Cena called it a must win. Explain to me clearly what changed about John Cena before the loss and after the loss.
I'll wait.
Before the loss Cena saw himself as an unstoppable machine that could not be beaten. After the loss Cena had his moment of doubt and pain. It's what allowed him to get jumped by Brock Lesnar and to get manhandled by him. The turning point was when Edge came back and motivated him to beat Brock Lesnar.
But he bloody well didn't lose his job, don't you get it? He was on Raw every week. He did whatever he wanted. He publicly gallivanted the Juan Cena gimmick. He was on the next PPV. Nothing changed.
Once again, Harthan, your refusal to take into account the business aspect of wrestling is blinding your vision. It's ALL about the payoff in wrestling, and the payoff in that particular storyline was when Cena lost his job. That was a HUGE payoff, probably the biggest of 2010. What happened afterwards was a result of the WWE needing John Cena to draw viewers, so they couldn't let him leave. But at the moment of the payoff it felt like our hero had finally fallen.
Tearing off the cross is the only thing that made Hogan slamming Andre at all notable. Do you remember when El Canek slammed Andre? I sure as hell don't.
That's because nobody cares who El Canek is. People cared about who Hogan was
How. Many. Times. Do. I. Have. To. Say. It.
None of these so called flaws has ever cost Cena anything. At all. Ever. They therefore are not flaws.
Except they DO. How is losing your job not falling? How is losing a title shot (whether it's his Money in the Bank cash in or refusing to concede that Punk is the best wrestler) not falling? How is losing the biggest match of your career not falling? Because he gets back up again?
Newsflash: That's what makes him great. You seem to think that you can only be a relatable character if your flaws lead to a tragic end. That's absolutely not true. The "they all lived happily ever after" ending isn't just a cop-out for writers that don't have the nads to really hurt their characters; it exists because people love to see a hero get knocked down and then get back up again. Cena's pride cost him his job, but he found a way to get back to work. Cena' pride cost him his title shot, but he'll likely find a way to get it again.
And again, what does this lead to? John Cena being an uninteresting, unrelatable block of stone without fault who pretends that the world is a place where everything will be perfect as long as you stick to your convictions. Punk, meanwhile, understands reality and does what must be done.
Punk's understanding of reality is just as loose as Cena's. Here's a guy that thinks that he can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants and get away with it. That's not the way the world works. But I digress.
You think Cena's refusal to waver from his moral code makes him uninteresting? That's on you dude, because it's easily one of the most interesting aspects of any WWE character in today's world of wrestling, and maybe ever.
I'm concerned you're not having the same conversation I'm having. This is a collective criticism of John Cena as a character and as art, both due to his portrayal by Cena himself and the events he is written into. Therefore, the way WWE handled the angle is of paramount importance and supremely relevant to the discussion I'm trying to have.
Don't care. I will never care about the money conversation. This is art, and I will discuss art for art's sake.
You can't separate the business aspect of wrestling from the art. I agree with you that there is a place for art in wrestling, but that art is constantly compromised by money. The WWE is a machine that needs to take in more money than it spends, and it spends A LOT of money. It can't afford to have their top guy leave for more than a few weeks at a time, and they can't afford to have him lose any of his momentum. This leads to hot shotting storylines in order to get him back so he can draw viewers and push merchandise.
A hero is someone who does something heroic. A good, interesting hero is a person with flaws. Good enough?
That's fine. Doesn't change the fact that Cena is a good, interesting hero.
Except you haven't produced relevant evidence of Cena being cost anything.
I've provided it in spades, but you seem to think that because it doesn't send Cena spiraling into an oblivion of failure that means he never falls. From the perspective of character development, this just shows us that though Cena can fall, he has the resiliency to rise again. From a business perspective we all know it's because the WWE can't afford to have Cena fall for more than a month at a time.
I can actually, quite easily. It isn't part of his character, it's just a gimmick. His character is something else entirely.
I'd like to see you explain that.
I know lots. I hang around motivated people a lot. I am a motivated person. It's a pretty normal thing.
Yeah, I sincerely doubt you know anyone that wants to prove that they are the best in the world at something. I know plenty of motivated people who have set high goals for themselves, but I don't think I know anybody that thinks they are going to be a better director than Stanley Kubrick or a better writer than Charles Dickens or a better politician than Henry Clay (I know a lot of polisci majors, which is one of
my tragic flaws).
Cena's story rings false. The human experience does not contain many real examples of people clinging desperately to their ideals and everything working out in the end. Ultimately, we are creatures that adapt and change to the faults of the people around us and our own and strive to overcome them, making Punk's story infinitely more compelling.
I disagree. I think we face decisions where we can compromise on our morals to benefit ourselves almost everyday, and while we don't have long, drawn out, dramatic moments where we decide between whether we do the right thing or go back on our morals, we do have to make those decisions. I can think of a handful of things that happened recently where I had to make a moral decision, some of them difficult.
Some guy dropped a ten dollar bill when I was in NYC. I could have taken it and nobody would have said boo, but I gave it back to him.
The cashier at the supermarket gave me the wrong change, and I could have just taken it an left, but I gave him the money back (it was only $2, but that just makes it all the more tempting to keep).
My sister got caught smoking weed and my parents pressed me for information on whether or not this was something she does all the time (she does). This was a more difficult moral dilemma, but I decided to let her slide and keep my mouth shut. She has a problem, but let her deal with it before any outside parties get involved.
Now there's the issue of things working out for Cena in the end. That's the key, in the end. That's what makes it a compelling narrative, because even though he has to fight and he does struggle and he does fall, he manages to rise above and achieve his goals without ever compromising.
That's what makes him a hero.
Cena definitely isn't. Cena is about pushing the agenda of himself. The title is a prop for him, not the goal. His concern is consistently reminding everyone how utterly faultless he is.
The colossus with a mouth, if you will.
I'm pretty sure Cena has stated about a zillion times that it's all about the WWE Champion for him. And his concern isn't about showing that he is without fault, it's showing that you can achieve your dreams without compromising on who you are. That was pretty much what the entire Rock storyline was about.
I would give a million dollars if I could sign on here one time and NOT see a "lets go Cena, Cena sucks, post. You guys feed the flame and keep him alive. Want Cena to change or turn heel? Don't come on here and cry and whine and moan about it...write to McMahon because, in the end, no matter who you THINK you are or how much you THINK you know,ONLY McMahon will turn Cena. NO ONE ELSE! In the meantime try talking about something that people really are interested in.
