DMJ

Not that I've seen anyone forget on this particular forum, but just to say, this was a documentary made for a mainstream sports audience so it needed to hit the big points in a digestible way. That likely included steering the editing away from what is probably a much more complicated relationship he has with individuals in his family and in his professional life. I mean, we all agree that Hulk Hogan isn't really an authority on Ric Flair's impact and legacy, right? Its really no different than the 30 for 30 doc they did about Tim Richmond, the NASCAR driver, though. I don't know anything about NASCAR - I mean, really, I only kind of understand how a driver in the back of the pack can accelerate fast enough to drive faster than the guy who starts in the front of the pack who is also able to accelerate when everyone's car tops out at around 200 mph. That sport is just not in my understanding at all. Watching the documentary, though, I learned about Richmond for the first time. He was a crazy character who had tremendous career highs and lows. I'm sure a diehard NASCAR fan thought it was a "good not great" retrospective while I thought it was incredible. I imagine there are sport fans out there who watched the Flair doc and were amazed by what they heard even if, to us, there was nothing new added to the story.

No way Ferdinand is a smash against Star Wars, but I looked up Blue Sky Animation and 10-out-of-11 of their films have done good business (the Ice Age franchise being the one I recognized most) so this isn't some rinky-dink indie company unaware of how to slice its own piece of the market pie. I couldn't dig up budget #s either, but not buoying themselves with an expensive A-list cast (Bobby Cannavale, Kate McKinnon, and the dude from Broadchurch probably aren't demanding boatloads of cash upfront) could also make a difference between minor and moderate success (ditto for the IP, which probably wasn't too costly compared to, say, a comic book hero or more recent children's literature/teen novel). Much more interesting (to me at least) and much less relevant to this conversation is how Jumanji will do. The movie opens a week earlier and stars The Rock, Jack Black, and Kevin Hart - but from what I've seen in the trailer, doesn't seem to feature any kids...which was kind of the whole premise of the book and the original film. I'm not saying its not a kids movie, but with a PG-13 rating, its kind of not a kids movie. It has star power and if it gets good reviews that could help too, but part of me is wondering if this isn't the same recipe that made Land of the Lost (a surprisingly dirtier film than it was advertised to be) a flop in 2009. Then again, i expected Daddy's Home 2 to bomb hard and was way off on that.

I don't watch the weekly shows, is the plan to build towards a HHH/Angle match? And if so, will WrestleMania then be 7 hours instead of 6?

Full review on my blog, but wanted to chime in on the awfulness of that main event. It feels to me like the strategy they're employing with Cena is to use him to drum up the live gate/viewership, but then, once the tickets are sold and the show has begun, they only want him in cameo roles. His misuse was maybe the most glaring error in a match rife with questionable booking decisions. Speaking of Cena, that sequence he had with Kurt Angle should've raised some red flags backstage. They have history, the fans know the history, and the reactions for their minutes were lesser than for the Nak/Balor sequence, the Nak/HHH sequence, the Cena & Orton/Strowman sequence, the Joe/Cena sequence, and I could go on. The way it was laid out, it seemed apparent that they were expecting the Cena/Angle square-off to get a warm nostalgia buzz from the crowd, but you could hear a mouse fart during those minutes (it didn't help that Cena was working at half-speed to accommodate for Angle). Triple H's facial expressions and Braun Strowman being the sole survivor were great moments...but there are also great moments in Showgirls and Striptease where one can see boobs. Still, I would never re-watch/recommend someone watch the main event to see Triple H showing ass or Braun Strowman kicking it just like I would never re-watch/recommend someone watch Showgirls or Striptease to see boobs. There are just better places to see any of those things if thats what you're into.

Full review up on my blog, but overall, I thought it was a good-not-great show. The NXT formula is so dependably strong that its only fair to really rate these shows against each other because, compared to the bloated main roster shows, they are just so much more digestible and consistent. That being said, if you paid WrestleMania money to see last night's show, I think you'd be overpaying because of the lack of star power and spectacle. - Dream/Black was the match of the night and the first time I've really been impressed by Black. Best match of his NXT run from what I've seen (and I've only seen his NXT run). - Main event was a fun spotfest but nothing more, which it didn't really need to be. Some sort of stakes might've helped make it seem "bigger," but whatever. Move-for-move, spot-for-spot, it was fun, but I don't see the argument for this being more significant or "must see" than the SummerSlam main event just because, at SummerSlam, you had legit main event *stars* busting out the craziness and here you had a mix of indie journeymen and interchangeable hosses (and I say this as a fan of most of these guys). Not taking anything away from the effort or execution, but the biggest pop of the match was for an inanimate object getting pulled out from under the ring. - Shame that McIntyre got injured, but I'm glad he lost the title. I'd love to see them build Gargano to win the title the night before WrestleMania and then have Ciampa (who is slated to return around then I think) be his first feud. McIntyre/Almas was a fine match, but the live audience didn't seem solidly behind or against either guy and I can see why when you look at the somewhat paint-by-numbers characters involved. Almas is much better as a heel, to be sure, and Vegas has added a ton to his character, but there's still a ways to go before I'm going to call him a Top 10 heel in the WWE.

Excerpt from my blog, posted within a week or so the of the match.... I'll be the first to admit that I headed into this match without the highest of expectations. I'm not a big Reigns fan and I'm even less of a Sheamus fan (in fact, some of the internet love for the guy in 2012-2013 irked me a bit because, to me, as good as he may have been in his SmackDown workhorse days, the character wasn't interesting). On this night, though, these two made a believer out of me. The match began with near-deafening chants of "We Want Cena," but Sheamus and Reigns stuck to their game plan and hit each other with stiff shot after stiff shot (many with chairs in hands). The first big spot came when Reigns back body dropped Sheamus over the barricade and Sheamus, an absolute pro, took it without hesitation or any attempt at protecting himself. Despite continuing chants of "Seth Rollins," "Daniel Bryan," and "NXT," Reigns and Sheamus stubbornly stuck to a slow, methodical pace, allowing each big change in momentum time to breathe. As the match wore on, the fans' ire weakened, especially after they witnessed Reigns toss Sheamus through a huge display of ladders and chairs, the Celtic Warrior hit a "Holy Shit!"-inducing White Noise through a table, and Reigns returned the favor minutes later with a nasty-looking Samoan Drop through a ladder. While none of these spots were as jaw-dropping as Kalisto's spotlight maneuver in the opener, they mattered more because the characters mattered more. When Reigns hit Sheamus with a Superman Punch at the top of the ladder (causing Sheamus to fall through a nearby table), the crowd was fully behind him for the first time in...well...ever. The run-in by the League of Nations (as well as Sheamus' Brogue Kick in the closing minute) got great heel heat, further proving that these fans weren't just begrudgingly accepting Reigns, they were pissed off at watching him get screwed after what he had been put through (and what he had impressively put Sheamus through). This match proves that if you hit hard, don't cut any corners, and sacrifice, fans will respond to it. Sheamus and Reigns worked their asses off and it was almost heartwarming to see them flip a crowd from indifferent to 100% engaged. While I wouldn't call this a Match of the Year candidate, I wouldn't be surprised to see it land on a few people's shortlists. (4/5) I'd have to double-check where it landed, but I did end up having it in my Top 10 WWE matches of 2015. Since seeing this match and writing what I wrote, my appreciation for Reigns (and Sheamus to a lesser degree) has gone up, but I might point at this specific match as the one that really won me over officially into liking Reigns' in-ring work moreso than the Lesnar match, which I (probably) wrongly accredited to other factors that minimized Reigns role.

Just started this thread to note that some news sources, including Cleveland.com for whatever reason, are reporting that Paige will return tonight. I think there was some scuttlebutt on Reddit too that Paige and Del Rio also split recently. Paige has been on twitter too thanking some of the talent for helping her get back in ring shape, so, whether or not it happens tonight, her return seems imminent. I'm half-curious about which direction they'll go in with her upon her return - on one hand, the WWE could bring her back just to have her in a role not dissimilar to Mickie James or Alicia Fox, essentially just there to put over others but isn't she also the basis of a major movie they have in the works? If she's part of the promotion, one would assume they'd want to keep her somewhat over and popular. Also, while I never cared for her, she might get a huge response (as many talents do upon their return) and if she can maintain that level of fan enthusiasm, the WWE not capitalizing on her popularity would be them cutting off their nose to spite their face, right? Or she gets another Wellness Violation before 2018 or another sex tape leaks and the trainwreck will continue.

They were already going to have Cena on the show as the guest referee for Brock/Jinder. Once they decided to switch it to Brock/AJ then Cena didn't fit in that spot anymore (since the planned finish was probably going to set up a Cena/Jinder match) and they put him in the last spot on the Survivor Series team that AJ was going to get. And they needed to do that too because the Smackdown Survivor Series team was looking like a clear B-team compared to Raw's. Plus for all we know Cena could've just said "Hey if you guys are gonna bring me in for a PPV let me wrestle because that's what I want to do and I rarely get to do it now" I'll admit to not knowing Cena was already set to be the guest ref for Brock/Jinder. I only watch the Network specials, so I definitely have some egg on my face for that. But I think my point still stands even more now? The original idea to bring back John Cena, after a pseudo-retirement angle, was 45 days later to be guest ref a Lesnar squash match? They figured that was a good use for bringing back maybe their most mainstream star? Maybe they should go all the way with this logic and have The Rock return as GM for 205 Live.

One of the biggest news items I haven't seen many people talk about coming out of this is that John Cena, who got as close to a retirement send-off less than 2 months ago as I've ever seen, is being brought back. To me, this is a mistake, only because, with Cena, you could've easily brought him back at the Rumble or held off for a WrestleMania program. Cena doing cameos in November is short-term, panic-driven thinking and I don't believe the WWE should be in panic mode just because Reigns is out. Without Cena, you still have a mainstream-appealing show built around established names (Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle, Shane McMahon, Randy Orton), some fresher talent (AJ, Joe, Nakamura, Strowman, Balor, The Sheild), and a handful of colorful acts that you or I may like, dislike, or be sick of but that still get great reactions from live crowds (New Day, Usos, Becky Lynch, Charlotte, The Miz). You take Cena off Survivor Series, I don't see a glaring void. If the rumors are to be believed too, they also sent some feelers out regarding the Undertaker potentially competing at TLC this year (Angle got the spot). I can understand the feeling of desperation for that show because of the timetable and the inherent "thin-ness" of it being a brand only show, but Survivor Series doesn't have that problem, so why is John Cena unceremoniously returning for it?

Bayley was really over for many months on the main roster right until that feud with Bliss where she lost every match and was scripted to look like a total idiot. And whether she's 'peaked' or not it's still true that Sasha Banks is WWE's biggest TV draw in 2016/17 outside of Cena and Goldberg whereas Bliss is one of their worst. The rating in the 3rd hour bombed for the Alexa/Mickie main event and did even worse in the young female demographic, compare that to Sasha vs. Charlotte nearly outdrawing Goldberg's return under a year ago. I just don't buy any of these conventional pro-wrestling explanations as none of it adds up. I'm reminded more of Vince McMahon's repeated statements in WWE corporate reports since around 2012 that WWE The Brand is the attraction now and no individual performer affects business. That business strategy correlates with how they book, no one with momentum gets to ride it lest they get too big to fail and with WWE's huge gender pay-gap the impact on women is even greater. I don't know if I'm 100% with you on how over Bayley was by the time the Bliss feud happened, but I will readily fess up to my ignorance of Banks' TV drawing power. With that fact in mind, Sasha should've been built up as Bliss' "final challenge"/the ace chasing the title rather than as Bliss' first victim. I won't backtrack entirely either, though, as I'm still of the opinion that Bliss is deserving of her title reign. I'll admit that part of that is because she was in the right place at the right time with the right heel/face disposition (and unfortunate mistakes they'd made with Sasha and Bayley meant they weren't) but I also think she's hit the ball out of the park as of late. Those matches with Sasha felt more "real" than Reigns/Cena ended up feeling considering they were built on the same "IRL they don't like eachother!" hype. I also second the person who said her facial expressions and basic offense tell a story better than all the high-risk hijinks that Charlotte and Sasha throw in almost every one of their matches.

The Bliss debate is fascinating to me. I'm willing to admit that as I'm "Team Bliss" there is a bit of a double-standard for backing her, but the argument isn't cut-and-dry. Booked too strong? Maybe...but in a universe where Alexa Bliss isn't "steamrolling" through the RAW Divas Division, as her critics imply, we're assuming Bayley and Sasha are now mega-over? Also, how is any of this too vastly different than what Charlotte was doing in her RAW run or even what The Miz does whenever he's not in a feud with someone clearly higher on the totem pole (Cena, Reigns, even Ambrose and AJ)? Bliss has been soundly defeating the "midcarders" of the womens' division because all the women in the womens' division are "midcarders" since Charlotte left RAW and became babyface. Bliss is now at that stop basically and I think she's earned it - heel or face. Also, the idea of the villain needing to lose at "the end" is one I totally agree with - when "the end" is a clear, definable point. "The end" of the Daniel Bryan storyline was WM30, for example, and while the build was imperfect, I'm glad they eventually got it right. Similarly, Hogan dropping the title to Sting at Starrcade was like the end of Star Wars: A New Hope - the result ended up spawning countless sequels, but that was definitely a definitive endpoint more than just an exciting moment of rising action (like, say, Luger's brief title reign a few months before was). I don't get the argument that Bayley (who has actually gotten booed at times) and Sasha Banks (who feels a little like she's peaked already) are a hotter hand to play than keeping Bliss champion and letting her garner more and more fan hatred. When Bliss finally gets her comeuppance, I want it to be from a Sting, not a Lex Luger. I don't think that exact role as been filled yet, but I don't see the harm in letting someone grow into it (maybe Asuka, maybe Nia, maybe Charlotte or Becky?) when, right now, there's no one on the roster that really deserves it.

Just gonna leave this here for all to enjoy. https://www.spin.com/2017/10/john-cena-where-is-my-mind-pixies-cover/ Next up - The Bellas take on The Breeders' "Cannonball"? Maybe Daniel Bryan will lend his vocals to a song off Slanted and Enchanted or Bee Thousand?

I actually liked the Kane/Strowman stuff at TLC as it kinda reminded me of Kane as Jacob Goodnight. I'd also second the opinion that Kane is kind of proof of the Great Match Theory in that, as good as he might be, as well-respected as he may be in the lockerroom, the guy has had 20 years in this character and I don't think I could name a single Great Match he's been in. A hot angle here or there, sure, but a really great match? I can't name one off-hand. Which is why I liked the TLC performance - it was cartoonishly evil and that, to me, is where Kane can offer something different on the card. As a holdover feud for Strowman, it's not the worst idea. But less is more with him and has been for awhile now. I was okay with him feuding with Strowman as long as the build-up was kept to just Kane trying more and more elaborately destructive ways to destroy him in non-match scenarios (the chair burial, the garbage truck), but beating Balor? Why? It doesn't add heat to his Strowman feud and I was under the impression that Balor beating Styles was supposed to revitalize him after months of the shitty Wyatt feud.

Full review is on my blog. I was one of the people who criticized Nakamura/Ziggler for not being a good enough showcase for Nak, but I didn't have the same criticism for Asuka/Emma for two reasons: first and foremost, Nak/Ziggler was a dull, heatless match and this one wasn't. Ziggler/Nak didn't have great chemistry, while Asuka/Emma do, so, debut or not, the fact that it was a good contest helped. Second, Ziggler getting too much offense on Nak was hurt by the fact that Ziggler didn't do anything special or different to up his game against the debuting, super-hyped killer (this idea of not really reinventing himself when he "reinvents himself" is a recurring bad pattern for Dolph). Here, though, Emma was clearly wrestling with aggression and strategy that, maybe because she's not typically featured, we haven't really seen out of her. Yes she shined a lot - but I didn't find it to be to the detriment of Asuka the way Ziggler's work against Nakamura bore the daylights out of just about everyone and took away from Nakamura's aura. Asuka got a hard-earned victory against an opponent that put up a better fight than expected but the end result was a really good, hard-hitting, intense match. If the same were true of Ziggler/Nakamura, I could defend it there too - but that match stunk and this one didn't.

Like others have said, I'm not going to applaud the WWE for putting Angle back in the ring, in a TLC match, on short notice, but... I also have to say that this is actually kind of brilliant booking. 1) AJ on your show is always a +1 point. Him and Balor should be fun. 2) One issue I read coming into the show was that there was a feeling that the finish of the TLC match was a bit of a toss-up. If Shield wins, they've now beaten their 5 biggest opponents in one match and there's really nowhere to go for Survivor Series. If Shield loses, the argument is that you've chilled your hottest act in their comeback match (I don't believe that, but the sentiment is out there). This way, you can really have "the Shield" lose without The Shield losing. Plus, Angle is going to get a massive pop, so its not like the crowd is getting screwed and will turn on the match. 3) From a business standpoint, I feel like this is a great test for brand awareness in the social media landscape. Angle's return should be a big deal, but the WWE now has only two days to hype it. A decade-and-a-half ago, maybe just a decade ago, this would be practically impossible, but now? With Twitter, Youtube, the Network, Reddit, wrestling-devoted podcasts, etc., this news will travel faster than ever before. I don't know about ticket sales (walk up sales might go up?), but Network viewership (numbers they keep pretty close to the vest, I think) will be an interesting indicator for the company to see - for better or worse. I'm not sure we'll ever know the answer to whether this rushed return will work or not, but if it does, I think the WWE could learn from the experience and maybe try a "planned substitution" strategy in the future - I mean, it works for the Rumble doesn't it?

Yea, I think it's telling how much even the "Don't Hinder Jinder" crowd that looked at him as at least something fresh has quieted down in recent months on Reddit and elsewhere. It's one thing to want the WWE to give people opportunities, but usually that's supported by glimmers of greatness. In Jinders case, it's not like he was stealing the show on the house show circuit or amazing anyone on the B-shows. I think the only compliment you can give Jinder is that he hasn't gotten actively worse in the spotlight, but he also hasn't gotten actively better. His matches against Orton and Nak were not main event quality matches - which isn't to say they were all-time duds, but compared to what we've seen out of Rusev, Cesaro, Sheamus, etc. in that same time frame, Mahals output is abysmal. I'm not even sure he's better than Corbin.

I'd personally love that booking But I also believe AJ will take the title in December/January. They ran Nakamura vs. Jinder for two months and Jinder/Orton for what felt like 3 (maybe just 2?), so there's no reason to think they won't do the same here and have AJ win it before at the Rumble. Who challenges AJ for the title at Mania is a good question - on one hand, Owens has been booked strong enough for him to make a run for the title post-Rumble, but the AJ/Owens feud just wrapped up a few months back and it definitely didn't set the world on fire. Nakamura/Styles has been a "fanboy rumor" all year (and they've both said in interviews that they'd love to do it), but who knows how over Nak will be 2 months from now let alone 6.

I'm the opposite of a Kane fan but I could stomach a Kane/Reigns feud in the right context. For example, if Kane would've come back at the Rumble (granted, that's some months away) and screwed Reigns out of the win (and a SD guy would've won), I would've been okay with it as you could buy the story that Kane was avenging Reigns defeating his "brother" Taker last year. Then, Reigns slays Kane at the February PPV on his way to facing Lesnar at Mania. Its not going to produce a classic, its not going please the die-hards, but as a "filler" feud, I could understand the purpose and logic. But Kane returning in a 5-on-3 match where he's the 5th most interesting guy on his team? I don't want to say Kane deserves better than this, but Kane kinda deserves better than this.

I'll definitely add that, as someone who was very vehemently opposed to the whole idea of a Zayn heel turn, I thought the execution was really good, with 100% of the credit going to Zayn. His facial expression was just the perfect mix of self-doubt/self-hatred/self-surprise (?) to get it over that his actions were about loyalty, misplaced or not, and not just the usual "You fans rejected me - so now I reject you!" bullshit they use for every other heel turn. I also love what someone posted about using this to make him even more sympathetic in the long run. I do still stand by my initial fear, though, that, in 6 months, the character development will be forgotten and Zayn will just be your average heel, which is where so many talented guys have gotten stuck in the past.

I considered the Shane/Taker match to be one of the worst matches I've ever seen...but I have to admit to enjoying last night's match. I know it doesn't make much sense, but I think it has a lot to do with the build and Owens as a character/"athlete." Taker was protected for so long that seeing Shane go toe-to-toe with him made no kayfabe sense. With Owens, I didn't catch myself saying, "Shane isn't trained, he shouldn't be able to beat this guy" because Owens has always been presented as a dangerous, tough, but heavily flawed fighter more than an unbeatable monster or, in the case of Taker, a supernatural-powered MMA-inspired legendary badass. Against Kurt Angle, against AJ, even against Kane back in the day, the fact that Shane was able to hold his own could be rightly criticized...but Owens, with his poutine gut and basketball shorts, is a rough bully to deal with, but he's not a superman.

Zayn going heel sounds like a terrible idea to me and I'm not even hip on every current SmackDown storyline. To me, if you have nothing for him, your better bet is to pull him off TV for a minute and then re-push him as a Royal Rumble long shot rather than kill whatever good will he does have with an ill-advised heel turn that will last what? 3 months? And get him where? The midcard? How many more Zayn shirts will they sell with him As a heel? The upside for Zayn as is, the midcard babyface underdog, still outweighs the upside for him as Kevin Owens' second.

I know the WM30 main event is cherished by some for its outcome...but man did I hate Daniel Bryan getting taken out on a stretcher only to come back. Don't get me wrong, I wanted Bryan to win with all of my heart, but to me, you had him beat Triple H in the opener but suffer enough damage to have to wrestle in the main event with a damaged, bandaged arm/shoulder (that he sells expertly, BTW), then during the match, he eats a ton more direct damage to the shoulder/arm, then Triple H shows up and the odds are stacked against him even more - but if that wasn't enough, he ends up getting Powerbomb-RKO'ed through a table and taken out on a stretcher. Only to return and, after even more false finishes, win the match. Again, I wanted Bryan to win and I'm the farthest from a purist in terms of finishes - but I just remember watching this with my friends and thinking they were laying it on too damn thick. It was counterproductive to me because it ended up telegraphing Bryan's already fairly secured victory even more by making it literally beyond ridiculous. It was like, "We dare you to suspend your disbelief!" when you could've just had them deliver a good match (which, if you just watch the first third/half, it was) and basically keep the same finishing stretch just take out the stretcher sequence and the Triple H & Steph run-in. Those elements really took away the "timeless" aspect of it. I'd be curious to read other people's thoughts on the WM30 main event - overbooked to the point of greatness or to the point of terribleness or not overbooked at all?

Very excited to read this! Congratulations!

Actually found the whole match decent (not good) just cuz it was hard-hitting and they were laying their shit in. Does qualify as bad booking, though, when a hard fought victory for Booker would've definitely helped solidify him even more. For whatever reason, WCW thought there was more upside to re-establishing the Steiners as some sort of heel force when Scott was already over and didn't need Rick around anymore anyway. Also, to give credit where its due, Rick doesn't officially turn heel till later - when he helps Scott beat Buff in their US Title match (which is, surprisingly and to be fair, a pretty fun contest that the crowd was way into). Rewatching the PPVs from 99, it is kinda crazy to see what WCW was maybe attempting. At times, it almost seems like they were trying to reverse the WCW vs. nWo feud with the heel/face roles reversed - Steiners are now heel, Flair and the Horsemen are heel, Hogan is a face, DDP and Sting are "tweeners," Macho is a face - but there's not even any consistency with that conceit either. It's just a total clusterfuck and I'm not surprised the fans cheered Rick in this match because of it. Had they just disbanded the nWo by now, it might've worked, but by this point, you had heels and faces on both sides so it was just impossible to book straight-forward, basic stories.

That's a fair question in most scenarios, but I'm not sure Enzo is necessarily hurting for merch sales compared to everyone else on the NXT roster. Even as a heel, he's probably the only 205 Live guy with an actual tee-shirt, necklace, etc. readily available (just looked it up: his old Certified G shirt is on sale for $16) and because he has catchphrases and (ridiculous as it may be) a grassroots backing who believe he's being "held down" for some reason other than his total lack of in-ring polish, he's also kind of got that "cool heel" vibe that makes wearing an Enzo shirt "cool" in a way that, say, wearing a Good Brothers or Baron Corbin shirt wouldn't be. I didn't listen to it, but I guess Alicia Fox was on Lillian Garcia's podcast recently and talked a little bit about her bad experience with the merch side of things. Essentially, despite her longevity with the company, she's never had a tee-shirt and, according to her, aside from Total Divas, never really got the opportunities she wanted or felt like she worked hard for. She got a lot of sympathy on reddit for her comments. That, to me, is an example of someone being truly "held down" as Fox, despite being perfectly serviceable in the ring (maybe just my opinion) isn't even used on either brand. Enzo being "held down" is a total myth and the screen time he gets - not only on RAW and 205 but also on PPVs - is proof of it.