FINisher Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 WWE has produced some interesting and unpredictable storylines lately, especially in the World title picture where the champion has been changing constantly but it all does have a prize, and this time everything seems to be on the expense of logic, sadly. Most of the things that nowadays happen in the WWE don't make sense, like this Edge beating up Kofi and replacing him in the EC. If he can do that, why won't everyone do the same thing then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justtxyank Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 If he can do that, why won't everyone do the same thing then? Seriously. The E has really quit trying to stick to any logic I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 WWE has produced some interesting and unpredictable storylines lately, especially in the World title picture where the champion has been changing constantly but it all does have a prize, and this time everything seems to be on the expense of logic, sadly. Most of the things that nowadays happen in the WWE don't make sense, like this Edge beating up Kofi and replacing him in the EC. If he can do that, why won't everyone do the same thing then? And that’s the thing about the whole situation. Going into No Way Out, as far as the Raw Chamber match goes, I think everyone fully expected and knew Cena was going to retain. Personally, I think that was more than likely the original plan, but in order to provide a No Way Out PPV that would be worthy of attention, instead of forging storylines based on logic and a linear pattern, the WWE went out of their way to shock the audience and leave everything in the air for Mania. I’ve noticed this pattern more and more prominently recently. The WWE knows fans are smart, and when they see people have twigged to the storyline plans in which something big is meant to happen, they do a bait and switch in a bid to be unpredictable and shocking. Examples of this are clear in the Kane mask storyline last year and the whole Jeff Hardy black cloud situation. I think it is very safe to assume that when Kane was carrying around that burlap bag, the contents were originally his old mask, not Rey Mysterio’s. However, when the internet fans realised and predicted what would happen, the WWE threw in the twist and forged a shocking, if not somewhat illogical, conflict with Rey Mysterio. The same goes for Jeff Hardy’s current storyline. Again, I think everyone will more or less agree that the original culprit of the Hardy assaults was meant to be Christian and not Matt Hardy, but when it was broadcast on the internet, maybe it made the ’E change their plans, and switch to the Hardy-Hardy feud. Obviously this is just speculation, but I think it’s really showing through that the WWE are trying to do things that are shocking just for the sake of giving us unpredictable programming. It’s buying into the credos of TNA, where people swerve each other in EVERY pay per view match it seems. And it’s my opinion that it is very unnecessary and ruins the product somewhat. The thing is, with these twists a number of plot-holes are inevitably created and if something unpredictable happens every other PPV main event match, it gets a bit frantic and somewhat tedious. Logic and linearity can create compelling programming too - one of the best storylines that came to the top of my head in relation to this was the Triple H-Batista build for Wrestlemania 21. Everyone knew that Batista was going to turn on Triple H and face him at Mania, but it was good storytelling and pretty good performances from those involved that got the storyline over. It’s proof that logical and linear storylines can be compelling too, and it’s just a mark of lazy storytelling if you have to throw out a random moment that doesn’t add up logically. And that's my two cents . P.S. I will add I did mark out when Kane pulled out Mysterio’s mask - it was a actually pretty cool swerve, even if it didn‘t completely add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitywpi Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 ... am I the only one looking forward to the inevitable (if, sadly, throw-away) Kofi Kingston / Edge match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I know this would never happen but I think it would be more realistic if WWE actually let their brands battle it out for true supremacy Triple H is most likely going to Raw, but in what world would Vickie G. really let a world champ leave? I know it will never happen but I was just saying, if everyone had to work harder to put on a better show it might make the ratings better and the shows better overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Kofi vs Edge will be nice but not for Mania. And like I said they can still make it logical that vicky traded away Hunter in order toget Edge the spot. This was done last minute so Steph conveneintly forgot to tell Kofi. They can still make it logical as they can with a lot they do. Too bad often enough they just leave things hanging as they are always more focused on moving on the clearing up things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyde Hill Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Triple H is most likely going to Raw, but in what world would Vickie G. really let a world champ leave? A world in which Vicky G is married to Edge and she gets Cena in return or jost the spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Yeah, I mean if she gets A maineventer in return I could see, but if Hunter just goes then that would be dumb Maybe another McMahon & Helmsley era but as faces Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevBone Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 While Steph and Orton don't see eye to eye (and rightfully so), Steph now needs Randy Orton, the Royal Rumble winner, to bring a title back to Monday Night Raw at WrestleMania 25. Book it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UkWrestleFan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 WWE has produced some interesting and unpredictable storylines lately, especially in the World title picture where the champion has been changing constantly but it all does have a prize, and this time everything seems to be on the expense of logic, sadly. Most of the things that nowadays happen in the WWE don't make sense, like this Edge beating up Kofi and replacing him in the EC. If he can do that, why won't everyone do the same thing then? Wasn't this explained on RAW saying that Steph went with Shane after his match with Orton and she left Vickie in charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitywpi Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 She didn't leave Vicki in charge so much as Vicki got left in charge by default. Which, in retrospect, makes perfect sense. S'not like Teddy Long was going to step up and try to get Tommy Dreamer in the Chamber. With things how they are now tho... there's no reason to 'move' someone back to Raw. Keeping things how they are adds a little unpredictability to Wrestlemania. I mean, if Cena/Edge goes first, and Cena wins, everyone will be expecting HHH to win to keep a title on Smackdown... meaning, there's potential for a swerve there by having Orton win and have both champs on Raw for a bit. Or vice-versa, and keep them both on Smackdown (which apparently is trying to get enough of a boost in ratings to single-handedly save what's left of MyNetwork TV). If you follow the rule of 'having' to keep one title on each show, it gets predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 See here is my thing though as well, I read all the time about how Vince wants less titles changes to make the more "prestige" So since September there have been 6 different World Title reigns (Punk, Jericho, Batista, Jericho, Cena, and Edge) And for the WWE title 5 (HHH, Edge, Hardy, Edge, HHH) I just don't understand the logic of the short reigns, is WWE trying to be like MMA where the titles can change hands at any time? And if this is so, then why are arguably the two best fighters in MMA would be considered as Midcarders in WWE (Anderson Silvia and Georges St-Pierre) and I say Midcarders purely because of their size and how WWE doesn't push small guys like they do big guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shape Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 People complain runs are too long and boring, then they're too short. personally much prefer it this way, woulda liked a longer jeff reign tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Orange Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 People complain runs are too long and boring, then they're too short. personally much prefer it this way, woulda liked a longer jeff reign tho. the thing is, how am I supppossed to buy into a champs hype if chances are he can't hold onto his belt for more than a month? I don't mind short reigns, but people need a mix, I wouldn't know mind for Edge to reign for half a year, because I'm worn out with the contstant changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foolinc Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 See here is my thing though as well, I read all the time about how Vince wants less titles changes to make the more "prestige" So since September there have been 6 different World Title reigns (Punk, Jericho, Batista, Jericho, Cena, and Edge) And for the WWE title 5 (HHH, Edge, Hardy, Edge, HHH) I just don't understand the logic of the short reigns, is WWE trying to be like MMA where the titles can change hands at any time? And if this is so, then why are arguably the two best fighters in MMA would be considered as Midcarders in WWE (Anderson Silvia and Georges St-Pierre) and I say Midcarders purely because of their size and how WWE doesn't push small guys like they do big guys These recent reigns are pretty similar in length to that of the Attitude era, so it's not like it's totally without precedence. the thing is, how am I supppossed to buy into a champs hype if chances are he can't hold onto his belt for more than a month? I don't mind short reigns, but people need a mix, I wouldn't know mind for Edge to reign for half a year, because I'm worn out with the contstant changes How did you do it during the Attitude era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Orange Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 How did you do it during the Attitude era? Ah, pretty much the same problem, but the storylines were better, even though I hated SCSA I pulled through, because of my love for hardcore. If you make RAW PG, I want better title runs, if it's high enough to allow some hardcore, I bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Black Phenom Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I think it's fair we have a break of long reigns after John Cena, JBL and Orton's incomparable stints. You buy into a champion's hype regardless.. if he loses it in a month it just adds that degree of unpredictability and excitement for you. Unless the timing is horrible, I won't mind short reigns, even when they happen in succession. I mean, Batista's 8-day reign? Awesome. Brought some of that Attitude Era feel when there were title changes on 'special' Raw shows. Dare I say, stuff like this should happen more often, even though they should keep the average time of title reigns at a decent length. Besides, among all those champions there actually was variety compared to the Attitude Era... just reminisce when Mankind and The Rock were trading belts at every PPV or so for two/three months. While last year, we've had two new World champions and another one who's won the belt first time in about 7 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 See how long they go doesn't bother me. When JBL had that ridiculous long reign I was okay with it because it left you in suspense that he was going to lose this PPV and he didn't But the one to two month reigns are what kills me. It doesn't give the person a chance to show they can carry the company And I agree Hardy's reign was too quick, as well I believe they make Edge look really weak in WWE, he always needs some type of swerve to win a title His first title was against Cena when he cashed in the MITB after an Elimination Chamber match, then again with the MITB to win the Smackdown title at the time, Vickie put him in the match twice to win a title, Matt helped him against Jeff, and then with Hawkins and Ryder a couple of times. And I get he is a heel and has to pull tricks, but sometimes they to me make him seem really weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 So then what do we consider an average title reign? 6 months to 8 months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitywpi Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Just the other day, people were complaining that there was nobody left for Cena to face; he's fought Jericho, HBK, JBL, Batista, Orton, etc, etc, etc... there was nobody fresh for him to face. Now we're complaiing they took the title off him too soon. This, folks, is why the WWE doesn't book for the Internet fans. With Hardy, it was different... they -had- to book him a title run or nobody would buy him as a threat again. The fact he lost the title through 'bad luck' and interference keeps him strong for the future; the fact that Edge lost his title quickly and then finangled another one keeps him strong; and HHH only has the title to allow a reason why we're getting Orton vs HHH at Wrestlemania. "Well, Randy, Edge is already taken, so either you get in there with Edge and Cena... and you know you're the one person tehy'd both work together to kick the crap out of... or you take your chances against HHH. Unless you want to be ECW Champion..." So, yeah, I can see the arguement that Smackdown's title is booked weakly right now. But hopefully, Orton can take it and build a nice, long reign (After all, the only thing that'll keep him from getting fired after Wrestlemania is being a champ...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Orange Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 I think it's fair we have a break of long reigns after John Cena, JBL and Orton's incomparable stints. You buy into a champion's hype regardless.. if he loses it in a month it just adds that degree of unpredictability and excitement for you. Unless the timing is horrible, I won't mind short reigns, even when they happen in succession. I mean, Batista's 8-day reign? Awesome. Brought some of that Attitude Era feel when there were title changes on 'special' Raw shows. Dare I say, stuff like this should happen more often, even though they should keep the average time of title reigns at a decent length. Besides, among all those champions there actually was variety compared to the Attitude Era... just reminisce when Mankind and The Rock were trading belts at every PPV or so for two/three months. While last year, we've had two new World champions and another one who's won the belt first time in about 7 years. all true, but my taste has matured from back then, I like long reigns, it's just finding the right competition. I, a massive Hardy mark freaked when Jeff got like six matches in a row (including or excluding SS doesn't matter). http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38636 (shameless plug) I liked Orton's reign, but it really p'd me of when after Backlash when HHH won it that for the next four PPV's we saw the "title rematch" and then the "title rematch" and then another "title rematch" albeit, who could go eleven years with the same champion in todays day and age? but I'd like to go wow! more than huh?. I'd rather go *typical long streak* than *lost it next night on RAW to a racoon on crack, typical* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Okay here is another thing I have never understood. Why can't there be a heel vs heel? Orton vs Edge would be great, they have history (former tag champs, and were going to feud before the need a champ on Smackdown) I think the way Orton has been used lately he reminds me a lot of Austin at first, where they kept putting him as the bad ass who didn't care and beat up the boss. Austin at this time was supposed to be a heel, but it never panned out mainly because he did what many Americans wanted to do and kick their bosses as* Orton to me gets cheered more than he gets booed, so why can't they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilts Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 ....The WWE knows fans are smart, and when they see people have twigged to the storyline plans in which something big is meant to happen, they do a bait and switch in a bid to be unpredictable and shocking. Examples of this are clear in the Kane mask storyline last year and the whole Jeff Hardy black cloud situation. .... Because no-one else has said it yet, I will. How about we all shut the hell up and have a break of predicting what is going to happen, or stating it as fact, and then we might get the storylines that we want. I mean, Kane with his old mask would probably be vastly better than Kane with Rey's mask. Christian attacking Hardy would have given him killer momentum and Matt could easily have fit into the storyline, as it is, we are all left a little disappointed. So yeah, if we even suspect that the 'E might be switching up plans and swerving purely for the benefit of the internet community then we may want to stop all this predicting of what will happen, that is if you don't like the current storylines, which it seems most don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Okay here is another thing I have never understood. Why can't there be a heel vs heel? Heel vs Heel doesn't work in wrestling because... It just doesn't. There has to be someone that the audience cheers for, or else they won't know how to react. It's the very basics of wrestling. Rule 1. The fans cheer one guy, they boo the other. If Orton goes into a program with Edge, he'll be cheered, and he'll stop being a Heel. He'll be a Face. He could have the exact same personality as he does now, but he'll still have turned Face, and WWE doesn't want that. That's why they don't go with Orton vs Edge. As for the long title reign argument, with people flip-flopping between "boring" and "more pls", well, there's a happy medium. You put the belt on someone they don't like (JBL, Batista, Cena to some extent) then of course people are going to get bored. If you put it on someone they like (Punk, Jeff, Jericho if you enjoy heels) then of course people are going to want it to go longer. Hence opinions. To be fair, I'm not annoyed about any of the recent title switches in particular, it's just the amount of them that has me sort of miffed. I'll grant you, it was cool when Edge got eliminated, and Cena got nailed with the Finisher's Parade. More 6-8 month title reigns pls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GatorBait19 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Okay the heel vs heel thing I get now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.