|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 24, 2008 21:41:37 GMT -5
..."but for the most part there are nothing but idiots on this board." Yeah, that's not flaming at all. Really. Honestly, while I respect the moderators here for keeping the peace, I think when people post topics all about Snitsky, or how they have this "amazing idea" that involves MST3K they should be fair game to bashing. I'd want it the same way if I started acting like a total waste of society. I know its the Internet, and it's not serious business, but would it hurt to try?
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 24, 2008 20:50:43 GMT -5
I think I would join his side and make fun of the majority of the users here. Not to say that there aren't a nice bulk of intelligent posters, but for the most part there are nothing but idiots on this board.
Unless I didn't like him. Then I would tell him off right to his face. What's he gonna do?
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 24, 2008 14:46:09 GMT -5
wait if tazz and spike are interracial then whose the other race and what is he? That's what I was wondering lol. (Tazz isn't black, just an extra-tanned italian, I think) Anyway, Bookerdust is my answer as they were the first team to come to mind when I saw the thread, before the choices came up. I thought his mom was black?
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 24, 2008 0:19:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 20, 2008 19:49:56 GMT -5
I still say the results are fake.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 19, 2008 20:20:41 GMT -5
I've been waiting for them to do something like they did for Cena when he debuted. Nobody knew who the smurf he was, but they put him against Kurt Angle and he held his own. That helped get him over big time. Not to mention that soon after, he had a PPV match with Chris Jericho. Which, may I add, he won. No, that didn't help him. He was worth SHIT until he became a rapper. Don't pull stats out and try to rewrite history. I remember him debuting. I remember it was horrible, even though he was placed against Taker (or tagged with him?) and Angle, he still had no stock until he found the quasi-edgy rapper gimmick. At the time though, he was just like Nathan Jones and Brock Lesnar. New generic looking guys thrown in with the big boys for no reason other than them being big. I think it is imperative that new guys debut with some sort of vignettes and then give them some solid wins out of the gate. Scotty Goldman and Ryan Braddock/Riddick/Whatever (Jay Bradley) got squashed out of the gate, so it's kinda hard to get a guy over. It's hard enough when you debut a guy and give him wins, like with Braden Walker. Notice that CM Punk came in with some nice intro vignettes and got wins out of the gate...voila, he got over. Ron Killings has his video packages and if he gets some wins out of the gate, he'll get over. Philly's old school ECW crowd got CM Punk over. Say what you want about the "smarky ECW crowd" but if it weren't for them knowing CM Punk beforehand, he wouldn't have gotten over. Sure, he cut good (but very short) vignettes, but he didn't do anything special to get him over IN THE FIRST MATCH. It was the ECW crowd that got him instantly over in WWE. You can't deny it. Ha. The original post says Colt Cabana is an underdeveloped newbie with no charisma. Close this thread. You're cool. As many others have said, you have to build people to get them over, and moreover, they people you decide to build have gotta do something to warrant it. You don't get pushes just cause it's 'your turn', and you don't get over the instant you're out the door no smurfing matter who you are. Very few actually get 'over over', actually becoming a star people give a crap about and get emotionally invested in rather than just getting pops or being mildly interesting. None of the guys you mentioned have gotten 'over over' yet save for Edge, and that took him about 10 years since his WWE debut. I don't think he meant "over over" when he used Venis or Test as exapmles. He just said pretty much EVERY guy used to have some sort of "trait" that would help him getting recognized by the fans. The mileage and the "care-o-meter" of every performer wasn't the same, but it boiled down to several factors out of WWE's direct control. Edge has got himself over over over after almost a decade of hard work, good pushes and thanks to his charisma and ability to work with what he was given. Venis got as much as he could out of his pornstar gimmick, and he's now moderately over even as a resident jobber. He wasn't handpicked as future WWE Champ, so it's ok. Many others have been given gimmicks and pushes and didn't get over, simply because the crowd stopped caring/never cared (Carlito and Shelton say hi, Haas too) Gimmick =/= overness Personality (not the scripted one... the ability to click with the fans) = overness. The biggest example is Lex Luger: he got pretty much Hogan's gimmick and he lasted like 6 months, before getting outpopped by Bret Hart, a man who had no "actual" gimmick beside being himself and wearing pink shades I think this says it best. The word "gimmick" is a very vague word when it comes to this argument. While yeah, these new guys have gimmicks, they don't have one in the sense that they don't look like a 'vanilla midget' with a singlet, or trunks, etc. Someone else gave the example of "Black Death" Braden Walker, heavy metal enthusiast. I think that would have gotten over better than Braden "Knock knock. Who's there?" Walker. Or at least it would have been fresher.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 19, 2008 15:46:22 GMT -5
I think the point that the TC is trying to say is that back in the day guys used to come in and mean something. They weren't all the same bland tights, clean cut, "First Name Last Name" guys.
We had people like Edge, a goth troubled soul. We had Godfather (albeit he wasn't new) as a pimp. We had The Undertaker.
People used to debut with epic characters. These new debuts are just names associated with some character traits, if that. You can't rally behind a guy named Braden Walker, or Scott Goldman. Where's the umph? Where's the stage name? Where's the gimmick? Where's the "it" that makes us care?
All these new guys are all named the same, practically all look the same, and are as bland as the next one. Sure, there are some charasmatic standouts, but they still don't differenciate from one another. Which is the key to any movie/TV show, having different characters with different traits.
Who want's to watch Friends with all Joeys? You need the Monicas, the Rachels, the Rosses and the Chandlers to make it watchable.
WWE's new debuts makes each roster a show of all Joeys. And nobody wants to watch that.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 19, 2008 0:00:50 GMT -5
Gay. It sucked major balls. So does the new Kane's promo style. Way to water him down further.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 18, 2008 23:57:39 GMT -5
Why? What does it add to his character?
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 17, 2008 19:00:52 GMT -5
I say not only does the entire ref staff get killed tonight, Vince comes back, stops the match and turns it into Cena/Batista vs the rest of the WWE...and they win.
And all the progression that happened since the draft gets turned to shit.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 17, 2008 18:58:53 GMT -5
It's a bit like how Benoit really broke his neck in TLC 3, then WWE passed it off as Austin breaking it at KOTR 01. Jeez, and we all know how well that went. I don't think WWE will be pushing injured wrestlers to keep chugging along until they can do an injury work for a LONG time.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 16, 2008 16:19:28 GMT -5
Well, on the bright side, if he is injured he could always get a nice ME return push.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 15, 2008 18:06:06 GMT -5
I don't get the name change. But then again, I don't really get the idea behind the E making new names for their guys. Where would they jump ship too after making a name in WWE? What promotion could POSSIBLY be bigger than WWE and pay better that they would jump, or request release, to go to?
TNA used to be an option, but by now we all know it won't break it's 1.1 mold. It's been years and no new fans have been gained. What makes people think they'll grow? They've tried many booking styles and none of them stick. The company is just riddled with stupidity...
Also, when you sign with WWE you sign a non-compete clause now. It's standard. So why don't they envoke a clause that they can't use the name elsewhere unless they are granted release from WWE?
This way we get the totally awesome names like Matt Sydal and Colt Cabana, and WWE knows they won't jump ship. But like I said, who would jump ship in this day and age?
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 15, 2008 17:51:40 GMT -5
Thats all well and good, but then you've giving away possible future PPV matches for free. Difficult when you have 6 hours of programming to put out each week. This. If you have this matches every week you get pretty bored of them quicker than you think, then you are left with no fresh matchus for the ppv. I'd rather the tv shows be mostly Jobber matches, Skits, promos and a main event. Save the competetive match ups for the PPVS. No, the thing that makes the PPVs weak is the fact that they never blow off fueds and have them face each other ad-infinium. See Orton/HHH, Edge/Taker, etc
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 23:20:32 GMT -5
So only backwater hicks and the people in charge of this country's money believe what happens on wrestling is real? AWESOME. I wonder how many of them questioned thier faith when they heard Undertaker had come back from being buried alive. Wow, Wal Street is full of retards. You guys do realize that people invest money in companies because of market trends and not because they follow the company very closely, right? Granted, you should read up on a company and their long-term goals before investing money in it...and then probably follow closely, but a lot of investment is done purely on foresight. You can't fault the investors for pulling out. Vince does an angle where he "dies". The media twists it out of proportion, and the investors hear the wrong story. They bought the stock because of the company's plan to grow globally -- not because they are an Undertaker mark and like the product. It's like this theoretical situation. You're a Windows fanatic that got warped back in time to 2001. You're given the option to invest in Apple computers. You know how successful the iPod will be, but your a Windows fanatic, so you shouldn't invest in Apple? Same principal. Except these non-fans are seeing WWE's global expansion and invest in the company for that, even though they think its the dumbest stuff on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 16:28:41 GMT -5
The public doesn't care about any of that. They never talk about the good things Vince and the WWE do, only the bad things. Storyline or not, people would have POUNCED on the fact that a show with young children as viewers is "advocating" using pot. Old ECW could get away with stuff the WWE never could as they had more of a niche audience and were on later at night. It's the problem professional wrestling always faces. As far as "That 70's Show" goes (one of my favorite shows), I watched a show where, I believe it was the director said that they never used the words "pot" or "marijuana" because that would be going too far for the networks. And thay never actually show the pot either... No, they don't. But, a lot of comedy shows have comedians admit to it. Don't get me wrong, I know where the WWE was coming from (and dont say anything about Wellness, because at this point they were lax on it) and they couldn't have done anything about it. Just sucks that they couldn't have. And I still don't blame Rob for what he did. He believes in the legalization of pot, and doesn't let anyone stand in the way of that. How many people do you know that freely speak their mind and stick to their individualism like RVD? He's truly my role model. I'm old enough to realize what to take from him and what not to. I won't get into the pot issues here, but what I take away from him is his individualism and his boldness. Two elements missing from the corporate mass this country has become.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 15:36:46 GMT -5
Honestly, I think with the extreme anti-WWE attitude ECW was trying to present they should have played the bust off. ECW at this point was still anti-WWE and WWE is "clean" and "perfect" while ECW showed the darker, grittier sides of people. ECW was more about realism in terms that people were themselves, they weren't archetypes of people or "larger than life role models". ECW was people who loved to wrestle, whether they smoked pot, had drinking problems, or whatever. It was that factor that made it feel real. WWECW should have embrassed it. Maybe strip him of the titles, but acknowledge and work with it for entertainment's sake. I understand what you're getting at, and its very like the sort of thing Paul Heyman would have booked in the old ECW, however with the cleaner presentation WWE are trying to present with Wellness, they needed to make an example of him to show it was taken seriously. To make an angle would have been making light of it and would have given Wrestling critics ammo. Or they could have been revolutionary and have RVD advocate pot on national television. I do understand that they couldn't because of stock holders and being a public company, but it would have made for AWESOME tv. Besides, the offense for pot is a fine. What I don't get is, that That 70's Show wasn't ridiculed for having kids advocate pot, but if RVD did, WWE is all of a sudden pro-pot, when everyone knows its fake...and just his character.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 15:31:31 GMT -5
I like RVD. Always have. The one and only criticism that people have of him I'm inclined to agree with is that he didn't adapt well to WWE's safe style. His fans, myself included, tend to complain that the E's style watered down what he could do, and his work suffered. True, but he really should've tried to adapt somehow in order to fit the E's mold (they were his bosses, after all) and find a way to still be unique. He never really tried to do that, and just stuck with his own 3 moves of doom--Corkscrew Legdrop, Rolling Thunder, Five-Star Frog Splash--which just fueled the fire of his critics that he's just a spot monkey who flips and kicks. Let's clear one thing up, though. Jerry Lynn didn't "carry" RVD. That's simply false. And Lynn himself would say the same thing. Both men brought out the best in each other, much like Ricky Steamboat and Flair (and no, I have no qualms with comparing RVD/Lynn matches to Steamboat/Flair matches). In addition to great matches with Lynn, RVD had stellar matches against Sabu, Lance Storm, and Taz. Now, while Storm and Taz might be able to carry someone, Sabu couldn't to save his life, but he and Rob still had good matches. Anyway, I've always rolled my eyes at the "flippy/kicky" and "he smokes put! bust his ass!" accusations. I've just seen too many matches where Rob put on an awesome performance that involved great wrestling (like a title defense against Kurt on ECW), and people overreact waaayyy too much about marijuana. But his failure to adapt to WWE is a valid criticism. It would be one thing if it looked like he at least tried to adapt and still be unique, but it never appeared that way. It came across more like he figure out a handful of moves he could get away with and used them over and over. I'll always be a big fan of Rob's, but his WWE work was less than stellar. And it's unfair to put all the blame on the E for that. If there's one thing I admire about Rob, it's that he sticks to his beliefs. Call him stupid and tell him he f***ed himself over by not playing ball with WWE, but I admire the SHIT out of him for being himself. He doesn't compromise, and he does things his way. No one else's. He lives by his ideals and breaks his balls for no one. This makes RVD stand WAY the f*** out for me. Not only is he one of my favorite wrestlers, he's one of my favorite people. I mean, he's no Plato or Socrates, but there is something very noble and endearing about the way he sticks to his beliefs. I take that from him as my role model.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 15:27:39 GMT -5
As champion he was the standard bearer for the company, and as such is supposed to be a role model and one who follows the rules. Whether the rule is right or wrong, he broke it and deserved to be stripped, and not trusted with the mantle again. I don't like to see boring workers, but I do like clean, crisp workers who hit their moves reguarly and put on far more consistent matches. RVD to me is the epitomy of midcarder, tv main event occasionally, guy. Honestly, I think with the extreme anti-WWE attitude ECW was trying to present they should have played the bust off. ECW at this point was still anti-WWE and WWE is "clean" and "perfect" while ECW showed the darker, grittier sides of people. ECW was more about realism in terms that people were themselves, they weren't archetypes of people or "larger than life role models". ECW was people who loved to wrestle, whether they smoked pot, had drinking problems, or whatever. It was that factor that made it feel real. WWECW should have embrassed it. Maybe strip him of the titles, but acknowledge and work with it for entertainment's sake.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Aug 12, 2008 15:05:19 GMT -5
I have to give it to the E. Something tangible to an angle they've nearly forgot about. They waited too long with the bag and didn't really showcase it for a while. In the time it took them to come back to the angle we all had it figured out...and it would have demeaned the story. The impact of it would have sucked, kinda like Y2J's return. We all saw it coming.
But this? This works, and refreshes the story that now there is the next chapter to look forward to, when we were all just expecting the story to end.
|
|