It's Wrestlemania Season

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

I think the main thing that disappointed me is that I would of liked to of seen Sami Zayn and Kevin Owens involved in that final match too. In fact I would of preferred them over the legends (though im probably in the minority here). They were so much more involved in the two year storyline and would of closed their arcs off nicely. 

Finally I would of done a failed cash in attempt that was a mirror of the "heist of a century" only for Damien Priest to be cut off by someone. Have Priest win the title Monday was a Rollins that is absolutely smashed up beyond believe to close out the post Mania Raw. 

[Hannibal Scorch]

2 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

I think the main thing that disappointed me is that I would of liked to of seen Sami Zayn and Kevin Owens involved in that final match too. In fact I would of preferred them over the legends (though im probably in the minority here). They were so much more involved in the two year storyline and would of closed their arcs off nicely. 

 

No, I said the same to my mate yesterday. What they gave us was nostalgia pops, which are seemingly bad in every other medium bar wrestling. But if all the people who had challenged Roman and got screwed of a win, were involved to help Cody win, that would have been a far better way for Cody to finish his, but also Romans, story. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

4 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

No, I said the same to my mate yesterday. What they gave us was nostalgia pops, which are seemingly bad in every other medium bar wrestling. But if all the people who had challenged Roman and got screwed of a win, were involved to help Cody win, that would have been a far better way for Cody to finish his, but also Romans, story. 

You can only really say this about Undertaker, to be fair.

Jey came out to tackle Jimmy, which is self explanatory.

Cena came out to tackle Solo, which makes sense as that's Solo's only serious singles rivalry since he's been on the main roster and the man he tried to kill.

Seth, again self explanatory.

Undertaker, yeah. I did some mental gymnastics on a previous page as to why it made sense, and others have explained it away by Undertaker getting one over on the people who caused his only Wrestlemania losses, but I accept that it was The Undertaker probably only because Austin couldn't do it for whatever reason.

Being misty eyed about Sami/KO forgets that it's a been over a year since they were seriously involved. I loved their stories with the Bloodline, but the role they eventually got as cheerleaders at the end probably suited their current proximity to Roman and the Bloodline.

But I think the people they used (again, let's ignore The Undertaker a second) gave The Bloodline agency beyond just Roman. And that's what this story ultimately was, the fall of an empire. They'd made too many enemies, they no longer had the numbers. Solo trying to kill Cena came back to bite him; Jimmy screwing his brother came back to bite him. Like all great empires, they'd got too big, made too many enemies, made too many missteps and it all collapsed on one night.

It's not about Roman. It's all about the Bloodline. They've been trying to tell us, to be fair.

*EDIT* The most salient point about The Undertaker might just be that actually in that moment an arena full of people made a noise so guttural, so full of emotion, that every wrestling promoter who's ever existed probably looked down (or up) approvingly. Sometimes you just got to make the people feel something, brother.

They'd done the common sense stuff, and then just as people expected Austin, they served Undertaker and shocked them to their core. There was no real reason for Austin beyond being Rock's rival of years gone by, but so was Taker to a lesser extent. So yeah, probably fine. Whatever. Will watch again and cry to check.

Edited April 10 by d-d-d-dAz

[Weezenal]

7 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said:

Because he was attempting to play mind games with Reigns. That was the whole point! And it worked. It fit the story they had been telling for months.

CHUMP GAMES. 

[Supremo]

People mocking the Seth character for everything that happened over the weekend reminds me of people who were complaining that Daniel Garcia and Mark Briscoe kept losing in the Continental Classic. This weird, outdated idea that WINNING means PUSHED and LOSING means BURIED.

It’s just not the case anymore. It’s not 2006. You can tell interesting stories and create engaging characters with losses, just as you can wins. There’s room for nuance in pro-wrestling.

Seth has won clean for a year straight and I’ve felt nothing for him. In one weekend he’s been smashed to bits, had his pathetic run-in immediately shut down, limped out of the arena with a massive black eye, lost everything, and he feels like an absolute hero. It’s the most interesting thing he’s done in forever. The first time some of his sixty nicknames actually worked. He was the visionary who saw the path to victory. He was the architect of Roman’s downfall. He did outsmart him. Put some respect on this lad’s name. The Bloodline doesn’t fall without his sacrifice.

I thought this was cool. Almost certainly wasn’t done on purpose, and was most likely just everyone getting into position for the final shot, but I still hope they one day air it on TV. It’s arguably the most poignant moment of the weekend. Roman stumbling away defeated, all his previous rivals running past him to celebrate. Not a single one of them acknowledging him. We never got Sami Zayn beating him in Montreal, but we got the next best thing. Sami completely ignoring him to go celebrate with the goodies. Get fucked Roman. We won.

 

[mim731]

1 hour ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Undertaker, yeah. I did some mental gymnastics on a previous page as to why it made sense, and others have explained it away by Undertaker getting one over on the people who caused his only Wrestlemania losses, but I accept that it was The Undertaker probably only because Austin couldn't do it for whatever reason.

I saw someone on Twitter saying that it was simply that Taker was often (when it suited, so not when he was being a heel) presented as "the conscience" of the WWF/WWE so was helping to even the odds. 

In a wider sense, I assume it was to present the "40 years of WrestleMania" in a match without saying they are and with the legends that can still physically participate. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

2 minutes ago, mim731 said:

I saw someone on Twitter saying that it was simply that Taker was often (when it suited, so not when he was being a heel) presented as "the conscience" of the WWF/WWE so was helping to even the odds. 

In a wider sense, I assume it was to present the "40 years of WrestleMania" in a match without saying they are and with the legends that can still physically participate. 

This is where I got to with it, to the extent you need to intellectualise it. This is a guy who was the conscience of the WWE, a locker room leader through The Rock's era who will have known Cody as a child. He was defending the integrity of the Mania main event and of Wrestlemania, and was making sure a 52 year old from his era didn't come back and rob an opportunity from the new era.

I can live with that. Whether they meant it or not.

[The Gaffer]

Yeah it's because they couldn't get Austin but the conscience angle makes about as perfect a wrestling sense as you need there, I think.

He's the on and off screen locker room morality guy, seeing the new authority figure come in and throw his weight around abusing his power.

There was a promo baked in a few weeks back which foreshadowed the whole whacky Avengers ending too, where Seth was going on about Roman having a vice grip on the title in comic book terms like it was this cosmic grip that needed to be vanquished. 

Batshit, but that's what they're going for I guess. It's classic WWE-catches-up-on-culture. They're probably currently working on the technology to keep all their top stars on ice so that they can do shock entrances and spam finisher all over the place at WrestleMania 50 too. 

[Supremo]

Yokozuna sent The Undertaker to heaven thirty years ago. Anoaʻi family had it coming.

[HarmonicGenerator]

If you’re going to apply logic to the end of that match, I say you have to apply logic to the rest of it. Heyman said in the backstage interview earlier in the night that Bloodline Rules meant (paraphrasing) “whatever we want”.

So where was the Over The Edge 1998 style rewriting the rulebook as they went? Why didn’t they say “in Bloodline Rules, nobody is allowed to hit Roman Reigns ever” or “in Bloodline Rules, Cody Rhodes requires a 20 count to win but Roman Reigns only needs a 1”? Logically if the rules are “whatever we want” they could have done that.

But when you apply logic to wrestling you ruin the magic. Enjoy the cameos. Enjoy the run ins. Enjoy the match and enjoy The Story!

Edited April 10 by HarmonicGenerator
Un der tay ker clap clap clap clap clap

[tiger_rick]

1 hour ago, Supremo said:

People mocking the Seth character for everything that happened over the weekend reminds me of people who were complaining that Daniel Garcia and Mark Briscoe kept losing in the Continental Classic. This weird, outdated idea that WINNING means PUSHED and LOSING means BURIED.

It’s just not the case anymore. It’s not 2006. You can tell interesting stories and create engaging characters with losses, just as you can wins. There’s room for nuance in pro-wrestling.

Seth has won clean for a year straight and I’ve felt nothing for him. In one weekend he’s been smashed to bits, had his pathetic run-in immediately shut down, limped out of the arena with a massive black eye, lost everything, and he feels like an absolute hero. It’s the most interesting thing he’s done in forever. The first time some of his sixty nicknames actually worked. He was the visionary who saw the path to victory. He was the architect of Roman’s downfall. He did outsmart him. Put some respect on this lad’s name. The Bloodline doesn’t fall without his sacrifice.

Good post and the follow-up will be a true test of their new direction and booking prowess. We saw years of babyfaces eating big losses and turning up the next night to smile and ask for a rematch without a care in the world or any sense of emotion. From the outside, a big babyface losing twice on the biggest card of their year and then getting his arse handed to him in a run-in sounds dreadful and no great babyface in their past, besides Mick Foley, would have gotten away with it.

How they follow it up will be interesting. In the past, you'd imagine Rollins just coming out in 3 months dressed like a melon and cackling like a witch, taking credit for Reigns losing to set up a SummerSlam match and ignoring everything else that's happened. Maybe it really is better now.

I never saw the CC - I don't watch anything, but what from what I've heard that seemed like AEW doing their usual much better job of telling the story of guys losing but to further them. For all their improvement, I just don't get that feel from WWE. The Usos never win. Apparently, Jimmy's last singles win on TV was about 8 months ago. Jey went months without winning. Yet they are supposed to be a big deal. They've done that terribly for yonks now and what I hear doesn't sound any better. It's not that losses = burial, or even just that wins and losses don't matter because they will give someone a win to set something up and there's a teeny sense of follow-up. It's generally that there's no sense of momentum (or form). People aren't protected when they've little to do so that when they have an upturn, it's meaningful by their wins and losses. Upturns in the company have always been by developing a new character or getting involved in a new angle and gaining some momentum that way. It works. There's no doubt about it. No-one seems arsed that Drew McIntyre lost every big match for a couple of years, do they? Or that he was carrying a big sword around like a div. I haven't heard anyone complain, anyway. He's just become very entertaining and people are on board with him. That's them all over. I'll never argue that it's not successful. It's just not good.

[air_raid]

2 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Undertaker, yeah. I did some mental gymnastics on a previous page as to why it made sense, and others have explained it away by Undertaker getting one over on the people who caused his only Wrestlemania losses, but I accept that it was The Undertaker probably only because Austin couldn't do it for whatever reason.

 

1 hour ago, mim731 said:

I saw someone on Twitter saying that it was simply that Taker was often (when it suited, so not when he was being a heel) presented as "the conscience" of the WWF/WWE so was helping to even the odds.

 

58 minutes ago, The Gaffer said:

Yeah it's because they couldn't get Austin but the conscience angle makes about as perfect a wrestling sense as you need there, I think.

He's the on and off screen locker room morality guy, seeing the new authority figure come in and throw his weight around abusing his power.

 

1 hour ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

This is a guy who was the conscience of the WWE, a locker room leader through The Rock's era who will have known Cody as a child. He was defending the integrity of the Mania main event and of Wrestlemania, and was making sure a 52 year old from his era didn't come back and rob an opportunity from the new era.

It's all nonsense from a storyline point of view when we remember that the last on screen interaction between Reigns and Taker was, IIRC, Taker being Roman's partner against the combined menace of McIntyre and the invincible Shane McMahon. It's possible that it's more convenient to not look for a reason why Taker would cost The Bloodline than to go looking for story that the company hasn't given us. I don't mind when fans remind us of stuff that happened when WWE forgets to but sometimes it gets out of hand. I saw something on Twitter about Sami the other day which made my head spin in terms of "You might be the only human being that thought about this, including writers/agents and Zayn."

51 minutes ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

If you’re going to apply logic to the end of that match, I say you have to apply logic to the rest of it. Heyman said in the backstage interview earlier in the night that Bloodline Rules meant (paraphrasing) “whatever we want”.

So where was the Over The Edge 1998 style rewriting the rulebook as they went? Why didn’t they say “in Bloodline Rules, nobody is allowed to hit Roman Reigns ever” or “in Bloodline Rules, Cody Rhodes requires a 20 count to win but Roman Reigns only needs a 1”? Logically if the rules are “whatever we want” they could have done that.

But when you apply logic to wrestling you ruin the magic. Enjoy the cameos. Enjoy the run ins. Enjoy the match and enjoy The Story!

Yeah. Plus, even just within an "anything goes" context, how logical is it that instead of Rocky, Uso and Solo just piling onto Cody within seconds of the opening bell so Roman can win and they all can go to Butlins, they each waited in turn for the opportune and most dramatic moment possible to show their faces? In reality, too, if you're Cody, you actually show up for the match with Seth, Jey and anyone else you can persuade in tow, already ringside to counteract the interference you know is going to come based on, well, Mania 39 for a start, and the fact The Bloodline have openly talked about it. But because its wrestling, he turned up on his tod.

[JNLister]

Surely it's as simple as the guy who takes out Rock has to be clearly established as retired/immortal/legend, otherwise you question why Rock isn't having a match with him next rather than wrestling either Cody or Reigns. 

[SuperBacon]

So Drew genuinely lost his gear.

 

[Winston]

3 hours ago, Supremo said:

People mocking the Seth character for everything that happened over the weekend reminds me of people who were complaining that Daniel Garcia and Mark Briscoe kept losing in the Continental Classic. This weird, outdated idea that WINNING means PUSHED and LOSING means BURIED.

It’s just not the case anymore. It’s not 2006. You can tell interesting stories and create engaging characters with losses, just as you can wins. There’s room for nuance in pro-wrestling.

Seth has won clean for a year straight and I’ve felt nothing for him. In one weekend he’s been smashed to bits, had his pathetic run-in immediately shut down, limped out of the arena with a massive black eye, lost everything, and he feels like an absolute hero. It’s the most interesting thing he’s done in forever. The first time some of his sixty nicknames actually worked. He was the visionary who saw the path to victory. He was the architect of Roman’s downfall. He did outsmart him. Put some respect on this lad’s name. The Bloodline doesn’t fall without his sacrifice.

I thought this was cool. Almost certainly wasn’t done on purpose, and was most likely just everyone getting into position for the final shot, but I still hope they one day air it on TV. It’s arguably the most poignant moment of the weekend. Roman stumbling away defeated, all his previous rivals running past him to celebrate. Not a single one of them acknowledging him. We never got Sami Zayn beating him in Montreal, but we got the next best thing. Sami completely ignoring him to go celebrate with the goodies. Get fucked Roman. We won.

 

Really wasn't a fan of Rocky's Honky Tonk attire. A terrible look.