disclaimer: in all fairness? I really wouldn't have necessarily thought about the KoA being there when they're not booked either. but hey.
I was also avoiding saying all of this because it feels like shooting myself in the foot-- or the face (because nobody wants to be
ArseFace)-- and what I'm pointing out could all be reversed in the next show, and then it was really for nothing aside from making people explicitly dislike me.
but the way it's gone up to this point makes it seem like it's not gonna, regardless. so why not.
If they're going to be seen as a threat, wouldn't you think that they need to be presented as one? What kind of a threat is LEGION if they show up, talk about how dangerous they are, then a group of EXODUS people run down and beat them up?
... the kind of threat that just injured out your first world champ, if not ended his career? I realise that was angled for a reason, but does that mean we can't slow down and sell it?
if the whole force of those rallying against LEGION are all basically standing around backstage juggling geese during that (or whatever we were supposed to assume), what kind of threat are
they?
As an old school guy who perhaps saw the Four Horsemen lock themselves in a cage with Dusty Rhodes and "break his ankle,"
WAIT... WHAT IS THIS... EXACTLY MY POINT?
the barrier of the cage, the isolation from help, the guys trying to climb in and getting knocked off-- the tension it brought to the situation-- was the point! did the Four Horsemen seem like 'less of a threat' for needing more than a temporary numbers advantage, for not hanging around to let two or three of their guys cut gloating in-ring promos over the corpse and beat a dead horse, and then somehow go have another match on top of it before the ring was ever taken back under control?
NWO is a more apt comparison and... heh. yes, well.
it's gotten extra funny because of that whole giant hullabaloo of a thread about putting your opponent over in promos as a threat is DIRECTLY in the same vein-- the whole point in that tactic is give and take, making both sides seem like a threat. it doesn't work if you only apply that standard to the side you're less in love with.
I can't remember who said it, but I've had friends who are workers tell me the same thing a million times. It's easier to be a heel than a face. It's easy to get people to hate you, you have to work to get them to love you.
thisthisthisthisthisthisthis. yes. it's a popular enough phrase that I don't think it has a source anymore.
it's why in a lot of indie shows you see the heel come out first most of the time, strut down the ramp all full of himself, work the crowd up with a couple verbal jabs before he even steps in the ring, then when the face comes out his job's already started for him. they already want to love him just because they now hate that other guy so bad. a lot of things in that vein go on in wrestling in general.
For years, one of the reasons I refuse to even watch WWE is because Cena makes me want to throw the remote through the tv.
I feel the problem with Cena is that he's still trying to play an underdog years after indisputably beating literally everybody in the company. they had to call up Skip Sheffield and bring back The Rock just to have new opponents at this point, and they're still trying to make it seem like he has a challenge-- which the good guy needs if you're going to have any kind of real story-- but the whole crowd knows better. for those who've watched
Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog, Cena IS Captain Hammer. people have been saying he needs to turn heel for years, and I've been saying the whole time that he already is-- they just don't realise it. Summer of Punk II was proof.
So Person X is a good guy, but why is he so? What's his/her belief system and/or moral code that has him/her doing Y.
that's a well-built any-kind-of-character. any well-built protagonist
could be evil and are good in spite of themselves because that's the human condition; I'm sorry if badly-built ones have lead you to believe otherwise. Captain fricking America even
could be evil but chooses not to be, because he was bullied before the super serum, because he was turned away from his dreams for not filling a physical type. bad guys who are EVUL just to be EVUL are just as bad, but a badly built antagonist is still gonna be hated because see above with Jon ect ect.
You have to ask yourself if you would do the same thing. Chasing off the "bad guys" simply because they're the opposing faction just doesn't sound solid enough to me. Would your character help or would it be more of a "not my problem, I got other shit to deal with" point of view?
in a vacuum of previous build, it wouldn't be a solid reason at all. considering very likely every face in the company and even some of the heels had already stated they had their sights on LEGION, though?
I can write a laundry list of reasons not to have mine down there, even though his stated purpose in coming to begin with was LEGION and it was written into his backstory to give motive-- because by the time I built this character, I'd been ewrestling long enough to want a character that could bounce back from almost anything and twist to fit results problems.
thing is, LEGION is pretty much all that's going on in this fed right now. huge heaping helpings of LEGION, and if you don't want to be involved in it, good luck and godspeed to ya.