Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

jaykhunter

That's a great point. These discussions about WWE/wrestling via trends/the business side really interesting - it dictates what we see on screen. Like WWE turning to PG due to the Benoit Tragedy, Linda McMahon going for senate, the product stagnating and a want to acquire better advertisers.

I can see considering today's WWE a boom period (earning about $45-50m profit per year) but it just isn't a hot product. I'd consider Attitude Era to be 'boom figures' ($69m, $85 of 2000 and 2001, if you don't count XFL's losses) despite having a TERRIBLE TV deal (~$100k per RAW, they get paid about $900k per RAW now!) and not having anywhere near the global penetration they do now, ooh err. WWE being a lot more stable now is a great way to put it. As a business it's a finely-tuned beast, but safe and stable shows don't catch fire (or stay on fire)

irs

The overexposure is a big thing. Three hour weekly shows amplifies something wrestling doesn't really do well which is coherent, logical storylines that run from one episode to the next and dilutes what it's good at which is memorable matches, promos, confrontations etc.

WWE itself is a bit like how bands like the Rolling Stones could fill huge venues and make millions long after they stopped having actual hit songs. They can still put on an impressive show although one lacking the excitement of the past and have a brand/reputation built on what they did two or three decades earlier. That's probably harsh on the current WWE product but part of that is true.

krudler

jaykhunter wrote: »

That's a great point. These discussions about WWE/wrestling via trends/the business side really interesting - it dictates what we see on screen. Like WWE turning to PG due to the Benoit Tragedy, Linda McMahon going for senate, the product stagnating and a want to acquire better advertisers.

I can see considering today's WWE a boom period (earning about $45-50m profit per year) but it just isn't a hot product. I'd consider Attitude Era to be 'boom figures' ($69m, $85 of 2000 and 2001, if you don't count XFL's losses) despite having a TERRIBLE TV deal (~$100k per RAW, they get paid about $900k per RAW now!) and not having anywhere near the global penetration they do now, ooh err. WWE being a lot more stable now is a great way to put it. As a business it's a finely-tuned beast, but safe and stable shows don't catch fire (or stay on fire)

Wrestling isn't cool anymore, it definitely was in the late 90's early 00's. you'd see people wearing Austin 3:16 tshirts and I remember pubs we used to go to would have Raw on in the background on Friday nights and people would be talking about it. That's the last boom period in the sense it was more mainstream to like it, it's just not aimed at the 20+ male demographic anymore like the Attitude Era was.

Wrestling is cyclical anyway, I'm sure fans in the early 80's who grew up on the NWA or whatever thought Hogan's antics and the WWF gimmick era puerile and kiddish, then that bubble burst, the mid 90's dreck period begain and then went back into full swing with the Monday Night War era where it was white hot as a business and way more accepted in the mainstream. Now we're in the Cena generation and not the core audience anymore, but that's how it goes, will it ever go back to the more mature aspect? maybe, doubtful in the next few years though given how much has changed.

CSF

Cesaro being the new Heyman guy is even more of a stroke of genius seeing as he seems the ideal guy to eventually beat Brock when the time is right.

krudler

CSF wrote: »

Cesaro being the new Heyman guy is even more of a stroke of genius seeing as he seems the ideal guy to eventually beat Brock when the time is right.

That could work, if they were left at it in a straight hard hitting match it'd be brilliant.

jaykhunter

I agree with everything else (especially how it was cool to like wrestling in the Attitude Era) but wrestling isn't cyclical. IMO that's just something the industry says to placate fans for an average product. The course of wrestling changed when WCW died, and WWF went public, the dynamic is no longer there to provide cycles.

It'd be like videogame consoles, it's been a 3-horse race for over a decade, there's such a head start from established companies it's virtually impossible for anyone to take a serious stab at making a 4th. Except in wrestling it's a 1-horse race.

CSF

krudler wrote: »

That could work, if they were left at it in a straight hard hitting match it'd be brilliant.

This, the eventual slayer of the beast incarnate needs to be somebody both worthy of main event status and physically equipped to not make Brock look weak for losing, and instead have it down to Cesaro's physicality than any weakness by Brock. Obviously Cesaro has to get to main event status first though.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Daniel Bryan beating Brock would be terrible for both men. Daniel Bryan needs to be Daniel Bryan, not Cena or Hogan. The David and Goliath angle would do him no favours with the people with whom he mostly first gained the popularity that made him. For Brock, you could never see him as a beast again, losing to someone Bryan's size. He becomes Big Show number 2.

robvondoom

I think the key to a successful Brock/Bryan feud is for Bryan to lose to him several times before finally beating him. It gives him a new challenge to replace the winning of the title and provides motivation for his character to keep going, to keep improving.

Mr.Saturn

I think the only way you'd have Bryan feasibly deck Lesnar is if they pull something similar to the Last Man Kane/Jericho had at Armageddon 2000. It was just Jericho getting pummeled about the place 'til he dropped half the set on top of Kane, and even then, had a brilliant visual of Kane sticking his hand out between'em; Kane wasn't beaten, but couldn't get the rubble off in time. I mean, it's better than duct tape, right?

CSF

robvondoom wrote: »

I think the key to a successful Brock/Bryan feud is for Bryan to lose to him several times before finally beating him. It gives him a new challenge to replace the winning of the title and provides motivation for his character to keep going, to keep improving.

Nah it's ridiculous. The notion of Brock doing anything other than crushing Bryan is absurd.

leggo

CSF wrote: »

Nah it's ridiculous. The notion of Brock doing anything other than crushing Bryan is absurd.

It could be done but they've a long way to go booking him as a believable threat. I loved how they booked the Mania 3-way as in "This guy just won't go away," but really hammering that point home.

The fact is, though, that if people can't buy into Bryan having a chance against Brock, he shouldn't be champion. Did anyone ever feel Austin didn't have a chance against Undertaker, Big Show etc? It's a big problem if they can't resolve that as they then can't have Brock on the show for any length of time, as he should be gunning for that belt (and any booking move to distract him would look contrived as a result, indirectly weakening Bryan even moreso).

Machismo Fan

Bryan is a supremely talented wrestler, he'd have no problem at all getting people to believe he can beat Brock.

CSF

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Bryan is a supremely talented wrestler, he'd have no problem at all getting people to believe he can beat Brock.

Nope. It is one thing for guys of Bryan's size to beat the likes of Khali or Kane who we've long been programmed to accept aren't a legitimate threat, and Bryan beating Brock would do the same to Brock.

Brock should eventually come looking for Bryan's title, and that should probably be the end of Bryan's reign unless WWE can come up with a good screwy finish that doesn't undermine either men. What is important is that Bryan gets a good reign until that time. Kane isn't a good start to that.

leggo

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Bryan is a supremely talented wrestler, he'd have no problem at all getting people to believe he can beat Brock.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not backlashing against him here, I like the guy a lot. I just couldn't see him believably beating Brock at this stage and they have a long way to go to make that believable, as that perception will be pivotal to whether the match would draw or not (and it's probably pencilled in as the SummerSlam main event right now).

jaykhunter

I'm reminded of the ELimination Chamber where you could believe (even for a moment or two) that SANTINO could actually win it! It's not a stretch that the correct booking would make you believe (and want to see) Bryan win. He's a tremendous wrestler in a technical and storytelling sense - no problem!

Omackeral

I would love the different physical dynamic Bryan vs Brock could have. Only thing that comes close was Eddie vs Brock. Nobody expected Guerrero there. Anyway, it would be easy to build up. Have Brock be the absolute monster he is and say he's coming for Bryan's title just because he can. Then have him bump into Brie Bella, and maybe he might just take her.. Just because he can. Daniel Bryan would be into that place where we've never seen him and that could be all it takes to make it more believable. Paul E could be the insincere prize prick we all know he can be on the mic goading (goating!?) D Bry. Bryan trains harder and more ferociously than ever. Could be cool to see him slick the hair back in a samurai style or something that gets a more intimidating look going, like the boxing one we saw a while back: who wouldn't fight that f*ing hard for not only Their life's work, but their new wife. I'm excited and believe in that story and all the components and I just whipped it up there. It's do-able. Danielson can brawl, fly, do comedy, go technical , do anything. He can do epics and has proved. Just another day at the office for the American Dragon.

robvondoom

Take a little Eddie/Brock, mix with a touch of Dragon/Morishima. Bryan goes through Hell as champ with the authority throwing everything and anything at him. Finally Brock is the proverbial kitchen sink, comes in and despite a valiant attempt, ultimately destroys an already battle weary Bryan at Summerslam. Could be a nice parallel there to Cena at last year's SS. Then over the course of a year or more you tell the story of Bryan becoming a guy (maybe not The guy) that can beat Brock. Lesnar doesn't even need to still have the title when he finally triumphs to make it a special moment if you do it right.

leggo

Omackeral wrote: »

I would love the different physical dynamic Bryan vs Brock could have. Only thing that comes close was Eddie vs Brock. Nobody expected Guerrero there. Anyway, it would be easy to build up. Have Brock be the absolute monster he is and say he's coming for Bryan's title just because he can. Then have him bump into Brie Bella, and maybe he might just take her.. Just because he can. Daniel Bryan would be into that place where we've never seen him and that could be all it takes to make it more believable. Paul E could be the insincere prize prick we all know he can be on the mic goading (goating!?) D Bry. Bryan trains harder and more ferociously than ever. Could be cool to see him slick the hair back in a samurai style or something that gets a more intimidating look going, like the boxing one we saw a while back: who wouldn't fight that f*ing hard for not only Their life's work, but their new wife. I'm excited and believe in that story and all the components and I just whipped it up there. It's do-able. Danielson can brawl, fly, do comedy, go technical , do anything. He can do epics and has proved. Just another day at the office for the American Dragon.

I like the sound of that. The one final piece you'd add is to have them fight and set up a point where you genuinely think Bryan is gonna win, only for Heyman to distract the ref and Brock wins cheaply. Then Brock has the effect of taking everything away from Bryan and gloats as such but, as a fan, you know Bryan can do it. Sometimes the most believable way to assert a guy as a potential winner is to have them lose, if you do it right.

CSF

Brock is just too much of a monster. Bryan isn't that guy and I never want to see him become that guy. I've managed to enjoy his work immensely without the WWE needing to put him over as some sort of superhuman that he is not. More than happy for the Cena/Hogan types to perform the against all odds victories that make us cynical types a little bit sick inside. Bryan should just continue to work great storyline and great matches.

Comparisons to Stone Cold are way off the mark, Stone Cold had the physique and character to make us all believe he was the toughest bastard there was without being a monster type.

CSF

leggo wrote: »

I like the sound of that. The one final piece you'd add is to have them fight and set up a point where you genuinely think Bryan is gonna win, only for Heyman to distract the ref and Brock wins cheaply. Then Brock has the effect of taking everything away from Bryan and gloats as such but, as a fan, you know Bryan can do it. Sometimes the most believable way to assert a guy as a potential winner is to have them lose, if you do it right.

Yeah, this. The last thing you want is Bryan to be made look weak either.

Moneymaker

leggo wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm not backlashing against him here, I like the guy a lot. I just couldn't see him believably beating Brock at this stage and they have a long way to go to make that believable, as that perception will be pivotal to whether the match would draw or not (and it's probably pencilled in as the SummerSlam main event right now).

But he's the champion.

There's something wrong if you don't believe the WWE Champion can win a match.

Or Brock is just that good. :P

I'm with Omackerel on this one though.

CSF

Moneymaker wrote: »

But he's the champion.

There's something wrong if you don't believe the WWE Champion can win a match.

Or Brock is just that good. :P

I'm with Omackerel on this one though.

Well this is the reason WWE have the whole typical look for a champion. Bryan worked his way to being champion despite being different, they haven't had to go down the whole Superbryan route so far, they've just given him big storylines and let him put on great matches. That should continue.

leggo

Moneymaker wrote: »

But he's the champion.

There's something wrong if you don't believe the WWE Champion can win a match.

Or Brock is just that good. :P

I'm with Omackerel on this one though.

Preaching to the converted, I made the same point myself on the previous page. Which is why they've got serious work to do if they go for the two of them at SummerSlam (and they can't not do that if Brock is going to be around...it's his only natural landing point).

The match has to be at least believable or people won't even buy it and that'd be two consecutive poor SummerSlam showings with Bryan's name attached to them (fairly or not).

Ape Lincoln

Well the logical thing for Brock at Summerslam would be to win the belt against Bryan assuming he's the champ. But the caveat is Lesnar's dates and expensive payoff are prohibitive to wrestling booking 101 so having him with the belt doesn't make too much sense unless they want to stuff Lesnar's mouth with gold between Summerslam and the Rumble.

I could see them doing a match with Batista maybe since that film is due in August. Having Brock beaten in any scenario before next year's Mania I think would be daft.

rovert

Rusev looks like he sells Khlav Khalash:

D.Q

Let Bryan lose to Brock at the rumble, after a good run as champ. Have Reigns win the rumble. Reigns - Brock at mania.

CSF

D.Q wrote: »

Let Bryan lose to Brock at the rumble, after a good run as champ. Have Reigns win the rumble. Reigns - Brock at mania.

Why Reigns? Worst member of the Shield.

jaykhunter

CSF wrote: »

Why Reigns? Worst member of the Shield.

Have you been watching WWE TV over the last few months? He's clearly the most popular and breakout babyface!

leggo

Yeah Reigns is by far the most main event ready of the three. That's not to say he'll have the best run of them in the future, though, he could have a touch of the Ortons about him: he can be very intense in the ring but not very believable on the mic so, when exposed too much as a singles headliner, you could start to see his flaws come through and that might lead to him growing a bit stale.

Rollins has the opposite problem: he's got the full package but I just can't see them ever selling a PPV with him in the main event in a singles match. Ambrose on the other hand...

It's concerns like this that make me think they should never split, like the Four Horsemen. They're much better as a unit than, I feel, they ever will be as individuals.

Ape Lincoln

leggo wrote: »

It's concerns like this that make me think they should never split, like the Four Horsemen. They're much better as a unit than, I feel, they ever will be as individuals.

But the Four Horsemen were brilliant individually as well as a stable, that's why they were so damn good.