>>7432259>>7432284Haha yes, but your ideas of how the business is (or how it could be) is predicated on how the business has been.
It like "Hey looks like vince was right about Roman Reigns and daniel bryan all along!"
No, of course he wasnt.
Reigns was put in the ME scene for 5 years BEFORE he was ready and the crowd hated it. THEN after 5 years and a gimic change and a heel turn the real fans appreciated the talent and now cheer him. Why? because he improved.
Now, hypothetically, if they put 1000 hours of build into Daniel bryan who was actually naturally over and talented in the first place MAYBE a billion pajeets would be worshiping him instead.
WWEs formula was to force pretty people to the top, despite their talent level.
Now, add the factor that they also dumb down story lines and creative writing, instead of actually geuninely "good" and maybe even "somewhat complex" intertwining character dev and story lines.. and thats a shitty 1 2 punch.
>>7432352Sure i agree, you can make a good story with anyone, but WWE dont do that.
Almost every heel has been the same, and every face has been the same.
(though HHH is showing signs of evolving this.)
You guys seem to think that WWE deserves a C+ for their character dev and story lines over the last 20 years, when in reality they deserve an F.
