Marty Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I heard about the Taker-jacket problem too. Sean, was it as funny as it sounds? *pleasebeonyoutubepleasebeonyoutube* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 * Kane-Jobbers-Undertaker This was one of the strangest things from a timing and production standpoint that I've ever seen from the pros at the WWE. They had that looooooooooooong shot of the Jobbers outside the ring after Taker came out, where you kind of wanted a shot to see if Taker and Kane were going to shake hands before the jobbers jumped into the ring for the inevitable beat down. Instead, time kind of stood still there. I don't know if the jobbers were screwing up on their que to jump back in, or if Kane & Taker need the camera off them to cover / set up something / hard to tell, but it was strange. I was at the show. The problem was that Undertaker could not get his jacket off. I don't know if his gloves got caught on the sleeves, but he literally went to the side of the ring and had several people working to rip the thing off of him. Cool. As I said, it was very un-WWE Production to have that shitty of camera work. Setting that one aside, there were other times where the camera work wasn't really up to the standards at their peak. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Dave thought Stephanie's comments toward Heyman were fascinating because they had nothing to do with the angle, and she seemed to take so much joy in saying them. They did come across as scripted and not inconsistent with the McMahon's / WWE shitting on Heyman over the years. I didn't really find them all that fascinating beyond the "Steph gets to have her egofuck moment to... christ this reminds me why I stopped watching everyone of these..." John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Good decision to turn Punk, as they really haven't had a top heel for a while now. Not much of a show otherwise, and I was in full fast-forward mode after the HHH/Lesnar bit. Pretty much business as usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Dave thought Stephanie's comments toward Heyman were fascinating because they had nothing to do with the angle, and she seemed to take so much joy in saying them. They did come across as scripted and not inconsistent with the McMahon's / WWE shitting on Heyman over the years. I didn't really find them all that fascinating beyond the "Steph gets to have her egofuck moment to... christ this reminds me why I stopped watching everyone of these..." John I just thought it was weird because Steph wasn't saying that *SHE* was better than Paul Heyman, she was saying *HER DAD* was better than Paul Heyman. What sense does that make? I'm better than you because my father is more successful than you? That's the dumbest shit ever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I'm pretty sure in the past (i.e. years ago when Heyman was a WWE TV Character) when she's put down Heyman, she's invoked the "My daddy is successful while you're a failure" talking point. Whether it fit into the current storyline, it's the "history" between the two and Heyman vs WWF. I mean... if Paul was involved in scripting it at all (which he certainly was given it being all Shooty), you do think that he'd want to put over Vince since (i) it keeps the checks coming, and (ii) it's better for Paul to put over Vince than put over Steph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 That whole segment made me think of this article. Skip to the part on "Dads". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 All I noticed was Steph and Heyman looking like they were on the verge of having sex the entire time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 What was the deal with Bryan and the dudes in white shirts though? I thought the implication was that once married, Bryan was going to have AJ committed AJ as the GM is a terrible idea. Besides the crappy payoff, Bryan and AJ could barely keep straight faces while Slick did his thing, which kind of ruined it. I haven't really seen anyone using the "Bryan's getting buried!" talking point, but I'm sure it's out there, and it's stupid. In WWE getting booked in a celebrity angle is just about the biggest compliment you can get as a performer, especially with someone as famous as Sheen. Think of all the press coverage it will get if Sheen works SummerSlam, that's huge exposure for Bryan. They're putting a lot of faith in him. Thought Meltzer being so fascinated by the Steph-Heyman interaction was odd because it was pretty much the same dynamic they've always had on sceeen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 What was the deal with Bryan and the dudes in white shirts though? I thought the implication was that once married, Bryan was going to have AJ committed Yeah, but with no real payoff or even tease. Suspect they'll have her committed down the road. Thought Meltzer being so fascinated by the Steph-Heyman interaction was odd because it was pretty much the same dynamic they've always had on sceeen Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 I don't remember them ever being in the same angle before, except in 2001, when they were on the same side. What am I forgetting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 When she was GM and Heyman was managing Lesnar they had some squabbles. During all the shooty type stuff in the ECW reboot there might have been a reference or two Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 02-03 when Stephanie was GM of SD they had a number of run-ins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Log Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 What was the deal with Bryan and the dudes in white shirts though? I thought the implication was that once married, Bryan was going to have AJ committed Yeah, but with no real payoff or even tease. Suspect they'll have her committed down the road. I kept waiting for some mention of that. WWE isn't exactly known for subtlety in their segments. Usually, they'd hit you over the head with "BRYAN'S GOING TO HAVE AJ COMMITTED!!!" Kinda seems like something that was dropped or forgotten or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Amused that Court Bauer was on F4 Daily today and basicly shot down Meltzer's whole Steph/Heyman theory saying that back when Heyman was on creative he had more arguments with Vince & other ppl then he did Steph and that she was actually bummed out when he got let go from the company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Amused that Court Bauer was on F4 Daily today and basicly shot down Meltzer's whole Steph/Heyman theory saying that back when Heyman was on creative he had more arguments with Vince & other ppl then he did Steph and that she was actually bummed out when he got let go from the company. Paul Heyman vs Stephanie Mcmahon That's from Hardcore History, which was Scott Williams' book... which if I recall was written at the time Scott was editing for Dave. It's really hard to think that story would be in the book if Scott didn't at least get the old "I can neither confirm nor deny that happened" wink-wink nudge-nudge from Paul. Then there's this: This is going to piss people off It's Paul, so you're always going to get him doing 180s within the same answer. But he does get across they had issues, before turning around in the other direction. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Google Steph and Paul... there's a lot more. This one is funny: http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/235947-rea...an-breaks-trust Christ... there were so many stories out of the WON and Torch back then that I can't even remember all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 A large chunk of Ring of Hell was devoted to the Paul/Steph issues as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 I thought that the reason Steph came out was cause she was pissed that a slime like Heyman mentioned her kids, even though HHH already warned him to knock it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 I thought it was funny that he told Paul to knock it off with mentioning his kids, Heyman does it again, and Steph comes out to cut a promo and beat his ass. If it was anyone else in this segment, it would have been played as "well that guy's a pussy who needed his wife to fight his battles for him". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 This show did nothing for me, and I usually enjoy nostalgia shows. Reminded me why DX was so unbearable with their 10 minutes long intro routines consisting of retarded catchphrases. The Mick Foley and Bret hart cameos were useless and not particulary cool. Not much in term of surprise cameos that were relevant to RAW history. The last segment was really good with a nice heel turn. The Trip/Heyman/Stephy segment was terrible. Yeah, Lesnar is thrown into Trips arms because Heyman got bullied around by Stephy. Yay. Rock is getting a title match at Royal Rumble, why ? Because, I guess. Anyway, heel CM Punk will probably be fun, and the Rumble to WM period will be interesting simply because of star power, but I've totally lost interest in Lesnar at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Sorrow Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 I thought it was funny that he told Paul to knock it off with mentioning his kids, Heyman does it again, and Steph comes out to cut a promo and beat his ass. If it was anyone else in this segment, it would have been played as "well that guy's a pussy who needed his wife to fight his battles for him".I liked how when Steph's music hit, HHH gave a look like, "Shit dude, you're fucked now." I used to make the same look when I was married and was in any sort of disagreement with someone and eventually my wife would snap and "take over" the argument. And I liked the DX deal. First of all, I liked DX back in the day, and second..I liked seeing a gang of guys who were wild when they were young get together and goof on themselves while having a moment of "getting the gang back together." Reminds me of me and my old pals when we occasionally all get together. Minus the matching outfits. Oh and I thought Sandow was great here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted July 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Since I find myself in the rare position of liking something modern WWE does while others dislike it (usually it's the other way around), I thought I'd explain why. CM Punk and Daniel Bryan. Seriously. That's it. That's the reason. They had a segment with The Rock. I take it as a bode of confidence from the company on both guys. And with Daniel Bryan, he has a celebrity angle coming up that is a pretty big opportunity for him. I can't really be mad at that. Punk is doing a program with The Rock. Punk had a tremendously executed heel turn. They didn't waste the added viewers they had on stupid comedy (there was some, but that wasn't the central focus of the show). There wasn't much wrestling, and there was a lot of typical WWE weirdness, but the show ended with a hook for the next episode: CM Punk explains his actions. That they used the show to hype matches for Summerslam, Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania is pretty significant and I give them credit for it. Booking is what made me tune out on modern WWE. Booking is what made me happy with last night's show. Even if the entire show was horrible, leaving with a good hook revolving around the main event scene would be enough to make up for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Nothing says confidence like the fact they're seemingly aiming towards Bryan and Sheen interacting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 The current guys don’t do it for me like the guys in the past. That always comes across when they do these things, or have some of the older guys back. I suspect that folks will toss that at me: I’m stuck in the past. Oddly enough, Pro Wrestling is one of the few things that’s the case of for me. Folks can see from the posts here that I follow a variety of sports as much as I did “back in the day”. TV? I watch a ton of current TV along with older stuff. Books? I read a mix of stuff published (i) in the past ten years to the present and (ii) booked that go back to the 30s through 80s, and enjoy both. So… it’s not a trait in me of thinking *everything* was better in the past and stuff now isn’t up to snuff. It’s just that I don’t care much for WWE TV, and haven’t for close to a decade. Shows like this only remind me of some of the “whys” for that. John, this paragraph pretty much sums up exactly how I feel. Since 2002 or so I just haven't cared much for anyone on the WWE roster or anyone else in professional wrestling for that matter. I've attended the shows, bought some of the DVDs, watched stuff online and more often than not I find myself struggling to finish watching. For some reason that emotional investment, that sense of fun is completely gone now. The most positive thing I can say about the show is that they concluded with an angle that I might follow. Most people here should know that's pretty big for me. Punk as a heel with a 5-6 month build to a Rock match at the Rumble has lots of potential. I also think Punk's days as a second-tier world champ are over now. If the show accomplished nothing else, it accomplished that. I figure that Punk has finally proven he's "WWE 4 life" and they're willing to give him a little bit more of a push. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.