RAW 22-2-2016 (FastLane Fallout)

Whosthis · 23-02-2016 11:57am

Wrestling works perfectly well like that, a torn and divided crowd, everybody is cheering for somebody.

I also think if Shane was to face anybody other than Taker there would be no mystery to the outcome.

CSF · 23-02-2016 12:06pm

Whosthis wrote: »

Wrestling works perfectly well like that, a torn and divided crowd, everybody is cheering for somebody.

I also think if Shane was to face anybody other than Taker there would be no mystery to the outcome.

The only time wrestling works really well without the face/heel dynamic is when the title is at stake.

I just don't get how Shane is sticking it to his Dad by beating his long time buddy/henchman The Undertaker. What will The Undertaker's motivation be in all this?

martyos121 · 23-02-2016 12:06pm

Seriously, we could get Stone Cold Steve Austin vs. CM Punk and people would still find a way to complain about it. Half the booking in the Attitude Era was nonsensical and illogical, but it's looked back on as the greatest few years in the company's history.

They're taking a gamble and giving us this crazy and unpredictable match, where the outcome is 100% up in the air. What more could ye possibly want? Sit back and enjoy it, because we bloody well deserve this after the worst, most predictable two years of WWE programming I've ever watched.

CSF · 23-02-2016 12:11pm

martyos121 wrote: »

Seriously, we could get Stone Cold Steve Austin vs. CM Punk and people would still find a way to complain about it. Half the booking in the Attitude Era was nonsensical and illogical, but it's looked back on as the greatest few years in the company's history.

They're taking a gamble and giving us this crazy and unpredictable match, where the outcome is 100% up in the air. What more could ye possibly want? Sit back and enjoy it, because we bloody well deserve this after the worst, most predictable two years of WWE programming I've ever watched.

I don't agree with that. As ridiculous as some gimmicks were, they were excellent at giving us someone to get behind and someone to hate, and giving us reasons to feel that way. Now our 3 main events are face/face, heel/heel and face/face (in terms of the crowds reaction to the competitors at least)

All we need now is Big Show v Strowman to really top it off.

Whosthis · 23-02-2016 12:11pm

CSF wrote: »

The only time wrestling works really well without the face/heel dynamic is when the title is at stake.

I just don't get how Shane is sticking it to his Dad by beating his long time buddy/henchman The Undertaker. What will The Undertaker's motivation be in all this?

I'd have thought control of the company(RAW) would be bigger than the title.

Shane will be sticking it to his dad by gaining control of the company.

Maybe you do need your hand held by Vinnie Mac.

As for Taker's motivation, that's the unknown but we still have 6 weeks to mania.

martyos121 · 23-02-2016 12:19pm

CSF wrote: »

I don't agree with that. As ridiculous as some gimmicks were, they were excellent at giving us someone to get behind and someone to hate, and giving us reasons to feel that way. Now our 3 main events are face/face, heel/heel and face/face (in terms of the crowds reaction to the competitors at least)

All we need now is Big Show v Strowman to really top it off.

Look at one of the best Mania main events ever, two years ago, how did that build up start? Orton vs. Batista, heel vs. heel reaction. Now how did that pan out? Amazingly. Not entirely relevant but it proves they can call an audible when needed.

Just give it the 6 weeks man, it's so much time to build this up and there's plenty of twists left to come. If the issue remains the day before Mania, by all means, voice your dissatisfaction, but don't write it off this early. There are a million roads they could go down with this angle, and that's why it excites me so much.

CSF · 23-02-2016 12:24pm

Whosthis wrote: »

I'd have thought control of the company(RAW) would be bigger than the title.

Shane will be sticking it to his dad by gaining control of the company.

Maybe you do need your hand held by Vinnie Mac.

As for Taker's motivation, that's the unknown but we still have 6 weeks to mania.

Ah yeah, sure Sting and Ziggler saving the day at Survivor Series would have worked just well against a team featuring Daniel Bryan, Dean Ambrose and Sami Zayn. I mean as long as the Authority were gone that is the story told, right?

CSF · 23-02-2016 12:26pm

martyos121 wrote: »

Look at one of the best Mania main events ever, two years ago, how did that build up start? Orton vs. Batista, heel vs. heel reaction. Now how did that pan out? Amazingly. Not entirely relevant but it proves they can call an audible when needed.

Just give it the 6 weeks man, it's so much time to build this up and there's plenty of twists left to come. If the issue remains the day before Mania, by all means, voice your dissatisfaction, but don't write it off this early. There are a million roads they could go down with this angle, and that's why it excites me so much.

That panned out well because the fans rightly called it out as **** from the get go and they had to change it into something good.

Now I'm not saying this match falls into the the same realm as Batista v Orton but I just don't get how Shane vs Undertaker fits the narrative of what the match is supposed to achieve. If they change it up and it's other people in the ring for the same purpose, then like you said, excellent.

Whosthis · 23-02-2016 12:28pm

CSF wrote: »

that is the story told, right?

This story has only just begun yet you're ****ting on it.

Bandana boy · 23-02-2016 12:34pm

Also who cares about the dynamic , this is about getting the people who have left back for WM , Shane O mac is close to the heart of all the attitude era fans ,and has moved me from maybe watching to defo watching. Damn i am even going to find a copy of last nights Raw and watch it tonight something I have only done once in the last 12 months (the Daniel Bryan farewell).

CSF · 23-02-2016 12:38pm

Whosthis wrote: »

This story has only just begun yet you're ****ting on it.

So no response to the actual point made then? I'll leave it there so.

Whosthis · 23-02-2016 12:39pm

CSF wrote: »

So no response to the actual point made then? I'll leave it there so.

Much like your previous post, ditto.

martyos121 · 23-02-2016 12:46pm

CSF wrote: »

That panned out well because the fans rightly called it out as **** from the get go and they had to change it into something good.

Now I'm not saying this match falls into the the same realm as Batista v Orton but I just don't get how Shane vs Undertaker fits the narrative of what the match is supposed to achieve. If they change it up and it's other people in the ring for the same purpose, then like you said, excellent.

They don't need other people in the match, Shane vs. Taker is great. It's how they develop their characters over the next six weeks that will determine to dynamics of this match.

As for the "narrative of what the match is supposed to achieve", that is absolutely secondary to the match itself. Make no mistake about it, this is all about two of the biggest names right now (that pop for Shane cannot be denied) locked inside a cell together. The only reason the Authority's power is being put on the line is because they needed a reason to make the match. It's very similar to how Sting debuted at Survivor Series 2014; that elimination match simply facilitated the debut of Sting, the fact that the Authority were ousted because of the result ended up being irrelevant two months later when they were brought back.

They just made the match based on star-power, they have more than enough time to flesh the story out nicely, and they will because they simply cannot afford to mess up the match that will sell this Wrestlemania.

CSF · 23-02-2016 1:02pm

martyos121 wrote: »

They don't need other people in the match, Shane vs. Taker is great. It's how they develop their characters over the next six weeks that will determine to dynamics of this match.

As for the "narrative of what the match is supposed to achieve", that is absolutely secondary to the match itself. Make no mistake about it, this is all about two of the biggest names right now (that pop for Shane cannot be denied) locked inside a cell together. The only reason the Authority's power is being put on the line is because they needed a reason to make the match. It's very similar to how Sting debuted at Survivor Series 2014; that elimination match simply facilitated the debut of Sting, the fact that the Authority were ousted because of the result ended up being irrelevant two months later when they were brought back.

They just made the match based on star-power, they have more than enough time to flesh the story out nicely, and they will because they simply cannot afford to mess up the match that will sell this Wrestlemania.

I don't really have a problem with Shane vs Undertaker as such (although I can't imagine either of them have that much left to bring to the table in terms of that match itself. I'm not arguing that you couldn't have made that match.

But that match being probably Undertaker's last in the WWE, and it's him defending Vince McMahon's ownership of the company (whether with or against his will) is just storytelling at its worst IMO.

You're right. They might change it. They should change it. You've 2 parallel ideas that might work, Shane vs Vince in a power struggle for ownership of the company, and Shane vs Undertaker in a match that features 2 people the WWE universe care about and want to see. But the 2 ideas don't tie in together at all.

DM_7 · 23-02-2016 1:06pm

Heel v face doesn't exist like it did in the old days anyway.

Spectators are more like what you see in other sports, fans pick who they like, who they want to shout for. Like the Super Bowl. Sometimes a Daniel Bryan comes along where most will get behind him.

It's very difficult to get that almost universal reaction for a face.

Even a heel like Kevin Owens can't get people to hate him.

So yes over face v over heel is best but that doesn't mean they have to only give us that.

ricero · 23-02-2016 1:11pm

I reckon vinnie mac will make taker fight for him by saying his career is on the line. Have it be takers farwell in texas

CSF · 23-02-2016 1:12pm

DM_7 wrote: »

Heel v face doesn't exist like it did in the old days anyway.

Spectators are more like what you see in other sports, fans pick who they like, who they want to shout for. Like the Super Bowl. Sometimes a Daniel Bryan comes along where most will get behind him.

It's very difficult to get that almost universal reaction for a face.

Even a heel like Kevin Owens can't get people to hate him.

So yes over face v over heel is best but that doesn't mean they have to only give us that.

Heel vs face in this era is essentially who the fans like vs who the fans don't like. You've a few rare exceptions on the heel side like Rollins and Owens who the fans love but are still perfectly and excellently acceptable as heels and it works.

But work around that, rather than telling the crowd, nope, Reigns is face, you have to like him and buy into the feud vs big bad HHH and do almost anything possible to make that happen.

Lord TSC · 23-02-2016 1:14pm

I wonder if it would be the start of the Taker Retirement story. Even if it's not "Fight or you're gone", maybe Taker loses (be it voluntarily or not), Vince gets mad and we get a years build to some Taker vs Vince angle (note: not match, nessecarily) where Vince is annoyed Taker cost him the WWE.

Hell, even better, it could work towards both Vince and Taker's retirement....

Moneymaker · 23-02-2016 1:16pm

Shane coming back at all is massive. He's literally been in China on business ventures for years now. Totally out of the loop.

I wonder if that's changed at all.

Ruu · 23-02-2016 1:33pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUY1J8KizU

Reigns with Triple H last night.

Blue_Dabadee · 23-02-2016 1:35pm

I think HHH vs. Shane McMahon would of been a better match option than Shane McMahon vs. Taker.

But it does not change the fact that I am officially pumped for WM.

Loughc · 23-02-2016 1:42pm

Moneymaker wrote: »

Shane coming back at all is massive. He's literally been in China on business ventures for years now. Totally out of the loop.

I wonder if that's changed at all.

I imagine it's just an angle they're doing to boost subs and ratings and once WM is over Shaneo is gone and we're back to HHH Steph running the joint.

irish_stevo815 · 23-02-2016 1:43pm

I actually forgot during that last segment that Reigns is supposed to be baby face.....the crowd cheering for his beat down was crazy. They need to do something quickly, otherwise Mania is gonna close with the baby face champ getting boo'd out of Texas

CSF · 23-02-2016 1:56pm

irish_stevo815 wrote: »

I actually forgot during that last segment that Reigns is supposed to be baby face.....the crowd cheering for his beat down was crazy. They need to do something quickly, otherwise Mania is gonna close with the baby face champ getting boo'd out of Texas

I can kind of see them changing the plan late in the day, when they've failed in every Plan B. However, they don't have the easy Rollins option this year, and it also depends on just how much Vince has lost the run himself, which may be difficult to rely on.

SlickRic · 23-02-2016 2:32pm

ricero wrote: »

I reckon vinnie mac will make taker fight for him by saying his career is on the line. Have it be takers farwell in texas

You've nailed it IMO.

sky88 · 23-02-2016 2:34pm

irish_stevo815 wrote: »

I actually forgot during that last segment that Reigns is supposed to be baby face.....the crowd cheering for his beat down was crazy. They need to do something quickly, otherwise Mania is gonna close with the baby face champ getting boo'd out of Texas

They need to do some kind of double turn that makes roman heel, only way this will work.

id have steph and vince turn on hhh and side with roman. makes no sense but its wwe so nothing does, would be something different and the only way they can get out of this is turn roman. But i honestly think there going to stick the rock in his corner and they think that will be enough to get roman cheered.

On taker they could bring out how loyal taker has been to vince to explain it.

SlickRic · 23-02-2016 2:38pm

irish_stevo815 wrote: »

I actually forgot during that last segment that Reigns is supposed to be baby face.....the crowd cheering for his beat down was crazy. They need to do something quickly, otherwise Mania is gonna close with the baby face champ getting boo'd out of Texas

Mark my words.

1. It won't go on last.
2. HHH will win
3. Reigns will get it at Extreme Rules

Mick Murdock · 23-02-2016 3:08pm

Love Shane O Mac!!!!! Of all the McMahons, Shane is the only natural face. The match with Taker is an unusual choice but I still have more interest in it than anything else at Mania by a distance.

Hopefully he's still around Post Mania, I'm sure I heard Meltzer a few months ago talk about this VOD business in China and that they'd had a lot of problems with licencing or something to that effect? I may be imaging this though!

Don't think Takers last match will be Shane. It sounds like he's sticking around.

Lesnar v Ambrose, Owens v AJ while not my no 1 choice should be solid matches too and a bit of a spotlight from Ambrose is good.

I'm excited to see the reaction to Reigns if not the match itself!

Lord TSC · 23-02-2016 3:10pm

SlickRic wrote: »

Mark my words.

1. It won't go on last.
2. HHH will win
3. Reigns will get it at Extreme Rules

Whatever about 3, 1 & 2 are how it should be right now, imo. No way should it be going on last (as it stands, with the implications, Shane vs Taker should be...). As it stands, I'd have HHH win, have Shane win, and have it that being champ keeps HHH involved in the show for a while longer.

As for Shane, could easily do something where he appoints a GM who would let him not be on the majority of shows for the time being.

Reading on Reddit and I'd say its probably along the right lines, they've effectively written Reigns off for a show or two, to protect him from the boos over the next few weeks....unless he comes out grinning about the whole thing next week...

Moneymaker · 23-02-2016 3:12pm

Mick Murdock wrote: »

Love Shane O Mac!!!!! Of all the McMahons, Shane is the only natural face. The match with Taker is an unusual choice but I still have more interest in it than anything else at Mania by a distance.

Hopefully he's still around Post Mania, I'm sure I heard Meltzer a few months ago talk about this VOD business in China and that they'd had a lot of problems with licencing or something to that effect? I may be imaging this though!

He talked about it today, basically he's been involved in a PPV company in China and it's not been doing well.

He resigned from WWE in 2010. He grew up believing he'd be next in line and over time it became clear Steph had a better mind for the business then he did and he was told in 2010 pretty much straight up Steph and Hunter would be running things. People liked Shane more then Steph at a personal level, but from a business and booking pov, it was universal that Steph had much better ideas and a brain for the business then Shane did.

There's been no change as of right now in upper management in WWE, but that can always change. He lives in New York so he should be around for the six weeks anyway. Dave reckons a deal was cut for him to come back a few weeks ago.

Very, very interesting situation and a lot of what they said in the segment is art imitating real life. Vince has wanted to do the "power struggle" angle for over 2 years now, originally it was Hunter/Steph as heels vs Vince as a babyface so it's very intriguing times.

RAW 22-2-2016 (FastLane Fallout)

Comments