The Smackers Thread

[Vamp]

I don't really understand the problem. I've seen "reality" television shows and documentaries that look similar. 

[TheScarlettChad]

I....liked it

DUCKS FOR COVER

[LaGoosh]

I think my issue with it is it feels so hollow and surface level. They did it because they wanted to do something that looked cool (or rather what a group of executives who are desperate for wrestling to be seen as equal to prestige TV dramas think is cool anyway) and that's it. There was no real reason from a story/narrative level to do all that "cinematic", heavily scripted, invisible camera bollocks. In fact if they did the exact same thing but presented it in a realistic sports/documentary style it probably would have been more effective. 

Edited September 21, 2024 by LaGoosh

[Hannibal Scorch]

8 minutes ago, LaGoosh said:

I think my issue with it is it feels so hollow and surface level. They did it because they wanted to do something that looked cool (or rather what a group of executives who are desperate for wrestling to be seen as equal to prestige TV dramas think is cool anyway) and that's it. There was no real reason from a story/narrative level to do all that "cinematic", heavily scripted, invisible camera bollocks. In fact if they did the exact same thing but presented it in a realistic sports/documentary style it probably would have been more effective. 

I’m not the target audience. And if the WWE Universe/Fandom/Audience like it, that’s great. But I have to agree. On watching it I was left wondering what the message was? It’s impressive looking, clearly spent a pretty penny, but I’m confused as to what it was and who it was for. However I think there is something to it and fair play for trying something new. Will be interesting to see not only how it’s received but also what they try and do in the future in a similar fashion. 

 

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

54 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

I’m confused as to what it was and who it was for.

That is the easiest part to answer actually Scorchinio. It was for the "Executive Producers" and it was designed to give them a massive boner because they are proper TV execs now. 

[DavidB6937]

The real cinema this week.

 

 

[RedTwoster]

I like Chelsea Green, but I wasn’t a fan of that vignette. 

I also wasn’t a fan of Vinci losing again. I’m not sure a losing streak storyline has ever had a satisfying payoff, let alone for a debuting character (albeit not a debuting wrestler).

[TheScarlettChad]

That Chelsea Green vignette was hilarious. Proper goofy heel comedy. She's great at it.

[Supremo]

Jacob Fatu and Tama Tonga won the Tag Titles, didn’t they? They it was switched to Tama Tonga and Tanga Loa? Surely they need to switch it again and make Solo and Jacob the Champions? Put the belts on the line against Roman and Cody. Eventually get the Usos involved.

Doing the Freebird Rule so that Tanga Loa has more matches and Jacob Fatu has less seems fucking mental to me.

Anyway, LA Knight needs to stop doing this move. His hit ratio is nowhere near good enough for the risk of looking like shit.

 

Edited September 21, 2024 by Supremo

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

20 minutes ago, Supremo said:

Jacob Fatu and Tama Tonga won the Tag Titles, didn’t they? They it was switched to Tama Tonga and Tanga Loa? Surely they need to switch it again and make Solo and Jacob the Champions? Put the belts on the line against Roman and Cody. Eventually get the Usos involved.

Doing the Freebird Rule so that Tanga Loa has more matches and Jacob Fatu has less seems fucking mental to me.

Anyway, LA Knight needs to stop doing this move. His hit ratio is nowhere near good enough for the risk of looking like shit.

 

Seems like they busted out the Lucha Ropes to slow him down. 

[Mr_Danger]

I thought the Georgia Tech cutscene was presented well but really jarred with both viewer’s expectations of professional wrestling and seeing a couple of Carny arse wrestlers trying to do something proper. I appreciate them trying something different though and it’ll be interesting to see what else they do with it.

[Chili]

17 minutes ago, Mr_Danger said:

I thought the Georgia Tech cutscene was presented well but really jarred with both viewer’s expectations of professional wrestling and seeing a couple of Carny arse wrestlers trying to do something proper. I appreciate them trying something different though and it’ll be interesting to see what else they do with it.

Yeah, I should state that it's always good to try something new or different and well done to them for at least trying it, but when the context is just to do it, it feels a bit up it's own arse. Trying something different is great and can lead to great things like say the Booker T/Steve Austin supermarket fight, some of those brilliant cinematic matches etc but then you can also get canon zombies, Brandi Rhodes dissolving a stable through it being a terrible dream, Bray Wyatt in dayglow mountain dew and Triple H shagging a corpse. Just because people talk about it doesn't mean it was successful, always a proper cop out that one. 

Edited September 21, 2024 by Chili

[The King of Old School]

2 hours ago, Supremo said:

Doing the Freebird Rule so that Tanga Loa has more matches and Jacob Fatu has less seems fucking mental to me.

Nah not for me.

Keep Fatu out of matches as much as possible, especially tag matches with this lot, keep that aura strong.

The other two are losers who get beat up every week so keep the tag belts on them.

Edited September 21, 2024 by The King of Old School

[Supremo]

11 hours ago, Supremo said:

I’ve only seen clips of the vignette, but it’s not surprising. It’s very on brand for WWE in 2024. They’ve improved massively. They’re red hot. But don’t they just know it. There’s a real sense of smugness and being up their own arse half the time. This was the perfect example of it. I swear, half the accounts on Twitter calling this stuff, “Cinema,” are just Shawn and Hunter’s burners.

Checks out.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, The King of Old School said:

The other two are losers who get beat up every week so keep the tag belts on them.

This sentence should be unacceptable, but is probably exactly how they're thinking about it.