Each big star in WWE has been an very different to the last, while retaining just a few similarities.

First you had Hulk Hogan, he was big, buff, and blond, with a very kid-and-family-friendly moralistic and over-the-top, almost cartoony, personality.

Then, after the steroid scandal, they needed someone who clearly wasn't on steroids, and so they shifted focus to Bret Hart. While Hogan was more of a showman than actual wrestler, Bret was a wrestler through and through. He was still kid/family friendly and moralistic, but he wasn't over-the-top, and was far more of a realistic character.

From Bret they moved to Shawn Michaels. Shawn, like Bret, was small and fantastic in the ring. But unlike Bret, he was also a "pretty boy", like Hogan, very popular with women. He was also more of a showman like Hogan, but instead of being moralistic like Hogan, he was a rebel.

The they moved to Steve Austin, another rebel. However, instead of a teeny-bopper pretty boy, he was a bald, surly, beer-drinking, finger-flipping, barroom-brawling redneck. He was good in the ring, but it was his quick wit and moralistic, anti-authority attitude that the fans were ready for that really got him over.

Then there was The Rock. Much more in line with what Vince likes; tall, dark, and handsome. Like Austin, he was quick-witted (even more so), very solid in the ring and moralistic (usually). He was a triple threat: attractive, athletic, and funny. Almost a return to Hogan, but less "family-friendly", to the point of even bullying interviewers and other wrestlers.

The problem arises when they attempt to push someone who isn't different enough from the previous big superstar. They tried to push Ultimate Warrior to Hogan's level, but he was essentially Hulk Hogan again, only more incoherent. They tried for a decade to make people think that Triple H was on the level of Rock, Austin, and Michaels, and, while he was certainly a draw, he just didn't connect with people the way they did, plus he was basically halfway between Austin and Michaels.

John Cena then. He is essentially a mix between Hulk Hogan and The Rock, but with two major problems. One, he's not as good of a worker as The Rock, and two, his jokes are mostly lame puns that are poorly written and delivered. Cena, to me at least, is at this best when there's an edge to him, when he's angry and out for vengeance. Unfortunately, he wasn't like this nearly enough.

From Cena they moved to CM Punk and (to a lesser extent) Daniel Bryan. Both have become hugely popular. Partly because of the internet allowing many of the more enthusiastic fans to have seen their rise from the indies to the big stage. But there's more to it than that. Both have realistic personalities and are great in the ring (Bryan more than Punk, who has admitted he's clumsy at time) They are smaller, almost "average joe" looking, underdogs, which helps the audience connect with them; that feeling of "he's like me, so I hope things work out for him". Punk is very reminiscent of Austin and Michaels, and Bryan is a lot like Bret, but both have forged their own identities;

Punk was a hero for a more cynical age, the modern generation of fans who feel that everyone matters and should get an equal chance. He was rebellious like Michaels and Austin, but with a more realistic personality similar to Bret Hart. He was vocal, unapologetic, would even break the fourth wall from time to time, and he would address controversial issues such as alcoholism with actual weight (unlike the Scott Hall drunkard storyline in WCW).

Byran seems to be perpetually in the underdog character, like Zack Ryder, Rey Mysterio, and Spike Dudley. But unlike them, when he got popular and the fans demanded he get a chance to prove himself, they actually ran with it and let him win a lot, whereas the others just got their asses kicked over and over again. His average joe appearance and realistic character has really helped the audience identify with him. Hi in-ring prowess is on par with Hart, William Regal, Kurt Angle, and (dare I say his name?) Chris Benoit, but he doesn't always get to show it like they did, and with the IWCs knowing what he's capable of from his 10+ years on the indie and international stages, those fans have come to resent Vince McMahon for not allowing Bryan to truly shine.

The current issue with Roman Reigns is two-fold. One; he's very much like Cena and Rock; tall, dark, and handsome and he (almost) never loses. Bryan Alvarez of f4wonline.com has pointed out that his Royal Rumble win was a Vince McMahon booking through and through; the handsome, strong baby face beating two giants and an evil Russian. And the fact that he's so clearly a Vince McMahon poster boy is annoying to the modern fans who are far more educated in how Vince and the wrestling business work, thank to the internet. Two; I've heard he's funny and personable, but that doesn't come across in his promos because they're practically rejected Cena promos. But even if they let him be funny and personable, he would still be a bit too much like Cena and Rock. He should be what he had been when he was with The Shield, a stoic badass who didn't accept stupidity and bullshit.

Reigns has only been on the main roster for just over two years, and many fans, myself included feel that he's been pushed way too quickly. Personally, I feel that this 'Mania season should have been for Daniel Bryan, and they should have waited another year or so to pull the trigger on Reigns.