Summerslam: Down Since Day One Ish

[Lorne Malvo]

I never really thought Sami was the man to beat Reigns. It's always been Cody. To be fair, the vast majority of the fanbase still seem on board with this Bloodline story so when/if Cody wins I'm sure it'll still get a big pop and be a huge moment. But I really struggle to see how it would mean more than if they did it at this years Mania.

9 hours ago, Kfogg1991 said:

making it feel like a movie

 

The NeverEnding Story?

[Hannibal Scorch]

1 hour ago, Gay as FOOK said:

Cody? I'm amazed anybody is worried about that. The guy's an AI generated WWE superstar template. They'll be able to heat him up at will.

 

I liked your post, but this but stuck out to me. If there is one thing they seem awful at, it’s that. I mean, look when they tried to push Roman as top baby face, he was being booed weeks after becoming champion because of how they had pushed him into that position. WWE seem to want to go one way, but the crowd push for someone else and eventually they have to acknowledge that in some way. I think the crowd are absolutely still backing Cody right now will they still in 6 or god forbid, 18 months time when he takes down Roman? If he does, for how long. Remember in AEW he was over like rover, until people got bored of his promos. He never undelivered in the ring, but people got bored of the act, and by not striking while the iron is hot, they could repeat that mistake.

[organizedkaos]

So just to throw a mildly contentious log on to the bonfire

So people like to talk a lot about flippy wrestling / whatever they don't like in AEW not appealing to the casual fan. The idea that the two main companies should be looking to draw in more casuals and they need to cater to them.

Is there ever much conversation about whether this sort of cinematic WWE stuff appeals to the casual? Cos the problem I've seen is that out of context it can come across cheesy af. I do a yearly get together with friends to watch the royal rumble, 95% of the people who come only watch wrestling at that get together.  The finish to Owens/Reigns did not come across well to people who don't watch the product. It works if you're invested but the acting, the WWE rhythm (dragging everything in a segment out) was just not enough to engage them and then the problem when you're doing "very serious story" is that if the viewer doesn't buy it it all comes across a bit ridiculous.

Now I'm not saying the segment was shit, just that out of context it didn't really play. You already needed to have been invested from other moments for that to work. So how does that appeal to the casual fan?

(Also after the rumble I throw on a bunch of elite trios matches, funnily enough the people doing fast paced athletic stuff and walloping each other seemed to win over the casual fans pretty darn well)

[d-d-d-dAz]

I’ve got to add, whilst I agree Cody shows all the hallmarks of Vince McMahon’s dream sports entertainer, I actually think the reason he works is because he’s so authentic. And, conversely, I think the reason he didn’t work in AEW is he didn’t ever seem that authentic.

To his bones he is a WWE guy, and I genuinely believe that no one has ever wanted to win the WWE title more than him. I think that’s why it works, it really fucking matters to him. And in the same way people boo celebrities or Logan Paul because they think they’re insincere or don’t care, I think they cheer Cody because he takes seriously the thing they love.

But, crucially, he’s not a complete mark. Like, Dolph Ziggler cared about being in WWE. But he cared so much he did everything they ever asked of him, however dumb, and became the poster simp for what @Supremo I believe called the ‘Gratitude’ era.

Cody had the backbone to go ‘nope, fuck you’. So he both cares about the thing the audience care about, win one, and he also has the backbone to say ‘fuck off’ to shitty circumstances, something people throughout history admire.

He’s absolutely in the sweet spot of what the WWE audience will respond to.

[MVP RULZ]

1 minute ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I liked your post, but this but stuck out to me. If there is one thing they seem awful at, it’s that. I mean, look when they tried to push Roman as top baby face, he was being booed weeks after becoming champion because of how they had pushed him into that position. WWE seem to want to go one way, but the crowd push for someone else and eventually they have to acknowledge that in some way. I think the crowd are absolutely still backing Cody right now will they still in 6 or god forbid, 18 months time when he takes down Roman? If he does, for how long. Remember in AEW he was over like rover, until people got bored of his promos. He never undelivered in the ring, but people got bored of the act, and by not striking while the iron is hot, they could repeat that mistake.

People have been saying that for the past 18 months though

First it was can he survive the initial pop post Wrestlemania return.. the reaction remained strong during his 3 months before the injury

Can he survive the obviousness of his Rumble win and not being the fans chosen one to win it (we've seen the consequences of that scenario in 2014).. the reaction to his win was good and despite the Sami stuff going on he remained hot and was fully supported in the run up to Mania 

Can he survive the Mania loss and be kept hot..he has and is arguably hotter now then he maybe has ever been over the last 18 months

so far there is no evidence to suggest support for him is waning at all or that it will start anytime soon I mean even his documentary has done huge numbers.

Now this maybe a whole different topic to discuss but I think we have to start to acknowledge as well that we are maybe in a different era of fan attending WWE events then we were 5-10 years ago when fan backlash/takeover was at its height and the company was always treated as being the heels in storyline etc.

Have those fans moved onto AEW where for the most part the guys they wanted to see pushed in that era now work? 

Now people seem for the most part a lot more respectful? (if that's the right word) to what is presented to them and are along for the ride and the cheering/Booing is generally as WWE want it to go

Sami Zayn could have derailed the long held Wrestlemania plans and in years gone by they maybe would have no choice to have switched it but they stayed on track and fans went with it, yes they had an nice easy logical story with the Usos to transition him into for Wrestlemania away from the titles but it still could have gone sideways very easily if the fans weren't on board.

[BomberPat]

8 hours ago, Kfogg1991 said:

 I mean talking and exchanging serious and important dialogue without the microphones letting the in ring mics and cameras be in the right place to pick it up instead of the normal everything has to be shouted and said a certain way. 

This is the absolute worst part of the Bloodline stuff, though. It's excruciating when you haven't got a genuinely sympathetic babyface like Sami Zayn in the mix. 

It's all some of the worst hangover of the pandemic era, where wrestlers started talking out loud a lot more because there was no live crowd. It led to such subtle gems as Roman Reigns, after Drew McIntyre kicked out following a Spear, saying out loud the actual words, "THIS ISN'T THE SAME DREW MCINTYRE I BEAT BEFORE". It's tell, don't show stuff, the absolute death of subtlety.

The bits of the Bloodline story that have worked are when there's an emotional heart to it, and that's been the strength of a WWE top level storyline without Vince McMahon's fingerprints all over it - wrestlers acting something like human beings, and being allowed to show vulnerability. One of my favourite WWE stories of all time is Bret vs. Owen, because the family dynamics are something that intrinsically work, and there are times when the Bloodline has reached similar heights. But I think people have just been starved of good wrestling for too long if they think it's the best thing ever. And I don't want my wrestling to be "cinema", I want it to be wrestling. Better a great wrestling match than a bad movie.

And "great wrestling match" is the problem. Sooner or later, the story has to translate into a match, that's what it's for. And after three years, even while not watching the majority of PPVs, I'm kind of sick of the Roman Reigns big match formula. I'm sick of the announcers talking up how dominant and impressive he is, rather than how he has to rely on run-ins and outside interference to keep hold of his title. Half the battle in building a babyface strong enough to beat the new heel is making the heel somebody the crowd want to see beaten, but the announcers don't tell us that, they tell us that Roman Reigns is a record-breaking dominant champion. That's before you get into the shark-jumping and dead horse beating of turning Jimmy heel for the sake of turning him heel, and relying on outside interference in a match specifically promoted as not permitting outside interference.  And, to beat my own particular dead horse, there's nothing about this story, or Cody's post-Wrestlemania story, that wouldn't have made more sense with Cody having beaten Roman in the first place.

If I could put money on the result of the main event of Wrestlemania now, I would say Roman Reigns still wins. There's always a justification for keeping the title on him. Well, maybe we'll get The Rock back next year. Well, why have him lose it at Wrestlemania 39, when it would be such a bigger deal at Wrestlemania 40?  Well, then if he holds it another year after that, he'll have surpassed Bob Backlund and Pedro Morales' title reigns. Oh, but then he's only about a year off beating Hogan's title reign, so maybe we can wait until Wrestlemania 42. And, hey, maybe the year after that The Rock might finally say yes. 

If they want whoever beats Roman to be cemented as the next star for a generation, Cody isn't the guy - they're the same age, Cody has more years on the clock than Roman, and he's talked about retiring at 40 (I don't think he will, but he's put it out there). Sami Zayn isn't the guy, as good a feelgood moment as it would have been. Jey Uso certainly isn't the guy. Nor is LA Knight. Nor is Austin Theory, or Grayson Waller. There's no one, because all of their eggs are in one basket. And if it wasn't Sami at the crux of a universally loved story, in his hometown, and if it isn't Cody as the triumphant returning hero babyface at Wrestlemania, then who, and when? It's not a great story if there's no hero, and no end in sight.

[SuperBacon]

57 minutes ago, organizedkaos said:

Is there ever much conversation about whether this sort of cinematic WWE stuff appeals to the casual?

Completely agree and I'd say it doesn't at all, but they are probably not bothered.

I got asked the other day by my ex what were the best WWE matches this year as she really hasn't had time to keep up.

I gave her my choices but a lot of them were caveated with "But you have to have seen most of the Bloodline story to understand its context" (even though I've only seen really the PPVs and "big angles from some weekly shows) and I don't like that. Most of the massive moments only make sense if you know what's come before it (even though they have been excellent matches in their own right)

Someone should be able to fully enjoy a match in isolation, and she is someone who does like wrestling, so not really a casual fan.

The absolute worst thing Marvel films* do is ask the audience to watch 30 shit spin offs or crap end credit scenes to "fully get" their story's and that sort of feels like what WWE have done/are doing. It's crap, and you're made to feel like you aren't getting it if you've missed some shitty TV series or something. 

FWIW, I've loved the story up until now (what I've watched) but I'm not bothered if it continues or stops. Maybe I'm just not as invested as others are.

*please don't take this an invite to continue talking about Marvel films. 

[Vamp]

12 hours ago, BomberPat said:

And "great wrestling match" is the problem. Sooner or later, the story has to translate into a match, that's what it's for. 

While I agree with everything else you said, I'm not sure I fully agree with this. I don't think having "great wrestling match" is a problem. 

To a certain extent (unless they absolutely shit the bed) the match is kinda irrelevant at this point. For the first time since perhaps the Undertaker's streak they have a storyline where the result matters. People are speculating who's going to finally beat Roman. The storyline at this point isn't for the match, it's for the result. 

I do think that the match that leads to that should be fairly short and snappy. 

[BomberPat]

10 hours ago, Vamp said:

The storyline at this point isn't for the match, it's for the result. 

That much is true, but there's been three years without the result. We need something in-between.

I know this has always been the case with a lot of wrestling anyway, but whenever anyone talks about how great this story is, it's always a ten minute in-ring talking segment that they point to. I realised when people started criticising AEW for "booking matches without stories" that to an awful lot of people who watch WWE, "match" and "story" are seen as mutually exclusive - the story is what they do in all the promos and angles, the match is just a means to an end, there's very little sense that the story should (or even could) be told within the match. I think that's partly why I think the Jey/Roman match didn't work for me - it made no sense as an extension of the story they're telling, but that's not what they do any more, they booked that finish so you'd watch how the next angle plays out on Smackdown, they don't book the angles to set up for the match.

[air_raid]

On 8/8/2023 at 9:23 AM, Lorne Malvo said:

The NeverEnding Story?

Well, after Reigns pinned Cody at Mania I certainly felt like I was wading through the Swamp of Sadness.