Paid Members chokeout Posted May 20, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) When you say highest earning are you talking about how much they are paid it how much their films make? Because He blows Will Smith out of the water with box office returns and was actually number 1 last year with about 1.5billion Edited May 20, 2016 by chokeout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted May 20, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted May 20, 2016 It's still mind boggling how close they came to fucking it up. It's always amusing when people on here in the past have claimed that the ending of WM30 was the plan all along, despite Meltzer and the newz~ sites reporting the Sheamus idea then and after the fact, and Bryan saying so in his book.Oddly, them being clueless and initially pushing Bryan down the card and side tracking him (like them turning him into a Wyatt, allegedly to stop fans ruining their shit with Bryan chants) was the best thing for that particular build. It only served to enhance Bryan as a guy the fans wanted despite the company not caring for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro Red Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 When you say highest earning are you talking about how much they are paid it how much their films make? Because He blows Will Smith out of the water with box office returns and was actually number 1 last year with about 1.5billion Not in leading roles though, Chris Pratt was highest either way at 1.7 billion for Jurassic World, Vin Diesel at 1.5 then Harrison Ford at 1.2. the Rock isn't in the top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Statto Posted May 20, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) Luke Gallows looks pretty horrendous. The ring gear, tattoos & fake tan just isn't working for him. Â His gear was awesome when he first became Gallows in the SES. Then he had that very brief run between the break-up of SES and his WWE release where he had a really garish shiny silver design on the front of his singlet top, and pretty much all his gear has been entirely hideous since then. Â Less is more. Edited May 20, 2016 by Statto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSeaTiger Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 Two thoughts.. Watched Bret vs Owen from Mania X and Vince talked about his accomplishments..."2 time tag, 2 time IC Champion" etc...and they sounded like a massive deal. Nowadays when they rhymed off whose won what, to me it sounds meaningless...Cena is what,15 time champ? Orton is in double figures? In 11 years there's been those two plus Ziggler, Del Rio, Punk, Edge, Bryan, Trips, Rollins , Reigns and many more. Winning a belt now truly means fuck all IMO. They've been devalued so much. Â and I'm currently watching Rock/ Mankind from Survivors 98....it really shows how sterile the format is these days. The same HD set, with a different graphic on screen. Only show they make an effort for is WM. This show with the Giant skull was cool, each show stood apart, if not for in-ring, then for the look of the entrance set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Dem Wanz Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 and I'm currently watching Rock/ Mankind from Survivors 98....it really shows how sterile the format is these days. The same HD set, with a different graphic on screen. Only show they make an effort for is WM. This show with the Giant skull was cool, each show stood apart, if not for in-ring, then for the look of the entrance set. Â This is one of my main pet peeves of modern wrestling and I think it has something to do with the way everything now is so streamlined. Music, travel, film and even people's accents are becoming homogenised in an increasingly globalised world to a point where everyone and everything will be exactly the same. Â It would cost them a little more but the visual impact really helped make each show stand out and create that little bit of excitement and association that is missing now. Look at the massive cosmetic changes in the three year period between 1998 and 2001 and contrast them with the 2013-2016 period. Survivor Series 98? Giant skull. Summerslam 2000? Oval screen with the big 'S'. Backlash 2001? Moving scaffolding scythes. Any PPV apart from Wrestlemania in 2013, 14 and 15? The same 'HD' set but with a different graphic on the front according to the month you were in like you mention. Â It might seem odd linking pro wrestling sets and globalisation, but anyway - give us back our creative and different wrestling sets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undefeated Steak Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 The belts are only ever a reflection of the division they're respresenting. There's little wonder the midcard belts are meaningless props. However, they've done a good job of building up the WWE belt over recent years. Far better than when that lost generation of Swagger, Del Rio, Ziggler et al all had a run with it. Â Punk, Bryan, Lesnar, Rock and co have all had good angles and/or runs with the WWE belt. Â It's sometimes better to imagine each new design of the WWE belt as a subversion of it. The most recent version (that I think Rock debuted?) has been handled pretty well, all things considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 The problem with the old sets is they all look like cheap shit, and WWE would be wary of that in HD with proper lighting. They'd have to spend shitloads on stuff that'd stand up to modern standards, and there's no point in them doing it. Anyone who cares about the stage designs is already watching regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidB6937 Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 Yeah, as much as I loved all the different themed sets, WWE really have nothing to gain from doing it. It was always fun seeing the new ones in video games, but that was about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Undefeated Steak Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 That's a fair point Pitcos. Never really thought of it like that. They could hide a lot more in the 90's with the darker arenas and lower quality broadcasts.  Speaking of which, I don't like how clearly you can see the fans and around the arena in general now on WWE shows. It makes the arenas look way smaller than they used to. It used to be a sea of signs and fans didn't it. I wish they'd turn the crowd mics down and the lights around the arena a too, maybe lower the lighting rig so the ring area still shows up properly in HD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinc Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 The problem with the old sets is they all look like cheap shit, and WWE would be wary of that in HD with proper lighting. They'd have to spend shitloads on stuff that'd stand up to modern standards, and there's no point in them doing it. Anyone who cares about the stage designs is already watching regardless. Â A spinning HD CGI Roman Reigns head would be a class backdrop for Extreme Rules, though. They could do it on the HD set too. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gaffer Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 I don't think cost really comes in to it. Even in 98-08 most sets were just a different rearrangement of the same basic screens and metal struts. Â They can mix it up if they want to, they just don't. The HD set is part of the brand image now where the idea is it should look the same across the board. Â The Network specials look cool because the smaller set is different but there's no way WWE is doing a smaller anything nowadays. And virtually anything else you could do bar WrestleMania will look smaller than that enormous HD set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted May 20, 2016 Moderators Share Posted May 20, 2016 Also, re: earlier: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=math  Maddox is the biggest dweeb and weakling in the world, why would you use him to bolster your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016  Also, re: earlier: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=math   Maddox is the biggest dweeb and weakling in the world, why would you use him to bolster your point? Plus he can't even spell the word "Maths". The idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dart Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 Apparently Kevin Owens is the first person ever to be on every PPV in their first year on the main roster since 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts