Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2010 13:58:04 GMT -5
Back to the subject of Montreal, I'm pretty baffled by that myself. It's not even something they can rightly cash in on -- were it six months ago and they had been looking to hire Bret sure, maybe. But he works for WWE now, as does everyone else in any way involved with Montreal except the freaking referee.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Jan 22, 2010 14:33:18 GMT -5
Apparently they were going to run this angle on 1/4 until someone pointed out it might remind people Bret Hart was on Raw at the same time. Now, see, that might have actually worked. Which is probably why they didn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by mauled on Jan 22, 2010 14:50:19 GMT -5
It would have looked even worse on 1/4. Makes it even sillier that they were thinking of it back then. CHANGE and NEW = RECYCLED and RERUN in TNA. What do you expect its Hogan and Bishoff they couldnt have an original idea between them if they tried.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Jan 22, 2010 14:51:07 GMT -5
I don't know, I think it might have worked precisely because Bret was on Raw that night. That thing last night just seemed way out of place.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Jan 22, 2010 15:10:52 GMT -5
It was pretty confusing, but it does fit in with a larger picture of "Hogan and Bisch are ruining TNA! Somebody's gotta stop these guys!" Enter...someone. I don't know. Jarrett? Shane McMahon? Mick Foley? JBL? Taylor Swift? I don't know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2010 15:14:30 GMT -5
It was pretty confusing, but it does fit in with a larger picture of "Hogan and Bisch are ruining TNA! Somebody's gotta stop these guys!" Enter...someone. I don't know. Jarrett? Shane McMahon? Mick Foley? JBL? Taylor Swift? I don't know. SAVE_US.BRONCOS.
|
|
|
Post by chavoclassic on Jan 22, 2010 16:09:20 GMT -5
Def a case of over analyzing. It's not a great storyline, but seeing Angle flip out over it was worth it.
|
|
|
Post by ThatDamnPotato on Jan 22, 2010 16:18:31 GMT -5
I dont know how you can compare Austin being co-gm with Bischoff and Hogan running TNA... I dont see Austin with any shares or money in the WWE where as Hogan has partnered with Dixie Carter and shes handed over the preverbial reigns to Hogan and said he can do whatever the hell he wants....so he brought his "cronies" in to help him out...I like the way TNA is going you guys RAGE too much I enjoyed this angle even if they did re-use it I thought it was awesome spitting in Hogans face and robbing Mike Tenays seat then smashing it against the stage, Bischoff walking out and firing Foley it made great TV for me personally and seems like the lunatics have run wild in the asylum feel to it! Im excited to see what happens next week
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 22, 2010 16:30:11 GMT -5
I really didn't have a problem with most of the show, but the Montreal rip off made me facepalm.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Jan 22, 2010 16:40:00 GMT -5
I think we're supposed to be mad at Hogan and Bischoff both on a kayfabe level for screwing Angle out of the title, and also on a "worked-shoot" sort of level where we're mad at them for stealing the idea from Vince McMahon, the same idea related to a storyline that is going on in WWE right now. I'm not so much mad, as I am confused. That has to have been the most half-assed attempt to get people to hate you that I've ever seen. Yet interested.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Jan 22, 2010 18:02:40 GMT -5
I'm not so much mad, as I am confused. That has to have been the most half-assed attempt to get people to hate you that I've ever seen. Yet interested. I wouldn't go that far.
|
|
dc09
Team Rocket
Posts: 889
|
Post by dc09 on Jan 22, 2010 18:15:08 GMT -5
I just don't understand why they are referencing something no one there was involved in (Hebner doesn't count). It simply DOES NOT make sense.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 22, 2010 20:31:08 GMT -5
I think the opener and others are looking way too into this. Stop trying to make sense out of it and just watch to see where it goes. It could turn out to be really really good. No one knows for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Jan 22, 2010 20:54:08 GMT -5
I was watching last night, and I saw Angle get "Montreal'd", and I have to wonder what the hell was that for? Are they trying to take a poorly-executed shot at the WWE, in that we know the whole thing is kayfabe? Is that the point? Are they trying to say Montreal was a work? And if so, why would you do something like that? It's not going to increase your fanbase, because the audience that this idea would appeal to is already watching. It doesn't make sense professionally, because TNA can't compete with the WWE. It just comes off as something stupid, because it's harkening back to something that didn't even happen in your promotion, while at the same time, showing the audience that Hogan holds the reins now. Here's the thing. If they had Angle get screwed in any other way, and he got frustrated with Hogan, the angle would have been great. AJ could have had a handful of tights, maybe a new crony of AJ could have come down, feet on the ropes, use of a weapon, ANYTHING. Or create some finish never seen before that would have screwed Angle over. It all could have been done well.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Jan 22, 2010 20:56:15 GMT -5
Ironic how smarks are the ones ruining the Montreal angle when it is booked for smarks. Do you think the casuals know/care anything about what went on in Montreal over a decade ago?
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Jan 22, 2010 21:00:19 GMT -5
I think the opener and others are looking way too into this. Stop trying to make sense out of it and just watch to see where it goes. It could turn out to be really really good. No one knows for sure. Sorry, already tuned out. Why? Because the opening sucked.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Jan 22, 2010 21:10:37 GMT -5
I was watching last night, and I saw Angle get "Montreal'd", and I have to wonder what the hell was that for? Are they trying to take a poorly-executed shot at the WWE, in that we know the whole thing is kayfabe? Is that the point? Are they trying to say Montreal was a work? And if so, why would you do something like that? It's not going to increase your fanbase, because the audience that this idea would appeal to is already watching. It doesn't make sense professionally, because TNA can't compete with the WWE. It just comes off as something stupid, because it's harkening back to something that didn't even happen in your promotion, while at the same time, showing the audience that Hogan holds the reins now. Here's the thing. If they had Angle get screwed in any other way, and he got frustrated with Hogan, the angle would have been great. AJ could have had a handful of tights, maybe a new crony of AJ could have come down, feet on the ropes, use of a weapon, ANYTHING. Or create some finish never seen before that would have screwed Angle over. It all could have been done well. The only possible justification I could come up with (and I had reach deep into my brain for this one, but here goes nothing) is that doing basically a step by step re-enactment of the Montreal Screwjob is the way of doing it that would get the most heat for Hogan and Bischoff. "These guys are ruining TNA! First Val Venis beats Daniels, and now they're ripping off ideas from WWE to screw Angle! They've gotta be stopped!" Something like that. I know that's a really weird theory, but doesn't it sound kind of Vince Russo-ish?
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jan 22, 2010 21:11:56 GMT -5
Ironic how smarks are the ones ruining the Montreal angle when it is booked for smarks. Do you think the casuals know/care anything about what went on in Montreal over a decade ago? You have seen WWE in the last, oh, 12 years have you? Fans know about it because WWE will not let them forget. Hell, WWE's main storyline on their biggest show is about Montreal. That said, I hate the angle. It has been done too many times to have anything left to me. At least Hogan got the details of the screwjob right this time.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Jan 22, 2010 21:13:50 GMT -5
At least Hogan got the details of the screwjob right this time. Ha! Not exactly. AJ forgot to grab Angle's tights when he pinned him.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 22, 2010 21:14:49 GMT -5
Here's the thing. If they had Angle get screwed in any other way, and he got frustrated with Hogan, the angle would have been great. AJ could have had a handful of tights, maybe a new crony of AJ could have come down, feet on the ropes, use of a weapon, ANYTHING. Or create some finish never seen before that would have screwed Angle over. It all could have been done well. The only possible justification I could come up with (and I had reach deep into my brain for this one, but here goes nothing) is that doing basically a step by step re-enactment of the Montreal Screwjob is the way of doing it that would get the most heat for Hogan and Bischoff. "These guys are ruining TNA! First Val Venis beats Daniels, and now they're ripping off ideas from WWE to screw Angle! They've gotta be stopped!" Something like that. I know that's a really weird theory, but doesn't it sound kind of Vince Russo-ish? I think that this is a very real possibility. People seem to forget what Russo is capable of. I mean we have already seen a few examples of where WWE tried to work the news sites and it worked. How do we know that TNA isn't doing the same thing? I highly doubt it but it is a possibility.
|
|