03/01/2016 12:01:28 PM
Twist and turns for over the past few episodes of Monday Night RAW since WWE Fastlane.
We get it. Roman Reigns won, but the crowd could not hold their displeasure of their own. And perhaps, that shows the audience have this kind of power, especially at the height of the Yes! Movement.
Twist and turns for over the past few episodes of Monday Night RAW since WWE Fastlane.
We get it. Roman Reigns won, but the crowd could not hold their displeasure of their own. And perhaps, that shows the audience have this kind of power, especially at the height of the Yes! Movement.
Last year's buildup perhaps gave the worst storyttelling prior to the show of shows. As far as even Daniel Bryan shared the ring with Reigns and was defeated along the way, seems members of the universe were turning away from the main event. And in case they are watching the contest itself, people would have thought Brock Lesnar would just whip Roman's ass, but not for long until Roman got what, at least, some of the crowd's expectations.
Well, that until Seth Rollins cashed in and snatch the title away.
Perhaps, Triple H held its beatdown on Roman Reigns served as a challenge not just for RR himself, but to everyone – and that includes Hunter's father-in-law Vincent Kennedy McMahon. We both knew what reaction did they got at the ending of RAW episode last week; and we also know that this is something they shouldn't been getting. I mean, HHH brutalized Roman to the extent where things go bloody as fuck (something VKM would think barbaric). Heck, maybe even he himself who raised his arms with the title, would deep inside think, something's wrong with our product right now.
And that's the hardest part. He's the EVP of Talents and Events alone; and while on his off-the-office setup, he is the top bad guy; the corrupted one-slash-a bit of under de saya to Stephanie (and why not? He's just a son-in-law for that matter). But other than that, he can sense something's wrong, and bringing up his prized NXT talents to WWE's biggest stages would not be enough to compliment what Vinny Mac wants.
Going back, how do you fix this shit, aside from having strong bookings and more interesting storylines for Mania? I honestly don't know. We even get Shane O Mac vs. Taker in a Hell In A cell match, wherein if the former loses, then he can't have the control of RAW.
And we all wanted Taker getting a win. Why? He's not The Undertaker for nothing! He's not a prized WrestleMania figure for nothing. His loss on 2014 may have tarnished his legacy for a bit; but heck, with a potential upset – plus the turnout of the segment this week – things might go different, but uninteresting. Well, at least, for now.
But with barely six weeks, after a brutal assault—and perhaps a twist-making Dean Ambrose —how do WWE need to groom Roman Reigns and appease everyone? Make him act like the aftermath of TLC? Maybe. But could we get something more vicious than that? I get it: Royal Rumble was supposed to make him bigger even if he lost at the end. But if that means one versus all, then why do the locker room peeps—except his best friend and cousins—are not doing anything to conspire him? Oh, the last four buildups made up for it? Wasn't even close.
I think he needs to be Roman Reigns. Simple as that, like the way he rocked and rolled WWE from 2012, and made his series of breakout performances from Survivor Series 2013 'til Royal Rumble 2014; during the buildup for Money In The Bank and Battleground of that year.
If that can't help, how about a confronting segment between Roman and The Rock? As similar to Edge on Cena during the buildup of the latter's short rivalry with Brock Lesnar. Maybe that can help either,
Heck, if not for Daniel Bryan, Reigns would have been the top guy for that stretch despite Batista's return. And, that, by the way, is affecting Roman. Yes, the same treatment the audience have been shitting on The Animal. As far as the tales are concerned, it seems the Ambrose Asylum has been getting that Yes! Treatment already, which may be good for business.
Perhaps, on the other side, could we blame the Internet Wrestling Community for that matter? They might have been covering the majority (if not entire) members of the WWE universe, but some of them tended to be a bunch of self-righteous wannabe geeks whose fandom inside has been eaten already by a zombies of the WWE?
As far as some of the wrestling podcasts who ranted their displeasure, maybe. Maybe we forget to notice the bigger picture. Maybe we are being spoonfed by instant gratification theory. And even if we barked about VKM shoving his alpha males on our throats, we might not have been fully comprehending them at all.
Author: slickmaster | (c) 2016 september twenty-eight productions
Going back, how do you fix this shit, aside from having strong bookings and more interesting storylines for Mania? I honestly don't know. We even get Shane O Mac vs. Taker in a Hell In A cell match, wherein if the former loses, then he can't have the control of RAW.
And we all wanted Taker getting a win. Why? He's not The Undertaker for nothing! He's not a prized WrestleMania figure for nothing. His loss on 2014 may have tarnished his legacy for a bit; but heck, with a potential upset – plus the turnout of the segment this week – things might go different, but uninteresting. Well, at least, for now.
But with barely six weeks, after a brutal assault—and perhaps a twist-making Dean Ambrose —how do WWE need to groom Roman Reigns and appease everyone? Make him act like the aftermath of TLC? Maybe. But could we get something more vicious than that? I get it: Royal Rumble was supposed to make him bigger even if he lost at the end. But if that means one versus all, then why do the locker room peeps—except his best friend and cousins—are not doing anything to conspire him? Oh, the last four buildups made up for it? Wasn't even close.
I think he needs to be Roman Reigns. Simple as that, like the way he rocked and rolled WWE from 2012, and made his series of breakout performances from Survivor Series 2013 'til Royal Rumble 2014; during the buildup for Money In The Bank and Battleground of that year.
If that can't help, how about a confronting segment between Roman and The Rock? As similar to Edge on Cena during the buildup of the latter's short rivalry with Brock Lesnar. Maybe that can help either,
Heck, if not for Daniel Bryan, Reigns would have been the top guy for that stretch despite Batista's return. And, that, by the way, is affecting Roman. Yes, the same treatment the audience have been shitting on The Animal. As far as the tales are concerned, it seems the Ambrose Asylum has been getting that Yes! Treatment already, which may be good for business.
Perhaps, on the other side, could we blame the Internet Wrestling Community for that matter? They might have been covering the majority (if not entire) members of the WWE universe, but some of them tended to be a bunch of self-righteous wannabe geeks whose fandom inside has been eaten already by a zombies of the WWE?
As far as some of the wrestling podcasts who ranted their displeasure, maybe. Maybe we forget to notice the bigger picture. Maybe we are being spoonfed by instant gratification theory. And even if we barked about VKM shoving his alpha males on our throats, we might not have been fully comprehending them at all.
Author: slickmaster | (c) 2016 september twenty-eight productions
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to make a comment as long as it is within the bounds of the issue, and as long as you do it with decency. Thanks!