|
Mr. Carlisle posted:It'll probably be pretty telling if he goes back to being a heel character at whatever fed he ends up in. As uncomfortable as he seemed to be playing the good guy in his promos that may be the case. If you look at booking too, it makes a lot more sense to want to be a heel. All the established stars on both brands are faces now. All the new guys being brought up and being brought up as heels.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
Yeah, what kind of person continually posts about something they don't like? "Raw sucked again...see you next week, where it will suck again. PS I have a life and you are a basement virgin."
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
El Axo Grande posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
Endorph posted:Bryan? Brought up to the main event.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
El Axo Grande posted:If you look at booking too, it makes a lot more sense to want to be a heel. I also wonder if he bought into the thing Matt Hardy was whining about with it being a 'youth movement and not a talent movement' being that MVP is nearing 40. Maybe on top of feeling misused due to character he felt he was being misused due to age. Guess we'll never know unless he films a shoot about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
Wojtek posted:Yeah, what kind of person continually posts about something they don't like? I have never been in a basement. Also, WWE doesn't know how to book a face other than I loving LOVE THIS CROWD AND I'M REALLY HAPPY TO BE HERE. Edit: I keep thinking this is the WWE Discussion thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
Wojtek posted:Yeah, what kind of person continually posts about something they don't like? Going by the TNA threads, probably over half of the people who post in this subforum
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
Burrito posted:I have never been in a basement. Yeah for a little while it looked like Randy Orton would retain some edge and then he loving hugged Cena.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:39
|
|
|
Burrito posted:I have never been in a basement. One of the best things about NXT last night was about Daniel Bryan's rookie talking about how he wasn't going to get up there and kiss rear end - then about 20 seconds later goes into how much he is thankful for the WWE universe, etc. Perfect Potato posted:Going by the TNA threads, probably over half of the people who post in this subforum If people that hated TNA didn't post in the TNA gameday threads there would be even fewer posts in them than there are already. I dunno if it would break 2 pages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:40
|
|
Perfect Potato posted:Going by the TNA threads, probably over half of the people who post in this subforum
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
Back to the subject of botches for a second, I've been watching a lot of old Royal Rumbles lately and notice - particularly with HBK in '95 and Rey in '06 that the eventually winner had a handful of "skin the cat" moments. You know, they get thrown over the top rope but hang on, and then flip back up into the ring and all. Let's say (particularly in these two cases) through the fatigue of working the entire Rumble, they couldn't maintain they grip and let go. Clearly over the top rope, camera fixated on them (because the camera's always fixated on a skin the cat moment) with both feet touching the floor. Would they make up some excuse why they're allowed back in the ring and win it? Would Vince make an on-the-spot decision that another wrestler should win the Rumble? Is there a back-up plan in case something like this happens?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 22:57
|
|
|
Hamass posted:Back to the subject of botches for a second, I've been watching a lot of old Royal Rumbles lately and notice - particularly with HBK in '95 and Rey in '06 that the eventually winner had a handful of "skin the cat" moments. You know, they get thrown over the top rope but hang on, and then flip back up into the ring and all. I believe (I certainly don't know for certain) that the Cena/Batista ending a few years back was somewhat botched which is why Vince came out to insist the match continue.... at which point he tore both his quads or something horrible and had to make the announcement sitting on his rear end in the corner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 23:19
|
|
Hamass posted:Would they make up some excuse why they're allowed back in the ring and win it? Would Vince make an on-the-spot decision that another wrestler should win the Rumble? Is there a back-up plan in case something like this happens?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
The Cena/Batista ending, even if it was a botch, still had both guys hit the floor at approximately the same time. In terms of the storyline, "restarting the match" was justified. The title shot on the line thing would work, but it also might kill the push if the winner of the Rumble was originally supposed to be a babyface. Like if Rey had not hung on in '06 with the whole Eddie momentum and then challenged Orton (or whoever would have won the Rumble) the next night. Faces are supposed to be the heroes, and winning the title shot the next night would only work if it was someone like Edge getting the rumble "win", y'know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:I also wonder if he bought into the thing Matt Hardy was whining about with it being a 'youth movement and not a talent movement' being that MVP is nearing 40. Maybe on top of feeling misused due to character he felt he was being misused due to age. Guess we'll never know unless he films a shoot about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
In the Rumble, I always assumed they tried to make sure the second last guy, maybe even the final four, are guys they wouldn't mind having win in the end in a worst case scenario.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
savinhill posted:Didn't MVP get in trouble with management for bullying the guy who administers the urine tests whenever he had to give one? That could be a reason why he was constantly given depushes after any hot starts. There was one incident where he got into hot water for making fun of a drug testing guy for having a job that basically amounts to watching MVP's dick while he peed. It wasn't like he did it every time (although he probably wanted to.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
CSammich posted:There was one incident where he got into hot water for making fun of a drug testing guy for having a job that basically amounts to watching MVP's dick while he peed. It wasn't like he did it every time (although he probably wanted to.) It's probably something the drug test guy hears a lot actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
"I miss when I used to like wrestling a lot more." "YOU DON'T WATCH IT AND ARE UNQUALIFIED TO JUDGE!" "...okay..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 02:07
|
|
|
Perry Normal posted:In the Rumble, I always assumed they tried to make sure the second last guy, maybe even the final four, are guys they wouldn't mind having win in the end in a worst case scenario. This is pretty true. Has anyone unexpected ever made it past the final four? Like, say, Triple H and Benoit are duking it out, and forget that Santino is crouched in the corner?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 02:13
|
|
|
George Kaplan posted:This is pretty true. They had Mr. Perfect in there in 2002.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 02:17
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:They had Mr. Perfect in there in 2002. This caused me to check out his wikipedia and it shows he was in TNA at the time of his death - so can we blame TNA for killing Curt Hennig? Sure, steriods, cocaine and painkillers were involved but you'd probably have to be on those to work for TNA anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:02
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:"THIS ANGLE IS STUPID AND POORLY BOOKED. I KNOW THIS EVEN THOUGH I HAVEN'T WATCHED WRESTLING IN A WHILE."
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
It's very possible to enjoy professional wrestling as an entertainment/art/sport while hating most of the current WWE product.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:It's very possible to enjoy professional wrestling as an entertainment/art/sport while hating most of the current WWE product. Yes, and that has nothing to do with this conversation
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
El Axo Grande posted:Yes, and that has nothing to do with this conversation Yep, definitely nothing to do with anything in this thread the last page or so... Wojtek posted:Yeah, what kind of person continually posts about something they don't like? OneThousandMonkeys posted:When the entire TV genre of wrestling is objectively in a sustained rut, whether you agree with my interpretation of why or not, it's a worthy topic of discussion, whether or not I interrupted everyone from being forum superstars and getting mass probated or even banned for never being remotely on topic. MassRayPer posted:Wrestling is like any sport in the sense that when you become a big fan you are always at least somewhat interested in it after. Years after people have given up on the Mets or the Orioles they will still be pissed at their team for incompetence. Or if they are sick of NASCAR for lovely rules, they will complain years after they've realized nothing will change about the sport in general. You're a really lousy troll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Yep, definitely nothing to do with anything in this thread the last page or so... The argument is over bitching about WWE being bad without watching it, not hating WWE while liking wrestling. You also have a loose definition of trolling if "correcting you" counts
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
El Axo Grande posted:The argument is over bitching about WWE being bad without watching it, not hating WWE while liking wrestling. So people that have been beaten down into being casual fans can't discuss about why they've become casual fans (presumably because they think the product is bad) because they don't watch enough for you? That's a heck of a way to have a discussion, where you eliminate everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with your's. It's the exact same discussion, you're just framing it in a way that suits your point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:49
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:So people that have been beaten down into being casual fans can't discuss about why they've become casual fans (presumably because they think the product is bad) because they don't watch enough for you? No one is talking about why they stopped watching or became casual fans. People are talking about THIS PRODUCT IS SO lovely THANK GOD I DON'T WATCH IT YOU'RE ALL DUMB FOR WATCHING IT. It's not about eliminating contrary opinions, it's about disregarding opinions people have of things they don't watch. I've never seen Inception but you don't see me running around the forums screaming about how awful it is and why everyone should stop liking it. edit: A WRESTLING QUESTION: What do you guys think is feud of the year because off the top of my head all I can come up with is Cena vs. Nexus and I know there have been better feuds than that this year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:53
|
|
|
Have none of you read the synopsis for a movie and decided you really weren't interested in it? I understand the argument that you can't judge it if you're not watching, but I do believe the argument of "You haven't seen Manos: The Hands of Fate so you can't say you don't think it's good." is a bit intellectually dishonest. I have no interest in the WWE product as a whole right now aside from Daniel Bryan and some parts of the Cena/Nexus storyline. I don't need to watch every second of Raw to know that. That's really all I'm saying. I can't speak for anybody else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:55
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:So people that have been beaten down into being casual fans can't discuss about why they've become casual fans (presumably because they think the product is bad) because they don't watch enough for you? That's a heck of a way to have a discussion, where you eliminate everyone's opinion that doesn't agree with your's. Not really. Here is what would pass as reasonable discussion "I used to like WWE, but I do not like it anymore because the PG angles just didnt work for me. None of the new stuff really seems to interest me either." Here is what they are doing "Why do you guys still watch RAW? The Nexus storyline is stupid as far as I can tell from reading spoilers. RAW has been poo poo for weeks now, and I base this judgment off hearsay from friends." Let me put it this way. When you hear a critic say a movie isnt good, and then your friends talks about liking it; do you A. Say "I heard it wasn't good" or B. "Its poo poo you are stupid for liking it." Actually, do not answer that, considering you are the sort of person to take a tepid refutation of a point as OMG TROLLIN
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:56
|
|
|
Karmine posted:edit: A WRESTLING QUESTION: Serious answer for me would be Cena V Barrett (And The Nexus) but comedy answer would be Alex Riley v Winning a match. Orange Carlisle fucked around with this message at 04:05 on Dec 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Karmine posted:
A WRESTLING ANSWER: I thought Edge against the GM was pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
Karmine posted:No one is talking about why they stopped watching or became casual fans. People are talking about THIS PRODUCT IS SO lovely THANK GOD I DON'T WATCH IT YOU'RE ALL DUMB FOR WATCHING IT. This is a total strawman, and really just an excuse to avoid the actual points raised about why people don't like or watch WWE when they bring them up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:This is a total strawman, and really just an excuse to avoid the actual points raised about why people don't like or watch WWE when they bring them up. The "points" are that the Nexus storyline has been sabotaged by bad writing from the beginning and that RAW is filled with short squash matches. Points which are, you know, not at all true if you have actually watched the show. If anything Nexus is one of the most powerful motivators to tune in every week. EDIT: Correcting someone = Trolling Making a summary of the problem behind an argument = Strawman We have always been at war with Eurasia
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
Mr. Carlisle posted:Serious answer for me would be Cena V Barrett (And The Nexus) but comedy answer would be Alex Riley v Winning a match. I would say Miz vs. Bryan
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
El Axo Grande posted:The "points" are that the Nexus storyline has been sabotaged by bad writing from the beginning and that RAW is filled with short squash matches. Points which are, you know, not at all true if you have actually watched the show. If anything Nexus is one of the most powerful motivators to tune in every week. The Nexus storyline has absolutely been sabotaged by bad booking (not really writing, Barrett's promos have been fine) and RAW match length has been a common complaint for fifteen years now. These aren't valid?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
El Axo Grande posted:I would say Miz vs. Bryan
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
El Axo Grande posted:I would say Miz vs. Bryan Punk v Rey seemed to entertain alot of people along with Michaels v Undertaker. I also kinda liked Jericho v Bourne for what it was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The Nexus storyline has absolutely been sabotaged by bad booking (not really writing, Barrett's promos have been fine) and RAW match length has been a common complaint for fifteen years now. These aren't valid? No, because, if anything, pushing a year Rookie into the title scene and having the top babyface work as a heel-by-proxy for two months is pretty revolutionary booking that has made the show genuinely interesting. And between Sheamus, Morrison, Bryan, etc. a lot of matches have been going a decent length. These all being things you would know watching the show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2010 04:06
|
|