|
|
Post by Icon Lord Sean "Magic" Fiery on Apr 18, 2011 22:28:03 GMT -6
Goldust will never be the same again  |
|
|
|
Post by Icon Lord Sean "Magic" Fiery on Apr 18, 2011 23:36:15 GMT -6
Semi-Raw spoiler? They ruined a good, potential heel turn for Morrison that he actually needs right now. R-Truth may need one, but Morrison needs one more.'
I guess the benefit of this is that R-Truth is finally being given some sort of depth. His face character was torturing. And as a smoker myself, I liked that they pushed R-Truth as a smoker ON-AIR no less. And the England crowd screaming "That's illegal!!!" Ahhhh... I'm suddenly reminded of Raide. Except Raide is far greater than Truth...
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Booker on Apr 19, 2011 8:23:43 GMT -6
Truth's turn definitely is a good thing...I for one am definitely interested in where they go with him...even though he'll just end up bein' a sacrificial lamb for JoMo for the next few months...
Tate
|
|
|
|
Post by Rico on Apr 19, 2011 12:04:40 GMT -6
I hope not, I hope they push both of them because they are in desperate need of new stars. I'm tired of Orton/Cena/Triple H being in the hunt for the Championship
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Booker on Apr 19, 2011 12:24:25 GMT -6
so Rico you equate new stars as those in the hunt for the title...I think WWE has been good at makin' stars over the last few years...as to me stars are makin' guys into household names...
Tate
|
|
|
|
Post by Rico on Apr 19, 2011 20:41:33 GMT -6
are either of them household names, i think not. Other than the Miz, they haven't really created any new household names in a few years. Men like Kofi, is seemingly being demoted, Wade Barrent, has went from demolishing main event players to getting a 3 minute match at Mania, along with Kofi. Daniel Bryan and Sheamus had their match moved to the Dark Match only for it to be turned into a Battle Royal, to make way for talentless pieces of shit like Snookie and Michael Cole, but yet they are always harping that "they need to make new stars" well hell how can they when they aren't even trying to, and then when their major players like Edge, has to suddenly retire, and they are scrambling trying to find a replacement, and have to move someone from Raw to SD in a hurry just shows the bad booking, which IMO stems from having no competition....
Thanks Hogan/Hall/Nash/Bischoff for ruining WcW and now TNA lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Icon Lord Leon Corbin on Apr 19, 2011 21:27:15 GMT -6
Let's not forget that WWE stars do not equate to being wrestlers anymore. For the sake of entertainment, Cole is a star as much as the next entertainer...An entertainer will be anyone who can garner heat and keep people watching the product now, wrestling able or not...In all honesty, it's always been that way to some degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Cairns on Apr 20, 2011 7:09:27 GMT -6
I don't think WWE have created any household names in recent years either. I'd define a 'household name' by the following factors:
- Does my Mum know them?
- Do friends who don't know a thing about wrestling know them?
- Does/did ex-girlfriend who hated wrestling know them?
So Randy Orton isn't a household name in that regard, on this side of the world anyway. Cena is also a no.
Hulk Hogan - household name.
The Rock - household name.
Stone Cold Steve Austin - household name.
People are familiar with the fact that there is a wrestler who 'acts like an undertaker or something.' And Bret Hart got some big fame in the mid-nineties, guesting on The Simpsons etc.
But that's about it as far as true household names go. Someone like John Cena can't touch David Beckham, worldwide. I wouldn't even consider Ric Flair a household name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icon Lord Leon Corbin on Apr 20, 2011 7:59:06 GMT -6
This could be another reason why they are branching out into different areas of exposure. Look what it did for the Rock to go and do movies, talented or not. Just a shame the WWE action soap stars  are are all a bit bland can only do the basic kind of movie characters and plots. Even back when I was a bigger wrestling fan, never did I want to rush out and see a movie a wrestler happened to be in. It's just bog standard shite really. Not one film has been something fresh and innovative. Crap.
I have to agree about the Beckham comparison. None of them will ever match the man as a household name. Or the money they will make for that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Booker on Apr 20, 2011 8:57:43 GMT -6
but your household comparison pretty much equates to a palatial mansion (the entertainment world) versus the three story house (the wrestlin' world)...in that context of course there are very little wrestlers that are a household name in the entertainment world...that person is a very rare find indeed...besides Hogan and Rock there aren't any in my opinion (I would argue that Stone Cold ISN'T a household name in the entertainment world)...now if we're simply talkin' household name in the wrestlin' world I must say that WWE has indeed created superstars that will/can sustain them as their bigger stars retire out...
Tate
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Cairns on Apr 20, 2011 9:09:20 GMT -6
Households names, regardless of the house (hilarious analogy, Tate), are household names. Hitler. Shakespeare. Princess Diana. Hulk Hogan. WWE in itself isn't really a household franchise anymore. Mainly because a lot of people will still call it WWF. |
|
|
|
Post by Icon Lord Leon Corbin on Apr 20, 2011 9:13:04 GMT -6
Not to mention being into wrestling (or some crap soap action entertainment) is still a dirty secret for most. It's also hard to get people into something they think is fake, as an adult especially in a time like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Cairns on Apr 20, 2011 9:19:20 GMT -6
Which sort of sheds some light on why Vince McMahon might still be a genius, even if we - as wrestling fans - all hate the current direction of WWE.
I was fine with 'Sports Entertainment.'
I'm not so good with 'Entertainment.' I especially hate the dropping of the word 'Wrestling.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Chris Cairns on Apr 20, 2011 9:20:23 GMT -6
And I still think The Rock's comeback has been shite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icon Lord Leon Corbin on Apr 20, 2011 9:28:20 GMT -6
Maybe. But if you are not a wrestling fan and even know who the WWE stars are, why would a movie fan give a fuck about them stars when what they are given are mostly action movies (seen one you see em all)? Arguing that point, the likes of Stallone and Arnie can't act, they just fit the bill...go figure you get Austin, Cena, Batista, Rock etc taking that route, muscle bound, can't act much like Big Show, Taker and Hogan back in the day. But then you have Kane...in a cookie cutter god awful horror and not even the good type of bad horror. As a movie fan, who cares for these people if they can have real actors and actresses? Will people go to see Fast Five because of Rock or Deisel? My guess is non wrestling fans will go for the latter.
|
|
are are all a bit bland can only do the basic kind of movie characters and plots. Even back when I was a bigger wrestling fan, never did I want to rush out and see a movie a wrestler happened to be in. It's just bog standard shite really. Not one film has been something fresh and innovative. Crap.