HELL IN A (red) CELL 2018

[tallmike]

It's kind of funny, I missed the table bump in the main event because I looked away to see if Braun and Roman were doing anything, and the Rollins/Ziggler segment was taking forfuckingever to set up. The second I glance over to the ring and see they hadn't, I hear the table bump.

The red cell wasn't bad for visibility, but from where I was sitting, I was in the nosebleeds and was sitting behind the big basketball scoreboard, so I could not see the screen for some of the details, like the screwdriver.

The show was fine, but it was SUCH a chicken shit ending. If you can't put the two guys in the main event in a position to take a loss, don't book the match. And if you do book the match, don't book it in a match type that basically demands a finish. This should be Booking 101.

[Alucard]

I thought for sure when Lesnar's music hit, they were gonna say Corbin gave him the MITB and he was cashing in. Since that segment where Braun gave Corbin the briefcase and told him to make sure he doesn't forget it or something along those lines.

11 hours ago, ColdStone said:

I think they are going to do a triple threat at supershowdown or whatever it’s called. It makes sense to beef that card up. Since right now it’s HHH and Taker as the main selling point. Might as well throw Brock on there.

They've got the Shield vs Braun/Drew/Dolph at Super Showdown. I'd forgot about SaudiMania II so if Brock's working that, I guess that'll be headlined by Brock/Roman/Braun. So another month+ of this stuff. I loved Brock showing up last night but am beyond sick of Brock multi-man matches with the same guys over and over. We just had Brock/Braun/Kane earlier this year, Brock/Roman/Braun/Joe last year, Brock/Roman/Ambrose before that... very repetitive.

4 hours ago, KawadaSmile said:

Particularly, I enjoyed it, but the inclusion of Lesnar, even if it made sense - they hinted at it right after he lost it at Summerslam, when Angle said it would be "a cold day in hell" before he awarded Lesnar a rematch, and IIRC the commentators actually addressed that.

It might be bad that they insist on giving Lesnar time, but it doesn't seem like they didn't plan this storyline in advance.

Great catch!

[Alucard]

9 hours ago, El-P said:

Ronda vs Bliss was much, much better I thought. No idea where the hatred for Bliss comes from, she's still a terrific heel and a super solid worker. People bitching about the audience "not playing along" should ask themselves why Bliss always gets the "right" reaction. And Ronda is ridiculously good for her experience. And so, she can also sell right ? Very good match, kinda fun bullshit with the entourage. Hopefully they don't waste Ronda by making her do stupid stuff, because she's a diamond in the rough.

Also agreed all the way here. Alexa is the best and Ronda was great in that match, loved it

[Zoo Enthusiast]

I thought Ronda’s selling was awesome.

[NintendoLogic]

Alexa is fine as the pest challenger who takes every shortcut to gain an advantage before getting her comeuppance in the end. It was her as a dominant heel champion that sucked.

[Robert S]

21 hours ago, Charles (Loss) said:

He was reminding us that the table is legal.

I suppose that was the idea, though still strange considering that at this point they already have been smashing each other with Kendo-sticks and ring-steps. On the other hand, yesterday evening I was watching a WCW Saturday Night show from 1992 and saw Foley putting his head through a wooden pallet that was lying on the floor and having problems standing up afterwards (he seemed to be knocked silly a bit), so maybe I should not try to understand what is going on in Foley's brain in 2018.

[DMJ]

Just finished viewing...

- Thought Hardy/Orton was a fun opener. I'm usually very bored by these two, so with the stipulation, lots of chair shots, that crazy screwdriver thing, it made for a match that wasn't a classic or anything, but at least entertaining. Its the kind of match I think a casual fan would enjoy and not be bored by and I kinda dig that more than the spot-heavy, super athletic matches we get on RAW from guys like Rollins and Balor every week.

- Thought Joe/AJ was strong and hard-hitting. Someone mentioned that AJ is "past his prime" somewhere in this thread and I just don't see it. To me, his execution is still remarkable, his bumping is great, his offense looks punishing. I'm not knowledgeable about wrestling outside of WWE so I know he's probably not a Top 10 worker in the world, but if the WWE is "fast food" wrestling, AJ Styles is the fucking In-n-Out Double-Double (or whatever you think the best fast food burger is). I also don't mind that Joe's "lost a step." In the WWE, it actually means his matches aren't just thrown together go-go-go and guess what else? He still hits hard as fuck, looks menacing, and even when he's cutting corny promos, has a great sneer (I'm also not as down on the children's story stuff, though its obviously not all-time great work from the writing team). The problem with this match was the last 3 seconds. Just a bizarre way to go for a feud like this and I don't think the babyface should be tapping out and retaining the title on a "the ref didn't see it" technicality. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Joe and AJ laid their shit in extra tough and worked extra hard (at least to my eyes) because they knew the finish wasn't strong. 

- What else can be said about Lynch/Charlotte? Yet another case of WWE having an act that is immensely popular, on the verge of selling a ton of merch (the right design and I'm buying), and super dependable in the ring and yet they just don't want to steer into it. Even shutting down Charlotte for a post-match handshake made me (and the live crowd) like her more. It was the "Austin" thing to do. Maybe that's the long game they're playing? But, again, if so, you don't have to be so subtle anymore. Tell Lynch to keep being this same badass character, tell Flair to keep being her same character, and tell the announcers to acknowledge the audience shifting to Lynch's side. That's kinda all they did with Austin IIRC. Its not a matter of changing the characters or their motivations - its a matter of presentation to me. The crowd's already decided "their guy."

- Liked most of the main event, didn't like the run-ins, wasn't amused by the table spot, and scratched my head at Lesnar's return. A month ago, the audience was upset because Lesnar wasn't on TV enough, wasn't defending his title, etc., etc., but a month later, he comes back to a huge ovation and "Suplex City" chant because *big surprise* he's still a mega-star and neither Reigns or Braun are. Vince did a masterful job getting the crowd to cheer Reigns' victory at SummerSlam (by tricking the live audience into thinking he was going to get cashed-in on by Braun) but this felt like the opposite. Was it a big surprise? Absolutely....but it also sorta re-inserted Lesnar into the fray as the badass babyface. I don't know about anyone else, but after the asskicking he gave on Sunday, I kinda want to see him win the belt back. I mean, why not, right? Reigns and Braun were main eventing PPVs when Lesnar was champion and not around, so what would be different? As we've debated elsewhere, if nothing matters anymore, why not put the title on Lesnar for another year? By the sound of the crowd, they were happy to see him. I thought it was cool. Can I give this sort of booking a new name? Michael Bay Wrestling. 

Michael Bay Wrestling is big explosions (shocking events), huge numbers of casualties, nonsensical superheroic feats, and, above all else, no actual human emotion, gravity, and 5 minutes after viewing, you won't remember a single scene let alone the whole plot. Sunday's main event was Michael Bay Wrestling. Strowman and Reigns had a HIAC match. I think (?) it was okay for the first 10 minutes. Then two guys that weren't in the match took a huge bump. Then (shocker) another huge star came back and destroyed everyone. And, 5 minutes later, I realized, this whole thing was designed to just sell me popcorn.