Roman Reigns as a darker character

  • Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!

    I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register

    Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board


Red Rain

The Bully
Technician
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
4,711
Reaction score
2,693
Points
0
Location
your mom's bed
Being over is a big indicator that someone has the potential to draw money since it means the audience likes you. It doesn't mean you will, of course, but a person's overness with the crowd is a tangible factor worth mentioning.

I've already pointed out reasons why Diesel failing to draw as champion doesn't completely rest on him. By comparison, how much money did the Undertaker draw? He's a legend and what I'd consider on a personal level to be one of the greatest of all-time, but he isn't some great draw by himself either. The stats you posted on him in the OP are garbage. Drawing money when you're working with mega-stars like Austin or Rock or when the whole promotion and, hell, the whole industry is on fire is hardly proof that you yourself are putting asses in the seats. This is kind of a nonsensical point to argue anyway since Reigns/Nash wouldn't be 100% alike and what the audience was drawn to in 1995 and what they're drawn to two decades later (along with all the other elements and components that determine why something or someone draws or not, i.e. 1995 being a disastrous year creatively, whereas modern-day WWE having a brand name that's almost as strong as it's ever been) don't compute.

Two people don't have to be carbon copies of one another for a fair comparison to be made. Nash was just the closest equivalent to make with him. Nash was more outgoing, but he still had that swagger and look about him that projected an image of coolness even when he wasn't speaking. Twas my point. To quote myself from earlier, I think Reigns being a "charming, suave, bad-ass type of character" would be best for him.

Check out his short excerpt from this promo:





His line at 3:04 in the second video was awesome.

I'm aware of every one of your points on a purely philosophical basis. Your arguments are valid.
However, I doubt when some people 'see' numbers they automatically draw the immediate conclusion that they are worth their own merit.
For example, when the Rock (or Samuel L Jackson as a better example) draw huge in the box office, they receive credit and its usually the minority that consider the other factors (other draws like Natalie Portman in the cast etc.)

I've never blamed Nash's WWE failure on Nash himself. Diesel was a trucker who thought he was hot sh*t. Boring. Sorry. It failed. Why put that gimmick on a rising star because you think it might work.
Reigns can be a womanizer. He has that going for him. He just too dull. His delivery on the mic is horrid, but he has basic tools. If you're going to invest, do that. Stop being lazy through empty regurgitation.

The Undertaker constantly evolved but kept the same basic tools he always had. WWE invested and the reaped the rewards. Diesel lacked investment. He failed.