RAW 29-2-2016

Stereomaniac

The reasons people are complaining about this storyline are the reasons I am enjoying it so far. WWE is often criticised for being so predictable and now here we are left wondering.

Lord TSC

Stereomaniac wrote: »

The reasons people are complaining about this storyline are the reasons I am enjoying it so far. WWE is often criticised for being so predictable and now here we are left wondering.

There's a difference between "Unpredictable" and "Riddled with plotholes". The story is leaning towards the latter at the moment.

As I said earlier, I am enjoying the idea of the match as it stands, and I think said plotholes could be explained away easily enough, but they are failing to fill them as it stands.

Straight Edge Punk

Lord TSC wrote: »

There's a difference between "Unpredictable" and "Riddled with plotholes". The story is leaning towards the latter at the moment.

As I said earlier, I am enjoying the idea of the match as it stands, and I think said plotholes could be explained away easily enough, but they are failing to fill them as it stands.

The only plot hole I can see at the moment is simply, why would Taker do as Vince says? This can be easily explained at any stage in the next 4 weeks.

Moneymaker

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

The only plot hole I can see at the moment is simply, why would Taker do as Vince says? This can be easily explained at any stage in the next 4 weeks.

So why wasn't it on Monday?

Straight Edge Punk

Moneymaker wrote: »

So why wasn't it on Monday?

Because there are still 4 more Raws before Mania.

Loughc

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

The only plot hole I can see at the moment is simply, why would Taker do as Vince says? This can be easily explained at any stage in the next 4 weeks.

You're right it COULD be explained, I don't see the WWE doing that though. They're going to gloss over it and hope people only focus on the fact it's Taker vs Shane-o-Mac at Wrestlemania in a HITC and not why.

Straight Edge Punk

Loughc wrote: »

You're right it COULD be explained, I don't see the WWE doing that though. They're going to gloss over it and hope people only focus on the fact it's Taker vs Shane-o-Mac at Wrestlemania in a HITC and not why.

I'm willing to give them a few weeks before complaining about it. What they are doing makes perfect sense and will have people tune in every week between now and Mania.

Loughc

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

I'm willing to give them a few weeks before complaining about it. What they are doing makes perfect sense and will have people tune in every week between now and Mania.

I don't think that is their intention though, I think they way they see it is;

Week 1 - Shane comesback and gets booked in match
Week 2 - Taker comes out confirms his participation and remains face by choking Vince and stating "Shane's blood is on Vince's hands and not his".
Week 3 - Shane returns to Raw and continues his feud with the other McMahons and not Taker.

And I think that's as much explaination as we'll get for Taker's involvement other than Vince told him to.

I'm not too bothered as I'm still excited to see the match as it should be a spotfest.

Straight Edge Punk

Loughc wrote: »

I don't think that is their intention though, I think they way they see it is;

Week 1 - Shane comesback and gets booked in match
Week 2 - Taker comes out confirms his participation and remains face by choking Vince and stating "Shane's blood is on Vince's hands and not his".
Week 3 - Shane returns to Raw and continues his feud with the other McMahons and not Taker.

And I think that's as much explaination as we'll get for Taker's involvement other than Vince told him to.

I'm not too bothered as I'm still excited to see the match as it should be a spotfest.

I'm not sure it will be a spotfest, Taker is over 50 while Shane isn't far off. There's no way Shane takes the kind of bumps we saw from him 10-15 years ago.

Loughc

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

I'm not sure it will be a spotfest, Taker is over 50 while Shane isn't far off. There's no way Shane takes the kind of bumps we saw from him 10-15 years ago.

Spotfest in the sense kendo stick attack, beatdown into the cell wall, steel steps involvement, coast to coast perhaps, those kind of spots, not the jumping off a cell.

Moneymaker

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

Because there are still 4 more Raws before Mania.

Of which Undertaker won't be on all of.

That's a pretty bad reason, why not explain it now, rather then confusing the hell of out fans?

Straight Edge Punk

Moneymaker wrote: »

Of which Undertaker won't be on all of.

That's a pretty bad reason, why not explain it now, rather then confusing the hell of out fans?

It entices fans into tuning in every week to see if they do give an explanation. We'll all be watching wont we?

Straight Edge Punk

Loughc wrote: »

Spotfest in the sense kendo stick attack, beatdown into the cell wall, steel steps involvement, coast to coast perhaps, those kind of spots, not the jumping off a cell.

I dont even see them getting too violent, whats the point without that glorious crimson?

Loughc

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

I dont even see them getting too violent, whats the point without that glorious crimson?

In that case what's the point of street fights, extreme rules matches, I quit matches, Last Man Standing, etc.

Of course there'll be foreign objects involved, plently of matches still have Kendo stick and steel steps involved even in the PG era.

Insect Overlord

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

I dont even see them getting too violent, whats the point without that glorious crimson?

Byron Saxton coukd slip a blood-pack or two through the side of the cell.

Straight Edge Punk

Loughc wrote: »

In that case what's the point of street fights, extreme rules matches, I quit matches, Last Man Standing, etc.

Of course there'll be foreign objects involved, plently of matches still have Kendo stick and steel steps involved even in the PG era.

When they are full time wrestlers, i have no issue with street fights et al as you can intertwine the mindless violence with actual wrestling. Taker and Shane just do not have that ability in my eyes. Both need someone to carry them to a high class match. I don't see it running too long and will involve plenty of interference, i just don't know how they get people in the ring through the cell door bar a special guest referee.

Moneymaker

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

It entices fans into tuning in every week to see if they do give an explanation. We'll all be watching wont we?

I haven't watched Raw in about four months.

Straight Edge Punk

Moneymaker wrote: »

I haven't watched Raw in about four months.

Ok, well you will go out of your way to find out what happens on Raw wont you?

Moneymaker

Straight Edge Punk wrote: »

Ok, well you will go out of your way to find out what happens on Raw wont you?

Not really. I subscribe to Wrestling Observer and I usually just listen to Bryan and Dave Tuesday afternoon. I'll look at the YouTube clips they post if something interests me. Three hours is too much and the show mostly sucks. I have no interest in Roman Reigns and the show is so heavily centered around him. I simply don't enjoy the booking and production of the product. The actual talent and standard of wrestling is very good but they are totally hamstrung. The PPVs are consistently solid in terms of in-ring work but the booking is just atrocious more often then not.

I'm still a fan of PW and I wish it was a great show. Nothing would make me happier. Raw isn't the only thing that exists in the world of wrestling. There are great shows on every week. Raw is not one of them. I've been a WWE fan for over 20 years and that won't change but Raw is a bad show and has been for a long time.

beakerjoe

The Undertakers appearance on Raw was the dirt worst. It did nothing. He might as well of stayed at home and Vince give his 15 minutes entrance time to someone else.

beakerjoe

Moneymaker wrote: »

Not really. I subscribe to Wrestling Observer and I usually just listen to Bryan and Dave Tuesday afternoon. I'll look at the YouTube clips they post if something interests me. Three hours is too much and the show mostly sucks. I have no interest in Roman Reigns and the show is so heavily centered around him. I simply don't enjoy the booking and production of the product. The actual talent and standard of wrestling is very good but they are totally hamstrung. The PPVs are consistently solid in terms of in-ring work but the booking is just atrocious more often then not.

I'm still a fan of PW and I wish it was a great show. Nothing would make me happier. Raw isn't the only thing that exists in the world of wrestling. There are great shows on every week. Raw is not one of them. I've been a WWE fan for over 20 years and that won't change but Raw is a bad show and has been for a long time.

Its horrible viewing in terms of enjoyment.

Ads every 5 mins, senseless commentary, lazy booking, awful shilling, constant mis handling of talent, the list is huge as to why WWE Raw is so unwatchable at times.

Sure there are brights sparks here or there, each week usually has something enjoyable but for most part its difficult to watch. The fill 3 hours worth of programming with 70 percent dirt.

Currently WWE are ahppy with their forumla with Raw, it makes money despite its flaws. They ahvent changed in years and I doubt they will change anytime soon.

Borisgem8

The best and only part of this show I enjoyed was Byron flying. This had to have been one of the worst Raws I have watched. I don't watch every week, but after last week's show I expected it to be good. Nothing but filler, recaps, and divas matches.

JP Liz V1

So what WM match is getting the "contract signing" Taker/Shane or HHH/Reigns

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

So what WM match is getting the "contract signing" Taker/Shane or HHH/Reigns

Hate when they do this. Such lazy booking.

Stereomaniac

Lord TSC wrote: »

There's a difference between "Unpredictable" and "Riddled with plotholes". The story is leaning towards the latter at the moment.

As I said earlier, I am enjoying the idea of the match as it stands, and I think said plotholes could be explained away easily enough, but they are failing to fill them as it stands.

I'm enjoying it for what it is so far and I'm remaining optimistic about the match.

CastorTroy

When do we get the Linda appearance for Vince insulting her as well when he called Shane a "Son of a b*tch"?

Straight Edge Punk

CastorTroy wrote: »

When do we get the Linda appearance for Vince insulting her as well when he called Shane a "Son of a b*tch"?

Exactly my thoughts when he said it too.