True that. IWC hates when the machine get's behind a wrestler and push him.
It's hard to make babyfaces at all these days. It's ridiculous and sad.
So can we all agree that WWE-fans are hypocrites?
- Thread starter mizowns
- Start date
True that. IWC hates when the machine get's behind a wrestler and push him.
It's hard to make babyfaces at all these days. It's ridiculous and sad.
The WWE fans did love Roman Reigns a year ago... What's your point?
In early 2014, Roman Reigns was the muscle behind a very popular faction. And when you're a limited performer, working with two guys that can cover your deficiencies usually makes you look like much more than you are. That's what happened to Reigns. Because Ambrose handled the mic, Reigns didn't have to talk. Because Rollins carried the matches, Reigns didn't have to work for more than 2-3 minutes at a time. And because the Shield was in a feud with two other factions - first the Wyatts, then Evolution - Reigns was able to showcase his intensity at key moments and come off looking like a real difference maker... Basically, the Shield made it so that Reigns only had to look the part to get over. But when you take away Ambrose and Rollins, you're left with nothing more than a big imposing monster who looks the part, but who can't talk or work extended matches.
Making it worse for Reigns, he's the only one still working the Shield gimmick. While the audience knows that the Shield is long gone, Reigns still wears the Shield's ring gear, comes out to the Shield's music and even kept the Shield's entrance. The failure to change makes him look antiquated and lazy. Imagine if Shawn Michaels had kept the Rockers gimmick after throwing Marty Jannetty threw the barber shop window. That's how I feel about Reigns keeping the Shield gimmick in a post-Shield world. If the gimmick was specifically designed for the unit, then you need to drop it once the unit has disbanded. Period.
Look at the other two former Shield members. Ambrose has new music, new ring gear and a new gimmick. The same can be said for Seth Rollins. And guess what - Seth Rollins is still loved by the audience despite his ascension into main event status. So to think Reigns is merely being boo'ed for his success would be wrong since it 1) completely ignores what's happening to the other two former Shield members and 2) completely ignores the fact that Reigns was being boo'ed during his summertime feud with Randy Orton (pre-injury).
The fact is that Reigns is being boo'ed because he hasn't been able to adapt to his new set of circumstances. He is terrible on the mic. His matches are sometimes painful to watch. And his gimmick is outdated. He is a deeply flawed performer - and these flaws weren't readily noticeable a year ago when Ambrose and Rollins were covering them for him. Now that they are noticeable, the audience has chosen to use its right to change their opinion on him.
I'm no Daniel Bryan fan. I think he's average all around. For some reason fans get warm tingly feelings now when guys like CM Punk or Bryan who are of average athletic ability and talent get over because it's unconventional.
With all that said, he is clearly the most popular wrestler on the roster now. Furthermore, he didn't have a proper title run last year. Bryan should have won this year, and then went over the unstoppable Lesnar at Wrestlemania.
With all that said, he is clearly the most popular wrestler on the roster now. Furthermore, he didn't have a proper title run last year. Bryan should have won this year, and then went over the unstoppable Lesnar at Wrestlemania.
It's not hard to make baby faces - but it is impossible to force them. You can't simply take a guy who is getting a good reaction and expect the audience to give them a great reaction over night. That's where the WWE tends to fail in creating new baby faces - or new stars in general. They force everything. The key is to take a guy who is getting a good reaction and slowly build him up by putting obstacles in front of him. When that guy finally overcomes those odds, the crowd pops in a huge, organic way. This is basic story telling 101.
FWIW - The failure of this basic story telling technique is what spawned the Daniel Bryan outrage last year. He was getting a really good reaction, and it seemed like the WWE was slowly building him by putting a lot of obstacles in front of him --- but when he didn't even appear in the Rumble, the crowd realized that the buildup since Summerslam was for nothing; there wasn't going to be a payoff to the emotions invested in the Bryan/Orton program.
No matter how jaded you think an audience is, no audience wants to see the bad guy win over an extended period of time. It's one thing to see a heel champion go over a face contender in a program - it's another thing to see that program extend for 4 pay-per views (as Orton/Bryan was) without ever seeing the heel get what's coming to him. There's a reason stories NEVER play out that way, and it's because they don't work. So basic story telling suggested that Bryan was going to come back, win the Rumble and finally go over Orton at WrestleMania - because, again, the odds had clearly been placed against him for so long. The crowd was ready to cheer for that in a big way - for the face to finally overcome the obstacles that were put in front of him by the Authority and to earn a spot in the biggest match of the year. But by signing Batista to work the WrestleMania main event, the WWE forced a different path on the audience that conflicted w/ the organic story the company had seemingly been telling for months. And yes, the audience shit all over that.
The WWE isn't the only entertainment venture to fall into the trap of being dead-set on doing something one way even if it no longer fits the story that's being told. A lot of TV shows have a solid idea on how they want to wrap up their story, but they aren't exactly sure how to get there. So they start telling a story, and before they know it - the end they wanted doesn't fit the story they've told. The best shows adapt to this. The shows that don't adapt are severely criticized. This is actually the criticism of the How I Met Your Mother finale - Ted winding up with Robin would've worked had it happened before season 5... by season 9, no one wanted to see that. To the WWE's credit, they did adapt a year ago by adding Bryan to the main event.
And in doing so, the WWE created it's biggest baby face performer since Bret Hart. Unfortunately, they refused to accept it for what it was. Sure, they gave him the title, but they immediately put him into a the C story on Raw. The A story line was Triple H, Orton and Batista reforming Evolution to take on the Shield. The B story line was Cena taking on Wyatt. And the WWE Championship was relegated to the third most important feud on the card as Daniel Bryan was challenged by Kane. So I ask - how far do you think the WWE was willing to go with Daniel Bryan if they were legitimately pushing 8 other superstars ahead of him during his first month as champion?
Seeing how the WWE handles their organic baby face stars is all the information I need to call BS on Triple H's statement. It's not impossible for the company to create baby faces... what he means is that it's impossible for the company to force baby face stars. And for some reason, that bothers him.
In the case of Roman Reigns, we've headed down the same path. The WWE decided a year ago that Reigns was going to be the next Cena. But they couldn't predict what would happen when the Shield split. With Rollins no longer carrying his matches and Ambrose no longer carrying him on the mic, Reigns was forced to adapt to a new set of circumstances - and he failed miserably. His in-ring work didn't improve. His mic skills didn't improve. And to make matters worse for him, he was injured during the months when his character needed to start building momentum toward the Royal Rumble. An audible should've been called when all these factors started to come into play, but the WWE refused to do so - hoping that the Reigns' good reaction would turn into a great reaction once he was pushed to the moon. But because there was nothing organic about it, because it was forced, because it didn't fit any story that was being told on camera - the audience shit all over it. Again, you can't force people to cheer for something just because you want them to. You need to give them a reason.
By "turned on CM Punk in mid-2012", are you alluding to his heel turn? So you complain that the WWE fans should cheer and boo whoever the WWE tells us to boo and cheer, and then you seemingly chastise people for booing CM Punk when he makes a heel turn? This is a joke, right?
Now if you're suggesting that the fans were getting sick of Punk's title run by mid-2012... you'd be right. CM Punk fans were absolutely sick of the fact that his title run never eclipsed the B-Story during any of his first eight months as WWE Champion... a fact that made him the longest running WWE Champion to stay in the mid-card since Randy Savage in 1988. Don't believe me? Check out the main story lines during his first 8 months as champ:
Nov 2011 - Rock/Cena vs Miz/Truth
Dec 2011 - Triple H vs Kevin Nash
Jan 2012 - Cena vs Kane
Feb 2012 - Cena vs Kane
Mar 2012 - Cena vs Rock
Apr 2012 - Cena vs Lesnar
May 2012 - Cena vs Laurenaitis
June 2012 - Cena vs Big Show
...it wasn't until the heel turn that he finally ascended into the top program on the show. So yea - CM Punk fans were absolutely sick of his title reign to that point because it was nothing but an insult to the fans' intelligence. The WWE tried to convince fans that there was actual change occurring by giving Punk the belt, but once he had the belt- nothing changed. He wrestled mostly mid-card feuds and held the title as a prop.
Fans were thrilled to see him turn heel because it meant a feud with Cena - and we all know that you can't be in the top program on WWE TV unless you're working with John Cena.
This is blatantly false, but you can go on believing it if you want. You only have to rewind the Royal Rumble to the 2-hour mark to see the fans going crazy for the WWE Title match to know that fans will accept plenty of WWE Title matches not featuring Daniel Bryan...
In the past few months, the fans have also enjoyed main event matches featuring Dean Ambrose vs Bray Wyatt, Team Cena vs Team Authority, Seth Rollins vs Dean Ambrose and John Cena vs Brock Lesnar. But hey - go on thinking that the fans will reject everything that doesn't involve Daniel Bryan.
CyberPunk
The Show himself
This. This whole "IWC hates WWE backed wrestlers" and "Daniel Bryan fans ruined wrestling" are complete bullshit. It isn't rocket science. A story well told is a story people invest in. What story was told during Rumble? What story was told before Rumble? Ok, thy didn't want Bryan to win the Rumble. So what story did they tell with his elimination? Or, with Ziggler's elimination, what story was told? Ambrose came and went. What feud was setup during that? Did Bray Wyatt start any new feud or rekindle any old ones during the Rumble?
Long term booking is one thing. Booking without any rhyme and reason is another. You can book as many matches as you want a year in advance, but unless you tell a story from point A to point B, people would not be invested in that. That's storytelling for you.
I think justin has it right, you can force a heel onto the WWE fans but not a face. However Reigns was very much over last year and this year it honestly did feel like "anyone but DB" was going to get booed.
People popped for Ziggler and Ambrose, I think the reaction Wyatt got was excellent as well, but even after DB was eliminated and they were in the ring, there were still DB chants.
Before the RR I think most people had an idea it was going to either be DB or Reigns winning and at no point after DB being eliminated did I think that idea had changed. I don't think I was alone here and it sucked all the excitement out of it.
Good to see Reigns get a nice pop when he came out after Bryan on SD tonight, so maybe it's not nearly as bad as we think.
People popped for Ziggler and Ambrose, I think the reaction Wyatt got was excellent as well, but even after DB was eliminated and they were in the ring, there were still DB chants.
Before the RR I think most people had an idea it was going to either be DB or Reigns winning and at no point after DB being eliminated did I think that idea had changed. I don't think I was alone here and it sucked all the excitement out of it.
Good to see Reigns get a nice pop when he came out after Bryan on SD tonight, so maybe it's not nearly as bad as we think.
Yes, let's pretend CM Punk wasn't getting booed as a babyface, prior to his heel turn, during his feud with Daniel Bryan. And that this site in particular was taking quite the dump on him. That never happened. Keep the Leader's of the IWC agenda alive......and forget
Fans were cheering for Rusev at the end and it definitely weren't cheering for him because he's popular. Fans simply didn't want to see Reigns win. Hopefully WWE doesn't take Rusev's reaction seriously and have him win the RR match next year.
They had no choice cause Bryan was out injured so they accepted it since he's been back its all kicked off anyway to the op yes wwe fans are hypocrites including myself it's human nature we complain when we don't get what we want and complain when we do oh the joys lol.
Similar threads
