WM 34 conifrmed to be shit

>>2370620
They are playing out his whole fucking career as if people are not booing him out of the building every time he has a big moment.

At least by the time he beats Lesnar his "story" will be starting to coming to a close.

I think WWE is afraid of looking like they don't know what they're doing by de-pushing Reigns. I also think they're afraid of losing shareholder confidence.

>>2370620
But Vince is dying this summer, the plans will change.

>>2370626
>>2370672
>>2370686
kys discord cancer

>>2370692
hi DaCuck

Shouldn't be asleep?

>>2370620
I think it's nice of Vince to help New Japan in their international push.

>>2370633
You're dumb-as-fuck.

>>2370633
There are multiple shareholders who have voiced concerns about Reigns during those quarterly financial conferences they hold, asking if they would consider trying something new or moving Reigns to Smackdown. He's already lost some shareholder confidence by sticking with top-face Roman.
You don't necessarily lose confidence by changing plans. It depends on the change, and the situation. But you do lose confidence if you change multiple times within a 2 year window, because it makes you look indecisive and weak. Refusing to change amidst negative circumstances for great periods of time can actually hurt shareholder opinions just like changing too much can, because it makes you look unreasonable, inflexible and out of touch.

>>2370745
>There are multiple shareholders who have voiced concerns about Reigns during those quarterly financial conferences they hold, asking if they would consider trying something new or moving Reigns to Smackdown.

do you have a source for that?

>>2370750
About as much of a source as they guy he's replying to does.

Shareholders only give a shit about money. Reigns correlates very strongly with every observable business metric going down.

>>2370755
>Reigns correlates very strongly with every observable business metric going down.

Ratings? Nope.
Houseshows? Nope.
Merch? He's ok but so are guys that are pushed a lot less.

He's not a money maker by any definition. Any guy with the amount of investment behind Roman would do better.

Cena merch sales have declined significantly and Roman isn't even close to the reduced number. He's money left on the table and shareholders know that.

>people shit on WWE for not doing long-term planning

>WWE makes long-term plans
>people still complain

>>2370887
>people shit on wwe because it's always the same old crap
>long term planning is literally the same old crap as the last 3 years, including the same match

>retards need to have that pointed out

>>2370886
You're agreeing with me m8

>>2370887
>Long term planning
>Once in the lifetime WM fiasco
Wew lad

>>2370620
>>2370620
>And there are no plans to turn Reigns heel between now and April 2018
In what world is Roman going to be a face when feuding with the ultimate marky babyface, Undertaker? Hell the feud started because of reigns

>>2370887
You're the kind of dumbshit who non-ironically whine about people who say WWE should push young talent and dump on Reigns for being garbáge, aren't you?

>>2371059
You're the kind of dumbshit that turns on the young talent that WWE pushes when they win the world title while continuing to believe that Reigns is bad, aren't you?

File: THE MAN.png (396KB, 730x380px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 730x380px

>>2371082
I'd say you tried but you're just a lazy, witless parrot.

>>2371030
>"I am going to usurp and retire one of the most beloved icons of WWE because of my unchecked lust for dominance and prestige."
>"I am also the good guy in this feud and you should cheer my destruction of your childhood hero"

Honestly if Undertaker had turned heel and started beating the shit out of smark favorites like Rollins, Zayn, Owens to prove that "it's still my yard" and Roman confronts him in response, he would've been the babyface.

But if you put a universally cheered babyface against a less-cheered babyface, guess which one will get booed?

Every Wrestlemania where Reigns main evented had record high attendances.

>>2371115
>lol if his opponent beats up smark faves that'll get Roman over

We literally just saw this with Strowman and it didn't fucking work then.

>>2371157
Reminder that sales for tickets last year were slow until Shane vs. Undertaker was announced.

>>2371157
>>2371171
which means either Shane or Undertaker was the draw. KEK

>>2371171
>>lol if his opponent beats up smark faves that'll get Roman over

That's not what he said at all, simpleton.
He wasn't remarking how to get Roman majority over with attending fans (not possible), he was remarking how to clearly outline the Heel/Face dynamic between he and Taker.
Taker is, as he said, the ultimate marky babyface, and Roman has been acting heelish, more-or-less. He mic-dropped on HBK and has basically been asserting his dominance just for the sake of it, making Taker seem like the babyface of the two – he is.
He was stating how to make Roman SEEM like the babyface, not how to garner him the reactions of one.
Roman isn't even the babyface of this feud. He's some wacky meta-character born of Vince's enormous boner for him.

>>2371208
You're quibbling over semantics you pseudo-intellectual turd.

>>2371221
>semantics

No, the entire point, that (You) missed, oh insecure one.

>>2371104
cringe

Think it might be time to stop watching again.

Every Wrestlemania is shit.

18+

>be Vince
>someone asks in passing what are you thinking for the WM34 main event
>WELL I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE SHOULD PUT ROMAN AND BROCK FOR THE UNIVERSAL TITLE, HA HA THAT WOULD TRIGGER THOSE WANNABE INSIDERS AND BUSINESSMEN
>WELL TO BE HONEST I DON'T KNOW YET, YOU DO REALIZE WE DON'T BOOK THAT FAR IN ADVANCE BUT MAKE SURE THAT HACK MELTZER GETS IT
>I WANT TO WATCH THOSE FAT LOWLIFES SQUIRM
>THEY WILL WHINE, BITCH AND COMPLAIN ON THE INTERNET JUST LIKE PAULIE SAID
>HA HA CHEERS AND GET BACK TO WORK DAMMIT

>>2371311
But that's nothing like Vince.

He genuinely believes Reigns vs. Lesnar is a good match-up that people should want to see.

>>2371230
I got it. Ain't impressin' me, but I got it.

>insecure

nup

>>2370755
>as much of a source as they guy he's replying to does.
Care to show me where in that original post I said anything that would need a source, business genius?

>>2371370
>business genius

Knowing more than (you) doesn't equal business genius so much as it does somebody who has even the slightest fuck of a clue on what they're talking about.

>>2371326
>>He genuinely believes Reigns vs. Lesnar is a good match-up

It was surprisingly good at 31.
Still an unsettling display of perseverance to redo it.

>>2371337
*whoosh*

>>2371393
Any match can be "surprisingly" good if it's got 0 expectations.

>*whoosh*

Now this is an unsettling display of perseverance.

>>2370620
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

>>2371259
This is a real 18+ desu

>>2371396
>*digs hole furiously*

>>2370620
>greatest WM main event of all time gets a second try
BASED

>>2371433
This based Vince

>>2371375
Still waiting on what needs to be sourced.

Will Lesnar put over Roman though?

Lesnar did not want Shane

File: 324563323.jpg (266KB, 920x1294px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 920x1294px

>The two roster trades Vince McMahon is most interested in seeing involve AJ Styles moving to Raw while The New Day head to SmackDown.

It's...it's over. It's all over.

>>2371637
AJ managed to get Daniel fucking Bryan booed last Smackdown, what chance in hell does he think Roman has?

>>2371682
>this is the first time AJ and Roman feuded

>>2371689
You're right, it's not. AJ was handily cheered over Roman then, and AJ is even more popular now, making it all the more insane.

>>2371699
AJ was equally as popular back then because he just debuted

It did not matter then and it won't matter now

If they send AJ to Raw they are obviously sending a singles, main event guy like Seth or Roman to Smackdown

>>2370620
>says stuff to get booed
> does things to get booed
> in a feud with a beloved legend telling him to go home and retire
He's a heel in my book

>>2371714
>Seth to Smackdown
>here Smack, take this guy we've ruined with bad booking and our insane schedule and we'll take the best guy in the company

Roman is probably staying exactly where he is.

>>2371743
Roman is the next John Cena

John Cena will be a solid part-timer after Wrestlemania

Raw will be taking one of Smackdown's main eventers and workhorses

It's going to be Roman to Smackdown while Seth finishes the job with HHH and Senor Joe

>>2370620

>Le Meltz

When did quoting this guy become a thing here? Literally go back to woo or reddit.

>>2372225
>Roman to Smackdown
You are really dumb if you believe this my dude.

Really really dumb.

why would reigns turn heel?

>>2371627
>There are multiple shareholders who have voiced concerns about Reigns during those quarterly financial conferences they hold, asking if they would consider trying something new or moving Reigns to Smackdown. He's already lost some shareholder confidence by sticking with top-face Roman.
Do you have a source for the shareholders voicing concerns or are you just assuming they are?

Meltzer always wants you to believe the company is in shambles so you can pay for his horrible newsletter.

>WM 34 plans already set in stone
>Implying

Vince can change his mind about what the main event is gonna be with mere weeks left to go. WM 30 wasn't even going to be a triple threat. Would you have believed a Meltzer report saying Orton vs Batista was going to be the main event for next year when The Rock was still champ?

>>2372225
holy shit this may be a retarded revelation but Reigns IS the next Cena.

>Roman's edgy silent guy persona in the shield = Cena's "Doctor of Thuganomics"
>Roman's current babyface run = Super Cena era when everyone hated him
>Future Roman??? = Modern Cena

File: Oh_yes.gif (2MB, 400x242px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x242px

>>2372225
>Roman to Smackdown
You can't be serious. Vince will never let Roman leave his flagshit show.

>>2372363
I remember Meltz said Roman was going to main event mania for like 5 years in a row but he's far from the main event right now.

People who take his words for face value are morons who just want to complain.

>>2372363

He also said Seth Rollins vs. HHH was going to happen at summerslam 2015.

He is hit and miss like 95% of the time.

>>2372354
Motherfucker, my post was
>>2370633
and everything written was what I think to be the case. So again, which part of my speculative post needs sourcing?

>>2372417
If he's either right or wrong 95% of the time, what is he the other 5 percent? Kill yourself.

>>2372431
t.Meltzer nuthugger.

You know exactly what I meant.

File: 1478835393692.jpg (144KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 500x334px

I love it. Roman is great. Beta males hate watching him. I'll enjoy all of his continued push.

t. an alpha male

File: 436266324334.png (230KB, 313x321px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 313x321px

>>2372438
>t. an alpha male

So the only people that will have main evented mania for 4 straight years will be reigns lesnar Goldberg and HHH

LOL wwe

>>2372225
>booed by everybody with taste
>only a draw because everybody else has been ruined

...actually, yeah, that fits.

>>2370745
I could deal with deano and romen being a gimmick tag team champs on SD

>>2370620

WWE's aversion to turning wrestlers that the writing staff has designated as top faces heel in response to fan reaction is one of the many examples of the suicidal arrogance that WWE contracted after killing WCW.

John Cena could have been every bit the figure that they wanted him to be if they had just allowed his relationship with fans and growth as a character to be a bit more organic, like with The Rock. I don't know that the same can be said for Reigns (he's shit on the mic), but at the very least, they wouldn't have a top face that they're trying to shove down people's throats every week.

>Who would they replace him with?

Unfortunately, it's not as easy as just choosing a new face for the company at this point.They're stuck in a sandpit, due to the fact that they've been terrible at connecting with the audience for so long (protip: the target demographics that will get excited about their product have not changed, nor have the fundamental things that these demographics tend to be drawn to; "rough and manly" should be the best words to describe pro wrestling) and general bad decision making. That's why they keep having to fall back on the aging early 2000s roster from back when they knew who they were.

As a general strategy, they should go full attitude era. Radically change everything that's going on right now. End the PG era. Push the boundary of what they can get on television. That'll catch the old fans and lay the groundwork for something exciting that people want to watch every week. They'll find their new top faces as they navigate the new landscape, and these ones will have an environment that's conductive to staying power.

>People have been suggesting that they return to their prime since WWE's decline began! The fact that it's an old complaint makes it wrong!

If anything, it's proven the complaint correct. Their decline is continuing because they've refused to return to what their product needs to be in order to hold mass appeal.

>>2373682
>that the writing staff has designated as top faces

It's Vince

>they should go full attitude era. Radically change everything that's going on right now. End the PG era. Push the boundary of what they can get on television.

WWE is way too dependent on sponsors that demand a cleaner product, as well as their incoming attempts to expand into China + India.

>>2373695

Losing sponsors >>> dying

They'll get their sponsors when their product explodes again.

>>2373698
>guaranteed sacrifice of your primary revenue streams in exchange for a potential future boom

You didn't even pass first-year econ did you?

>>2373715

>take a risk; receive short term hits and possibly die
>don't take a risk; continue slow decline towards certain death

The most dangerous strategy in business is playing it safe, as they say. They should take the risk while they still have the resources to survive the hit.

You cannot package delivering a product that nobody wants as a good business decision. WWE cannot exist indefinitely as a product that makes feminists and Bible thumpers happy.

>>2373721
>feminists and Bible thumpers

You have no idea how little this describes China + India.

WWE isn't tanking because it's not "edgy", it's tanking because it's B-A-D.

This will not be fixed by doing a rehash of Attitude: if you don't believe me, go watch some 2001-2003 RAW.

>>2370620
>according to Meltzer

>Dave "Plans Change" Meltzer claiming a match will happen a full year from now

Doubtful.

Also I figure the reason they're pushing Reigns so hard is *because* he's getting booed. WWE probably thinks the "controversy" is a draw, just like it was with Cena (the numbers show that it isn't)

Say what you want about Cena one way or the other, but his 50/50 response is the main reason we're talking about him today. That's his legacy, like it or not.

>>2374615
But he wouldn't get booed so hard if he wasn't pushed so hard.

>>2371682
>>2371699
Who mentioned Roman?
It was about AJ and Poo Day
I mean he probably will feud with him again, but talk about being preemptively ass-ravaged.

>>2371714
>Seth to SD

Please fucking no.
Zayn or Cesaro, maybe?

>>2373446
>>booed by everybody with taste

Don't even like Roman but this statement reeks of insecurity.
Pity (You)

>>2374694
>this statement reeks of insecurity.

Holy shit, the fucking irony right here.

>Lesnar wins
>Orton wins
>Corbin wins

Never have been so obvious title matches...Oh and let's not forget

>new day is hosting

>>2370620
>"Women, 34 years old confirmed to be shit"

Well duh

>>2373751

And a large part of why it's B-A-D is because it's out of touch with its target audience. It's like the PG-13 slasher flick era, right down to the retarded reasoning behind it. They're trying to make a genre that's all about pure testosterone appealing to moms who screech when their children trip on the soccer field.

>You have no idea how little this describes China + India.

As if they'd want to watch this shitty product either.

>2001-2003 RAW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVS4UySbeE0

>>2375830
>a genre that's all about pure testosterone

Bruh, professional wrestling is essentially fake fantasy MMA for kids and people who don't like actual violence. It's the LEAST masculine "combat sport" there is.

Fans who want the TV-14 Attitude Era back are the Bronys of the Pro Wrestling fandom. You're watching a product marketed towards a younger demographic and bitching that the show isn't for you because it's not edgy or mature enough. Shut up and realize that the show isn't made for people like you, no matter how much merch or tickets you buy.

>>2375913

The younger demographic isn't watching; they don't like this shit either. The big money maker for the show in 2017 are nostalgiafags in their 50s who've been watching wrestling for the past 40 years and won't stop until it no longer exists, no matter how horrible it gets. They have the most unsustainable audience that anyone could ask for.

Any attempts to paint the PG era as a good idea are undermined by the fact that they're bleeding viewership, and that the most noticeable change between their glory days and now is the loss of identity. If things keep going this way, it won't be long until it starts to effect the production values of their shows, which will make clawing their way back up to their former glory extremely difficult. As things are right now, they could begin restoring themselves literally today if they were just willing to tell a few sponsors to suck it up or piss off.

>the show isn't for you because it's not edgy or mature enough.

It's ironic that you say this, since your argument is basically that anyone who wants a return to when the product is fun is somehow stupid and immature. People won't watch a product that isn't fun, and you're not smart or open minded for buying into the retarded reasoning that's led into their downfall.

>>2375994

And it regards to it being fiction, everyone knew that during its prime. People can enjoy the movies. The mandrama (keyword: man) is no different.

>>2375994
I'd point out the fact that the Attitude Era was the most profitable era because of the growing investments by networks into serialized weekly television at the time, which was why shows like Law and Order were so popular. Once the cable boom ended and company sponsors realized the violence and adult material of WWE was no longer novel and would not attract your average t.v. viewer, their profits started dropping.
As cool as the era was, WWE had to adjust to the evolving zietgiest. Edgy, violent, "real" dramas like Law and Order, Cops, and the Attitude Era were new and exciting during that time, but eventually lost their novelty and cable companies moved on to the next cool thing.

But then again you seem to have ignored the entire premise of my other post and will do again with this one.

>>2376346

You have the order of events backwards.

Death of WCW -> arrogance and complacency -> decline -> caving to demands of sponsors -> further decline.

They were rich because they were popular, and they were popular because they were fun.

>evolving zietgiest

This never happened, at least not in the way that you're suggesting. Hollywood has been floundering for the past decade because everyone with money latched on to a Buzzfeed fantasy version of America that would provide easy PR points with their fellow elites and allow said elites to expand their power via government interference. Much like the WWE, the only big successes that they can produce are callbacks to a time where they weren't completely out of touch with the public at large (James Bond, Star Wars, comics, etc.). They've lost all cultural relevancy on account of buying into a giant false narrative.

The WWE can still turn the clock back. People still like manly men, manly conflicts, and sexy women. If you want to talk about being cool, they can be ahead of the curve in refuting the false zeitgeist.

File: cena-halloween-2015.jpg (65KB, 650x360px)

65KB, 650x360px

>>2376346
Not the guy you're talking to, but

>As cool as the era was, WWE had to adjust to the evolving zietgiest. Edgy, violent, "real" dramas like Law and Order, Cops, and the Attitude Era were new and exciting during that time, but eventually lost their novelty and cable companies moved on to the next cool thing.

The gritty primetime drama never died. Breaking Bad taught us that. Fact is, a show can get old without the genre losing steam

Secondly WWE's biggest problem is that they failed to adapt. Instead, they try to be everything to everyone which just diminishes their brand.

the Total Divas shit (gossipfags) the crossovers with Hanna Barbera cartoons (children and nostalgiafags), the terrible movies (dipshits who watch anything), Camp WWE (edgy dipshits), the goofy attempts to "legitimize" women's wrestling (fedoras and feminists). They try to stick their fingers in every pie and normalfags find it as cringeworthy and half-assed as smarks do

>>2376600
>They were rich because they were popular, and they were popular because they were fun.
And I'd say they were fun because what they were doing was new. Once shock-style television's novelty wore off, people stopped being drawn in.

>Hollywood is failing because they have fallen under the control of a false zeitgeist created by a government conspiracy

Your tinfoil hat is slipping anon, might want to adjust that.


(desu i'm actually really enjoying this discussion/argument. it's been far more intelligent and reasonable than I ever expected it to be)

Le Pen will win
cap this

>>2376696
You're not entirely wrong is saying that WWE has failed to adapt and I'd have to agree that on your point of "trying to be everything to everyone".

They're learning that grittiness is becoming OK again and are slowly moving forward with stuff like Orton v. Lesnar at Summerslam and more reality-based storylines. I don't think an immediate return to the heyday of the Attitude Era would fix the problem (it would just drive away a part of their existing fanbase), but testing the waters to see if people are interested in a return to that sort of product isn't be truly a bad idea.

Man, I really hope you're wrong about the second. This is one of the few legitimate chances they've given themselves to make a new superstar out of an actually semi interesting story segment.

If they just bury Bray again for aging likely rapist Randy Orton, there's no hope.

In a perfect world, Bray wins, sets up a super fued with a face-turned AJ, who gets his title back at summerslam.

Please fucking God lets just hope they at least keep AJ on Smackdown. If they don't, I'm done.

>>2376741

WWE's appeal wasn't just shock, though. It was crazy, testosterone-driven fun. That's more than sustainable.

>Hollywood is failing because they have fallen under the control of a false zeitgeist created by a government conspiracy

Yeah, it's a total coincidence that everyone with money supports the expansion of government power.

Regulation which is expensive to enforce = no start ups can get their foot through the door, anon. Elites hate nothing more than young bucks who are looking to knock them off their throne. Also, money in politics = lots of opportunities for shady deals with high profits and low levels of responsibility. All of this is easily observable. It even has a name. It's called "crony capitalism", and if you know anything about US history, you know that it brought this country to its knees in the late 1800s.

If you're a crony capitalist who wants to use government power to cement your own, who's cultural narrative would you place in your films: Libertarians who want the state out of everything and favor the individual, or a bunch of champagne socialists who are begging to put more money and more authority into the state? It's not a hard choice.

There is, of course, an element of the far left who aren't crony capitalists, but that's not to say that they're any better or that they reflect the real America: They have a blind hatred of western culture founded in arrogance and ignorance of history. Nevermind that they live in a state of luxury that would make the kings of the past jealous. Nevermind that capitalism and western values have drawn more people out of poverty and created more opportunities for individuals to live happy lives than any other system in human history (certainly more than the poverty-inducing bloodbaths with tens of millions dead that we call communism). Their massive egos can't stand the fact that someone has more than they do.

Huge mma fan here that only got back into pro wrestling for the first time since childhood last year. I don't dislike actual violence at all, I just like sweet stunts and corny acting as an alternative to whatever other drivel is on tv.

>>2376983
>It was crazy, testosterone-driven fun. That's more than sustainable.

You're not entirely wrong. Today's WWE is still crazy and testosterone-driven, just not at the level it once was. Going back to the insanity of the AE is what would be unsustainable.