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

[nucleardonkey]

this here makes you seem like you are just trying to be holier than thou.

 

 

I think a masked Kane is a brilliant idea, in that who knows if its a bad idea. Why do so many wrestling fans approach every possible anything with a sense of negativity? Even's Punk's great storyline in the summer had people saying "this will get screwed up, so lets crap on it now."

 

Wrestling has to be one of the few things that people consistently complain about creative decisions. I see it kind of happening with other things now as well, but no one watches House and says "they're going to ball this up, screw it, they all suck... They should replace Hugh Laurie with a younger actor with more charisma and a more unique look."

 

Take it for what it is. I'm sure it will either work, or not. Dont judge crap now that hasnt even been confirmed as to happening.

 

I pretty much agree with everything said there. I remember a time back before the internet where me and my friends would all sit around on Monday night and actually be excited and talk about how great it was to see Sting take out 20 people with nothing more than a black baseball bat.

 

If that same angle was done these days though everyone would be jumping all over the fact that he just ripped off The Crow. Hell EVERYONE knew where he got the look and character and WCW certainly wasn't hiding that fact but no one cared and it became some of Sting's most beloved work.

 

I'd love to know when and why the switch took place from watching wrestling and enjoying the show to watching wrestling just so you can be miserable and complain about it. Is it because now we all go to sleep on Friday/Saturday nights instead of waiting up until 2AM to catch ECW (or in my case MCW, USA Pro Wrestling, Memphis Classic, NWA Wildside, AND ECW....good times, good times )?

[Fantabulous]

I think a masked Kane is a brilliant idea, in that who knows if its a bad idea. Why do so many wrestling fans approach every possible anything with a sense of negativity? Even's Punk's great storyline in the summer had people saying "this will get screwed up, so lets crap on it now."

 

Except the Punk storyline did get screwed up. At the time, anyone who even hinted at the idea that WWE would screw up the Punk storyline was ragged on for it, and they wound up being right. I know it's a comforting feeling to stick your fingers in your ears when people talk negatively so you can remain in your own little bubble where it's all sunshine and flowers, but history, especially recent history, shows that the people who give WWE the benefit of the doubt are far more likely to be wrong than those who don't and are critical from the beginning. You might find it annoying, and you might cross your arms and fume that they're just being negative, but they're usually right. And they were right with the Punk storyline. It did get bungled. So, swing and miss a there.

 

Also, why go backwards with Kane?

 

So WWE Network launches April 1st in conjunction with WrestleMania. Rumors saying that WrestleMania will be airing for free on the WWE Network and that many PPVs will be airing on the network.

 

Sounds bloody brilliant to me.

 

Any place perpetuating a 'rumour' that Wrestlemania will be airing for free is probably best avoided. The thing isn't even up and running yet.

 

It's a long way off, if it even happens at all, from Wrestlemania being on the WWE Network. Wrestlemania on PPV brings WWE over $20M in revenue every ear, and they light years away from getting even a tenth of that revenue through a WWE Network. Way down the road, probably many years from now, it might be a good move to put Wrestlemania on their network, but right now, it would be bloody stupid.

[lazorbeak]

this here makes you seem like you are just trying to be holier than thou.

 

Yeah how dare he use the performer's name! I agree with what he said though, both that Kane was a solid worker (he's a lot more limited now), and that the mask isn't something that's very interesting from a storytelling standpoint.

 

Smarks are always waxing nostalgic for reunions, comebacks, callbacks to 8 year old storylines, etc.- remember how outraged people were that Christian wasn't immediately inserted into a main event Hardyz/E&C feud 8 years after TLC? But the truth is regressive storytelling is the definition of preaching to the choir- it's saying "hey, remember this? Weren't these the good old days???" It's WCW parading out everyone WWF had under contract in 1988 no matter how many drugs they were on or how little they could do because by golly, people know who they are! It can get a cheap pop out of old fans but it loses its luster if it's anything more than a Kevin Nash royal rumble appearance.

 

There's people around today that don't even remember masked Kane or remember it dimly- people that have followed WWE's product from when they were kids in the mid 2000's to today. If you don't get the nostalgia, you need a story that's compelling enough to work without it, or the act gets old quicker than Hogan's last WWE run.

 

 

Anyway that's why it's perfectly justified to be a little skeptical of bringing back old ideas. It certainly can work, and I'd love it if it meant something new for the character that has been running short on character identity for the past few years, but storytelling should go forward, not backward.

 

As far as the Punk stuff, people in this very forum were very positive about that angle when it started, because it was good. And while it was also similar to an old ROH angle, it was exciting because it wasn't a nostalgia act for that old angle but something exciting that hadn't been done in WWE in years.

[bigtplaystew]

MrCanada, If you've read most of my posts about the WWE, you'll find I'm way more of a fan and a defender of the product than a critic. The stupid video game, ehh... I'm a little critical haha. But I'm generally a defender of the current product and a firm believer in the idea that if I didn't like it I wouldn't watch it. That doesn't mean I have to like EVERYTHING, and can't EVER be critical, does it?

 

I used Glen Jacobs' name. Not because I wanted to be -as you put it- "holier than thou" but because I wanted to make it clear that I enjoy the man's work as a wrestler over his career. He's been an excellent worker at the top level of the game and I have respect for him. I simply wanted it to be clear that I was not saying that I dislike Jacobs' work or his current character. It seems like no matter how clear one tries to be, however, someone generally takes it th wrong way and these kinds of misunderstandings tend to happen.

 

Back on point: I would love to see Kane back on TV. I just don't care for the old "masked Kane" as it reminds me of a cheesier time in the character's history. As Lazorbeak put it (better than I did) it leaves me with the initial impression that the character is taking a step back in a way.

 

That said, when he comes back, I'll be excited and I'll be watching. If it's awesome... I'll be very happy to be wrong.

[OldStingberg]

Wrestling has to be one of the few things that people consistently complain about creative decisions. I see it kind of happening with other things now as well, but no one watches House and says "they're going to ball this up, screw it, they all suck... They should replace Hugh Laurie with a younger actor with more charisma and a more unique look."

 

The comparison between House and Raw is a bit crazy. House, for the most part, has been one of the most well-written, well-acted dramas of the past decade, a drama that's stood head-and-shoulders above hundreds of other shows during that time.

 

Raw has had the wrestling stage to itself for pretty much the past 15 years, so as long as they deliver a product that entertains just enough people, they don't really have to worry about delivering a product that is that much better than their competitors, because they have no real competitors.

 

Of course the quality of House is going to be much higher. In primetime drama land, it's survival of the fittest, and only the fittest survive. That's not the case for wrestling right now, which is one reason why many believe wrestling is so creatively weak at the moment.

 

But even despite the fact that by almost all objective reasoning, House is a better program than Raw, fans of House still bitch about what happens. Sure, they probably bitch less, but that's because shows like House tend to have great actors acting in thought-out and reasonably well-written stories that are planned and shot months in advance as part of a larger, more cohesive picture.

 

I pretty much agree with everything said there. I remember a time back before the internet where me and my friends would all sit around on Monday night and actually be excited and talk about how great it was to see Sting take out 20 people with nothing more than a black baseball bat.

 

I remember a time like that, too.

 

Then me and my friends grew up.

 

I don't mean to say that adults can't be entertained by the WWE today, just that the standards for entertainment are different for 15-year-olds with no responsibility beyond an hour's worth of homework and 30-year-olds with full-time jobs, families, etc. Then add in the fact that there's many, many more options for entertainment on TV now than there were 15 years ago, not even including what's available on the internet, with video games, etc., and it means that the WWE has to step their game up if they want to retain their fans.

 

And they have, to some extent. They've done good work making the characters more interesting and relatable. But they need to improve on their storytelling, and the consistency and cohesiveness of it, if they want more kids to remain fans well into adulthood even when their standards for entertainment go up by necessity.

[bigtplaystew]

But they need to improve on their storytelling, and the consistency and cohesiveness of it, if they want more kids to remain fans well into adulthood even when their standards for entertainment go up by necessity.

 

Couldn't agree with this statement more. I love pro wrestling and WWE in particular for the type of entertainment it brings me. Now I watch more high brow television of course, read books, love film, etc. But for what it is WWE makes me just as happy now as it ever did. I'm not as (not so) mildly obsessed with it like I was in 1997, but as ODB said I am a grown up with grown up things so that would be... well... kind of silly.

 

But If I crticize one thing about the WWE is that they just could so SO much better with storylines. They do a good job now! Believe me! It keeps me entertained. I just feel like greater long-term commitment to characters and rivalries would be incredible. With decent writing, I feel WWE could be bigger than ever because their talent from top to bottom is some of the best it's ever been. I'm not taking anything away from the great legends of the past. I just feel WWE has incredible talent in the mid-to-lower card levels that if used properly would make a much more interesting TV show.

[critical-23]

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/z359/sstwill26/meandCMpunk.jpg

Interesting note: this was early in the morning and Punk asked me "You don't mind if I don't smile do you?" Obviously I said no .

 

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/z359/sstwill26/meandmarkhenry.jpg

 

BTW the CM Punk pic was taken with my crappy phone so don't give me any crap lol

[Jaysin]

lol Mark Henry looks happier than Punk. That's awesome. I've heard good things about Mark Henry's personality.

 

Someone told me WWE is using dubstep in advertisements for WWE Network...ugh, looks like I have another reason to not want to watch WWE programming.

[critical-23]

lol Mark Henry looks happier than Punk. That's awesome. I've heard good things about Mark Henry's personality.

 

Someone told me WWE is using dubstep in advertisements for WWE Network...ugh, looks like I have another reason to not want to watch WWE programming.

 

Yeah, Mark was really cool. Very down-to-earth kind of guy...even talked about the backstage business stuff like I was a wrestler as well lol.

 

I got more pics on the way!

[bigtplaystew]

A couple guys i'm friends with were playing a show opening for a band Punkis friends with (believe me they'r eno big deal. right time right place kinda thing)

 

Anyway, they met Punk and tried to get a picture with him but he was kinda a douche nozzle. Rather awkward and borederline antisocial. He's noted to not really liking people. If you listened to Colt's podcast with him he makes it very clear and says the words, "I hate people."

 

It doesnt affect me because like any artist, I judge the work not the man. But it would pose the question: Why would you hang around backstage at a show with hundreds of people if you don't like... people?

[Linsolv]

Because that's part of the job. You don't get hired at WWE without being willing to make appearances.

[jjohns44]

Lesnar mentioned all through Big Show's promo at Smackdown? His appearance in WWE '12, hmmm perhaps it's nothing, but perhaps it's a sign of something? Who knows....

[Nathers7]

Lesnar mentioned all through Big Show's promo at Smackdown? His appearance in WWE '12, hmmm perhaps it's nothing, but perhaps it's a sign of something? Who knows....

 

Lesnar's the highest paid fighter in thr UFC and is fighting at the end of December in probably one of the most anticipated fights of the year. I would say it's nothing unless they put him in a non-phyisical role.

[critical-23]

A couple guys i'm friends with were playing a show opening for a band Punkis friends with (believe me they'r eno big deal. right time right place kinda thing)

 

Anyway, they met Punk and tried to get a picture with him but he was kinda a douche nozzle. Rather awkward and borederline antisocial. He's noted to not really liking people. If you listened to Colt's podcast with him he makes it very clear and says the words, "I hate people."

 

It doesnt affect me because like any artist, I judge the work not the man. But it would pose the question: Why would you hang around backstage at a show with hundreds of people if you don't like... people?

 

Wow...Punk was the complete opposite of a douche. Very friendly to all the staff (especially the ladies--the guy's a pimp) as were the other superstars. Surprisingly, Cena seemed anti-social...but then again it was 6 in the morning and he was rushing to get his tour bus lol.

 

And another note: I'm pretty much at the right height for the WWE!

[Jaysin]

A couple guys i'm friends with were playing a show opening for a band Punkis friends with (believe me they'r eno big deal. right time right place kinda thing)

 

Anyway, they met Punk and tried to get a picture with him but he was kinda a douche nozzle. Rather awkward and borederline antisocial. He's noted to not really liking people. If you listened to Colt's podcast with him he makes it very clear and says the words, "I hate people."

 

It doesnt affect me because like any artist, I judge the work not the man. But it would pose the question: Why would you hang around backstage at a show with hundreds of people if you don't like... people?

 

I've only heard Punk is less than nice if you're rude and don't show manners. Or, if you try and act like you know the business.

 

Then again, I've seen some REALLY rude fans try and get pictures taken with wrestlers. I don't understand why "please" and "thank you" are so hard. James Storm actually joked about how polite I was when I met him. Which was pretty funny considering my brother and Storm started making fun of me together. So fun.

[Tha Black Phenom]

Except the Punk storyline did get screwed up. At the time, anyone who even hinted at the idea that WWE would screw up the Punk storyline was ragged on for it, and they wound up being right. I know it's a comforting feeling to stick your fingers in your ears when people talk negatively so you can remain in your own little bubble where it's all sunshine and flowers, but history, especially recent history, shows that the people who give WWE the benefit of the doubt are far more likely to be wrong than those who don't and are critical from the beginning. You might find it annoying, and you might cross your arms and fume that they're just being negative, but they're usually right. And they were right with the Punk storyline. It did get bungled. So, swing and miss a there.

 

Even looking back on it, the angle culminated where it should've and looking where Punk is.. where it got bungled must seem arguably facetious now. Then, with Christian playing second fiddle to a top star... "they" were right yet again, I presume? He indeed got shafted big time, eh.

 

 

For the Kane issue, I would've only had a problem with it if Kane was in consistently greener pastures as of recent terms. Aside from last year and a few other moments, there's nothing much to shout about. The thing is, this is Kane's career in a nutshell... re-packaging him every few months with something different to see where that ends up. Only this time, it's gonna be with the mask. I see it as chapter 178 of Kane's rollercoaster of a career. It does feel hollow though because this time it's just "Kane with the mask!" as opposed to their last attempt when there was actually a teasing buildup around it.. only to be swerved into another result.

 

As for Punk, well I'm pretty sure wrestlers every once in a while are gonna have bad days(with the travel they're dealing with..), and they're gonna have days where they just can't crack a smile. I'm sure fan pictures weren't too jovial around the time the Raw roster was stuck overseas a few years back.

[OldStingberg]

Even looking back on it, the angle culminated where it should've and looking where Punk is.. where it got bungled must seem arguably facetious now.

 

What do you mean by this?

[bigtplaystew]

Phantom, I gotta respectfully disagree with you on Kane. Not trying to sound "holier than thou" or anything, I am a legit fan of Glen Jacobs' work. The dude knows how to put on a match and tell a story doing so. In my opinion, this is a quality many wrestlers lack in today's WWE. Their stories have to be told in promos almost exclusively while the matches are reduced to the "five moves of doom".

 

I'm speaking generally of course. I'm not inviting people to bring up examples of when a decent match took place. What I'm saying is that I feel like the Kane character hasn't been given much to work with. And when he WAS, I felt it worked on his end. The Rey Mysterio feud was very good TV. Then The Undertaker got involved talking about the Devil's due and all that nonsense. The Undertaker is another guy who works brilliantly in the ring. But his promos as of the last few years have done absolutely nothing for me.

 

Then they put Kane in some stupid angles that didn't really make sense. But his MitB run two years ago was pretty awesome. When they put the spotlight on him, I personally was happy with the result.

 

Anyway, point is, I don't feel Kane is one repackage after another. Or, in other words, he shouldn't be. The guy's a brilliant worker and in my opinion deserves a good angle and not a crappy re-hash that will most likely be forgotten in a few months.

 

I have a strong feeling he's being built up to be the guy to job to 'Taker at WM28. GOD do I hope I'm wrong.

[jjohns44]

Not sure what to think of Kane remasked. It'll make the fanboys happy who've been crying about Kane being horrid after being unmasked after all these years but once we've seen him unmasked it's a bit hard to go back to it. Still lookin forward to seeing how he'd be with it back on, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. I liked when he was first unmasked, and having done that he was able to fully unleash his wrath. His last run as the MITB winner and champ was great too.

[jjohns44]

Lesnar's the highest paid fighter in thr UFC and is fighting at the end of December in probably one of the most anticipated fights of the year. I would say it's nothing unless they put him in a non-phyisical role.

true, there is that. I usually take mentions like that as open doors for former wrestlers to come back if they ever wanted to. It would be a cold day in hell if they mentioned Benoit in WWE but Eddie gets mentioned(I know they died in two different circumstances, but they still died) and Macho Man you hardly ever heard a mention of him until his death you'd almost forget he was part of the company. They obviously won't come back yes but just to get mentions either dead or alive says 'hey we still miss ya and think about ya, if you ever came to us, we'd let ya in'

[bigtplaystew]

Like I said, if it's awesome... I'll be happy to be wrong. Glad to see another fan of his MitB / Title run though. I'm not saying it was nWo or Austin/McMahon, but it was decent TV and I liked it alot.

[Basmat01]

Just watched John Cena's new movie The Reunion and you know what? it wasnt a bad movie lol

[milamber]

Another good SD. Plenty of matches and they didn't resort to a tag match.

[Tha Black Phenom]

What do you mean by this?

 

That their plan looked like it was gonna round up at SummerSlam.. the supposed second big PPV of the year. The timing was very narrow with Punk leaving at MITB.. they needed a main-event for the PPV and what most people suggested here was a filler main-event in Cena vs. Mysterio. To allow Punk to continue his off-road shenanigans. But instead, when I watched SummerSlam and the promo for Punk/Cena II came up, it all made out to be an actual elaborate angle with time invested into it, a beginning, middle and fitting end.

 

I don't know what the hell they would've showed if they settled for an uninspired face vs. face match-up at a staple PPV. It's not that I think the angle was flawless, if it were up to me I wouldn't have had Del Rio cash in then.. it's just that there were little ways to go around how it actually went, is all. (unless you bring a prop (read: another worker) in the fray)

 

Then they put Kane in some stupid angles that didn't really make sense. But his MitB run two years ago was pretty awesome. When they put the spotlight on him, I personally was happy with the result.

 

Anyway, point is, I don't feel Kane is one repackage after another. Or, in other words, he shouldn't be. The guy's a brilliant worker and in my opinion deserves a good angle and not a crappy re-hash that will most likely be forgotten in a few months.

 

I don't know exactly what you disagreed with me on, unless it was how cheaply I made Kane's career sound. But to note I'm a fan of Kane's workrate as well, he is a solid worker to say the least. Just to me that's what his career comes across as, chapters of re-packaging bursts into relevancy. Full of stupid angles which you mentioned and genuine storylines where he made the best of them. Shouldn't be? Arguably yeah, a guy like him should've been given more to work with, but it's him who put himself in that positon and he's been quite comfortable with it so I won't knock.

[OldStingberg]

That their plan looked like it was gonna round up at SummerSlam.. the supposed second big PPV of the year. The timing was very narrow with Punk leaving at MITB.. they needed a main-event for the PPV and what most people suggested here was a filler main-event in Cena vs. Mysterio. To allow Punk to continue his off-road shenanigans. But instead, when I watched SummerSlam and the promo for Punk/Cena II came up, it all made out to be an actual elaborate angle with time invested into it, a beginning, middle and fitting end.

 

I don't know what the hell they would've showed if they settled for an uninspired face vs. face match-up at a staple PPV. It's not that I think the angle was flawless, if it were up to me I wouldn't have had Del Rio cash in then.. it's just that there were little ways to go around how it actually went, is all. (unless you bring a prop (read: another worker) in the fray)

 

I take massive exception to this. In fact, I think it's one of the major things wrong with the WWE right now: chasing short-term payoff (a SummerSlam main event) at the expense of a properly executed long-term story. Because the WWE did that, they essentially killed the Summer of Punk. And for what? Tens of thousands of buys for SummerSlam? Was that worth it? Of course not. SummerSlam pretty much completely and immediately killed the mainstream interest Punk had managed to generate in the prior two months.

 

And don't even get me started on the idea that Punk getting a comically tainted win over Cena at SummerSlam before being cashed in on by ADR with the help of Nash texting himself, and then Punk and Cena going off in different directions was somehow a proper end to that feud.