Why was Goldberg over? Because he was protected, he beat everybody, he never lost clean, he was a monster. Why is Brock over? Because he is protected, he beats everybody, he never loses clean, he is a monster. Why was Ryback over in 2012? Because he was protected, he beat everybody, he never lost clean, he was a monster. Why was Rusev over in 2014/early 2015? Because he was protected, he beat everybody, he never lost clean, he was a monster.
It seems pretty simple: you wanna get a guy over as a big deal, you treat him as a big deal. You protect him in booking, you have him win matches and make him seem like a badass who can be a champion.
Yet when the same principle is used for guys like Cena and now Reigns, it is widely criticized. Nowadays whenever Reigns wins a match or a physical segment, it's "Super Cena 2.0". He gets his ass kicked, and it's "Daniel Reigns". The guy is no longer a smiling babyface and is booked like an actual asskicker, but still he is lambasted for the same booking that got numerous guys over as badasses and title contenders.
So why is that, really? Is it just the whole "Golden Boy" thing?
Prob cos Brock diddnt hv superman booking at start of his career. He took falls. Reigns pretty much has had this kinda booking for along time well before he was champ. Reigns is also being pushed as a traditional babyface. Lesnar and Goldberg were tweeners. Its the same forumlaic crap since 03. So while I see your point. Their are differences.
People who don't like Reigns probably weren't people cheering for Goldberg in 1998. If they were, they were nearly 20 years younger so there's no 'smark' mind-set to go off of.
this should've ended this thread right here, you seriously gonna compare the physical stature and more importantly, their Mic work? Goldberg & Brock are complete opposites on the mic compared to Reigns and especially Cena
you were better off comparing Hogan's booking since he was over and well accepted for years until his WCW days
Nothing against Reigns, but any comparison between him and Goldberg does not jell. Goldberg was electric. The guy had a badass-other-person-is-fearful-and-fans-are-in-awe factor that was at another level.
Honestly, the only superman booking I've ever actually liked, was where Undertaker and Kane were concerned, because it was a significant element of their gimmick. Yet it was also done well, within the context of the division and the title picture--IIRC they never had long title reigns the few times they have had the titles, so their superman booking wasn't really holding the title picture hostage as a result.
I think this is the crucial point when it comes to superman bookings, they are much more acceptable if they are about cementing a character rather than being used to lock up a title belt because if you make somebody too much of a superman and then give them the belt you end up writing yourself into a corner to explain their eventual loss and why they do not immediately win it back.
Why was Goldberg over? Because he was protected, he beat everybody, he never lost clean, he was a monster. Why is Brock over? Because he is protected, he beats everybody, he never loses clean, he is a monster. Why was Ryback over in 2012? Because he was protected, he beat everybody, he never lost clean, he was a monster. Why was Rusev over in 2014/early 2015? Because he was protected, he beat everybody, he never lost clean, he was a monster.
It seems pretty simple: you wanna get a guy over as a big deal, you treat him as a big deal. You protect him in booking, you have him win matches and make him seem like a badass who can be a champion.
Yet when the same principle is used for guys like Cena and now Reigns, it is widely criticized. Nowadays whenever Reigns wins a match or a physical segment, it's "Super Cena 2.0". He gets his ass kicked, and it's "Daniel Reigns". The guy is no longer a smiling babyface and is booked like an actual asskicker, but still he is lambasted for the same booking that got numerous guys over as badasses and title contenders.
So why is that, really? Is it just the whole "Golden Boy" thing?
Agreed. Its not even worth explaining its so obvious
Also, Reigns and Cenas booking are nothing alike. Its just the idiot smarks who want to complain about Reigns who is actually superior to Cena. They probably started watching in 2012
People no longer want to see one guy rip through everyone in sight they want to be entertained and the the guys that are over are generally the ones who are entertaining either in ring or on mic or both. A big difference between Goldberg and Reigns is Goldberg buried nobodies but Reigns has buried every heel on the roster which means there is no longer any credible threats aside from Lesnar. Even with Styles now they have begun to have Reigns take out Gallows and Anderson single handedly and made out like Styles needs them to beat Reigns. On other words he has buried all the heels so now he is moving on to the faces. The difference between Cena and Reigns is even when Cena was booed due to his superman booking he could still work the crowd on the mic so he was always able to turn most crowds and he completely innovated his ring work and moveset in 2015 which led to many great matches on a weekly basis. Most of all Cena got over as a heel roo the point that they had to book him as a face and only when they made him super Cena did the crowds turn. With Reigns he doesn't have the ability to work the crowd on the mic, he has had a few good matches but not enough that the crowd really want to see him work. The worst thing they did other than the cheesy lines and smirks is they tried to portray a guy who has not lost clean on the main roster as an underdog and as a guy who the Authority didn't want as champ despite everyone knowing he was Vinny macs choice as new FotC.
Turn him and the Usos coperate HEELS and have them feud with a face Bullet Club and then a tweener Wyatt family and maybe just maybe Reigns may be able to have a run as a face when he turns further down the line. I genuinely hope that the damage isn't permanent for the guy but they aren't helping him by trying to keep forcing it and turning crowd mics down to hide his heat or altering crowd signs. Help the guy out Jeez!
I think it's just one of those dated wrestling tropes. There are exceptions where it's worked in the modern era but it's always been a heel unless I'm mistaken. I can't think of a single face who has gotten over through that kind of booking in the last decade. Even when it is a heel you need the right person for the job. Brock brought over a lot of legitimacy and star power after his stint in the UFC while Rusev is a menacing, athletic big guy with a gorgeous wife who trolled Murricans by playing on their nationalism. Watching relatively green babyfaces rise to the top by plowing through everyone just isn't endearing to most people anymore.
There should always be TWO people with 'Superman booking'. Either a good guy who never loses and a bad guy, or two good guys who NEVER team and never face each other. Both need to be unbeatable for a year or so. This is why the brand split is a good idea. Smackdown guy and RAW guy. Or whatever. Just as long as they don't face each other. Hell, they can team up at a PPV.
Then, at the big PPV, either Sportsentertania or Summerslam, those two guys face each other so you don't know who's going to win.
That's how you make people watch and be invested in the PPVs.
I don't know about this anymore. Sure there would be an appeal of a great confrontation if the right people were chosen. But in the meantime you risk essentially running everyone else down and giving away the rest of the year except for that confrontation. And if it lets down, you have nothing.
Fans are going to drift away from a year or more of multiple times a week predictable programming. Using one match to try and counter that is iffy at best. Not unless both guys are hugely popular and great at connecting across the fan and potential fan spectrum.
It was easier to do Hogan vs Andre when there was nowhere near as much wrestling on tv. Now given wrestling saturation this could wear thin pretty quickly. Plus after it is over much of the rest of the roster is pretty much marked as third rate. Unless you are just going to feed both guys less than stellar opponents for months on end. But then we are back to the amount of wrestling product on the air problem. Not to mention people who buy the network for the monthly ppvs. Booking elsewhere would have to improve greatly or interest will suffer.
There is also the matter of Smackdown being a greatly declined brand. That show would need a remaking and such would have to catch on. I think it might be too late already for that however.
For me the problem is consistency of presentation and character. If you present the guy as a killer and he acts like a killer and the announcers treat him like a killer then the audience will accept him as a killer.
Think of Goldberg, Brock, even Rusev's first big run.
But if you present the guy as an underdog, but he always wins, and the announcers treat him as a pure babyface then the audience will reject the superman booking.
It's the way Reigns carries himself more than anything that has people dislike him.
In the real world, guys hate people like Reigns. In every day life. He carries himself like he's above people. It's not so much confidence, but a sense of just being smug. Whether that's his character or his actual personality showing through, I don't know.
That and Reigns undefined character. Its not authentic. One second hes pretending to be a badass. Then he needs his cousins helping him out. Then he's smiling with a smug look. It is the way he carries him self. Be a badass come out kick ass. Or smile and kiss fat babies. Pick a lane, make your mind u. Theirs no believability with the Reigns character. With Batista, Lesnar, Goldberg. They had defined booking from the get go. You knew who they were. And they were believable as ass kickers. With Reigns its like who's gonna show up this week.
I don't like Goldberg but Reigns has nowhere near the power and intensity that he had in the ring and not to mention the look of Goldberg and Brock they look like monsters while Roman looks like a underwear model.
Who would believe that Reigns kicked out of 3 F5's while Undertaker was done with only 2 F5's ? Really unbelievable. The more Reigns say "Believe That", the less believable wrestling becomes.
Seriously, you need more than just words to believe.
I understand where are you coming from OP, but back in the days when Goldberg was on fucking roll, WWE had plenty of other main eventers, who were protected and booked reasonably. Now? Not so many.
1. Brock and Goldberg are just special. Much of the audience is convinced that no one on the roster should be able to beat them. They make destroying people look easy. What Reigns can do with a 200 pounder those guys can do with a 300 pounder.
2. Goldberg and Brock were booked as monsters from the start. They were building an unpinned streak under the radar like Reigns. It was at the forefront that they were decimating legends. Even within the stable it was Ambrose that was holding the singles title while Reigns was a tag champ.
Look at the most over guys in the past few years. CM Punk, Dolph Ziggler, Daniel Bryan, Dean Ambrose etc did not receive "Superman booking". Hell, lets take it back to the Attitude Era where the Rock and Austin actually lost and not only that they were vulnerable. Them losing was actually possible and they didn't run through 3-4 guys a night either. This isn't the 1980s anymore, people don't give a damn about a guys look or a guy being superman anymore. It's over, Reigns' booking is hurting him and there's no justification to shitting on the entire roster and fan favorites purely "because"
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Wrestling Forum
23.4M posts
266.5K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all Wrestling enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about WWE, AEW, Ring of Honor, Impact and all forms of professional and amateur wrestling.