RAW 22-2-2016 (FastLane Fallout)

riffmongous

I'm actually surprised at how much people still care about the Undertaker at Wrestlemania, I had zero interest up until last night in what he would be doing. Like without the Streak and if he's not going to put over younger wrestlers then what is the point really, at least his match has a purpose now

Chain Smoker

Mick Murdock wrote: »

Wade Keller always talk **** about Shane 'playing wrestler' but I thought he was a great athlete in his own right and way more entertaining than most guys on todays roster. Not everything was executed brilliantly but for someone with so little actual ring time he took some amazing bumps and his agility showed. He looks in good shape still and I think replacing him would be such a damp squib.
E
I hope he's in a match one way or the other.

Not saying Shane as a character was without merit, but Keller, Pollock, etc are completely right when they bitch about Shane. When you're able to take a few months off to recuperate, it's a lot easier to do one big crazy bump. Just about anyone on the roster could do what Shane done if they had as many breaks as him. I personally viewed him as something of a sideshow attraction and, as a result, didn't really take anything away from the wrestlers but I can see how someone who can remember pre-attitude era with how carefully protected big spots were would be a bit mortified by Shane.

Really though, Shane could be a good stopgap solution here. Nice little bump of nostalgia and one ridiculous spot, Taker can avoid doing anything mental so he'll be ready for Mania next year against Cena.




Also, in this case, **** it, Hunter is right to play face regardless of his actual reasons, Reigns is dying a death, was Diesel this bad?
Reigns is so strange. I mean, what on earth has he as a character other than being the guy who gets pushed a lot? If they give up on him and he moves down to the upper midcard, what on earth is he? He's a remnant from FCW in a NXT world.

Lord TSC

PTH2009 wrote: »

hope to see something like this. dont want to see taker being wasted and be in a one sided match. few things though

why would taker fight for Vince ???

if taker goes to shanes side why would Cena/Sting fight for vince ???

sting is against the authority and i very much think taker would be against them too.

A little while back, I gave out that nearly all stories in WWE followed the same formula of "Announce PPV match in Week #1, do nothing till the PPV, PPV match", that meant most of the time, once you caught week one and the PPV, you missed nothing. HHH/Reigns will be like that (if Reigns is off TV for a while, expect a few weeks of HHH promos...), Brock/Ambrose will be like that (thanks to Brock's limited schedule), Divas match will get next week so we can see the screwy finish to the match and then will be utterly skippable till Mania.

The Shane/Vince/Taker angle on Raw left some very obvious hooks for week #2 of the story, which is what good writing should do. The angle very obviously begged the question "Why would Taker fight for Vince?", which I see a lot of people giving out about as if it's a massive logic hole. It very obviously isn't. Its the hook to make you tune in to next weeks show; the question will lead to an answer next week. The angle was the best booked angle in quiet some time imo, given it's got everyone asking the obvious question and talking about it, and wanting that question answered.

Now, whether or not we get a proper answer or a good one, who knows. But as of right now, there's not really any gap in logic as of yet.

Straight Edge Punk

Just watching Raw now, can someone tell me what happened with Ryback? It looked awful having Kane tell him go to the back.

CSF

WWE have not got a good track record in going back and clarifying logic holes though. They'll throw something in there but do not expect a compelling story.

Itssoeasy

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

Just watching Raw now, can someone tell me what happened with Ryback? It looked awful having Kane tell him go to the back.

The same reason he made a mess of the finish at fastlane. He's a dangerous in the ring and a disaster in general. Someone pointed out he's been in wwe for twelve years earlier in this thread. Yet he needed Kane to save him by telling him what to do at the finish of the match.

ricero

Ryback rulez !

Loughc

Taker has been confirmed for next weeks Raw it'll be interesting to see what he has to say. Reckon the first of many twists in this tale is coming.

CastorTroy

CSF wrote: »

WWE have not got a good track record in going back and clarifying logic holes though. They'll throw something in there but do not expect a compelling story.

You saying the anonymous GM being Hornswoggle wasn't a good resolution to that story? :pac:


As for Ryback, I know Kane had to shout at him, but the way Ryback then just left at a random moment rather than something like Kane accidently hitting him or Kane going for the tag seemed weird as well. Was like he missed a cue or there was a cue he was waiting for that never happened and he didn't know how to improvise. Even though Ryback messed up they should've covered it better. I doubt Kane was the only person in the match who knew it was meant to happen. The ref should've at least passed on the message from Kane. Not defending Ryback but just saying how badly it was handled.

briany

Loughc wrote: »

Taker has been confirmed for next weeks Raw it'll be interesting to see what he has to say. Reckon the first of many twists in this tale is coming.

With only 4 or 5 weeks to go and Undertaker's famously limited schedule, it's hard to think of exactly how many twists there'll be. The most obvious one is that 'Taker will not want to fight for the authority. However, this seems like inefficient storytelling from WWE. If they're setting that up, they could have saved themselves a week by changing the stipulations on this Monday gone. Instead of Vince saying Shane will fight X that Vince chooses, he could have said, Vince picks X as a representative, and Shane picks Y as a representative, and they fight. Simple. Shane could then pick the Undertaker, if that's where they wanted to go with it.

Now, if Taker says he doesn't want to fight on the side of the Authority, Shane is still in the match at this point, so WWE has to get him out of the match, if they think him participating at all was always a bad idea. A sneaky beatdown seems like the obvious choice here, but if they never intended on having Shane in the match, then why would they have announced his participation at all? They could have easily saved themselves the extra rigmarole. It's not as if a beatdown does much to enhance the heat on the Authority either. People already hate them.

ERG89

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm actually surprised at how much people still care about the Undertaker at Wrestlemania, I had zero interest up until last night in what he would be doing. Like without the Streak and if he's not going to put over younger wrestlers then what is the point really, at least his match has a purpose now

Lol yeah makes more sense for him to wrestle a 46 year old who can't wrestle than put someone over as a victory over Undertaker still means something.
And I wonder why WWE hasn't created any main eventers in years :rolleyes:

CSF

CastorTroy wrote: »

You saying the anonymous GM being Hornswoggle wasn't a good resolution to that story? :pac:

I maintain hope that this is the year we finally find out who was responsible for GTV.

PTH2009

Looking forward to seeing taker on raw but I'm almost certain and really hope I'm wrong that Shane will fight taker at mania. Vince will use the urn to his advantage etc making taker fight for him

Shane didn't look worried at all after finding out his match

briany

PTH2009 wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing taker on raw but I'm almost certain and really hope I'm wrong that Shane will fight taker at mania. Vince will use the urn to his advantage etc making taker fight for him

Shane didn't look worried at all after finding out his match

Using the urn as a way to control Undertaker would be OTT cartoony at this stage. At least when Punk had the urn, it was more about Taker wanting it back in Paul Bearer memory. They could steal the urn again disrespecting Bearer's memory, but it would be treating PB's death as a story prop, and an unoriginal one at that.

Whether Shane fights Undertaker or not, I do find the idea of a 'morally conflicted' Undertaker very interested and would a level interest unseen in his recent more one-dimensional matches at WM. So convincing him or otherwise coercing him to fight for the Authority represents a booking move I'd want to see, provided it's not about the urn.

PTH2009

briany wrote: »

Using the urn as a way to control Undertaker would be OTT cartoony at this stage. At least when Punk had the urn, it was more about Taker wanting it back in Paul Bearer memory. They could steal the urn again disrespecting Bearer's memory, but it would be treating PB's death as a story prop, and an unoriginal one at that.

Whether Shane fights Undertaker or not, I do find the idea of a 'morally conflicted' Undertaker very interested and would a level interest unseen in his recent more one-dimensional matches at WM. So convincing him or otherwise coercing him to fight for the Authority represents a booking move I'd want to see, provided it's not about the urn.

Didn't Paul bearers family dislike the story last time with cm punk and with Paul's son also passing away I don't think they will do something like it. V

When I think about Mr McMahon actually killed off the biker undertaker at survivor series 2003 (vince vs taker in a buried alive match and Kane attacked taker and buried him). Fast forward 13 years later and taker is fighting on Mr McMahon side ??

DM_7

Ouch

Brock walking on Dean

http://i.imgur.com/OGcomhO.jpg

J. Marston

DM_7 wrote: »

Ouch

Brock walking on Dean

http://i.imgur.com/OGcomhO.jpg

Lesnar is one scary man.

Lithium93_

Seeing that image of Brock stepping on Dean's face, I realized Brock's one guy you'd definitely want on your side in a fight.. Wouldn't want to be standing opposite him anyways..

Stereomaniac

Do you mean to tell me you weren't thinking that when he beat the **** out of John Cena and made him look like a helpless child at SummerSlam a couple of years ago already?!!!!!

Lithium93_

Stereomaniac wrote: »

Do you mean to tell me you weren't thinking that when he beat the **** out of John Cena and made him look like a helpless child at SummerSlam a couple of years ago already?!!!!!

That german suplex fest/beating and coupled with him standing on Dean's face. In the words of Paul Heyman's 11th Commandment ''Thou Shalt not provoke The Beast" unless you want the ass kicking of a lifetime..

Stereomaniac

I often wonder would we get fed up of watching him if he was on every other week on the show. I could watch him give German suplexes all day honestly, and I used to hate the guy.

briany

Stereomaniac wrote: »

I often wonder would we get fed up of watching him if he was on every other week on the show. I could watch him give German suplexes all day honestly, and I used to hate the guy.

Well, if Brock is on every other week, that means we'd be treated to a Heyman tirade every other week, and those never cease to be entertaining. As for Brock himself, it depends on what he did. We watch Brock on RAW in anticipation of these big PPV matches he's going to have. This is the draw that Brock has, being a legitimate fighter. His being on RAW more often wouldn't necessarily diminish that anticipation unless he started participating in matches there, too, making his PPV appearances less special.

But then Brock was a big draw even when he was just a cocky young upstart who so often flounder because they're pushed too early. I think the guy just has a natural charisma that would be hard to quash even with overexposure.

CSF

I'd agree with that. Sure, the fact that he is booked only with the people at the very top of the card helps. But that aside, he is still by far the most box office superstar WWE can call on, based on his own presence and entertainment levels, and having the ultimate talker that is Paul Heyman by his side.

Rolllo

Vince calls out the Wyatts to force Taker to fight Shane. The Wyatts say they will reveal Sister Abigail and her connection to Taker. Oh my God it's Linda who tearfully admits to being Taker's mother. She convinces him to fight Shane and reclaim his place as treasured son in the McMahon-Wyatt Family but inside the cell Taker joins forces with Shane and they face off against the entire roster. Pure McMahon gold.

Itssoeasy

Rolllo wrote: »

Vince calls out the Wyatts to force Taker to fight Shane. The Wyatts say they will reveal Sister Abigail and her connection to Taker. Oh my God it's Linda who tearfully admits to being Taker's mother. She convinces him to fight Shane and reclaim his place as treasured son in the McMahon-Wyatt Family but inside the cell Taker joins forces with Shane and they face off against the entire roster. Pure McMahon gold.

That sounds horrible ****e altogether.

Rolllo

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That sounds horrible ****e altogether.

This is how Vince actually thinks though.