LogFAQs > #907454002

Metalsonic66 posted...

I do wish they had done the actual "split personality" thing.

That's very rarely handled well.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The first thing my brain thought was that sounds like something you'd hear as someone's name in an Asian exploitation martial arts sort of movie.

Same wavelength. I guess geek minds truly do think alike.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Yes, I got the implied supervillain. And I'm still suggesting that truly effective supervillains don't go around proclaiming they're evil and putting good guys into easily escapable death traps.

Since you invoked "Xanatos Gambit" earlier in your post, I'll throw "Dangerously Genre Savvy" into the mix. Just because a countless stream of stupid overly theatrical criminals established the precedent doesn't mean someone clever has to follow them. Especially when you consider most of those showy spotlight-grasping egotists never actually win.

I'd take boring and ruling the world over a technicolor outfit and prison time every day of the week.

It's the difference between seeing the villain as a caricature who exists solely to give the hero something to strive against, versus as someone with flexible morals who is actively trying to achieve their unacceptable goals in a realistic manner.

Which, again, is what I see as the nuance between a villain and a supervillain, especially since your concept degrades the concept of a supervillain to a morally ambiguous businessman or politician which, to some extent, might not even qualify for a villain

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Yeah, but Roman on top with the belt still sort of invalidates his opponents in ways that him "just being a guy" kind of doesn't.

How, though? If the matches play out the same, the opponents can at least be considered title contenders which is more prestigious than just a guy fighting another guy.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

And honestly, Brock having the title and not defending it every week on TV sort of gave it a bit more gravitas anyway.

But we're not talking about weekly tv defenses -- although Cena's run as US champion was actually pretty incredible *because* he was doing that fighting champion gimmick -- I'm talking about regular tv appearances and challenges at most PPVs. You gain no gravitas if nobody can remember who has the championship and if it's been out of circulation so long that nobody can remember what it looks like.

Absentee champions don't build a brand. You can't book PPVs and shows based on somebody NOT appearing. And a casual viewer watching tv isn't going to care enough to check out a PPV when they've never seen a guy fight because he does maybe a few tv matches a year.

And I'd argue that if Brock was willing to work a regular schedule, it's possible that Roman would be kept at a far lower level because Brock *was* the guy they wanted.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

People didn't really start HATING Brock having the title until the WWE started telling them they should hate Brock for having the title, while refusing to take the title off him and repeatedly throwing Roman at him over and over again.

I certainly disliked Brock long before that. Partly because he was *really* good at being a heel (so was Rapper Cena), but also because he never took the business all that seriously. The fact that he was busted for steroids in MMA, squats on the title, etc, is just icing on that cake.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But now Roman has the title, is going to be the main storyline of every episode of Raw, and is going to have tons of matches against people who have no hope of winning, all in the desperate hope that people will eventually start liking him.

So.... literally nothing changes?
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.