By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 09 February 2024
Edit Thread
Jumpin said:
JWeinCom said:

Eh? I'm not sure how Punk would have fit into the spot. Having lost to Cody at the Rumble he really had no legitimate claim to the match, and it wouldn't have made sense for Cody to give him the title shot. Feel like Punk would have faced Rollins at mania. 

But yeah, the segment was great. I didn't think this whole thing was going to work because I didn't think heel Rock was an option. And, again, it doesn't make sense considering how they started this, but it is a great decision. Otherwise they would have had to come up with some kind of compromise to try and make both matches happen, and I don't think it would have worked at all. Rock being in the mix now actually makes this so much better. Cody just winning the Royal Rumble and challenging Roman in a rematch... Well it would have been like vanilla ice cream. Vanilla ice cream is delicious and satisfying, and you're never unhappy with it. Now, threw some whip cream and hot fudge on top. Credit where credit is due, whether this was the plan all along, or whether he read the room and turned heel like he did with Hogan, the Rock does indeed seem to be saving Wrestlemania. 

Whether it's due to Vince McMahon stepping down or not, I've been enjoying the product much more than I have probably since Wrestlemania 30 with the yes movement. They've been doing a good job with giving characters actual motivations, connecting storylines instead of each being in its own little world, and building up to things... That being said, they've really been delaying gratification and blueballing the fans. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Part of wrestling is disappointing the fans, dangling what they want in front of them, and yanking it away. If you do it right, it makes it all the better when they finally get what they want. If you do it wrong though, they just give up. 

The way I’d see it is they’d want to raise the bullshit meter, and they could do it the same way by making it look like the bookers pushed Cody toward Rollins and Punk toward Roman by starting up with the story about Punk being a bigger star (already triggered) and establishing a link with Heyman “He was my wiseman first” in the way the Rock did with Bloodline. It looks to me, at least, that they were already laying the seeds. And yes, it would sound like bullshit, and that’s what works up the fans. I’m not trying to say CM Punk is better than the Rock in this role, just that it could have been the original plan - I can’t see CM Punk or Cody’s Wrestlemania 40 being (as you said) vanilla ice cream. But Punk got injured. Maybe we’ll know his plans later or maybe we’ll never know.

Actually, the other figure that could have factored in was Brock Lesnar who (IMO) would have also been a great fit. I’m not so sure The Rock was ever meant to be inserted in there. He was just (as the immortal Hulk Hogan would say) the right gay guy at the right time. (OK, I know that was lame 😞)


On a side (and related note, since I’m in the mood for a tangent, and triggered by the earlier talk about the Angle/Benoit/Jericho triple threat, which IMO was an awesome match for its time): Wrestlemania 2000, they took it too far in the eyes of many in actually having a fatal 4 way elimination where The Rock lost… Many, to this day, think it was a bad idea, but the numbers don’t lie. Because Backlash 2000 ended up feeling like a truly important PPV and the legitimate direct sequel to Wrestlemania, and it kicked off the biggest Spring/Summer season (basically everything from Backlash to Summerslam) in WWE history. I feel like I had a very different experience than most, because I thought the whole thing with The Rock winning at Backlash instead made for a bigger moment in the end.

To bring it in, most people want the simplest most straight forward path—but it’s the disruption of that which makes a story truly compelling. Because the most compelling stories involve setbacks, twists, and obstacles. The basic formula for a “work” is showing the audience what they want and telling them they can’t have it. That’s what really gets them fired up. So, when I say the Rhodes story isn’t new: Kofi, Bryan, Punk, Benoit, and others were made into big stars basically using the same trick “the big guys in the back don’t believe they’re ready.” + some clear bullshit contrivance into the plot. And despite the obvious story progression, the audience seems to always fall for this work. It’s a good one, IMO.

I think it's reasonable for the audience to believe it because this is something the WWE has done quite a lot in the past. There are some examples like Bryan/Kofi/Becky where they ultimately gave the audience what they wanted. But there are a lot of counterexamples. Roman Reigns main evented like three times in a row while as the face nobody wanted. Wyatt lost the title to Goldberg to set up a match that didn't need to be a championship match. Same situation with Rock and Punk. John Cena beating Wyatt when he really didn't need to and shouldn't have. HHH's reign of terror. There's plenty of time that they do just sacrifice someone who is up and coming for an older star. So it's not unreasonable for fans to think that might happen.

As for Wrestlemania 2000, I actually liked that cause I was a HHH fan. But, I'm not sure you can attribute WWE's subsequent success to that booking decision. Right around this time was when Vince Russo and Bischoff returned to WCW and ushered in some truly awful booking.