Snowball Fighter Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 BiffingtonClyro: Yep. Could be. But in WWE, it's often not the logcal explanation. It's the goofy, horrible explanation. That's why I wasn't inclined to laugh personally.  Allstar69: Know what you're saying. But, OK, does 'wrestling is wrestling' apply to all the goofy shit they've ever done? Mae Young giving birth to a hand = 'wrestling is wrestling'?! Have to remember, in the late 90s, wrestling used to offer exciting, entertaining stuff that wasn't overly stupid/boring/samey/goofy/lame... People seem to forget...  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z zzzzzzzzzz  Anyway that was a very good Raw for the most part though you have to feel for Ziggler being jobbed two nights in a row. Enjoyed the way you summarised my argument with 'zzzzzz' and then went on to talk about Ziggler getting 'jobbed' as though that was your idea of something worth posting. Kinda put your witty response into perspective.  Not Ziggler getting jobbed!!!111 Noooooo!  But thanks for the feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiffingtonClyro Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 There's no explanation needed, it was clearly obvious that's what they meant. I now realize why Wrestling angles and storylines are so two dimensional most of the time. People like you wouldn't understand the obvious nuances of more in depth ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstar69 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 There has been lots of lame stuff over the years to be fair. I aint no good at lists but there defo has been Lame segments ALWAYS.(someone with proper wrestling knowledge could do it if they so wish) Also non wrestling fans think all wrestling is lame so its up to the viewer really regardless if its the most logical well written tv spot ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King of Old School Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Glad Orton is back, like others have said he looked great on Raw, and was a nice match with Ziggler. Â Thing is though, unless Orton wins the World Title at the Elimination Chamber, who is he going to face at Mania? Looks like he will get lost in the shuffle as surely they throw him in the MITB match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowball Fighter Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Allstar69: I know what you're saying. Â There's no explanation needed, it was clearly obvious that's what they meant. I now realize why Wrestling angles and storylines are so two dimensional most of the time. People like you wouldn't understand the obvious nuances of more in depth ones. You're just being dim now. Or playing to the crowd. As you've apparently missed the point totally. Â Crap gets churned out an awful lot now on WWE TV, and one of the reasons that can happen is because you guys are prepared to defend and praise the product as it is. I was only really a big fan when they had characters with a consistent constitution. When things developed more logically, like "What will Austin do about X?" When there were intersecting feuds, factions, stories under an umbrella storyline... All of which required a huge amount of creative effort to construct. I want the better, more developed, more thought-through creatively thing. You're defending the current trend which means compartmentalised, simple feuds (often based on creaky ideas which have been pulled out of someone's arse that day) are the norm now. Â In the show I want... Punk would have stuck to the things he said before... He'd have continued to think the WWE title looks ugly, and done something about it. He wouldn't have just started holding it aloft proudly all the time as though he'd never said those things. Logic, consistency and creative effort made Raw must-see viewing at certain times in the past. I want that. You have decided to argue on the side of WWE doing their current shit. So well done you. Â Realise this is deraling the Raw topic, and some of you seem to think I'm a valid target for the 'troll' accusation. So I am happy to leave you guys to it if it's really causing that much heartache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators neil Posted January 31, 2012 Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2012 So I am happy to leave you guys to it if it's really causing that much heartache. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members stumobir Posted January 31, 2012 Author Paid Members Share Posted January 31, 2012 Snowball Fighter, you need to simmer yourself down pal. It wasn't an angle or a storyline it was a witty one-liner made in passing and one that everyone in this thread, bar you, found to be amusing. Raw is a soap opera with men in trunks and has been for well over a decade, if you don't like the quirkiness or "lameness of the illogical booking" away and watch the indies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bono Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Good raw starting to see a few matches coming through for mania  Rock v cena  Taker v hhh  Punk v jericho  Sheamus v bryan  Orton v barrat (unless it happens at the elimantion chamber)  Money in the bank (can see dolph winning this)  With maybe 2 more matches and probaly tyson thrown in there somewhere!  Looking a good card! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItsClobberingTime Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Orton v barrat (unless it happens at the elimantion chamber) It's happening on Smackdown. Â I'd hate for it to happen at Mania. They've faced each other so many times in singles. Â I wouldn't mind a twist on it somehow but it wouldn't feel like a Mania match after all these times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted January 31, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 31, 2012 Snowball Fighter - has anything been said on WWE television within the last five years that would specify that William Regal doesn't have conjoined twin daughters in the attic? There was nothing to specify that Sheamus wasn't related to Beaker. That doesn't really, y'know... Doesn't really mean anything. Where are you going with this? Â Remember, I was making an overall point as to why I took the Regal thing a different way. If you're trying to justify the Regal thing as OK, as others have (and I did that myself BTW) then you'll have to justify all the other examples I gave and tie it all together. You won't be addressing my point otherwise. Â Okay. Let's address your point then, shall we? Â To anyone endorsing the Regal thing as great or whatever... How does it fit within the storyline world of Raw? Â Man, I'm used to having these kind of arguments about comic books or Doctor Who, about "Canon" vs "non-Canon". However, new information about a character doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't fit. Even if we ignore the idea that Regal was taking the piss (and personally, I prefer to interpret Regal's face at the end of the segment as being a reflection of the haunted thoughts of his children. Not because it makes more sense, but because it's funnier), the idea that Regal would be a horrible father with incredibly old-fashioned, unpleasant attitudes towards children is fine, because it doesn't affect any more about his character. It's just an odd detail, but that doesn't mean that it's inconsistent with the rest of the "storyline world of Raw" (and good FUCK, but that's a wanky phrase). Â By that I mean... Does Regal's character have kids in his attic now? If not... Then how is it a funny/great thing? How does it work in the storyline world of Raw? Why is Regal (the character) saying that to Ace (the character)??? Â Yeah, I've pretty much answered this. There's been nothing to contradict it. NOTHING. You're arguing primarily about inconsistency, because otherwise it's just about personal taste in character/comedy. And you'd have to be an idiot to get people to justify personal taste in character/comedy in the way that you are doing so. Â I accept the point about inconsistency, because inconsistency annoys me. But there's nothing to suggest that this was inconsistent with the way Regal has generally been portrayed. Â I think I already know the answers, and people who want to defend it for the sake of defending it will be able to think of a rationalisation anyway (Ace doesn't really listen! And Regal was just yanking his chain! Blah blah blah)... But just want people to realise that when things like 'Mae Young giving birth to a hand' happen... It's because the level of care/attention applied re: logic/sense has dropped WAY too low, and a similar lack of care/attention was applied to that Regal nonsense. Â You have issues with the suggestion that Regal may make fun of John Laurinitis, knowing he's not listening anyway? To the point that it's about a level of care/attention applied re: logic/sense? Â O....kay. Â "LOL! Hornswoggle did a rap!"... "LOL! Sheamus is related to Beaker!"... "LOL! Vince turned water into wine!"... "LOL! Regal said he keeps his kids in the attic!"Â etc etc etc. Â Raw has been too goofy and lame for nearly 10 years. Thus, that segment wasn't the funniest IMO. Was just another symptom of the flawed creative underpinnings. Â Oh, there's just so much wrong with this. You can only accept that it was funny if it reflects internal logic, but you're mentioning points that DO reflect that along with elements that don't, and insisting that they're the same. Â I can't remember the first time Hornswoggle did a rap. I *think* it was while he was still, within the internal logic of the show, unable to speak English. Similarly, Vince supposedly actually turned water into wine, and it didn't seem that it was done as a trick on Vince's behalf. Okay, it's surreal comedy, but it's not my favourite kind either. As you say, it's totally out of line with the logic of the rest of the show. I don't like Hornswoggle (although I do like the guy that plays him... go figure), because I dislike the kind of humour that involves midgets having their own world under the ring, and I dislike the kind of humour that involves him drawing a cartoon tunnel on the wall. Silly is one thing - cartoon is another. Â That doesn't mean that they can't be consistent other times. Sheamus mentioned the Beaker thing as proof he enjoys having a laugh sometimes - clearly suggesting they're not actually cousins. And Regal treating his kids awfully is no more inconsistent than the revelation that Vince lost his virginity at the age of eight. Â And the final, incredibly wrong point you've made is the suggestion that because something is generally not funny, that it can't have good jokes. I've seen sitcoms that I generally hated, but been able to concede when they've written a good joke. To say "the show is bad, therefore the joke is not funny" is deeply idiotic. The only way it makes sense is the other way around - "the jokes are not funny, therefore the show is bad". Or, alternatively, you have to admit that it has nothing to do with internal logic, and is entirely to do with your own taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Fox Piss Posted January 31, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 31, 2012 They need to change Brodus up a bit already. His entrance is shit now and he has become quite boring. Â Times Ticking for this gimmick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 And Regal treating his kids awfully is no more inconsistent than the revelation that Vince lost his virginity at the age of eight. MVP reckons he lost his at age four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tom Posted January 31, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 31, 2012 Well I'm more than happy with that as the beginning of the road to WrestleMania and it feels like they've just been passing the time whilst waiting to get to the night after the Rumble. Bryan-Punk was really good stuff and hopefully at some point after Mania we'll get to see a match between the two with a decisive finish, but for now, the way they booked the finish was exactly what Bryan needs and it kick started the Jericho feud nicely. Â Punk took the best in the world tag from Jericho and Jericho has already attacked that status by giving Bryan chance to brag about how he won the battle of the best and came out on top; technically Punk now can't even claim to be the best in the WWE let alone the world, and Jericho will soon prove that it is infact he that is the best. Â I'm not sure where this leaves Ziggler now but he has put in two brilliant displays at the Rumble and last night; he needs something to keep him fresh though and I think we'll finally be seeing him and Swagger explode over the US title soon enough. Â And what can I say about the ending? That was fucking brilliant, and I loved the way they turned last years segment completely on its head; remember, HHH claimed weeks ago that he had basically put The Streak to bed, and now Undertaker is desperate, and will grow increasingly desperate, to show the world that he's not finished just yet. For the first time in his career, Undertaker isn't the one in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Good raw starting to see a few matches coming through for mania Rock v cena  Taker v hhh  Punk v jericho  Sheamus v bryan  Orton v barrat (unless it happens at the elimantion chamber)  Money in the bank (can see dolph winning this)  With maybe 2 more matches and probaly tyson thrown in there somewhere!  Looking a good card!  Although it was originally dropped, i do believe the MITB PPV is back on this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted January 31, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 31, 2012 And Regal treating his kids awfully is no more inconsistent than the revelation that Vince lost his virginity at the age of eight. MVP reckons he lost his at age four. Â Most Vagina'd Player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.