Does the Rock need to revamp his character?

[LoudClearVoice]

Did I not say that?

But you said you don't believe that the Rock beating CM Punk is the "correct way forward for WWE."

I believe the correct way forward is for them to maximize their profits which means giving The Rock the belt. This is a business. It's not about "who deserves" anything. It's about buyrates and hype. That's what The Rock brings to the table and that's why he'll get the belt at either the RR or the EC.

 

[Skinsley]

Once it is all said and done, and The Rock is the one to topple the 400+ reign of CM punk, what do WWE have?
The Rock beating Punk for the title, is like Brock Lesnar Ending The Undertakers streak at wrestlemania, albeit less of an achievement. These milestones are to be overcome by a worthy opponent who needs a push to the next level. Not by part timers (who's appearances I am greatful for) who will dissapear for months on end after the Feud is over.

Rock being Champ for Mania will Maximise profits for a short period, but ultimately depleat the starpower of the roster below them for the period of their absence. The Rocks presence alone at mania would boost ratings and buyrates astronomically like it did last year, with or without the title. But lets say, him being champ would boost ratings and buyrates by a (speculating*) $5Million. The aftereffects of missing out on an oppertunity for an up and coming star, and a storyline that could continue post wrestlemania when and IF Cm punk would have finally be beaten by a full time star could boost ratings and merchandise sales for another star by (Speculating*) $10Million over the period April - July or beyond.

I may be wrong, I may be right. But in my personal oppinion, the business would suffer post mania if WWE don't cash in on Cm Punks title reign in an attempt to create future stars.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

On a side note, I don't believe beating CM punk would be the correct way forward for the WWE. He just doesn't need or deserve the title. Loosing Dirty has to happen or I will be displeased.....but if he wins. Expect a larger WM Buyrate this year, without a doubt.

Need and deserve shouldn't mean anything in professional wrestling. If you only give attention to those who work hard and aren't drawing big money, your company suffers. It's never about deserve, nor should it be.

Also, as someone else already pointed out, how can you admit Rocky winning the title boosts buyrates but doesn't "the correct way" for WWE to go? That doesn't make any sense.

Once it is all said and done, and The Rock is the one to topple the 400+ reign of CM punk, what do WWE have?
The Rock beating Punk for the title, is like Brock Lesnar Ending The Undertakers streak at wrestlemania, albeit less of an achievement. These milestones are to be overcome by a worthy opponent who needs a push to the next level. Not by part timers (who's appearances I am greatful for) who will dissapear for months on end after the Feud is over.

It's nothing like Brock Lesnar beating The Undertaker. CM Punk is a heel who has cheated (most of) his way to this 400+ day reign. A big name babyface, part-time or not, should end it. Brock Lesnar, a heel, ending Taker's streak would be terrible. Then again, anyone ending Taker's streak while he still has gas in the tank would be terrible. Taker's a draw at Mania. There's the difference.

Rock being Champ for Mania will Maximise profits for a short period, but ultimately depleat the starpower of the roster below them for the period of their absence.

Rocky shouldn't be blamed for the current roster's inability to get themselves as over as he once did. Just because this current crop of talent doesn't compare to Rocky or other top guys of the past doesn't mean you drop what makes you money in hoping they will eventually become draws. Bad for business. Rocky's not depleting the starpower of these guys. The blame lies with WWE and those wrestlers.

The Rocks presence alone at mania would boost ratings and buyrates astronomically like it did last year, with or without the title. But lets say, him being champ would boost ratings and buyrates by a (speculating*) $5Million. The aftereffects of missing out on an oppertunity for an up and coming star, and a storyline that could continue post wrestlemania when and IF Cm punk would have finally be beaten by a full time star could boost ratings and merchandise sales for another star by (Speculating*) $10Million over the period April - July or beyond.

The problem with this theory is having confidence in lower card guys. They aren't getting over, and haven't been long before Rocky came back. WWE is bring these guys in to draw money because the current crop doesn't do that. They're not bring him or Brock in to build new stars, because the guys the IWC champions for have no potential of ever making it big anyhow. They aren't there to put young guys over. They're back to make the company (and themselves) some cash.

I may be wrong, I may be right. But in my personal oppinion, the business would suffer post mania if WWE don't cash in on Cm Punks title reign in an attempt to create future stars.

You're definitely wrong. There's no one on the roster outside of John Cena and Ryback (maybe Orton) worth giving that push. Who has that kind of potential? No one, from where I'm sitting.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Need and deserve shouldn't mean anything in professional wrestling. If you only give attention to those who work hard and aren't drawing big money, your company suffers. It's never about deserve, nor should it be.

Also, as someone else already pointed out, how can you admit Rocky winning the title boosts buyrates but doesn't "the correct way" for WWE to go? That doesn't make any sense.



It's nothing like Brock Lesnar beating The Undertaker. CM Punk is a heel who has cheated (most of) his way to this 400+ day reign. A big name babyface, part-time or not, should end it. Brock Lesnar, a heel, ending Taker's streak would be terrible. Then again, anyone ending Taker's streak while he still has gas in the tank would be terrible. Taker's a draw at Mania. There's the difference.



Rocky shouldn't be blamed for the current roster's inability to get themselves as over as he once did. Just because this current crop of talent doesn't compare to Rocky or other top guys of the past doesn't mean you drop what makes you money in hoping they will eventually become draws. Bad for business. Rocky's not depleting the starpower of these guys. The blame lies with WWE and those wrestlers.



The problem with this theory is having confidence in lower card guys. They aren't getting over, and haven't been long before Rocky came back. WWE is bring these guys in to draw money because the current crop doesn't do that. They're not bring him or Brock in to build new stars, because the guys the IWC champions for have no potential of ever making it big anyhow. They aren't there to put young guys over. They're back to make the company (and themselves) some cash.



You're definitely wrong. There's no one on the roster outside of John Cena and Ryback (maybe Orton) worth giving that push. Who has that kind of potential? No one, from where I'm sitting.

On the Taker point firstly, I have to disagree. It's practically criminal for Taker to hold on to that streak till he "has no more gas in the tank". If he has one more great Mania match in him it absolutely should be used to elevate someone, be it Punk or Ryback or my pick Wade Barrett, someone young should be put over in the same way Taker was at the beginning by Jake Roberts, Jimmy Snuka and Hulk Hogan, there is no excuse for that not to happen and blaming the talent for not getting over in the same way is ludicrous, because Taker got where he is cos top guys put him over right at the start to build that aura, same for the Rock and Triple H. That there's any question of them doing the same or having a say "who is worthy" of that honor is insulting to the roster and those who put them over and stinks a bit of Bruno Sammartino's bad attitude. Jimmy Snuka never said "Nah, not putting that kid over at Mania, it's a stupid gimmick and I don't think it'll work".

As for the Rock, there is an element of staleness to him, but that's mainly because he trancended being a wrestling character and became a legit Hollywood phenom. Make no mistake he is in the top 10 actors in Hollywood and seemingly the go to guy for new franchises right now. that he still wrestles is actually the coolest thing about the character, for all the critisism he took for his "never going away again" comments, in reality he hasn't... He only does a part time schedule but this will be his 3rd Mania in a row that he has appeared. That being said he can't veer too drastically back to WWE or producers will start to think of him as a wrestler first again, right when he has finally got Hollywood's respect.

How could he change it up? I think he could come up with a new catchphrase, we saw how quick "Boots 2 Asses" took off or when he was doing little video clips like "Shrivelled up monkey penis". Punk was kinda right in his promo in that nothing new has passed his lips in a while so a new quip would certainly help.

Also I think he could do with new attire... the short tops and tracksuit bottoms look is a little 2004. Jericho changes his look everytime he comes back and it is a big part of why he can do that. I can remember when The Rock was the trendsetter for attire, when he wrestled in a 500 bucks Silk Shirt against Foley. He is a Hollywood A-Lister so why not dress the part or even borrow a little from the Rick Rude playbook and maybe get some custom tights/jackets for each opponent, after all at 10m a movie he can afford it.

He could also get a new move... In today's WWE the People's Elbow looks more dated and fake than ever, keep it as a spot, even keep the Rock Bottom but nearly every veteran superstar who has had time away has added at least one new move to their finishers, Jericho added the Codebreaker, Taker the Hells Gate and Lesnar the Kimura. For Rock I think something a bit "old school" could benefit him. Maybe use the ropes as a kink into the Rock Bottom so it's more of a slingshot move or an old fashioned Samoan Drop from the top. Something to show that while he is an Actor, he hasn't stopped learning his craft as a wrestler, that alone would silence a lot of the critics who think he is living on past glory.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

Once it is all said and done, and The Rock is the one to topple the 400+ reign of CM punk, what do WWE have?
The Rock beating Punk for the title, is like Brock Lesnar Ending The Undertakers streak at wrestlemania, albeit less of an achievement. These milestones are to be overcome by a worthy opponent who needs a push to the next level. Not by part timers (who's appearances I am greatful for) who will dissapear for months on end after the Feud is over.

Rock being Champ for Mania will Maximise profits for a short period, but ultimately depleat the starpower of the roster below them for the period of their absence.
I may be wrong, I may be right. But in my personal oppinion, the business would suffer post mania if WWE don't cash in on Cm Punks title reign in an attempt to create future stars.

But doesn't it seem more like a "waste" of title reign to have Punk lose to an "up and comer." Here's a guy whole held the belt for 400+ days, beat John Cena few times, beat Jericho, beat Ryback, basically beat everyone WWE threw at him only to lose to some nobody? It's better for Punk to ultimately lose to a legendary superstar, one of the all-time greats. It keeps Punk looking strong and doesn't make the long reign a waste.

You say this milestone is to be "overcome by a worthy opponent?" Is the rock not a worthy opponent? One of the all-time greats of professional wrestling who is still in fantastic shape, can still wrestle a match, and can still entertain isn't worthy? I'd argue there are very few on this roster that are worth to set foot in the ring with The Rock, a part time guy. What does that say about this roster?

You Punk marks need to stop faulting the Rock for everyone else not being over. That's not his fault. They've had plenty of time to get over and they haven't. That's no one's fault but their own. Rock comes back for a couple of months and that's it. These guys have no excuse. If a lot of these guys that you all think are so great were really so great, they wouldn't need to bring back The Rock, or Brock Lesnar, or The Undertaker.

 

[SCP88]

The Rock's character seems weird in an elder statesman kind of role. He reminds me of a dad that everyone thought was cool growing up because he was in his early 20's, but now that he's older and still doing the same things it comes off a little corny and awkward. Obviously he can't go with the same dialogue he had in the attitude era, but he does seem to get more leniency with the edginess than just about everyone else, other than Punk and Cena. I think I'd rather see the Rock as a more straight forward ass kicker now.

 

[Dirk]

The thing about Rocky is his unique way of being damn intimidating while being hilarious at the same time.

Yes, he has notes on his arm and he does have his many catchphrases, but he's still absolute gold on the stick. Also, he's a real actor, you know.

If the Rock only stuck around longer, he'd be able to help build the next generation much better.

 

[Da Solo]

This is quite possibly the stupidest argument I've heard on these boards. Why change the Rock's character? He's the one people tune in to see, the one who draws buys, the one who gets the crowd on their feet and he should change his character just because he doesn't drop pipe bombs like Punk.

This goes back to even last Monday. The only reason people give him the edge is because:
Everyone on the internet is jocking him way too hard.
He made shooting cool again, so now everyone who mentions something happening backstage just cut a God promo.
IWC loves indy wrestlers (Punk) and hates the ones who made it (Rock)

Personally I called it as a battle no one could really win, but come on, to call the rock stale when he had the whole crowd chanting something as juvenile as "Cookiepuss" multiple times is just being in denial. Rock only had one character change in his career, and that was from Rocky Maivia to The Rock (Hollywood Rock I just count as an extension of the latter). Why? Because it WORKED. Just because Rock isn't calling out anyone backstage doesn't make him stale, it makes him a character.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

No, this is the iconic Rock. Just like it'd be fucking stupid to change Cena despite all the bitching, Cena is over with his audience. No matter how sick of Rock's 8th grade humor and dick jokes and sticking things up people's asses I am, it's over with Tude era nostalgia fans.

People didn't go see The Dark Knight Rises to see a "revamped" Batman. They came for the Nolan version of Batman.

 

[Brahma_Bull9]

I'm sorry, but so many people have brainwashed themselves to thinking CM Punk is great on the mic when he is extremely average. He's better in the ring than the Rock but as far as on the mic, it's not even close...

 

[Brahma_Bull9]

The Rock's character seems weird in an elder statesman kind of role. He reminds me of a dad that everyone thought was cool growing up because he was in his early 20's, but now that he's older and still doing the same things it comes off a little corny and awkward. Obviously he can't go with the same dialogue he had in the attitude era, but he does seem to get more leniency with the edginess than just about everyone else, other than Punk and Cena. I think I'd rather see the Rock as a more straight forward ass kicker now.

This argument is ******ed you can apply it to every wrestler...

CM Punk bitches like a 12 year old everytime he gets on the mic or cuts some watered down Jericho type of promo even though he's 34.

Zack Ryder acts like a 16 yr old kid, I don't even know how old he is but it's way older than that.

Stone Cold was rebelling against authority, drinking beer, disrespecting women when he was 35 36.

Hulk Hogan, don't even get me started on that one.

Lil Jimmy and R-Truth?

Daniel Bryan screaming no all the time?

If you rationalize everything like that nothing works and all these gimmicks suck.

 

[boywithbluehanger]

I'm sorry, but so many people have brainwashed themselves to thinking CM Punk is great on the mic when he is extremely average. He's better in the ring than the Rock but as far as on the mic, it's not even close...

I agree. I equate CM Punk's ability on the mic to a comedian who sucks at punchlines. Sure he's comfortable and fluent on the mic but it's rare that anything he says actually stings. His style is almost partially from the new-age Cena book of How to Deliver a Promo. Sure he and Cena have different styles of speaking but one thing they share in common is that annoying method of speaking fast so people don't have time to respond to you. It works slightly better for a face who gets booed a lot (aka Cena) than a heel who is supposed to be booed.

He speaks in a fast manner when ballpark ad-libbing and people think it makes him the best on the mic. And while impressive, it's all a step down from a guy who is fluent with a script and has has good timing/delivery on the mic (aka The Rock). I feel if we're going to be describing anyone who needs a change in character, it should be CM Punk. His current one doesn't help any of the feuds he's in, in my opinion. He doesn't act like even he believes that he's a legitimate threat. He spends more time focused on giving pissed-off tirade-like ranting promos for no real reason than actually developing a character that makes sense.

I don't see a reason why a guy who gets the loudest pops, is already a legend, has revamped his character 3 times before while he was working full-time, should have to even consider revamping his character when the whole intrigue of his comeback is to give him the suitable end to his career that he didn't get when he left the first time! When you become the most relevant success to come from your line of work, the majority doesn't crave to see something new from you. They want to see what worked.