lazorbeak

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>@lazorbeak, They did that same Marvel Template in Superman 2. I know I already pointed that out earlier, but I can't help having flashbacks when people talk about it.<p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You already pointed what out earlier? When I mention a marvel movie template, I'm referring to a specific style of melodrama that Marvel has been making every summer for the past 5 years or so. The fact that Zod was in Superman 2 doesn't suddenly make Superman 2 a Marvel-style movie. Man of Steel clearly owes a lot more to the action and structure of Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk, etc. than it does to a 33 year old movie where Superman punches out a trucker for picking on him earlier. Except that unlike both Superman 2 and most of those Marvel movies, Man of Steel doesn't use humor to soften the 2.5 hours of melodrama.</p>

<p>Finally saw Man of Steel. The slow bits were pretty good, although I could've lived with 100% less "Superman is space Jesus." As mentioned, the action scenes were such a cartoon that I'm surprised WB didn't run a family friendly "The Man of Steel is the #1 animated film in America" promo. Maybe because of all the disaster porn that makes up the last act? The whole "destroy all of Metropolis" stuff was really just kind of gross- watching buildings fall while people scramble around and all is just not fun.</p><p> </p><p> I know this movie was developed with input from Nolan, but its hard to miss the Marvel movie template at work here. Powers that are a burden, villain that is an evil version of hero with exactly the same powers, etc. And I swear the Kansas fight-scene is completely interchangeable with that fight in Thor against that robot.</p><p> </p><p> I still enjoyed parts of it, and I actually loved Cavill's performance, but that whole last act had so many problems.</p><p> </p><p> Oh, spoiler issue: <span style="color:#FFFFFF;">my other issue is that Superman doesn't have any agency in the film. It feels like he spends the whole movie doing what either his ghost dad or his adopted dad tell him to. Considering Jor-El makes a big deal of "we let you have a choice," in how he lives, he sure is bossy! He even gives Lois a bunch of directions so she can relay them to Superman later, so he can boss his son around by proxy. I don't mind that Jor-El and Zod have a history that we get into more in this story, but it feels like Superman's own thoughts are almost totally irrelevant because he's doing this because ghost dad asked him to.</span></p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="shawn michaels 82" data-cite="shawn michaels 82" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Dude...seriously...not even commenting on that review.<p> </p><p> So, here's something that's been bugging me for weeks now. I know that Dolph and ADR's double turn went well and might take them to big things if the E doesn't screw that, but am I the only one thinking that the execution of the turn didn't make that much sense? I mean, it's not the first time we've seen a face brutally beating up a heel with no regard for his health or any rules, that's usually the moment where the heel gets his punishment. Dozens of times I've seen faces do this...like HBK beating Y2J so much that the match had to be stopped, and he didn't turn heel because of it. Jericho was just getting what he deserved. And yet...just because ADR beat the crap out of Ziggy and cut a promo...he turns heel. And Ziggler who was actually deserving such a beating after all he did to Del Rio, turns face. What gives? I know that Del Rio executed the thing damn well, with proper heel manerisms and a promo after the match....but to me it doesn't make any sense. They could have done it in any other way. Like putting that same exact match, and after the match was over, Del Rio would continue to kick the living crap out of Ziggler, really trying to injure him, hurt him even more, even using weapons, going beyond the point of "getting his revenge" and hitting that moment where we would actually feel sorry for Ziggler, thus making it a perfect double turn. And then he could cut his promo like he did.</p><p> Did they achieve a good turn? sure...but even I, a pro wrestling fan, used to the most ridiculous turns, can't wrap my head around the fact that a heel getting what he deserves is now a turn. I'm glad it went well, I'm glad they executed it perfectly, having in mind what they had to work with, but am I the only one thinking that is not the best way to handle a turn on a storyline like that one?</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Good question! The biggest reason it worked was that ADR was going after Ziggler's head so soon after a legit head injury. While a babyface can certainly beat up a heel plenty without turning, focusing on an existing injury is a heel move. Also, as mentioned, crowds will tolerate the babyface going "too far" when it's related to a major feud escalation. Cena can't put Ryback through an ambulance the first time Ryback brings out the ambulance, it has to be the pay-off to Ryback putting Cena through the stage the month before. Ziggler cashed in and won the belt from ADR, but didn't really do anything else to antagonize him, and disappearing for a month is about the most babyface thing he could do. Finally, the crowd wanted the turn- ADR is a natural heel and Ziggler is a natural heel who's so good he's been getting cheers at ppvs for what, years now?</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djfunkthechris" data-cite="djfunkthechris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I think I get it, but it's not really nothing to get.<p> </p><p> For a while now there has been part of the IWC trying to figure out things that aren't really hard to figure out, because they are over-thinking everything. I remember Arrows had a few posts like it as well.</p><p> </p><p> In a nut shell some people don't get this one fact as far as Professional Wrestling goes (or even comic books go). This is what they don't get:</p><p> </p><p> If a heel wins by cheating = Bad.</p><p> If a face wins by cheating = Good.</p><p> If a heel trash talks a face = Bad.</p><p> If a face trash talks a heel = Good.</p><p> </p><p> For some reason these facts are hard to understand.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Except ADR didn't win by cheating... Ziggler did by cashing in when he did. The reason the turn worked is that Ziggler was able to generate sympathy due to his real injury and ability to sell everything like death, along with the crowd's natural inclination. </p><p> </p><p> So maybe there is something to "get."</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Honestly like that we have some younger members doing some reviews and giving us insight into those age groups. I've been getting tired of the young 20's late teen thing of "Gimme what I want right now! They'll never do something like that, because they aren't as smart as me!" type posts, as entertaining to me as they are (especially when proven to be 100% wrong, and yet find a way to be right). It's nice to see a bit of kayfabe actually still living in young minds, and not pretending to know everything there is to know about the scene. In case it's not a given, I'm not talking about GDS forums, outside of the "young minds" thing. So if you think I just said something about you in a negative way, no... Not you. You I have not seen be completely wrong about a bunch of things, and then deny being wrong. I haven't seen anyone deny being wrong here... Pleasantly surprised at being wrong is a very positive way of reacting to being wrong when being negative.<p> </p><p> Now, Russelrules44... Your not the only one with a post that's hard to comprehend. Your Welcome!</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Marginally agree that it's nice to get a different perspective. I just wish I could understand half these posts. </p><p> </p><p> Also, is it too late to double down on getting RVD back and just get John Morrison instead? If we really need a spot-to-spot upper midcarder to put over the million young heels on Raw, I'd much prefer JoMo. Although I hope they put RVD in a team with Sin Cara so we can get fast forward <em>and</em> slow motion botches.</p>

<p>Payback thoughts: pretty good show, with a main event that went way too long. Also I hate that they won't even give Ryback a month or two to sink or swim with the belt as a big scary heel champ- when was the last time we had a heel champ that wasn't a sniveling coward? Excluding Punk, who was only cowardly for part of his reign, I've got Batista in 2010 as the last big scary heel (Sheamus was inexplicably cowardly during his reign in 2010). </p><p> </p><p> Otherwise though, good stuff. I liked the crowd booing Kaitlyn for losing and chanting "you tapped out," it made her mental breakdown acting easier to pull off. Very well-booked double-turn with ADR and Ziggler. I love that ADR is 100% justified in what he did. Ziggler got in the ring, ADR found a weakness and was just ruthless in exploiting it until he won, and for that the crowd turns on him. Punk's return was cool, although Jericho is not the worker he was even a few years ago, and I've never really enjoyed Jericho/Punk matches too much. I did like Jericho's "yeah, baby!" shouting, which caused me to flashback to WCW 1996. Also, can we please replace Jerry Lawler? I cringed when he started talking about Heath Ledger's Joker in re: Dean Ambrose. He's just awful as a babyface announcer. Also I enjoyed the wrestling-style halftime show, even though 1) it's a little weird for Big Show to talk about someone going "too far," and 2) nobody in the segment was as great as Charles Barkely is at "real talk" commentary. On the other hand, no one was as bad as Magic Johnson/Chris Webber/most star athletes who are mediocre commentators. </p><p> </p><p> Also, can we not have Triple H and Stephanie on TV as babyfaces? It's so crazy that anybody's supposed to cheer these idiots and that we have multiple segments to put over how tough and cool and smart a non-wrestler is at the expense of actual wrestlers. Was it some kind of ironic in-joke that Stephanie McMahon was complaining about a diva degrading women? I mean, Tori is the only woman on the roster Stephanie didn't end up in some hair-pulling catfight with, and that's the high road of a Stephanie feud (the low road is someone getting covered in garbage/food/feces).</p>

What's sad is that WWE has a more talented guy in the same spot on the card and nobody ever talks about him. Tyson Kidd is a fantastic worker who could pull a great match out of everybody on the roster, but he ends up being even more of an afterthought than Natalya.

The 4th one is outstanding. I don't really remember anything about #3.

Hating a film =/ hating one thing in a film. So no, I never said I hated it. This is all so nit-picky and useless though. Why are you so invested in it? Yes, I made a joke, and then made another one when your reaction to the joke was accusing me of name-calling. And by all means, please do be mindful of tone, it is key when you get into non-arguments with people and pretend to be offended by off-hand jokes. To be clear, I absolutely don't have a problem that you liked the movie. I just took a bit of umbrage at the idea that you "disagree completely lol" and then echo most of what I said, but in a positively-spun way. And then proceeded to get down to cases as though this was some super-serious online disagreement, when it's not and hasn't been, at least from my side. I'm fine with playful disagreements, and I've made several comments and asides to make it clear I didn't have any deep-seated feelings about this, so I don't get why you're acting like this is a big deal at all. And yes, I am the king of guys.

"Childish insults?" You really think a reference to "another dimension" is a "childish insult"?????? I think you're reading into things. Maybe this is a common exchange in the backseat of cars, I don't know: Child: "No YOU'RE from another dimension!" For those that need jokes explained in detail, what I did was I made a reference to the previous Star Trek movie which created a divergent timeline framed as a "joke." It's much less fun when it has to be explained out. And nowhere did I say I "HATED" it or that you weren't allowed to like it. I just took issue with you acting like my issues with the movie weren't legit. But good god, I deeply apologize for such hurtful words as implying someone is from an alternate dimension.

Dude, really? You really want to get into this? I listed this as one of my "favorite crazy science moments," because it's one of many, but that's not even getting into the "inexplicable decision" or "plot elements that make absolutely no sense" aspects that make the movie brainless entertainment. Like I said, the movie is fun but incredibly dumb and a little too fan-service-y. That's not to say others aren't allowed to have fun, but when you say things like "I disagree completely" in response and then argue about the specifics of space magic, I wonder what alternate dimension you've teleported yourself into.

Yes? Because warp drives and matter transportation have to have limits, and when you're just making personal phone calls to anyone at any time, you might as well pull out your magic wand because there's no stakes and there's nothing you can't do. Which, I mean... they pretty much do in the last act. But... yeah, it's fun and dumb. I mean, what, exactly are you disagreeing with here? If you think about any action any character makes the whole plot unravels, so the whole thing is just supposed to be enough fun to make you not think about it for two seconds. Fortunately I was anticipating this move and filled all your torpedoes with delicious candy. I didn't just take the candy myself because of reasons.

The sad thing about that video is that McEntyre standing next to all the other enhancement guys it's clear that he has the best "look" by leaps and bounds. Seriously looking like he does, he's a new gimmick and a haircut away from getting out of the pre-show. Or he ends up getting cut and we see him feud with Matt Morgan for 3 years on Impact.

Speaking of dumb movies, I thought Star Trek was okay, but so incredibly dumb it was kind of hard to take seriously as an action movie. Almost every decision every character made was so stupid. I also hated the fan-service-y call-backs, since they already had enough of them in the reboot. Do we really need tribbles cameos or shot-for-shot Wrath of Khan references? I'm not even sure what my favorite crazy science moment was. I've always taken for granted that Star Trek has near-instant FTL communication devices so that captains can call into Star Fleet or what have you, but Kirk basically calls Scottie up on a cell phone and asks him to do a quick favor for him. I know it's not movie ruining, but it was one of dozens of moments that made me go "wait, how?" On a more positive note: I loved Iron Man 3, and am really confused by most any criticism of it I've read. It was great.

So is Axel's finisher just that when people wrestle him they wander off outside the ring and forget they're in a wrestling match? It seems to happen every week.

Saw that Bray Wyatt promo. I'm excited for this guy! I wish WWE had some bland babyfaces that he could just destroy. Unfortunately, it seems like WWE is producing new heels faster than they're bringing in babyfaces. Seriously Waylon Mercy was a great idea for a character the first time, and could've been a great midcard heel act for years if Spivey weren't so broken down. Robert Mitchem in Cape Feare and Night of the Hunter is an all-time great villain, so it only makes sense they'd try again.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Teh_Showtime" data-cite="Teh_Showtime" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>They purposely debuted Punk in his market though. There was a CM PUNK banner hanging up and he hadn't wrestled one televised match yet. It was a pretty smark heavy crowd</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> True, but is does directly contradict Heyman. He was also pretty darn over at Survivor Series 2006, his first PPV appearance, considering the crowd was chanting for him while he was in the ring with DX and the Hardy Boyz.</p>

<p>Finally got around to watching parts of Raw and reading recaps for the rest. I know this is old hat, but seriously... Triple H is the worst. He's the most unsympathetic babyface since ever, and he seamlessly goes from not getting sympathy in that Brock feud to a concussion storyline? And, oh, by the way, your current #2 champion is out right now with a concussion. But Triple H is so tough and so cool and cares so much about ~THIS BUSINESS~ that he won't let a little thing like that stop him! So he proceeds to interrupt new guy, slap him without repercussion, then easily handle the match for awhile but then oh no that concussion got him. Does it cause him to get pinned in the ring after getting hit with a finisher? Of course not! We basically stop everything to do serious voices while the crowd chants "TRI-PLE-H" in Hunter's own mind and nowhere else. </p><p> </p><p> Meanwhile, let's close out the show with that mess, and not an amazing six man tag match that features at least 3 wrestlers that could convincingly main event pay per views (and Kofi!) and features great action, because... Triple H, part-time legend is a much bigger name than all those guys. </p><p> </p><p> Seriously Hunter, you're not Shawn Michaels. You will never have that connection that he had with the crowd. Ever. Stop trying to be cool new step-dad and just realize that you're always gonna be in his shadow because Shawn Michaels was better than you at everything except tearing muscles off his body and spitting water. Just turn heel already. Use the actual resentment that everyone already has in your favor and stop fishing for sympathy.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="DaMegaFish" data-cite="DaMegaFish" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I really loved that when Ryback won his match on RAW, he screamed RYBACK RULES as he was announced the winner, so all he really had to yell was RULES. Smart man.<p> </p><p> Also, according to Daniel Bryan, The Ryback has a problem with Panera Bread. I would love to hear Ryback talk about that. Starts talking about Ryback/Panera at 19:55.</p><p> </p><div class="ipsEmbeddedVideo"><div><iframe width="200" height="113" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/_7A0SfjIAsU?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="Wrestling With Rosenberg : Daniel Bryan"></iframe></div></div></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Come on, Ryback, get a steak panini or something. It's not rocket science!</p>

Went to a Smackdown House Show today. No Sheamus, no Ziggler, and two separate matches for the epic Rhodes Scholars/Tons of Funk feud. The injury bug seems to be hitting pretty hard post-Wrestlemania. Orton went over Big Show in the main event; Orton was easily the biggest and maybe only guy other than Khali that the crowd seriously got behind. Justin Gabriel and Ted DiBiase were not exactly getting inspiring reactions in their matches. Big Show also got a big babyface pop when he came out, and had to heel it up for the first few minutes of the match to get the crowd against him. ADR also got a pretty decent pop, after Coulter and Swagger came out and drew a bunch of heat by confusing Texas with Oklahoma. They easily had the best match of the show, too.

And after that, only the bar exam to look forward to! I think the narrative gets re-structured all the time to be "who ever would've guessed Steve Austin would be a mega-star?" and his Ringmaster gimmick is part of that story of how he "came from nowhere" and nobody could've expected he'd be a breakout name. But as I alluded to earlier, it really wasn't all that much of a stretch. In WCW he was a freak athlete with incredible stamina who worked 20 minute matches with guys like Ricky Steamboat, then showed a ton of charisma with the Hollywood Blondes. It's not like Steve Austin just suddenly appeared and was magically a great wrestler with enormous charisma, and that's the part that WWF's spin of the "Stone Cold" story always short-changes.

Actually, it is kind of is WWE's fault. They're the ones that decided they had to create a monopoly on the business, and then acted surprised when suddenly they had to develop their own talent. I mean you can talk about how good WWF's roster was in 1997-8, but Steve Austin came into WWF with a chip on his shoulder and a proven ability to have great 20 minute matches in front of thousands of people. Ditto for Mick Foley. And WWF was built on taking proven draws elsewhere and sticking them in front of TV cameras: Hogan in AWA, Savage in Memphis, Junkyard Dog from Mid-South, etc. By getting rid of the rest of the industry, WWF created a situation where they had to develop their own talent in-house, and they haven't proven particularly good at it. I mean I don't think it's a coincidence Punk and Bryan have gotten to where they're at while so many WWE-trained guys given the same or better opportunities have fizzled. They came into the company with some ideas of their own as far as how to get themselves over and had a proven will to succeed.

Fact-check time: Hogan was getting booed throughout the 90's, but especially by 95-96, as he had been doing the same shtick for over a decade by this point, give or take a black outfit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tSEyBoUF68 That's the crowd reaction to babyface Hulk Hogan in 1995, months before the NWO angle had begun. So no, Hogan wasn't still "drawing a lot of fans," and the idea that his situation during this period is somehow totally different than Cena's now is just not true. I think the key for a Cena heel turn would have to be that he would have to still be hated by "smart" fans that have hated him for the past 7-10 years. Hogan did that by politicking backstage and not putting people over. I think for Cena the key would be to do the exact same shtick he does now, but have him be a hypocritical egomaniac who never loses, instead of this weirdly boring guy that never loses.

My only gripe with the way the Shield have been portrayed is the commentary repeatedly going out of their way to talk about the "numbers game" and how it's not fair for the Shield to repeatedly win 3 on 3 matches through teamwork. I mean, that's kind of what teams are supposed to do? And nearly every one of their big wins has been against 3 superstars, so I don't know why WWE keeps trying to turn the narrative into "oh it's not fair the Shield is 3 guys" when for the most part, it's been extremely fair.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Jaysin" data-cite="Jaysin" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>It's nuts to think that people care that much about age. Ric Flair won his first NWA World Title when he was <strong>36</strong>. Sting didn't hit his real prime until mid 30s. Hell, DDP was 40 when he blew up. <p> </p><p> People put way too much thought into how old people are.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Flair came up in a different time, but Sting was 31 when he won his first world title (and had been a main eventer for awhile), and DDP was a disastrous failure as world champ (although his age wasn't solely to blame). History tends to bear out that 30-35 is really the sweet spot when it comes to pro wrestlers hitting their peak in terms of skill, popularity, and general relevance. Obviously you can stretch that either way, and guys like Brock or The Rock got there far earlier than most because of their look, but it's tougher to sell a casual fan that a guy in his 40's is the toughest fighter in the promotion, because that's just not reflected much in the real world.</p><p> </p><p> And as mentioned, Edge and Rey are more the victims of the style that was popular as they were coming up than anything else. Looking back, it seems crazy that Edge did all the cruiserweight stuff he did early in his career. It probably got him a job or two, but the bigger you are, the more wear on your joints.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>There is quite a bit of people that think like that though, and is why I consider him to be their number one heel.... Have him lose and most people with that mind set eat it up, as if he is a bad guy. Have him win, and it upsets them. Keep seeing him as if he can do no wrong, is an outstanding citizen, etc. and it all the more upsets people with this mindset of how "bad" Cena is. It's money in the bank, and if I were only thinking of the business end, I would never change it. <p> </p><p> Cena is 36, hitting the back end of his prime. He will hold his place as long as he sticks around. He could do this for another 10 years easily, even longer providing no huge injuries and he stays in shape. He doesn't gas, seems to be able to go far longer then some of the guys 10 years younger then him, and is not showing signs of actually aging. Bringing up his age doesn't really mean much... However, my opinion is that he will probably get more injury prone as time goes on. He's human in the real world, so it's not like he can avoid it. </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> My point was more that there's no reason to name-call a person who may or may not be legit injured because you have an unhealthy hatred of the character he plays on TV.</p>