TPWW Forums
Page 3 of 16 12 3 45678910111213 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

TPWW Forums (https://www.tpwwforums.com/index.php)
-   wrestling forum (https://www.tpwwforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   The thread where we get CyNick to defend maligned storylines, and tell us how we don't understand... (https://www.tpwwforums.com/showthread.php?t=130639)

The CyNick 11-19-2015 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRA (Post 4732280)
I wonder is it the same intangible "it factor" that I've argued Daniel Bryan has and other people seemed to think Bret Hart had.

About booker T tho, if you never give the guy the ball how do you know he can't run with it? DB,Seth(in Seths case it was more the fans) and recently especially The New Day could have all easily been afterthoughts lost in the shuffle but They turned out to be phenomenal when they were given the chance to shine. (Bryans bad luck notwithstanding)
My thing was I feel like Hunter as a viscous heel and could only put over so many guys clean before he loses his credibility. Booker T to me just simply wasn't the right guy, neither was RVD, neither was Kane. Goldberg made sense, Benoit was out of left field but kudos to H for doing it, and Batista was clearly the right guy.

It just comes down to how highly do you rate Booker T in this example. I just don't think he was worthy of the spot and having him beat HHH was a bad call long term.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead (Post 4732288)
Dave was pretty good but the same arguments used AGAINST the likes of RVD, Booker T et all could have been used against him. It's just arbitrarily whatever serves the narrative is used as a reason why the guy didn't go over.
Bud, it's not a real sport. You can't look at Booker T and go he's hiring .356 so he's ready for the big leagues.

It's all about who do you think will be must likely to be a larger than life superstar.

I've watched ton of each guy in that time period and Batista comes off as a much bigger star than Booker. I don't see Booker in a top role in a James Bond movie. Batista oozes charisma and has more presence. Booker is a funny character, but when funny is your best quality, you probably shouldn't be a main event guy.

Big Vic 11-19-2015 10:40 AM
Funny can be main event, DB, Kurt Angle, Rock.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Vic (Post 4732401)
Funny can be main event, DB, Kurt Angle, Rock.
All those guys had a serious switch. Booker's serious switch is still funny

XL 11-19-2015 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732375)
If you're just going to put the belt back on Trips, what's the point? Booker T wasn't meant to be a long term headliner. He was just there to help give HHH more credibility.

If HHH was just going to get the belt back, this would essentially be like losing a non title match, which I thought you say kills a guys credibility.
I may be mistaken but the issue at hand was the way in which the story was told. Booker didn't have to win at Mania in a 1v1 match with HHH until they went the way they did (the racial undertones).

Would BT be on the level of Rock/Austin/Hogan? No, but not many are. Would a win have helped him to the level of HHH? Maybe.

Shadrick 11-19-2015 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by XL (Post 4732413)
I may be mistaken but the issue at hand was the way in which the story was told. Booker didn't have to win at Mania in a 1v1 match with HHH until they went the way they did (the racial undertones).

Would BT be on the level of Rock/Austin/Hogan? No, but not many are. Would a win have helped him to the level of HHH? Maybe.
This. When Hunter looks a guy up and down and says "people like you don't beat people like me" and makes a comment about his nappy hair, and then beats the guy clean, you're like "oh. well...i guess he's...right?" its shitty story telling.

Like christian winning the title and losing it a week later was cool with me because of the story it told. I didn't care if he gave it to Randy a week later. The way the story was set up, Booker should have gone over. Doesn't matter if he drops the belt back at the next PPV, the story would have made much more sense.

road doggy dogg 11-19-2015 01:10 PM
the much-maligned cynic

Ol Dirty Dastard 11-19-2015 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by road doggy dogg (Post 4732458)
the much-maligned cynic
Lol I hate you.

I made it pretty clear it was about how the story line played out but cynick ignored that to push his narrative. Tho, I'd have been upset if he didn't.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by XL (Post 4732413)
I may be mistaken but the issue at hand was the way in which the story was told. Booker didn't have to win at Mania in a 1v1 match with HHH until they went the way they did (the racial undertones).

Would BT be on the level of Rock/Austin/Hogan? No, but not many are. Would a win have helped him to the level of HHH? Maybe.
I don't understand why they went with the racial tones. Again I'll bring up my disdain for the Reid Flair stuff on Monday. I think it comes off as low v brow. Gotta remember though, this was what 2003, they were coming off the horrific writing of The Attitude Era, so they probably thought it was edgy.

Still, I don't think that justifies putting Booker over Hunter. I just think the writers and Vince had a lapse in judgement as to how to get over the feud. Likely had something to do with Book being inferior to Hunter and WWE feeling they needed to do something extreme to get people behind Booker.

Ol Dirty Dastard 11-19-2015 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732481)
I don't understand why they went with the racial tones. Again I'll bring up my disdain for the Reid Flair stuff on Monday. I think it comes off as low v brow. Gotta remember though, this was what 2003, they were coming off the horrific writing of The Attitude Era, so they probably thought it was edgy.

Still, I don't think that justifies putting Booker over Hunter. I just think the writers and Vince had a lapse in judgement as to how to get over the feud. Likely had something to do with Book being inferior to Hunter and WWE feeling they needed to do something extreme to get people behind Booker.
That is Fucking retarded. The book man was over. They just needed to push him as a plucky under dog. If he puts up a great effort and comes up short, it is what it is. Just shows how out of touch the bookers were even then.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadrick (Post 4732453)
This. When Hunter looks a guy up and down and says "people like you don't beat people like me" and makes a comment about his nappy hair, and then beats the guy clean, you're like "oh. well...i guess he's...right?" its shitty story telling.

Like christian winning the title and losing it a week later was cool with me because of the story it told. I didn't care if he gave it to Randy a week later. The way the story was set up, Booker should have gone over. Doesn't matter if he drops the belt back at the next PPV, the story would have made much more sense.
So people like him can get people like us to slip on a banana peel, and take advantage, but ultimately the people like us will reign supreme. You're essentially just being a mark for a babyface winning at Mania. If the story ended with Hunter winning and being champ, all you've done is devalued the title by paying hit potato with it.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead (Post 4732485)
That is Fucking retarded. The book man was over. They just needed to push him as a plucky under dog. If he puts up a great effort and comes up short, it is what it is. Just shows how out of touch the bookers were even then.
I don't recall Booker being that over. I'm sure people wanted to see Hunter lose, because he was an effective heel. I recall RVD being more over than Booker. But it was over 10 years ago, I could be wrong.

Do you think Booker was a guy they should have gone with in 2003? Like what would be the money program that would have led to? With Hunter as champ you had Goldberg and then Benoit as major babyface challengers. Say Book goes over at 19, and Trips fades into the background, what's the big business that Booker T as champ is building towards?

Ol Dirty Dastard 11-19-2015 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732486)
So people like him can get people like us to slip on a banana peel, and take advantage, but ultimately the people like us will reign supreme. You're essentially just being a mark for a babyface winning at Mania. If the story ended with Hunter winning and being champ, all you've done is devalued the title by paying hit potato with it.
Lol oh dear god I love you. For all of the wrong reasons. You're like the girl I go back to even though she's no good for me. Ps. I likem heavy.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by road doggy dogg (Post 4732458)
the much-maligned cynic
I often feel like what it must feel like to try to oppose the leadership in North Korea. I know lots of people agree with me, but everyone has been brainwashed to think a certain way, so they just dismiss what I say as being absurd and ludicrous.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead (Post 4732491)
Lol oh dear god I love you. For all of the wrong reasons. You're like the girl I go back to even though she's no good for me. Ps. I likem heavy.
Its he coming on to me? I'd be heavy for a girl.

Much like talking to a chick, I feel like you change the subject when I've made a point.

Ol Dirty Dastard 11-19-2015 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732490)
I don't recall Booker being that over. I'm sure people wanted to see Hunter lose, because he was an effective heel. I recall RVD being more over than Booker. But it was over 10 years ago, I could be wrong.

Do you think Booker was a guy they should have gone with in 2003? Like what would be the money program that would have led to? With Hunter as champ you had Goldberg and then Benoit as major babyface challengers. Say Book goes over at 19, and Trips fades into the background, what's the big business that Booker T as champ is building towards?
Lol you're so cute. You are arguing a point I'm not arguing. Booker was connecting big time with the fans. He was one of the hotter acts in the company thus him facing h at mania. Once again tho, all we've said is the way the angle was booked was awful and the finish was the cherry on top of the shit cake. They were the ones who booked themselves into a corner of poor storytelling, not us. Plus new champs and some outside of the box thinking can lead to good business. He definitely could have had a great feud with heel rock and possibly dropped the belt back to h after that. Who knows. Regardless, they wouldn't have killed book with a loss if they didn't book the whole shmoz so poorly.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorgeous Dale Newstead (Post 4732500)
Lol you're so cute. You are arguing a point I'm not arguing. Booker was connecting big time with the fans. He was one of the hotter acts in the company thus him facing h at mania. Once again tho, all we've said is the way the angle was booked was awful and the finish was the cherry on top of the shit cake. They were the ones who booked themselves into a corner of poor storytelling, not us. Plus new champs and some outside of the box thinking can lead to good business. He definitely could have had a great feud with heel rock and possibly dropped the belt back to h after that. Who knows. Regardless, they wouldn't have killed book with a loss if they didn't book the whole shmoz so poorly.
Thanks

So if no racial undertones, it would have been okay if Hunter just beat him clean? Just trying to better understand your position.

I hear your point, but i just don't think it hurt Booker in the end, it's somethingthe IWC clings on to. He ended being exactly what I thought he would become. Solid upper mid card guy. It's not luke people stopped caring about him after he let down every black person in the wield by losing to white supremacist Triple H.

road doggy dogg 11-19-2015 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732494)
I often feel like what it must feel like to try to oppose the leadership in North Korea. I know lots of people agree with me, but everyone has been brainwashed to think a certain way, so they just dismiss what I say as being absurd and ludicrous.
The IWC are an interesting breed. Like it's unfathomable to the collective that someone on this planet could possibly dislike Daniel Bryan or Cesaro. Herd mentality.

KIRA 11-19-2015 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732494)
I often feel like what it must feel like to try to oppose the leadership in North Korea. I know lots of people agree with me, but everyone has been brainwashed to think a certain way, so they just dismiss what I say as being absurd and ludicrous.
I doubt Booker winning as the better choice was pounded into our heads till we believed it.I'm pretty sure the moment he lost there was a collective WTF from people watching.No one argues the point because this is a scenario that has no justification for why it happened and again in terms of storytelling it was just god-awful.

I'd also argue that Booker's win would have told a better story HHH may have just crossed Batista once too often and it reached a boiling point.To Booker he was looking down on him not just as an inferior wrestler but an inferior human being.So by having him win you tell the audience that HHH this privileged,arrogant, quasi-racist dick is right in all he said about Booker T.

Triple H was presenting himself as one of the worst kinds of villain at that point. He should have met his end at the hands of the man who was his opposite number the man he pegged as inferior to him in all aspects.

Simple Fan 11-19-2015 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by road doggy dogg (Post 4732551)
The IWC are an interesting breed. Like it's unfathomable to the collective that someone on this planet could possibly dislike Daniel Bryan or Cesaro. Herd mentality.
Daniel Bryan sucks. Although I would rather have him as champion over face Reigns any day. Cesaro is the goods though

KIRA 11-19-2015 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732404)
All those guys had a serious switch. Booker's serious switch is still funny
I would've loved for Santino to win the Rumble and go to WM. Just Sayin.

He's always goofy but he was shown to have a case of crouching moron hidden badass at several points don't see why booker couldn't have been the same way.

Simple Fan 11-19-2015 04:53 PM
I really feel WWE shit the bed with Booker. For him to never win the WWE championship is a bit of a head scratcher. His one World Heavyweight Championship reigns was pretty good but really it was a little late in his career. If he would have went over HHH that would have pushed him to new heights and maybe be a regular main event guy. But he was a WCW guy that Vince didn't create so he let Booker fall into the mid card.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simple Fan (Post 4732584)
I really feel WWE shit the bed with Booker. For him to never win the WWE championship is a bit of a head scratcher. His one World Heavyweight Championship reigns was pretty good but really it was a little late in his career. If he would have went over HHH that would have pushed him to new heights and maybe be a regular main event guy. But he was a WCW guy that Vince didn't create so he let Booker fall into the mid card.
So do you think Vince purposely threw away money? Or do you think he thought HHH as champ was the better choice at that given time?

We all know Vince is not prefect, but to say he passed over Booker T just because he was a WCW guy is a little... I dont even know the word... I'll call it Meltzerish. Especially odd line of thinking when a year later he had TWO WCW guys standing in the middle of his ring, in the middle of his arena, closing his company's marquee event.

Maybe your better argument is Vince is racist. Which isn't true, but it seems like it has more weight to it.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by road doggy dogg (Post 4732551)
The IWC are an interesting breed. Like it's unfathomable to the collective that someone on this planet could possibly dislike Daniel Bryan or Cesaro. Herd mentality.
Cesaro is fascinating to me. He's clearly good, he's very good even. But this is where I'm a fan of staying of the sheets. Until I started posting here again, I never thought he was under pushed. I've always thought he was like Hunter or Rock in 1996. You could see they were really good, but had not yet put it all together to headline.

road doggy dogg 11-19-2015 05:21 PM
Cesaro is awesome, but my point is that it's okay if somebody thinks otherwise.

The CyNick 11-19-2015 05:27 PM
I agree!

KIRA 11-19-2015 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732593)
So do you think Vince purposely threw away money? Or do you think he thought HHH as champ was the better choice at that given time?

We all know Vince is not prefect, but to say he passed over Booker T just because he was a WCW guy is a little... I dont even know the word... I'll call it Meltzerish. Especially odd line of thinking when a year later he had TWO WCW guys standing in the middle of his ring, in the middle of his arena, closing his company's marquee event.

Maybe your better argument is Vince is racist. Which isn't true, but it seems like it has more weight to it.
People who've worked for Vince have said that he isn't racist he just doesn't know any better and is out of touch which I completely believe although, Its worrisome that no one has tried to tell the guy. See: R-Truth, New Day (before they brilliantly subverted the gimmick ) I'm not sure who los matadores is offending but I bet they are still offensive. R-Truths's awesome heel turn got him far and away from only to be stuck in that gimmick once more.

Simple Fan 11-19-2015 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732593)
So do you think Vince purposely threw away money? Or do you think he thought HHH as champ was the better choice at that given time?

We all know Vince is not prefect, but to say he passed over Booker T just because he was a WCW guy is a little... I dont even know the word... I'll call it Meltzerish. Especially odd line of thinking when a year later he had TWO WCW guys standing in the middle of his ring, in the middle of his arena, closing his company's marquee event.

Maybe your better argument is Vince is racist. Which isn't true, but it seems like it has more weight to it.

I dont know if he purposely did it but there was more money in Booker than whst he got. Eddie and Benoit jumped ship to WWF before they acquired WCW. That's different than Booker who was acquired in the sell. They jumped ship and Vince rewarded them.

Evil Vito 11-19-2015 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732503)
Thanks

So if no racial undertones, it would have been okay if Hunter just beat him clean? Just trying to better understand your position.
<font color=goldenrod>I'm pretty sure that's how most of us feel. We can argue whether or not Booker should have won in any scenario no matter what, but it's just really shoddy storytelling to basically tell the dude that he won't win the belt because he's black and then go out and prove it. At least if they avoided the race angle and Booker just put up a good fight in defeat, it wouldn't have felt insulting.

What's worse is Triple H went on record and said that people mistinterpreted the Booker T angle. "You people" was meant to be a slight on WCW alumni. Suuuuuuuure.</font>

Ol Dirty Dastard 11-19-2015 05:50 PM
All those nappy haired wcw wrasslers. Booker I believed should have went over to breath some life into raw which was very stagnant, cuz as cynick is trying to ignore, he gained a lot of steam BUT that's a different argument, and win vs loss is less egregious.

KIRA 11-19-2015 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Cruz (Post 4732609)
<font color=goldenrod>

What's worse is Triple H went on record and said that people mistinterpreted the Booker T angle. "You people" was meant to be a slight on WCW alumni. Suuuuuuuure.</font>
And this is the moment I knew that the WWE thought fans were complete morons.

Ol Dirty Dastard 11-19-2015 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by road doggy dogg (Post 4732596)
Cesaro is awesome, but my point is that it's okay if somebody thinks otherwise.
Agree with that. Tho I still can't believe anyone could dislike Bret Hart.

road doggy dogg 11-19-2015 06:00 PM
Gertner would like a word with you

#1-norm-fan 11-19-2015 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan (Post 4732358)
Well, to get back on topic, CyNick said he responded to this point on the discussion of that major Bella twins angle last year with some super legit CYNICKFACTS but I was hoping maybe he could use this thread to SCHOOL US ALL with a nice truncated CYNICKFACT RESPONSE or maybe even some CYNICKQUOTES from when he already showed us the CYNICKFACTS that properly explained WWE's writing process here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4729594)
Look everything on TV is exaggerated. Plenty of TV shows or movies will have something happen between characters and then they work it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan (Post 4729618)
I've honestly never seen another situation in any form of scripted entertainment where two people in the middle of a heated feud seemingly became best friends again off-camera between episodes with no explanation...

Because that would be some all-time horrible writing and outside of WWE currently, even the trashiest, shittiest TV shows and movies have higher writing standards than that.
So no then? Just wanna double check.

Ol Dirty Dastard 11-19-2015 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by road doggy dogg (Post 4732618)
Gertner would like a word with you
Much maligned Gertner

Shadrick 11-19-2015 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732486)
So people like him can get people like us to slip on a banana peel, and take advantage, but ultimately the people like us will reign supreme. You're essentially just being a mark for a babyface winning at Mania. If the story ended with Hunter winning and being champ, all you've done is devalued the title by paying hit potato with it.
lol holy shit

Shadrick 11-19-2015 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vito Cruz (Post 4732609)
<font color=goldenrod>I'm pretty sure that's how most of us feel. We can argue whether or not Booker should have won in any scenario no matter what, but it's just really shoddy storytelling to basically tell the dude that he won't win the belt because he's black and then go out and prove it. At least if they avoided the race angle and Booker just put up a good fight in defeat, it wouldn't have felt insulting.

What's worse is Triple H went on record and said that people mistinterpreted the Booker T angle. "You people" was meant to be a slight on WCW alumni. Suuuuuuuure.</font>
This. I feel like Booker should have gone over because of the storytelling, not because of who he is. Booker is fine to me, but I'm not mark for a babyface going over or for him specifically. Shitty storytelling. When the video packages and vignettes are him overcoming the odds, doing something with his life, etc, and then....clean loss. And no follow up. Its like "uh. ok."

KIRA 11-19-2015 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadrick (Post 4732669)
This. I feel like Booker should have gone over because of the storytelling, not because of who he is. Booker is fine to me, but I'm not mark for a babyface going over or for him specifically. Shitty storytelling. When the video packages and vignettes are him overcoming the odds, doing something with his life, etc, and then....clean loss. And no follow up. Its like "uh. ok."
I feel like I already said this in so many words.

McLegend 11-19-2015 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 4732379)
Yes, to the first one. The whole point should have been Orton did what Hunter couldn't (beat Benoit). The next couple months should have been Hunter acting like he was happy for Orton, and struggling with taking a secondary role in the group. Then I would have had Hunter win the title in some type of multi person match where he didn't pin Orton. Then have Orton ask Hunter for a rematch saying we can have an all time classic match, the belt will stay in the evolution family, and we will shake hands after, but i just need to know if i can beat you. Hunter then does the deal where they beat him down.

Yeah to me they rushed it with moving the belt to Hunter. However, at the end of the day they turned the angle to get over Batista instead of Orton. So it's like I would have booked 21 to be Orton v Hunter with Orton getting revenge as a babyface. They moved Batista into the role, Hunter looked unstoppable then because of the Orton angle, and the show did a massive amount of buys. So in the end maybe they made the right call.
I agree with this. At the time I was pissed about, but it everything worked out in the end. Also the Orton mark is still somewhat upset about it, because to this day HHH has never put over Orton, and it doesn't make sense to me.

Also I feel like they lucked into the Batista thing. It didn't feel like that was the original plan to put Batista in that role, but it just kind of happened. I forget what caused Batista to pick up so much steam.

Shadrick 11-19-2015 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KIRA (Post 4732671)
I feel like I already said this in so many words.
:y:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.
Page 3 of 16 12 3 45678910111213 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin®