King Pitcos Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 It's a real far cry from around this time last year. In exactly one week, it will be a year since everyone got massively excited about Punk's promo. Idiots were talking possible boom periods. Fixed. And it's not that different. The reason "people" got excited over Punk's promo was because he went on telly and did a "wrestling's shit nowadays lol" speech like he was posting on a forum. It was basically the same thing as when Michael Cole says something's shit, except Cole never worked for ROH so he's not allowed. The Rock did it when he first came back as well. Like WCW towards the end, WWE now has characters talking about how wrestling's crap. Â Loki, I think being genuinely fucked is a good thing for them, to some extent. When they've run out of old-timers to bring back, they'll have to focus on new stars, and that'll create more sustainable wrestling. I really don't know how exactly they can do it at this point though. Elevating people is going to be really difficult, because everyone half-decent already gets far too much screentime so it's easy to burn them out and get everyone sick of them. Ziggler, for example. People want him to be elevated, but elevated to what? For the last year or two, he's been having twenty-minute matches with world champions on a fairly regular basis. If he wins the title, it won't be much different to how it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapnut Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 It's a real far cry from around this time last year. In exactly one week, it will be a year since everyone got massively excited about Punk's promo. Idiots were talking possible boom periods. Fixed. And it's not that different. The reason "people" got excited over Punk's promo was because he went on telly and did a "wrestling's shit nowadays lol" speech like he was posting on a forum. It was basically the same thing as when Michael Cole says something's shit, except Cole never worked for ROH so he's not allowed. The Rock did it when he first came back as well. Like WCW towards the end, WWE now has characters talking about how wrestling's crap. Â It's another example of WWE doing a big storyline, getting scared of stepping outside of the box and then going back to the norm. Regardless of what you think of Punk, it was exciting because he was doing something so rarely seen in WWE these days, nobody knew what he was about to do next. A few weeks later he was another person on the roster, highlighting WWE's inability to keep up a big storyline. They did it with Nexus and they'll probably do it with this year's summer storyline as well. It's saddening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 The thing is, the people that got excited about Punk's promo and its possibilities were creating fanciful scenarios that would never have worked from a business sense. Â People were talking about not bringing him back for Summerslam, or having him take a year off and do dates in ROH with the WWE title. Fact is, WWE took an upper mid-card, solid act and made him the hottest thing in pro-wrestling. They'd have been fucking bonkers not to cash in those chips. For all the online excitement, there were no guarantees that had they held off till Rumble or 'Mania that anyone, besides the people getting over excited, would actually give a fuck. Everyone takes for granted that all wrestling fans follow Punk on twitter, or trawl youtube for video clips, but if there only exposure to pro-wrestling is the WWE weekly programming and they aren't that arsed about missing it if its a bit shit at the time (which i'd say is 75% at least of all fans) then the way WWE did it was as good as humanly possible. Â They staged his walking out with the WWE title, created a huge star, allowed one or two off-the-beaten-track events to push the angle (throwing a pitch at a baseball game with the belt, interrupting comic-con) but still showed it on Raw or at least directed you to wwe.com and then they brought him back and cashed in on the angle. Â Had they chucked him off tele for 6 months or a year then there'd have been no reason to keep highlighting his outside-the-company antics on their main show, people would have got bored and it would have died without even a slight pay-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 It's another example of WWE doing a big storyline, getting scared of stepping outside of the box and then going back to the norm. Regardless of what you think of Punk, it was exciting because he was doing something so rarely seen in WWE these days, nobody knew what he was about to do next. Everybody knew what he was going to do next. Make insider references and say wrestling's shit. That's why it really excited a particular niche of the fanbase (the ones who come on forums to discuss insider gossip and say wrestling's shit) and turned off the rest. It wore thin very quickly, and was never going to deliver everything the wankwanks wanted from it, for reasons d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-daZ has covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted June 22, 2012 Moderators Share Posted June 22, 2012 They didn't even keep him off a wrestling show for a full two weeks.... that's what was really lame. But apparently as far as your concerned there is no medium ground in between that, and having him off in ROH for 6 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 It wouldn't have made a difference. Â An extra week or two wouldn't have changed peoples opinions, those that had these big ideas would have still been upset and the only result of the extra time would have been less time to set up the feud in time for Summerslam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 They didn't even keep him off a wrestling show for a full two weeks.... that's what was really lame. But apparently as far as your concerned there is no medium ground in between that, and having him off in ROH for 6 months. Â Exactly, the backbone of that story was whether Punk would stick to his word on leaving, binning off the old belt for a new one and go and defend the belt elsewhere. In the end, he only actually missed one episode of RAW didnt he? You then had the awful visual (IMO) of two identical title belts being used and defended until Summerslam, it turned into a mess from then. All they had to do was keep Punk out of the mix, they could have struck deals with other organisations to run events with Punk defending the WWE title whilst building up a story to bring Punk back in a blow off match with Cena, maybe at Survivor Series or even earlier if they wanted to. In the end it made no difference and the worst case scenario for them was that taking a bold step didnt work either, either way we'd be in the same situation now, or they could have just done something different for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Exactly, the backbone of that story was whether Punk would stick to his word on leaving, binning off the old belt for a new one and go and defend the belt elsewhere. In the end, he only actually missed one episode of RAW didnt he? You then had the awful visual (IMO) of two identical title belts being used and defended until Summerslam, it turned into a mess from then. All they had to do was keep Punk out of the mix, they could have struck deals with other organisations to run events with Punk defending the WWE title whilst building up a story to bring Punk back in a blow off match with Cena, maybe at Survivor Series or even earlier if they wanted to. In the end it made no difference and the worst case scenario for them was that taking a bold step didnt work either, either way we'd be in the same situation now, or they could have just done something different for a change. Â What makes you think the casual fan would have had the attention span to give a fuck that long, stay invested and not just turn off after a few weeks of turning in to see what happened with CM Punk only for him not to be on the show? Â Or, in this scenario, are WWE highlighting and showing CM Punk wrestling in other companies on their flagship show? Why are they doing that? I'd imagine, kayfabe wise, they'd be pissed off with him running about with the old belt on other shows. Â Or, after WWE had cut this deal with other companies that would either have no effect whatsoever or just inflate the other companies business whilst having no discernible effect on the Survivor Series buy rate (hey, you don't gain genuinely new fans with no previous exposure to wrestling by allowing your champ to wrestling in gyms, do you?), imagine CM Punk had gotten injured? ...What the fuck then? Â All that would have been achieved is that WWE had created the hottest property in wrestling prior to Summerslam, left it on the back burner whilst someone else faced someone else in the SS main event to loud chants of 'CM PUNK! CM PUNK!', gave Ring of Honor a giant pay day by shoving Punk on one of their shows instead of one of their own and then fucked the chance of getting their own payday by having CM Punk on the shelf for six months because he got hurt having a competitive match with a part-time wrestler, full-time French teacher. Â Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted June 22, 2012 Moderators Share Posted June 22, 2012 Van_Dammer's idea is shit and in no way what I was suggesting. There is no fucking way he should be going on any other wrestling show. Â But they could do the whole "turning up at his house" or just showing clips of any other event he could bowl up at that would have cameras. Or just have cameras follow him doing something normal in a situation where there wouldn't be cameras there anyway, as they have no qualms about playing fast and loose with whether or not the cameraman exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 But they could do the whole "turning up at his house" or just showing clips of any other event he could bowl up at that would have cameras. Or just have cameras follow him doing something normal in a situation where there wouldn't be cameras there anyway, as they have no qualms about playing fast and loose with whether or not the cameraman exists.  Until when? It's either  An extra week or two wouldn't have changed peoples opinions, those that had these big ideas would have still been upset and the only result of the extra time would have been less time to set up the feud in time for Summerslam.  or  All that would have been achieved is that WWE had created the hottest property in wrestling prior to Summerslam, left it on the back burner whilst someone else faced someone else in the SS main event to loud chants of 'CM PUNK! CM PUNK!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted June 22, 2012 Moderators Share Posted June 22, 2012 So they couldn't have set up a Summerslam angle involving him without it being in the building where RAW was being held, and him being under contract? Considering how much wrestling and tv and movies you are surprsingly lacking in imagination. (or doing so wilfully to try to make your point). Â Also, needless to say I disagree completely with this assertion so using it in that context is just begging the question - Â An extra week or two wouldn't have changed peoples opinions, those that had these big ideas would have still been upset and the only result of the extra time would have been less time to set up the feud in time for Summerslam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted June 22, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted June 22, 2012 It would be cracking if people realised that unless time travel is invented the MITB Punk stuff is a fading memory. What they do have is a weak champion fighting midcarders. It would be good if WWE decided a way of maybe helping Punk would be to have him feud with proper names, maybe even in main events too. His last feud with an actual name was Triple H, ages ago (and, no, Chris Jericho being shit does not count). I don't think Punk has even been in the same room as The Rock or Brock Lesnar yet. Â This half arsed push isn't helping anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosler28 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 It would be cracking if people realised that unless time travel is invented the MITB Punk stuff is a fading memory. What they do have is a weak champion fighting midcarders. It would be good if WWE decided a way of maybe helping Punk would be to have him feud with proper names, maybe even in main events too. His last feud with an actual name was Triple H, ages ago (and, no, Chris Jericho being shit does not count). I don't think Punk has even been in the same room as The Rock or Brock Lesnar yet. This half arsed push isn't helping anybody.   Punk needs to get pushed as the champion and given main event spots at ppvs and raw and so on. As currently hes just a mid carder holding a belt. And i dont think the Rock would be wanting to wrestle Punk as Punk isnt a name on the same levels as Cena and Lesnar are who have been rumoured to wrestle Rock again.  Punk vs a heel Undertaker or heel Punk vs Undertaker could be a good one. Allow Punk to beat the Undertaker too would help evaluate him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhenom Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Punk vs a heel Undertaker or heel Punk vs Undertaker could be a good one. Allow Punk to beat the Undertaker too would help evaluate him I don't think they are ever turning Undertaker at this stage of the game, I wouldn't anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 So they couldn't have set up a Summerslam angle involving him without it being in the building where RAW was being held, and him being under contract? Without him being in the building for Raw? Sure, but then you still have the same end result (Punk vs Cena at SummerSlam), just with less in-person build-up and the exact same moaning on forums because he came back too soon.  An angle without him being under contract? That would still lead to the situation of  someone else faced someone else in the SS main event to loud chants of 'CM PUNK! CM PUNK!'  And as soon as you're advertising anything with CM Punk for SummerSlam, you're still annoying the people who wanted him to stay off WWE TV for months. If you're WWE the day after the Money in the Bank pay-per-view, are you going to think "John Cena vs Rey Mysterio, with run-in from CM Punk" is a better sell than "John Cena vs CM Punk"?  Also, needless to say I disagree completely with this assertion so using it in that context is just begging the question -  An extra week or two wouldn't have changed peoples opinions, those that had these big ideas would have still been upset and the only result of the extra time would have been less time to set up the feud in time for Summerslam. Do you really think that everyone whinging he came back too soon would've been placated with an extra week or two, or are you pretending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.