Dave Meltzer stuff

[goodhelmet]

I don't mind that people like lame matches. I just wish they would actually explain why

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

Someone invite Dave to my does anybody give a shit about Randy Orton thread. Nobody seems to give a shit about Orton save for a few folks online who get really mad when you point out that nobody gives a shit about Randy Orton.

 

I'd be curious to hear Dave defend the guy.

[cm funk]

I like Orton and think he's really talented, good worker, but I get why so many people find him boring and I won't argue with that stance

 

He's been heavily featured on WWE tv for a decade with basically the same character. It's the same problem that Cena, Big Show, Kane etc. etc. have. Back in the day when a guy had a run and was cooling off he could go to a new territory. That is not a realistic option now. So you get these talented guys with good characters who some of the audience are just sick of because they've been around forever and are stale

 

I definitely think they need to change the Orton character completely, do a 180 with him, but I don't have faith in the creative to deliver on something like that

[Al]

I get the impression that Orton is mechanically solid and smooth in the ring. Workers look at him and see the bits and pieces, rather than the finished product. Orton bores me personally, and I think he doesn't really connect with the fanbase on a meaningful level. But he's obviously talented.

[pol]

Dave shooting down all Bryan's attempts to come up with a hypothetical way Triple H could die in a freak accident on a recent Observer Radio was incredible.

[cm funk]

Dave shooting down all Bryan's attempts to come up with a hypothetical way Triple H could die in a freak accident on a recent Observer Radio was incredible.

 

That was a really funny exchange

 

Bryan reading e-mail: "what would happen if HHH fell off a cliff and died?"

 

Dave: "well, why would he be on a cliff?"

 

Bryan: "I don't know, this is a hypothetical question"

 

Dave: "but what reason does he have to climb onto a cliff? He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who'd climb onto a cliff"

 

paraphrasing, but the conversation basically went like that. I love when Dave sarcastically deadpans at taking every question literally. The end result of this discussion was, yes, if Vince is dead and HHH "falls off a cliff" the company might be screwed because they have nobody else lined up who would be capable of running the empire. Dave started mentioning how Vince brought in Jerry Jarrett and Watts when he needed help, and even dudes like Cornette and Ross and Heyman, but how there aren't people out there like that anymore. My initial thought listening to this is "give the book to Heyman" and Dave cut that idea off before I'd even finished it saying there is no way they would give Heyman creative control over their product. Which, I don't agree with and think Dave was off base with. He mentioned how much Heyman would butt heads with Vince/Stephanie because he was so out spoken and wasn't afraid to challenge them, but in this scenario where Vince and HHH are dead, I think Heyman would be Stephanie's first choice to help run things creatively

[Jesse Ewiak]

I think the funniest thing is people who actually believe that Dave isn't getting Bryan's humor.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I think the funniest thing is people who actually believe that Dave isn't getting Bryan's humor.

Humor? When did Alverez become funny?

[cm funk]

I think the funniest thing is people who actually believe that Dave isn't getting Bryan's humor.

 

Yeah, that, and that the same people don't get Dave's dry and sarcastic sense of humour. When there's a dumb question or Bryan says something stupid he'll pretend to take it literally or seriously and explore the stupidity of the question/comment by treating it like a legitimate topic, which I find very amusing, and it cracks me up when I see comments online about how dumb and oblivious he is. I'm like nah, you got worked, Dave is funny as hell

[JaymeFuture]

Yeah, that, and that the same people don't get Dave's dry and sarcastic sense of humour. When there's a dumb question or Bryan says something stupid he'll pretend to take it literally or seriously and explore the stupidity of the question/comment by treating it like a legitimate topic, which I find very amusing, and it cracks me up when I see comments online about how dumb and oblivious he is. I'm like nah, you got worked, Dave is funny as hell

 

 

Agreed 100% - I find Meltzer hilarious during moments like that. People don't see the sarcasm in what he's saying, but it's brilliant.

 

My other favourite exchange like this is the immortal:

 

Bryan: "Let's say Vince lives to be 150 years old..."

Dave: "Well he's not going to."

[Petey]

 

Dave shooting down all Bryan's attempts to come up with a hypothetical way Triple H could die in a freak accident on a recent Observer Radio was incredible.

 

That was a really funny exchange

 

Bryan reading e-mail: "what would happen if HHH fell off a cliff and died?"

 

Dave: "well, why would he be on a cliff?"

 

Bryan: "I don't know, this is a hypothetical question"

 

Dave: "but what reason does he have to climb onto a cliff? He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who'd climb onto a cliff"

 

paraphrasing, but the conversation basically went like that. I love when Dave sarcastically deadpans at taking every question literally. The end result of this discussion was, yes, if Vince is dead and HHH "falls off a cliff" the company might be screwed because they have nobody else lined up who would be capable of running the empire. Dave started mentioning how Vince brought in Jerry Jarrett and Watts when he needed help, and even dudes like Cornette and Ross and Heyman, but how there aren't people out there like that anymore. My initial thought listening to this is "give the book to Heyman" and Dave cut that idea off before I'd even finished it saying there is no way they would give Heyman creative control over their product. Which, I don't agree with and think Dave was off base with. He mentioned how much Heyman would butt heads with Vince/Stephanie because he was so out spoken and wasn't afraid to challenge them, but in this scenario where Vince and HHH are dead, I think Heyman would be Stephanie's first choice to help run things creatively

 

Pretty sure Dixie Carter would be the chosen one. She's headed the TNA empire for a while!

[cm funk]

On the latest Observer Radio Dave is talking about the Bella program and how brother vs. brother or sister vs. sister never works. He mentions Jeff vs. Matt Hardy as a total flop because nobody bought it or wanted to see them fight each other. I'd add Edge against Christian (still billed as brothers when they split) as another example, or Scott Steiner against Rick Steiner

 

He cites Ole and Lars Anderson and Robert and Ron Fuller as rare times that it worked

 

For some strange reason he doesn't mention Bret vs. Owen, which to my mind is the most famous and successful example

[PeteF3]

That is odd. I've seen Dave talk about brother vs. brother before, on the Classics board. He did cite Bret/Owen that time and praised the angle for being well-booked and believable.

 

He also pointed out that Ole/Lars worked because Ole was such an ass that you would believe his own mother wouldn't like him.

[Loss]

Dave clarified his position on The Board:

 

Bret vs. Owen was excellent because it was novel and the slow build made sense within the storyline. A jealous talented brother who was held back blaming his brother for holding him back. If Owen had set Bret's house on fire, set him up for a car crash and killed his dog, it probably wouldn't have been so good. Plus, Owen beat Bret in the first meeting, which nobody expected, and if it didn't happen, the storyline would have been far weaker. Plus, the first brother feud on the national stage will work. With the Hardys, it was always forced and there was no world title belt as motivation. With the Bellas, it's just a sucky storyline with a face that isn't over and a match nobody wants to see.

[Sidebottom]

 

Dave clarified his position on The Board:

 

Bret vs. Owen was excellent because it was novel and the slow build made sense within the storyline. A jealous talented brother who was held back blaming his brother for holding him back. If Owen had set Bret's house on fire, set him up for a car crash and killed his dog, it probably wouldn't have been so good. Plus, Owen beat Bret in the first meeting, which nobody expected, and if it didn't happen, the storyline would have been far weaker. Plus, the first brother feud on the national stage will work. With the Hardys, it was always forced and there was no world title belt as motivation. With the Bellas, it's just a sucky storyline with a face that isn't over and a match nobody wants to see.

 

~

Stop speaking for me Dave, I've already bought my Brie Mode T-Shirt in anticipation!

[Al]

Sibling vs Sibling is one thing. How many memorable twin vs twin or character vs impostor matches have there been?

[Lee]

Undertaker vs. Undertaker, Kane vs. Kane, Sin Cara vs. Sin Cara... not one of them was any good.

[JNLister]

Kendo Nagasaki vs King Kendo worked OK in England, though the nature of Nagasaki booking meant it was a one-and-done feud.

[Matt D]

I liked the Niebla vs Niebla mask match.

[sek69]

Hijo del Santo vs Santo Negro was pretty good until the family squashed it.

[Matt D]

I have fond memories of the Briscoe vs Briscoe match at the first ROH show I went to in the Boston area, with some really fun finger-worker, but I don't know if I'd want to revisit that now.

[slackermillionaire]

I have fond memories of the Briscoe vs Briscoe match at the first ROH show I went to in the Boston area, with some really fun finger-worker, but I don't know if I'd want to revisit that now.

 

 

I thought in 2013 when Jay won the title from Steen, the plan would be set for a brother vs brother feud. I know they had a match but I am glad they did not go down that route.

[Childs]

Stray thought on this week's WON: There are few things more tedious than reading Dave's analysis of Google views.

[Loss]

I also don't think it's indicative of anything.

[Matt D]

I didn't mind it all that much. I don't think it's ultimately indicative of anything groundbreaking but then I hurt my finger scrolling through 3 MMA stories in a row on the phone, so by that point I missed the google trends.

 

There were takeaways:

 

WWE is up. UFC is way down. He explained why. Divas are up (Total Divas but not just?), but that doesn't always mean anything. Reigns has a lot of buzz. Ambrose has less but still beats out Rollins. People still care about Gina what's her face. Etc. Some of these things correlate with what I think are real trends.