Impact Spoilers

rovert

Machismo Fan wrote: »

I still don't see how it ruined the segment.

Thats your view then, but it was completely out of place and needless.

Machismo Fan

Then we agree to disagree.:)

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

but it was completely out of place and needless.

And obviously that's your view!
But your opinion doesn't make it fact, does it?

EdK

Wrestling isn't a classy business, nothing shocks me anymore

But at least Jeff didn't kill his wife *scandalous*

rovert

EdK wrote: »

Wrestling isn't a classy business, nothing shocks me anymore

Ive been first person to point this out. Im not OFFENDED~! by this just disappointed in a number of ways which Ive already pointed out in this thread.

CMpunked

Is it just me or round the 1.32/33 mark does he look pretty emotional?

rovert

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

Is it just me or round the 1.32/33 mark does he look pretty emotional?

Thing is with TNA it was probably edited and cut down to ****. The crowd probably cheered and chanted longer than what was shown.

rovert

Bound For Glory

Mike Tenay: DADDY IS COMING HOME. After naming Jeff's daughters by name. :rolleyes:

EdK

So?, that is response to Kurt Angle saying they wouldn't be seeing their dad after BFG

rovert

EdK wrote: »

So?, that is response to Kurt Angle saying they wouldn't be seeing their dad after BFG

Think about this.

EdK

Do you not understand the concept of a feud?

rovert

EdK wrote: »

Do you not understand the concept of a fued?

Are asking me or TNA? As they obviously don’t with this fued with the amount thematic flip floping in the last three weeks.

rovert

Wade Keller wrote this about the match and fued, I dont neccessarily agree with Wade on a lot but I agree with him here:

Jeff Jarrett made utilizing the real-life tragedy of his wife dying seem restrained and tasteful by sinking even lower by incorporating his daughters into it. They actually overtly played off of the fact that at some point Jeff had to tell his daughters "Mommy's not coming home" after she died of breast cancer by having Angle say to Jeff's daughters through the camera, "Daddy's not coming home." It was bad enough when it was just an angle and no viewer was to really believe Jeff's pre-teen daughters would actually be watching. Except, when Jarrett won, Tenay did a shout-out to the daughters. It might be child abuse to let any young girls watch this show, but to let three girls around whom a vile, tasteless promotional angle was built around watch as a heel said "Daddy's not coming home" and then later as their father was struck in a head with a chair, well, that's unfathomable. I don't believe Jeff's daughters watched the show in real life, but on air, Tenay made it seem as if they were - indicating that in some crazy world that'd be seen as okay.

Request time: Can we please not utilize as a promotional vehicle for Jarrett to try once again to get himself over (it's just not going to happen, Jeff, so deal with it, it's no big deal... really) in the fictional storyline world of pro wrestling the real life death of his wife, his real-life coping with it, the real-life tragedy of three little girls losing their mother, and the storyline possibility that they could lose their dad, too.

Angle vs. Jarrett - the match itself - is getting praised. Isolated, on a "Best of Jeff Jarrett" DVD it'd be a good match, one of his ten best, perhaps. On an "Best of Angle" DVD, it'd be maybe an easter-egg to hide somewhere, but not even a top 30. But it's not an isolated match. It was a match in which Jarrett had reason to want to take off Angle's head. After all, he taunted his daughters with the possibility of being orphans. He brought his wife into it two weeks earlier. This should have been a grudge. Jarrett should have had to have been strapped to a board and unleashed only when the bell rang like Sabu used to be in his early ECW days. Instead, their tone-deaf match began like an amateur contest, like if Ricky Morton fought Robert Gibson in a special attraction match during their peak run in the 1980s. Or if Jeff Hardy and Matt Hardy wrestled today. It was like two brothers testing each other's strength and wrestling skills in an honorable fight. We got armbars, clean breaks in the ropes, headlocks (lots of long headlocks). We didn't see much viciousness or aggression. It was completely inappropriate for the circumstances.

Had the hype for this match had been Jeff Jarrett returning, complimenting Angle as a great acquisition for TNA "even if I don't always agree with how you conduct youself," and then challenging him to a classic match since they've never wrestled before, this would have been the match to have. Then, after Jarrett pinned Angle, Angle could throw a fit, attack Jarrett, and demand a rematch. Then next month, Jarrett would wrestle Angle and beat him again. At that point, Angle could be so flustered that he'd make a passing reference to Jarrett being favored by referees because of his personal tragedies. That'd be all it'd take. A subtle, yet effective escalation of their feud. Jarrett could lose it at that point, insist that under no circumstances should his personal life and tragedy be brought up in front of a camera, and demand a third match - this one in a case (or no-rules, or last man standing, etc.). Angle could win the third match fair and square because Jarrett, as Tenay and West would explain, let his emotions get the best of him and was out to hurt Angle instead of winning the match. That could lead to a fourth PPV match in a blow-off gimmick match that could end any number of ways (Jarrett loses, reevaluates his return, disappears for a few months, then returns for a fifth and final match against Angle with the winner getting a title shot; Angle loses, freaks out that Jarrett has a 3-1 record against him, but insists he's done with Jarrett forever because the refs are on his side because they sign his paychecks, and then moves on... or whatever). There were a lot of ways to book this feud. The way it was booked was rushed, disturbing, uncomfortable, and tone-deaf.

Obviously I cant comment on the match itself, but I feel safe in commenting on the feud and at the comments made last night.

ShawnRaven

With all due respect rovert,
I love the way you can condone WWE pulling stuff like this off, but the minute TNA does it, it's "brain dead and retarded" You justified the crap Orton said in 2006 about Eddie being in hell, despite the fact that Eddie's kids could have very well have been watching that show at home, but you're appauled that Angle used the line about Jarrett's wife.

It's double standards, plain and simple. You can't justify one without the other. Both comments were tasteless.

rovert

ShawnRaven wrote: »

With all due respect rovert,
I love the way you can condone WWE pulling stuff like this off, but the minute TNA does it, it's "brain dead and retarded" You justified the crap Orton said in 2006 about Eddie being in hell, despite the fact that Eddie's kids could have very well have been watching that show at home, but you're appauled that Angle used the line about Jarrett's wife.

It's double standards, plain and simple. You can't justify one without the other. Both comments were tasteless.

Where exactly did I condone or justify the Eddie stuff exactly?

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Eddie was a Wrestler, Jill Jarrett wasnt even an on air personality.

To me, that looked like you were justifying it.
Anyway, why are you even shocked by this? This and worse has been done by WWE.

Let me see.
WWE advocates rape: Eric Bischoff forcing Linda McMahon into a bedroom in 2003
WWE advocates murder: JBL ramming a car into Cena - 2008
WWE advocates abduction: Undertaker kidnapping and attempting a dark wedding on Stephanie - 1999
WWE advocates racism: HHH telling Booker T to "dance for him" and refering to him as "you people" - 2003

So if you're easily offended with this sort of stuff man, time to quit watching wrestling, period.

It's an act! Jarrett's daughters have known mommy isn't coming back before that show. To me, it's no worse than having Dominic having to play the part where Eddie tells him that "I'm your papi" and go through the whole custody battle scenario!

rovert

ShawnRaven wrote: »

To me, that looked like you were justifying it.

Key word here even:

rovert wrote: »

Eddie was a Wrestler, Jill Jarrett wasnt even an on air personality.

I wasnt justifying the Eddie stuff just stating that using a person who was never an on air personality is arguably worse that what WWE did with Eddie (an on air personality.)

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Anyway, why are you even shocked by this? This and worse has been done by WWE.




Let me see.
WWE advocates rape: Eric Bischoff forcing Linda McMahon into a bedroom in 2003
WWE advocates murder: JBL ramming a car into Cena - 2008
WWE advocates abduction: Undertaker kidnapping and attempting a dark wedding on Stephanie - 1999
WWE advocates racism: HHH telling Booker T to "dance for him" and refering to him as "you people" - 2003

So if you're easily offended with this sort of stuff man, time to quit watching wrestling, period.

It's an act! Jarrett's daughters have known mommy isn't coming back before that show. To me, it's no worse than having Dominic having to play the part where Eddie tells him that "I'm your papi" and go through the whole custody battle scenario!

Reread the thread if that is your understand of what I have written. Again:

rovert wrote: »

Ive been first person to point this out. Im not OFFENDED~! by this just disappointed in a number of ways which Ive already pointed out in this thread.

rovert

ShawnRaven wrote: »

It's an act! Jarrett's daughters have known mommy isn't coming back before that show. To me, it's no worse than having Dominic having to play the part where Eddie tells him that "I'm your papi" and go through the whole custody battle scenario!

Erm, what trauma was Dominic reliving in that storyline, exactly? Also you do know Dominic was bullied in school as result of that angle?

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Key word here even:



I wasnt justifying the Eddie stuff just stating that using a person who was never an on air personality is arguably worse that what WWE did with Eddie (an on air personality.)

Not really, fans knew who she was anyway so it doesn't make THAT MUCH of a difference if she was on air or not.

Reread the thread if that is your understand of what I have written. Again:

I don't need to, i have no problems reading.
Wrestling has always stooped to low depths to get their characters over. It's used what i've already mentioned, you could also add xenophobia regarding the gulf war, hell it even used the emotions of a country after 9/11!

So again, this shouldn't surprise you.

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Erm, what trauma was Dominic reliving in that storyline, exactly? Also you do know Dominic was bullied in school as result of that angle?

That statement contradicts itself. You're trying to say he didn't relive trauma, and then got traumatised at school.

rovert

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Not really, fans knew who she was anyway so it doesn't make THAT MUCH of a difference if she was on air or no.

Yeah it does she was not a public figure there is a difference.

ShawnRaven wrote: »

I don't need to, i have no problems reading.
Wrestling has always stooped to low depths to get their characters over. It's used what i've already mentioned, you could also add xenophobia regarding the gulf war, hell it even used the emotions of a country after 9/11!

So again, this shouldn't surprise you.

I dont want to start an argument ShawnRaven but if this is what you take from what Ive written, sorry you do need to reread the thread.
Ive never disputed what you've written in the above post, you are saying things for the sake of it regardless of the other person's actual position.

rovert wrote: »

Erm, what trauma was Dominic reliving in that storyline, exactly? Also you do know Dominic was bullied in school as result of that angle?

ShawnRaven wrote: »

That statement contradicts itself. You're trying to say he didn't relive trauma, and then got traumatised at school.

He got bullied at school AFTER the angle was shot. :rolleyes:

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Yeah it does she was not a public figure there is a difference.

No there isn't. An angle in poor taste is an angle in poor taste, period.

I dont want to start an argument ShawnRaven but if this is what you take from what Ive written, sorry you do need to reread the thread.

I need to re-read the thread because you don't like my answer? Surre. :rolleyes:

Ive never disputed what you've written in the above post, you are saying things for the sake of it regardless of the other person's actual position.

Wrong! I'm merely trying to hammer the point across that a poor angle is a poor angle, regardless of the promotion, regardless if the angle uses an on camera personality or not. It's an opinion, sorry if you can't handle it.

He got bullied at school AFTER the angle was shot. :rolleyes:

Still contradicts your statement.

rovert

ShawnRaven wrote: »

No there isn't. An angle in poor taste is an angle in poor taste, period.

It is an arguable point either way. There is different levles of privacy permitted for public and private citzens morally and legally. The whole celebrities are public property argument.

ShawnRaven wrote: »

I need to re-read the thread because you don't like my answer? Surre. :rolleyes:

Wrong! I'm merely trying to hammer the point across that a poor angle is a poor angle, regardless of the promotion, regardless if the angle uses an on camera personality or not. It's an opinion, sorry if you can't handle it.

No as most of your replies has little to do with my actual position and contains things which Ive already stated I agree with. Yet you use those same things to answer me. Yes I know Wrestling is a tasteless business, Im not coming from the angle in the main.

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Still contradicts your statement.

How can someone relive trauma in a wrestling angle when a) it hasnt happened to them yet and b) it not been drawn from any element in their real life? You where they got the idea for the angle from?

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

It is an arguable point either way.

Only if you want to start an argument.

No as most of your replies has little to do with my actual position and contains things which Ive already stated I agree with.

Unfortunately for you rovert, this is a wrestling discussion board which means not everyone is going to share your position. My responses are (read again!), me doing my level best to hammer my position (not yours) in the discussion.

How can someone relive trauma in a wrestling angle when a) it hasnt happened to them yet and b) it not been drawn from any element in their real life?

It doesn't, but you strayed from my point, point being that you do not need to bring non wrestling personalities in to try to get yourself over. Something you agreed with Keller on Jeff Jarrett using his wife's death. But we also didn't need Dominic to get either Rey or Eddie over as they were already over. So of Dominic got bullied at school for it, that's down to sh*t parenting on Rey's fault for agreeing to it because he didn't have the balls to stand up to Vince or else he was too selfish because he wanted a major title run.

Nor did we need Eddie's death to get Randy Orton over as a heel, again, he was already over as a heel by that point.

Nor did Rey require to blow Eddie's corpse for a push through 2006, but that's another rant for another thread.

Stooping to low depths to get yourself over is not needed, which is something we probably both agree on. But we know it's going to happen. But you implying that TNA don't know the concept of a feud when WWE is guilty of the same thing several times over is just laughable, sorry.

rovert

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Only if you want to start an argument.

It is the old celebrity's right to privacy debate.

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Unfortunately for you rovert, this is a wrestling discussion board which means not everyone is going to share your position. My responses are (read again!), me doing my level best to hammer my position (not yours) in the discussion.;)

Thats fine but you were "answering" me when I felt you werent actually taking on my point.

ShawnRaven wrote: »

It doesn't, but you strayed from my point, point being that you do not need to bring non wrestling personalities in to try to get yourself over. Something you agreed with Keller on Jeff Jarrett using his wife's death. But we also didn't need Dominic to get either Rey or Eddie over as they were already over. So of Dominic got bullied at school for it, that's down to sh*t parenting on Rey's fault for agreeing to it because he didn't have the balls to stand up to Vince or else he was too selfish because he wanted a major title run.

I didn’t stray from you point. I pointed out there is a difference in the involvement of Jeff's and Rey's children.

The inclusion of Dominic had little to do with getting Rey and Eddy over nor had it anything to do with a Rey title run as it wasn’t considered at the time. Eddie/Rey were put together as they drew the best ratings (1 million viewer growth per segment guaranteed.) The storyline was meant to play as a soap opera those million plus Hispanic viewers. They used Dominic as a prop in blunt terms in a custody angle which played off this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez_affair . Which was a hot story among Hispanics. The storyline was not inspired by events in Rey's and/or Eddie's family life. While the Jarrett storyline was. You are merging the Orton and Eddie feuds together to fit your point.

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Stooping to low depths to get yourself over is not needed, which is something we probably both agree on.

This point is why I’ve been asking you to re-read the thread as it is what I’ve been saying in various ways. If you read the thread you would have known I agree on this issue as I already made the point.

rovert wrote: »

I just think that it speaks volumes about the company if their booker/owner/"lead babyface" has to exploit his wife's cancer to get over. But then again this is the same person who cut off his own father over signing Koslov.

ShawnRaven wrote: »

But we know it's going to happen. But you implying that TNA don't know the concept of a feud when WWE is guilty of the same thing several times over is just laughable, sorry.

I didn’t imply it ShawnRaven I explicitly said it. This isn’t it about TNA vs WWE here even if you want to frame that way, this is a TNA thread hence I’m referring to TNA. I’ve been equally critical about WWE when they done similar things. TNA didn’t tell an effective, logical story with this feud as Wade in that article points out.

EdK

Quote: Wade Keller
Kevin Nash obviously wanted to cost Samoa Joe the match and his title since he bashed him with a baseball bat, allowing Sting to win the TNA World Title.

That's fine. Well, it's interference at the end of the main event of your biggest annual PPV and there are plenty of arguments against doing that, but in a general sense, it makes sense within TNA's storylines that Nash might turn on Joe. We can actually anticipate his explaining his decision.

Here's what makes zero sense. Less than a minute earlier, Nash yanked the baseball bat away from Sting just as he was about to use it against Joe. Immediately afterward, Joe nearly defeated Sting because of Nash's interjecting himself from ringside. In fact, Nash had no way to know that an opportunity would present itself to interfere again, nor could he rule out that Joe wouldn't win immediately after he took the bat from Sting. So Nash, by his own actions, may have caused the opposite result he wanted.

Let's be clear. Nothing happened between the time Nash took the bat from Sting as he was about to hit Joe and a minute later when he hit Joe that would explain Nash having a change of heart. For instance, had Nash yanked the bat away from Sting, but Joe didn't see it happen, and then if Joe looked at Nash and, say, gave him the finger, that could explain Nash changing his motivation and wanting to cost Joe the match. That's one of many examples of how to explain a Nash change of heart. None was present here.

So Nash's opportunity to actually knock out Joe and cost him the title might not have happened. Nash could have ended the night helping Joe retain his title. Sting might not have kicked out as he did right after Nash yanked the belt from him. Or the match might have continued without an opportunity for Nash to hit Joe with the bat from ringside without the ref seeing it and calling for a DQ. It was only a very specific series of unforeseeable circumstances, out of Nash's hands, that led to his initial "swerve" (taking the bat from Sting) not causing the opposite of his desired outcome to occur.

So Nash's character is made to look either stupid or erratic.

Talk about taking things too seriously

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Thats fine but you were "answering" me when I felt you werent actually taking on my point.

Whatever way you want to see it, dude.

The inclusion of Dominic had little to do with getting Rey and Eddy over nor had it anything to do with a Rey title run as it wasn’t considered at the time. Eddie/Rey were put together as they drew the best ratings (1 million viewer growth guaranteed.) The storyline was meant to play as a soap opera to Hispanic viewers. They used Dominic as a prop in blunt terms in a custody angle which played off this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez_affair . Which was a hot story among Hispanics. The storyline was not inspired by events in Rey's and Eddie's family life. While the Jarrett storyline was.

I'm aware of this rovert, my point was it wasn't required, nor needed. Even soaps take it too far, the English are up in arms over the gay kiss scene from eastenders at the moment, granted that's a tame example. Put people watch soaps (and in turn, pro wrestling) to get away from rapes, deaths, murders, racism etc. That's my point. For both promotions, why go there if it's not needed?

I didn’t imply it ShawnRaven I explicitly said it. This isn’t it about TNA vs WWE here even if you want to frame that way, this is a TNA thread hence I’m referring to TNA. I’ve been equally critical about WWE when they done similar things. TNA didn’t tell an effective, logical story with this feud as Wade in that article points out.

Just wanted to make sure we were clear.
As for TNA and it's story telling. Keller, where he does have some valid points there, To me a little over a week isn't enough time to tell a story, that said, i haven't seen the last impact yet to make a judgment myself.

rovert

rovert wrote: »

For example? Still it doesnt exucuse it. I have LOL @ Jeff using cancer to get over and likely failing as he always does.

rovert wrote: »

I just think that it speaks volumes about the company if their booker/owner/"lead babyface" has to exploit his wife's cancer to get over. But then again this is the same person who cut off his own father over signing Koslov.

EdK wrote: »

Quote: Wade Keller
Kevin Nash obviously wanted to cost Samoa Joe the match and his title since he bashed him with a baseball bat, allowing Sting to win the TNA World Title.

That's fine. Well, it's interference at the end of the main event of your biggest annual PPV and there are plenty of arguments against doing that, but in a general sense, it makes sense within TNA's storylines that Nash might turn on Joe. We can actually anticipate his explaining his decision.

Here's what makes zero sense. Less than a minute earlier, Nash yanked the baseball bat away from Sting just as he was about to use it against Joe. Immediately afterward, Joe nearly defeated Sting because of Nash's interjecting himself from ringside. In fact, Nash had no way to know that an opportunity would present itself to interfere again, nor could he rule out that Joe wouldn't win immediately after he took the bat from Sting. So Nash, by his own actions, may have caused the opposite result he wanted.

Let's be clear. Nothing happened between the time Nash took the bat from Sting as he was about to hit Joe and a minute later when he hit Joe that would explain Nash having a change of heart. For instance, had Nash yanked the bat away from Sting, but Joe didn't see it happen, and then if Joe looked at Nash and, say, gave him the finger, that could explain Nash changing his motivation and wanting to cost Joe the match. That's one of many examples of how to explain a Nash change of heart. None was present here.

So Nash's opportunity to actually knock out Joe and cost him the title might not have happened. Nash could have ended the night helping Joe retain his title. Sting might not have kicked out as he did right after Nash yanked the belt from him. Or the match might have continued without an opportunity for Nash to hit Joe with the bat from ringside without the ref seeing it and calling for a DQ. It was only a very specific series of unforeseeable circumstances, out of Nash's hands, that led to his initial "swerve" (taking the bat from Sting) not causing the opposite of his desired outcome to occur.

So Nash's character is made to look either stupid or erratic.

Talk about taking things too seriously

I agree but he does have a point.

Fozzy

EdK wrote: »

Talk about taking things too seriously

I call it logic. I find it hard to get into stuff that doesn't make sense because they can just change everything whenever they feel like it

EdK

He's basically saying Nash should have done it because he didn't know he would get a second chance to do it.

Nash did it to stick it to Joe to further the vets vs the youngsters storyline and to set up a match between Joe and Nash that could not have happened if Sting had done it

Nash lulled Joe into a false sense of security hehe

Machismo Fan

Nash leaving Sting hit Joe would have really built the Nash/Joe feud wouldn't it.

rovert

EdK wrote: »

Nash lulled Joe into a false sense of security hehe

IT WAS A PLAN ALL ALONG! SWERVE OMG

If you rewatch this storyline progress from the start it would likely make no sense. There were times were it made no sense segment by segment.

Machismo Fan

rovert wrote: »

If you rewatch this storyline progress from the start it would likely make no sense. There were times were it made no sense segment by segment.

Examples?

rovert

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Examples?

All the bickering and crying segments between Joe and Nash after the Joe beat up Booker on Pay Per View.

Why did Joe never take back his locker room from Booker

Why did Joe let Booker keep the title for a month then later freaked out about Booker taking it

If I sat down and thought about it I could give loads.

Machismo Fan

Disrespecting a veteran and Joe losing his cool. Nash was trying to mentor him.

rovert

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Disrespecting a veteran and Joe losing his cool. Nash was trying to mentor him.

If you watch Wrestling not think about things fine, I dont want to detract from your enjoyment.

But you havent given me actual answers to the questions I asked in the previous post all you done is post the theme of a storyline which TNA themselves have deviated from.

Machismo Fan

rovert wrote: »

Why did Joe never take back his locker room from Booker

Why did Joe let Booker keep the title for a month then later freaked out about Booker taking it

Because he gave Booker his locker room as Joe felt he was not above the rest of the roster.

Because Joe wanted take his title back and earn it, thus proving that he is better than Booker T.

rovert

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Because he gave Booker his locker room as Joe felt he was not above the rest of the roster.

He said he would take it back later (at the next PPV?)

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Because Joe wanted take his title back and earn it, thus proving that he is better than Booker T.

That is only half the story, Joe then later freak out to Nash (crying) that Booker took the belt and wouldnt give it back.

Why did Samoa Joe (babyface) sucker Sting (heel) in with a handshake to headbutt him?

Machismo Fan

rovert wrote: »

He said he would take it back later (at the next PPV?)



That is only half the story, Joe then later freak out that Booker took the belt and wouldnt give it back.

To both of those, did he?

EdK

rovert wrote: »

He said he would take it back later (at the next PPV?)



That is only half the story, Joe then later freak out that Booker took the belt and wouldnt give it back.

Why did Samoa Joe (babyface) sucker Sting (heel) in with a handshake to headbutt him?

For a guy obsessed with fact Rovert you make arguments on shaky ground

rovert

Machismo Fan wrote: »

To both of those, did he?

Did what?

EdK wrote: »

For a guy obsessed with fact Rovert you make arguments on shaky ground

Im going by memory and it is late, but Im quite sure Im largely right. Again I can come up with better ones than those Ive posted. TNA storylines lack consequence so excuse if I cant remember every twist and mini babyface/heel turn. You let to tell how Im on shaky ground, characters often contradict themselves show to show, segement by segment. That Wade article explains that fact.

Machismo Fan

rovert wrote: »

Why did Samoa Joe (babyface) sucker Sting (heel) in with a handshake to headbutt him?

Why did Angle(face) headbutt Joe(face), why did Michaels(face) superkick Cena(face) because it makes for good TV and adds tension to a feud.

EdK

Who says Joe is a face anyway?

Machismo Fan

rovert wrote: »

Did what?

Did he say that.

Fozzy

EdK wrote: »

Who says Joe is a face anyway?

He's a heel?

We need another leaked Impact script

Machismo Fan

I'd say Joes a tweener myself.

EdK

Maybe he's neither maybe he's just a normal guy with grey areas, Am I the only one who thinks the whole face/heel thing is played out?

rovert

Machismo Fan wrote: »

Why did Angle(face) headbutt Joe(face), why did Michaels(face) superkick Cena(face) because it makes for good TV and adds tension to a feud.

Context is key neither Angle or Michaels were booed out of the building come match time.

EdK wrote: »

Who says Joe is a face anyway?

The storyline, Sting is meant to be the scripted heel but even time he is meant to give a heel promo he changes his lines.

Nash turned heel on Joe

therefore Joe is a babyface.

rovert

EdK wrote: »

Maybe he's neither maybe he's just a normal guy with grey areas, Am I the only one who thinks the whole face/heel thing is played out?

Christ, night all

EdK

Yes I know heel/face is Wrestling 101 but in this day and age is anyone truly bad or truly good