Dave Meltzer stuff

[sek69]

On a more Meltzer related note, the show he did with Semp last weekend was tremendous. It might scare people off that it was nearly 3 hours (broken into two parts), but I love Dave and Mike shows since he just lets Dave go and doesn't try to argue semantics like Bryan does. The stories Dave told when they got into question time were great, I love when he goes into old timey rasslin stories like Tim Woods doing a take-on-all-comers gimmick and getting his finger bitten off by an overzealous fan.

[blueminister]

I love Twin Peaks but it imploded after its first story arc and it hasn't even had a shaky claim as a top 10 TV show since cable dramas became a thing.

[evilclown]

Wow, what an interesting observation. So you think becoming a top worker in pro-wrestling doesn't require any degree of athleticism? What kind of athleticism did Benoit have that made him a top 10 guy of his era? Do you think pro-wrestlers are by and large out-classed by all other sports? Who in the wrestling business do you see historically as the most athletic?

I'd quibble with a number of things that you've managed to squeeze into this paragraph. I didn't say pro wrestling doesn't require athleticism for starters. I'd disagree Benoit was a "Top 10 guy of his era" as well.

 

Athleticism basically refers to the physical skills you need to excel in competitive sport. Most simply defined it includes dexterity, speed, strength, hand eye coordination, leaping ability, intuition and any number of other things that allow a person to compete against themselves, their opponent, or a clock/measuring stick.

 

I never noticed anything out of the ordinary about Chris Benoit's basic physical tools. He was certainly less fluid than his peers at junior heavyweight and didn't make displays of strength, quickness or really even skill a big part of his repertoire. This doesn't prohibit him from being a great wrestler. I doubt anyone would consider Jerry Lawler an incredible athlete and great workers like Nobuhiko Takada failed miserably in competitive sport.

[jdw]

I love Twin Peaks but it imploded after its first story arc and it hasn't even had a shaky claim as a top 10 TV show since cable dramas became a thing.

Season 1 was exceptional. Season 2 slowly became a mess.

 

It's hard to know what would have worked since it's Lynch, and he does thing in his own quirky way that make sense to him. But... one kind of wishes that the "Twin Peaks" concept came to him in the 00s when:

 

* it could have been an HBO/Showtime (or other cable) series

* set into a 10-12 episode seasonal arc

* found a way to break out of Twin Peaks the city

 

I know we all fall in love with the settings and cast of characters in a series. There are lots of series that can pull it off: Deadwood didn't feel dried up as the local of the series in its final season. But with Twin Peaks, the goofy/quirkiness of the city wore off... as did the chase of The Big Bad Guy, and frankly the case of Laura as it dragged on. On some level, we needed to break Coop free from those three things (Twin Peaks, Laura's case and the annoying BOB~!) and move him to the next freaky, quirk case.

 

So... perhaps 2 seasons Arcs/Cases, forcing Lynch & Frost to tighten up the narrative (as if 20-24 hours over two seasons aren't enough to tell it Case and solve it), then move Coop onto the next case for the following season with a new cast of freaks.

 

I know that's a hard break to make, but he's an FBI Guy handling goofy murders. Send him on his way. In that way, perhaps each season becomes tight, with a cliffhanger at the middle of each Arc to bridge the two seasons that share an Arc. In turn, get some true closure to each case.

 

John

[Slasher]

But then it doesn't become Twin Peaks. That is the problem of titling shows after locations, it doesn't make sense to move the show out.

[cm funk]

I don't think the problem was the setting, it was that Lynch and Frost became more and more hands off and the show became too bloated. Bloated with characters, bloated with sideplots and bloated with episodes. Season 2 was 3 times as long as season 1 and it lost focus. There's still a lot to like about it IMO, it just isn't the same show. I think there was a good tight season there if cut down to 10-12 eps with less sideplots.

[jdw]

But then it doesn't become Twin Peaks. That is the problem of titling shows after locations, it doesn't make sense to move the show out.

I get that from a "hey... it's called Twin Peaks!" standpoint.

 

But as Season 2 wore on in Live TV (as opposed to folks watching it years after the fact on DVD or netflix), I generally felt:

 

* I'm fucking tired of this case not being solved

* I've seen enough of half the cast of kooks in this town

* the creepiness of the city isn't fresh anymore

 

I'll admit that isn't the case for your typical run of the mill show. Cheers was In The Bar for a freaking decade. Nearly every other show is like that, and few burn out after a short 1st season and part way through a second season.

 

But Twin Peaks did. Laura's case was getting dragged out, and not in an interesting way. Long term character development isn't exactly one of Lynch's strengths - he can have a tough time pulling it off in two hours, so 423 of the first season was a lot, and expecting another 1000+ the following year was a stretch.

 

That's why I'm saying in hindsight: it would have made for a better concept to have Coop spend two short seasons (i.e. modern cable seasons) solving a crime in a bizzare town, then move onto the next. Get out of the northwest and go to the south. Get out of the south and go to farm country in Iowa or Kansas. Etc. I'd rather see 4 arcs, 8 seasons of 12 episodes of that... then 4x24 stuck in Twin Peaks. I literally forced myself to watch the last 6 or so episodes of that, and it was one of the few times that I cursed myself for getting sober since it would have been far easier to watch that shit stoned.

 

John

[jdw]

I don't think the problem was the setting, it was that Lynch and Frost became more and more hands off and the show became too bloated. Bloated with characters, bloated with sideplots and bloated with episodes. Season 2 was 3 times as long as season 1 and it lost focus. There's still a lot to like about it IMO, it just isn't the same show. I think there was a good tight season there if cut down to 10-12 eps with less sideplots.

Bloat was my point. Modern cable forces shows to get tighter, at least in the sense of a Season. Series can still get bloated if they're popular and get stretched. The Sopranos was bloated and stretched long before the specifially stretched 6th season: it's one where you wish going into Season 4 they all agreed to wrap the thing in 13 episodes that year and were forced to tighten up the ship.

 

Season 1 in hindsight is tight, even if it's sprawling and very much took it's time in telling the story. They really could have wrapped things up for Laura's Case in the same amount of time: 423 minutes, 9 episodes of hour long TV. Or go 470 for 10 episodes.

[ButchReedMark]

Anyone fancy a chat about Rugby?

[Dooley]

I don't think the problem was the setting, it was that Lynch and Frost became more and more hands off and the show became too bloated. Bloated with characters, bloated with sideplots and bloated with episodes. Season 2 was 3 times as long as season 1 and it lost focus. There's still a lot to like about it IMO, it just isn't the same show. I think there was a good tight season there if cut down to 10-12 eps with less sideplots.

Bloat was my point. Modern cable forces shows to get tighter, at least in the sense of a Season. Series can still get bloated if they're popular and get stretched. The Sopranos was bloated and stretched long before the specifially stretched 6th season: it's one where you wish going into Season 4 they all agreed to wrap the thing in 13 episodes that year and were forced to tighten up the ship.

 

Season 4 of The Sopranos moved a bit slow, but that's because it didn't have to move for anybody.

 

Season 5 was great and would have been the perfect cap-off to the series.

[cabinboy454]

I don't think the problem was the setting, it was that Lynch and Frost became more and more hands off and the show became too bloated.

This is true, Lynch spent most of his time during season 2 working on Wild at Heart.

 

BTW, I apologize for the TV talk.

[ButchReedMark]

Graeme Hick is my favourite cricketer. Fantastic player from 1983 playing for Zimbabwe but when he qualified for England he was seen as the new Len Hutton and was on the front of the Radio Times. Came out to a standing ovation, and it was too much pressure for him. Also, when something went wrong he'd always be blamed. He'd be the first to be dropped. There was another two like him. Mark Ramprakash and John Crawley. Fantastic natural talents, but the coaching set up didn't think they had the mettle for it so after a bad innings they'd get dropped.

[BrickHithouse]

I always thought Northern Exposure was a good, underrated show.

 

Much like Jeff Probyn. Despite coming to Test rugby comparatively late (Probyn was actually part of England’s 1987 World Cup squad), Probyn managed to become a mainstay of the England pack well into his 36th year. Undeterred by being a small prop (approximately 95kg) Probyn was widely regarded as one of the best tight forwards in world rugby, focusing on driving on the opposition hooker.

[ButchReedMark]

Being Welsh I never rated Jef Prodyn, too typical of English 10 man style forward orientated rugby. Nothing like Quincy M.E. Klugman could really play well.

[BrickHithouse]

Speaking of cricketeers, Sir Donald Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Sir Vivian Richards, Brian Lara, and Alan Border would be in the top mix of a lot of lists, and let's not forget Shane Warne - one of the greatest leg spinners of all time.

 

I liken those guys to Cheers, which is one of the top TV shows on my personal GOAT list.

[ButchReedMark]

Well, Sir Garfield Sobers was a fine cricketer, but I don't think he compares to the majesty which was The Waltons, quite frankly. John Boy had great punches.

 

 

 

And I'm having far too much fun doing this. That's bad.

[BrickHithouse]

That's bad.

"Bad" like the good beating England gave Australia in August 1938 at the Oval? England won by an innings and 579 runs.

 

Although Steve Waugh's men dealt South Africa the heftiest post-War defeat in Test cricket, they would have needed to hit another 120 runs to overtake England's defeat of Don Bradman's side in August 1938.

 

Or "Bad" like one of the worst sitcoms in history Small Wonder?

[Matt D]

As a kid I much preferred Out of this World to Small Wonder. I am glad that I will never, ever see it again though. Some things should be kept in one's dusty childhood memories. It's given me a lifelong love of "So you want to swing on a star." though.

[NintendoLogic]

How can you guys hate on a show that had Jesse Ventura as a guest star?

[Death From Above]

Graeme Hick is my favourite cricketer. Fantastic player from 1983 playing for Zimbabwe but when he qualified for England he was seen as the new Len Hutton and was on the front of the Radio Times. Came out to a standing ovation, and it was too much pressure for him. Also, when something went wrong he'd always be blamed. He'd be the first to be dropped. There was another two like him. Mark Ramprakash and John Crawley. Fantastic natural talents, but the coaching set up didn't think they had the mettle for it so after a bad innings they'd get dropped.

England were awful in that era. Coaching was definitely a part of it (Ramprakash's stints with England read like a sitcom script), but then again Mike Atherton isn't exactly Brian Lara either.

[ButchReedMark]

I really liked Atherton. He wasn't going to score a mountain of runs, but his knock against South Africa to save a draw is one of the finest cricketing performances I'd ever seen. I was more concerned with cloggers in the England team like Hollioake. Never rated Adam Hollioake.

[rovert]

A take down of Babinsak's latest shitastic review of a Shimmer DVD:

http://wallsofjerichoholic.blogspot.co.uk/...iew-my-dog.html

 

Please tweet this to Bryan or Dave if you are on Twitter. Enough is enough.

[goc]

That guy is also a tool. "People wonder why I have such a "hate boner" against the sheets like the one run by Meltzer and Alvarez. Well, when they put themselves at the vanguard, it's embarrassing to me when I say I am a wrestling writer." Ha

[Indikator]

I never thought to laugh this hard at a line containing the simple words "I tap"

 

Good job

[Al]

Dave tweeted that he recorded a podcast interview with Colt Cabana. That should be fun.