|
Post by wrestling4ever on Feb 27, 2012 17:38:48 GMT -5
But he is a wrestler. His career from 1995-2002 was wrestler. It's not like David Arquette "wrestling" two matches and winning the WCW World title, Rock wrestled week in week out for 7 years. He was a wrestler. In some ways, he still is a wrestler. He's not getting paid to act at WrestleMania, he's getting paid to wrestle. He's doing this one-time special appearance to promote his movies and re-establish his adult audience for GI Joe Retaliation. Smart marketing move that any actor would kill for. Im sure the thrill of being out there in front of the fans has alot to do with it too. Actually im sure thats what its mostly for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 17:39:12 GMT -5
Personally I think that considering the Rock will be wrestling that night then yeah, he's a wrestler. He's also an actor in the same time period. People can do more than one thing at a time in their lives, some people have two jobs, no one said I wasn't a sound engineer when I happened to be working in an office during my day job, his just happen to be bad-ass jobs to have. *shrug* I don't even know where this discussion came from but it's silly to say someone isn't x when they're currently reconditioning to do it again and did it a few months ago anyhow. I'm not sore about it, and I doubt most people are but it's such a 2D mindset to have and one that's prevalent in the wrestling community; you can't do more than one thing with your life. Hey I agree and if the Rock actually did both then I'd say he were a wrestler. What are we talking here, 95% acting/5% wrestling. He's an actor, come on. If I dug ditches 95% of my life and wrote 5% (even after writing successfully for a decade) - I'm a ditch digger, not a writer. If it were 50%/50%, heck even 70/30 in favor of wrestling could be debateable, but it is so blantantly obvious this is just a marketing move for the Rock as an actor. Not knocking the guy - I'd do the same thing to pull a bigger audience for a movie, but to think of him as a wrestler in this instance is just strange to me. Everything is just a marketing move in pro-wrestling, Gorilla Monsoon's quotes about being in the business to make the most money is marketing and PR. The Rock is a brand and all that typical office talk I try to avoid spieling off when I'm not in work But pro-wrestling isn't just about physical exertion, it's booking, promo time, build. I may catch flack for it but when Mayweather was training with Show and promoting that match? He was a pro-wrestler for that time to me. Not a long term one, no, but given the Rock's past and achievements and market value through his wrestling career I think he will always be 'the wrestler'. I dunno, he has been away more time than he's been back and there's no disputing that. But in that way does that mean the Undertaker isn't a wrestler because he only had one match in 2011? Which may seem like an odd argument given you said "Rock's known for being an actor now" but just the same, Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson and The Undertaker to this day are known as wrestlers (add on the suffix of 'who became an actor' for Rock) first and foremost. Edit: sorry if I seem to be annoyed, I'm honestly not, I just like to explain stuff in posts with quite a lot of detail /slightly ocd and hoping he isn't bugging anyone
|
|
|
Post by Cam on Feb 27, 2012 17:40:58 GMT -5
We're talking back and forth, on the same subject. That is a conversation. You clearly said that Austin and I quote "isn't so much a wrestler", which implies you think in some way he's still a wrestler. While The Rock you categorically defined as a B-list actor. Yeah, well "Not so much" means NOT A WRESTLER. Sorry if that idiom wasn't clear before, but I don't consider him a wrestler. The definition of "Not so much": "If you say that something is not so much one thing as something else, you mean it is more the second thing" Which means you think Steve Austin is a wrestler, but he's more of an actor. Bam, lawyered. (not literally of course, i'm not a lawyer)
|
|
|
Post by moneyman20 on Feb 27, 2012 17:42:24 GMT -5
Add "Goofy conversations on what an actor and a pro wrestler is(Even though they're both practically the same thing)" to the reasons I can't wait for this feud to end.
|
|
|
Post by Cam on Feb 27, 2012 17:43:37 GMT -5
But he is a wrestler. His career from 1995-2002 was wrestler. It's not like David Arquette "wrestling" two matches and winning the WCW World title, Rock wrestled week in week out for 7 years. He was a wrestler. In some ways, he still is a wrestler. He's not getting paid to act at WrestleMania, he's getting paid to wrestle. I don't understand why everyone gets so tore up about this. The Rock himself would probably say that he's an actor now. He's doing this one-time special appearance to promote his movies and re-establish his adult audience for GI Joe Retaliation. Smart marketing move that any actor would kill for. I missed this part when I commented on this post earlier. Have you seen WWE programming in the last year? The Rock has appeared SEVERAL times. It's not a one-off appearance when you host WrestleMania 27, wrestle at WrestleMania 28, and are guaranteed to appear at WrestleMania 29 with multiple stints on Raw inbetween.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,286
|
Post by The Ichi on Feb 27, 2012 17:46:17 GMT -5
Add "Goofy conversations on what an actor and a pro wrestler is(Even though they're both practically the same thing)" to the reasons I can't wait for this feud to end. I don't think I've ever simultaneously hated a feud but been excited for the match this much ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 17:46:28 GMT -5
Yeah, well "Not so much" means NOT A WRESTLER. Sorry if that idiom wasn't clear before, but I don't consider him a wrestler. The definition of "Not so much": "If you say that something is not so much one thing as something else, you mean it is more the second thing" Which means you think Steve Austin is a wrestler, but he's more of an actor. Bam, lawyered. (not literally of course, i'm not a lawyer) haha, yeah well I guess you got me on that one. Rock Austin - these guys aren't wrestlers anymore because they're not wrestling really. When they were wrestling - they were the best, but now they're just a special feature. 'Taker gets a pass from be, only because he doesn't appear to be doing anything else other than wrestling one match, then rehabbing for 11 months.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 17:48:02 GMT -5
I don't understand why everyone gets so tore up about this. The Rock himself would probably say that he's an actor now. He's doing this one-time special appearance to promote his movies and re-establish his adult audience for GI Joe Retaliation. Smart marketing move that any actor would kill for. I missed this part when I commented on this post earlier. Have you seen WWE programming in the last year? The Rock has appeared SEVERAL times. It's not a one-off appearance when you host WrestleMania 27, wrestle at WrestleMania 28, and are guaranteed to appear at WrestleMania 29 with multiple stints on Raw inbetween. Yeah, he's been on TV, promoting his movie and pimping his twitter. He's been in all of what - zero matches? Again, not trying to spit in the guy's kool-aid. It is a very smart move to reclaim that wrestling audience to help promote his movies, but a wrestler he is not.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 27, 2012 17:49:41 GMT -5
I missed this part when I commented on this post earlier. Have you seen WWE programming in the last year? The Rock has appeared SEVERAL times. It's not a one-off appearance when you host WrestleMania 27, wrestle at WrestleMania 28, and are guaranteed to appear at WrestleMania 29 with multiple stints on Raw inbetween. Yeah, he's been on TV, promoting his movie and pimping his twitter. He's been in all of what - zero matches? Again, not trying to spit in the guy's kool-aid. It is a very smart move to reclaim that wrestling audience to help promote his movies, but a wrestler he is not. Actually, it's his second match this year. He wrestled at Survivor series. In principal I agree though. He's not wrestling for his living now, so he's no longer a wrestler. He's an actor who has a lot more ties to the business than anyone else they've brought it, and he's an actor who used to be a wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by Cam on Feb 27, 2012 17:50:55 GMT -5
The definition of "Not so much": "If you say that something is not so much one thing as something else, you mean it is more the second thing" Which means you think Steve Austin is a wrestler, but he's more of an actor. Bam, lawyered. (not literally of course, i'm not a lawyer) haha, yeah well I guess you got me on that one. Rock Austin - these guys aren't wrestlers anymore because they're not wrestling really. When they were wrestling - they were the best, but now they're just a special feature. 'Taker gets a pass from be, only because he doesn't appear to be doing anything else other than wrestling one match, then rehabbing for 11 months. What about Triple H? He starred in 2 movies last year and wrestled 3 matches. Is he a wrestler or an actor in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Cam on Feb 27, 2012 17:52:17 GMT -5
I missed this part when I commented on this post earlier. Have you seen WWE programming in the last year? The Rock has appeared SEVERAL times. It's not a one-off appearance when you host WrestleMania 27, wrestle at WrestleMania 28, and are guaranteed to appear at WrestleMania 29 with multiple stints on Raw inbetween. Yeah, he's been on TV, promoting his movie and pimping his twitter. He's been in all of what - zero matches? Again, not trying to spit in the guy's kool-aid. It is a very smart move to reclaim that wrestling audience to help promote his movies, but a wrestler he is not. He wrestled at Survivor Series. He didn't need to do that. He didn't need to come back. His films will do just fine without him being associated with the WWE. I truly and honestly believe he came back because he loves it and he wants to make up missing 7 years to the fans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 17:52:52 GMT -5
haha, yeah well I guess you got me on that one. Rock Austin - these guys aren't wrestlers anymore because they're not wrestling really. When they were wrestling - they were the best, but now they're just a special feature. 'Taker gets a pass from be, only because he doesn't appear to be doing anything else other than wrestling one match, then rehabbing for 11 months. What about Triple H? He starred in 2 movies last year and wrestled 3 matches. Is he a wrestler or an actor in your opinion? Wait, HHH was seriously in two movies this year? I mean, are we talking actual movies or "WWE Presents - our desperate attempt to cross our wrestlers into the mainstream" movies? HHH isn't a wrestler though - he's a COO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 17:53:50 GMT -5
Yeah, he's been on TV, promoting his movie and pimping his twitter. He's been in all of what - zero matches? Again, not trying to spit in the guy's kool-aid. It is a very smart move to reclaim that wrestling audience to help promote his movies, but a wrestler he is not. He wrestled at Survivor Series. He didn't need to do that. He didn't need to come back. His films will do just fine without him being associated with the WWE. I truly and honestly believe he came back because he loves it and he wants to make up missing 7 years to the fans. That's great you believe that. I happen to believe the opposite. Such is life.
|
|
|
Post by Cam on Feb 27, 2012 17:55:11 GMT -5
What about Triple H? He starred in 2 movies last year and wrestled 3 matches. Is he a wrestler or an actor in your opinion? Wait, HHH was seriously in two movies this year? I mean, are we talking actual movies or "WWE Presents - our desperate attempt to cross our wrestlers into the mainstream" movies? HHH isn't a wrestler though - he's a COO. They were WWE Studios productions, but he still starred in almost as many movies as he did wrestle in matches. Let me get back to The Rock. Rock wrestled in one match last year and appeared in just as many films. What do you have to say about that?
|
|
|
Post by Cam on Feb 27, 2012 17:57:17 GMT -5
He wrestled at Survivor Series. He didn't need to do that. He didn't need to come back. His films will do just fine without him being associated with the WWE. I truly and honestly believe he came back because he loves it and he wants to make up missing 7 years to the fans. That's great you believe that. I happen to believe the opposite. Such is life. But he doesn't need it. Your argument has no logic. Why would he do something he doesn't have to do, if he doesn't enjoy it? If he doesn't love it? He doesn't need the publicity, he doesn't need the money, he doesn't need the support. So why would he go out of his way several times a year just for things he doesn't need?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 17:57:39 GMT -5
Wait, HHH was seriously in two movies this year? I mean, are we talking actual movies or "WWE Presents - our desperate attempt to cross our wrestlers into the mainstream" movies? HHH isn't a wrestler though - he's a COO. They were WWE Studios productions, but he still starred in almost as many movies as he did wrestle in matches. Let me get back to The Rock. Rock wrestled in one match last year and appeared in just as many films. What do you have to say about that? I say that the Rock probably needed to get some more work so it was a smart move to come back to wrestling to increase the audience demand for him. Also he was doing production work for GI Joe & Journey 2 I would guess since it usually takes about a year to make a movie, but that's splitting hairs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 17:58:35 GMT -5
I'm starting to think this is a work and Rock will speak on it tonight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 17:59:42 GMT -5
That's great you believe that. I happen to believe the opposite. Such is life. But he doesn't need it. Your argument has no logic. Why would he do something he doesn't have to do, if he doesn't enjoy it? If he doesn't love it? He doesn't need the publicity, he doesn't need the money, he doesn't need the support. So why would he go out of his way several times a year just for things he doesn't need? No, trying to pass off your opinion as fact has no logic to it. I'm just stating my opinion, as are you. Neither of us know what the Rock NEEDS or doesn't NEED nor do we know what his agent, publicist etc etc are telling him about his career.
|
|
|
Post by Cam on Feb 27, 2012 18:04:18 GMT -5
They were WWE Studios productions, but he still starred in almost as many movies as he did wrestle in matches. Let me get back to The Rock. Rock wrestled in one match last year and appeared in just as many films. What do you have to say about that? I say that the Rock probably needed to get some more work so it was a smart move to come back to wrestling to increase the audience demand for him. Also he was doing production work for GI Joe & Journey 2 I would guess since it usually takes about a year to make a movie, but that's splitting hairs. Haha, the idea that you think The Rock needs work is ridiculous. Yeah, I'm sure movie producers are going to listen to those rasslin' fans calling them and saying "You guys need to put Dwayne in more of those movies!". Puh-leeze. He acted in one film last year, and wrestled one match. That's 50/50. And not putting words in your mouth..... "....if the Rock actually did both then I'd say he were a wrestler. If it were 50%/50%, heck even 70/30 in favor of wrestling could be debatable...." He's both. You said it yourself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2012 18:08:10 GMT -5
I say that the Rock probably needed to get some more work so it was a smart move to come back to wrestling to increase the audience demand for him. Also he was doing production work for GI Joe & Journey 2 I would guess since it usually takes about a year to make a movie, but that's splitting hairs. Haha, the idea that you think The Rock needs work is ridiculous. Yeah, I'm sure movie producers are going to listen to those rasslin' fans calling them and saying "You guys need to put Dwayne in more of those movies!". Puh-leeze. He acted in one film last year, and wrestled one match. That's 50/50. And not putting words in your mouth..... "....if the Rock actually did both then I'd say he were a wrestler. If it were 50%/50%, heck even 70/30 in favor of wrestling could be debatable...." He's both. You said it yourself. Your inability to read others posts isn't what fascinates me about...it is how PROUD you are of it that draws me to you. The guy was in three movies in 2011 if you want to get technical about. If you want to get even more technical about it he's spent the overwhelming majority of his time working on those movies instead of wrestling or working on wrestling related projects. Edit...and you watch HIMYM....ewwwww.
|
|