Chris B

How much of an unknown was Wembley Stadium back with SummerSlam 92, especially without Hulk Hogan?

I'm not comparing current AEW with early 90s WWF in terms of popularity, but I remember it being mainstream for wrestling rather than truly mainstream. 

It was quite a jump from places they'd toured before, especially for a non-Hogan show.

Basically, I wonder how much of it was a must-see because it felt like a one-off. It must have been a serious amount of the audience's first wrestling (or WWF at least) show.

And that makes me wonder how much it seeming like a one-off big show will bring out people who wouldn't go to see it otherwise. 

I'm fascinated to see how they do. 

16 minutes ago, Loki said:

Yeah, I’m not sure Paige was a huge fan of it being spread all over the internet. 

Xavier Woods clearly wasn't overjoyed either. But there's a world of difference between predators, particularly with power differences, and a bunch of similarly aged young oeople at a similar job level consensually shagging.

If one of the people involved intentionally shared it publicly, I totally agree with you. At the moment, though, it feels like you're likening sexual practices you don't approve of to rapists and abusers, and these things aren't the same.

7 minutes ago, Loki said:

The line?  Benoit.  Still not watched any of him since he killed his family.

That'll teach him. 

2 hours ago, Loki said:

Remember when everyone thought the NXT locker room were playing videogames after shows and it turned out they were filming each other banging each other’s girlfriends?  And then sharing the videos around?

Assuming you're talking about the Paige thing, everything about that seemed enthusiastically consensual. The only thing that wasn't was someone's phone getting hacked.

If you're talking about something else, or if it was a revenge porn situation, fair enough, but otherwise, that's not anything like those other things you talked about.

1 minute ago, Uncle Zeb said:

If someone had said in the '90s that there was a real prospect of both Hogan and Sting seeing out their careers in the UK, they'd have been laughed off the mailbag page of Power Slam.

And would you have guessed which would be at which Wembley?

Be a hell of a retirement match venue for Sting.

Made me laugh for the far-too-long I spent on it.

I'd guess this was a factor in the Wrestlemania results.

Not the first thing she's been involved with to be wrapped up before the end of Wrestlemania. 

2 hours ago, Nick James said:

Also, just look at Cody here. The guy is just having the time of his life and must be loving every minute.

Well, if there were any doubts about his in-ring abilities, he's certainly proven he can carry Braun Strowman.

On 3/16/2023 at 9:03 PM, Joe Blog said:

@Chris B unless his change of avatar has thrown me I don’t recall seeing many posts lately. 
 

never mind, He is still active as hell. Mist start reading names on posts as opposed to looking at avatar. 

This says nothing good about the quality of my recent posts...

29 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Apparently there is a clip doing the rounds from a recent XPW show where a wrestler shoves a syringe or needle or something through a guys penis... like, whips out the old chap in front of everyone and jabs whatever it was through the dudes wanger.

What the actual fuck?!?

Usually, these guys work stiff, but I'm guessing not this time.

2 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said:

  Reveal hidden contents

What I love about the reception it's getting is that it's so good that there's not nearly as much chat about Colin Firth's superb cameo as I expected. Just a lovely film.

 

Also, the way they handled flashbacks of their stories? Superb. 

Saw a few films with some time between jobs recently.

Tár

Fuck me, this was horribly tense. It's dense and doesn't hold your hand at all, but eesh, it's so horrible waiting for the other shoe to drop throughout it. It has some issues (and not least, the idea that it's taken a film about a lesbian for Hollywood to be comfortable embracing a Me Too movie), but it's very well made and Cate Blanchett is amazing in it.

Cocaine Bear

This is a film that knows exactly what it is. You know how Snakes on a Plane left you thinking 'There was a better Snakes on a Plane movie to be made'? There pretty much isn't with Cocaine Bear. It's pretty smart for what it is and zips along. There's a point (the Gazebo scene) where there are enough moving parts that it's already a fun, tense scene - and then you remember there's a cocaine bear that hasn't shown up yet. And as a final(ish) outing for Ray Liotta, it's a lot of fun, as he plays a proper sleazy piece of shit and is clearly having a blast. Also, there's a 'dusty beaver' gag (featuring character actress Margo Martindale) which seems to be a generational divide, as those under 38 don't get the joke.

Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey

Didn't hate it. As a lot-budget film, it's actually pretty well shot and designed - a lot of the shots look really nice, and I've seen a lot worse and much cheaper-looking on Shudder. It's not good, by any means (there's one bit in particular which tips over into just general misogyny, and is clearly added because they decided they needed to show some actual tits and a bit more gore), but the set-up is pretty nicely done, and there's some fun in there.

Really, this feels like more work on the story would have helped out with the script. I don't see the point in an opening scene with Christopher Robin when you could have got far more out of his character being a revelation later. And the movie is full of those weird choices. 

Broker

Didn't expect this one to be a road movie, or to be as basically wholesome as it is. I was expecting something a little darker and edgier than the film it actually was. It's good, but doesn't have much memorable. Although Song Kang-Ho is as generally great as he always is.

Chung-King Express

Utterly odd film, but in exactly the way that Broker didn't have much that stuck in the memory, plenty of this one has rattled around in my head afterwards. The second story works so much better than the first, and even that takes time to kick into gear, but it's a film full of moments that just charm and stick with you. I'm absolutely in love with Faye Wong after this and expect almost everyone that watches it to be the same.

Rye Lane

This is just lovely. Properly funny and charming, with great leads, hilarious support and a tight script. It's sort of 'Before Sunrise' but in London and less meandering. Just had a big grin on my face throughout, and I like that it went for the daft as frequently as it did. Also, interestingly shot with the ultra-wide/fishbowl lens used a lot, giving it a fairly distinct look throughout. Just a really, really smart, joyful little film. And Eric, the 'best mate' is fucking hilarious, embracing every moment with wide-eyed naïve optimistic stupidity. 

The timing on that ending - cutting away before we get to see Hangman react to seeing them. Genuinely superb.

'Tunnocks' was trending on twitter, and my first thought is that this place had been rumbled.

5 hours ago, Fatty Facesitter said:

Thanks chief. How do you think I can make that smoother? Now you mention it I do cut to it quite quickly. I initially had an intro where I explained the criteria, but thought it seemed a bit boring and might lose interest once people know what the categories are? 

I mean, entirely unfair to ask me for solutions rather than just letting me pick holes from afar... 

One way would be to focus more on that board, since you're introducing it anyway.

I'd probably cut to it on 0.32/33, but with just the chalkboard and pictures. Bring up 'love it' and 'hate it' as you say those things and then add the model of the Flying Scotsman underneath with a cheesy transition to match the over-the-top way you say it at that point (along with, because why not, a steam whistle sound-effect straight afterwards). That'd also cover the gap between 'the Flying Scotsman' and 'The cost', since the music you have starts quite low at that point anyway - the sound of the train itself in the clip is nice as you have it, but you can get away with cheesy for the title. The categories are straightforward, but this is also basically the title and format of the video, so you may as well make more of it.

The other way is probably better.

Skip the popping-up of 'Love it' and 'Hate it' and have them static. I think, really, that's what is sticking out to me. Just before you've gone into that, my focus has gone from left to right (following the front of the train). The animated pop-up of the 'love it' and 'hate it' draws my attention to that and I'm still there when you've brought in the first X and 'The Cost' - you're moving faster than I can follow, partly because you've drawn my attention from where you actually want it (on 'The Cost'). And by the time I get there, you've pretty much moved on, so it makes me feel like I'm behind. If they were static, I'd probably just take them in and mostly ignore them anyway, and focus on 'The Cost'.

42 minutes ago, FUM said:

Is £17.99 “reasonable” for a book in 2023? Genuine question.

Because it was out of print for a while, it was difficult to find for anything like a reasonable price for a long time.

On 2/26/2023 at 11:16 PM, Fatty Facesitter said:

Good evening filmmaking brethren. So since my last couple of rail-based video efforts, I gathered loads of feedback and had a good think about the process of putting the videos together. I came to the following conclusions - 

- 101 facts, or a similar amount, is a lot to ask people to watch through. Especially when your channel is fairly small and perhaps hasn't earned the necessary street cred yet.
- In line with the above, they are bastards to pull together. Finding the facts, relevant imagery, physically editing it all together, graphics etc. It's still fun, but tiring! 
- The videos could do with more humour - information is great, especially for enthusiasts, but to reach a wider audience it needs to be more digestible. 
- More planning for animated elements needs to be factored in. I'll sometimes fart about on Canva for over an hour before I'm happy with something. 

With that in mind - and some of the excellent feedback I've had from people, including you lovely lot on here and sliding into my DMs (oof), this week I challenge myself to do something a bit different. The results are paying off already. 

Let me know what you think - I like to think this one is a far easier watch than some of my previous efforts. Here are my observations for both the creation process and the results generated so far - 

- This was infinitely more fun to pull together. Far easier to script, overall far quicker to pull together and just generally a more enjoyable process. 
- The process of scripting, graphics/animation creation and physical editing took five days. Monday to Friday. Whilst working full time and battling a cold! 
- It's already my most commented-on video to date - lots of people giving their opinions on the topics discussed, and there's an even split. That justifies the topic alone.
- It's already the best video on the channel in terms of retention rate - a much higher percentage than other efforts. 
- Click-through rate is really high too. Personally I'm not sure about the thumbnail - it's a bit click-baity, daft looking to me, but it seems to be working. 
- It's elevating my other content too - I'm starting to get more comments and views on other recent videos. Good for retention rates. 

The idea was effectively to get a video ready in time for Flying Scotsman's 100th anniversary - it was trending across social media and I knew there would be a chance it would. I also wanted to do something different and was trying to think of a more fun topic than something that was just an information-fest. By creating something with built-in debate, it's drawn a great response. Rail by its nature massively divides opinion, so I think I need to use that to try and make the videos a bit more appealing. 

What I'm keen to try and do next is take other topics I previously had in mind, making use of the massive bank of footage I've collected, and to try and 'sex it up' a bit. For instance, I've got tons of footage of trains in London, almost too much to know what to do with. There must be a way I can use it effectively - it's just a case of figuring out what the heck to do with it all. 

Anyway, all thoughts welcome on the video - all feedback I've had so far has been massive, so thanks team!

Really good work on this. It seems to suit *you* better as well. Only thing I'd say is that the point where you introduce the pros/cons table felt oddly timed and rushed - not that you should have made too much of a thing of it, but you could probably have cut visually to it earlier.

On 3/11/2023 at 9:09 PM, Supremo said:

They definitely have scope for a Saturday morning show aimed exclusively at kids. Cut all the blood and violence and just have the fun, comedy stuff. Get Brodie Junior in as the GM.

 

It's absolutely mind-blowing that they haven't done this already. Danhausen and the Best Friends would be perfect for this. Even a QT Marshall would be at the right level for it. But they have so many people who would fit perfectly.

22 minutes ago, Loki said:

So, you assume someone's innocence before trial, but feel comfortable assuming their guilt after they've been found not guilty?  That's interesting.

Personally, not necessarily, but I'm not required to. The legal system assumes it. Public opinion isn't required to. 

Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting there's a better system. I said it's the best system we have, and I genuinely believe that's true. But that doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally flawed. But in the same way that some of the accused are telling the truth and aren't believed, it also happens that many accusers are telling the truth and aren't believed. 

In the same way you're saying 'how do those accused prove that they're telling the truth', how do those who have been raped or assaulted prove that they're telling the truth? 

As you say, there aren't any easy answers. There aren't necessarily even any good answers. But I can definitely understand why some people take the approach of defaulting to believing those who are likely getting the least justice.

I'm mainly taking issue with your original point of 'if the court says it, then we should all accept it' - we're not required to, and I think that's genuinely important. I don't see an alternative outside of stacking the decks even more in favour of rapists and abusers. 

21 hours ago, Loki said:

Shouldn’t we accept those findings?  Otherwise how the hell does an innocent person ever prove their innocence?

21 hours ago, Loki said:

 It all ended up in an actual court which is exactly where these things should be judged. The number of sexual misconduct allegations that make it to court is shockingly low. But then you need to accept the outcome of the trial don’t you?  If he’d been found guilty I think most people would have simply accepted that as the truth.

You don't need to prove your innocence in court. Innocence is assumed. That's the entire basis of our legal system and, while it's the best we have, it's very far from perfect and lets down rape and sexual assault victims in particular.

'You need to accept the outcome of the trial' - well, no, you don't. Because the system isn't set up to make a decision - it's purely down to whether something was proved or not. And even then, there have been wrongful convictions as a result of that process (the Robert Brown case, for example).

Because the system is imperfect, and so particularly lets down victims in crimes it's difficult or impossible to prove, some people take the default position of believing those who make accusations. That doesn't strike me as any more unreasonable than defaulting to a low conviction rate meaning that the majority of those accused were innocent.

On 3/7/2023 at 2:20 PM, cobra_gordo said:

Gere as the silver fox hamming it up in The Jackal is great fun.

I always thought Gere would have been perfect casting for Ozymandias in a Watchmen film, especially in his silver fox days.

At the end of whichever his last match was (the Trios match, I think?), JR said 'well, thanks for having me for this part of the event' or something as a goodbye. 

I honestly think he's trying to be more loose and join in the banter a bit more, rather than trying to shit over the product. If you look at how easily Excalibur and Taz interact, and how easily Schiavone joins in (being gently bullied by Taz), I think he's trying to do the same. When it sounds like he's mocking Excalibur for his encylopedic knowledge, or like he's making a big deal of being corrected over something, I think he's genuinely doing it in good faith and trying to be a bit self-deprecating - he's just shit at it.

Overall, I really enjoyed that show. Totally get the point around things in death matches like 'well, I hit him with the brick and that worked well... I'll now not bother trying that again', but i still found it enjoyable. I'm not sold on MJF, but he put in a shift and worked well with Danielson. I did find the Iron Man match dragged though.

The best thing about the show was the feeling of a changing of the guard, though. It reminded me of Fully Loaded 2000, but going the opposite way - all the newer/home-grown talent went over, and it felt exciting as a result. Particularly, for me, I liked the Jericho/Starks ending more than I expected - Starks blocks the finisher, then hits his own MDK move rather than his fast finisher - felt like a proper putting-over, and I just wish the feud had started a few weeks later than it did. 

33 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

That's more than fair about Mox, and he was not part of the criticism I had. 

If viewers only watched nice people then the history of wrestling would be very different. I'm not sure there would have been anyone to watch in the 80s barring Steamboat and Sting. 

I'm not suggesting they fire everyone else. Just that having some likeable people on there isn't an automatic turn-off. 

12 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

I'm sure that been likeable makes for a happier work environment, but is it a draw at the gate or on TV? People only wanting to work with people they like is a lot of the position that AEW find themselves in now. 

I find I'm more likely to watch and enjoy people that I find likeable, personally. I wouldn't build an entire show around him, but it's got me more interested in this week than last week.

Out of everyone in the company, I don't think Mox comes across as 'only wanting to work with people he likes'.