DavidB6937

NO. NOT MAMI.

8 minutes ago, Chili said:

Matt Cardona being a super example of how to spin that.

A very good example of something to aim for, much like Cody Rhodes. Get out there, find yourself, reinvent yourself etc. It's always interesting to see who thrives with the freedom vs who does better with the massive machine behind them.

1 minute ago, Loki said:

Moxley I've said many times is wasted in AEW.  He's being allowed to do exactly what he wants, which is random bloody matches across the Indies and Japan with an occasional bloody match on AEW tv when he has the time.  I'm sure he's loving it but his star has very much faded, and he would slot straight into some of the biggest main event stories in years in WWE, so it's a no-brainer.

I can't see a place for Eddie Kingston in WWE.  For me, he's quickly become the heart and soul of AEW - if it's not a place for wrestlers like him, what IS it for?  Unlike so many of the ex-WWE guys who came over for a "proper push" and discovered they were the issue, Eddie finally got his shot and has made himself beloved, the crazy out of shape lunatic.  Unless the WWE were prepared to make him their modern Mick Foley, I just think he wouldn't work in the Fed.

I think I agree with Kingston. The genuine authenticity he has.. I'm just not sure WWE is the place for that. Sure, you get it from Cody occasionally in his post-match stuff, but he couldn't be more robotic/WWE-esque on screen if he tried. Plus I just don't buy Kingston as a guy who wants to succeed in a place like WWE.

Mox is a difficult one. I think he likes the freedom too much to go back. At least for now anyway. Sure, he'd absolutely slot into a top spot in WWE, but is that what he wants? If he loses that freedom, do we lose Mox as he is now? And if we do, is that what anyone wants? I guess there's no way of telling - especially considering how Punk has been since he's been back, despite all the previous challenges he had with the company. But then he has them with everyone everywhere so.. bit different to Mox.

16 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

But simply put they are not making new stars.

See, I think they've got more 'over' people on their roster now than in years. Not everyone has to be the champ or the main event to be a star surely? In fact I'd argue it's really important not to be too top heavy and to actually have a roster where there's 'over' acts beginning, middle and end of shows. And I think that's something they've done very well recently - focus on acts like Judgment Day, Gunther, Alpha Academy, Sami Zayn, Jey Uso, Pretty Deadly, LA Knight, DIY, Dunne/Bate etc. There's definite effort and time spent there to try and find a spot for people and see what works. Absolutely you can argue that some aren't as over as perhaps they could/should be - Ricochet for example - and there's time wasted on people like Kross. BUT I do think they're trying a lot more than they were.

I was hoping from the title that you were just going to put Scott Steiner in there somewhere.

1 minute ago, Chili said:

The chat tends to be that anyone who doesn't want kids being cunts in a pub or wanting kids in general also want to restrict the places mothers and therefore women are allowed, so they're all misogynists.

And they got all that from a guy pointing at a sign? Amazing. Dread to think how they react to HHH's regular pointy photos.

Are they angry because the guy would like to enjoy a drink without listening to screaming kids? I mean hardly crime of the century is it. Sometimes I wish that and I have three of them.

Fair play to you. The hard work has paid off and you seem to have found some consistency and success so well done.

But do we finally get Too Many Limes and Lobster Head back?!

Absolutely no spoilers whatsoever but oh my heart.

There's definitely a benefit to opportunity and roster depth. But it does also mean that TK's booking often jumps all over the place depending on who he's into that week and there's so many you could argue are capable but never capitalised on. Or ones that have breakout performances but either get forgotten about or there's no room for them to move up.

Having too many is arguably a good problem to have but it does also mean you get a lot of sitting around and waiting for something. Treading water will lead to a lot of unrest, especially with the more ambitious ones. If they're just in it for the money and they're happy for any role then it's not such a problem.

Tony doesn't really know what he wants AEW to be. He doesnt seem to have a single focus. It's very much trying to please the talent across the board plus being liked by other companies too and the fans. And there will always be issues with trying to please that many people and giving them everything they all want. Mostly the fact that it's just not possible.

I'm not sure if that'll ever change because he's just a fanboy with a shit ton of money who is able to do whatever he wants. And what he wants is to be everything to everyone. So we'll keep coming round to these issues like inconsistent booking and bloated rosters and random crossover distractions. Spinning that many plates at the same time will never allow the cohesion to be any more than what they are. And he sounds happy with what they're doing anyway so that's that really.

6 hours ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Daniel Radcliffe responds to She who shall not be named https://www.thetrevorproject.org/blog/

Can't see anything on there?

Did see some quotes floating around social media but they were old ones.

Depends what they do really. You can cut back in some areas and put the focus on the different camera shots etc and the overall feel of the show differs so it's something you just get used to really. I doubt they'll ever cut back to the point where it feels too small or minimalist. That goes against everything they are.

9 hours ago, Mr_Danger said:

Jonathan Nolan is forgiven for that last series of Westworld.

I never did finish that. Guess I'm better off keeping it that way. Although sounds like they might do something else to finish it off. 

Good news.

Happy late birthday! Watched some Disney movies in your honour.

Yeah surely they should ALL be entertaining. Whether you love to watch them or love to hate them. But as has already been said, not everyone's going to like the same stuff. And that's okay.

8 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I guess they weren’t paying for the privilege.

That's probably how Tony justified it to himself I imagine.

3 hours ago, RedRooster said:

Again, I reckon I’m in the minority - but am I the only person on here that finds the Stratton character massively irritating? She’s tremendous in ring; but the gimmick really grates on me.

Isn't she meant to be? She's a cocky arrogant mean girl heel. I always assumed she should be irritating. I enjoy it and I think she's great in that role.

Blah blah Bloodline blah blah NO. TIFFY TIME.

Sorry. KO definitely deserved a mention too.

Would make a pretty solid Chris Jericho 2024 head.

And yet he still hasn't trademarked Piss Jericho.

What did he even say about Ospreay? I missed it, but surprised he'd reference him directly.

I've never been a huge Top Gun fan. I liked it but it's not something I've watched that many times, so I really wasn't bothered about it getting a sequel.

But Maverick is one of the best examples of why we need cinemas in a long time. There will always be a place for movies like it and the spectacle and experience on a big screen is everything I could ever want from that.

I have to be very picky with my time and cinema visits and I'm really glad I took the chance on it.