Matt D

You know, I'm not sure if Titus works as well as he should like a big guy, but I like his canny touches. It reminds me a bit of old Ernie Ladd

The Rock getting a mania spot helps everyone else in the company. NAO getting one means two other guys are screwed out of a slot.

My gut says that they're locked in at this point. Little details can change (Does Kane or Brock take out Christian and take his place? I'm leaning towards no because they positioned him as a heel in the last week) but in general, I think it's too late for them, internally, to change the trains. That's not how they usually operate. I do hope the Usos go over. They deserve it in a big way and it'd probably ensue them a Mania spot when the Outlaws really don't deserve one. I bet they'd go all out on their Mania entrance too. I actually think Swagger beats Big E and Cesaro loses which leads to sort of a flip flopping of the last few weeks of problems with the Real Americans and leads to the Cesaro face turn for Mania or the night after.

I don't think there's a right or wrong question to that answer. If there's a book where multiple readings and analysis makes the book richer and where the more effort you get in, the more you get out of it, is that inherently worse than a book that's more direct and easier to process? Again, it's subjective, but I've always appreciated things that paid off more effort with more reward.

I really put everything down so A) I don't miss things (and a lot of times I doubleback a bit if I blink and don't see how a transition happened or someone escaped a hold, etc), and B> So I can find a throughline in the end, whether it's there or not. Usually if it's there I catch it on the way but it's easier to read through A lot of times it's so I can weigh things later and tell matches apart, especially for the 80s projects. I almost always work with two screens when I'm doing this (because that's my set up at work and I do a lot of this on my lunch break) or on one screen with a smaller window for the text beside it, so I'm never looking away from the match, really. I'd like to think there's a difference between what I do and what Keith or Martin does.

In some ways i have to watch things differently because I usually don't have time to sit and watch a match all the way through if it's not happening in real time. And sometimes I don't have time to do a full write up. That, in and of itself, will change how I interact with what I'm viewing. I also watch jobber matches with a bit less attention and sometimes even just listen to the commentary while I'm doing something else if I'm watching shows in order from, let's say 94. At that point I'd double back if it was something interesting. I never APPROACH it differently, though. The brain doesn't shut off. Ever. So I make the best of it and enjoy it. It might be a little different if I was watching a show at the arena/armory, whatever. I'm not sure. I haven't been to a show in ten years.

I think we've taken this about as far as we can. Now tell me how I enjoy stuff in the same way as America's fabulous freelance insurance investigator, Johnny.

It's RE. there's no value in pushing it. The guy dances to the beat of his own drum.

Lord Steven Regal had a very important role in vaguely delaying laws in the British government.

The only Jannetty story I completely believe is Savage saving him from the cops. And that's because it makes me happy.

It's a shame none of them has Lex Luger's agent.

At this stage I think I'm going to dig in and be stubborn because I think it's a pointless concept when taken this far to its extreme while it's a very useful concept when inched back somewhat. I'll respond to Childs later though.

By having my kid watch Topper last night, I am proving myself to be king of all parents, apparently.

Bossman was first thought too. What about the Yukon Lumberjacks? How successful were the Medics/Interns whatever?

And I'm saying that I don't ignore the fact I'm watching two guys putting together a match with each other. I relate to the creative decisions, not to the story itself. I am seeing a moving image on a screen, the sum of a creative endeavor. I think I'm willing to take my understanding of the concept to the exact point that it serves any point in a conversation. If you break it down to "You're just looking at pixels!" then it's not a practical concept. If you're looking at it as "can you believe in this as a reality?" then it's fine.

I'm not keen on arguing this further, but I can appreciate the way that Marv Wolfman writes an issue of Tomb of Dracula and how he deals with the challenge of surmounting the unrealistic elements from a craft perspective without letting the inherent plausibility of them move me one way or the other. I can admit that those elements exist. The way I interact with the text when it comes to these is by examining how the author deals with them. It's never about me suspending them necessarily but instead about taking at look at how he attempts to get the general audience to suspend them and admiring that (even on an emotional level) or not. Admit that I can at least do this and we'll be cool. It's the huge majority of how I watch wrestling. It's less of how I watch Veronica Mars, but there's still maybe half of that there. It's a lot less of how I read New Warriors due to childhood nostalgia and other things but it's still there to an extent. I think the more interesting argument right now is not "is this possible?" but "how do we look at things differently?" with exact pedantic definitions and established terms not necessarily as important. In general I find organization useful and fruitful. Here we're pulling an outside term in, one that, as it is narrowly defined, isn't very useful for most of this discussion, except for the few people who seem to say that they can't watch wrestling if the punches are really crappy. Though even then, when I see a spot that's illogical or makes no sense or what not, it's not about "taking me out of the match," it's about me recognizing bad/disorganized/irresponsible storytelling, which isn't a suspension of disbelief so much as me thinking that the person is a bad storyteller. With other people, they admit that bad execution reminds them it's all two guys in tights rolling around or whatever.

He had a section in the WON. 700 words. Granted, it was far overshadowed by the Sasaki bio and pretty comparable to the Nakata obit.

You're with OJ, I'm with John, which honestly makes for a weird tag match. Maarrrrrkkkk (and I'm sorry, I actually don't know who you are despite your 60 posts and very noticeable avatar) seems to at least be trying to parse the argument (which I think is actually a separation of the act of creation from the creation itself more than anything else) while Charles is kind of just past the other side of the line. Johnny, as always, is the cosmic jester of chance.

1.) You should have gone with something like, 2.) I will admit to being able to suspend most things for Duck Amuck or The Great Piggy Bank Robbery. Less so for What's Opera, Doc. 3.) I think, again, that this is really a discussion where some people are taking a very dogmatic and narrow view of a term, which frankly, taken so narrowly (be it correctly or not) has next to no actual conversational value, and others are explaining something personal that tangentially relates to it in some very legitimate ways and not so much in others. Instead of pushing off to talk about what that second group is discussing, the first is sort of pedantically clinging on to what they feel is accurate instead of trying to explore what the second group is actually feeling, which does, in some distinct ways differ from how the first group feels, even if, perhaps, the term (used literally instead of conventionally) doesn't explain it well due to its narrow nature.

What the hell man! What the hell. You don't just drop that without some words of explanation.

Ultimately I do think this is down to semantics and perspective on some level, but I also think there's a mild disconnect too. Also, I still think the real money is in Johnny and I reviewing Tanahashi matches.

We're an oligarchy and the guy with the helmet has all the wealth.

It's not the main way I process and enjoy wrestling which i think is a more pertinent issue.

Is there a Malenko vs Rotunda match from 96 through 98? I want to see someone do a Johnny Sorrow take on that.

Oh man, I want to see Parv figuring out what people are thinking during stretches of matches. Do me during Andre vs Warrior SNME or a 2002 RVD match.