Jump to content

BomberPat

Paid Members
  • Content Count

    2,245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,716 Excellent

About BomberPat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Jersey

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If questioning a bloke who got the shit kicked out of him on camera, and in front of hundreds of witnesses, because he hasn't shown you a fucking x-ray or medical certificate doesn't fit your definition of victim shaming, I'd love to know what does.
  2. I didn't mind Lesnar's loss to Cena so much - it was his first match back, I don't think anyone really knew how good he would be (because that match was superb, and a rare example of WWE deviating from their big match formula with great success), and the way it was booked was very much, "Lesnar lost because he got cocky", and that's been a consistent character trait of Brock's ever since. The loss to Triple H could fuck off, though, as could the entire feud. It felt like Triple H having to get in on the cool new thing, rather than a feud anyone was clamouring for. And in a period where Lesnar was restricted to very few matches a year, he had five matches in 2012 and 2013 combined, and three of them were against Triple H. One of them was a retirement match, which Triple H had to be goaded out of retirement to accept, which is the kind of set-up hack writers would still be making fun of WCW for twenty years after the fact, yet somehow we've let WWE get away with that one. Plus Triple H having his "arm broken" to zero consequence, and showing up on TV looking fine. The whole feud could fuck off.
  3. Universal Soldier: Day Of Reckoning is also much better than it has any right to be, really enjoyed it, really clever take on the franchise, and I honestly didn't see the twist coming. Lundgren is superb in it, too. The thing with Jean Claude Van Damme is that he's self-aware enough to do the "aging action movie star" gimmick a lot better than the likes of Seagal who are still so hung up on being seen as a bad-ass. I was trying to work out the other week how many films Van Damme has been in where he plays either multiple characters, multiple versions of the same character, or an ironic version of himself. If we count TV, in Jean-Claude Van Johnson he manages to do all three!
  4. Watched maybe half of the show last night. Should be over it by now, as it's WWE 101, but I hate cobbled together singles guys doing better than established tag teams. If they wanted Ziggler and Roode to be a dominant heel team, they could have teamed them up and had them string some wins together before the match that earned them a PPV title shot here. It doesn't help that Rollins feels like an absolute scrub. He's beaten Brock Lesnar twice in recent memory, and is no better off than when he started - if anything, he's in a worse position than he was before the second match. Not helped by the announcers saying how the heel team's strategy should be "make sure Braun Strowman doesn't get in the ring" - what a way to put over your babyface world champion, he's the weakest member of the tag team. That Rollins effectively lost clean to Bobby Roode, in WWE terms a complete no-hoper, is ridiculous. No wonder no one gets over. Yes, they did a miscommunication spot, but it was a shoulder tackle. The guy who beat Brock Lesnar was sufficiently knocked out by a shoulder tackle to get pinned by a midcard guy's finish? How the hell is he world champion? They could have explained it away by saying that he lost because he wasn't sufficiently focused, or even that he was prepared to risk one defeat to remain fresher for the main event, but nope. Hell, why did they even have them work double duty in the first place? The roster's stacked, there's no need for it. And it's not like it added any drama or tension to the main event, because they both did it. If it were just Rollins, or just Strowman, they'd be coming in at a disadvantage, and that would be the story. As they both worked twice, what does it matter? It's a level playing field. Becky's promo, starting with the corporate-mandated reminder that she's Seth Rollins' Girlfriend, felt like charisma desperately attempting to burst through an overly scripted promo. The look in her eyes told more of a story than the material she was given. First time seeing heel Bayley, and it's great, feels like a logical extension of the character she was before, rather than a "boo, she's a baddy now" abrupt turn. Weird dynamic with heel Bayley and face Charlotte, but it worked well enough. Did anyone get over from The Miz vs. Nakamura? Sami Zayn came out of it looking like a coward, Nakamura came out of it looking like a guy who can't win without help, and Miz came out of it looking like a gullible idiot who'll fall for the slightest distraction.
  5. PCO said that the contract he got from ROH/Sinclair is the most money he's ever made in wrestling, and I don't see why he'd kayfabe people about that. That's a guy who worked for the WWF in the early '90s, WCW in '96/'97, and WWF in '98, and ROH are paying him more money than any of those. If they can get anyone signed to a contract, it's because Sinclair puts them in the position to be able to offer big money, and that they're desperate to offer it, because WWE and AEW are trying to sign up everyone else. Martina going there feels like a sideways move at best for her, but I understand a large part of her concerns over WWE were around maintaining creative control and keeping her gimmick.
  6. I'd say the best time would have been Wrestlemania 29 - rather than shitting on the "Once In A Lifetime" gimmick with Rock/Cena, they could have gone with Cena vs. 'Taker and Rock vs. Lesnar on that show; I think the draw of The Rock was still big enough that it didn't need Cena on the other side of the ring, and Brock was still fresh enough back in WWE that he still felt like "UFC's Brock Lesnar". One of the biggest names in MMA taking on the biggest star in Hollywood, on WWE's biggest show, would have been a huge money match, and also a massive statement from WWE to say, "there's MMA, there's movies, and then there's WWE, and we can give you the best of both worlds". That frees up CM Punk to do something else, and I'm not sure what else would have been viable at that point for him. Around Undertaker in general, the years leading up to the end of the streak, then the subsequent matches, I feel like they missed a trick anyway. Around the Michaels and Triple H matches (especially the latter) they toyed with humanising him, with showing that he was older, more vulnerable, and maybe a little desperate, that perhaps the Streak was the only thing he had left to fight for. But when it came to the matches, they never really booked him that way, and still presented him as on top of his game. If they'd booked him as an aging veteran, it'd make for a more compelling story. They toyed with it in the Bray Wyatt feud, but that was a one and done he barely showed up for, and then in his post-streak feud with Lesnar, where he was cheating and kicking him in the dick - Undertaker as a crazy old man with nothing less to love was an evolution of that character that could have kept him fresh and interesting. In theory, losing the streak could have been a gift, because his matches were no longer a foregone conclusion - when I watched Wrestlemania 30 live, everyone in the room was barely paying attention to his match with Lesnar until the finish, talking amongst themselves, because they weren't invested, they figured they already knew how it would go.
  7. It's Dan Edler, when has not being legal ever put him off?
  8. Maybe that you haven't actually backed up any points beyond "they're different", or that "high culture" Vs "low culture" is just classist snobbery?
  9. Daniel Johnston. I'll probably be back to post thoughts on this one, it feels like a gut punch.
  10. Nothing quite like doing the right thing once you've exhausted all other options.
  11. I just find it bizarre that we have two versions of events - the account of the victim, which is backed up by video evidence of him being assaulted, and hundreds of eyewitnesses, and the account of the three people responsible, at least two of which have demonstrably lied about it (Bodom claiming Aaren tried a takedown on him and he cut it off, and Quildan claiming he had no knowledge of it and there was no footage), yet you feel it's Aaren's account that needs to be questioned and held to the highest degree of scrutiny, to the point that you even seem to be doubting where he said he was trained. Again - "he didn't say anything for a week" is bollocks. He told people about this the night of the show. Quildan was making decisions directly influenced by what happens the following two nights. It's bullshit when Quildan says Twitter was the first he'd heard of it, and it's bullshit when people looking for any excuse to exonerate the pricks responsible say, "why did he wait a week before telling anyone" to try and question Aaren's credibility. That you'd rather believe, in the face of all evidence, that a referee would make this up to gain "sympathy bookings" says far more about you than about Aaren. As for Aaren tweeting about the show, I can't put myself in his mindset, but maybe he wanted to try and put it all behind him - he was under the impression he had more shows to work that weekend, that he had been booked for. Maybe he didn't want to dwell on the negative, and wanted to focus on the good parts of the show. Maybe he hadn't realised the extent of the damage. I've refereed shows with broken toes, with a concussion, and with ligament damage in my shoulder, and not realised how bad it was until hours afterwards, sometimes not til the next morning.
  12. It is - physically, he looks the part, but his timing is off more often than not. Le Masurier is the heart of Dad's Army for me, and does so much with a look, or a lingering smirk, that's just absent here. Could be in the (fairly lifeless) direction, though.
  13. Watching the new Dad's Army thing - it's done well enough to get the quality of the script across, and some of the casting works, but Kevin Eldon comes off too much as someone doing an over-the-top Clive Dunn impression (which was already gimmick casting in the first place), while the guy they have playing Wilson is pretty dreadful - just none of the smirk or charm of John Le Masurier.
  14. Doubt it. Plenty of people will see RevPro's apology as the end of it, and even a lot of those who think RevPro are still at fault will suddenly forget their conscience and buy tickets the moment they announce Okada or Naito or whoever again.
  15. If you're basing your opinion based on "Aaren didn't say anything for a week", consider the people who are making that claim, and who stand to benefit. I found out about this the night of the show, because Aaren told people.
×
×
  • Create New...