DMJ

- 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?

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.