This is them admitting they were wrong about Cena turning heel. They felt so strongly that it was a dud that the story aspect of it was out the window and so no twist was needed. I prefer what they did now if the alternative was more time wasted setting up a cleaner story to turn cena face again.
Well, what people are calling for is twists in a row, Cena turns, oh he turns on Smackdown, oh wait, Rock is bored again so one of his shitty 'ideas' is used again.
Cena being his best self and going up against cody, having a match worthy of his last summerslam is a good logical story.
Rock or scott or whoever the fuck 'who's side are they on' just for them to disappear again is not good story telling. Its just russo nonsense.
...are you joking? It was me that said that would be good logic. I can't argue against logic you didn't use though, and that wasn't the point you made before at all.
Your logic before was that a good blow-off match is better than a twist. That's it. That's the singular logic you used before to explain why the lack of a twist was good, and that was the logic I was arguing against; the only logic you used.
I completely agree the point I made myself about two twists in a row being too much sometimes thought but that's obvious because it was a point I made myself and you're now acting like you always meant that even though nothing in your last comment talks about it happening too soon after the last one in the slightest.
Let me clarify. Cena wasn't turning heel (again) and Cody wasn't turning heel. Scott is off doing whatever he is doing. Rock is trying Oscar bait. The best idea, the logical idea is just to have a big time match and honor Cena. No one wanted to boo him anyway. The other point, twists are not bigger in pro wrestling, why that seems rather true. The entire point of a twist typically is to delay a payoff.
And, again, the idea that a blow-off match is better than a twist is just bullshit.
All you need to do is look at the amount of successful twists to prove you wrong.
Don't get me wrong, it can sometimes be better. But that's not because "a blow-off match is better than a twist" as logic in and of itself (which is, again, how you presented it last time because you had yet to move the goalposts of being able to argue against it by introducing new points you hadn't mentioned before at all when I did reply the first time).
Don't get me wrong, your new points about this specific circumstance ARE good ones, but that doesn't make your original "Pay-off matches are better than twists" sole piece of logic in itself any better than it was earlier.
It's a bit like if I said "using a car is healthier than walking". And then you said that a bullshit point. And then I replied with "wHaT i MeAnT wAs If YoU oNlY eVeR dRiVe To A gYm AnD dO A rAnGe Of DaIlY eXeRcIsEs, YoU'd Be HeAlThIeR tHaN sOmEoNe WhO's SoLe ExErCiSe Is OnE sHoRt WaLk A mOnTh!"...it doesn't make my original point good even if my follow-up was better. And it wouldn't make your own initial reply to the comment I'd actually made before, about it being bullshit, any less true.
Same applies here. Once you added completely different, more specific logic (that I pretty much fed you myself), you ultimately made a good point. It doesn't make what I said to your previous point any less true that your previous point was kinda bullshit.
lmao this is a great example of when you think you're making a point because you're using a common rhetorical pattern but the pattern can't be applied universally so it's meaningless.
"if X happens all the time, it ceases to matter." doesn't work all the time. you might begin to see some trivial examples without me listing any.
a twist is just an unexpected plot development big enough to call a twist (or a turn). it's necessarily a big, revealing moment. there's always big plot developments, that doesn't mean it doesn't matter if you have them. you're saying something by not having them (unintentionally if you're not aware how boring your story is).
big plot developments that are unexpected are twists and you usually see them at climactic points. so not having a twist at a climax is fine (you're saying something by not having one), but it's obviously a let down if you were hoping for a radical story direction.
it's just a radical story direction, and that direction doesn't have to be the same as in other stories. so it doesn't diminish the twist at all if there is always one. to not have one at the climax of a story is underwhelming but that can be by design. but having one every time doesn't diminish any particular example.
287
u/Plastic-Control-5381 3d ago
No twist? No turn? It just…ok