|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 10:36:45 GMT -5
Anyone saying talk and charisma are the same thing? No.
Theres in ring charisma, stuff like facial expressions and movement. Then theres talking.
A guy like Benoit for instance, had a lot of charisma in ring which is why he got reactions and connected with fans, but his promo work was never that great or interesting. Jeff Hardy, another good example.
Off the top of my head, guys with all four:
Angle, Foley, Austin, Rock, Hogan, HBK, Flair, Hennig, Jake Roberts, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Jericho, Scott Hall, Hogan, Dibiase, Raven, Dusty Rhodes, Terry Funk, Piper, Savage.
Look at that list. All those guys were huge successes in their own right and top draws for the most part. A few of them were not as much a success as they could have been due to their personal problems. Any single one of those guys either were or could be the top guy in any promotion though.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 10:26:16 GMT -5
Theres a number of reasons why this would not work.
1. First and foremost, WWE owns ECW. So they couldn't reference ECW at all. This would lead to it turning into a poor mans nWo with a likely dumber name, and barbed wire with flaming tables instead of spraypaint and gang signs.
2. It makes little sense for any of the past ECW guys to care about ECW at this point. All of them have spent more time in other federations.
3. Running along that line of logic, lets say all these ex ECW guys still have some sort of misguided loyalty to a long dead, failed promotion...wouldn't ex ECW wrestlers much rather invade WWECW and take that over? TNA hasn't crapped on the ECW legacy, WWE has. Theres no reason for any of them to want to run roughshod over TNA or take it over.
The only place this angle could work or be interesting in the least is in WWECW but it would never happen there. TNA needs more new ideas, not more rehash.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 10:13:57 GMT -5
Easily Two-Face. I've always felt as if he really deserves to be Batman's arch-nemesis moreso than the Joker, just due to Harvey Dent's past with Batman. There is so much tragedy in the story of Harvey Dent and Batman that it's a bit of a shame that he's never been the top villain. I can understand why Joker is the top Bat-villain, but at the same time I think Two-Face should be more highly regarded. Felt I should respond to this since I completely agree. Especially when they go with the backstory of how Batman and Harvey used to be friends, yet Batman couldn't help him when he needed it and thus Dent hates him for it, not as much as he hates himself but enough to take his anger out on Batman. Its why, to me, it would always make more sense for Two Face to be Batmans archfoe. A much more personal link there. It also makes more sense that Batman wouldn't want to take him out since there is always that chance that Harvey could be helped and redeemed. Much more interesting to me than the dynamic between Joker and Batman. I know Batman has the no kill rule which is why he never takes Joker out either...but honestly, even with that rule it never made sense to me why Batman would ever allow Joker, for all the people he has killed, and someone who has absolutely no chance of ever being helped or redeemed, to keep getting free and killing people for nothing but thrills and fun. If anything, you would think Batman would at least just cripple him so he wouldn't be able to hurt anyone else ever again. I know, its comics, Joker is popular so that would never happen...still, I like to have a bit of logic and believability to a point and Joker is so overdone storywise that he has killed as many people as Jason Voorhees at this point. Its just reached a level of silliness [at least in the comics] to me. With Two Face it is more sensible that Batman would hold out hope he could be helped and thus restrain from taking him out for good. I just think a tragic fallen hero and a broken friendship, in addition to Batman seeing a lot of his worst traits in Harvey Dent taken to their logical extreme is way more interesting than "I wont kill you because I want to prove I am better than you," and "I cant kill Batman because I want to have more fun with him again in two months when I break out of prison, AGAIN, and kill more people to piss Batman off, AGAIN." I know I am oversimplifying things a bit there, and I am not saying that there hasn't been a lot of great Joker stories and wont be more in the future, but you get what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 9:57:28 GMT -5
My top three are Two Face, Scarecrow, and the Ventriloquist/Scarface.
I like Joker a lot, but I feel he is overdone, just because his character has no backstory and is varied enough that any author can pretty much do whatever they want with him. It allows for a lot of interesting stories, but also lazy writing.
I chose Scarecrow because I feel like he is a really underrated character. A lot could be done with him but thus far not many writers have seemed up to the challenge.
The Ventriloquist is also very underrated. As Batman: TAS shows, you can come up with a lot of great stories centered around him. Of course that show made great use of just about every villian.
Edit: I also like Riddler a lot, but as with Scarecrow it requires a more adept, imaginative writer to portray him effectively. Again, I point to Batman: TAS. I wish Riddler had been used more on the show but its tough to center episodes around one of the few villians Batman has who isn't a homicidal maniac and poses absolutely no physical threat to Batman or anyone else for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 9:42:47 GMT -5
"Put him back together so I can break him again." -Punk, after assaulting Jeff Hardy Definitely that. Either that or when Morrison referred to RAW as a cheap version of SNL.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 6:31:47 GMT -5
im a browns fan so i hate him hate his stupid last name and i hate his team Browns fans even hate the Browns at this point...
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 6:08:59 GMT -5
Oh, and also I am pretty sure people have recognized that there have been a lot of good to great TV matches this year, specifically on ECW and Smackdown. So saying that nobody has recognized there being any this year is very much a stretch, actually that is just flat out untrue to be honest. Theres appreciation threads seemingly every week after ECW and Smackdown for matches on those shows.
As far as RAW goes, not many good matches on there. Most of the complaints regarding RAW are related to that, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 5:58:02 GMT -5
I guess you skipped 2003?
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 4:46:57 GMT -5
I have a big drug problem because Jeff Hardy does too, and he was a WWE Champion!
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 0:23:58 GMT -5
Hopefully it's just a one-off thing as mentioned. Since Katie seems like someone who in any capacity besides as Paul's ambiguously bi evil manager wouldn't be at all interesting. What divas ARE interesting?
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 15, 2009 0:12:23 GMT -5
Heart Punch? That is one of the LAMEST finishers ever.
I cant find much to complain about on this list other than saying the Diamond Cutter should probably be in over the RKO, that is sorta like putting the Evenflow DDT on there instead of Jakes DDT. Still, it was a lot better than I thought it would be and they put some puro moves on there which is a surprise in of itself, regardless of their rating on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 14, 2009 22:50:43 GMT -5
That is some hilarious overacting by Mickie.
Her reaching for her clothes like a starving man for a piece of bread...and the look on her face, like McCool and Layla just killed her dog or something.
Good match though, hopefully Mickie is back on her game now.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 14, 2009 22:40:27 GMT -5
He should quit focusing on that crap and focus on being a heel. Oh wait, heel announcers aren't allowed in WWE anymore. Why make the product interesting or anything. Heels don't fix everything. True, but I find a heel and face arguing and providing opposing viewpoints much more entertaining than a team like Cold and the King constantly agreeing on EVERYTHING and being boring shills for two hours. I mean, most of the time in WCW the commentators were all faces or very close to it but they still disagreed with each other on stuff or provided different insights rather than being two parrots. So a heel and face mix isn't needed, but I think it helps in some cases. It just depends. As far as Striker goes, I haven't seen him since he left ECW but he was fine there. His multiple nicknames and such is part of his gimmick. I personally find him a lot more entertaining and less annoying than any other WWE commentator outside of JR...not that there is any competition in that area right now. At least he isn't saying idiotic crap like VINTAGE BRAGGING RIGHTS! when the PPV is about an hour old.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 14, 2009 22:31:47 GMT -5
Thats the Jesus promo that was mentioned, if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 14, 2009 22:26:00 GMT -5
I hardly watch anything besides ECW now, never watch RAW and catch SD! every now and again, maybe watch a PPV every few months to check in or if the card looks interesting...
1. Christian 2. Chris Jericho 3. HBK [tho besides WM this year he has pretty much done jack all] 4. John Morrison 5. Uhhh Kofi Kingston I guess. Hes having a pretty good year and actually getting a push. I only see him on PPV though, aside from a couple segments on youtube I haven't watched RAW since before Summerslam.
I think the Piven episode was the last one I tried to sit completely through and yeah...didn't work out too well. I may watch next week because of Piper though.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 14, 2009 22:14:50 GMT -5
Depends on the criteria.
As far as providing the ability to put on the match of the night, yeah.
However, he has really slowed down and doesn't wrestle very much now. Both Jericho and Christian also have that big match ability but usually arent highlighted as much as Shawn is.
To me right now, its probably Jericho overall, and Christian could be if he gets the chance to shine.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 14, 2009 19:43:51 GMT -5
I would rather they have nobody. I mean, Mania is the biggest PPV of the year, despite its tradition of celeb involvement a guest host wouldn't make much sense.
All the matches are made a month or two in advance, so the host cant make matches or really do anything noteworthy. If they ran some monthlong angle with it where they announced the host far in advance and had them appear on RAW a few times via video feed or something to promote the show, that might work.
Hogan would make the most sense since WM was built around him in the first place, but obviously that will never happen now. I say Austin would be the most likely if they wanted to do this, Rock would most likely not want to do it and Austin is the only other huge name available for WWE now. Maybe Flair, but there are rumors of him going to TNA and I also dont think he is on the best terms with Vince ATM.
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 13, 2009 19:24:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 13, 2009 19:16:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Bubble Lead on Nov 13, 2009 18:47:04 GMT -5
KEN AH DAAAAAAY!!!!!!
Er, I mean, MEH STERR EEEOOOOOOOH!
|
|