|
|
Post by skylerb97 on Apr 10, 2014 16:08:25 GMT -5
Eh Edhe only had a 5-0 streak at the time in comparison with Taker's it just doesn't feel right. Plus it would've all been for nothing as he'd have probably still lost at 25 in the Triple threat match. (I do think he should've beaten Chris the following year, the booking of the WHC in 2010 was just stupid all throughout the year
|
|
|
|
Post by skylerb97 on Apr 10, 2014 16:12:21 GMT -5
To believe Taker was never capable of deciding when, to whom it if the Streak should end is just a really hard thing for me to believe. Although the guy probably never felt to attached to it himself, to not understand the repercussions it would've had on fans is a really big failure to see the big picture. So if he was ok with it it's his fault, legend or not
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 10, 2014 16:12:57 GMT -5
I have nothing against Edge having broken the streak. The guy has tremendous credentials. You can debate whether he deserved them or not, but his accolades speak for himself. The company trusted Edge when times were hard for them. "Broke Undertaker's streak" would be right at home with his list of titles and achievements.
For personal reasons, I would have preferred Orton, but I'm not really all that picky. The only guys I've ever said should definitely NOT break the streak were HHH (nothing to gain from it), Punk (too much of a mercenary and untrustworthy), and Lesnar.
|
|
|
|
Post by skylerb97 on Apr 10, 2014 16:14:21 GMT -5
When did it become common for fans to use the "just following orders" excuse and believe certain talent has no control over their characters whenever they're involved in a bad booking decision
|
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Apr 10, 2014 16:14:51 GMT -5
It was streak vs. streak. He actually handpicked Edge to win that too and carry on a "streak." Which is why I have a hard time with people saying that he handpicked Lesnar and it was Taker's fault. Taker has literally handpicked many people and it never happened. He eventually just probably handpicked Lesnar because WWE likes to push him when he has no reason to be pushed. There is all kinds of rumor and innuendo out there. The fact of the matter is that Mark Calaway has creative control of his character, and could have vetoed losing to Lesnar. I don't know or care if he "hand picked" so-and-so, and honestly, I think that rumor has been attached to every single opponent he's faced in the past 10 years. The fact is that he could have opted not to, and didn't, so yes, it's his fault. Screw him. Ehhh, I see it as this. Taker's personally said that he never wanted the streak to begin with, and clearly he didn't care who ended it as he was willing to give it to so many. I don't necessarily think that Lesnar was any more valuable of a streak ender as Edge, Orton, Punk, Triple H, Shawn. I think that Taker just literally wanted the streak to end so he could focus on something else with his career. I mean, let's face it, ever since the streak has been a thing, Taker's popularity has went down (even though I know you don't like Taker and never have), I think he simply wanted the streak to stop so he could start something else. In fact, he has already stated that he's not done with wrestling and plans on continuing. As much as I hate the fact that Lesnar won, I don't necessarily blame Taker. |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Apr 10, 2014 16:16:21 GMT -5
When did it become common for fans to use the "just following orders" excuse and believe certain talent has no control over their characters whenever they're involved in a bad booking decision Nobody said that, lol. Also, I think Edge, Orton, or..........Diesel would've been good to break the streak. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 10, 2014 16:16:27 GMT -5
If he didn't care, then that's a lack of character. Again, screw him.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 10, 2014 16:18:13 GMT -5
When did it become common for fans to use the "just following orders" excuse and believe certain talent has no control over their characters whenever they're involved in a bad booking decision Even if you DON'T have creative control (most guys don't), there should come a point at which, for the sake of your personal integrity, you say "no." |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Apr 10, 2014 16:18:17 GMT -5
If he didn't care, then that's a lack of character. Again, screw him. Ehhh, I disagree. Once again, I think him wanting to never have a streak to begin with shows that he didn't want the spotlight and was willing to give it to anybody else. *shrugs* |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Apr 10, 2014 16:18:41 GMT -5
When did it become common for fans to use the "just following orders" excuse and believe certain talent has no control over their characters whenever they're involved in a bad booking decision Even if you DON'T have creative control (most guys don't), there should come a point at which, for the sake of your personal integrity, you say "no." You mean like Punk did, lol? :lol: |
|
|
|
Post by skylerb97 on Apr 10, 2014 16:18:50 GMT -5
I have nothing against Edge having broken the streak. The guy has tremendous credentials. You can debate whether he deserved them or not, but his accolades speak for himself. The company trusted Edge when times were hard for them. "Broke Undertaker's streak" would be right at home with his list of titles and achievements. For personal reasons, I would have preferred Orton, but I'm not really all that picky. The only guys I've ever said should definitely NOT break the streak were HHH (nothing to gain from it), Punk (too much of a mercenary and untrustworthy), and Lesnar. I get you but to me jr just seems like an "all for not type thing" to have him beat Taker and then have Edge lose to Cena the following year at 25. I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, I'm saying creative probably didn't have enough hindsight to make Edge having his own streak a big deal and to keep momentum behind it. (Then again I just like to look at long term implications when discussing topics such as these) |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Apr 10, 2014 16:20:55 GMT -5
I have nothing against Edge having broken the streak. The guy has tremendous credentials. You can debate whether he deserved them or not, but his accolades speak for himself. The company trusted Edge when times were hard for them. "Broke Undertaker's streak" would be right at home with his list of titles and achievements. For personal reasons, I would have preferred Orton, but I'm not really all that picky. The only guys I've ever said should definitely NOT break the streak were HHH (nothing to gain from it), Punk (too much of a mercenary and untrustworthy), and Lesnar. I get you but to me jr just seems like an "all for not type thing" to have him beat Taker and then have Edge lose to Cena the following year at 25. I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, I'm saying creative probably didn't have enough hindsight to make Edge having his own streak a big deal and to keep momentum behind it. (Then again I just like to look at long term implications when discussing topics such as these) Well, that's the thing. If Edge would've beat Taker, things would've ended differently, lol. Think of it (stealing this from Abed from Community) as creating 2 alternate timelines, lol. Sure, Edge lost to Cena the next year. If he would've beat Taker though, he would've had way more hype and heat than anybody, therefore giving him a bigger push (and most likely his own WM streak since that match was streak vs. streak). |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 10, 2014 16:21:17 GMT -5
Even if you DON'T have creative control (most guys don't), there should come a point at which, for the sake of your personal integrity, you say "no." You mean like Punk did, lol? :lol: No. Punk walked out on his contract like a child, because he wasn't getting the match he wanted. There is a sharp difference between refusing to participate in something you know lacks integrity (like an actor refusing to be in a movie if he knows it's going to be bad), and refusing to do something because you can't have everything your own way. Punk has no integrity. He didn't leave because of what was going to happen, he left because of what was not going to happen; namely, CM Punk getting a Wrestlemania Main Event. |
|
|
|
Post by wildknight on Apr 10, 2014 16:22:55 GMT -5
I think Edge would have lost to Cena at 25 regardless (and again, I'm fine with that). Edge was never going to be "the guy" in the way that Cena is because Edge isn't Hogan-esque. The only guy who broke the mold and managed to be the top guy was Stone Cold... and that lasted only as long as it took for McMahon to maneuver another Hogan clone (the Rock) into proper position to move Austin out.
|
|
|
|
Post by skylerb97 on Apr 10, 2014 16:24:13 GMT -5
When did it become common for fans to use the "just following orders" excuse and believe certain talent has no control over their characters whenever they're involved in a bad booking decision Nobody said that, lol. Also, I think Edge, Orton, or..........Diesel would've been good to break the streak. I'm using that in general as it could apply to someone like Cena. (Who knows if he even has any say so or just chooses not to use it) I mean I know he's passionate about the business loves his job etc. but at what point can you maybe step up and say "maybe my character won't be diminished by losing as long as it furthers along an interesting story" |
|
|
|
Post by SoonDragon67 on Apr 10, 2014 16:24:17 GMT -5
Even if you DON'T have creative control (most guys don't), there should come a point at which, for the sake of your personal integrity, you say "no." You mean like Punk did, lol? :lol: Punk's wasn't a matter of integrity, it was a matter of ego. |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Apr 10, 2014 16:25:23 GMT -5
You mean like Punk did, lol? :lol: No. Punk walked out on his contract like a child, because he wasn't getting the match he wanted. There is a sharp difference between refusing to participate in something you know lacks integrity (like an actor refusing to be in a movie if he knows it's going to be bad), and refusing to do something because you can't have everything your own way. Punk has no integrity. He didn't leave because of what was going to happen, he left because of what was not going to happen; namely, CM Punk getting a Wrestlemania Main Event. As far as I've read, admittedly not a lot, Punk was complaining about how WWE isn't using the new talent and was pushing people that have already had the spotlight (bad wordplay there since Punk's had the spotlight, but I mean oldies). Was he mad that he didn't have the spotlight at WM? Probably, but when you think about who did, that's pretty reasonable. Batista, dammit. Batista. |
|
|
|
Post by skylerb97 on Apr 10, 2014 16:28:01 GMT -5
No. Punk walked out on his contract like a child, because he wasn't getting the match he wanted. There is a sharp difference between refusing to participate in something you know lacks integrity (like an actor refusing to be in a movie if he knows it's going to be bad), and refusing to do something because you can't have everything your own way. Punk has no integrity. He didn't leave because of what was going to happen, he left because of what was not going to happen; namely, CM Punk getting a Wrestlemania Main Event. As far as I've read, admittedly not a lot, Punk was complaining about how WWE isn't using the new talent and was pushing people that have already had the spotlight (bad wordplay there since Punk's had the spotlight, but I mean oldies). Was he mad that he didn't have the spotlight at WM? Probably, but when you think about who did, that's pretty reasonable. Batista, dammit. Batista. how much more of a spotlight do you need? Sure there were times he never really felt like an important champion but in that situation just accept the fact that your probably as pushed as someone who isn't named John Felix Anthony Cena is going to be and move on |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 16:28:32 GMT -5
No. Punk walked out on his contract like a child, because he wasn't getting the match he wanted. There is a sharp difference between refusing to participate in something you know lacks integrity (like an actor refusing to be in a movie if he knows it's going to be bad), and refusing to do something because you can't have everything your own way. Punk has no integrity. He didn't leave because of what was going to happen, he left because of what was not going to happen; namely, CM Punk getting a Wrestlemania Main Event. As far as I've read, admittedly not a lot, Punk was complaining about how WWE isn't using the new talent and was pushing people that have already had the spotlight (bad wordplay there since Punk's had the spotlight, but I mean oldies). Was he mad that he didn't have the spotlight at WM? Probably, but when you think about who did, that's pretty reasonable. Boobtista, dammit. Boobtista. Do you meant "Boobtista"? (Boobtista is the women version of Bootista) |
|
|
|
Post by BaneTheDestroyer on Apr 10, 2014 16:28:35 GMT -5
Nobody said that, lol. Also, I think Edge, Orton, or..........Diesel would've been good to break the streak. I'm using that in general as it could apply to someone like Cena. (Who knows if he even has any say so or just chooses not to use it) I mean I know he's passionate about the business loves his job etc. but at what point can you maybe step up and say "maybe my character won't be diminished by losing as long as it furthers along an interesting story" Cena loses a lot (yes, I know you're using it in general and not talking about him specifically, but I'm going with your example). It just so happens that he wins a lot. That's WWE using him a lot more than the rest of the roster. I dont' see how that's Cena's fault, lol (again, I'm only using Cena for the sake of this, this can really be interpreted into any of the big guys I've seen). |
|
