Jump to content

WWE Raw Discussion **SPOILERS**


Mr.Showtime

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
Can I also just point out one thing from Raw:

 

"I got emotional and I touched you. I thought that's what friends do!"

 

.......I don't know what to say.

 

Expect thats not what he said.

 

He said; "I got lost in the moment. I got a little emotional, and I put my hands on you. I thought friends could do that."

 

When talking about the push, which was mentioned a sentence earlier, it makes perfect sense in context. "Thought friends could do that" would obviously mean that he thought he would have gotten the benefit of the doubt over the situation.

 

See, this seems to imply to me that Nash knew that Punk was going to win but then that would also mean that HHH planned to help Punk win which makes things even more confusing and not well thought through

Not really. It would mean that if Punk won the match, Nash had this text thing to fall back on as his excuse for doing what he did. If Cena won the match, Nash didn't have to do a thing. Seen as he was the only one who knew about the text, he wouldn't have to actually act on it and nobody would be any wiser. It would be a case of no harm no foul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Paid Members

My mistake.

 

The Bourne's music intro cutting to Kingston's was pretty terrible. I think they should just stick to Kofi's music. His music is pretty cool.

 

I know The Great Khali is supposed to be this scary monster but his legs look so bony and brittle I just feel sorry for him. He just looks like the giant retarded baby that doesn't know what it's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expect thats not what he said.

 

He said; "I got lost in the moment. I got a little emotional, and I put my hands on you. I thought friends could do that."

 

When talking about the push, which was mentioned a sentence earlier, it makes perfect sense in context. "Thought friends could do that" would obviously mean that he thought he would have gotten the benefit of the doubt over the situation.

 

 

Not really. It would mean that if Punk won the match, Nash had this text thing to fall back on as his excuse for doing what he did. If Cena won the match, Nash didn't have to do a thing. Seen as he was the only one who knew about the text, he wouldn't have to actually act on it and nobody would be any wiser. It would be a case of no harm no foul.

 

Why wouldn't he of powerbombed Cena? As I understand the story (at this point in time) Nash just wanted a excuse to do something and get noticed. Why would he of held back if Cena won instead?

 

To me the storyline is making sense so far, and I don't understand why people are saying otherwise:

 

Nash - Wants to get back into wrestling. And one way to do it was to try and create demand for a Nash vs Cena / Punk match, and so WWE would have to hire him to realise that match. It dosen't help that hes a arrogant fuck and thinks Punk should be kissing his ass for being a legend.

 

HHH - Hes just got into power and he stuck in the middle of Punk and Nash. Nash is trying to abuse his friendship to get his WWE contract and Punk is getting incredibly personal with him. The stress has got to him, so hes fired his friend and getting ready to beat the living shit out of Punk.

 

Punk - Punk has never got on with HHH but is really pushing it now because in his eyes he believes HHH and Nash screwed him out of the WWE title. Hes sick of politics, hes sick of how wrestling is ran... and after getting rid of McMahon, hes now got the exact same scenario with HHH and it fucks him off.

 

Whats not to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that doesn't make sense, for me, is the booking. I can't understand why they've put Punk, a seemingly hot face, up against HHH who is also meant to be a face.

 

It's killing whatever momentum they may have had.

 

But I think the end result of the storyline will be one of them going heel, probably even Punk, so it would all make sense in the end. It's stalled it a little with face/face dynamic, but I think when the storyline reaches it's conclusion it'll all come together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I watched Raw again last night, and it looks - to me, anyway - like they're just in a transitional phase.

They're trying new things and testing the water, which is brilliant to see - like a push for Ryder, Air Boom, Miz & Truth, Sheamus as a face, the ambiguous Punk/Nash/HHH storyline - and hopefully they reap the reward on this, because although for the last couple of weeks, the main event storylines (on both Smackdown and Raw) have been a shred of a clusterfuck, they have so many other exciting things bubbling to the surface or waiting to happen (as somebody, think it was Loki-Sir, commented a bit back on this topic).

It's the one show, beside Burn Notice, that I am really looking forward to each week, and I haven't had that with Raw in a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think the end result of the storyline will be one of them going heel, probably even Punk, so it would all make sense in the end. It's stalled it a little with face/face dynamic, but I think when the storyline reaches it's conclusion it'll all come together.

I hope so. For me, it'd be a bit weird to turn Punk heel as it would hardly be a shock, and would slightly render everything pointless in my mind anyway.

 

I'm not sure I want an evil COO either (whether it be HHH or Johnny).,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Why wouldn't he of powerbombed Cena? As I understand the story (at this point in time) Nash just wanted a excuse to do something and get noticed. Why would he of held back if Cena won instead?

I haven't picked up that Nash just wanted an excuse to do something to get noticed at all. Although, I did miss a week of Raw, so I could have well missed out that, but I did read the spoilers that week, and never saw that mentioned. What I thought was the general consensus that Nash is pissed a Punk for constantly running his mouth, disrespecting his best mate and his best mates wife, and not liking how his best mate hadn't done anything about it. So at Summerslam he took it upon himself to shut Punk's mouth. Thats what I thought the main crux of Nash's involvement is.

 

Obviously, there is more to come on that, with Johnny Ace constantly lurking around, signing Nash to a bumper deal and getting into the limo with him on Raw. But at this point in time, I thought that was Nash's primary motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was alright.

 

Quick smarky pointing out of Logic Hole: This might eventually come back into play at some point, but I don't recall it being mentioned at all since SummerSlam... Triple H's bad call on the Cena vs Punk SummerSlam three-count. If that's never going to be referenced again (and Cena doesn't seem to give a fuck about it, so why would it?) then they shouldn't have done it at all.

 

The show itself was fine, though. Punk/HHH/Nash was more of the same unfocused insider reference stuff that isn't doing much for any of them, although I loved Nash going "this universe isn't big enough for he and I!" Surely he was taking the piss out of the storyline himself.

 

Punk vs R-Truth was good, and I thought the Miz/Truth speech beforehand was unintentionally awkward but fun. Looking forward to Miz and Truth vs Air Boom... Ryder had a good showing... I enjoyed all the Cena/Del Rio stuff, including the main event. Nice exposure for Ziggler and Swagger and their issue, and Sheamus had a great little spell... Orton, like Sheamus, is one of the best things in wrestling at the moment. If the Viper could do decent interviews, he'd probably be my favourite... I thought the divas stuff was fine for what it was as well.

 

On a side note, I would love to know John Cena's win/loss record over the last 3 years.

I'd love to see Austin's from 1997-2002.

 

Not seen the show but read the spoilers. The thing that seem to jump out as odd to me was this:

 

Previously on Smackdown, Triple H was able to force Christian to fight Orton in a NO DQ match at Summerslam, yet on this weeks RAW, CM Punk refused to accept the NO DQ stipulation unless Triple H put his COO job on the line.

They never said Punk could refuse to accept. Punk made a counter-offer, Triple H accepted because he didn't want to look like a pussy and back down.

 

Besides, wrestling has never ever been consistent on the way matches are signed/agreed to. That's why some matches have contract signings and some matches are made by Teddy Long interrupting brawls and going "right, if you want a scrap, you're in a tag match that starts now!" It's a stupid thing to nitpick about in 2011 when it went on just as much back when we all actually liked wrestling.

 

But why is it as a babyface he forced Christian to into a no holds barred match against a psychotic Orton?

But why is it as a babyface Austin kidnapped McMahon and held a gun to his head?

 

Using Nash's text logic, what would of happened had Cena won? It seems that WWE writers don't plan more then 2 weeks after the storyline

THAN.

 

I would of

WOULD HAVE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Re: Nash, I actually think he's looked pretty good. I even think his promo delivery has been spot on.

 

HHH heeling it up is most certainly the way to go. I respect that the prospect of a return to the days when he'd babble on for 20 minutes at the opening of the show wouldn't receive the warmest of welcomes initially, but think about it; all the conspiracy stuff would come to a head in a big way. It makes absolute perfect sense to put him in such a roe for one, because in reality he DOES have backstage stroke and his real-life marriage to Steph gives the angle immediate legitimacy.

 

Besides that, you've already got Punk and Cena to play babyface fodder to HHH and his evil reign of terror. Throw Randy Orton into the mix and possibly stick The Miz or Del Rio on HHH's side as a potential corporate champion, and I think things would keep getting very interesting from here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It definitely is meant to be a weird dynamic, but some of the stuff they came out with sounded so forced. "Doesn't that happen after puberty?"

 

 

Besides that, you've already got Punk and Cena to play babyface fodder to HHH and his evil reign of terror. Throw Randy Orton into the mix

NO. As good as HHH, Cena and Orton are, they should not be involved with each other. Especially when trying to establish new stars and a new era. Cena, HHH and Orton as opponents would just take everything straight back to stale, status-quo boring WWE when at least two of the three were always feuding with each other. They've all wrestled each other so many times that it's impossible to seem fresh or for the results to matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They never said Punk could refuse to accept. Punk made a counter-offer, Triple H accepted because he didn't want to look like a pussy and back down.

 

Besides, wrestling has never ever been consistent on the way matches are signed/agreed to. That's why some matches have contract signings and some matches are made by Teddy Long interrupting brawls and going "right, if you want a scrap, you're in a tag match that starts now!" It's a stupid thing to nitpick about in 2011 when it went on just as much back when we all actually liked wrestling.

 

1) I did clearly say I hadn't seen it, so was open to being corrected. I've seen the segment now and your right, it didn't come back anywhere near as bad once I saw it. Triple H came out and said its no DQ, and Punk effectively said "well if your that hard why don't you put your job on the line too."

 

2) For your information I did use to get irritated about inconsistencies when they started to come up when I was younger, its not just a "new thing" I've been doing in 2011. And besides, this only really started to happen around the McMahon / Austin fued from my vantage point as a fan (I started watching just before WrestleMania 12). When I started watching it there seemed to be more of a focus on rules and made the product more believable in my young innocent eyes.

 

Some examples:

 

1) A champion could only be forced to defend the belt every 30 days, and this rule was used by heels to get heat, or waived by the likes of Bret Hart to show he was a fighting champion.

 

2) Austin faced Vader mere nights before a big fatal fourway on PPV (The Final Four). The commentators talked about how reckless it was to risk the PPV win just to go at it one on one, and the commentators mentioned that both men signed open contracts that would allow either man to sign up to face the other.

 

3) Some more extreme stipulations had to be agreed by all parties. In fact some were so extreme that the WWE would make them unsanctioned, but still required the okay from both competitors.

 

4) Triple H was re entered into the king of the ring because officials failed to mention he could get knocked out via a DQ, and his lawyers manage to wrangle him another qualification match as a result.

 

 

I know you may think this is "nit picking" but to me they are little things that add up to improve my enjoyment of the show. Consistent rules create obstacles for the heros to face, and ultimately it is these obstacles that help create the story of the good guy overcoming the bad guy.

 

E.g. Orton wants Christian and his world title back and is the number one contender. He wants Christian in a street fight. Christian tells him to fuck off because he can't legally be forced to face him in such a dangerous environment. After a week or two, Christian finally comes back and says "you know what, I've changed my mind. I will give you your street fight, but I want you to sign this contract agreeing that you won't challenge for the world title for a period of a year. To me that is more interesting than just automatically making in a no DQ match for the sake of it.

 

I mean why must wrestling have a lower standard of consistent story telling "just because" it's wrestling? When other major television shows do it they get (rightfully) criticised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...