Royal Rumble 2015: When It Reigns, It Pours

You're not going to please everyone - I get it. If you're expecting to be 100% pleased all the time then I think you're in for a rough time when watching WWE. Yet even when employing fair judgement and an open minded attitude it's difficult to rid myself of the thought that WWE are actively attempting to spite me. It appears that I'm not the only one when you see that #CancelWWENetwork is a worldwide trend on Twitter in an era where wrestling is not culturally relevant. Perhaps it's some really shitty, circuitous way in order to get some publicity but it's actually more concise than that. To quote Paul Heyman 14 years ago: "Vince McMahon has lost his mind".

I admit I'm being facetious; I don't really know what goes on backstage so it's hard for me to pinpoint what is wrong on an internal level. However, as a viewer I can simply say that the WWE might be the most tone deaf it's been since I can remember. Again, you're not going to please everyone and not every rising star is going to win over the entire crowd. I remember the consensus to Rey Mysterio's 2006 victory to be something along the lines of "Oh hey...neat I guess". Batista's first Rumble win in 2005 also met a similar response despite his character and performance being a little green. But for the past two years WWE have shot themselves in the foot with their mouth agape, wondering why the crowd are chucking their shit right back at them. As a fan, I feel like my opinion doesn't matter anymore, which is kind of a sad thing to comprehend. I frequently visit a forum with a delightful section to discuss wrestling. One of the posters mentioned a video which perfectly summed up the relationship that WWE has with their fans. WWE's obvious contempt and ignorance for it's audience is one thing to sigh over but what's worse is their complete lack of basic storytelling and character development.

So you want to be like Hollywood? Well, Hollywood usually has characters and, funnily enough, some of these characters are pretty likeable. Guardians of the Galaxy had a ragtag of misfits all piled together in a smelly ship but what made the audience fall in love with them was their unique personalities, traits, flaws and story arcs. Rocket Raccoon wasn't just a toy for merchandise and toys, he had unique attributes, skills and a surprising amount of struggle within himself. OK, OK, I'm getting off topic but a large problem WWE has is it's lack of character strength regarding their wrestlers - particularly wrestlers that they are fond of. What the Royal Rumble showed me was that WWE has no interest in their current roster and no idea on how to make them appealing or worthwhile. They're thrown on there on the stage and expected to kill time with no opportunities to shine or any stories to make the crowd care.

Roman Reigns has been kneecapped and thrown to the wolves through no fault of his own. The wincing grimace across his face should never be seen for a guy who just won a first class ticket to Wrestlemania. Sadly, Reigns is a perfect symbol of something promising that's twisted and contorted in order to mollify the arbitrary standards of the holy Vince and pals. Roman Reigns is a wrestler who, despite having a successful run in a prolific stable, is still finding his feet. The higher ups clearly wanted Reigns to be the standout star of the group but Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose have surpassed Reigns in both character identity and overall performance. Seth has embraced his character as the "Architect"; a cerebral and intelligent opportunist who can still be deadly in the ring. Dean Ambrose found overwhelming success with the image of the "Lunatic Fringe" with his unhinged yet intelligent mindset throwing his opponents off their game. Roman Reigns has wet hair. OK, I'm being unfair to him; Reigns found a lot of success by filling in the role as the "Hot Tag" guy in the Shield. He was extremely effective in cleaning house and finishing off his opponents with his multitude of finishers. The Shield highlighted the guy's strengths yet it also veiled his weaknesses. Roman is still getting his act together in terms of workrate and on the microphone and you know what? That's understandable. Rollins and Ambrose had years of experience on their resume before Reigns had even entered the ring, so it's fair to assume that Reigns wasn't going to develop at the same rate they did. Yet Reigns has been pushed out onto centre stage with not much to work with and he's still green. At least when Batista was green in 2005 there was still a backstory between him and Triple H to carry the feud (And guess what, the match still kind of sucked...). A standard feud with Lesnar ain't gonna cut it.

What's even more baffling is the complete lack of moments that Reigns really had in the Rumble, especially compared to last year. Yet Reigns' booking is only one part of the handful of misdoings at the infamous Philly PPV because nobody really did anything. Like...no one. None. Nada. The WWE had a story served to them in a nice wrapped package with Daniel Bryan. It might be exhausting to harp on the booking of Bryan but if WWE were to take their head out of their ass we'd all be in a much better place. The man who had his dream title-run ripped away from him because of a career threatening injury, coming back and having to overcome all of the odds and slay the dragon that has mauled all of his competitors. It's so simple to tell yet extremely efficacious and it soars over the heads of the writers for reasons that I can't seem to grasp. So we can guess that they don't like the idea of an "Indy guy" coming in and mucking up all of Vince's prized superstars but they must realize that the current myopic mindset that they've had all these years JUST. DOESN'T. WORK. Big Show wasn't your guy, Orton wasn't your guy, Lashley wasn't your guy, Sheamus wasn't your guy and now Roman Reigns has fallen into their ridiculous trend of "Let's make him our guy - and by our guy I mean John Cena". Roman Reigns, the man who has slain half the roster with his gut rupturing spear, the man who looks like a cross between Lobo and Jason Mamoa has been reduced to making Looney Tunes references and "cracking wise".

Nah, fuck that shit. No one wants to see that again.

The poor fucker should have been given the chance to build on his identity but instead he had it ripped from him. Now he's been force fed the same bland, quirky garbage that every other babyface has to spout because WWE's roster can't be allowed to exhibit any kind of individuality any more. They won't accept the universally loved underdog babyface because he doesn't fit into their idyllic image yet when the stars align and Roman Reigns comes along in some thaumaturgic happening they still feel the need to castrate him because he's not like John Cena. The same thing happened to Sheamus 3 years ago when he went from a roughneck, no sense shit kicker to a smiling "Irish Cena". Well, I'm glad that we now get to choose from Irish Cena, Samoan Cena and well...Cena Cena. Bad News Barrett, Dolph Ziggler, Cesaro and Dean Ambrose all got the shaft in the match because they were never allowed to do anything. There were no clever ideas or interesting character moments bar Miz and Sandow, yet the latter was thrown out within mere seconds. It's obviously not Sandow's time, it's not anyone's time: especially Cesaro because that guy is Swiss and obviously can't connect with the crowd.

What's so upsetting is that WWE did it AGAIN. They ruined the Royal Rumble and strangled any chances of a coherent and sensible story leading into Wrestlemania so that they can tell their own undecipherable idea of what is entertaining. Why should I get behind Roman Reigns facing Brock Lesnar? I don't want to get behind the guy that lamely quotes Sylvester the Cat, why would anyone want that? It's time to do a lot of damage control, WWE, because if you're still going to spend the next two months sniffing your own farts you're going to be just as baffled when you come across a pro-Lesnar crowd at Wrestlemania. Philly was just the beginning and that Wrestlemania smark crowd will murder poor Roman Reigns. Even the Rock's appearance could not wash the taste out of our mouths from the shit we were fed and it was clearly illustrated in his facial expressions. A post match promo followed on WWE.com which might have been one of the worst promos the Rock had ever delivered; it's understandable after witnessing the train wreck from a first hand perspective and seeing a beloved family member get bent over and fucked through no fault of his own. I like Roman Reigns and I see lots of promise in him, I just don't see any promise in the WWE's booking.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, fuck you, WWE.

Too Many Gimmicks

The build up to the Royal Rumble often causes a lot of excited chatter and discussion between fans about who WWE are planning to strap a jetpack to for the main event of Wrestlemania. For the past two years it’s been disappointing to see them waste the achievement on already established stars such as John Cena and Batista but despite any missteps I’ve often enjoyed the Royal Rumble matches and the whole event surrounding it. Preceding the Royal Rumble is another gimmick PPV titled Tables, Ladders and Chairs and ever since its inception I’ve been against the whole concept. This isn’t the only event on the WWE calendar that makes me cringe as every October I get to witness the writers take another dump on the concept of the Hell in a Cell match. While it’s easy for me to simply say that gimmick PPVs are crap, there’s obviously a way to pull them off successfully. As I’ve said before, the Royal Rumble PPV is often entertaining to watch and the recent main event of Survivor Series was thoroughly enjoyable. WWE’s eagerness to push gimmick PPVs came about a few years back around when they decided to go PG. In 2009 we were introduced to events surrounded around submission matches (Breaking Point), Hell in a Cell matches and the first TLC pay per view. Sadly, this was the year when a lot of the presence surrounding the latter two gimmick matches was thrown out the window.

At Hell in a Cell 2009 we saw THREE matches inside the cell. At that point, we were used to only seeing the bone chilling structure on a once per year basis but there was nothing wrong with that. The matches that took place inside the cell were CM Punk vs the Undertaker, John Cena vs Randy Orton and Legacy vs the aging D-Generation X. All three of those feuds weren’t exactly the most visceral rivalries of that year, nor were they particularly captivating. Prior to that year, we saw Edge vs Undertaker duke it out in the cell which saw the conclusion of a story that lasted over a year. The reason why the Hell in the Cell was so effective in its first 12 years was because it made sense in storyline. The very first Hell in a Cell between Shawn Michaels and Undertaker took place because it provided a scenario in which Shawn could not rely on his cronies or find a way to escape; this provided ample situation for Taker to beat the holy shit out of HBK for as long as he pleased. Other famous Hell in a Cell matches include Mick Foley vs Triple H, Randy Orton vs Undertaker, Shawn Michaels vs Triple H and Brock Lesnar vs Undertaker.

While I could go on to analyse all of them, it’s easier to explain the real reason why the gimmick was more suitable than the formula that WWE utilizes now. Those feuds that I just mentioned had reached a boiling point where it had become so heated and intense that the Hell in a Cell was used as the nuclear option in order to end the whole and leave only one wrestler standing. In short, Hell in a Cell was basically the feud killer. CM Punk vs Undertaker and Legacy vs DX did not even scrape the magnitude of animosity or insanity in order to require such a dangerous structure to accommodate their battles. While John Cena vs Randy Orton might have shared quite a bit of bad blood between them, we certainly know that they would go on to wrestler each other again...and again….and again….

Ever since 2009, there haven’t really been many classic Hell in a Cell matches except for Triple H vs The Undertaker. The magic in setting that match up was because it was supposed to be the final battle between the two and since they were both notorious for their antics inside the cell in the past, it made sense for them to fight it out in their preferred setting to see who was the best. Ryback vs CM Punk in 2012 kind of made sense but there was no heat between the two and felt more like a diluted cage match (Which is another gimmick match that’s been overused by TNA). When the Hell in a Cell was announced it was often expected to be the grand finale but now it’s just another match.

The original TLC match was not created out of a yearly schedule, it was a combination of the anarchy raised by the three most prolific tag teams at the time – The Hardy Boys, Edge & Christian and the Dudley Boys. Each team’s weapon of choice was tossed into the battleground and we all watched them kill each other because we’re sadistic assholes. The repetition of TLC became kind of concerning when WWE threw it together on Smackdown without any build up because Triple H got injured for the planned main event that night and they had to come up with something quick. This was the third TLC match in the past 12 months and it was getting kind of redundant at this point; the whole match reeked of its concept and name value being accepted on its own without any sufficient back story. After the fourth edition in 2002, TLC went away for a few years until 2006. Two of these matches took place and Edge appeared in both of them.

Hell in a Cell made sense for these two but are we likely to see more from them in the future?

The second one could be considered the best instalment and how it came about was excellent. Edge would only let John Cena have a WWE championship match if he could choose the match stipulation. Choosing the TLC match was a great idea because it was Edge’s familiar territory; this strategy was also chosen when Edge was feuding with the Undertaker. Like the Hell in a Cell matches, the TLC concept was used because it made sense for the characters. The spots can be great and everything but the backstory matters too and using these stipulations just because the poster says so is so token and predictable. There’s no more shocking announcements anymore when we know that two guys are going to kill each other in the wackiest setting.

Now that we have TLC in December, we know that whatever is the big feud going into December will most likely feature the eponymous stipulation. It ruins the surprise of announcing it and if you decide to carry on the feud afterwards (Like John Cena vs Randy Orton last year) then you sort of ruin the matches’ climax. John Cena and Randy Orton wrestled each other in a standard match in the following year at the Royal Rumble after their earlier TLC match and it was kind of hilarious how they tried to sell it as an exceptional situation by titling it as a “One fall match”. It’s just like….every other match! If a shit load of weapons or a demonic structure isn’t going to end it all then is there really any point? The only way that Edge vs Undertaker could top itself after the TLC match in 2008 was ending it all with Hell in a Cell.

Selling TLC on a PPV is one thing but it’s also insane how they litter the card with other similar match types: Tables matches, ladder matches and the laughably conceived “Chairs Match”. These particular matches don’t really need the most deep or profound build up or settings but it’s the notion that WWE just throws the feuds into these situations and expecting it to work. It might do occasionally but the token nature of it ruins the speciality of the settings and just doesn’t make sense in the long run.

What makes a good gimmick PPV then? With match types like the Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, Survivor Series etc. the common theme is the number of competitors. It can be kind of hard to come up with a storyline containing 30 guys to settle it with a Royal Rumble. It’s also hard to come up with a story for why an Elimination Chamber should be introduced other than “Hey, the Elimination Chamber is cool, right?” That strategy of promotion doesn’t bother me at all. Both of these PPVs are handy to switch around the title picture to set up the Wrestlemania main event too, so if you want a guy to go into ‘Mania as the champ, just have them win the Chamber. Money in the Bank is another acceptable PPV because it doesn’t really need much of a story behind it. So it appears that WWE have blown their load in terms of match promotion and booking in recent years. There may be suitably written TLC and Hell in a Cell matches in the future but I feel like the point has become kind of lost now. The funny thing is, if WWE are so eager on these gimmick shows then where the hell is my King of the Ring tournament? Probably because that’d require long term planning and actual build up so I suppose they prefer the old “throwing darts” approach; why else would they turn Big Show heel for the 342^nd time? 

Bojack Horseman: Some Crappy Horse Pun

When starting my free trial of Netflix the other month, a show called Bojack Horseman was recommended to me which was released over last summer. The first impressions that Bojack Horseman gives is a very surreal, cartoonish world that features anthropomorphized animals inhabiting society as normal as any other human being. The eponymous character himself is a horse (Unsurprisingly) and a struggling ‘has-been’ actor that gasps for his last breaths of relevance by chronicling his life story into a much anticipated biography. It’s obvious at a glance that Bojack Horseman would display outlandish and wacky concepts throughout its first season and while it does do that it also carries a lot of real and human issues that remind us too much of reality. Its colourful depiction of Hollywood isn’t so much as a paradise for escaping our lives but instead a warped rearrangement of a society we know all too well. 

The main character himself, despite being a horse, is a story that we have seen many times in the media: A famous actor who rides off of his success for so many years finds himself alone after he is spat out by the machine. Some of Bojack’s misfortunes can be attributed to the cold actions of Hollywood but a lot of the blame falls on himself. Flashbacks show how Bojack has neglected or double crossed those who care for him and sadly this trend carries on to the present day. One thing that’s surprising about this animated sitcom is that the story is serialized and needs to be played in order. If you jump between episodes you don’t get the intended story which will ultimately mar your experience. The main plot focuses on Bojack having to detail his own memoirs which will hopefully put his career back on track. This serves the show a great purpose because it suitably reveals what kind of a person Bojack is in order to keep the plot moving. It also gives the character a chance to reflect on the decisions he’s made and whether he is able to change for the better.

Bojack is not alone in his adventures and is surrounded by a phenomenally well-crafted cast of characters. After watching the first episode I realized how the cast was basically picked for my own liking. The main character, Bojack is voiced by Will Arnett, also known Gob from Arrested Development. Bojack’s ghost writer is an awkward misfit, Diane voiced by Alison Brie from Community. Todd, a lovable waster who perpetually sleeps on Bojack’s couch is voiced by Aaron Paul of all people. I love how Aaron Paul basically has a golden ticket to do whatever he wants because of Breaking Bad yet his character still remains a low life waster who can’t get a job. All this needs is Kurt Russell, H. Jon Benjamin and Rowdy Roddy Piper and it’s the best damn show of all time. Seriously though, these characters (and a few more) are all very important to the plot of Bojack Horseman and the writers go to great effort to detail their own struggles, backstories and relations to Bojack himself.

Despite providing many laughs and chuckles, the show doesn’t hesitate to deal with some heavy issues - particularly the aspect of being alone. Throughout the series we see many problems faced by everyday people such as depending on others and dealing with dysfunctional family members despite the fact that the cast of characters contains a horse, a cat, a penguin and a Labrador called Mr. Peanut Butter. The show is also cutthroat as it dishes out scathing criticisms of the media and celebrity lifestyle. One episode in particular deals with Bojack’s former co-worker, Sarah Lynn, a former child star who eventually becomes corrupted by the music industry and garishly flaunts her sexuality in order to appear mature. This eventually leads to a downward spiral of drugs and debauchery which has clearly taken a toll on her health and personality. Any kind of help or advice goes over her head as she vapidly thumbs through her smartphone. Most characters in this show bear some kind of cross or insecurity which can often spark drama and conflict; the only characters that don’t seem to have this problem are usually blissfully oblivious or just downright dumb. The show even goes so far by criticizing larger issues outside of Hollywood such as the token glorification of troops. It’s a show that can be easy to ruffle many feathers due to its unflinching stance but if you find yourself agreeing with these issues it can be easy to slowly become enamoured with it.

The show doesn’t always hit a homerun, it soapbox moments might not be subtly woven into the narrative and can often be blatantly forced into the dialogue towards the end of an episode. This reminds me of the “You know, I learned something today…” moments from South Park which can get old quick but perhaps things will improve a bit more in the second season. The thing that Bojack Horseman does best is…well….Bojack Horseman. While it’s easy to laugh at Bojack’s antics and behaviour it’s quite obvious that he isn’t a good person, yet it’s hard to dislike him for all of this because deep down there’s a small morsel of self-awareness. The topic of whether a character can change for the better is often brought up in TV shows and sometimes you get an episode where a character addresses this situation and promises to be better in the future. Sometimes you get a scenario where the character is forgiven for his misdeeds for no apparent reason we get a happy ending. It’s hard to permanently change a character despite it being vital for their own wellbeing because a large part of comedy is contrast and conflict. If Homer Simpson promised to stop being an idiot it would probably rob him of a lot of his future material and humour so it’s back to the status quo by the next episode. Yet you wonder why Marge hasn’t left the dumb fucker after all these years. I’m not criticizing this formula because I understand how risky it can be to permanently change a character but I'm curious to see if Bojack can take the writing one step further.

The large question mark hanging over the entire season is whether Bojack really can change but his grand revelation never really comes. This makes it all the more depressing while showing a keen sense of consistency by the writers; Bojack does terrible things and while many characters don’t abandon him they never really forgive him either. This adds a nice layer of depth to the characters that surround him because it clearly shows that Bojack’s actions have consequences, making the upcoming second season look even more interesting. I’m also slightly concerned about the quality of new episodes to see if the show will manage to keep up with the topics raised in the past. In the end, I would have been happy if Bojack had remained as just the one season but I’m also curious to see what Netflix have up their sleeve. It’s also surprising to see that Bojack didn’t receive as much critical acclaim as I thought it would. To those people, I advise you to “suck a dick, dumbshits”.*

*By which I mean, I respectfully disagree with your opinion and am eager to hear your counterarguments and criticisms. 

The Hunger Games: Starving For More

It appears that so far I’ve only used this blog to talk about video games and sweaty men rolling around in tights. While that’s fun and everything I initially wanted this blog to encompass all things nerdy: video games, comics, movies etc. etc. When I went to London’s comic convention it was common to see The Hunger Games splattered across various stalls or a cosplayer proudly displaying their affection for the franchise. As one of the reigning properties in the current zeitgeist it can be obvious why The Hunger Games would make me excited: It’s got sci fi dystopia, it’s got Woody Harrelson doing what he does best (being Woody Harrelson) but it also has Katniss Everdeen at the vanguard. I enjoy Jennifer Lawrence as an actress and it’s also admiring to view a non-sexualised female lead in a Hollywood blockbuster. 

Sadly...err…things didn’t turn out the way I wanted.

The first Hunger Games did a decent job at setting up the series and I initially defended it after people rolled their eyes at the concept’s similarities to Battle Royale. People killing each other in an arena isn’t that original in the first place, people, shit like that has been going down since we discovered the wheel was the hot new thing on the block. So while I wasn’t let down, I was still expecting big things to come – the death match itself was only a piece of the puzzle and would lead to a much bigger series of events. Catching Fire was the hotly anticipated sequel that came out last year and didn't live up to my expectations. To this day, I’m still can't see why everyone was so crazy about this movie. It’s common for a sequel to build on its previous efforts and knock everything up several notches. All Catching Fire did was say “Hey, remember how badass The Hunger Games was? Let’s just do that again for 2 hours”. Admittedly, the stakes can be considered slightly higher due to the fact that the 75^th anniversary would include all the previous winners in some sort of superstar smackdown. Ostensibly, the writers wanted us to smack our gobs in astonishment before biting our nails down to bloody stubs. The only problem is we didn’t really know these characters beforehand so the impact is diminished due to the lack of familiarity concerning whose dying and who isn't. The Undertaker vs Sting isn’t a shocking dream match to someone that doesn’t know who either of those guys are. Catching Fire was mostly just the same film again, flailing around in this weird form of both spinning its wheels and sucking its own dick.

A large problem that the first two movies had was the complete absence of identifiable character for the female lead. That might be considered some kind of abhorrent sacrilege to some of you due to Katniss’ popularity, so let me throw out some other confessions: I never beat Ocarina of Time, I hate drinking ale and I think Iggy Azalea is a passable rapper. In both The Hunger Games and Catching Fire, Katniss was merely a victim of circumstance who jumped from horrible scenario A to horrible scenario B while making scowling faces in between. We can see that she’s somewhat virtuous due to her willingness to sacrifice herself for her sister but that’s all I could really gather. I remember a line from Peeta which was something like: “All I know about you is that you’re good with a bow” and I don’t think the writers were making fun of their own shortcomings. What made Katniss so special in comparison to other female characters? She was not a loose cannon like Starbuck or a hardened survivor like Ripley, she doesn't have a mysterious past like Faye Valentine or some grand untapped power like River Tam. While she showed moments of intelligence or resourcefulness it always felt like potluck where she survived by the skin of her teeth. It’s hard to see any kind of outlying quality in Katniss that makes her relatable or even likeable. There’s nothing to hate but also nothing to become attached to.

Peeta was also a huge blackeye on the second film due to his supposed importance to the characters. Let’s not forget that Peeta at this point has pretty much done fuck all and displays no interesting attributes to want to see him make it out in the end outside of those big doe eyes. Peeta carried both the uselessness of Willy from Temple of Doom and the boringness of Kaiden Alenko from Mass Effect. So after my disappointment from Catching Fire I was going to use this blog entry as a rant towards the first two films. However, a few weeks ago I decided to see Mockingjay Part 1 as it would have been unfair to jab at a franchise without seeing its latest effort. Perhaps it was foolish of me to keep jumping in but from the mountainous wave of hype riding behind the flick I wanted to see if Mockingjay could eventually win me over.

And I’ll be buggered if that isn’t what happened.

It’s funny how Mockingjay Part 1 has garnered less acclaim than its crappier predecessor according to the highly academic and reputable source that is Rotten Tomatoes. It’s a darn shame because I felt that this film took the stages to both expand on its concepts while tweaking a lot of its earlier faults. Ditching the spectacle of the arena battle entirely, Mockingjay focuses on the uprising of the proletariat with Katniss as the symbol of the revolution. While Katniss still isn’t THAT interesting, she’s placed into a very interesting situation. She is the amiable face of uprising but a lot of effort and manipulation is carried out in order to transform her into this unstoppable badass. This is seen in scenes where Katniss is told to puff out her chest for the camera and go over her lines to scare the bourgeois to show that she means business. This is all very intriguing when you see that Katniss is simply a figure for the rebels to utilize for their own gain rather than her own fervour dictating her actions. This leads to a lot of self-doubt in Katniss and whether she is capable of living up to the image that is portrayed across Panem. This is reminiscent of the struggle between a super hero and their normal day alter ego. It becomes even more interesting when you see how questionable the aims of the rebels can be.

One of these rebels is Katniss’ boyfriend, Gale Hawthorne. This was a character who was so boring and insignificant in the previous films that I literally had to google “Katniss’ boyfriend” to find out his name. He was obviously just there to stew romantic tension between Peeta and Katniss but now there’s actually something to his character. He’s clearly bitter from being held down by the capitol and this is evident in a lot of the rebels; are they fuelled by a passion for freedom and equality or are they just virulent and hungry for anarchy? Katniss lies at the heart of this issue and I’m actually curious to see what choice she takes.

Mockingjay: Part 1 even showed an effort to actually do something with Peeta, making him slowly become assimilated by the Capitol’s gluttonous lifestyle. Are these absolutely fantastic characters that transcend the art of storytelling? Of course not but at least there’s something to them. I can at least give a sentence or two which adds a minute degree of depth to this world. The film also throws in some newer characters which show some promise for future sequels such as Natalie Dormer’s portrayal of Cressida. Amongst the aforementioned mountain of hype backing this film, Dormer's debut in the series was something I was very much looking forward to for her commendable performance in Game of Thrones and there's absolutely no other reason why a heterosexual male would be entranced with a young, attractive actress so I should probably stop dragging out this sentence to such abhorrent lengths.

Suddenly I have an affinity for partially shaved heads.

While I may come off as a cynical nonce, it’s great to have a film turnaround expectations and win me over in the end. It’s not exactly the apogee of filmmaking or storytelling but it’s nice to see something so popular and influential show strong signs of improvement and awareness. I imagine that the film could have sighed "Fuck it" and sit on it's hands for a few hours and everyone would have thrown money at it anyway. I’ve never read the books, so I’m not sure if Suzanne Collins simply got better as she went along or if there's someone else in works fine combing everything. I was also very cautious of this film due to it being split into two parts so I was expecting lots of padding and more self fellatio. While the first part isn’t high on action, it provides a lot of set up and development in order to raise interest and light the fuse for what will obviously be a massive battle for the ages.

Or it could just go back to being shit again, in which case I will just pout and whine on the internet some more. 

John Cena: Your Time Is Up (Part 2)

Please read the first part of my blog post if you haven't done so already. Let me preface this by saying that this is pure couch booking based on Cena's past successes and isn't a guaranteed way to fix this issue. I'm not a booker, I'm just throwing my two cents in like everyone else. 

So we’ve established my dislike for John Cena, right? And you’ve read my first post on how I don’t think a heel turn would work? And I’m not just sitting here talking to myself? Neat, let’s try and fix this issue then. One thing I noticed that WWE tried to do for Survivor Series was pitting John Cena against The Authority. They are trying to get us to believe that John Cena is an anti-corporate rebel who is looked down on by the suits and doesn’t fit their image of what an ideal champion should be. That makes me chortle to no end – what’s even funnier is that this isn’t the first time they’ve tried it. Cena also had a feud against Eric Bischoff which played out like a watered down Austin/McMahon rehash and I’m also reminded of a time not too long ago when Vince McMahon said that he didn’t want John Cena to be champion. 

This is utterly hilarious and it’s near impossible to comprehend that WWE expects us to accept this idea. John Cena is a square peg being jammed into a round, contrarian hole. It’s as if WWE can’t make their mind up whether he’s the ideal face of Hulk Hogan or the rebellious Stone Cold Steve Austin. John Cena is your guy and you want to portray him as an underdog against a monolithic evil which shows a complete lack of awareness of character and understanding. John Cena is a part of the machine, in some cases he IS the machine. To loosely quote CM Punk:

“What you’ve lost sight of is what you are and what you are is what you hate – you’re the ten time WWE champion. You’re the man. Ladies and gentlemen, “The champ is here”. You are no longer the underdog, you’re a dynasty.”

And then Punk made some metaphor about the New York Yankees but I’m English so I don’t really understand that part. The important thing to pay attention to is what CM Punk said and how his feud John Cena showed the potential of what the million time WWE champion could be. Which is a point that I will get into later. For now, let’s go back to the Superman comparison I made in the previous post. You’ll know that I made a point where Superman is a lot more developed than John Cena’s character. However, there is a certain interpretation of Superman that could be applied to John Cena perfectly. If you’re not into comic books, let me give you a little lesson:

In 1986, a mini series titled “The Dark Knight Returns” was released and was written by Frank Miller. It was responsible for having a monumental change on the tone of comic books for years to come and is wildly celebrated as one of the greatest graphic novels of all time. The book is featured in a non-canon setting that depicts a dystopian Gotham where a retired Bruce Wayne takes on the task of becoming Batman one more time and goes head to head with Superman. Let’s ignore all of the Batman stuff and focus on the depiction of Superman in this tale. Clark is now used as a government tool to coerce rebels like Wayne into keeping their heads down and abiding by the law. This eventually led to Superman viciously attacking Green Arrow by forcibly removing his arm. Basically, Superman is an authority figure who is too far removed from the people to be considered a good guy but still retains a lot of his integrity to be considered a villain.

Am I not the only one who views CM Punk vs John Cena in a similar manner? CM Punk is the anti-corporate, lone wolf rebel who doesn’t fit a certain look for the higher ups to approve of; much like a certain caped crusader. John Cena is the all power figure of what a corporate establishment thinks we should all look up to and aspire to be. The funny thing is, for all the bitching and moaning that we do, a lot of people still really like John Cena. Why shouldn’t they? He’s a hard worker, a good figure and most of the time (when his character isn’t an asshole) he can be a good role model for the kids. I actually like John Cena in a way, I just want WWE to acknowledge that Cena isn’t our lovable underdog to root for every night. John Cena is the unmovable titan, the colossal staple that stands at the front of WWE’s image. He is the measuring stick, the final boss, the end all be all. Some of John Cena’s best matches are not when he is David but is instead the towering Goliath.

His match against Rob Van Dam at One Night Stand 2006 was excellent. RVD was the man to root for as Cena marched into the Ballroom as the vanguard of WWE’s corporate monopolistic identity. Rob Van Dam was clearly the underdog in this situation and it worked. John Cena’s match against Daniel Bryan was also a perfect way to book Cena. Daniel Bryan embraced the spirit of pure wrestling and a passion for endless amounts of holds and locks. Bryan had travelled all over the world, blending a variety of disparate styles and approaches to come to the WWE as a symbol what independent wrestling can create. John Cena on the other hand has stayed put in WWE for years because in his mind there was no other place to be and he believed that he didn’t have to wrestle anywhere else. This was firm character development - this was drama. Cena is often thrown into black and white “Good vs Evil” scenarios which sadly can’t be applied to him anymore.

If you want to keep Cena going, he cannot be portrayed as if he is fighting uphill anymore. He passed that point many years ago and is comfortably on top of the mountain waiting to be kicked off by someone who would be a much more captivating underdog. John Cena doesn’t always have to face heels, he can battle faces too because it gives the older crowd someone to root for. He doesn’t even have to be labelled as a face or a heel anymore because he’s transformed into something else. John Cena is the face of the WWE who stands upon its apex with his cocky smirk whether people like it or not. He IS WWE, he will always stand by those colours and will fight until the end to protect the company’s image whether that makes him in the right or in the wrong. Just like Superman in the Dark Knight Returns, he is the ultimate challenge to overcome but he isn’t exactly evil. 

You can keep your merchandise, you can keep the catchphrases but you can’t keep spinning the same repetitive underdog tale. No more fairy tale successes, no more underdog stories. So go ahead and put Dean Ambrose against John Cena. Why not Dolph Ziggler or Sami Zayn? These are likeable faces who may not hate Cena but want to take him down because he is clearly the king of the mountain, and everybody is gunning for that crown. All the while, the suits are seen smirking in the background because Cena embodies everything that they approve of – a squeaky clean image to please the press and a merchandise cash cow to take in all of those dollars. Cena won’t fight for the approval of his bosses though, he will fight for the adoration of his fans regardless of the many haters that chant against him. The kids will remain happy, the management will get to keep their biggest draw and the opposing audience will feel valid in disapproving Cena because they will have someone to rightfully root for. Perhaps this wouldn’t work but I would appreciate WWE doing something different.

Not many things are guaranteed in this life but there will always be death, taxes and CENAWINSLOL.