Minor PPVs that don't deserve a thread *Spoilers*

[Van Dammer]

I dont get him either, but I get why others do. What I dont like though, is that he's being made to seem cool without actually being it. His music is briliant, but it doesnt work for him.Its a big grand musical piece that is totally unique by wrestling standards, what that music needs is a huge entrance to boot. Instead, Nakamura slowly walks out, waving his arms and fingers around and the moments virtually dead. It needs a piece of theatre, like with Balors entrance and the way he draws the audience into the moment. 

Some fault is his, but a lot is to do with how he's been brought in. His arrival was odd, he debuted in the middle of the segment (with the Miz I think?) but nothing occured, the commercials started and when they came back they were onto something else and there was little mention of it. That isnt a way to tell your audience this guy is a big deal. Its as if HHH isnt managing these guys creatively when they come in, which he might not be, im not sure. But he should be on top of anyone coming onto the main roster. Nothing about them should be changed without his say so and that should only come if he thinks its going to help them get across to a larger audience.

[Supremo]

I'm blown away that anyone would use Balor's entrance as a way to criticise Nakamura's. Even at its very best, when he's in full makeup, with all the bells and whistles, Balor's entrance always feels super phoney. He comes across as a guy uncomfortably doing what he's been taught to do. Like a kid in a school play. It doesn't look or seem natural at all. Especially when he whips the dreadlocks off at the end and his hair is oftentimes sticking up. Standing there in the makeup, with his hair sticking up a bit, he looks like a five year old going to his first Halloween party.

Nakamura's entrance, for all his weird mannerisms and random poses, it comes across as completely authentic. He never feels like someone has sat down with him and meticulously rehearsed what he should do. With Finn, you can see in his eyes that he's doing his routine and performing his act. I never see that when I look at Shinsuke. 

Plus, I've seen Nakamura's entrance live and, fuck me, it was up there with the best I've ever seen. Proper spine-tingling. He felt on a level above almost everyone I've ever seen, oozing confidence and charisma like very few in the business.

I'm also fascinated as to why people feel the need for Nakamura's character to be, "explained." People complaining that they don't understand what he's supposed to be or why he moves and acts the way he does. I'd never seen him until he debuted in NXT and not once did that thought cross my mind. Why can't someone just be a super confident, super charismatic, super flamboyant, weirdo oddball? Why has everything got to be explained? 

The very reason he felt like the biggest breath of fresh air when he came to NXT was because of how weird and different he was. It was ridiculously compelling to see this guy talking, wrestling and moving unlike anyone else. Him doing all these strange, subtle, weird things was what made him stand out. You couldn't take your eyes off him and had no idea what he was going to do next. Requiring for him to be, "explained," or to have his act boiled down, like they've attempted to do by calling him, "The Artist," or whatever, does nothing but take away from his act.

Real people act in strange, subtle ways. The best characters can't be boiled down into one sentence. That people want him explained and boiled down is dishearteningly indicative of how everyone's been raised on Vinny Mac's vision of how to write and portray characters. That approach is why most characters in WWE are such one-note, boring bastards that are impossible to invest in. Instead of just being an arrogant dickhead, displaying loads of subtleties that make you hate him, Dolph Ziggler has to be called the "Show Off," he has to constantly tell everyone he's showing off, the commentators have to keep referring to him showing off and Jesus-fucking-Christ how could anyone possibly give a shit by that point? It's the difference between the genuinely funny guy in your office and the, "whacky," guy who keeps telling you how funny and mad he is.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Supremo

[Arch Stanton]

Excellent post Supremo, can't argue with a word of it. The stuff about the Balor comparison is absolutely bang-on.

[Sphinx]

I just don't think there's enough in him for a casual fan to invest in. If his backstory was told then we'd get a more fully formed character. At the moment, we know that he's eccentric, did well in NXT and he wrestled in Japan but that's about it. I'm not saying they have to ram it down our throats in commentary. Especially when English is a struggle, there should be more help by producing bits that aren't live and have talking heads talking about him or vignettes. If I can get an idea of how he got to this point in some way, I'd be more invested and go along for the ride more than if I'm 'thrown in the deep end' with a character that's more challenging in a WWE context than we're used to.

I also think his style of wrestling is quite different to WWE's from what I've seen which is an obstacle too.

[tiger_rick]

17 minutes ago, Sphinx said:

I just don't think there's enough in him for a casual fan to invest in.

Don't worry about it, there aren't any left.

[Ambulance Chaser]

I think he's simply checked out. Waiting to cash his chips in and get back to Japan. Let's face it it's been a disaster, he didn't draw crowds in NXT and is flat as fuck on the main roster. The logic behind it all is absolutely baffling, make him WWE's version of Pee Wee Herman with his quips and one liners, have him going 20 minute 50/50 matches with Ziggler and losing to Corbin THEN stick him in with Cena. It's been an abomination really and the people involved in writing for him should get the fuck out of Wrestling.

Let me say, I loved him in Japan, but I think he's getting a pass on here because he's Nakamura, call it like it is.

[DJM]

27 minutes ago, Ambulance Chaser said:

 losing to Corbin

When has Nakamura lost to Corbin (outside of the MITB ladder match)?

For all the problems with Nakamura since coming up to the main roster, I don't think that wins/losses can come into the conversation given that no one has beaten him 1-on-1 yet.

[Supremo]

He hasn't lost 1 on 1, but I'd argue winning by DQ in a shit match with an awful finish against Corbin, or winning an overlong 50/50 opener against a geek like Ziggler is just as bad as a clean loss, anyway. The reason you don't book your stars to lose is so that they don't lose momentum. Nakamura's Smackdown run has been bereft of momentum from the start. 

I do subscribe to the idea that he's thrown the towel in and can't be arsed anymore, but can you blame him? He more than held up his end of the bargain, walked in with an incredible act that could have main events pay per views immediately, but they took over a year to pull the main roster trigger and then completely fucked it up from there.

 

Edited July 28, 2017 by Supremo

[Cod Eye]

2 hours ago, Supremo said:

I'm blown away that anyone would use Balor's entrance as a way to criticise Nakamura's. Even at its very best, when he's in full makeup, with all the bells and whistles, Balor's entrance always feels super phoney. He comes across as a guy uncomfortably doing what he's been taught to do. Like a kid in a school play. It doesn't look or seem natural at all. Especially when he whips the dreadlocks off at the end and his hair is oftentimes sticking up. Standing there in the makeup, with his hair sticking up a bit, he looks like a five year old going to his first Halloween party.

Nakamura's entrance, for all his weird mannerisms and random poses, it comes across as completely authentic. He never feels like someone has sat down with him and meticulously rehearsed what he should do. With Finn, you can see in his eyes that he's doing his routine and performing his act. I never see that when I look at Shinsuke. 

Plus, I've seen Nakamura's entrance live and, fuck me, it was up there with the best I've ever seen. Proper spine-tingling. He felt on a level above almost everyone I've ever seen, oozing confidence and charisma like very few in the business.

I'm also fascinated as to why people feel the need for Nakamura's character to be, "explained." People complaining that they don't understand what he's supposed to be or why he moves and acts the way he does. I'd never seen him until he debuted in NXT and not once did that thought cross my mind. Why can't someone just be a super confident, super charismatic, super flamboyant, weirdo oddball? Why has everything got to be explained? 

The very reason he felt like the biggest breath of fresh air when he came to NXT was because of how weird and different he was. It was ridiculously compelling to see this guy talking, wrestling and moving unlike anyone else. Him doing all these strange, subtle, weird things was what made him stand out. You couldn't take your eyes off him and had no idea what he was going to do next. Requiring for him to be, "explained," or to have his act boiled down, like they've attempted to do by calling him, "The Artist," or whatever, does nothing but take away from his act.

Real people act in strange, subtle ways. The best characters can't be boiled down into one sentence. That people want him explained and boiled down is dishearteningly indicative of how everyone's been raised on Vinny Mac's vision of how to write and portray characters. That approach is why most characters in WWE are such one-note, boring bastards that are impossible to invest in. Instead of just being an arrogant dickhead, displaying loads of subtleties that make you hate him, Dolph Ziggler has to be called the "Show Off," he has to constantly tell everyone he's showing off, the commentators have to keep referring to him showing off and Jesus-fucking-Christ how could anyone possibly give a shit by that point? It's the difference between the genuinely funny guy in your office and the, "whacky," guy who keeps telling you how funny and mad he is.

I don't want the character explaining as such, I'd just like some of the confusion clearing up. 

Like I mentioned the other day, what makes him a "Rockstar?" I know the WWE like to give their performers "Buzzwords" as knick names, but I can usually see the reasoning behind them. The likes of "The Big Red Machine" for Kane and even that nob  Ziggler's "The Show Off" are self explanatory and most fans will understand them. But nothing about Nakamura is Rockstar-ish really, is it? And just for balance, I feel the same way about Balor's "Demon King" rubbish. The bloke simply puts paint on. If he actually changed his performance bell to bell while wearing the paint, and gave the Demon character its own unique and distinct offence and mannerisms then fine, but as it stands it's not for me...

I DO get that he has charisma by the bucket loads and his entrance music can be spine tingling good(that debut violin player was amazing), and since this little debate has gone on, I've watched some highlights of him in Japan and I agree, he can really go between the ropes. I particularly liked the bit where he shuffled into view on a chair, hidden behind a newspaper while his opponent was making his way to the ring. 

Personally, I REALLY want WWE to sort his booking out, and for the lad to make it big, as the more megastars at the top of the card, the better the product can be...

[BomberPat]

I'm going to use a weird example, but I'd say Nakamura in WWE is like Captain Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels.

In the first film, that character is born of Johnny Depp improvising - he's compelling, and charismatic, and all of that comes from the performance, not from the script.

But then the sequels roll around, and Depp's performance has defined the character. So they write the script around the character Depp created; but it's no longer organic, no longer compelling, because he's being told "Oh, do that funny drunk walk again", rather than letting it all come naturally.

Nakamura's in the same boat - they're not letting him just go out there and be the insanely charismatic star he is, he's going out there and hitting the bullet points that WWE have decided are what makes it work. And that's not how charisma works, you can't just distil it and coordinate it.

[Supremo]

22 minutes ago, Cod Eye said:

ILike I mentioned the other day, what makes him a "Rockstar?" I know the WWE like to give their performers "Buzzwords" as knick names, but I can usually see the reasoning behind them. The likes of "The Big Red Machine" for Kane and even that nob  Ziggler's "The Show Off" are self explanatory and most fans will understand them. But nothing about Nakamura is Rockstar-ish really, is it?

Not that I want to defend WWE's buzzwords, but if that really is the crux of your problem, then there's loads of Nakamura's act that fits the monicker of "Rockstar." 

Effortless charisma, an aura of unparalleled confidence, a striking, unusual look, flamboyant to an almost ridiculous level, yet it somehow works, bizarre mannerisms that catch your eye and set him apart from everyone else, an iconic pose that looks great in silhouette form. If you look at the roster as a whole, he's by far the most suited to that nickname. Or at least he was before they booked the shit out of him and seemingly either knocked his confidence or made him stop caring.

Not everything has to be so ridiculously literal and in-your-face as Elias Samson's guitar.

BomberPat - That's an excellent comparison. Absolutely spot on.  

Edited July 28, 2017 by Supremo

[Cod Eye]

9 minutes ago, Supremo said:

Not that I want to defend WWE's buzzwords, but if that really is the crux of your problem, then there's loads of Nakamura's act that fits the monicker of "Rockstar." 

Effortless charisma, an aura of unparalleled confidence, a striking, unusual look, flamboyant to an almost ridiculous level, get in somehow works, bizarre mannerisms that catch your eye and set him apart from everyone else, an iconic pose that looks great in silhouette form. If you look at the roster as a whole, he's by far the most suited to that nickname. Or at least he was before they booked the shit out of him and seemingly either knocked his confidence or made him stop caring.

Not everything has to be so ridiculously literal and in-your-face as Elias Samson's guitar.

BomberPat - That's an excellent comparison. Absolutely spot on.  

But his character still isn't a Rockstar...

But I do get you and Bomber's points. But the truth is I'm still completely indifferent to his WWE persona and WWE career in general, but that may say more about me and my tastes(and maybe intelligence) than it says about the bloke himself.

[The Cutting Edge]

Not comparng them as such but I saw Russel Brand work the other night (I work at a theatre) he has a similar 'rockstar' look and swagger to him, its part of his charm and appeal.

Not everyone needs a gimmick or character but have characteristics, loads of guys are gimmickless if you try to explain them out of context or knowing them, what was Triple H's gimmick that can be explained? Bret Hart? some guys are more real than a Police man or Zombie 

I'd say Naka is similar to Macho Man, both quirky and eccentric but compelling and it works for them.

[ColinBollocks]

Brilliant post from Supremo at the top of the thread. Personally, I enjoy Nakamura and I like his WWE work, mostly because it deviates from everyone doing a rubbish HBK v Taker at 'Mania. 

I fully agree they've buggered up his momentum - simply, almost everyone is midcard in WWE, outside of a select 3 or so.

Also, his NXT entrance production was absolutely perfect. Then he got to the main roster and changed perfection, because. 

[Cod Eye]

1 hour ago, The Cutting Edge said:

Not comparng them as such but I saw Russel Brand work the other night (I work at a theatre) he has a similar 'rockstar' look and swagger to him, its part of his charm and appeal.

Not everyone needs a gimmick or character but have characteristics, loads of guys are gimmickless if you try to explain them out of context or knowing them, what was Triple H's gimmick that can be explained? Bret Hart? some guys are more real than a Police man or Zombie 

I'd say Naka is similar to Macho Man, both quirky and eccentric but compelling and it works for them.

Your right, not everyone needs a gimmick and I'm sure Nakamura would(should) be one of them. But my issue(not saying everyone thinks like this) is that they seem to be shoehorning that Rockstar nick name on him.  If he was given Jeff Hardy's "Charasmatic Enigma" for example, then it would explain who he is a lot more(again, in my opinion).

Bret Hart is a cracking example. His "Excellence of Execution" name described him perfectly. He was a technical wrestler who executed his moves excellently(which also tied into his Hitman name..). Even Triple H's "Cerebral Assassin" told someone new tuning in that he was dangerous and calculating(granted, he never assassinated anyone though).