lazorbeak

<p>Except it creates outrage, which is good for business? And was Undertaker's choice? And there's a good chance he's going to come out and do an interesting promo tomorrow night? </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> But negativity aside, I thought that was a pretty great show. Wish Bray could've gone over, but a big spotlight for Cesaro, a one-man show for Bryan, and three very good matches makes this my favorite Wrestlemania since pre-Rock return.</p>

Doesn't make much sense to talk about WWE "losing fans" because an old man on a one match a year schedule lost. Wouldn't surprise me if he retired tomorrow on Raw and/or tried to retire, but got roped into "one last match" against Bray or somebody.

So is 80% of the WWE audience, apparently.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I've said numerous times, you could continue this conversation via PM's as I didn't care to reply because your opinion is biased mixed with the fact you already said you agreed that you were treating me as if I was a "pestilence". By definition that's makes you prejudiced against me and also by definition makes you a bigot. You've name called me before, I see it quite hypocritical.<p> </p><p> Anyways, I will not be replying to you for the simple fact that you obviously crave attention, refer to my long post(below) which you've so blatantly refused to quote.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Dude, seriously. I already explained that I'm not going to exchange PMs with somebody that breaks forum rules and then tries to act like "bigot" isn't a hateful name to call someone. <em>I already explained this</em>. That's why I asked you not to do it any more?</p><p> </p><p> And yes, I agreed I treated you "like a pestilence." I definitely <em>wasn't</em> pointing out your tendency towards malapropisms. Or maybe I really did extract a strain of you, then use it to create a vaccine, then use the vaccine to cure millions? I don't remember. It was one or the other.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>How about quoting my entire post where it exposes you for what you are? Also Where are you getting your definition? Keep feeding that ego by replying with your made up definitions. <p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes, I made up the Merriam Webster definition and the accepted context. Again, namecalling is not okay! Please don't do it!</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="masterded" data-cite="masterded" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Here is the article I was talking about.<p> </p><p> <a href="http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/08/miles-teller-on-what-appealed-to-him-about-the-fantastic-four-reboot" rel="external nofollow">http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/08/miles-teller-on-what-appealed-to-him-about-the-fantastic-four-reboot</a></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> "When I read the script, I didn't feel like I was reading this larger-than-life, incredible supehero tale," he explained.</p><p> </p><p> Okay, that sounds dreadful. Maybe it <em>should</em> sound like a larger than life story?</p><p> </p><p> As far as Human Torch goes, I really don't care, but when you start adding it to all this other stuff, alarm bells start ringing. It sounds pretty awful.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><strong>Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.</strong><p> </p><p> <strong>Non-Conformist: a person whose behavior or views do not conform to prevailing ideas or practices.</strong></p><p> </p><p> I use each word in correct sense of the term.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Dude, if you don't understand how calling someone a "bigot" for pointing out your ignorance isn't okay, you've got more serious issues than using the occasional word incorrectly. Hey look:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>=someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's opinion, ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; <em>especially </em>: a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) [emphasis in original]</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It's seriously not a good thing to do. Under the forum rules, it's pretty much just calling people names. You've got a habit of using a word's second cousin outside of its usual context. I didn't put a bell on you and make you live outside the forum, and I never "denigrated" your "comprehension," because to denigrate would imply that I had some unnecessarily critical or disparaging purpose in telling you basic facts like "Wolverine wasn't on the Avengers for decades." I also didn't force you to use the word "predispose" like this:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>at least I don't predispose another to showing he's not an imbecile like some people</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I mean, this is some Shakespearean irony.</p><p> </p><p> Anyway, did I get annoyed when someone who doesn't understand basic distinctions (like mutant/non-mutant) says something like:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Anyways, I won't change my belief and I don't care to argue on a subject, I have little to no regard for obvious reasons.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yes. Because just a few posts after having facts explained to you in several aspects of your original post, you made it clear that you weren't interested in even reading what others had to say. And then one post later you called me a bigot. It's almost ironic.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You could always PM me if you want to continue this argument, since this has very little to do with movies in general, but every time you ignore this comment, it becomes painfully obvious your just trying to feed your ego hoping that people will take your side in an argument that I've not once said you were wrong in.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'd rather not, since you called me a bigot? Like, more than once? That's not a good thing to do!</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="masterded" data-cite="masterded" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I have little to no hope for FF. One of the actors recently talked about how it will be more grounded and they won't be wearing cheesy Halloween costumes. My instant reaction to his quote was that he was directly insulting comic book fans and how dumb can the studio be if that is true. I mean The Avengers and the other stand alone films shows that what we want isn't grounded comic book films without the costume we know and love. We want comic book films that look like comic books.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Oof, I hope that's just an actor talking. If there's one movie franchise I don't associate with Frank Miller-style "realism," it's the Fantastic Four. My biggest issue with those other FF movies (beyond the casting), is that they never do anything. I'd rather have a fun, action-heavy film with some character development than the Thing moping for an hour and nothing happening. I get that the Avengers can kind of cheat because all the character introduction stuff was already done, but I feel like even if you didn't see those other movies, you can pretty easily "get" who's who. </p><p> </p><p> I would vastly prefer the Fantastic Four just exploring the Negative Zone and fighting a weird bug alien in a robot suit for 2 hours over some "realistic" take on the characters.</p>

That would be one potential positive of a reboot, at least- hopefully they wouldn't short-change Cyclops so completely if they did it all over again.

It was probably just lowered expectations, but I was surprised how much I actually enjoyed "The Wolverine." I was worried it would only be dull, instead of hilariously bad a la Origins, but it was pretty decent, and even good for the first half (the second half is pretty standard stuff). It's still hard for me to manufacture any enthusiasm for even more X-Men movies, though. I think the franchise has pretty well run its course. It's been 14 years. Although if they did re-start it, they'd probably feel the need to do another origin story, because lord knows comic book movies don't have enough of those.

<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>You have historical knowledge of both that I don't think delv213 could possibly catch up on. His opinion to me seems more modern then the one you have (as an example). I can see both points.<p> </p><p> When Marvel first started hitting it big, they had characters that had real problems (Spider-Man having trouble paying the bills, Tony Stark and alcoholism, etc.). Although not necessarily unheard of before then, most definitely never explored to the depth Marvel did with it. Spider-Man and other characters exploded with popularity, and DC had to "Marvelize" their characters to keep up with the times. Kind of a farewell golden age, hello Silver age... And DC ended up throwing all their Golden Age (Justice Society) into Earth 2 (which Barry Allen discovered, and it's weird to call the first heroes, heroes of Earth 2, and the Silver age (pretty much the same characters now) as the Earth 1 characters. There were other earths as well, where their kids took over their roles and stuff like that... However, far as that goes, Marvel did the same thing. Earth 616 is what most of us grew up with (Mainstream), </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Right, that's been my point. It's not really personal preference, because Marvel's style just became DC's style. They've been more or less the same since. I don't agree that it's easy to discredit either side, because the point I've been making is that DC self-consciously adopted Marvel's style completely. You can have favorites, and point out the silly parts of either company, but I don't really agree that there's room for debate that a company with a much stronger golden age presence that bought up Captain Marvel and other comics has a simpler to follow continuity unless, as you said, you're just ignoring everything and focusing on things since the last reboot (which is still super confusing- who is Tim Drake in the new continuity? Not Robin), which I wasn't.</p><p> </p><p> And you're right, my opinion is more educated than delv's.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Oh, so you're a bigot now? Hilarious, and yes it is all <em>personal predilection</em>. I was actually uninformed when it came to different studios owning the rights to Marvel's movies, I naturally assumed they'd all be under the Disney/Marvel Studios since you know DC/Time Warner owns all the rights to their own characters, I would've assumed Disney would've never passed on making their own Spider-Man/X-Men movies since those franchises make good money. Secondly, I wasn't aware these deals were made before Disney's purchase of Marvel's intellectual properties. My mistake, at least I don't predispose another to showing he's not an imbecile like some people. Thirdly, it's not out of the rheum of possibility that a Wolverine or Spider-Man could be added to The Avengers movie franchise. <strong><span style="text-decoration:underline;">Anything is possible in movies, since it's not actually real</span></strong>! Jaysin alluded to that and I acknowledged this point immediately, and knowing that he was correct in the most sense of the word, I reluctantly agreed, and moved on. Yet you must further the argument by being presumptuous and for what? I've yet to understand why so many board members must pick on the nonconformists in the world? I said specifically my opinion and all opinions have biases to them, that's what makes them all <em>personal predilection</em> or an opinion in dumb down terms.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Don't use a term like "bigot" because they don't agree with you on a message board and explain their difference of opinion. I'm glad you "reluctantly" agreed with someone when they pointed out you were completely wrong about something? I already explained my issue with your attitude, and it has nothing to do with "non-conformity" or your tendency to use words incorrectly. I already explained it: it's that you decided you were only grudgingly going to listen to anything from people who know more about a subject than you.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Anyways, you tend to skip my points because of your pompous, self absorbed nature of always being right? Did me standing up for myself bother you that much that you had to ridicule the big words I used? You're not writing stuff to a child good sir! Every person is entitled to an opinion, apparently you neglect that and continue and try to make me feel inconsequential. All because my opinion is to you, and I quote "baffling".</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Where did I "ridicule" your big words? And more name-calling. I already explained my issue. Your opinion <em>is</em> baffling, and I explained why: it's because your opinion is based on willful ignorance. That is, you don't know much about the subject, and you don't want to hear more about it. It's frustrating when people don't even try to learn about something they have an opinion on and yet don't understand. </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I've said numerous times I don't care/want to debate you for obvious reasons quoted above in bold. It's all <em>personal predilection</em>, like I said when giving you a link to a forum that had the same debate. Superhumans and Mutants have too many similarities, yet they live in the same world and one is discriminated and the other is praised, why wouldn't the similarities lead to similar prejudice and lead to both groups fighting in every single war when their very well being was on the line? Don't the humans consider anyone with superpowers to be Mutants? Did you even look at the link I sent you, or were you too busy trying to make me out to be some sort of pestilence because I said some big words?</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I looked at the poll. I saw the whopping 17 people who voted on some poll, most of which didn't support your argument, on a mostly unrelated subject. I thought I was just being nice by not picking apart how little it had to do with anything anyone had brought up. But all the specifics of your mutant/everyone else confusion has already been explained to you, so it's not worth re-iterating. And yes, I think the record will show I treated you exactly like a pestilence.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I have nothing against you at all, in-fact, I'll likely forget who I even argued with about this tomorrow when I wake up. <strong>I just don't like it when someone tries to turn something personal for no reason</strong>. Anyways, I hope we can let this small argument over personal biases go and just admit that we both took it too far and discuss movies, specifically X-Men.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Then don't call people bigots when they explain why your opinion doesn't make sense. And yes, you're entitled to have your opinion. Just like I'm entitled to explain why that opinion doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's not a xbox/playstation "everyone can think what they want," situation. It's "xbox was a confusing disaster, so they made a ps3 but painted it white" situation. You'd still be allowed to say xbox is better, but don't you think people would tell you why that's an uninformed opinion?</p><p> </p><p> Again, since my first post I've been trying to explain this point, and it just didn't sink in:</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>This is a bit too off-topic for WWE to go too in-deth, but whaaaaaa? DC's continuity is/was a confusing mess that has necessitated multiple reboots in an effort to make DC more of a shared universe, that is, making them more like Marvel. I just don't know where to even begin.</div></blockquote>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><a href="http://www.thecomicboard.com/forum/showthread.php?12812-Do-the-X-Men-fit-in-well-with-the-Marvel-Universe" rel="external nofollow">http://www.thecomicboard.com/forum/showthread.php?12812-Do-the-X-Men-fit-in-well-with-the-Marvel-Universe</a><p> </p><p> ^ Just read that, it's not an unpopular opinion. Like I said numerous times, it's my opinion that the Marvel Universe was always very hard to follow when accounting the X-Men specifically. Anyways, I won't change my belief and I don't care to argue on a subject, I have little to no regard for obvious reasons. I enjoy the X-Men, I just find it rather bemusing regardless when accounting for their "shared universe". Your opinion is rather biased towards defending Marvel, which I don't have a problem with except your trying to denigrate my comprehension. It's all personal predilection.</p><p> </p><p> It's the old X-Box vs PS2/N64 vs Sega argument we all enjoyed as children!</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Is the "obvious" reason that you don't have an educated opinion on the subject? I don't mean to be "denigrating" your "bemusement," but you've made it painfully obvious you don't really know anything about the subject at hand, and don't really <em>want</em> to hear about it. Yes, I'm biased towards Marvel, but all those things I said were facts. You're talking about "plot holes" indiscriminately and Wolverine somehow making the Avengers mutants, and movie characters intertwining regardless of legal rights, and everybody on this forum has been pretty patient about it.</p><p> </p><p> Long story short, I have no problem with you having an opinion, but as I pointed out in my first post, that opinion is extremely baffling, for reasons that have already been explained to you. It's not a personal preference; DC continuity is exactly like Marvel's, except more confusing, especially when dealing with older, no longer current continuity. It's exactly like Marvel's because DC consciously decided to copy Marvel's style of continuity.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know Marvel introduced parallel universes to try and cover for their numerous plot holes, but still it's hard to follow.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>As for the Wolverine part, I always assumed Wolverine was part of the Avengers for a longer time because of his introduction through Hulk comics? My mistake, I was always clueless to these cross promoting schemes that Stan Lee came up with. Spider-Man was apart of the Avengers in the 90's though apparently, and Beast of all people was apart of the Avengers in the 1970's, which I find rather amusing. Anyways I don't want to discuss the small inacuracies of things that have little to no continuity. Since each team is usually apart of their own parallel universe.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Spider-Man was only a reserve member, he was always too busy to commit to the team. Beast joined the Avengers in the 70's when the X-Men book had been canceled, before it was re-started with the new team (Storm, Colossus, Nightcrawler and Wolverine). It's really not that complicated. And the whole idea is it's a <em>shared</em> universe.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Regardless, I still find DC rather better when it comes to continuity all jokes aside. Just a preference.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Again, DC had to completely start over and consciously copied what Marvel was doing.</p>

<p>Following Jaysin from the WWE thread:</p><p> </p><p> I get what you're talking about and you make a bit more sense, but this is still pretty baffling to me.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Wolverine and Spiderman have been apart of the comic book's adaptation of The Avengers for decades. Same with The Thing. Each movie has been a direct adaptation of a comic book story meaning that they could all intertwine with each other in the near future if and since they were comic book story adaptations.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> For almost <em>one</em> decade. Bendis added the two in New Avengers in late 2004. Thing joined a reboot of the team years later. And Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are special cases, no, no other character could "intertwine" if the character's film rights are already held by a studio. Not without paying way more than pretty much any one character is worth. I mean, Spider-Man's nice, but would Avengers 2 make an extra 500 million because Spidey showed up? Because Universal would probably want a number that crazy.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25823" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>^Really? I always found the fact that The X-Men being mutants and having Wolverine join the Avengers absolute a cluster of you know what. Doesn't that make them all Mutants as well? That opens a whole can of worms that hurts my brain. For one, why weren't they fighting with the X-Men during their many wars with humans when they tried to kill off all the Mutants in the world? I at least found that Batman really didn't exceed his boundaries of going outside Gotham for the most part while the other superheros did the same for their respective territories/areas/cities. Superman was really the only guy to go from city to city protecting the World from everything, and that was because he was in my opinion, the greatest Superhero ever created. He was also like the first superhero to meet other respective superheros and that was because he was the guy saving earth from everything. While in Marvel everyone protected the earth from destruction once or twice, you'd think they'd meet once or twice doing what they were doing.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> No, it doesn't make them "all" mutants? Why would it? The Avengers have basically always been pro mutant, with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch being early members, but they're a super hero team, not a political action group. They don't go around fighting the X-Men's battles for them. Everybody just lived in the same shared universe and did their own thing, they weren't constantly running into each other until recently.</p><p> </p><p> And Batman has been part of the Justice League since forever, and regularly shows up on their floating spaceship headquarters when he's not beating up evil clowns. </p><p> </p><p> And again, DC continuity is/was a super confusing mess. Basically they had multiple parallel earths to explain why Batman was a retired old man who fought crime in the 40's in some stories, and a 30 year old crimefighter in his regular Batman books- they were set on different planets. Long story short, they completely relaunched everything in the 80's to make things more like Marvel (only one planet), then did it again a few years ago to reset everything for new readers.</p>

Edit: followed Jaysin's lead and moved my post to here: <a href="http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1973433&postcount=285" rel="external nofollow">http://www.greydogsoftware.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1973433&postcount=285</a>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Personally, I don't find Cyborg quite complex either but it would go in perfect with DC trying to capitalize off of the success of Marvel's The Avengers by obliterating it with a much more popular(In my opinion) comic book adaptation in The Justice League. <strong>I always found Marvel's Universe(X-Men living in the same universe as The Avengers/Spider-Man/Fantastic 4) to be too scrambled and incoherent with too many plot-holes compared to DC's which actually intertwined perfectly</strong>. Although, I'll admit I loved X-Men growing up and am a fan of it's movies currently as well.<p> </p><p> I still expect Spider-Man to eventually join up with the Avengers in the upcoming sequel, then Wolverine and possibly The Thing.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This is a bit too off-topic for WWE to go too in-deth, but whaaaaaa? DC's continuity is/was a confusing mess that has necessitated multiple reboots in an effort to make DC more of a shared universe, that is, making them more like Marvel. I just don't know where to even begin.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="delv213" data-cite="delv213" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Answer this, how many people really watch TNA? Is that number really similar to how many people watched WCW 2000 compared to the WWF at the time? Hogan was not a draw in 2000 at all, he was also considered washed up and buyrates/tv ratings for his headlined events post 1999 agreed with that statement.<p> </p><p> Fast forward two years and suddenly he's getting cheered over The Rock who's suddenly getting booed. The Rock vs Hogan really had no backstory, unless you consider Hogan laughing that his son's favorite wrestler was The Rock lol.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Let me stop you right there. The difference, the huge, monumental difference, is that WCW fans gave up on Hogan. WWF fans that hadn't seen the guy in 8 years were excited to see Hogan come <em>back</em>. Hogan was the undisputed biggest star in WWF for years, and then came back after being away for years. Sting, on the other hand, never worked in WWF, and the thousands of fans that gave up on Nitro <em>fifteen years ago</em> aren't coming back to support Sting in a meaningful way.</p><p> </p><p> So, between it being nearly double the length of time, and a returning hero vs. a new face, the situations are really not the same at all.</p><p> </p><p> The more I think about it, the more I like panelist Sting talking about the Monday Night War. If you really want, you can have Miz or some heel run him down and then have them wrestle at Summerslam or whatever. But Undertaker? Come on now.</p>

<p>I'm not sure there's any "top stars" that Sting would really deserve to go over. Brock's part time and saved for top level stuff, Batista's got his movie to promote, HHH would never willingly put over Sting... who does that leave? Jericho? Big Show? Ric Flair's ghost? I just don't see it happening. I'm sure if he really wanted to he could've worked something out circa 2005, but neither side would get much out of a 2014 Sting run other than putting out some dvds. </p><p> </p><p> Heck, WWE should sign him just to promote dvds and be on a panel for some kind of Monday Night War show that the network promised but hasn't given us yet.</p>

Yeah I mean it's at least in part because they did permanent damage to the business and killed their only competition, but that 2002 roster might be the all-time greatest in the history of wrestling, top to bottom. From having a feeder system giving them future top guys (Lesnar, Orton, Cena, and Batista all debut), to a midcard full of guys that are incredibly talented, to a still-in-their-prime group of main eventers, to bringing Hogan, Flair and Michaels back, it's probably got even mid-80's "raid everything" WWF rosters beat in terms of having all the wrestling talent in the world in one company.

In other news, WWE just showed John Cena's first ever appearance on a 2002 Smackdown. He has a good, 50/50 match with Kurt Angle, and then backstage, Undertaker gives him a handshake and has a "good job, kid," moment. I think WWE sees something in this kid. Also on the episode, D-Von Dudley is a Reverend now and he's got a new manager.

Yeah this conversation is disgusting and let's not have it.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="michgcs" data-cite="michgcs" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If I'm not mistaken, it was rumored to take place at Summerslam, but never did.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Since it was post-Authority being anti-Bryan, I'm pretty sure it was after Summerslam. It seemed like they were building to some kind of 4 vs. 4 or 5 vs. 5 match, but again, he disappeared two weeks after Summerslam and only returned to beat Ryback again in November.</p>

As I recall, right when the Authority took the belt off Bryan and put it onto Orton, it seemed like they were setting it up so that Henry and Big Show would wrestle the Shield at the next PPV, but I think he managed to hurt himself and missed a few months before they could get the program off the ground. I agree though, it's a shame that they can't find something for the guy to do, as entertaining as he's been since the "House of Pain" stuff. They've got a million hours of programming a week on the network now, they need to dedicate 3-5 minutes for a Mark Henry squash until he's seen as a threat again, after two months of Brock Lesnar killing him and the Real Americans spinning him.

Yeah it was definitely more a gimmick issue than a workrate issue. I mean Bray Wyatt's a good enough gimmick and is physically different enough that he doesn't get too much in the way of "Husky Harris" chants (and he was only around for a few months, anyway). But Albert/A-Train was around for years, and then they brought him back with a pretty stupid gimmick and him to get over immediately. And then, when he didn't get over initially, they buried the gimmick for months before he joined up with Brodus. He probably still could've been salvageable but they saw those early reactions and quickly pulled the plug.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="bigtplaystew" data-cite="bigtplaystew" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>85% is probably a bit over an over statement lol. You are right about that haha. I just think he's on a very short list of people who get their own promo time allotted per show. And he has been on TV since EC. He's been on most of the Raws in fact I think he just missed the Chicago one. And he's been on a bunch of smackdowns for the past 8 weeks or so too. This is what I'm saying when I think he's used more frequently than some people think. Because there's lots of guys who don't get booked on shows. He's out there on a giant podium cutting killer promos on TV every week.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I mean you technically might be right, JTG, Ryder, Evan Bourne, and who knows how many more guys are technically on the roster but never appear on TV.</p>