DMJ

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.

Was watching that last segment with the in-laws (they put it on because they know I like wrestling despite my pleas to put something else on). They were shocked by the final segment. But, to me, it felt like something we’ve seen before (and done better by the nWo and Nexus and whoever else). Like RAW Underground, it’s an angle that they’ve already botched in the first week (even Miz and Morrison joking that “Retribution wasn’t pencilled in tonight” and “I thought they were on RAW” in their segment made it clear that they are just another act on a scripted program). What makes an invasion storyline work is that they *arent* part of the show - and the WWE ruined that on their 2nd appearance. Even having them destroy the ring during the last 5 minutes of the show was stupid - I mean, if they really want to create chaos, wouldn’t they do it at the start of the show? Again, look at Scott Halls Nitro debut for what “anything can happen” SHOULD feel like.

Wait, McAfee is the heel? I mentioned this way, way earlier in the thread (when there was speculation that Orton was going to punt Shane) but the McMahons, and now Triple H, are delusional if they think they can elicit any sympathy in 2020. And that extends to Adam Cole here too as he, if I'm not mistaken, has been a dastardly, cowardly heel his entire NXT run. So when some dude comes and kicks Adam Cole in the skull, I'm cheering for it. And now, if they really are building to a McAfee/HHH match (which I'm not sure they are), I'm supposed to cheer for Triple H inserting himself into yet another "hot program"* - like he did in the Summer of Punk and Daniel Bryan's main event push and when he feuded with Lesnar - so he can once again get the spotlight? Fuck that. I hate this dude. I hope Pat McAfee punts him in the head too. * To be clear, I put "hot program" in quotations because this isn't even a main roster storyline and is obviously not at the same level as the other things listed. But I just wanted to callback that Triple H has a track record for sticking his massive nose into other people's storylines. The funny thing is that his ego is so big, he still finds it necessary to do so in a developmental league.

I'm well-aware of Ziggler's amateur background - the WWE has made sure to make that clear for years and, as a Clevelander, I'm doubly aware of Kent State's wrestling legacy - but what he did last night was a pretend shootfight. It was not actual competitive MMA. It wasn't even sparring. In none of the beatdowns we saw (and, really, that's what they were - they certainly weren't actual fights) did we see anything impressive or stiff either. As inhumane/unprofessional/dangerous as it was, to me, seeing Vader or Scott Steiner or Sid nearly hospitalize some jobber by hitting them with stiff shots and powerbombing them recklessly all over the ring was way more effective and (yes, admittedly) entertaining than RAW Underground. As a backdrop for vignettes for Dabba-kato, it would've been fine and maybe a cool throwback. I'm thinking like the vignettes for Skinner or Kamala, but with Dabba-kato'S background being that Shane McMahon discovered him at an illegal kumite. There would've been built-in storylines for why Shane would bring him in (to take out Owens, to take out McIntyre) after he'd proved himself by destroying jobbers. But as a new concept for multiple segments? Its just a poor concept and that's before we even get to the execution of it.

I'm with you El-P, I am really blown away that this RAW Underground shit has any supporters or even wishful thinkers. I'm all for squash matches - always have been - so seeing Dabba-kato wreck a couple jobbers was fine. As a way to introduce a new character? Sure. Do 5-6 vignettes like that. Cool. But seeing Dolph Ziggler and Erik pretend to shootfight, doing 15-second "squashes" that end in random ways, while a vague trap beat plays in the background and Shane hoots and hollers is just not something I'm going to tune in to see week-after-week. There's not enough there as a concept. Even if you look at that last segment - The Hurt Business destroying extras for 5 minutes - it's a pretty shallow idea for a segment. I give it 3 - maybe 4 - weeks.

Maybe they're going to call-up the Babatunde guy? I know he made an appearance at one of the Saudi Arabia shows (didn't see it, but read about it) and he seems like the kind of monster that Vince would believe could be a "game changer." Plus, considering the circumstances, it wouldn't be unwise to try to establish him when you've got plenty of time and opportunity to rehearse and edit his matches from the PC Center. I mean, he can't be any greener/worse than Khali was when they debuted him, right? And this dude at least speaks English (I think), which probably makes coaching much easier than it was for Khali. I'm meh on the name "Justus" (they trademarked that name recently), but mostly because it reminds me of the clothing line for tween girls. Plus, Babatunde is as good a name as any for a Polish-Nigerian monster.

Oh, I think Drew would be doing fine right now. I just think having him rescue/avenge the beating of a McMahon would be the quickest way to make sure that wasn't the case. I'm not sure what would be worse about The Undisputed Era possibly coming to RAW. On one hand, I know I've criticized the WWE for not treating their call-ups like big deals and it'd be hypocritical to not criticize them if they bring UE up just to be another Lucha House Party. On the other hand, I would very much be in favor of them getting treated as seriously as SaNity because I'm pretty tired of UE being booked like a dominant heel faction. Adam Cole is like a Seth Rollins mini-me and Street Profits/reDRagon (Fish & O'Reilly) is not necessarily something I'm dying to see revisited (even if I thought their match at Takeover: Toronto was quite good). I know I've beat this drum too much, but UE coming in to "invade" the main roster just seems unrealistic when they genuinely look like guys Ryback used to beat in handicap matches 8 years ago. Are we really supposed to believe Adam Cole is a threat to a Drew McIntyre or Bobby Lashley, let alone a Brock Lesnar? I like Roderick Strong and even Kyle O'Reilly, but yeah, as a stable, I'm not interested in seeing them just do what they did in NXT.

I know Shane has his fans - he's easily the most well-liked/sympathetic l;lo;of the McMahons, even in kayfabe - but I'm suspecting that the segment will end with Orton either punting him or hitting him with an RKO as a way to further the feud with McIntyre (because McIntyre and Shane were previously in an alliance). And, again, I'm gonna call it shit booking and the writers/Vince clearly not understanding their audience or learning from past mistakes. One of the reasons the Orton/HHH feud building up to WrestleMania 25 was such a flop was because the whole thing was booked as if people love the McMahons (HHH included). They don't. You can't be presented on-screen as heels 99% of the time and expect sympathy. When Orton punted Stephanie? Cheers. When Orton attacked Vince? Cheers. Going into WrestleMania 25, there was no real desire for Orton to get any sort of comeuppance because Triple H, another guy who spent his peak years as a heel, wasn't defending the honor of his innocent wife and powerless father-in-law - he was defending the honor of the two biggest, most powerful heels of the past 25 years. And Orton was literally in the Stone Cold role. Tonight, it should be McIntyre who delivers a Claymore that oblierates Shane into next year. That is what a bad-ass, no-nonsense, cool babyface would do. I don't recall Drew and Shane ever being split, but that alliance was based on Shane being a manipulative heel, right? Using his power and influence to convince McIntyre to do his bidding? Drew and Shane being buddy-buddy would be like someone trying to get hipster cred buddying up to Don Trump Jr. They're lucky there won't be a true live crowd at SummerSlam because if they go with Orton attacking Shane, it would've been Randy getting the massive cheers on PPV and McIntyre needing an immediate heel turn.

Personally, I think it would've been better if the lights went out and then came back on and they were both gone. To me, putting his fingers in her mouth was icky - but worse than that, it was unnecessary and detracting from the moment. Am I the only one whose first thought was, "I wonder what that glove tastes like" or "This is just awkward cuz, like, because we've seen them on various reality shows as themselves, we know these were probably giggling about this all day"? Maybe I'm wrong, but it felt like the story is supposed to make me wonder about what's coming next now that Alexa has now been abducted...but was she? Instead of actually seeing her get abducted and vanishing, we saw him apply the Mandible Claw and her basically sell it like instant death (which is wholly inconsistent with how that move should be sold and has been sold historically). Fade to black. But they could kick off SmackDown next week with Alexa being shaken up backstage and the announcers could say, "After the show ended, The Fiend disappeared and Alexa got medical attention." To me, that's not good storytelling if you're pussyfooting the very first step in what could be an intriguing storyline. Aside from that, I would say that I wouldn't be disappointed with SummerSlam being focused primarily on SmackDown. Aside from McIntyre/Orton, is there a single match or angle on RAW that I should care about? Bayley and Sasha have been all over the TV so much that I don't even consider them of a single brand. I'd be down for a card that looked like this... - Drew/Orton (maybe surprise appearance by Brock at the end?) - Sasha/Asuka (cage match or"shark cage" match to keep Bayley away) - Styles vs. Big E (They've waited so long to push Big E that I'm cool with having him "climb the ranks" the old school way, win a lesser title here, hold onto it forever, win a World Title at Mania) - Riddle vs. Gable or Corbin (the better match would be Gable, obviously, but the bigger "rub" would be Riddle taking out Corbin) - Bray vs. Braun (Alexa and Nikki Cross heavily involved) (possible Otis cash-in?) - Mandy Rose vs. Sonya Deville (Hair vs. Hair) - Some sort of angle where Rollins and his crew do something dastardly and Aleister Black returns to destroy them * And I propose this card not because its going to give us one "epic" after another. It wouldn't. In fact, there could even be some clunkers...but I like the idea of variety and not necessarily having every match be all about workrate or courting a "This is Awesome" chant. NXT Takeovers have become a bit of a chore for that very reason. Advance some storylines, give a spotlight to some newer stars (Mandy and Sonya), etc. As good as Bayley and Sasha have been, for example, they didn't need 30+ minutes of screentime at Extreme Rules just like they don't both need to be featured at SummerSlam (one good match featuring all 3 will be just fine).

I can't speak too much about it because I've never seen PWG, but my instant reaction is like El-P's: sounds like a dumb, shock-value gimmick, something that's as old as wrestling itself. The more shocking part, to me, is to hear that this got "over" and Human Tornado was the top face in the company. I thought PWG was supposed to be fun and goofy? In the late 90s, here in Cleveland, there was a wrestler (Michael Hellborn) who wrestled as The BasketNazi, wore full-on Nazi gear, waved a Nazi flag, etc. It was disgusting and offensive and drew 0 dollars. But one would imagine that JT Lightning (RIP) believed it would get a reaction and that's all that matters. None of us should be surprised that when indie wrestling does return in front of live audiences, there will *definitely* be various heels doing an anti-mask/"Covid is a Hoax" gimmick. Or is someone already doing this and I've missed it?

It is definitely remarkable that considering the number of charismatic guys they've had come up from FCW/NXT that could do the same job - Armando Estrada, Enzo, Lio Rush, even Montez Ford, god knows I'm probably forgetting a bunch of other names - they had to bring MVP back to lead a stable and "freshen things up." Not saying MVP isn't good at what he does or didn't have a good run in the 00s...but I'm not sure what the point of NXT is if you can't use it to successfully create an MVP-level character. Its not like MVP was ever a top guy and his peak was what? 2008? It's a bit like bringing back goth/vampire/dark characters like Kevin Thorn or Gangrel to be on RAW when you've got goth/vampire/dark characters Karrion Kross and Dexter Lumis in your D-league.

Again, the comparisons to AEW are apt when we talk about ages and exposure and getting time to develop (and what that really should mean). I'd argue that Sammy Guevara (27), Darby Allin (27), and maybe even Jungle Boy (23) are "hotter" than anyone in NXT right now - and that includes Keith Lee, a guy that I (and many others here) were telling the company to strap a rocket to in November. A year from now, you can expect to see 2-out-of-3 of these guys challenging for the AEW Championship and being treated as stars. A year from now, Keith Lee will either be in the exact spot he is now or the main roster midcard. The number of championships is a whole company problem, but I think we can add "North American Championship" to the list of mistakes that have been made with NXT too. Why would a developmental league need multiple singles championships?? If the NXT Champion is already the historically *fifth* most important singles championship in the company (Universal, WWE, IC, and US would 1-4), then what kind of honor is it to win the 6th most important championship? Even the 24/7 or Cruiser* titles could be argued fit a niche, but the NA Title is wholly unnecessary. I can see the need for the UK Championship as NXT UK was a separate entity, but creating the North American Championship as a MacGuffin for storylines just showed the lack of creativity in the Creative Department. * I know there are some 205 Live fans, but personally, I think the entire idea of cruiserweights is silly and dumb when Adam fucking Cole is holding your heavyweight championship. That's a separate rant, though.

In the AEW thread, there's been discussion about NXT and, to me, it feels a bit out of place. Admins, feel free to delete this thread, but I thought it might be interesting to discuss the decline of NXT, not only since it started airing on USA but even before that. Some talking points I thought of... - NXT is no longer a "developmental" league. Even before debuting on USA as a weekly show in the summer of 2019, we started seeing characters stick around on NXT for lengthier and lengthier stretches. Gargano, Ciampa, Undisputed Era, Velveteen Dream...the list goes on of guys who climbed the ranks in NXT, peaked, and then stuck around and got stale. The roster is no longer made up of guys who are presumably being groomed for the main roster. NXT has become the same hamster wheel that has made the main roster's midcard a graveyard of could-be/would-be stars. - But NXT still is a developmental league. You won't find an NXT Title Match on your average main roster show because the NXT Title is not really at the same level as the WWE or Universal Title. It is still promoted as featuring "the stars of tomorrow." While Shayna Baszler and Rhea Rhipley were initially promoted as NXT graduates who could slide right into the top of the Women's Division (and the same could be said of Asuka, Sasha, and Charlotte), the same is not true for the men post-2015. Look at the NXT Champions after 2015 - Bobby Roode, Andrade Almas, Aleister Black, even Drew McIntyre - have all been brought up to minimal fanfare and nothing resembling a strong push. Its no wonder it took approximately 3 weeks for Matt Riddle to become just another guy on SmackDown. - NXT challenging AEW only helped the competition. Once the show started airing on USA, there was an immediate need for it to start performing in metrics that it didn't need to bother with before. That meant bringing back former NXT stars and hotshotting title matches in the name of beating the "WWE alternative." We've heard the arguments about AEW not being an "indie" because of the deep pockets of Tony Khan, but that distinction doesn't discount AEW's status as the most prominent alternative company to WWE - one that happens to be spearheaded by well-regarded wrestling personalities with a loyal fanbase (an important distinction compared to how TNA existed for a long time under the Jarretts and Dixie Carter). After years of raiding talent and being criticized for it, the WWE needlessly cemented NXT as just another arm of their evil empire. It was a bad look. - When everything is an epic, nothing is epic. Many would argue that that the first Takeover: Brooklyn was the best Takeover ever. For the sake of this argument, let's concede that it was at least a VERY good show. But what made it great was that it not only featured established indie darlings like Finn Balor, Kevin Owens, and Samoa Joe, but also some serious vareity in styles, match length, and purpose. There was a 5 minute Apollo Crews match. There was a Jushin Liger showcase. Samoa Joe tapped Baron Corbin in 10 minutes. The Tag Team Title Match wasn't an overwrought workratefest. By comparison, on the past SEVEN Takeover shows, there have only been 3 matches that wrapped up in under 10 minutes (and 2 of those 3 were on the most recent crowdless In Your House special). NXT has become "all epics-all the time" which has had the reverse effect of creating epic matches. If you can remember distinct differences between any of the various Ciampa/Gargano/Cole matches of the past 2 years, you've got the kind of memory they make CBS procedural dramas about. It is all a blur to me. - The Women's Division was decimated by Asuka and then Shayna Baszler. I'm a fan of both women, but it is remarkable that after having Asuka run roughshod over the division for the better part of 2 years and seeing the lurch it left the division in, they essentially repeated the formula with Shayna Baszler. While there are obviously talented female performers on the roster, with Rhea Rhipley and Bianca Belair leaving earlier this year, there is a noticeable lack of star power and credible challengers for Io Shirai. - Like the Women's Division, the Tag Team Division and midcard seem directionless. Undisputed Era has run its course. They waited so long to put Keith Lee at the top of the card that the North American Title he holds seems completely irrelevant and useless. Ciampa, Gargano, and Balor are wallpaper. Who knows what will or should happen with Velveteen Dream at this point. Some of the newer stars - Kross, Damien Priest, the Dexter guy - are interesting but somewhat awkward and unproven, certainly not ready to be at the top of even a developmental league. The whole show feels directionless for the first time maybe ever.

- As much as I've been critical of McIntyre's push since January and still believe, even if Covid-19 never happened, he was not "the answer" to the WWE's woes, I think the wise move is to keep the title on him. My feeling is Drew was, for most of 2019 and into January of this year, a loser, didn't have any truly great matches, and if the audience was behind him, it was mostly by default (meaning, they literally had no one else to cheer by that point). That being said, they gave him the biggest "moment" they could possibly have given him at WrestleMania (in one of my least favorite matches of the year) and, even though I think he should've trounced Ziggler in under 3 minutes at Extreme Rules, at least he hasn't done any jobs. I don't think Orton is going to propel the ratings back up - especially considering the number he and Big Show did a couple weeks ago. I don't think the WWE benefits by creating another Jinder Mahal/Sheamus/Kevin Owens-level Champion - a guy who is treated like a big deal for maybe 3 months but then shuffles back down the card so the "real main eventers" can be on top. In 2016/2017, you could argue that it made sense because you still had Cena, Lesnar, Goldberg, Reigns, and even Triple H still around and competing semi-regularly for World Championships. In 2020, though...? And as for Drew, well, again, this is not a guy who was mega-over and can afford to get beaten. His saving grace is that the pandemic means we don't officially know his ceiling. But if he goes down at SummerSlam, it will put the ceiling on him before he's ever even put in front of a live crowd. - I'm not sure I understand the Ziggler/Big E debate above. I don't get how bringing up how overexposed and weak Ziggler is makes the argument for Big E stronger. I guess where I see things differently is your 2nd point ("The WWE doesn't think highly of Dolph Ziggler"). I think they do think highly of him - very highly. He's in the top 10 in base salary. He's been around forever and every time he threatens to leave, they pay him even more to stay on. I think they view him as a Jack-of-all-Trades who can work any spot on the card, make someone else look terrific, and fill time (which, when you film 5 hours of TV a week, is necessary). They don't value him as a main event guy, but they clearly see him as a valuable utility player who they can plug-in anywhere. If he's good or bad at that is just one's opinion. I wholeheartedly agree that they have underestimated Big E for years now. But I don't necessarily see Ziggler as taking Big E's opportunities away from him. I think Vince has pigeonholed the New Day and rather than seeing how big it could truly be, he has been too happy with the money it already generates in its specific role. The New Day brings in a ton of money in merch as a midcard (mostly comedy) act and Vince would rather have that than run the risk of losing it by giving Big E the green light in singles (and by putting him in a more serious role). I do agree that there is a not-so-minor race issue at play too, if that is the point you're trying to make between Ziggler's opportunities vs. Big E's lack of opportunities. I just think it all comes back down to Vince and complaining about Ziggler is a conflation of two very separate issues.

I thought the McAfee/Cole thing was a work when I saw it. It didn't create any sort of buzz so on that level it failed. The apology seems like a red herring to further a storyline that nobody gives a shit about as he never actually apologizes to McAfee - in fact, he doubles-down on McAfee "pushing his buttons" and implies he is going to "make sure something like this never happens again." The tweet could be interpreted as him being upset that instead of actually attacking McAfee, he stormed off. But its all still a really long route to a creative dead-end. Cole is right up there with Rollins as someone who is so miscast and overpushed that I feel like I could write a college thesis about it. Maybe even more than Rollins actually. Like, yes, Rollins' selling and psychology are god awful - but Adam Cole wouldn't even be in the top weight class on a middle school wrestling team. I know they gimmick him as being 6'0 when he's really 5'10 tops, but I'm equally skeptical about him being 210 pounds. And he's booked like a legit heel tough guy more often than not.

I read through some of his most recent Twitter. Wouldn't describe it as "great." Mostly just biblical affirmations and retweets of WWE/NXT gifs. I'm not a Twitter aficionado or user, but just seems like "great' would describe someone who uses the platform to say something or promote something of value in a succinct or clever way. Also, he ends some of his tweets with #LoveThyNeighbor and then posts that Democrats are pedophiles...as he coaches Velveteen Dream and pals around with Jerry Lawler. So, yeah, fuck this guy and his phony Born Again bullshit. (To be clear, I'm not calling all Born Again Christianity "bullshit," just singling out that the Road Dogg spouting "God is good" while actively being a piece of shit means that he not only doesn't practice what he preaches, but doesn't even fundamentally understand Jesus' teachings.)

Road Dogg is right, the country was a lot better when stuff like this was just "good fun": Fuck Road Dogg. Hopefully some of the talent come out and refuse to work with him and he gets fired. I doubt his "creative genius" means more to the bottom line than what The New Day, Sasha, Bayley, and other actual talent bring to the table.

I'm not a doctor, but I can say, a friend of mine contracted Covid early on (this would've been maybe early April). She has 2 young kids and her husband is an EMT. She tested positive and her kids and husband did not. They all live under the same roof. Wisely, the whole family quarantined for a little while. I still think its incredibly risky to have Ric at the PC even if he tested negative. Testing negative is great - but I just read about an admittedly small study (here) that noted that even those who tested negative could still, potentially, be carriers and spread the virus. Add that possibility to the notion of asymptomatic spreaders and, for safety's sake, if someone in your house comes up positive, quarantining is the safe bet. I will say this too, though, when I go through a drive thru, I don't always mask up. I haven't been to Starbucks (I'm not a coffee drinker), but at the nearby Taco Bell, Burger King, McDonalds, its pretty contact-less now. There's been trays involved, minimal dialogue, nobody is exerting heavy respiration, etc. I'm much more concerned with gatherings and prolonged conversation, etc. than I am with reaching out, grabbing a cup of coffee, and bringing it into my car at a distance (especially when the worker is wearing a mask). But, hey, now that I know that wearing a mask in the drive thru is a thing, I'll gladly do it.

Definitely a movie for non-fans. And a movie that non-fans tend to really like. And fans too. I liked it, in fact. Also, check out this review that actually calls it a triumph of feminist film-making: https://screen-queens.com/2019/08/22/fighting-with-my-family-finally-a-feminist-paean-to-pro-wrestling/ El-P joked that the film should've been made by a "real filmmaker" and not some hack. It actually was. Stephen Merchant is a highly-acclaimed writer/director. Maybe his particular brand of comedy is not everyone's cup of tea, but he did win a Peabody Award (among many others) for co-creating/writing the original Office. As for it being "by the numbers" and "cookie cutter," well, read the review above. It makes a strong argument that, actually, there aren't all that many female-centered movies getting produced by Hollywood in a given year - especially not where the central conflict isn't "How do I get the man of my dreams?" or "How do I balance my worklife with raising a child?." It didn't have the gritty realism of Aronofsky's The Wrestler and, obviously, when a movie is bankrolled by the WWE, it's going to be heavily pro-WWE (even when it, oddly, fails at this), but you kinda have to know what movie you're going into. It was never marketed as anything but what it is.

I really cannot recall a time when a WWE PPV has had less hype than a TNA/Impact one. I mean, I'm sure somebody could point to one or two instances, but this is literally the same weekend and the expectations/buzz between this show and Slammiversary are just night and day. I'm going to check this out tomorrow, but don't expect to get all the way through it in one sitting. Plusses: + Both women's title matches are intriguing to me, especially Asuka/Banks. + The Eye-for-an-Eye and Swamp Match have "car crash"/"so bad they're good" potential. In both cases, I'll readily admit to being more interested in seeing ridiculous ga-ga and over-the-top bullshit rather than actually seeing them try to do straight-up matches. I love comparing Rollins to Triple H, but there's a part of him that's Edge-like too in that I will admit that I prefer him in stipulation matches. + McIntyre is squashing Ziggler in under 2 minutes, right? Negatives: - Neither of the two matches on the card (Crews/MVP and New Day/Nakamura & Cesaro) strike me as particularly interesting. I've heard good things about MVP's work on RAW recently, but I guess I thought that was mostly as a manager? Crews doesn't do much for me. As for the SmackDown Tag Titles, Cesaro is always great in tags and New Day really don't have "bad" matches...but having "good matches for good matches' sake" is one of my least favorite WWE tropes. At first I would compare it to putting wrestlers on hamster wheels, but I now get more of the feeling like I'm the one on the wheel, perpetually watching guys like Cesaro and Big E wrestle good matches and wondering "Why don't they do something with this guy?" and realizing that I've been asking that question for 5 years now. - There's a chance they actually let Ziggler get some offense in for absolutely no reason.