DMJ

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?

Out of the 4 we have, yes, I'd agree that Finn is the correct choice. But as was mentioned last Saturday, he went from the first Universal Champion to wrestling in the opener on the developmental league PPV. He still has a "failure stench" on him. Which, to put my fantasy booker hat on again, is maybe something they should lean into character-wise. Something akin to when Cactus Jack was in ECW but wanted to be "rescued" by Eric Bischoff? Like, instead of being proud to be in NXT, Balor could act like he's above it all, talks down about the brand, etc.? Obviously having your Champion talking about the brand itself as being a place for green rookies and guys who can't make it on the real brands (Balor could claim he *is did* make it because he was the first Universal Champion but was sent to NXT because they needed a "real star") is problematic, but fuck it, a couple years back they had the McMahons themselves come out and admit that RAW sucked.

Just a thought... What they should've done after Kross vacated the title was have all 4 of those guys come and demand to be in the match. But then have Regal or HHH say, "No, NXT is about opportunity" or some other reason and put the title up between, I dunno...Timothy Thatcher, Roderick Strong or Kyle O'Reilly, Dijakovic, and maybe someone called back from the main roster (Roode? Ricochet? Ali?). It doesn't really matter who they put in this 4-way, the main point would be that it wouldn't be a 60-minute match and it wouldn't feature 4 guys who are as played out as these 4. Lets say you put the title on Strong or O'Reilly, then you have a built-in feud with Cole over not only the title but the leadership of the Undisputed Era. Its not a storyline that I personally would be thrilled about (I don't like Cole) but its classic pro-wrestling and lends itself to easy episodic storytelling from then on. Or you put the title on Thatcher, who just lost to Balor last Saturday. Again, there's easy history to play up for a rematch. (And I'd add that it was Balor's best-received match in forever too.) Or you put the title on someone like Richochet (or Ali or some other returning NXT guy) and you have Gargano or Ciampa go after him because he "abandoned NXT" or because he was given the title on a silver platter and didn't have to face the NXT's "rightful champion." In this scenario, Gargano or Ciampa have a legit gripe for being passed over that leads them to go after the new babyface champion. I'm not saying any of these storylines are going to reignite my interest in NXT or are innovative or super creative. But at least in these scenarios, you have somewhere to go after next week, you might have helped push a fresher talent (Thatcher, O'Reilly as a singles guy), or you revitalized someone who is seemingly dead on the main roster.

Austin Theory, Velveteen Dream, Jerry Lawler... Anyone else inexplicably hearing the theme from the HBO show Oz in their head?

They were in a somewhat tough bind with Lee's debut, at least in my eyes. On one hand, Lee coming in and destroying someone in a squash-like match would've been cool. But I posted some pages back how much they desperately needed fresh blood in the main event on RAW. After Orton, there just wasn't anyone I was excited about going against Drew. With Lee in the mix, there is the potential that he is going to be treated like a big deal not just this week, not just this month, but for the next 6, 9, 12 months. There was a time when the WWE was doing a good job with slowly building up a talent...but its been years since that time (maybe Kevin Owens?). Bobby Lashley, Andrade, Aleister Black, even Buddy Murphy - the list goes on of guys who they didn't really push strong enough from the start and ended up having to re-package or who became victims of start/stop pushes. Even Drew McIntyre suffered that fate, doing absolutely nothing of merit for at least a year after his call-up. Time will tell if Keith Lee's name will be added to that list (sadly, I think it will), but hopefully they view him as a guy that they are actually going to insert into the upper midcard and keep him there. To me, Drew is an example of a guy who I was pretty cold on in January and February, became lukewarm about after Mania, but am now thinking is worthy of his spot thanks to the feud with Orton. They "force fed" him to me and it worked. I hope they force feed us Lee because I think it'll work even better.

I'm guessing Orton gets a rematch at Payback because...I don't know...but I'd actually be in favor of Keith Lee challenging him after that or maybe turning Owens heel. Aside from that, who else is there on Raw that's even a possibility? I haven't watched much programming recently, but I thought Garza and Andrade had good chemistry last night. I'm not sure why they weren't given the gold. At this point, I'm not even sure who else is in the division and the idea of the Street Profits being some sort of dominant team doesn't gel with me. Its like if the Bushwhackers had been given a 9-month title run beating the Rougeaus, the Hart Foundation, and the Brainbusters. Reigns' return was an injection that SmackDown desperately needed, so I'm optimistic that Vince recognizes that the Red Brand needs something big too, namely a fresh challenger for Drew once this Orton feud is over.

I wouldn't say the main event was "not good," but it certainly wasn't fantastic. As others pointed out during the build, it just seems like a rushed idea from the start. I don't regularly watch NXT but, to me, you could've done Lee vs. Balor here. Lee should've been called up years ago, but once he became champ, he deserved at least one solid defense. Kross could've gone over just about anyone else - they could've held off on Dijakovic or had him beat Thatcher (who was/is awesome, but again, if you're going to have him lose in an opening match, why not have it be the next NXT Champion?). Keith Lee wasn't solidified enough as the NXT Champion to make the loss a meaningful, transcendent moment nor was Kross established enough to make him seem like a big deal that deserves to be the focus of the brand. I find that to be the case with nearly everying going on these days with NXT. The in-ring work is still consistently good, but there's nobody really "buzzing" so none of it has a "big fight feel" to it anymore. Even in front of a live crowd, even considering how great Shirai and Thatcher are, for example, there doesn't seem to be any real emotional weight to what they're doing. Hopefully the women's division will improve with Ripley back and I"m guessing we'll get a Finn face turn sooner than later so he can challenge Kross (?), but yeah, there's just not much to get excited or invested in which means that really good matches (like the opener) will never actually feel like "great" matches. If I don't care about the characters involved, I can only care about good ring work so much.

Maybe its the "wrestling bubble," but I'd say it's still highly likely she'll be getting plenty of big time offers even in this climate. She is that good. Bringing up college football is a great example. College football happening in the US this fall is unlikely and even in the spring may be a long shot. But that doesn't mean colleges aren't still recruiting the best high school athletes across the country. When this is all over, Alabama and Ohio State are still going to try to field the best team they can and are going to spend big money on recruiting. The major sports leagues are going to have the worst fiscal years of their existence, but that doesn't mean we're not going to see teams signing top draft picks with big money deals. These entities, the well-run ones at least, are looking at 2021, 2022, etc. Renee Young is a nationally-recognized, proven broadcaster. She's a "top draft pick." I'm not sure how much her current salary is but a cursory Google search had it around $200k-300k, which is on the rather low end compared to what some of the regular female panel hosts make on ESPN. ESPN or a major network could offer her twice her current salary and still be getting a bargain and they know that (and her agent, if he/she's remotely competent, does too). I noted "female" above because, across the board, female anchors and hosts make less than their male counterparts. But the top ones still make WAY more than $200k.

The media world is her oyster, for sure. ESPN, Fox Sports, hell, ABC and NBC will probably make overtures. The WWE misused her when they tried her out on play-by-play/commentary, but these other companies recognize its smarter to use a talent in a role they can excel at rather than force them to adapt to a role that they aren't necessarily the right fit for - and the key difference is that because these other organizations actively produce segments that highlight the talent for these people, her skills won't be ignored and devalued. I forget who wrote about it in their book - maybe Bret? maybe it was DDP quoted in Death of WCW or Nitro? - but someone made a comment about how "Mean" Gene Okerlund could help get a wrestler over and how he transcended being "just a backstage interviewer." Gene had such natural, unique charisma/charm that a having a segment with him was, in itself, an important step up the ladder, that Okerlund could help "make" someone without ever making the segment about himself. There really aren't that many guys (or gals) who have transcended the role. I don't think its being overgenerous to say that Renee had a similar natural, unique charisma and charm. She wasn't a female Gene Okerlund at all either, but like Gene, she did somehow make sense and come off as natural in the surreal, cartoonish world of WWE without being a cartoon herself. Like Gene or Sean Mooney at his best (okay, maybe I'm a bit of a Mooney mark), she was fantastic at being both the best "wallpaper" the company had (and that is a compliment) and also delivering subtle comic takes when needed. It was only when she was clearly being directed to become part of the story with all that WOEFUL bickering with Corey Graves that she fell short of excellence. Some on-air talent, like Renee and Gene, are meant to be "wallpaper."* KawadaSmile isn't wrong - there's a strong argument that she's the 2nd best backstage interviewer they've had. I mean, who else is in the running? Guys that were consistently made to look foolish like Cole and Coach in the late 90s/early 00s? The creepy kid's show host Todd Pettengill? Dok fuckin' Hendrix? * Just to clarify if you've never heard the expression - "wallpaper" refers to the idea that some elements aren't meant to be the main attraction, but that when they're not there, their absence is noticeable. Just like in a house, bad wallpaper distracts you with its ugliness or intensity and some wallpaper just feels "right." Renee Young, when she was being used correctly, was very good wallpaper for a pro-wrestling show.

Wow, FOX (network) must be thrilled that SmackDown is almost doing as well as it did last year on USA (cable)!

If the science in Time Cop can be trusted at all, it will go something like this:

I thought this was actually pretty darn good - not "must see" and definitely flawed - but there's enough going on to make it fun. I didn't find it slow and, as was mentioned in the Savio Vega/Steve Austin thread from this same PPV, I like JR and Perfect's commentary as they do a great job selling how impressive Goldust is. And he is impressive here. It really does seem fresh to see this version of the Undertaker (the unbeatable Deadman) taking so much punishment from Goldust, a relative newcomer and not really a "made" WWE guy.. At one point, Goldust even gets a visual pin on the guy. As the OP mentioned, Goldust hits a Tombstone piledriver (but not a great one) and attempts an Old School too, which is also something I'm not sure we'd seen many guys attempt. There's a great spot where Taker tries to clobber him with a chair and Goldust kicks him right in the mush. Goldust doesn't bother with any of the homoerotic flourishes (which is kind of a missed opportunity to add another layer to this match), but at least Goldust isn't a scaredy cat heel either - he came into this match to fight and fight he does. The biggest flaw in the match (aside from the botch mentioned above) is the layout. Again, there are some cool moments/ideas sprinkled throughout this match but they happen at weird times. For example, Goldust hitting the Tombstone should've been a big deal but its tossed away in the first third of the contest. The visual pin also makes little sense where it happens (and probably shouldn't have been done at all). Overall, though, I enjoyed it. Goldust looks like a legit tough guy going toe-to-toe with one of the WWE's most established main eventers and the Undertaker gets to portray vulnerability and work a match with some actual back-and-forth rather than the awful slogs he'd had in 95' against the rapidly-declining Yoko, Mabel, and Kama. Extra credit for the finish, which I totally forgot about and thought was executed quite well.

This could be in its own thread, but the notion that audiences, specifically younger audiences, can't be "hooked" and have no patience for long-term storytelling is such a crock of shit. If that were true, movies like The Avengers would have done consistently worse over time as more and more of the audience impatiently abandoned the franchise. Game of Thrones would've never taken off. I knew plenty of 18-34 year old, in high school and college in the early-to-mid-00s, who stuck around for The Wire, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Better Call Saul, Mad Men, etc. because the characters and storytelling were strong. The idea that the generational gap is so huge that the show can't run coherent storyline because the audience won't stand for it is just throwing in the towel. This belief suggests that audiences were more patient in the past. My parents would definitely beg to differ - my brothers and I were impatient brats. It also suggests that children today have more options for entertainment, which is true, but kinda overblown. Video games were already massive popular, widely available, and pretty affordable for most families by the late 90s. Netflix wasn't around yet, but its not like it was the 50s with only a handful of channels. If you had USA (which aired WWE), you likely had MTV, ESPN, Nickelodeon, Disney, Comedy Central, etc. If you were bored by the WWE, you could change the channel. By the mid-to-late 90s, nascent social media like chat rooms and AOL Instant Messaging, was also huge for teens. Even the idea of kids (and adults) multi-tasking isn't all that new and really isn't an excuse for better storytelling and writing (or a need for countless replay videos). Again, think about the audience in the mid-to-late 90s. Does the WWE really believe that they sat, completely passively, staring at their screens each Monday for 2 hours? Its absurd. People channel-surfed or checked the score of games. People might've been watching while also in chat rooms via laptops or desktops. People skipped episodes and then came back when they heard about a good storyline. Seth's point is actually not giving the WWE *enough* credit. The WWE was more successful in the past not because the audience was dumber or more willing to watch garbage (which is what he's implying), but because the WWE was putting on a show that was routinely more interesting, more exciting, and more engaging than what other networks had. Seth is kidding himself if he thinks that if you aired a current episode of RAW back in 1998, it would've been considered good. The stuff they are doing now would've been considered shitty back then too.

A week ago, based on just reading results, I would've said SmackDown in a heartbeat and openly said (in this thread or maybe last week's edition) that I'd be happy with SummerSlam being almost entirely built around the Blue Brand. Again, on paper, you not only have Daniel Bryan and AJ Styles, but the Big E push (at least 2 years too late, but I'll still gladly take Big E/AJ as a SummerSlam match), Matt Riddle (problematic figure but still "fresher" than anyone on Raw), the pretty good Sonya Deville/Mandy Rose feud going on, and the aforementioned Bayley as dominant heel champ. I even openly stated that while I'm not a fan of the Braun/Bray storyline, the addition of Alexa Bliss and Nikki made it perfectly reasonable "sports entertainment." I know its not saying much but Cesaro/Nakamura > any tag team on RAW and, hey, you got Miz, Sheamus, and Jeff Hardy. But after actually watching an episode (for the first time in a long time this week), I'm more hesitant. Yes, its still better than Raw - but maybe not by that much. As someone else said, SD being under 3 hours helps ALOT. I also really, really dislike Seth Rollins, find Street Profits mostly cringe-inducing, and am not a fan of this never-ending Hurt Business/Crews feud (especially when Aleister Black, Ricochet, and Ali are all better than Crews in almost every way). But, in a mythical world where Brock Lesnar, Becky Lynch, and Charlotte Flair were still around, RAW's roster would look much, much better than it does now (if Shayna or Ruby Riot had actual credibility and they'd have also been pushing Bianca Belair all along, the women's division would also be in a much better position than it is - but at least they've been trying the past couple weeks). So, no, Raw is not better or more watchable than SD - the difference in runtime makes that almost impossible - but SD is definitely not firing on all cylinders and needs work too.