Wrestlemania 2020 - Spoilers, rumours, etc

Omackeral

leggo wrote: »

The entire match was awful. Why in God’s name did they think a 60-count was a good idea?!!

I remember my mam bought me the vhs and I saw on the back that there was a ladder match AND a falls count anywhere match. Couldn’t believe my luck.

With that match it’s like they had the pieces there but not the execution.

Omackeral

leggo wrote: »

Aside from two classic matches, WrestleMania 10 was awful. Remember the fake Bill Clinton they kept cutting to and non-ironically interviewing him as if he was the real one?

Brought him back for Survivor Series 95 too!

I also recall being so annoyed that the 10 man tag was cut. Loved 123 Kid. Poor bloke didn’t get a mania match until 5 years later. Thanks Shawn and Razor, with friends like that.... To be fair though, it turned out ok!

LineOfBeauty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm letting it go after this, but the baulking of the sanctity of wrestling has been forgotten since the Johnny Vs tomasso match and the advent of aew doing the new compound match.

Ha

Not sure if that's aimed at me but you'll see on the NXT thread that the Gargano /Ciampa match was my least favourite of the wrestlecrap cringefest. Also when AEW do their compound thing I suspect you'll find me on their thread hating it too.

I just want wrestling! I watch wrestling to see wrestling! If I want to see badly made fight sequences then I'll turn on a B movie film. It's that simple.

grames_bond

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Also when AEW do their compound thing I suspect you'll find me on their thread hating it too

Please f*cking don't. We all know you hate this style so please spare those who do enjoy it.

Also it sounds like you're still planning on watching it despite your rampant disdain for this style of match - why would you do that to yourself?

LineOfBeauty

grames_bond wrote: »

Please f*cking don't. We all know you hate this style so please spare those who do enjoy it.

Also it sounds like you're still planning on watching it despite your rampant disdain for this style of match - why would you do that to yourself?

I'm a masochist. Or if I watch a wrestling show I absolutely refuse to skip any of it because then you aren't getting a full picture of that show or that company.

I think considering it a style of wrestling is giving it far too much credit.

The White Wolf

grames_bond wrote: »

Please f*cking don't. We all know you hate this style so please spare those who do enjoy it.

Also it sounds like you're still planning on watching it despite your rampant disdain for this style of match - why would you do that to yourself?

I believe Jim Cornette makes a living out of it.

LineOfBeauty

The White Wolf wrote: »

I believe Jim Cornette makes a living out of it.

And if you don't like the silly cinematic nonsense you're Cornette. Dreadful.

Insect Overlord

X-Pac heat...

The White Wolf

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

And if you don't like the silly cinematic nonsense you're Cornette. Dreadful.

Sorry that wasn't a dig.....just saying, nothing wrong in watching something to critique.

Monokne

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Not sure if that's aimed at me but you'll see on the NXT thread that the Gargano /Ciampa match was my least favourite of the wrestlecrap cringefest. Also when AEW do their compound thing I suspect you'll find me on their thread hating it too.

I just want wrestling! I watch wrestling to see wrestling! If I want to see badly made fight sequences then I'll turn on a B movie film. It's that simple.

Probably best just avoiding AEW & WWE until August or September when audiences are back because they won't be producing regular content and there will be lots of out of the box ideas which you would hate.

LineOfBeauty

Monokne wrote: »

Probably best just avoiding AEW & WWE until August or September when audiences are back because they won't be producing regular content and there will be lots of out of the box ideas which you would hate.

But that's wrong. No issues with segments, video packages ect. In fact I thought the build on Dynamite this week to Mox/Hager through two video packages was perfect. You can do different things to minimize the amount of time spent broadcasting in front of an empty arena, so long as it's entertaining and serves a purpose then OK, count me in.

Of WWE's 3 attempts at it, the Boneyard one is probably the best, it's camp fun and it knows it. I hate it, it being a Wrestlemania main event is stupid but at least it's in on the joke. The Wyatt stuff is tedious, stupid and illogical even in their own dumb canon, but it wasn't that long. That Ciampa/Gargano thing was my least favourite of all, like 50 minutes of just puke masquerading as something profound and dramatic. It took itself so seriously, and it was so boring. Awful.

I've watched a good few empty arena shows since this began. And I think it's at this time these companies play up to their strengths and you see a lot more of what these companies are about. NOAH tried something a bit different with their Shiozaki/Fujita 30 minute staredown and, no joke, give me that 56 minute match over any of the WWE B cinema stuff. DDT did a comedy heavy show. AJPW ran through an undercard in like 40 minutes and gave their main event 60 minutes and it was a banger (****1/2 for me).

My point is, all these companies have dealt with empty arena in their own way, some better than others, but at the very least the others have produced wrestling when I want to watch wrestling. It's that simple.

Omackeral

Colour me shocked that you have personal star ratings for hour long matches in promotions 95% of people here probably have never seen featuring people most have never heard of.

LineOfBeauty

Omackeral wrote: »

Colour me shocked that you have personal star ratings for hour long matches in promotions 95% of people here probably have never seen featuring people most have never heard of.

Yes, it's called being a wrestling fan. I'm shocked that someone can deride someone else for watching different wrestling companies. That's wearing willful ignorance as a badge of honour. Good job.

While we're on it, early indications from Meltzer seem to suggest that the Gargano /Ciampa match under-performed significantly in the ratings. Odd how many indicators seem to point to the inevitable fact, which is: These matches stink!

Monokne

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

But that's wrong. No issues with segments, video packages ect. In fact I thought the build on Dynamite this week to Mox/Hager through two video packages was perfect. You can do different things to minimize the amount of time spent broadcasting in front of an empty arena, so long as it's entertaining and serves a purpose then OK, count me in.

Of WWE's 3 attempts at it, the Boneyard one is probably the best, it's camp fun and it knows it. I hate it, it being a Wrestlemania main event is stupid but at least it's in on the joke. The Wyatt stuff is tedious, stupid and illogical even in their own dumb canon, but it wasn't that long. That Ciampa/Gargano thing was my least favourite of all, like 50 minutes of just puke masquerading as something profound and dramatic. It took itself so seriously, and it was so boring. Awful.

I've watched a good few empty arena shows since this began. And I think it's at this time these companies play up to their strengths and you see a lot more of what these companies are about. NOAH tried something a bit different with their Shiozaki/Fujita 30 minute staredown and, no joke, give me that 56 minute match over any of the WWE B cinema stuff. DDT did a comedy heavy show. AJPW ran through an undercard in like 40 minutes and gave their main event 60 minutes and it was a banger (****1/2 for me).

My point is, all these companies have dealt with empty arena in their own way, some better than others, but at the very least the others have produced wrestling when I want to watch wrestling. It's that simple.

Two men literally standing and staring at each other for 30 whole minutes in an empty building was better than AJ-Taker? "I watch wrestling to see wrestling" says he two posts prior.

LineOfBeauty

Monokne wrote: »

Two men literally standing and staring at each other for 30 whole minutes in an empty building was better than AJ-Taker? "I watch wrestling to see wrestling" says he two posts prior.

Give me that any day 100 times over than that AJ/Taker crap. At least the Go/Fujita stuff eventually evolved into a match, and honestly I didn't disagree with what they went for, it just took too long to get there.

leggo

But if they’re shows you enjoy watching, watch them then!

You’re not a reviewer or reporter, nobody is relying on your star ratings to know what’s good or not, so you don’t have to watch stuff you don’t and won’t like. It’s not ‘being a wrestling fan’, it’s wasting your life: you don’t enjoy it and you only annoy people who did. There are no positives to you watching shows you know going in that you won’t enjoy, unless you get a kick out of getting negative attention from an increasingly quiet wrestling message board.

People will try bend themselves backwards to justify this with absolute waffle like “Being a true fan means watching everything and voicing your displeasure so you’ve spoken up on behalf of blah blah blah.” Horse****. You sound like an addict trying to lie to themselves to justify why they actually need to be back on the smokes, nobody is buying it.

If you don’t like something, find something else you do like instead. If you want to be part of a community and discuss it with like-minded people, find a community who likes the same things you do and just do so, you’ll find a community for literally EVERYTHING online these days. But even in lockdown with nothing else to do, I don’t see how trying to convince people they were wrong for liking something you didn’t is a good use of your time. You’re not going to convince them and always going to get a bad reaction.

LineOfBeauty

leggo wrote: »

But if they’re shows you enjoy watching, watch them then!

You’re not a reviewer or reporter, nobody is relying on your star ratings to know what’s good or not, so you don’t have to watch stuff you don’t and won’t like. It’s not ‘being a wrestling fan’, it’s wasting your life: you don’t enjoy it and you only annoy people who did. There are no positives to you watching shows you know going in that you won’t enjoy, unless you get a kick out of getting negative attention from an increasingly quiet wrestling message board.

People will try bend themselves backwards to justify this with absolute waffle like “Being a true fan means watching everything and voicing your displeasure so you’ve spoken up on behalf of blah blah blah.” Horse****. You sound like an addict trying to lie to themselves to justify why they actually need to be back on the smokes, nobody is buying it.

If you don’t like something, find something else you do like instead. If you want to be part of a community and discuss it with like-minded people, find a community who likes the same things you do and just do so, you’ll find a community for literally EVERYTHING online these days. But even in lockdown with nothing else to do, I don’t see how trying to convince people they were wrong for liking something you didn’t is a good use of your time. You’re not going to convince them and always going to get a bad reaction.

"if you don't love it, leave it" is 3 paragraphs summed up in one outdated phrase. I watch stuff, WWE among it, justifying watching the brand leader is just silly. And it's a forum, I'll give you my takes on literally anything wrestling related because that's kinda how these things work, it's just a shame you might not always like them.

Omackeral

I think this could be a good feud.....

Insect Overlord

It's the slow burning Leggo face-turn we've all been waiting for.

leggo

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

"if you don't love it, leave it" is 3 paragraphs summed up in one outdated phrase. I watch stuff, WWE among it, justifying watching the brand leader is just silly. And it's a forum, I'll give you my takes on literally anything wrestling related because that's kinda how these things work, it's just a shame you might not always like them.

Have you ever tested out your rational on non-wrestling muggles and watched their face turn as you spoke to get some gauge for whether it’s weird or not? “I watch this TV show which airs for like 7 hours a week. I hate it but, you know, it is ‘the brand leader’ so I don’t really have a choice in the matter.”

Absolute waffle coming out of you lad.

LineOfBeauty

leggo wrote: »

Have you ever tested out your rational on non-wrestling muggles and watched their face turn as you spoke to get some gauge for whether it’s weird or not? “I watch this TV show which airs for like 7 hours a week. I hate it but, you know, it is ‘the brand leader’ so I don’t really have a choice in the matter.”

Absolute waffle coming out of you lad.

Who said I hate it? I enjoyed some of Wrestlemania, Charlotte / Ripley, Kabuki Warriors tag, Bryan/Zayn for what it was. But because I've expressed a desire to see wrestling when I watch wrestling shows it's waffle? Good luck with that dude.

The White Wolf

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's the slow burning Leggo face-turn we've all been waiting for.

Impossible.

Jayesdiem

[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:

You are aren’t a nuanced chap. Lots of people “support” wrestling in the same way they would a soccer team, rugby team etc. In that way, it’s commercial success interests them because we’d love to think the toilet humour scripts could be discontinued and a return to narratively-driven athletic contests would become the norm again. I thought the Mae Young hand incident was a low point, but that was superseded by the Fire Fly match or what we the fck it was.

Jayesdiem

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.

another factor why it shouldn’t be: the entire population of the world are restricted to their homes and a bored out of their mind, yet wwe didn’t serve as a relief option for that boredom

Jayesdiem

Jayesdiem wrote: »

You are aren’t a nuanced chap. Lots of people “support” wrestling in the same way they would a soccer team, rugby team etc. In that way, it’s commercial success interests them because we’d love to think the toilet humour scripts could be discontinued and a return to narratively-driven athletic contests would become the norm again. I thought the Mae Young hand incident was a low point, but that was superseded by the Fire Fly match or what we the fck it was.

I doubt many people support wrestling like they would a football team. I've never met one.

I mean, there are various types of wrestling companies who cater specifically for different tastes. Find it hard to believe that someone would follow wrestling as a whole and be equally as passionate about NJPW and backyard wrestling and super humman etc.

What you are advocating for is that YOUR favourite style should be considered as acceptable but stuff you deem as garbage or substandard should be discontinued so you can enjoy the wrestling you like and consider it normal.

Your view sounds exceptionally self centred and completely devoid of any ability to see different aspects which may be of interest to the vast majority of others.

Explain again how that makes me not nuanced?

LineOfBeauty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I doubt many people support wrestling like they would a football team. I've never met one.

I mean, there are various types of wrestling companies who cater specifically for different tastes. Find it hard to believe that someone would follow wrestling as a whole and be equally as passionate about NJPW and backyard wrestling and super humman etc.

What you are advocating for is that YOUR favourite style should be considered as acceptable but stuff you deem as garbage or substandard should be discontinued so you can enjoy the wrestling you like and consider it normal.

Your view sounds exceptionally self centred and completely devoid of any ability to see different aspects which may be of interest to the vast majority of others.

Explain again how that makes me not nuanced?

Ok simple question. Define wrestling. What parameters have to be met to consider something a wrestling match?

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Ok simple question. Define wrestling. What parameters have to be met to consider something a wrestling match?

Dictionary definition or personal definition?

Wrestling to me is a genre of entertainment and story telling which usually involves pre-determined athletic activities resulting in a winner and a loser. Usually carried out by a recognised or recognisable wrestling promotion.

Sometimes, the rules of who wins and how the opponent's gain their victory are unusual and different to what may consider the norm (3 count pinfall).

Some wrestling promotions use various different methods to tell their stories. Some use purely athletic bouts, some use extreme rules which involve blood and shock tactics, some focus more on storytelling at the expense of athleticism, some focus on comedy etc etc.

The parameters to define a wrestling match is very different depending on what you are watching.

Not really a simple question.

Or is it?

You answer it for me.

LineOfBeauty

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Dictionary definition or personal definition?

Wrestling to me is a genre of entertainment and story telling which usually involves pre-determined athletic activities resulting in a winner and a loser. Usually carried out by a recognised or recognisable wrestling promotion.

Sometimes, the rules of who wins and how the opponent's gain their victory are unusual and different to what may consider the norm (3 count pinfall).

Some wrestling promotions use various different methods to tell their stories. Some use purely athletic bouts, some use extreme rules which involve blood and shock tactics, some focus more on storytelling at the expense of athleticism, some focus on comedy etc etc.

The parameters to define a wrestling match is very different depending on what you are watching.

Not really a simple question.

Or is it?

You answer it for me.

It's not a trick question. I'm just wondering what you would have be your limit to something thar qualifies as a wrestling match and something that doesn't. For example, I'd consider Gargano /Ciampa a wrestling match, but Wyatt/Cena I'd say was not. I'd say it was even less of a match than Lance Archer on AEW beating up randomers in a ring in a forest. Outside of whether you enjoyed it or not, I'm not sure how the Wyatt stuff in particular can be defined as a match. It's a video segment.

leggo

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Ok simple question. Define wrestling. What parameters have to be met to consider something a wrestling match?

Why does it need to be defined? How is this anything more than a personal OCD tick box you clearly have combined with an arrogance that your personal preference is the ‘right’ way?

Some people don’t think music without guitars is ‘real’ music. Some may think movies need spoken dialogue.

The only thing these have in common with your ‘criteria’ for what fundamentally makes wrestling is arrogance on the behalf of the observer. And what’s triggering you here isn’t even something done badly, it’s that this contravenes your personal ‘rules’ and the fact that other people LIKED it is what irks you. All this does is tell us about you, it has no baring on what wrestling is or tell us anything about the world at large. But you actually have no right to decide for others what qualifies as wrestling and, if you’re under the impression that you do, you're frankly delusional. None of us do. You enjoy lads standing in their underpants in a ring staring at each other for a half an hour, I’ve no right tell you that that’s not wrestling and you’re wrong for enjoying it. I can disagree but I’d be a bit of a dick if I went out of my way to try ruin something you enjoyed and ‘prove’ your opinion wrong by asking if it even counted as wrestling. Neither of us would be ‘right’ because that’s not how opinions work. This is what your arrogance has you struggling with and what you need to get your head around.

LineOfBeauty

leggo wrote: »

Why does it need to be defined? How is this anything more than a personal OCD tick box you clearly have combined with an arrogance that your personal preference is the ‘right’ way?

Some people don’t think music without guitars is ‘real’ music. Some may think movies need spoken dialogue.

The only thing these have in common with your ‘criteria’ for what fundamentally makes wrestling is arrogance on the behalf of the observer. And what’s triggering you here isn’t even something done badly, it’s that this contravenes your personal ‘rules’ and the fact that other people LIKED it is what irks you. All this does is tell us about you, it has no baring on what wrestling is or tell us anything about the world at large. But you actually have no right to decide for others what qualifies as wrestling and, if you’re under the impression that you do, you're frankly delusional. None of us do. You enjoy lads standing in their underpants in a ring staring at each other for a half an hour, I’ve no right tell you that that’s not wrestling and you’re wrong for enjoying it. I can disagree but I’d be a bit of a dick if I went out of my way to try ruin something you enjoyed and ‘prove’ your opinion wrong by asking if it even counted as wrestling. Neither of us would be ‘right’ because that’s not how opinions work. This is what your arrogance has you struggling with and what you need to get your head around.

I'm actually asking The Dunne a question. Your stuff I can get to later.

In the mean time tell me, of Mcmahon's 3 ventures into cinema in the last few days, which did you personally enjoy and which did you not enjoy?