Random Wrasslin' thoughts.....

LeeJM

Angron wrote: »

Not in WWE. I looked it up, he only returned to WWE to do commentary in May of this year, having left in 2002.

Really? I could have sworn he has been there the entire time.

Angron

Yeah, according to wikipedia WWE stopped producing shows in French in 2002, so I guess he had no reason to hang around. Still, nice that he got a job again when they started doing more languages.

leggo

ERG89 wrote: »

They mentioned Roman was now a grand slam winner (granted the world's reaction was overall apathetic). They gave him the belt just so they could claim that as it doesn't really make sense in him winning a mid card title even when Raw's world champ doesn't show up every week the IC title hasnt been allowed to mean anything in a long time. Probably was before they scrapped it temporarily in 2002.
Then they did a story on their website on previous grand slam winners which didn't list JBL who took time to mention it on twitter. It's not a fan only thing tbh; companies are as petty for records as fans are.

Yeah but that's the marketing, WWE's job is to make as big a deal out of everything in their product that they can. So someone doing something notable like that is gonna get mentions on commentary and their website. But the practical reality of it is that they're putting the belt on a main event guy likely because their main champion isn't there so it means they can have big title match main events at house shows (and Miz was taking time off so they didn't want to have two absent champions). See? Fans put significance into something but the booking reality of it is really boring.

Blue_Dabadee

I think RAW 15th anniversary still remains as one of the best "special" episodes of RAW. They brought back people for that episode that you would not expect such as Sunny, The Goon, Skinner, Bart Gunn, etc.

Omackeral

Just because on the Bucks stuff posted above. It's actually class when you're there in person. It's such cool athleticism and the whole arena gets on board and loses their minds at it. If it's just for the people there live that paid to see them, I wouldn't have much of an issue.

If it's people buying PPVs complaining, then they're entitled to have a go at it.

If it's people streaming it illegally or just commenting on a twitter video they saw a couple days later, screw them.

Pentecost

Angron wrote: »

Yeah, according to wikipedia WWE stopped producing shows in French in 2002, so I guess he had no reason to hang around. Still, nice that he got a job again when they started doing more languages.

When was the last time they did a through the foreign announce table spot actually? Used to be a WWE tradition that the poor Spanish language announcers would have to scarper.

Loughc

Pentecost wrote: »

When was the last time they did a through the foreign announce table spot actually? Used to be a WWE tradition that the poor Spanish language announcers would have to scarper.

Sunday? Did Kevin Owens not frog splash someone through the foreign announce table it was that just the regular smack down one?

Lithium93_

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I hate crappy spots like that. Embarrassing for the business. It may play well with a certain niche demographic but the mainstream looks at that with disdain and I don't blame them. Cormier wasn't the only UFC guy to rip on it.

https://twitter.com/ChaseShermanUFC/status/942485757037563906

And Matt Jackson shot back at Sherman with an excellent burn

Like Coulson said above, the Bucks will sell more t-shirts, and laugh all about it. They generate attention/get people talking.

Lithium93_

Omackeral wrote: »

Just because on the Bucks stuff posted above. It's actually class when you're there in person. It's such cool athleticism and the whole arena gets on board and loses their minds at it. If it's just for the people there live that paid to see them, I wouldn't have much of an issue.

If it's people buying PPVs complaining, then they're entitled to have a go at it.

If it's people streaming it illegally or just commenting on a twitter video they saw a couple days later, screw them.

But, but it's embarrassing for the business don't you know.**

**Typed with heavily sarcasm**

Mr.Nice Guy

Lithium93_ wrote: »

And Matt Jackson shot back at Sherman with an excellent burn

Like Coulson said above, the Bucks will sell more t-shirts, and laugh all about it. They generate attention/get people talking.

Not sure what them making money has to do with anything.

A lot of people think what Simon Cowell and his ilk pump out every Christmas is trash and bad for the music industry. To point out that Cowell and co. are laughing all the way to the bank - which of course they are - doesn't counter that.

J. Marston

"But they sell t-shirts" is a kind of a crap defence.

Shít wrestling is shít wrestling.

leggo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Not sure what them making money has to do with anything.

A lot of people think what Simon Cowell and his ilk pump out every Christmas is trash and bad for the music industry. To point out that Cowell and co. are laughing all the way to the bank - which of course they are - doesn't counter that.

Well it's a job, so making money is (and should be) the entire objective.

Itssoeasy

The ROH video involving the young bucks is a shame to see. It's clear as day that today's wrestler is way more athletic than previous generations. And that is shown in the video, and even Jim cornette has admitted that they are amazing athletes but it's not wrestling. I just added that point to dispel the myth that Jim cornette hates all modern wrestling, he doesn't he dislikes stuff that makes wrestling look stupid.

Omackeral

Said this before a lot of what we watch isn't 'wrestling'. Strowman getting thrown into a garbage truck, Shane O Mac jumping off structures, Undertaker being dead and all.

DM_7

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The ROH video involving the young bucks is a shame to see. It's clear as day that today's wrestler is way more athletic than previous generations. And that is shown in the video, and even Jim cornette has admitted that they are amazing athletes but it's not wrestling. I just added that point to dispel the myth that Jim cornette hates all modern wrestling, he doesn't he dislikes stuff that makes wrestling look stupid.

Nothing special going on in that video from a generational POV. Would see flips in World of Sport back in the day. Or more recent, do we really think Owen Hart and co wouldn't be able to do that?

Mr.Nice Guy

leggo wrote: »

Well it's a job, so making money is (and should be) the entire objective.

"I don't like what Simon Cowell has done to the music industry. I believe his influence has overall been harmful."

"But he makes a lot of money."

Not really relevant to the point, is it?

Mr.Nice Guy

Imagine if in one of the scenes during the new Star Wars movie, Daisy Ridley and one of her co-stars just started looking at the camera and goofing around and stuff, taking themselves out of the story in other words, and then when fans complained afterwards that they weren't taking the role seriously, they just shrugged their shoulders and said "hey it's all fake and sh*t. Jedis aren't real. Who cares?" They would be panned by the public and rightly so.

It's not that the people who watch the film are fantasists who think Jedis are real, it's that they want to be able to suspend their disbelief to enjoy the story. And they don't want the performers to ruin the magic by drumming it into their heads that what they are seeing is not real.

J. Marston

Never really understood fans using the money excuse. Comes off a little as trying to be insider/above it all.

Think we should be looking at it from an entertainment/critical standpoint not an accountant's view.

Itssoeasy

DM_7 wrote: »

Nothing special going on in that video from a generational POV. Would see flips in World of Sport back in the day. Or more recent, do we really think Owen Hart and co wouldn't be able to do that?

I'm not talking about flips. I mean Verne gagne was doing a headscissors in the 1950s, and that was probably seen as flashy but it looked real. The lads in the video don't even connect on the dropkicks. I mean at least make it look like you've dropkicked someone.

A Brad Maddox Guy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Imagine if in one of the scenes during the new Star Wars movie, Daisy Ridley and one of her co-stars just started looking at the camera and goofing around and stuff, taking themselves out of the story in other words, and then when fans complained afterwards that they weren't taking the role seriously, they just shrugged their shoulders and said "hey it's all fake and sh*t. Jedis aren't real. Who cares?" They would be panned by the public and rightly so.

It's not that the people who watch the film are fantasists who think Jedis are real, it's that they want to be able to suspend their disbelief to enjoy the story. And they don't want the performers to ruin the magic by drumming it into their heads that what they are seeing is not real.

Woah woah woah... Jedis are real, there's 2000 of them in Ireland alone!! :pac:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/census-reaction-people-are-delighted-to-find-out-that-ireland-has-2000-jedi-knights-784801.html

(FWIW I think that Bucks video is stupid and the response of essentially "it's made them money" doesn't do as an argument against its stupidity. Sure people can like what they like, I enjoyed the Bucks schtick when I saw them at OTT, but stuff like that is verging on Gaiety Theatre panto rather than pro wrestling panto so I can certainly understand why many wrestling fans look down on it or get embarrassed by it. Although I assume I would laugh along with it if I were in the audience.)

leggo

No, it is relevant, because the fact that they are successful means that people are paying to see it, therefore it's what the majority of people want. If Star Wars did what you said and it was unanimously agreed as awful, a lot of people wouldn't go back (there's precedent: like when they over-saturated the market with books that were overly-contrived and stopped selling) and they would have to reboot based around what the market wants.

Your personal disappointment or opinion isn't irrelevant, but when you try to frame it as a 'problem' to validate it that it becomes a contentious point. That's just arrogance, implying "my personal taste is all that matters regardless of all contrary evidence." It's their job to earn as much money as possible to support their families, like any of us with our own jobs. I don't personally worry about my effect on my industry as a whole during my day-to-day work, do you? Yet we hold wrestlers to this high regard when, in reality, even the perpetuators of these opinions (like Cornette) are just playing the game too and maximising their own income by supplying unique content (in the form of rants against popular wrestlers nobody else is ranting about, for example) that is consistent with the public persona they portray. Eamonn Dunphy made a career out of it criticising the most successful international side we ever had and calling Cristiano Ronaldo a clown, Katie Hopkins does the same today feeding the significant prejudiced, alt-right segment of society with material we don't get elsewhere in the mainstream. So even Cornette is guilty of his own crime, just by different means. They do stupid dropkick spots, he does stupid rants, they bicker on Twitter then all of them go to bed having fed their families for another day and contributed to the other's wealth because their feud is mutually beneficial to both sides of the market. Even if it's organic, it's still all a work brother.

So if you frame your opinion as some kind of grand comment on the industry as a whole, you're going to have people argue because there's very clear evidence against it. It'd be more like if I said Star Wars wasn't a successful movie franchise because I personally didn't like it...I'd get eaten alive because it's a dumb conclusion based off my own biases. If you frame your opinion as personal distaste, it's totally valid and your argument is stronger as a result. Case in point: one thing I'm absolutely not trying to do is tell you you're wrong for disliking it. I'm not even a huge fan of it myself, but even if I was and we disagreed then I'd fight for your right to dislike it, if that was the point you were making and people were ganging up on you as a result. I feel like I'm constantly explaining this same point.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The worst is when someone has a person in the corner and is throwing a few punches and it cuts to a different camera around 10 times in a row.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/943093477792817152

Something like this is what I was talking about. So annoying.

J. Marston

That's 9 cuts in 9 seconds.

CastorTroy

Just noticed this week, all the unmanned cameras. How long have they been using them? Is that why all the camera angles?

Omackeral

CastorTroy wrote: »

Just noticed this week, all the unmanned cameras. How long have they been using them? Is that why all the camera angles?

They're doing some 360 degree gimmick on the Network. It was there at Clash of Champions too.

SureYWouldntYa

Now that Dean Ambrose's injury from Raw is an actual injury and not storyline

It means no Shield match at Wrestlemania, part of me was hoping that a proper Shield 3v3 at Wrestlemania would mean Reigns is tied up with that and the Universal title is free for others

The title match was probably happening anyway but it's one alternative for the big dog out the window

Mr.Nice Guy

leggo wrote: »

No, it is relevant, because the fact that they are successful means that people are paying to see it, therefore it's what the majority of people want. If Star Wars did what you said and it was unanimously agreed as awful, a lot of people wouldn't go back (there's precedent: like when they over-saturated the market with books that were overly-contrived and stopped selling) and they would have to reboot based around what the market wants.

You act as if the Young Bucks are the most successful act in WWE or something. In the grand scheme of things they are a niche act playing to a niche audience. I find it extraordinary to say because a couple of hundred people pay to see it that it's "what the majority of people want". I don't see any evidence for that claim. So I say, again, it is not relevant to the argument. We are talking about the artistic merit of the performance not whether it can be sold as a commercially viable enterprise. After all, people can make money from all sorts of stuff.

And believing it to be a problem for the industry is not "arrogance" as you claim, rather it is a perfectly valid concern that this lowering of standards is going to have a detrimental effect on the industry as a whole.

If anything, the "arrogance" is in those who dismiss the concerns out of hand. Case in point the recent tweet from the Bucks on the controversy: "Great, now next battle royal we’re in, we’ve gotta convince 20 guys to all dropkick at the same time or people will say we’ve lost a step."

Translation: we don't care that we make the business look trash, and we will take steps to make it look even phonier and trashier just to stick it to our critics. That's what I call arrogance. But to each their own I suppose. Merry Christmas!

leggo

That's their deal, they're meta, it's a big thing now in a world where everyone knows wrestling is fake and we're not trying to pretend it's not anymore. I get that you might derive enjoyment by pretending it's still real (to you damnit, sorry old habit)...and hey, that's a TOTALLY legitimate way of enjoying wrestling. I'm not trying to take that away from you or minimise it. It's just that other people enjoy it for different reasons too. And when you try and validate your feelings by saying "my way good, this way bad" by suggesting that it's somehow bad for the industry when all quantifiable evidence suggests otherwise, people are going to point to that evidence. Case in point: you try and minimise YB's success by saying they're not in WWE, but they've been offered WWE contracts before and done the maths and decided they'd be more successful outside of it.

Mr.Nice Guy

I haven't tried to minimise their success for if they had no success then there would be no issue because there would be nothing to discuss. What I did take issue with is your statement that because they are able to reach out to a niche audience that this is evidence that it is "what the majority of people want". The numbers show what the majority of wrestling fans want to watch is WWE.

J. Marston wrote:

Never really understood fans using the money excuse. Comes off a little as trying to be insider/above it all.

Think we should be looking at it from an entertainment/critical standpoint not an accountant's view.

Yep. Having thought about it I suspect they use this excuse because there is no other form of entertainment spectacle where making the whole artform look bad is excused.

Hell, if I went to see Twink performing Punch and Judy at a church charity gig I would still expect her to take her performance seriously. And I certainly wouldn't feel better about an intelligence-insulting display by being told she's made a load of dosh from it!

PTH2009

I wonder will they do Demon Finn Balor vs Woken Hardy at mania ???

would not surprise me if they had Reigns lose the intercon title to the miz (by way of a screw type finsh) and they do Finn vs Miz at mania for the intercon title ?