The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[FINisher]

Finally..

 

I get chills running down my spine when watching wrestling.

[ampulator]

REALLY? You don't notice how much grief the mainstream media heaps on thse performers who show up on Raw? Especially during that run of guest hosts?

Yeah, but I think it's an odd double standard. If you are a mainstream star, going to a promote a product on a wrestling show is "beneath" you. But if you are wrestling star trying to make it mainstream, no one really minds (or the more common case, cares).

[PeterHilton]

Yeah, but I think it's an odd double standard. If you are a mainstream star, going to a promote a product on a wrestling show is "beneath" you. But if you are wrestling star trying to make it mainstream, no one really minds (or the more common case, cares).

 

I guess that's true...but I still think Rocky would not have gotten his run of family movies and comedies if he hadn'te work to show done some people he was serious about being an actor. And part of that was staying away from his wrestling past.

[Eisen-verse]

REALLY? You don't notice how much grief the mainstream media heaps on thse performers who show up on Raw? Especially during that run of guest hosts?

 

I've found this funny as well. I mean, the WWE pulls in pretty good ratings, sells out arenas across the country, and is about to put on a spectacle that will draw some 75,000 people and YET the mainstream media still treats it in a back-handed fashion. Sure, it may be MORE mainstream than it has in the past but there is still that stigma I feel.

 

Honestly, I felt when the WWE changed their product to 'sports entertainment', instead of pretending to be a sport, should have been enough to strip away the naysayers. Now, they were no longer trying to seem as a legit form of combat but rather admitting their theatrical ways in a tongue and cheek fashion.

 

Just seems odd.

[PeterHilton]

Just seems odd.

 

I've always watched wrestling with non-fans so to me it doesn't seem as odd.

 

My wife, for instance, hates it because 'it's fake.'

 

But when I try to argue by saying 'well so are tv shows or action movies' she reponds by saying 'well at least those are well acted.'

 

[ampulator]

But when I try to argue by saying 'well so are tv shows or action movies' she reponds by saying 'well at least those are well acted.'

 

... Burn. But in any case, I don't think it's a stigma like it was before.

[Eisen-verse]

My wife, for instance, hates it because 'it's fake.'

 

But when I try to argue by saying 'well so are tv shows or action movies' she reponds by saying 'well at least those are well acted.'

 

 

Ha. That's awesome.

 

My wife, actually, enjoys watching wrestling. I mean, not to a smark level but she gets excited when John Cena comes up (yep, that's a deal breaker. ha jk).

 

That said, I always combat such a thing by saying "yea the punches are fake but how do you fake falling smack on you back; being thrown down by a 300 pound muscle man?". Honestly, the cat is out of the bag and has been for quite some time now; however, there are certainly elements that cannot be faked. Plus, unlike in those action movies, a pro wrestler has an insane range of things he needs to be good at....

 

1) Acting

2) Unique mannerisms to brand himself.

3) Athleticism (to an extent; if your a big guy then you're just a big guy)

4) Conveying a look

5) Working a match; making it look believable.

 

In this case, it's all done live. ha. For that matter, thats what I always come back too. Now, I'm not as big of a wrestling fan as I use to, and don't really watch much in general, but I still find that inner wrestling enthusiast come out when the old 'this is fake; it's stupid' mentality comes up from outsiders.

[PeterHilton]

... Burn. But in any case, I don't think it's a stigma like it was before.

 

Probably not. But if it isn't, then one of the reasons it isn't is BECAUSE of Rock's success. And he made sure to let people know he was not coming in as his character, 'The Rock.'

 

Before him, the only leading man comparison is Hulk Hogan, and his movie career was almost a complete bust. Hogan did everything he could in his movies to remind you of his character and where did that get him? A string of really awful movies who's total revenue combined probably doesn't equal The Rock's biggest hit.

 

Hogan made sure you knew he was playing Hogan and he failed. Rocky didn't and he became a mainstream success.

 

Good for him. And again..if the stigma is less it's a direct result of The Rock.

[PeterHilton]

1) Acting

2) Unique mannerisms to brand himself.

3) Athleticism (to an extent; if your a big guy then you're just a big guy)

4) Conveying a look

5) Working a match; making it look believable.

 

 

I've actually brought that up and she says -again- "well ok but a lot of those people we watch aren't good at those things."

 

Which is true.

 

She was thrown back by how much better The Rock was 'at talking' then everyone else we'd seen up to that point on Raw last night.

 

"Why don't they ust hire actors then?"

 

It's almost like she could have worked for the WWE.

[Eisen-verse]

I've actually brought that up and she says -again- "well ok but a lot of those people we watch aren't good at those things."

 

Which is true.

 

She was thrown back by how much better The Rock was 'at talking' then everyone else we'd seen up to that point on Raw last night.

 

"Why don't they ust hire actors then?"

 

It's almost like she could have worked for the WWE.

 

haha. That's awesome. I mean, she's entirely true that The Rock has an uncanny ability to relay a promo. The industry has become quite formulaic in their creation of promos these days; so, it was great to see someone who actually had a great persona to his own.

 

99% of that is the Rock's natural ability (something that is one of a kind really)

but I also wonder if 1% of that is because, from last I heard, the WWE was writing out each promo verbatim. While I know what they're trying to do, have a hold on all creative decisions, the inability for wrestlers to think/act on the fly has pigeon-held their product from some unique tones. I mean, can you imagine Austin reading from a script? Rock? HBK back in the 90's? Hell, Even Kevin Nash was a great promo guy when given free-range.

 

Just a thought.

 

Sorry for dragging the topic away though...

 

Yay Rock!!

[juggaloninjalee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grZ4GxmmQ8I

 

Yup wrestling is fake. This stuff happens in movies all the time.

[Hive]

In this case, it's all done live. ha. For that matter, thats what I always come back too. Now, I'm not as big of a wrestling fan as I use to, and don't really watch much in general, but I still find that inner wrestling enthusiast come out when the old 'this is fake; it's stupid' mentality comes up from outsiders.

 

The fact that wrestling is 'fake' (though I don't really like that wording) is actually something that appeals to me. Why some people enjoy watching boxing or UFC or whatever more than wrestling because the fighters are trying to hurt each other legitimately is beyond me. I'm not entertained more because people start bleeding or get legitimately hurt or injured, the fact that wrestlers try to keep each other relatively safe while performing is a plus to me. As long as they make an effort to have it look real, of course. I don't want to see too much stuff like David Taylor throwing himself to the ground 5 seconds before a latter would have hit him...

[PeterHilton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grZ4GxmmQ8I

 

Yup wrestling is fake. This stuff happens in movies all the time.

 

OK..one...wrestling IS fake in the sense that the results are pre-determined.

 

And two: no one says that it doesn't require athleticism or it isn't dangerous. To non-fans, they just don't see or appreciate the skill it takes to put on a convincing match or perform a character that connects with the audience.

 

Lastly, that kind of stuff actually does happen in movies. Check out any 'Ong Bok' movies and you'll see stunts wrestlers wouldn't even think of trying

[PeterHilton]

99% of that is the Rock's natural ability (something that is one of a kind really)

but I also wonder if 1% of that is because, from last I heard, the WWE was writing out each promo verbatim. While I know what they're trying to do, have a hold on all creative decisions, the inability for wrestlers to think/act on the fly has pigeon-held their product from some unique tones. I mean, can you imagine Austin reading from a script? Rock? HBK back in the 90's? Hell, Even Kevin Nash was a great promo guy when given free-range.

 

 

This goes back to the WWE's desperate attempt to make the industry more formualic and predictable and therefore manageable.

 

Instead f letting wrestlers play 'bigger versins of themselves' they hire writers to create characters that focus groups and market studies say *should* get over.

 

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[juggaloninjalee]

OK..one...wrestling IS fake in the sense that the results are pre-determined.

 

And two: no one says that it doesn't require athleticism or it isn't dangerous. To non-fans, they just don't see or appreciate the skill it takes to put on a convincing match or perform a character that connects with the audience.

 

Lastly, that kind of stuff actually does happen in movies. Check out any 'Ong Bok' movies and you'll see stunts wrestlers wouldn't even think of trying

 

Every time I show a video like this to people who say it is fake they change their tune. Most people who say it is fake and stupid in my experience don't realize that these guys are getting hurt and sometimes really severely.

[PeterHilton]

Every time I show a video like this to people who say it is fake they change their tune. Most people who say it is fake and stupid in my experience don't realize that these guys are getting hurt and sometimes really severely.

 

Meh. In my experience people get that part of it. They just don't see the entertainment in watching a pre-determined fight.

 

EDIT: I mean..it's not like I watch wrestling because "oh look how tough they are, they might get hurt" I watch (when I watch, to be exact)it's because it's a good show.

[Eisen-verse]

Outside of the Rock coming back, does anyone know if we are for sure getting a Career vs. Streak match with HHH and Taker at WM? I've read this one wrestlezone; however, didn't know if anyone has heard the grumbling of it being true.

 

If so, I guess we'll see the retirement of DX within a years time of the other.

 

Not all that surprising though; as Paul looks to cement himself as more of an authoritative figure behind the scenes. That said, I don't know if this would be the best way for him to leave? I mean, if he's really going to be a major part of the WWE going forward, don't you think he'll wrestle occasionally in the WWE's distant future?

[PeterHilton]

Outside of the Rock coming back, does anyone know if we are for sure getting a Career vs. Streak match with HHH and Taker at WM? I've read this one wrestlezone; however, didn't know if anyone has heard the grumbling of it being true.

 

 

Just rag-sheet rumours.

[Eisen-verse]

Just rag-sheet rumours.

 

Okay, good to know. Thanks Peter!

[SaySo]

I do not think it is going to happen Eisen.

 

Both Taker and HHH have unfinished business.

 

Taker @ Nexus and Kane from the Buried Alive match.

 

HHH @ Sheamus for effectively ruining to say his last words to HBK last night after WM 26 and taking him out of action for 9 months or more.

 

I see Taker getting brought back by another dark figure who's entering his yard. He will help against the CoRRe and Kane which should end at WrestleMania.

 

If HHH comes back, he has to go after Sheamus. After all, Sheamus is a King and HHH is the King of Kings.

[The Final Countdown]

Not all that surprising though; as Paul looks to cement himself as more of an authoritative figure behind the scenes. That said, I don't know if this would be the best way for him to leave? I mean, if he's really going to be a major part of the WWE going forward, don't you think he'll wrestle occasionally in the WWE's distant future?

Aside from that, I'd think that if he were going to stop wrestling altogether after Mania, he'd want to take that time to get a younger guy over. Considering his unique position as one of the people who will be running the company some day, it would only be to his benefit to go out by putting over a guy like Ziggler or Barrett. That's my two cents, at least.

[Fantabulous]

Just rag-sheet rumours.

I would think we'll find out what Undertaker is doing at Wrestlemania when he returns. Have they done much with The Corre on SD to make them look strong ahead of Wade's planned for match with Undertaker?

[Tha Black Phenom]

Triple H said he's gonna become a "special attraction" superstar, so I'm guessing sort of Taker's schedule. It's how I'd expected him to go out really, with his connections to backstage power and all. As said, I really doubt that Career vs. Streak match will happen. Maybe just a HHH/Taker match, but not with that silly two-years-in-a-row stipulation.

[Fantabulous]

Maybe just a HHH/Taker match, but not with that silly two-years-in-a-row stipulation.

 

The positive in going back to the stipulation again is that they fans have been educated into believing in it because when Shawn lost last year, he really did go home and not wrestle again. I can somewhat agree with the argument against in going right back to the stipulation again so soon, but at the same time, I think WWE have done a great job in getting it over to where people can believe in it. Which is quite remarkable considering wrestling's history over the past 20-years or so in destroying the credibility of stipulations. I can definitely see WWE looking at the planned/proposed card for Wrestlemania and not thinking it lives up to the name and wanting a match that does. And if any match is a Wrestlemania match, it's The Undertaker vs. Triple H with the Steak against the Career.

[denzil85]

The positive in going back to the stipulation again is that they fans have been educated into believing in it because when Shawn lost last year, he really did go home and not wrestle again. I can somewhat agree with the argument against in going right back to the stipulation again so soon, but at the same time, I think WWE have done a great job in getting it over to where people can believe in it. Which is quite remarkable considering wrestling's history over the past 20-years or so in destroying the credibility of stipulations. I can definitely see WWE looking at the planned/proposed card for Wrestlemania and not thinking it lives up to the name and wanting a match that does. And if any match is a Wrestlemania match, it's The Undertaker vs. Triple H with the Steak against the Career.

 

How many times did/has (is he still active or not?!) Terry Funk retired? And he lost more than a few retirement matches!