Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 19:48:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 8:58:04 GMT -5
So lately I have noticed that it seems it's been a while since a match has ended with a roll up pin or without a finisher. I personally feel wwe should end matches without a finisher being hit sometimes. Say a guy hits a huge move that's not his finsher, sometimes I feel that should end the match just to add a more unpredictable level. So please vote on if you think wwe needs more matches to end off a big move instead of always ending after a finisher.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 31, 2015 9:07:42 GMT -5
Yes. Likewise, big matches need to reserve using a finisher until the match is actually going to end. So many finisher kickouts have been going on lately. It devalues the move. We're to the point where I think we expect at least 2-3 finishers in big matches before it's over and done. We just saw Cena and Ambrose kick out of each others finishers last night in a damn Raw match. I mean come on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 19:48:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 9:18:09 GMT -5
It depends. I don't want to be robbed of an epic ending to an epic match just because they want to shock us.
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Mar 31, 2015 9:20:57 GMT -5
All I know, is that I need less finisher kick outs. When was the last time one AA actually beat someone? When Seth Rollins and Randy Orton kicked out of finishers at Mania I was like "Already? It's only match two."
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 31, 2015 9:33:48 GMT -5
It depends. I don't want to be robbed of an epic ending to an epic match just because they want to shock us. Steamboat/Savage, Bret/Diesel II, Owen/Bret at WMX, Eddie vs Angle WMXX, HBK vs HHH SS02, those are some of the very best matches of all time imo. Bret vs Piper, Bret vs Bulldog, I know you love you some Bret.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 19:48:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 9:45:57 GMT -5
It depends. I don't want to be robbed of an epic ending to an epic match just because they want to shock us. Steamboat/Savage, Bret/Diesel II, Owen/Bret at WMX, Eddie vs Angle WMXX, HBK vs HHH SS02, those are some of the very best matches of all time imo. Bret vs Piper, Bret vs Bulldog, I know you love you some Bret. I agree, but those matches had actual endings too.
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Mar 31, 2015 9:51:24 GMT -5
Steamboat/Savage, Bret/Diesel II, Owen/Bret at WMX, Eddie vs Angle WMXX, HBK vs HHH SS02, those are some of the very best matches of all time imo. Bret vs Piper, Bret vs Bulldog, I know you love you some Bret. I agree, but those matches had actual endings too. Oh yeah, totally agree. I don't need Vince Russo sh*t where it doesn't tell any kind of story and just has shock value to have shock value. So like HHH beating Sting at WM31...
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 19:48:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 10:01:03 GMT -5
I agree, but those matches had actual endings too. Oh yeah, totally agree. I don't need Vince Russo sh*t where it doesn't tell any kind of story and just has shock value to have shock value. So like HHH beating Sting at WM31... I didn't mind HHH vs. Sting's interferences, it was just HHH going over that made no sense to me. Wen we get "surprises for the sake of it" you end up with dumb crap like Billy and Road Dogg being swapped heading into WM15. Do we just let Axel win the next Rumble just because it would surprise us? Sometimes things need to be predictable to play out the best way.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Mar 31, 2015 10:07:00 GMT -5
The whole "finishers don't work" at Wrestlemania thing is starting to get MAJORLY played out. It worked when Taker/HBK did it at WM25.....but since then it's just become gratuitous and repetitive.
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Mar 31, 2015 10:10:01 GMT -5
I loved when Bryan beat Harper in that gauntlet match with a heel hook instead of a Yes Lock or Running Knee, it adds realism to the show.
|
|
|
Post by @.@ Hempsterdance @.@ on Mar 31, 2015 10:13:50 GMT -5
The whole "finishers don't work" at Wrestlemania thing is starting to get MAJORLY played out. It worked when Taker/HBK did it at WM25.....but since then it's just become gratuitous and repetitive. It would also depend on the wrestlers. As long as they only kick out of one finisher, multiple knockouts of the same move make no sense
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Mar 31, 2015 10:26:36 GMT -5
The whole "finishers don't work" at Wrestlemania thing is starting to get MAJORLY played out. It worked when Taker/HBK did it at WM25.....but since then it's just become gratuitous and repetitive. It would also depend on the wrestlers. As long as they only kick out of one finisher, multiple knockouts of the same move make no sense The only time finisher kickouts really shocked me was at WM14 when Undertaker needed 3 tombstone's to beat Kane. To my knowledge, nobody had kicked out of the tombstone before at that point. And like I said, Wrestlemania 25 was just epic. But other than that, I go into Wrestlemania every year knowing that everybody is going to kickout of at least 3 finishers now. I guess it just goes to show how shallow some of the wrestlers move sets are if they have nothing else to rely on. Like at Mania, Roman reigns did NO other offensive moves besides 3 spears and 3 Superman punches to Brock. Didn't do a Samoan drop, didn't do that sweet ass over the top rope dive that he has, didn't do his dropkick from the floor to the ring apron, didn't even do a powerbomb.... But the announcers act like "oh man, Roman and Brock are beating the HELL out of each other!!!!!!!!!!"......"each other".....no, Brock whooped Roman Reigns ass and then smashed HIS OWN face into the ring post and bled out....then Roman spammed signature moves and finishers, lol. Bottom line, as green as he is, Roman Reigns should NOT be able to kick out of an F5, and Bray Wyatt should not have been able to kick out of a tombstone, unless WWE just wants to be able to get the yearly "OMFG WTF" look on Undertaker's face so they can make a GIF of it for WWE.com.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 19:48:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 10:27:03 GMT -5
Yes and no, let me explain best I can. Often times, WWE gets labeled as "boring and predictable", which, I don't argue, but I don't personally think is a bad thing. Wrestling was built on a simple foundation, a simple narrative of good vs evil and eventually, evil is vanquished. Sure, sometimes the bad guys would have stretches where they were getting the best of the good guy or in some cases, would ultimately triumph over whoever the babyface opposition was, but it was all building to the inevitable climax of the face beating the heel. As the wrestling boom of the 90's grew and we got older, things changed. It was becoming a thing that we'd cheer the bad guys or whoever we wanted, because that was what wrestling was presenting, the option of choice by appealing to a wider audience and making every character different and not having this simple concept of the heels are bad and we boo them and faces are the good guys, we must cheer them. Sure, the time tested foundation still existed, but, we now had a harder time deciding if we wanted the cool heels like the NWO or Steve Austin to triumph over the good guys like Sting or Bret Hart. That in turn, makes having a straight forward narrative hard in my eyes.
However, I think what makes it harder is that, we've been fans for so long, that, it is hard to shock us. I don't think it has much to do with the company not taking risks or not trying to shake things up, granted, those are issues, but I feel that we've seen damn near everything a wrestling promotion can do. Swerves, heel turns, returns, debuts, etc, etc. Wrestling repeats itself a lot, the times it doesn't, it's hard to capture the magic of an angle again, so it's best not try to duplicate it. Eventually, you run into a wall. I don't think it's predictable because they play it straight forward, it's just that after awhile, we can tell a general sense of where something is going.
Furthermore, I think the Attitude Era and the rise of the internet has hurt wrestling. The AE was all about swerves and shocking people, that people felt that, that was how you book a pro wrestling product and that, by playing it safe, it is boring. The internet pulled back the curtain even more, allowing us "insider" news, spoilers, and more. So, we now live in a world where stuff like DX invading WCW, Ministry of Darkness, setting people on fire, hardcore matches, etc, etc is viewed as the holy grail and anyone can hop onto a message board and potentially find out about what's gonna happen in six months, then get all worked up over something that hasn't even played out yet, wanting to go on and on about how they would book it and do it better
I personally think that offering surprise endings and trying to swerve people is good, but doing it too often makes it lose value and I feel that doing it too often will cause nonsensical swerves just because "we need them". I don't think playing it safe and leading to a predictable conclusion is always a bad thing. I think that if the journey there is great and the payoff is logical and makes sense, who cares who wins or whatever. I think we just lose sight of the fact that wrestling is supposed to be fun. I'm not saying everything the WWE does is great, but I think if we just sat back and just tried to be fans, not armchair bookers, not "grizzled vets", not anything but a fan, no more dirsheets, no more spoilers, just a fan watching it and enjoying it as it comes, it might be more fun.
And for the record, I think people don't mind predictability, as long as they benefit. I'm sure people are not happy with how Sting/HHH ended, but that a swerve wasn't it? So, playing it straight forward and going with the logical conclusion would've satisfied people, but isn't that what we're crusading against? I always go back to TNA booking the same angle two years back to back and seeing the reaction. Aries beats Roode in an unpredictable twist, sacrificing the Roode/Storm payoff for the title, people love it. One year later,Sabin beats Bully in an unpredictable twist, messing up the AJ/Bully payoff for the title and people hate it. And they hated it for the same reason that the previous year suffered. It took away from the payoff of the big hero babyface conquering the big bad heel and taking the title. So, I think people just don't care what happens, as long as they what they want.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Mar 31, 2015 10:53:20 GMT -5
honestly...i'm not really a fan of 'the finisher'. if only certain wrestlers had one, say the undertaker with his tombstone, it would heighten the appeal and meaning.
wrestlers, just as they do now, could have a variety of signature moves that if done at the right time could give them a believable victory.
wrestling has to break formula - and they're trying to do that in a variety of ways to keep things fresh. an example is the ultra physical style they're doing with lesnar/reigns etc - even reign's fight with daniel bryan on raw a few months back was incredibly physical or how the reigns match with lesnar began at wm (lesnar picks up reigns in a very realistic fashion and DRIVES him into the corner, while reigns tries desperately to get some shots in brock's ribs in because it's all he can do).
that's lesnar's true appeal. if it was just name value, he would've been worth less and less over the months despite whatever victories he has. it's his style - a style that's new to at least the modern wwe audience. similar to how ecw's style stood out in the late 90s.
anyways, one more way of breaking formula is to end the age of finishers. a superplex SHOULD be able to end the match if it's done in the right spot at the right time in a match - but when was the last time a superplex did the job? which is craziness, considering it's more impactful than most guys finishers by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by @.@ Hempsterdance @.@ on Mar 31, 2015 11:06:11 GMT -5
It would also depend on the wrestlers. As long as they only kick out of one finisher, multiple knockouts of the same move make no sense The only time finisher kickouts really shocked me was at WM14 when Undertaker needed 3 tombstone's to beat Kane. To my knowledge, nobody had kicked out of the tombstone before at that point. And like I said, Wrestlemania 25 was just epic. But other than that, I go into Wrestlemania every year knowing that everybody is going to kickout of at least 3 finishers now. I guess it just goes to show how shallow some of the wrestlers move sets are if they have nothing else to rely on. Like at Mania, Roman reigns did NO other offensive moves besides 3 spears and 3 Superman punches to Brock. Didn't do a Samoan drop, didn't do that sweet ass over the top rope dive that he has, didn't do his dropkick from the floor to the ring apron, didn't even do a powerbomb.... But the announcers act like "oh man, Roman and Brock are beating the HELL out of each other!!!!!!!!!!"......"each other".....no, Brock whooped Roman Reigns ass and then smashed HIS OWN face into the ring post and bled out....then Roman spammed signature moves and finishers, lol. Bottom line, as green as he is, Roman Reigns should NOT be able to kick out of an F5, and Bray Wyatt should not have been able to kick out of a tombstone, unless WWE just wants to be able to get the yearly "OMFG WTF" look on Undertaker's face so they can make a GIF of it for WWE.com. I agree 100% that main event was crap on Romans end, the only saving grace was Rollins. Lesnar is and will always be a beast and Roman was no where near ready
|
|
E N I G M A
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 4, 2010 5:21:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,631
|
Post by E N I G M A on Mar 31, 2015 12:41:32 GMT -5
Yes, Big Moves should be able to end a match sometimes. Like Bryan beating Harper with that Leglock on SD! a few weeks ago-
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 19:48:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 12:48:07 GMT -5
Yeah, I often think that big moves are great ways to end matches, adding to the realism of the match.
|
|
|
Post by A-Rob on Mar 31, 2015 13:44:57 GMT -5
Yes, having the finish be unpredictable match the match more interesting.
|
|
|
Post by figurecollector on Mar 31, 2015 15:02:12 GMT -5
Absolutely. There is no sense in anyone kicking out of 3 or 4 finishers that incapacitate people for weeks and months before and has little to no effect in a PPV. It is not like no one has ever seen their finisher before and they are showing off a new move.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 26, 2024 19:48:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 15:09:18 GMT -5
This reminds me of the time I was playing Smackdown:Just Bring It as a young lad. I got to the end and was facing Stone Cold in a Cage match for the WWF Title. I ran at him as soon as the match started and did a rollup pin and won the title.
Anyways, yeah, it could work for heels to get angry and murder someone.
|
|