than they have in him at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
We're waiting and seeing if they'll make the same mistakes over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
I'm not gonna say we should wait and see but I will say we should John and Cena.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Playing "wait and see" with WWE at this point is basically the same thing as trying to convince yourself that this next M. Night Shyamalan film will be the one that recaptures the magic of the Sixth Sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
i liked the part where he was a ghost, much like bray wyatt
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Playing "wait and see" with WWE at this point is basically the same thing as trying to convince yourself that this next M. Night Shyamalan film will be the one that recaptures the magic of Unbreakable.  Also I've been watching WWE for 7 months, the hope hasn't yet been beaten out of me
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Skinty McEdger posted:...more over than they would like... This is the thing that I just don't understand, conceptually. Isn't the end goal to get people over, so that you can then leverage their "over-ness", financially? If someone "accidentally" gets over, someone you weren't necessarily counting on, isn't that a good thing? I get individual workers having their own self-concern in this regard, but as a company, isn't the goal have as many people as possible moving the needle viewer-wise, or merch-wise? I guess if you're of the belief that different guys have different ceilings as far as all of this goes, you might lean that way, but it really seems counter-intuitive to me. Though I guess when little actions do actually get noticed (Bryan, Fandago to a lesser degree), instead of letting it grow organically, they have to put on their dad-jeans and show the kids how cool they actually are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Cardboard Box posted:i really don't think it's a case of him being more over than they'd like because realistically he's not that over. this isn't a daniel bryan-like situation where crowds go crazy for dean ambrose and chant for him all the time. they like him but they don't treat him like a major superstar. it's just that the company has more interest in other guys than they have in him at the moment. They were treating him like a superstar a few weeks ago, but he lost his heat after getting some really bad segments and still never getting a legit major win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
FakePoet posted:This is the thing that I just don't understand, conceptually. Isn't the end goal to get people over, so that you can then leverage their "over-ness", financially? If someone "accidentally" gets over, someone you weren't necessarily counting on, isn't that a good thing? No. They literally know everything better than everyone else so if someone gets over independently, the fans are dumb for getting behind that person and the WWE's number one concern becomes how they can get the fans to not like that person and start liking the intended golden child.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
The problem with the Dean Ambrose situation is that the WWE is clearly still banking on Reigns even though he is hurt, so instead of saying "Ok let's push Ambrose in the meantime" they are just treading water until the golden boy comes back. Ambrose was always planned to be a distant 3rd/4th babyface, and damnit that's where he will stay! Even if the guy ahead of him in the pecking order is on the shelf.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:No. They literally know everything better than everyone else so if someone gets over independently, the fans are dumb for getting behind that person and the WWE's number one concern becomes how they can get the fans to not like that person and start liking the intended golden child. Fans blindly accepting that Zack Ryder was a worthless piece of poo poo who never worked for a drat thing in his career because a company shill told them to is proof that "the fans are dumb" is at least partially based on reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:The problem with the Dean Ambrose situation is that the WWE is clearly still banking on Reigns even though he is hurt, so instead of saying "Ok let's push Ambrose in the meantime" they are just treading water until the golden boy comes back. The best thing is going to be when Reigns comes back to a less than desired response so they have Cena lose to Lesnar at the Rumble, then come back and win the Rumble to overcome the odds and finally win the title at Mania.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:
Wait and see. You'll get there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Great White Hope posted:Fans blindly accepting that Zack Ryder was a worthless piece of poo poo who never worked for a drat thing in his career because a company shill told them to is proof that "the fans are dumb" is at least partially based on reality. Zack Ryder is a mediocre wrestler who works hard. He should probably be in a better spot than he is but I can't think of who I'd get rid of to make room for him. Before you say 'Kane' he absolutely will never fill the role Kane does as a monster. He's not as good or funny or clever as Sandow either, so where does Zack Ryder fit? With whom would you have him swap spots?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:The best thing is going to be when Reigns comes back to a less than desired response so they have Cena lose to Lesnar at the Rumble, then come back and win the Rumble to overcome the odds and finally win the title at Mania. For nothing else, the Raw after Wrestlemania would probably be so much worse than the Raw after 29 it would be instant must-see television. But hey, remember when Cena got squashed by Lesnar 100% clean (apart from all the blood, urine, and vomit)? And how optimistic we were that it was a new beginning? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Zack Ryder is a mediocre wrestler who works hard. He should probably be in a better spot than he is but I can't think of who I'd get rid of to make room for him. Before you say 'Kane' he absolutely will never fill the role Kane does as a monster. He's not as good or funny or clever as Sandow either, so where does Zack Ryder fit? With whom would you have him swap spots? Zack Ryder fit as a midcarder people actually gave a poo poo about and had a title belt. So just check off all the people on the current roster nobody gives a poo poo about, and there's your list of guys Zack Ryder pre-burial was better than.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Zack Ryder is a mediocre wrestler who works hard. He should probably be in a better spot than he is but I can't think of who I'd get rid of to make room for him. Before you say 'Kane' he absolutely will never fill the role Kane does as a monster. He's not as good or funny or clever as Sandow either, so where does Zack Ryder fit? With whom would you have him swap spots? Hmm yes sorry Zack all the spots on the card are filled *books Dusts vs Usos XVII*
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
The big issue with the Ryder thing for me was that it was coming at a time where WWE was really heavily pushing the "gotta make your own breaks" narrative and even having mandatory meetings discussing the use of social media to get yourself over and raise the company profile. They called everyone into meetings to ask them to do the exact poo poo Zack Ryder then did and they spited the living gently caress out of him for it. As for "where he goes on the card," it shouldn't really matter. His gimmick was NEVER going to last longterm at that level of popularity and even the most staunch Ryder supporters knew that. The point is he got himself over pretty loving big with literally zero help from WWE and instead of letting it play its course and making money off of it, they totally buried him for no other reason than because they could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Great White Hope posted:Zack Ryder fit as a midcarder people actually gave a poo poo about and had a title belt. There's no one on the roster I personally would care about less than Ryder in that same spot. Put Ryder in Sheamus, Miz, Ryback, Big Show, Henry, the Usos, Gold/Stardust, Torito, Hornswoggle's spot and I'll care about him less. Who, specifically, are you talking about here? Yes it was bad that they did what they did to Zack. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm not entertained by him and they fell rear end-backwards into making the right decision for my enjoyment of the product.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:The big issue with the Ryder thing for me was that it was coming at a time where WWE was really heavily pushing the "gotta make your own breaks" narrative and even having mandatory meetings discussing the use of social media to get yourself over and raise the company profile. if wwe doesn't pick you, you're not gonna be a star. there are exceptions (bryan, rey, who actually they did push to a meaningful degree to attract the latino demo, but never as a tippy top guy) but for the most part they only really like to push their chosen ones. their "make yourself a star" narrative really means "make yourself a star to us" which means be tall and big and act like the rock
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:Hornswoggle's spot You must not have been around for the Hornswoggle/Chavo feud that went on and on and on and on and on. No. gently caress Hornswoggle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:There's no one on the roster I personally would care about less than Ryder in that same spot. Put Ryder in Sheamus, Miz, Ryback, Big Show, Henry, the Usos, Gold/Stardust, Torito, Hornswoggle's spot and I'll care about him less. Who, specifically, are you talking about here? If people care about the people involved, matches are better. I don't need to name a specific guy because if crowds care, everything is better. People cared about Zack Ryder. He got buried for loving Kane, who only existed to put over John Cena. Imagine a world where WWE moved the hottest period of Cody Rhodes' career into him being more than a goofy midcarder. Or where Cesaro isn't a jobber. Sounds terrible, doesn't it? Good thing WWE told the fans to gently caress off like you justified. 
rare Magic card l00k fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Great White Hope posted:If people care about the people involved, matches are better. I don't need to name a specific guy because if crowds care, everything is better. People cared about Zack Ryder. He got buried for loving Kane, who only existed to put over John Cena. The reason why people don't care about the majority roster is because they're booked like poo poo and cut terrible promos, which is what happened to Ryder. It doesn't matter who the gently caress you put in there unless creative improves or you get the rare guy who can transcend it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
"Lots of people liked this guy but I didn't like this guy so gently caress everyone."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
A shitload of WWE booking seems to be based on self-fulfilling prophecies
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
DeathChicken posted:"Lots of people liked this guy but I didn't like this guy so gently caress everyone." That's my line of thinking unironically. Sorry you loved Zack Ryder but I didn't and now I can watch Seth Rollins and Stardust and Sandow and loads of other guys instead. gently caress everyone!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
DeathChicken posted:"Lots of people liked this guy but I didn't like this guy so gently caress everyone." "Now explain to me why we're losing subscribers."
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Sandow's a *really* bad example given they buried that guy to death before the crowd decided they loved in him spite of it. So now he'll probably feud with and lose to Miz.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Vince: Hey doodz Cena and Orton again!!! (network comes in significantly under expectations) Vince: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
DeathChicken posted:Sandow's a *really* bad example given they buried that guy to death before the crowd decided they loved in him spite of it. So now he'll probably feud with and lose to Miz. Sandow is basically Heath Slater 2.0. There's no reasonable way to care about any of his matches for the result, so all you can do is embrace the silliness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
DeathChicken posted:Sandow's a *really* bad example given they buried that guy to death before the crowd decided they loved in him spite of it. So now he'll probably feud with and lose to Miz. Why did Sandow succeed where Ryder failed? Why didn't Ryder get over in spite of his burial?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:56
|
|