Random Thoughts III.

[The Cutting Edge]

Watched Roman Reigns 24 Doc and two things can to mind.

1: would fans have acted the same or turned on him had he ditched the shield music and look and went for his solo identity, he's in great shape too so he's not hiding the "Samoan body".

2: As much as not beating Brock cut off his momentum and may have damaged him, I'd say the follow up was worse by not chasing Rollins through summer leading to him winning the title at Summerslam, I'd imagine the plan may have been to stretch the feud to Mania 32 but Seth got injured, Reigns may have recovered if that was the clear path he was on til Seth at Summerslam instead of Wyatt and Big Show feuds.

[LaGoosh]

Pretty sure Reigns wears the upper body protector stuff because it supports and helps a back issue he has. New music and a new look are insanely overdue though and should have happened the minute The Shield ended.

[King Pitcos]

2 hours ago, The Cutting Edge said:

Watched Roman Reigns 24 Doc and two things can to mind.

1: would fans have acted the same or turned on him had he ditched the shield music and look

Of course. If after the Shield disbanded, Roman Reigns started wearing trunks and had new music, then got sick for months, came back and instantly won Superstar of the Year, and then won the Royal Rumble ahead of the returning Daniel Bryan, the trunks and music weren’t going to soothe dem.

[tiger_rick]

Reigns should have freshened his act up at some point. Everyone should. Especially people who are in the designated position of never turning heel or face. 

It didn't need to be right after the shield split. It wouldn't have hurt if he had but nor did it that he didn't. None of his problems that next year had anything to do with what he looked like, where he came to the ring from or what his music was like.

[The Cutting Edge]

I'm not saying "dem" would love him and believe it or not as much as Pictos brings "dem" up they aren't always the issue in every topic.

I know its been discussed before about his attire and music, and wwe in a whole seems reluctant at times to change these things hence guys (Orton etc) are the same for years without tweaks despite being stale.

I get long term planning in merch etc plays a part in changes but doesn't mean they should try, I've heard Jericho talk about it in the past, facing resistance to changing.

[tiger_rick]

1 hour ago, The Cutting Edge said:

I'm not saying "dem" would love him and believe it or not as much as Pictos brings "dem" up they aren't always the issue in every topic.

They are in this one. 

[GeronimoJacksBeard]

Interesting topic really that - whether/how frequent guys should change up or update their look and to what extent. Who should and who shouldn't. Fans seem to cry for it a lot, but also often have a moan when a classic look is changed or not reverted back to, which is just classic fickle wrestling fans really. I think often too drastic a change in look is called for. Unless there'd been a significant change in character or on air role, card position or similar then the likes of Roman Reigns or John Cena suddenly switching to trunks now would be too jarring. After a certain point, unless there's some other big change happening that a new look helps signify you can only really make smaller, subtle changes over time. A wrestler reaches a certain status and becomes associated with that look. It's why changing up the outfit of Superman or Spiderman too drastically never goes down too well.

Undertaker has managed it to good effect over the years, although he often got away with it because he'd be away for months and almost having a rebirth when he returned and his character taking a slightly different direction. Hogan started wearing black before the heel turn and it was weird. When it accompanied the heel turn and becoming 'Hollywood' it was perfect. Triple H switching to trunks combined with an enhanced physique to accompany his move up the card worked. But if Bret Hart changed from anything but a singlet and pink and black it wouldn't be right at all. Same with Austin and anything but black trunks and leather waistcoat or jeans and t shirt or waistcoat. To me, it never felt right when Kurt Angle started wearing black. Mr Perfect the same. I think Kane eventually suffered from changing his look too many times. Everyone moans about Tazz switching to his binman outfit. And there's an iconic look like Jushin Liger, which as far as appearance goes won't suffer from the actual person ageing. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by GeronimoJacksBeard

[The Cutting Edge]

You are right but always going to dem makes for a limited discussion since its a case of "dem won't change there minds anyway/daddy issues"

[The Cutting Edge]

Changes can be made but of course have to benefit the character or changes being made, its on both wwe and the talent to try it and see what works.

Guess that's what house shows could've been used for years ago

[BomberPat]

A couple of points there - WWE don't like to change up people's looks too much because they want to be able to merchandise them; you'll sell fewer action figures if a guy changes his gear since the last one was made, or cuts his hair after a T-shirt was released with a picture of the old look, and so on. 

The flipside is that I don't believe, at any level, that a wrestler should change up their look without a significant kayfabe reason for it. Undertaker always had one, or else was only wrestling once a year and a fancy new look for Wrestlemania was expected. They should have had Roman change his look when The Shield broke up, and there hasn't really been a good opportunity since - maybe when he came back from Leukemia, but then it was almost better under those circumstances to have him come back looking the same as it was more of a triumphant return to be able to say, "he's back, and as good as ever". 

As for Reigns being "rejected" as the top guy, it's a narrative I first have to come at with a significant caveat - the vast majority of the fanbase didn't reject him. He sells merch by the ton, drew well when headlining house shows, and so on. I would say that majority either liked or were indifferent toward him, and a vocal minority disliked him, but that vocal minority are the online die-hards, who these days are also the people most likely to be able to justify the price of a good ticket to a TV or PPV WWE show and make a racket there. Those diehards also, for the most part, aren't going anywhere - they're still watching the product, or at least paying for a Network subscription, in large numbers.

All of that aside, if we need to talk about why that section of the fanbase rejected Roman Reigns - initially it absolutely was because he wasn't Daniel Bryan. You could have put anyone in his spot and it would have got the same response - hell Rey Mysterio was booed for not being Daniel Bryan when that's who people wanted. Then putting Reigns over Bryan after he won the Rumble was, on paper, not a bad choice - some of the criticism of Reigns was on him not being a "good wrestler", and showing that he could hang in the ring with Bryan should have put that criticism to bed, but it didn't, because for all the talk of fans being fickle, they absolutely are not. Once the hive mind has grasped an idea, it doesn't shift - it's why we still see decades old arguments about WWF and WCW stars being repeated. 

The problem with Roman Reigns is that he was the anointed one. First, that meant Anyone But Daniel Bryan. By not adequately tackling that, it means Whoever The Top Guy Is. Some of that comes down to WWE's booking of top babyfaces to either be goofy smiling do-gooders or sub-Austin "rebels" that end up just being crass bullies, but a lot of it comes down to a bigger problem. WWE have booked themselves as the company's biggest heel for twenty years, and that came to a head more than ever when Daniel Bryan was emerging as a top star and CM Punk was still hovering around the main event scene - Daniel Bryan being "held down", the pipebomb promo from Punk, but all kinds of faux-shoot promos before it (Joey Styles' before One Night Stand comes to mind) and since, where the easiest way to get a major babyface reaction is to criticise the booking and management of the WWE. On the flipside, we've been told for twenty years that to be the hand-selected, "corporate champion" is the worst thing you can possibly be. In the Attitude Era, they were (usually) smart enough to put in little caveats to show that Vince McMahon didn't have complete control - Linda as a babyface authority, the "board of directors", and so on - but since, it's been evil bosses and babyface wrestlers, and that's it. So the moment someone becomes the top guy, the booking generally makes it feel inorganic anyway, but then they also have the uphill struggle of having to deal with them being seen as the top guy that the evil company wants there. They have to undo at least 5, and more like 10-15, years worth of booking and of educating the audience to a point where they will buy into a top babyface as not being a corporate puppet again, or else we'll be having this same conversation about Drew McIntyre this time next year, or about Keith Lee (or whoever) in three years, and so on and so on.

[The Cutting Edge]

On the merch front, Orton, Cena, Reigns to name a few, there figures wouldn't have changed for years, Orton has looked the same since 2008 for example, I can't imagine the same figures selling over n over.

I get the merch, games and licencing side of not changing but 10 years plus for some guys is somewhat lazy and adds to the product looking stale.

[Wideload90]

Watching the DX vs. Jerishow vs. Cena and Undertaker on YouTube in a drunken state and I have come to the conclusion on two things:

 

The undertaker absolutely rocks the big gold belt.

Jerishow are grossly underrated.

 

Bonus thoughts:

This is a tremendously fun match packed with talent which today's product can't provide and a great crowd makes a match. That is all.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Wideload90

[Pogue]

34 minutes ago, The Cutting Edge said:

On the merch front, Orton, Cena, Reigns to name a few, there figures wouldn't have changed for years, Orton has looked the same since 2008 for example, I can't imagine the same figures selling over n over.

I get the merch, games and licencing side of not changing but 10 years plus for some guys is somewhat lazy and adds to the product looking stale.

The Orton point is spot on, look at him on every video game from, say, WWE 12, and that's being generous, same music, same entrance

As for the above point about it affecting action figures, surely changing looks at least every couple of years would encourage people to buy more

[King Pitcos]

1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

or else we'll be having this same conversation about Drew McIntyre this time next year

I think you’re being very optimistic that it’ll take a year.

But to some extent, it doesn’t matter. Roman Reigns was in four WrestleMania main events in a row. For the last three of those, people who hate him bought tickets knowing he’d probably be main eventing. Reigns, like Cena before him, is a great heel for the hivemind - dey’re way more invested in him getting beat than anyone else on the card. He got a free pass last year for cancer which muddied the waters, but this year would’ve been shaky at best. By next year, he’ll be back on the throne.

It’d be great if the powers that be could figure out how to break out of the WWE vs Hivemind dynamic, purely because they wouldn’t then have to try to keep redoing the Austin vs McMahon storyline. But I’ve not got the answer for how to do break it, and seemingly neither have they. Have you got any ideas?

Edited May 10, 2020 by King Pitcos

[Your Fight Site]

5 hours ago, BomberPat said:

[megapost]

Au contraire, surely a wrestler changing their appearance is the perfect reason to commission a new t-shirt design or action figure? Kids are going to pester their parents for a new [insert name] figure if it has the same hair style and attire as one produced and sold three years ago.