DMJ

I agree with everything above. The term "Self Conscious Epic" comes to mind with this match. As the poster above noted, this may not be the first of its kind - I mean, would Warrior/Savage at WrestleMania VII count as a self conscious epic in a way? - but this match definitely comes across as two guys that know the ingredients for a great match, start by sprinkling them, and then, by the end, are just pouring them on to the point that the match loses any sense of realism. It starts out decent - the usual slow-build that comes with these sorts of matches - and when Angle takes control, Shawn is perfectly fine selling. I liked the hope spots. The buckle bomb gets a massive reaction (it was a pretty rare move to bust out in the WWE back then and still is). Then, things get wonky. Angle starts the match teasing Ankle Locks but abandons that strategy. Michaels gets a cut under his eye, but Angle doesn't exploit it (which, if he was a better improviser, maybe he could've/should've). He hits the buckle bomb (seemingly going after Michaels neck), but then goes for suplexes to target Michaels' back before applying a rear chinlock to slow him down. There's no rhyme or reason for anything Angle does even though it all looks good. Michaels, meanwhile, is getting beaten down so bad that him springing to life becomes less and less believable. Kicking out at 2.9 can be awesome - but when you're doing it for every single nearfall from the very start of the match, it loses its luster. This match didn't need a ref bump. This match didn't need Michaels taking a nasty fall on the outside and seemingly injuring his ankle - only to then survive the dreaded Ankle Lock for the amount of time he did. What was Angle doing going to the top rope? Was he going to attempt a flying forearm? Since when does he even do that move? His lone top rope move has always been the moonsault so the finish seems like it was designed to "look cool" rather than actually make sense. I'd still consider this above-average because the crowd is definitely into it, I think the commentators do a good job of giving this a big fight feel, and there are some spots and moments that are really good. I wasn't bored by it. I didn't catch myself checking my phone while watching. In some ways, had this match and matches like it not become "the blueprint" for so much of the garbage we see today, it would probably be easier to enjoy. This is Michaels and Angle as the Godfathers of a style of match that we now get on NXT every week. But in isolation, in front of this crowd, in this context, it obviously pleased the fans of 2005 more than it pleased me.

NXT's slide in quality started a long time before Covid, but it also doesn't help that - even for a WWE-centric fan - NXT no longer looks or feels any different than RAW or SmackDown, and how many hours of the same thing can one reasonably watch? I know some people see worlds of difference between the PC Center, Full Sail, the Thunderdome, and wherever else they've been filming for the past 7 months, but it all looks kinda the same to me and I never forget that there's not actually a full live crowd (even if that crowd is less than 500 for NXT and 8,000+ for RAW). For a time, NXT did feel like WWE's own "alternative" brand, but that changed a long time ago and now, even a side-by-side comparison in production doesn't yield much contrast.

I just watched this for the first time and expected to read lots of praise for it. I'm a bit surprised that this wasn't a universally-loved gem. Maybe it just caught me on the right night, but I loved this match and think it really deserves some love. - Red hot crowd. - Amazing pace. This match just doesn't slow down. - Fantastic Bret performance. Him running into the turnbuckles - backfirst and chestfirst - always pops me. Love some of his counters and roll-ups. - Nash shows off an arsenal that I'm not sure he ever bothered to utilize again in any match where Bret wasn't his opponent. - The commentary on this show is legendarily bad. I'm a Gorilla fan, but he doesn't mix well with Savage and Art Donovan is beyond awful. Somehow, this match was so good that it drowned out the historically terrible commentary. Gorilla's appreciation for what he's watching is apparent and infective. - Shawn and Neidhart get huge reactions for their spots. Nothing really to fault there. - Is it overbooked? Yeah. Probably. But I kinda like that there are moments - Diesel botching a catch, Diesel tossing Bret into Hebner and Hebner *not* going down like he was shot, Bret hitting Diesel with a punch that sends him into the ropes and stumbling like a boxer - that make the match feel like more of a fight than a choreographed dance (even with all the "extras" like the uncovered turnbuckle and the Shawn bump at the end and the screwy finish). - Again, the pace. This match has the crowd at a 10 from the first bell and never lets them go below that. To me, a 4-star match is a "must watch" and I'd say this is a must watch for WWF/WWE fans. Having never seen it, I always viewed it as the "lesser" of the Diesel/Bret PPV matches, but I think it stands up with all of them. When you think of what else the WWE was presenting in 94', I'd even go as high as 4.5-out-of-5.

https://imgur.com/a/EUpe7G6 So we can now add sexual harassment to the list of reasons why Lars Sullivan is a creepy shithead.

I know this will read like a "complaint for complaining's sake" post but its a shame that Sasha and Bayley will have to work their Hell in a Cell match on the same show with 2 other Hell in a Cell matches. Just makes it less special to me. Also, I haven't watched RAW in awhile but why is this Drew/Orton feud even continuing? That Ambulance Match really did feel like the end of the feud as Orton not only got beat, but also got his comeuppance from all the legends. A Hell in a Cell Match with Drew feels like a hat on a hat. I'd have much preferred Drew not even wrestling on the show, but maybe being involved in some big angle/segment with his next challenger - whether that's AJ or (I"m puking in my own mouth) Bray Wyatt.

I've been liking Rollins okay recently after years of not digging him too much, but here's what I'd do with him honestly (and maybe where the WWE is going with him if he does go to SmackDown?).... - Shows up on SmackDown for a couple weeks. Maybe some backstage moments with Roman, reminding him that they used to run the company together and without Heyman. By bringing up the "good old days" and teasing a crowd-pleasing Shield reunion, this would sorta make Rollins a tweener/face, a friend trying to bring their friend back to his "old self." Obviously this goes against Rollins current gimmick, but it isn't unheard of to have this happen when a character jumps from RAW from SmackDown (see Charlotte). - Roman destroys Rollins. - Rollins goes off-screen for awhile (paternity leave) and when he comes back, you can either bring him back on RAW as the heel character (which is actually what he's been the best at) or if the crowds are behind him, as a face to try to get revenge on Reigns on SmackDown. Basically, put Rollins on SmackDown for the sole purpose of establishing heel Reigns even further as a badass with no allegiance to family or his old Shield buddy. Accomplish that in 3-4 weeks and give Rollins a much-needed break from TV.

^ Totally agree with all of that. I just don't know if, even without being overproduced (which is likely) and in a 2-person team, should we shine in this role. If anything, I think she'd benefit from doing what Barrett did. Go elsewhere, learn the job outside the WWE umbrella, and when you come back, you'll have the confidence to be yourself. Barrett has been on NXT for what? A couple weeks? And he's already made a positive difference through sheer confidence and being himself. Right now, she's kinda just a generic commentator but female. We don't need "female Byron Saxton" (and I'm not even slagging Byron Saxton, just saying he's kinda vanilla) when Beth Phoenix being Beth Phoenix could actually add something to the mix.

- I have been pretty down on NXT for awhile now, but I liked the main event. In front of a live crowd, I think that would've been a "star-making" match for O'Reilly. I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, but I thought he shined here and I'm going to also give credit to Balor a bit. When's the last time he had two back-to-back Takeover/Network Special matches that were as good as the one he had against Thatcher at XXX and the defense here? I wholeheartedly agree that the heel/heel dynamic took away from it - but, again, I think in front of an audience, O'Reilly was fighting from underneath for a lot of the match and that it would've made him the de facto babyface. (They also drilled it into everyone's head on commentary and in the build-up that he was the underdog, which generally makes you the babyface even if you're not actually a "good guy".) - I second whoever said that the Swerve & Adonis/Legado storyline/rivlary would be better off without the title or any mention of the numbers 2, 0, or 5. The fact that they're fighting over a meaningless, irrelevant piece of tin in a completely lame "division" makes their feud feel less important than their work deserves. Just have this rivalry be about Legado being bastards and Swerve & Adonis standing up to them. - I like and support Johnny Gargano as a guy I've watched from his earliest days here in Cleveland. What I've struggled with over the past couple years is why they've opted to book him like the Big Show or Kane. He gets over as the ultimate underdog but they turn him heel to add a wrinkle to his feud with Ciampa. Then they turn him back to a babyface only to, a few months later, turn him heel again. Each turn gets him further away from what made him feel like NXT's heroic anchor and someone you wanted to root for. - I don't think the WWE is actively working against making Ember Moon a successful character. I just don't think the WWE is actively working to make Ember Moon a successful character. As someone else said, having her big return come immediately after Toni Storm's big return detracted from Moon, who really could and should have her "aura" played up. Or are characters no longer welcome on USA? - Now that Mauro is gone, the next weak link is Beth Phoenix. I think Beth is probably a swell person, she was a great in-ring performer and sports-entertainer, and she probably has a lot to contribute backstage as a producer or trainer. Her commentary has been a not-so-solid C- forever and I'm not hearing improvement show-to-show or even year-to-year. I wish it wasn't true, but she just isn't very good. I almost wonder if part of the issue is that she's not playing any sort of character/role. She's just this voice that never speaks about her own experiences, comes out against anybody (heel or face), or has any distinct personality.

As someone who doesn't watch the weekly programming, I get most of my news and "follow" the major storylines by reading threads here, Reddit, and, most importantly, watching the monthly PPVs. I feel like no one has talked about Otis in months. When was the last time Otis was even on one of their major shows? Was it Money in the Bank? I don't think he was on Backlash or Extreme Rules. Was he involved in the Mandy/Sonya match at SummerSlam? I forget. If he was there, it wasn't in a big enough spot for me to mention him in my match reviews. I don't think he appeared at Payback or Clash of Champions either (based on my match reviews). I get it - the roster is loaded, Otis is featured on SmackDown weekly (I wouldn't know but I presume he is), he might've even wrestled on a Network Special pre-show in that time, but we're talking about a guy that they seemingly are giving a push to not appearing on one of their PPVs/Network Specials since May. We've talked for ages about 50/50 booking making everyone seem like just a guy, but another cause of nobody being a star is that even when someone seems to have momentum, they often disappear from the spotlight for lengthy, lengthy stretches and when we see them again, they're not fresh, they're just less over because if they're not worth being featured when they're on a "hot streak" (like winning the briefcase), why would I care about them after 6 months of putzing around in the midcard of one of their inessential, mostly-filler TV shows?

Yes and no. Yes, Alexa is obviously a very attractive female and that beauty definitely doesn't hurt her. There's no argument there. But Paige was/is also super attractive and couldn't make any of her various roles work since returning to the company. Charlotte Flair is attractive, has the "pedigree," and has been positioned as the top female worker in the company. She still couldn't get over as a babyface no matter how hard they tried. Lana could only do one thing - Rusev's evil Russian manager. Any other role? Pretty much woeful. Nikki Bella and Brie Bella are gorgeous, but Brie was not good in the ring and not much better in the promo/acting department. Nikki eventually became pretty good in the ring (or at least had made huge improvements in her last few years) but, yeah, on her best day, she still couldn't touch Alexa in the promo department. Even at her peak, Nikki couldn't "own the stage" the way Alexa has. And the list goes on of beautiful, beautiful women - Stacy Keibler, Kelly Kelly, Torrie Wilson, Sable - who didn't have the versatility of Alexa Bliss, who couldn't get over as a babyface and a heel, who couldn't be taken seriously as a wrestler and manager. So, yes and no. Yes, she's gorgeous and that undoubtedly helps her get her character over, makes her even more popular, etc. But, no, if it was all about looks, if it was all just her appearance, she wouldn't be so successful in multiple roles.

I haven't watched all of the Bliss/Bray storyline so I can't judge every segment. What I will say is this - I've generally enjoyed Alexa's transformation and involvement and I think know why. To take a slight detour, I watched Backlash 2005 this week for the first time ever and reviewed it on my blog. One of the storylines in the lead-up to the show was that Viscera was trying to sleep with Trish Stratus and they had formed an uneasy partnership to try to take out Kane and Lita. I'm not sure who was face or who was heel in that feud (by this point, Lita was getting booed out of buildings for cheating on Matt Hardy IRL but Trish's actions suggest she was also a heel?), and it doesn't really matter in this case. What was noticeable in Trish and Viscera's segments together was that Trish made it work. The storyline was not clever or original or particularly well-written, but her innate charisma and ability to play off Viscera, not exactly a guy known for being a great promo or character, made it passable. In fact, when Viscera ends up ragdolling Trish later in the show, its actually kinda great and entertaining despite being such a trashy development in a story that is already in the gutter (I mean, at one point, Trish even makes a straight-up racist comment about Vis' supposed love of chicken). We saw this time and time again with Stratus, though. Was she a great actress? No, not really. But realism isn't necessarily always the best measure of a talent's ability to get a story over. With Bliss, I find the same thing to be true and, from what I have seen, this is the case with her current storyline. Its not so much that her acting is giving this storyline depth or realism, its that she's naturally charismatic enough to pretty much carry any segment or role they put her in. She has "It." She has chemistry with any performer you put her in the ring or in a segment with. I'm not going to say every segment or angle she's ever done has been a home run, but she made Braun Strowman interesting at times and her feud with Nia Jax was great too. The ability to pull D- programming to C+ level is something not every performer can do.

I'm not 100% sure how Twitter really works with influencers and all that. Are there WWE personalities who are influencers? Who have side deals to promote other products? I don't have a Twitter account myself so I don't follow say, Nikki Bella, who I would assume has a high enough profile to be paid to tweet about certain products. I'm guessing Woods is just taking the next logical step to secure his own Twitter audience (is that what it's called?) and further establish his own brand outside of the company. Which is smart. I don't think he's trying to get out of the company, though. Then again, at this point, if he's saved enough money, making enough money outside the ring, and has offers to further transition into being a "media personality"/host, leaving a company run by a family who is chummy with our openly racist President wouldn't surprise me at all.

Oh, I knew all of that too. I didn't say pro-wrestling or the WWE would be better when Vince dies, I (and Ryback) said the world. And I'm not naive enough to think one shitty person dying is going to lead to world peace or end world hunger, but it couldn't hurt. I'd also just say, as much as I think HHH and Stephanie are shit people too, I wouldn't quite put them at the same level as Vince as Vince most likely covered up a murder, helped facilitate and celebrate sex trafficking with his ties to Moolah, and also probably knew of multiple sexual assaults that never got reported or taken seriously.

I can see how CM Punk dunking on a bunch of younger wrestlers who are in a historically bad angle is punching down. Ryback calling Vince a piece of shit is not, though. Vince is a piece of shit. Saying that the world will be a better place when he dies sounds harsh and might be a stretch, but I don't know - maybe the world will be a better place when there is one less greedy, anti-union, Trump-supporting blowhard in it? That's before we even talk about the rampant misogyny, racism, and homophobia he profited and promoted in the 90s or the idea that he may have covered up a murder and multiple sexual assaults. Just this past year he laid off a bunch of workers and staff members during a global pandemic despite record profits. Also, I don't think any of these Retribution guys are truly getting "over" with their Twitter shtick. Maybe to a portion of the audience it is impressive that they're defending themselves and their horrible gimmick, but ultimately, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I do think that the plan is to lean into Retribution being a bumbling, inept stable of losers. But defending themselves with "See? We're actually playing our parts correctly if you think we suck" is still a dead end.

Mia Yim has this big, bright smile and comes off as a chill and cool person. She reminds me of Team Extreme-era Lita - tough but easy to relate to. You can call it being a "tomboy" or being a "homegirl" or whatever other dated term, but an angry, bratty anarchist? I don't see it at all. A square peg in a round hole. We've seen workers excel at being characters that you may not have expected - but its not only rare, it also usually takes a really, really confident and special talent to turn horseshit into gold. Mia YIm is not at that level yet from what I've seen. In fact, I'm not sure a single member of Retribution actually has the personality or charisma to get this shitty gimmick over. And, oddly enough, they actually were kinda sitting on a crew that might've been able to do it (SaNity) just because Eric Young is solid in delivering that over-the-top, obnoxious role. It still would've been a shitty gimmick, but the WWE did themselves no favors by casting it with workers that have 0% chance of making it work.

I think the idea now is to be purposefully bad? Which isn't the first time the WWE has done this. I think there is a legitimate feeling - from Bruce Prichard and others - that when a gimmick sucks or flops immediately, rather than fix it or make it better, the company should lean into the terribleness and embrace it as "wrestlecrap." At the very least, it makes for good fodder on their Network review/"best of" shows highlighting their own shitty angles/gimmicks. (For example, the Gobbeldy Gooker or how Mark Henry dating Mae Young was "all in good fun" when, actually, it was kinda mean-spirited hazing designed to make Henry a joke because he sucked in the 90s.) The problem is that the beauty of B-movies (like "Troll 2," "The Room," or "Never Too You Young To Die") and true wrestlecrap (like The Shockmaster's debut or Hogan's visit to the Dungeon of Doom) is that they were made in earnest. These filmmakers, writers, and wrestlers actually believed that what they were doing was great. And there's also a difference between purposefully bad and "tongue in cheek." What R-Truth does is tongue-in-cheek. Its purposefully silly. It is meant to make you laugh because it is, at times, lampooning the seriousness of wrestling. It is in on its own joke. But designing the Retribution outfits to be so lame? The scripted promo they gave Mia Yim to perform under what appeared to be a mask 2 sizes too small? Giving all the Retribution members awful new names? If the Retribution angle is supposed to be "tongue-in-cheek" and we're supposed to see them as a gang of klutzes and losers (like we are with Tozawa and his ninjas), then I guess they accomplished that...? But I get the feeling that, initially, we were meant to see this as a meaningful new stable with some credibility - like the Shield or Nexus. They were actively terrorizing RAW and SD, not out there looking like The Keystone Cops or the 3 Stooges. But after this week? They're going to play this all for laughs. And I hate to say it, but that's another thing the WWE might want to notice about what AEW has done. The Dark Order had a TON of critics when it debuted. People said it was too over-the-top and corny. They said it seemed like a crew of jobbers that were getting pushed too hard. As a gimmick, it was getting dunked on pretty hard last year around this time. But AEW kept with it, fine-tuned it, but never really abandoned it. I'm not saying The Dark Order is some great stable or that it should be a "top of the card" act, but AEW could've turned it into a comedy group after 3 weeks and they didn't. They trusted that their vision could work, even in the face of harsh critcisms. I doubt Retribution will even last 3 more weeks and, if it does, it will be 100% played for laughs by then.

I'm not ashamed to say that I liked the 4-way at SummerSlam 2017 and, though it was way too short to ever be considered rgreat, the Lesnar/Samoa Joe match from Great Balls of Fire was fun. I also thought that his run in the Royal Rumble this year was excellent until he got eliminated. Seeing him toss fools around was the Lesnar that I still generally find more captivating and exciting than about 95% of the rest of the roster.

To me, its a simple as Dream not getting called up at the right time. At one point he wore those "Call Me Up, Vince" tights and it almost seemed like a dare - like it was so obvious that the It Factor was there and he was 100% ready to come in and get a push on one of the main rosters that Vince would have to be completely blind not to see it. And I guess Vince was completely blind. So Dream stayed on the NXT hamster wheel and any sense of momentum was shot. A character like his, self-congratulatory and arrogant, doesn't really work when you have nothing to congratulate yourself about. He went from red hot to lukewarm (at best). Then he had that injury and now he's also been exposed as a sexual predator (or, if you don't believe that its true, his reputation has certainly been tarnished) and he went from just being lukewarm to being completely cold.

I'll admit it is confirmation bias, but when they announced a 60-minute match between these 4 guys and I thought, "There's no way I'm watching that even out of morbid curiosity," and then I read the non-result this morning, I was just like, "I'm so glad I didn't waste any time watching that even out of morbid curiosity." People criticize AEW for being "too niche" and "indie-based," but as a poster noted above, NXT has become the same thing only for the past couple years, they've been doing it far, far worse.

The result is fine, I guess, but I'm not a fan of the heel turn. Just feels real lackluster. Like, why not save the Heyman Alliance reveal until the match itself? That would've been interesting. Someone compared the turn to Austin in 2001, but unless I'm misremembering it, in the TV before WrestleMania 16, Austin and Vince were not aligned yet. Having Heyman revealed as Reigns' new manager didn't seem like enough of a gesture for him to be a full-blown heel while still being too much of a gesture for Sunday's "turn" to be at all shocking. Just feels like a "non-event."

Also, I know its not really worth mentioning, but since NXT stopped being a development league and became a "3rd brand," have they actually featured a real NXT match on any PPV? At least when they did ECW, they threw it a bone on most of the major shows.

I think so? Stephanie is the leader of Retribution?

To go back to the original question - cuz I really am genuinely curious what everyone thinks as I view this forum as being pretty knowledgeable and bright - what is the thought process behind this show? I mean, it is pretty "experimental" to run a Network Special 7 days after SummerSlam. As someone else mentioned, it does bring to mind This Tuesday in Texas and Taboo Tuesday, which were shows where they were obviously testing the waters for...well...I"m not sure. I guess it wasn't obvious. That's why I'm asking the minds here. What was the motivation for those? Is it the same or different than this show? I outlined my theories on the first page, but they're just theories. Has Meltzer or anyone else opined about it?

Yeah, I don't think they did this to counter-program All Out. I mean, if they wanted to, they could do this show on the same night as All Out, right?

Anyone else have the sneaking suspicion that for some reason, against all logic, Roman Reigns does not leave with the title tonight? Aside from that, I did want to pose a question to the group - What's the deal with this Payback experiment? I have my theories - 1) Ratings have plummeted, but there remains a noticeable "post-PPV bump." The audience, even the diehards, have been trained to believe that the weekly TV is mostly filler, inessential viewing. Maybe the theory is that if you increase PPVs (or Network specials or whatever you call them), you can re-train the audience to care about the weekly TV? 2) Boosting Network subscriptions? If PPVs are the #1 viewed programs on the Network, then there's reason to believe that having more PPVs/Network specials would increase subscriptions. 3) As far as I know, the announcement of Payback airing a week after SummerSlam occurred in late July/early August. Could this actually be a way the company is gauging Roman Reigns' drawing power? The SummerSlam name is established and all, but this show is clearly being built, even rapidly, about the in-ring return of Roman Reigns. When they learned Roman was coming back, did they hotshot this show as a way to see what kind of numbers he'd draw? 4) Speaking of "rapidly," the WWE model has been, for two decades now, build a show for 20-30 days (and before that, they'd build up shows for MONTHS). But its 2020. Do you need 20-30 days to sell a PPV or could you, theoretically, build a show in 7 days time based on 1 big match and some filler? I mean, with social media and Twitter and all that, maybe the smart move is to strike when the iron is at its hottest? Roman Reigns returned on Sunday and now, 7 days later, we get his return match! That is some very fast turnaround. Maybe this is a way the company is testing a concept of having an immediate, rapid response to a major angle getting over? Clearly, they have nothing to lose. They could ostensibly do one of these every weekend until football season starts (?). There are really no rules right now in terms of their production schedule. I'm curious, though, what does everyone else think about this show. Why are they doing it? What is the rationale? What are they aiming to measure? Or was it just a scheduling error?