Wrestlemania 2020 - Spoilers, rumours, etc

JP Liz V1

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I thing that helped put Lacey over as it took two to beat her.

J. Marston wrote: »

Lacey should've won, especially from that position

I'd prefer Lacey winning too, Sasha could have cost Bayley the loss leading to their feud starting now

mrkiscool2

Monokne wrote: »

I find it strange that Brock is excused for the short, formulaic matches he has done over and over for years, but when Bill has the same matches, the heat goes on him, particularly given Brock's best friend is the booker and has heavy input in his matches. It's almost like Brock just wants to get in & get out.

Brock has also had great matches against Cena and Rollins, against Bryan and against Finn. He can't go for 30 minutes, sure, but when booked right he can go.

mrkiscool2

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I'd prefer Lacey winning too, Sasha could have cost Bayley the loss leading to their feud starting now

I don't want Bayley to turn face though. I am really enjoying her a heel so Sahsa should be the face for the feud. Maybe have Sasha win the MITB match (if it goes ahead), she decides to cash-in fairly on Bayley and Bayley just gets DQ'd when she realises she is going to lose. Boom, Sasha is now a face and Bayley continues to be heel and we get a good program for the title.

Itssoeasy

Monokne wrote: »

I find it strange that Brock is excused for the short, formulaic matches he has done over and over for years, but when Bill has the same matches, the heat goes on him, particularly given Brock's best friend is the booker and has heavy input in his matches. It's almost like Brock just wants to get in & get out.

Well brock has the history of being able to wrestle long matches and being a good wrestler and yeah he's not able to go as he used to but he still has a presence about him. Goldberg never had that and he's never been someone who fans said was a ring general. He was basic and formulaic from his start in WCW and his skill level didn't have far to fall and it's bad to watch.

Itssoeasy

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I don't want Bayley to turn face though. I am really enjoying her a heel so Sahsa should be the face for the feud. Maybe have Sasha win the MITB match (if it goes ahead), she decides to cash-in fairly on Bayley and Bayley just gets DQ'd when she realises she is going to lose. Boom, Sasha is now a face and Bayley continues to be heel and we get a good program for the title.

Well Bayley is good as a babyface(maybe not nxt bayley babyface) while Sasha is a terrible babyface and seems to be a perfect heel.

Omackeral

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Brock has also had great matches against Cena and Rollins, against Bryan and against Finn. He can't go for 30 minutes, sure, but when booked right he can go.

Also, he’s hilarious when he decides to have a laugh.

DM_7

Brock and R Truth.

Brock at the Rumble (w/Shelton).

Brock is great tbh.

JP Liz V1

Monokne wrote: »

I find it strange that Brock is excused for the short, formulaic matches he has done over and over for years, but when Bill has the same matches, the heat goes on him, particularly given Brock's best friend is the booker and has heavy input in his matches. It's almost like Brock just wants to get in & get out.

HHH

Sasha is better as a heel

I love wrestling. I really do. I also love hearing other wrestling fans opinions. What is ****ing toxic is the amount of armchair bookers on here who instead of giving an opinion, insist that their way is right and a multi million company are wrong because a predetermined fight didn't go the way they would have made it go.

Enjoy it lads, discuss it, throw around alternatives but for **** sake, don't take it so seriously.

Jayesdiem

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I love wrestling. I really do. I also love hearing other wrestling fans opinions. What is ****ing toxic is the amount of armchair bookers on here who instead of giving an opinion, insist that their way is right and a multi million company are wrong because a predetermined fight didn't go the way they would have made it go.

Enjoy it lads, discuss it, throw around alternatives but for **** sake, don't take it so seriously.

You are the one taking it too seriously. You are still banging the same drum and overreacting to any view that doesn’t align with your own. People are allowed to not like it but you are like Pavlov’s dog in response to any view you disagree with. You loved it and felt it was perfectly in keeping with what you expect from a wrestling show. Others hated and saw it as an affront to their intelligence. Neither group is right or wrong.

LineOfBeauty

Jayesdiem wrote: »

You are the one taking it too seriously. You are still banging the same drum and overreacting to any view that doesn’t align with your own. People are allowed to not like it but you are like Pavlov’s dog in response to any view you disagree with. You loved it and felt it was perfectly in keeping with what you expect from a wrestling show. Others hated and saw it as an affront to their intelligence. Neither group is right or wrong.

There's one group saying "if you don't LOVE IT, then go watch UFC" that doesn't sound very understanding now does it?

Btw that Lance Archer segment on AEW when he beats up random dudes in a ring in a middle of a forest has been upgraded from video package to wrestling match and I give it all the starz!

RollieFingers

It's weird seeing people get so worked up about other people not enjoying what they enjoyed alright. I thought the Funhouse was utter Wrestlecrap garbage and Edge/Orton was unbelievably boring, loved AJ/Taker and Charlotte/Rhea though.

AEW and Meltzer get **** on here all the time, which is of course fair enough, but if you don't agree with the result of a WWE produced contest you get told how to watch the product and that you're a ****ing toxic armchair booker?

leggo

I think it’s because the trendy tone of WWE criticism has turned into ‘instant outrage’ and you’re never far off hearing the usual “Saudi blood money” rant as if every single thing they do is evil, even if it’s just a match some people didn’t enjoy. It reads as false, manufactured outrage for the sake of it. And yeah, to compare it to AEW, the tone when there’s a bad match there just isn’t the same. The default tone for many there that I see is “Well look, give them a chance they won’t get everything right.” Which is a fair criticism, in 2020 when there’s so much new content produced NO company will get everything right because it’s impossible, but apply it across the board if that’s how you feel.

For example, WWE are being run over hot coals for running through COVID-19 as if they’re exploiting workers (when all reports say the workers are happy to work, and you can see the effort many put into their matches at the weekend which unhappy talent simply wouldn’t). AEW are doing the exact same thing, I read that they filmed 6 weeks worth of TV last Thursday before Georgia got shut down. Between Dynamite and Dark, that’s 18 hours of television produced within a 24-hour period (although it’s not reported that way because the person they leak info to is friends with them so slants it positively). But nobody criticises that while Vince McMahon is evil for doing pretty much the exact same thing.

So yeah, it’s probably the falseness and inconsistency of the outrage that gets on people’s nerves.

CastorTroy

So what matches do you think had 2 endings filmed, if any?

briany

I watched that Family Funhouse match the other night and I enjoyed it for what it was, but I'm also going to enjoy listening to Jim Cornette having a mini-breakdown while describing and lambasting the utter stupidity of it.

Jayesdiem

Jayesdiem wrote: »

You are the one taking it too seriously. You are still banging the same drum and overreacting to any view that doesn’t align with your own. People are allowed to not like it but you are like Pavlov’s dog in response to any view you disagree with. You loved it and felt it was perfectly in keeping with what you expect from a wrestling show. Others hated and saw it as an affront to their intelligence. Neither group is right or wrong.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

There's one group saying "if you don't LOVE IT, then go watch UFC" that doesn't sound very understanding now does it?

Btw that Lance Archer segment on AEW when he beats up random dudes in a ring in a middle of a forest has been upgraded from video package to wrestling match and I give it all the starz!

Emm.... That's not accurate at all. Purposely misrepresenting me is silly.

I was responding to someone saying he was ashamed to watch WWE and was going to watch aew instead.

I responded and said he should watch UFC instead of he was ashamed as almost all wrestling has unbelievable elements.

I have stated repeatedly that disliking any aspect of wrestling is absolutely fine but to be ashamed of being a wrestling fan because of a segment you didn't like is pathetic.

Having a different opinion or favouring a particular style of wrestling is one thing, overreacting and feeling shame is another.

Omackeral

RollieFingers wrote: »

AEW and Meltzer get **** on here all the time, which is of course fair enough, but if you don't agree with the result of a WWE produced contest you get told how to watch the product and that you're a ****ing toxic armchair booker?

I wouldn’t say AEW gets crapped on at all. Most people here seem to like it I’d have thought?

Itssoeasy

Omackeral wrote: »

I wouldn’t say AEW gets crapped on at all. Most people here seem to like it I’d have thought?

Meh. I don't crap all over it and I've liked the bits that are done well which is mostly Cody, Jericho, Moxley. There have been some awful ****e though. The Matt hardy stuff was awful though and I don't think an audience would have helped. I like Matt hardy but that was awful. Btw WWE does awful ****e as well so neither WWE and AEW have a monopoly on doing crap pro wrestling television.

PTH2009

Im guessing the firefly funhouse match would just been a 1 on 1 if mania had of went ahead in the stadium ?

LineOfBeauty

Raw ratings tanked. Sure TV in America is down, but this was the post Mania Raw which normally sees a bump. Maybe after all the pretending nobody cared about the fallout from the Boneyard stuff or Drew winning a title in front of nobody. Strange that eh?

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Raw ratings tanked. Sure TV in America is down, but this was the post Mania Raw which normally sees a bump. Maybe after all the pretending nobody cared about the fallout from the Boneyard stuff or Drew winning a title in front of nobody. Strange that eh?

For someone who doesn't care about WWE you sure do spend a lot of time and energy making other people know how much you don't care about WWE and how they hate their own fanbase.

:pac:

LineOfBeauty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For someone who doesn't care about WWE you sure do spend a lot of time and energy making other people know how much you don't care about WWE and how they hate their own fanbase.

:pac:

Just doing a quick victory lap. Possibly premature but I'm ridiculously confident that the impact of "gold standard" WWE stuff will have run off people rather than draw them in.

And hey, maybe it's me being petty but when you have a weekend of people hailing something as, like I saw in one place, "the greatest thing WWE has done in years" or "that's the greatest match ever" then you can absolutely expect to be called out when you're proven to be absolutely wrong. The only take on this weekend is that it should never have happened in the first place, and that the only way to enjoy that stuff was ironically. Anything outside of those parameters is just off, because, as we've seen before when WCW tried this stuff, with Lucha Underground, with the Matt Hardy stuff, the shelf life for it is extremely limited and the returns on it quickly turn negative. It should've been called out for what it was straight away and that's pure wrestlecrap.

Loughc

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Raw ratings tanked. Sure TV in America is down, but this was the post Mania Raw which normally sees a bump. Maybe after all the pretending nobody cared about the fallout from the Boneyard stuff or Drew winning a title in front of nobody. Strange that eh?

Actually Raw ratings increased on previous week which is most likely down from the fallout of Mania.

3 factors why it’s so low, it’s not live, there’s no live audience, (wrestling just isn’t the same without the fans) and the news is currently the ratings winner in the states due to the current circumstances.

Monday's WWE Raw - the first show after the two-day WrestleMania 36 event - was up in viewership despite being a taped show. The episode was back up over 2 million, averaging 2.10 million viewers compared to an all-time non-holiday low of 1.924 million a week ago. In the 18-49 demographic, Raw finished #1, #4 and #6 among cable shows, averaging a 0.70 rating, also up from last week's 0.58. In overall viewership, Raw was #31, behind a slew of news programming.

LineOfBeauty

Loughc wrote: »

Actually Raw ratings increased on previous week which is most likely down from the fallout of Mania.

3 factors why it’s so low, it’s not live, there’s no live audience, (wrestling just isn’t the same without the fans) and the news is currently the ratings winner in the states due to the current circumstances.

Sure but it is the post Wrestlemania Raw, it's traditionally one of their highest rated of the year. And again, maybe this is a bit premature given we're in the middle of a pandemic and TV in America is across the board but they're down like 800,000 viewers on last years post Wrestlemania Raw (which was considered a disaster at the time). I'm not saying these ratings are the be all and end all, but I do think they are the first sign of what will prove a pretty underwhelming reign under Drew.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Just doing a quick victory lap. Possibly premature but I'm ridiculously confident that the impact of "gold standard" WWE stuff will have run off people rather than draw them in.

And hey, maybe it's me being petty but when you have a weekend of people hailing something as, like I saw in one place, "the greatest thing WWE has done in years" or "that's the greatest match ever" then you can absolutely expect to be called out when you're proven to be absolutely wrong. The only take on this weekend is that it should never have happened in the first place, and that the only way to enjoy that stuff was ironically. Anything outside of those parameters is just off, because, as we've seen before when WCW tried this stuff, with Lucha Underground, with the Matt Hardy stuff, the shelf life for it is extremely limited and the returns on it quickly turn negative. It should've been called out for what it was straight away and that's pure wrestlecrap.

So you've gone from not caring to gloating and NOW you are telling people that their opinions were PROVEN wrong because of a perceived ratings slump?

Jesus.

I mean, you've given me stick because I had the audacity to tell someone who was ashamed of liking wrestling because of a segment, to go watch ufc to avoid being ashamed.

But yet you think that telling people who enjoyed it and thought it was the best thing they ever saw, that they were wrong to do so... Well that's just next level bull****.

It's ok. We know you don't like WWE. Some people still do. But we get it. You don't. You don't need to tell us. You enjoy wrestling that is much better and much more realistic than us "marks" would understand. Good lad.

That's my "take" (as you would call it)

leggo

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Sure but it is the post Wrestlemania Raw, it's traditionally one of their highest rated of the year. And again, maybe this is a bit premature given we're in the middle of a pandemic and TV in America is across the board but they're down like 800,000 viewers on last years post Wrestlemania Raw (which was considered a disaster at the time). I'm not saying these ratings are the be all and end all, but I do think they are the first sign of what will prove a pretty underwhelming reign under Drew.

Man sorry...but are you being delusional here? We’re in the middle of a pandemic! You can’t just act like things are normal comparing like for like. Nobody is reporting or discussing this as you are. If Drew’s reign is ‘underwhelming’, it’s because there are no fans, not because you have some pre-existing opinion you want to validate. You’re deliberately ignoring the HUGE change to the status quo the entire planet is undergoing to grind an axe. I understand people take comfort in getting away from all pandemic talk and acting like things are normal but this is ridiculous.

What’s next? “No crowd reaction for Drew, I warned people this would happen if they put the belt on him months ago...”

LineOfBeauty

leggo wrote: »

Man sorry...but are you being delusional here? We’re in the middle of a pandemic! You can’t just act like things are normal comparing like for like. Nobody is reporting or discussing this as you are. If Drew’s reign is ‘underwhelming’, it’s because there are no fans, not because you have some pre-existing opinion you want to validate. You’re deliberately ignoring the HUGE change to the status quo the entire planet is undergoing to grind an axe. I understand people take comfort in getting away from all pandemic talk and acting like things are normal but this is ridiculous.

What’s next? “No crowd reaction for Drew, I warned people this would happen if they put the belt on him months ago...”

In the post you quoted I've mentioned a couple times that the circumstances make it difficult to judge. So.... please acknowledge that.

My point is if the Wrestlemania stuff was HALF as hot as some people (some of whom are on this very board) would have you believe then the quarantined masses might have tuned in to see what the fallout was. You can see TV ratings in America are trending down atm because of the pandemic, though in Europe we've seen ratings for TV trend upwards, maybe if there's something worth watching people would tune in to watch it?

Again to reiterate my point which was nicely ignored there. Those Raw ratings are not the be all and end all but they are a sign of where this is going to go. The cinematic stuff doesn't draw, never has. Drew, as nice a guy as he seems to be, is not a draw either. But don't worry, when that becomes clear with consistent rating trends I'll be here.

leggo

Why do you need to try validate your opinion by trying to invalidate others' though? "You enjoyed it? Well I didn't and nobody else did, look at the ratings!" That's just insecurity in your own opinion and ability to back it up with substance tbh.

Let people enjoy things, nobody here is telling you that you also have to enjoy them. There's no need for you to make ridiculous claims to try 'prove' that your opinion is the correct one.

Rock77

Was Wrestlemania better than nothing... yes

Although I doubt (hope) we never see another one like it.

When things are back to normal does anyone thing we will ever see anything like the boneyard or funhouse match at Wrestlemania again?

I seriously doubt it... they did their best with what they had but it was never going to be Wrestlemania....

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

But don't worry, when that becomes clear with consistent rating trends I'll be here.

Why?

I don't enjoy Downton Abbey but do enjoy Better Call Saul. I wouldnt go onto the Downton Abbey thread to tell them how I don't care about their programme but insist they recognise it's crap

Why did you feel the need to contribute to a Wrestlemania thread when you have no interest in the product?

Did WWE hurt you? It's ok. You're safe now.