DeanoTheGame Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Finally watched this after managing to avoid spoilers for the past 2 days - it was fucking brilliant. Punk/Jericho and Rock/Cena are immediately MOTYC, but won't beat the HIAC match which instantly became one of my favourite matches ever. So much drama and excellent storytelling from the masters, and the superkick-pedigree combo is the closest I've ever came to thinking the streak is over. 2 exceptional matches and another match which was simply special. Â Sheamus/Bryan and the subsequent outrage was hilarious and the perfect end to Bryan's title reign. I have good faith that he'll come out of this even stronger, it'll add another dimension to his character and I can't wait for Smackdown to see his reaction. Orton/Kane had the surprise of the night with a really solid match, Big Show finally got his Wrestlemania moment and I'm hoping Cody losing the IC belt will give him the lee-way to move up the card. The 12-man was really fun and before the match, I said to my brother that the two perfect endings from my point of view would be McIntyre pinning Santino or Miz pinning Ryder due to Eve's involvement, so I'm happy they went that route. Raw & SD will be unmissable now with Team Johnny in charge! Â Divas match was shite though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted April 3, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted April 3, 2012 Apologies if this has already been posted, but wasn't happy at the end of Rock vs Cena. Â Fake as fuck, but I did love the mum just casually going "Aw, Rock beat him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz Windham Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I agree with most, by and large a cracking Mania. Punk/Jericho was a top notch wrestling match with a great finish, Taker/HHH/HBK all told a fantastic story with lots of great little moments and nods back to the last 3 Mania's that this story has spanned, instant classic along with the other 3 and Rock/Cena was main event worthy even after those two, a great match that really felt like a big deal. Rhodes/Show was a nice little story, match and moment, Orton/Kane was solid and the 12-Man was good fun and glad it got some time. I wasn't keen at all on the Bryan/Sheamus stuff, my own natural reaction was dissapointment as I was looking forward to a good opener and again my initial reaction was that it was all a bit shit and left me a bit flat. Some good points as to why it's good etc have been raised on here which I hadn't thought of, but can't help that my reaction on the night was not what was perhaps wanted. I'm never a fan of non-matches whatever the circumstances. Still, it turned out to be the only blot which also helps in hindsight. The 3 brilliant matches and the wonderful setting etc make it a very memorable Mania.  A few more random points....  - I'm sure Taker said boo to HHH when he sat up the first time  - We got the long awaited return of Little Naitch sprinting down the aisle. Instead of Chariots of fire we got Bambi on Ice this time.  - I hope Lawler/WWE and Brother Love are pals, because otherwise the "That suit would even give Brother Love a heart attack' line was more than a tad harsh.  - Why was Ric Flair stooped over like Harry Enfield in the opening credits of "...and chums" during the HOF bit, looked really odd  - Loved that Big Bazza had Jeans on for that, nothing will get our Barry out of a comfortable pair of Matalan's finest. Glad he looked so well too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I've got into several bands having seen them support other bands at gigs. That's why its a missed opportunity in my mind. If someone watched to see the rock, but liked what they saw with Sheamus and Bryan Where's the evidence that they didn't like what they saw with Sheamus and Bryan? As has been covered by lesser men than I, the hilarious insta-boot was much more memorable than a standard ten-minute undercard bout would've been. The idea that wrestlers can only gain new fans by having a stopwatchers-approved match length is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted April 3, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted April 3, 2012 One minor issue, seeing as it was such a massive event, couldn't The Rock have used this theme? Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvyqn67m3io Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Fox Piss Posted April 3, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted April 3, 2012 I really wanted entrances from both Cena and Rock leaving locker room following them all the way. Always gives it a big time feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I've got into several bands having seen them support other bands at gigs. That's why its a missed opportunity in my mind. If someone watched to see the rock, but liked what they saw with Sheamus and Bryan Where's the evidence that they didn't like what they saw with Sheamus and Bryan? As has been covered by lesser men than I, the hilarious insta-boot was much more memorable than a standard ten-minute undercard bout would've been. The idea that wrestlers can only gain new fans by having a stopwatchers-approved match length is hilarious. Â How can you possibly say that what we got is better than what we could have got? Can you see alternative timelines of what could have happend?? They could have had a highly entertaining 10 minute match that really got both characters over really well, of course with the crowd chanting "yes!!" all the way through. Â It's nothing to do with the amount of time they got but what they were able to show. I wouldn't care if they got 5 minutes as long as they both got to show a bit of themselves on the big stage and I got to see what I expected. Going back to the band analogy, its like booking a band for a festival and only allowing them to play 30 seconds of the intro to one of their songs and then getting them off stage again. People that like the band and turned up to see them would be a bit pissed off and the people that didn't know the band would think it was a bit pointless. Â As I mentioned earlier, I was watching with a friend who used to watch WWE but didn't know who Sheamus and Bryan were before the event and had no idea who they were after. In his words they were "jobbed out". So he for one isn't interested in watching them again based on what he saw. Â I would say that for everyone who things it was a good thing to do at Wrestlemania, there is another that thinks it was stupid. On your biggest show of the year do you really want to piss off half of your paying customers?? i think the fact that it was the first match really made a difference too. Like most I am sure the build up and anticipation of the event is pretty cool. So you're sitting there all hyped and ready for the event then the first match out of the trap they do something like that, it just made me feel deflated and frustrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ShortOrderCook Posted April 3, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted April 3, 2012 It is NOTHING like your band analogy. Â I also wouldn't say they pissed off anything like half their paying audience with that booking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsClobberingTime Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 If you can't see the difference between a quick fake wrestling match and a band playing a gig, then there's no hope for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 It is NOTHING like your band analogy. I also wouldn't say they pissed off anything like half their paying audience with that booking.  Doesnt the fact that Sheamus got booed the following night on Raw tell you something?  How is it different from the band anology? They advertised that I would see a match between Sheamus and Bryan and i got 18 seconds. It's exactly like advertising a band and then only letting them play for 30 seconds.  Like i said people that know them would be pissed off, people that didn't know them before hand don't know enough about them to see them again in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 How can you possibly say that what we got is better than what we could have got? Can you see alternative timelines of what could have happend?? No, but apparently you can. Â As I mentioned earlier, I was watching with a friend who used to watch WWE but didn't know who Sheamus and Bryan were before the event and had no idea who they were after. In his words they were "jobbed out". If he's using phrases like "jobbed out" he's clearly a Meltzerite bell-end. If you're basing your "all the casual viewers who bought WrestleMania to see The Rock want to see 15 minutes of workrate or they won't like someone" theory on that guy, I can see why you don't realise how stupid it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift89 Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I also wouldn't say they pissed off anything like half their paying audience with that booking. Â Doesnt the fact that Sheamus got booed the following night on Raw tell you something? Â It was the post Mania RAW, the arena was full of hardcore fans who had traveled for Mania. The reaction will be totally different next week. The majority of the audience (casual fans) were thrilled with the finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 If you can't see the difference between a quick fake wrestling match and a band playing a gig, then there's no hope for you. I think it's the same bloke who thinks wrestling and Holby City are the exact same thing as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 How can you possibly say that what we got is better than what we could have got? Can you see alternative timelines of what could have happend?? No, but apparently you can. Â As I mentioned earlier, I was watching with a friend who used to watch WWE but didn't know who Sheamus and Bryan were before the event and had no idea who they were after. In his words they were "jobbed out". If he's using phrases like "jobbed out" he's clearly a Meltzerite bell-end. If you're basing your "all the casual viewers who bought WrestleMania to see The Rock want to see 15 minutes of workrate or they won't like someone" theory on that guy, I can see why you don't realise how stupid it is. Â The guy doesn't even know what ROH is, watched when it in the 80s and again when it was big at the beginning of 2000 and wouldn't have a clue who Meltzer is. He didn't really know who most of the guys were... asked if cody rhodes was dusty rhodes son why he wasn't fat, and said he wanted to fuck Kelly Kelly. He's wouldn't even know what you meant by workrate in wrestling terms. Â He's exactly the type of fan that they were hoping the Rock would bring back into it. Â No i can't see what could have happened, but I am not the one claiming that what we got with the opening match was more memorable than what we could have got. All i know is that I didn't get what I was expecting and not in a pleasing way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ShortOrderCook Posted April 3, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted April 3, 2012 How is it different from the band anology? They advertised that I would see a match between Sheamus and Bryan and i got 18 seconds. It's exactly like advertising a band and then only letting them play for 30 seconds. Â No, it isn't. At all. You cannot compare the two. It's a wrestling angle. You wasn't given anything that wasn't advertised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.