By
contributing to Online
Onslaught,
you'll help make sure we're around for years to come. Toss us as little as
a few bucks, or as much as your generosity allows. Thanks!
Subject: OOfficial Ratings/Discussion Thread for: RAW (February 8, 2010)
doctorb
Posts 472
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline
Mood: need coffee
posted on 2-9-2010 at 05:58 PM
quote:Originally posted by The Riot Act
Maybe he does this all that the time and I've simply never noticed it before, but did anyone else think Cena sounded a bit like Morgan Freeman
after the commercial break when he was getting ready to call out Vince? Just the cadence of his speech and the little drawl he had sounded so familiar
to me. Maybe being in Lousianna had something to do with it?
The "B" is for Bargain!
LuckyLopez
Reeks of WCW
Posts 11345
Registered 2-13-2003 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 06:34 PM
quote:Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
I don't understand why so many people are so offended by a score of 4-4.6 for this show. What do you guys expect from RAW exactly? This had a
pretty good Christian/Sheamus opener that hit on several bullet points and FINALLY did what you all have been complaining about every week and
that's give Sheamus a credible win without making Christian look bad. This had a great and long triple threat elimination match for the tag
titles that continued a few different angles and gave us a fresh new tag team to support as champs. This advanced the main event angle without one of
the main players in it. They advanced SEVERAL storylines tonight - DX implosion, Bret/Vince/Cena/Batista, Miz/Big Show as a team, Sheamus fighting for
respect, the Legacy implosion that's going better than I expected, the woman's title match, even Santino/Swagger got a mention and slight
build, pretty much nothing was ignored except MVP. The only bad point was a harmless womans match that lasted, what a minute, and had Maryse on
commentary. The guest host seemed happy to be there, didn't fuck anything up, they built to next week's RAW well, and Jared from Subway
even made a non-useless appearance. Everything just felt different and fresh.. and the road to WM is unpredictable and makes for some compelling TV.
Everything flowed well, was entertaining, and never a dull moment. This would be a 4.5 show even if RA Wwas good every week. Please, oh dear fantasy
bookers, tell me how to make RAW a 5.0 show, and please don't include the words 'Evan Bourne' in the post please.
Step down from your box for a moment. Last night I defended the big ratings as understandable given subjective opinion and context. Today I'll
flip the card and point out you're doing the exact same thing those people are doing. How can someone not think that show deserves a near
perfect score?
- They were nonplussed by a forgettable Sheamus/Christian match since even though it was the closest Sheamus has come to credible in months it was
still a throwaway and forgettable match and a win over someone who's really no higher on the WWE pecking order than Sheamus and who needs some
credibility himself?
- They're nonplussed by the tag title change because Miz/Show feels like a redo of Jericho/Show and seems like it could be a poor choice since
it probably means one of Miz's titles being ignored at the benefit of the other?
- They're nonplussed by the Bret Hart stuff because they lost interest in the story a decade ago and have no real desire to watch a 60-year-old
non-wrestler compete against a 50-year-old retired wrestler who may or may not be physically limited by a stroke?
- They're nonplussed by DX drama because they've seen HBK and HHH fight so many times in the past they have no need to see it happen
again?
- They're nonplussed by Legacy drama since in the past they've been given no reason to care about Legacy so Dibiase and Rhodes are
starting more or less from 0 on this?
I'm not offended by high ratings for this show and even though they strike me as too high I can understand why, if the stars align right for
your SUBJECTIVE tastes, that show really clicked for you. I also understand how if those things DON'T click with your subjective tastes then it
can be a really forgettable and subpar show. You flipping the argument and demanding they fantasy book a better show is really just the same myopic
view of the show.
quote:Originally posted by S Kid J E T S 48
Considering there was a stretch of weeks from like...October-December where people would give pre-show rants then give pre-show 1.0s and 0.0s, or say
something to the effect of "Hornswoggle was on tv for more than a minute, 0.5 for the show", I find it strange people even bother to complain when
the ratings go the other way in an extreme way.
I think using hyperbolic anecdotal evidence to support ratings is pretty counter productive, since at best what you just told me was that the 4.6 you
gave is as legitimate as the 0.0 someone gave before a show... which wasn't terrible legitimate.
quote:The ratings are for however a person feels like rating a show. There doesn't seem to be any sort of guideline that anyone actually
follows (I know one exists and have read it - doesn't seem to matter a lot of the time). Until ratings are actually tabulated and recorded and
analyzed, there's no reason for anyone to really get banged up about anyone's ratings.
Its a talking point. Its something for us to debate and go back and forth about. Its the sort of thing that causes a discussion board to exist.
Now personally? I still go off the guidelines posted at the top of every thread.
quote:# Consider a 5.0 to be an almost unattainable "perfect storm" of awesome (not just a well-put-together show, but almost certainly requiring
something special/unique in the form of "stunt booking"). If it happens, it'll be remembered fondly and with clarity for years to come.
# A 4.0 should be considered "as good as we can reasonably hope for"; this is an excellent show in the "Sustainable Episodic Television" mold,
with nothing special or fancy. A lot of fun in and of itself, and also with enough juice to get you pumped for tuning in again next time.
# A 3.0 is where cracks begin to appear, and is more of a show in the vein of "the sort of episode we've come to expect"; this sort of show
does what it needs to, but without any real sizzle; it isn't counter-productive at all, but it will also be forgotten very quickly.
# A 2.0 is a show that has more misses than hits, and falls below any fair expectations; this is a show that will still have SOME redeeming qualities,
although it's also a show that you'd prefer to watch on DVR with a fast-forward button at your command.
As far as I can see that show wasn't anything close to "an almost unattainable "perfect storm" of awesome" so it won't come near a
5.0. I could say that it was "as good as we can reasonably hope for" and give a 4.0 but that feels like me really shortchanging the show's
potential as I still think Sheamus could have been given something more than a meaningless win in a meaningless match over a midcarder from a show
watched by less people than Superstars. And I'm pretty underwhelmed by the Miz/Show team, personally, and while that and the Sheamus/Christian
match were decent neither is one good enough to remember a day later. And a 2 hour show that only had 2 matches I can remember (ignoring the 45
second Divas non-match) feels very lacking in that regard, especially when neither of those matches were anything special. So was that show "as good
as we can reasonably hope for"? I'd say no, and I don't think its unreasonable if I hope for the champ looking more legitimate, the
midcard titles having more interesting options, and the show having a little more wrestling.
On the other hand is that "the sort of episode we've come to expect"? No, that was probably significantly better. In fact, I commented mid
show how surprised I was that I was as interested in it as I was because I was expecting the usual RAW and had planned to do things whenever the show
bored me enough to walk away... and that never really happened. So, hey. I've found my guidelines. Significantly higher than a 3.0,
significantly lower than a 4.0.
So how about a 3.2? That works pretty well for me, I think. Nothing special, no major points or reason for me to tune in next weak... but no
significant flaws or things that turned me off. An overall entertaining enough, if completely forgettable, show. The only thing I suspect I'll
remember in a week being a 50-year-old man tripping during a silly looking temper tantrum.
[Edited on 2-9-2010 by LuckyLopez]
doctorb
Posts 472
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Where everyone is rich but me Member Is Offline
Mood: need coffee
posted on 2-9-2010 at 06:39 PM
quote:Originally posted by LuckyLopez
- They're nonplussed by Legacy drama since in the past they've been given no reason to care about Legacy so Dibiase and Rhodes are
starting more or less from 0 on this?
Isn't that the truth? The crowd was dead for the orton/rhodes match and I kept thinking back to when Orton RKO'd Dusty and the crowd was
chanting for Cody and he just cried and several of us said "that's it for him." There went any hope of him having a character worth caring
about and the WWE is so stupid for not even thinking that a face reaction could happen that they told him to cry in the corner instead of going
with the flow or some sort of backup plan. Maybe I'm giving too much credit to an event that happened months ago, but I think last night was the
inevitable reaction to him being such a useless bitch for so long.
The "B" is for Bargain!
LuckyLopez
Reeks of WCW
Posts 11345
Registered 2-13-2003 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 06:48 PM
Eh, I don't know how much that Rhodes segment would have worked if they had gone with it, but clearly that is a good example of something last
night's Legacy moments were missing. That past segment was built largely on a man who IS over in Dusty Rhodes and it makes a lot of sense that
Cody might have been able to leech heat off his father and do something with it to make it his own. Maybe it would have failed, maybe not.
But the definite problem I have with Legacy now is that they're all we've got and I just don't give a shit about either one of them.
Neither has ever done a thing to make me give a shit about them. And after what feels like a lifetime of them playing generic bootlickers to Orton I
really don't care that they're standing up to him because I don't care about them. Maybe others do, and Dibiase seems to have a
little support from some at least so I guess he's done SOMETHING to make an impression in some.
But for the most part I think it goes back to the old WWE midcard problem. You can't just push a guy out of nowhere if he doesn't have a
foundation to build upon. Maybe if he's damn good or if the booking really clicks it will work, but most of the time you're starting from
square one with these guys because we really had no reason to give a shit about them before now. Nothing you can do about that now, but its why the
Legacy stuff last night was so underwhelming for myself and others.
S Kid J E T S 48
Showstopper
Posts 990
Registered 10-12-2007 Location New York Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 06:48 PM
quote:I think using hyperbolic anecdotal evidence to support ratings is pretty counter productive, since at best what you just told me was that the
4.6 you gave is as legitimate as the 0.0 someone gave before a show... which wasn't terrible legitimate.
I was saying the ratings are legitmate to the person that rates it. I was explaining why it was a 4.6 out of 5 in my head, maybe not yours.
I find myself agreeing with Penguin, but it's stupid to ask people "what would make up a 5?" I've done it before, it was dumb.
I've been here 2 and a half years, I know by now how basically everyone here will rate most things. I enjoy the discussions, I enjoy the
storyline talk, I enjoy the recapping, I enjoy the perspectives. Those are the things that change. There will never be an unwasted moment trying to
tell people to eliminate their biases or wants. It's like telling Lucky to get off his high horse, or me to think a Cena heel turn is a good
idea [EDIT ...or have me stop picking fights with Lucky], or trying to find something DevSop likes about Raw. It's never going to happen.
I think we find enough reference points and discussion points without a rating system. It actually winds up being a negative thing if the message
boards get clogged up with discussions about how people rate things, and eliminates the actual point of this...to discuss the shows.
[Edited on 2-9-2010 by S Kid J E T S 48]
Devineman
And I am AWESOME
Posts 219
Registered 10-7-2006 Location UK Member Is Offline
Mood: Cynical
posted on 2-9-2010 at 06:57 PM
Just out of interest, regarding Bret, do you guys think the majority of fans currently watching WWE were around during the Screwjob?
When Bret was tearing down the AV equipment, he did give a quick "COME ON!" which I took as him shouting at the crowd to pop a bit louder.
Mind you, I was half interested in him ripping up the equipment until the pyro went off, that was sort of deflating. It would have been much more
effective without it, it made the stunt look preplanned, fake and cheap. Of course, it was all of those things, but I'd like the suspension of
disbelief, and that pyro just killed it.
Hell, they could have even done the whole " that was a shoot" thing in the sheets and half of the audience would have believed it, especially if
people from backstage would have come to restrain him.
I don't know, maybe it's just me and my age, but in my opinion the Montreal Screwjob is the very essence of the Mr. McMahon character. It
feels like one of those movies where the bad guy in the first one comes back at the end of the sequel to kick some ass, it has a nice circularness to
it.
Due to this, and the fact that the IWC (and most wrestling fans) have been talking about this nearly non-stop since it happened, this angle should be
HUGE and all parties should be going all out. For me personally (as I never really watched WCW until it was gone), this is bigger than the Invasion.
During the Invasion, you knew that at the end of it all, most of the guys there didn't really hate each other and it was hard to sit there
thinking "why have DDP and the Undertaker got a problem?".
This one though, has that edge of believability. We all know that these guys really did dislike each other, really do get pissed off over how they
were both treated by the other, and really do have a point when they accuse each other of screwing them. This makes it far easier to mentally get in
to the feud, and every wrestling fan of the past 13 years has got to be rooting for Vince to finally get his comeuppance, and from the guy that
started it all. Thinking about it, this is probably the most perfect way for Vince to retire as an on-screen character.
I don't know. For the first time since Hardy/Edge, you can taste the tension and are looking out for the "half-shoot" remarks that are being
made. Vince vs Bret has given me the first reason to care about wrestling in a long time, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Loads of
guys who were watching during the Attitude Era and remember the big fuss about it will have an interested 10 minute channel surf.
This is why I was a bit disappointed that Cena was giving the final promo last night, despite it's excellence. Bret needed to be the one saying
all of those things, throwing in cheap remarks that had us all thinking "wait, did he mean that?". Bret needed to be the one looking at a bunch of
security guards and telling Vince that he would need a tank to stop him getting to him. Ok, so he's a fat, slightly balding middle aged man who
is pretty slow. It doesn't matter, so were Flair and Hogan and they still generated gallons of heat.
Both men can channel that real emotion towards each other into their characters, and it will have people glued to their TV. 13 years builds a lot of
deep seated resentment.
Hell, if they were really clever and wanted to play up the money thing, WWE should bring out a Owen Hart's Greatest Hits DVD and Bret can go
nuts over it. That's promotion that you just can't buy.
If Bret cannot perform and Cena needs to be the muscle man then fine, but Cena shouldn't be the muscle man AND the promo guy.
They have the chance to do something that was on par with Austin/McMahon for tension building, and awesomeness. Maybe they're just starting
slowly, and we will ge to this level. The level where Vince goes into full "screw" mode, and Bret never quites gets his hands on him. Bret
doesn't even need to take any more of a beating than Batista gave him, it's all about building that frustration that Bret can't get
his hands on him. They did this yesterday, but it could have been so much more.
Oh well, rant over.
LuckyLopez
Reeks of WCW
Posts 11345
Registered 2-13-2003 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 07:16 PM
quote:Originally posted by S Kid J E T S 48
It's like telling Lucky to get off his high horse,
Or not dropping a pointless insult into a post that kind of reminds me about that guy who a couple of days ago said that you, DK Broiler, and other
RAW fans were attacked because of your opinions and not how you expressed them.
quote:I think we find enough reference points and discussion points without a rating system. It actually winds up being a negative thing if the
message boards get clogged up with discussions about how people rate things, and eliminates the actual point of this...to discuss the
shows.
I think what you're missing is that we ARE discussing the show. The numbers are really just a tool to help facilitate the discussion.
Eliminate them and all you've done is turn this argument into:
"That was an AWESOME show!"
"Yeah! That was fucking great!"
"How the hell was that great? I didn't think it was much more than average."
"I thought it was bad, just better than usual."
"Maybe you just can never be happy."
"Maybe you've just lowered your expectations and are overrating the show."
"Stupid smarks."
"Stupid marks."
Its the same argument. The numbers just (theoretically) give it some structure by which we might find some common ground on judging criteria.
[Edited on 2-9-2010 by LuckyLopez]
nobledictator
And I am AWESOME
Posts 161
Registered 2-28-2005 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 07:35 PM
One thing I wish this angle had that they clearly are steering away from...NO ONE is on Vince's side. His biggest ally hugged the enemy.
Anyone knows that the Montreal screw job has 2 sides to it. Both camps are quite strong. NOw I get what they are doing, Vince has to be a asshole so
he can get the heal heat. But I think there could still be some shades of grey. What made the screwjob so huge was
1. It happened
2. Both sides had a legitamate gripe.
This has been argued for 12 years...and now everyone is against Vince. Surely some of these wrestlers would feel that Bret was wrong too. I know its
not the story they are telling but I wish it could have somehow been part of the dynamic. This is why HBK vs Bret would have been a good way to
go...but I suspect that Bret and HBK made it clear they wanted nothing to do with it. HBK out of the picture...is slightly anti-climatic to me. Yes
it was a feel good moment...but this story needed HBK.
I hate that not even a few years ago HBK uttered these lines in what was probably his best Promo ever.
"If Bret Hart was to look me eye to eye like a man, Id say hitman...I screwed you once...Id screw you again"
Thats alot to leave out of this current angle.
[Edited on 2-9-2010 by nobledictator]
atothej
Posts 2342
Registered 12-21-2002 Location Philly Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood.
posted on 2-9-2010 at 07:49 PM
I agree that they should hit the merits of both sides a bit more, but you're leaving out the fact that HBK did say to Bret that he didn't
regret being in on the screwjob, and that he did so at the beginning of this angle before the hug.
Your momma's so fat, Dave Meltzer gave her struggling to put her jeans on in the morning five stars. -- FF, destroying Jeb, his momma, and
Meltzer in one fell swoop.
deshorta
rOOkie
Posts 31
Registered 7-29-2003 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 07:49 PM
Punk owns wrasslin' right now. Best all-rounder for years for me.
DevilSoprano
The Rowdy One
Posts 2659
Registered 11-16-2002 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 07:58 PM
And Skid, I did like some things about Raw. I liked that the divas match was only 45 seconds and Gail didn't botch anything. I liked that
Sheamus and Christian had a solid match even if it felt like it did nothing. I LOVED Punk's line about Jared.
But none of those 3 things make it seem like anything...oh wait, I can't say it was an okay show again otherwise Chris will get his
douchepanties in a twist.
TomS
Rated R Superstar
Posts 478
Registered 7-7-2006 Location Liverpool, England Member Is Offline
Mood: Moody
posted on 2-9-2010 at 07:59 PM
I also noticed Cena's accent today. He went more southern all of a sudden.
But then I also noticed his Anne reference, which was just plain weird.
denverpunk
Rated R Superstar
Posts 299
Registered 6-27-2007 Location Prague, CZ Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoked
posted on 2-9-2010 at 08:21 PM
quote:Originally posted by nobledictator
One thing I wish this angle had that they clearly are steering away from...NO ONE is on Vince's side.
[Edited on 2-9-2010 by nobledictator]
Batista? He just beat up Hart last week at Vince's request.
I see your point about Shawn, and they could've gone that route earlier in the angle. But honestly, I think putting him in the mix now would
just muddle things up. What Michaels is doing right now with Hunter/Taker has a lot more excellent potential anyway, especially since Bret most
likely won't be sticking around very long.
[Edited on 2-9-2010 by denverpunk]
nobledictator
And I am AWESOME
Posts 161
Registered 2-28-2005 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 08:57 PM
Its different though...Batista did it more as a business thing not necessarily he believed that Bret was wrong.
Wickedfrost
Rated R Superstar
Posts 299
Registered 2-14-2006 Member Is Offline
Mood: Big Sexy
posted on 2-9-2010 at 08:59 PM
Maryse was dumping on her. Just watched it again to get it right...
You smell like trash.
It's horrible. I could smell you from 100 feet away.
I pity you. You're a little girl.
You're a nobody. You're a nobody.
Stay wet my friends.
gobbledygooker
Posts 3182
Registered 12-17-2002 Location Charlotte, NC Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 09:03 PM
High points of the show for me -
-I thought Christian vs. Sheamus was really good but I didn't like Christian looking like a bitch in the finish. But that might just be because
I'm losing more and more faith in Sheamus as champion each week, coupled by the fact that this match would've had the complete opposite
finish three months ago.
-As with everyone else, I could watch two hours of just CM Punk and The Straight-Edge Society. I think he's basically starting to reach
Rock/Austin heights of mic skills at this point.
-Maryse calling Michael Cole "vintage nerd" was another high point of the night. She is really awesome and I think she's getting better and
better.
Low Points -
-The Straight Edge Society NOT winning the tag belts. I do see the potential in Show/Miz but I just don't get why you don't have the SES
get the belts, as much of an upswing as they're on. I can only hope this means they've got singles belts in mind for Punk and Gallows but
I'm not holding out hope.
-Bret Hart stumbling around like a drunken sailor during his beatdown on Vince and the destruction of the set that followed. I counted a grand total
of two times that Bret seemed to just completely lose his footing and fall on his ass. As much as it pains me to say it, he either needs to train his
ass off in the next couple of months or they really need to keep him out of the physical side of things.
3.0
EDIT - Wicked Frost's post above just made me love Maryse even more.
[Edited on 2-9-2010 by gobbledygooker]
Originally posted by punkerhardcore -
"Seriously, Rock Band > Guitar Hero. Guitar Hero is like the cute girl who makes out with you for the first time, which is awesome because it's
new and exciting. Then Rock Band comes along and is like the chick who blows you your junior year of high school... and then that first girl just
doesn't look quite so fun anymore."
DrBoz
Showstopper
Posts 708
Registered 1-2-2006 Location Indiana Member Is Offline
Mood: Crescent Fresh
posted on 2-9-2010 at 10:22 PM
quote:Originally posted by DevilSoprano
And Skid, I did like some things about Raw. I liked that the divas match was only 45 seconds and Gail didn't botch anything. I liked that
Sheamus and Christian had a solid match even if it felt like it did nothing. I LOVED Punk's line about Jared.
So you liked the fact that something you apparently don't like normally didn't last long enough for you to be annoyed, liked the fact that
someone you expected to screw up didn't, liked a match but felt the need to note the match seemed pretty pointless, and LOVED one line of a 2+
hour show when that line came from someone who isn't even on the roster of the show you watched?
With all those good vibes, I can't comprehend how you'd go no higher than 2.5!
"I guess my heaviest experience is gravity...keeps my feet down...it's like weighing me down...I can't get my arms up now...like my legs
fall...I'm falling down and I can't...it's making me heavier...I'm heavier...I can't move...Now I'm a dead dog in
water...I can't...I'm floating but I sink to the water...I'm a wet sandwich...wet with meat...I'm broken salami...tiny
mustaches are heavy...I'm falling...."
- Chester from Sifl and Olly
LuckyLopez
Reeks of WCW
Posts 11345
Registered 2-13-2003 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 10:32 PM
quote:Originally posted by nobledictator
Its different though...Batista did it more as a business thing not necessarily he believed that Bret was wrong.
Because Vince was wrong and that was such a universally agreed upon opinion that it turned him into one of the biggest heels in wrestling history and
left enough emotion and bitterness to still leave people marking 12 years later?
FistHiccups
Showstopper
Posts 962
Registered 6-27-2007 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-9-2010 at 11:37 PM
There isn't a UK equivalent of Jared, Subway here just kind of sprung up overnight and over the past three years they've gotten
everywhere. There seem to be like ten Subways to every McDonalds. But Jared never made it over here. I'm familiar with him, but only because
he's been in WWE about a dozen times before.
I wasn't as high on the show as many of you. Christian-Sheamus was a nice surprise, and I was thankful to see Sheamus finally get a meaningful
solid win, and the guest host was better than I expected (and kept to small, effective doses).
The women's match was thankfully short and had Maryse to cover up the bland in the ring. The Punk promo and the tag match were good. The DX
stuff was very interesting, though I think Michaels always looks a bit silly when he gets shouty-angry, which spoilt the backstage "snap" a bit for
me (it also harmed the effectiveness of his exit from the Rumble when he started screaming at himself in the aisle right before he walked
backstage).
The main event promo was alright. I think Cena's been consistently good recently, and I'm always happy to see him away from Orton, HHH and
Michaels - although of course, next week we get Cena vs Triple H. Whoop-de-fucking-doo. Like their last nine million matches haven't
satisfied everyone's need to see them wrestle. Bret looked awkward as hell during his part of the brawl, but Cena and Vince were on form. And
Bret is still Bret, so his contributions were enjoyable.
The Legacy breakup still vaguely interests me, though I've no idea why. Sheamus being so involved with them is intriguing as well, because I
can't fathom why it's happening. Is he in cahoots with Cody? Is there going to be a Sheamus and Legacy four-way match at
WrestleMania? I'm struggling to see the endgame of this storyline, perhaps it's just because of the elimination chamber match.
I didn't even know Ted DiBiase wasn't already in the Hall of Fame.
Everything on the show was good, great or at least attention-getting but it didn't feel like a revelation to me. I've been enjoying a lot
of episodes of Raw recently.
quote:Originally posted by The Riot Act
Maybe he does this all that the time and I've simply never noticed it before, but did anyone else think Cena sounded a bit like Morgan Freeman
after the commercial break when he was getting ready to call out Vince? Just the cadence of his speech and the little drawl he had sounded so familiar
to me. Maybe being in Lousianna had something to do with it?
It was the first time I'd noticed it as well. I was waiting for him to throw in an "I do declare!"
quote:Originally posted by nobledictator
One thing I wish this angle had that they clearly are steering away from...NO ONE is on Vince's side. His biggest ally hugged the
enemy.
But before the hug, Michaels also told Bret he deserved what happened to him. The story isn't really about arguing the details of the morality
of the screwjob, because essentially, the morality isn't particularly on Bret's side when you get into it - especially in kayfabe terms.
But Vince is the heel, so it doesn't really make sense for other wrestlers to be pointing out that Bret was a selfish egomaniac who didn't
want to lose because he thought he was a genuine Canadian hero. It was a bit close to the bone when Vince was pointing out Bret's lack of promo
skills and charisma. If they start debating the details of the screwjob, it comes down to both Bret and Vince being pricks. The way they're
telling it at the moment, only Vince is a prick.
quote:Originally posted by OORick
Nice opening bit with Christian. But he's not Edge's brother anymore?
They seemed to abandon the brothers thing pretty much as soon as their 2001 feud ended, I think. Did they even mention it when they had the 2002 feud
with Hogan/Lance Storm as their partners? I remember thinking it was odd that they weren't storyline brothers anymore when they were
sporadically teaming up in 2004/2005 on Raw (they were always referred to as "former tag team partners/champions").
quote:I'd say the wrong team won the tag titles, but after rolling it around in my brain all afternoon, it really did amount to a toss-up for
me. Punk is so red-hot right now that maybe you just don't fuck with success. Miz (even with a singles title) is the opposite, and has entered
wheel-spinning phase the past month or two, so this re-energizes him due to: (a) solid interactions with his partner, who he is using/abusing THE
EXACT SAME WAY as Show's old partner did, and (b) having to visit SD regularly, where both Show *and* Miz's old partners are hanging out,
leading to potentially awesome interactions.
This, for me, is why Miz and Show winning was the right way to go (although I was also hoping for a Punk/Gallows win). Plus, Punk's routine is
pretty much the same thing every time, and doubling up his weekly appearances may wear it thin. Miz and Show aren't as tied in to any one
particular strand with their promos, and the potential for encounters with Edge, Morrison and Jericho makes me more excited for Smackdown than I have
been in a long time.
Psycho Penguin
And I am AWESOME
Posts 108
Registered 6-30-2002 Location Greenacres FL Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood.
posted on 2-9-2010 at 11:40 PM
quote:
- They were nonplussed by a forgettable Sheamus/Christian match since even though it was the closest Sheamus has come to credible in months it was
still a throwaway and forgettable match and a win over someone who's really no higher on the WWE pecking order than Sheamus and who needs some
credibility himself?
- They're nonplussed by the tag title change because Miz/Show feels like a redo of Jericho/Show and seems like it could be a poor choice since
it probably means one of Miz's titles being ignored at the benefit of the other?
- They're nonplussed by the Bret Hart stuff because they lost interest in the story a decade ago and have no real desire to watch a 60-year-old
non-wrestler compete against a 50-year-old retired wrestler who may or may not be physically limited by a stroke?
- They're nonplussed by DX drama because they've seen HBK and HHH fight so many times in the past they have no need to see it happen
again?
- They're nonplussed by Legacy drama since in the past they've been given no reason to care about Legacy so Dibiase and Rhodes are
starting more or less from 0 on this?
I was mainly concerned with the idea that people are STUNNED STUNNED STUNNED that this show would get a good ratings from people... if they wanna step
on their soapbox about why this show wasn't good, then I am generally curious as to what WOULD make the show good in their eyes.
1. Christian vs Sheamus was a fine match where neither guy lost any credibility and Christian gained some by going head to head with the WWE champion.
Yeah, Sheamus hasn't really DONE much as champ, but that's why you need to put him up against guys like Christian and Mysterio and have
him WIN. Guys that can afford a loss. Not someone like Punk who has momentum or a guy like Swagger which would be like beating Noble at this point.
People complained for weeks that Sheamus needed a big win, he got one, and now it's 'they should have done it weeks ago'. Sure, but
what does that have to do with THIS show and THIS match?
2. Okay, so now they're worried about Miz and Show in future weeks. Fine. What does that have to do with THIS show and THIS match? The fact
they're basically admitting it's a redo of Jerishow and Miz is a better partner than Jericho clearly shows they have SOME plan here, and
hey DX isn't champs any more. No one liked when they were, and now they don't like MizShow. So WHO should be tag champs?
3. The same people that were marking out on January 4th? If they don't like the angle, fine, but at least it's using big name wrestlers
and not guys like Lashley and Umaga. And it doesn't seem like as big a waste of time as usual since there has been closure wanted on Bret vs
Vince for over a decade on the internet.
4. How often has HBK been the heel? How often has Undertaker been potentially involved? What does that have to do with how the angle was handled last
night?
5. So they have had zero reason to care in the past and this means they shouldn't care no matter what the angle does or where it goes?
Your entire post seemed to be 'people didn't care before so they shouldn't care now, and this show should not be judged by the
merits of what happened last night but instead what happened 5 years ago and what might happen 2 months from now.' Ridiculous. I judge on a week
to week basis to see how angle are developing and where the chances of them going are, but I won't give a show a 2.0 just because I think they
might fuck an angle up next month or fucked it up a month ago if I liked what they did on that particular show.
There IS a lot of negativity on the internet and I shouldn't be criticized for 'standing on a soapbox' for pointing that out. How
many posts criticized the high ratings a few people gave already? More than the posts bitching about the low ratings, that's for sure.
atothej
Posts 2342
Registered 12-21-2002 Location Philly Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood.
posted on 2-9-2010 at 11:56 PM
I just got finished watching the show a bit ago, and wanted to put in two quick points:
First, I thought that Bret actually looked alright during his physical segment. Sure, he's not what he was, but I think he can hold up his end
of a garbagey brawl just fine. His punches and kicks looked decent (albeit short) against the security, and the falling down during the AV smashing
was because it looked the last item was a bit heavier than he expected. For a long-retired wrestler, I think he'll do fine in whatever WM will
require.
Second, I really hope that they do something more with the EC singles matches next week. One thought I had was doing it as a beat the clock
challenge, with the fastest pin getting the 6 slot, and the fastest loser getting the 1 slot. Likewise with the second and third fastest winners
getting 4 and 5, respectively, and the losers getting 2 and 3. It would be nice motivation for the participants, and add some drama to the matches.
Your momma's so fat, Dave Meltzer gave her struggling to put her jeans on in the morning five stars. -- FF, destroying Jeb, his momma, and
Meltzer in one fell swoop.
FistHiccups
Showstopper
Posts 962
Registered 6-27-2007 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-10-2010 at 12:30 AM
quote:Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
I was mainly concerned with the idea that people are STUNNED STUNNED STUNNED that this show would get a good ratings from people... if they wanna step
on their soapbox about why this show wasn't good, then I am generally curious as to what WOULD make the show good in their eyes.
I liked Raw, but I've liked a lot of Raws this year and late last year. I don't understand why people found this week's particularly
different from every other week. To me, it makes sense that people that hate (or are indifferent to) Raw every week would feel the same way about it
this week and that they'd be confused as to why some folks are going nuts for this week's show. I'm somewhat stunned by reactions
like Chris is Good's, where this week was the best episode in years. To me it was just the same as most recent weeks. But evidently, this week
Raw was massively different for some people than it was for others. It's just a case of us all second-guessing each other's
reactions. To you it seems that people who still didn't like Raw this week are too hard to please. To me it's like people that suddenly
loved Raw this week got some weird, new, different vibe out of the show that I missed.
Psycho Penguin
And I am AWESOME
Posts 108
Registered 6-30-2002 Location Greenacres FL Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood.
posted on 2-10-2010 at 12:36 AM
quote:Originally posted by FistHiccups
I liked Raw, but I've liked a lot of Raws this year and late last year. I don't understand why people found this week's particularly
different from every other week. To me, it makes sense that people that hate (or are indifferent to) Raw every week would feel the same way about it
this week and that they'd be confused as to why some folks are going nuts for this week's show. I'm somewhat stunned by reactions
like Chris is Good's, where this week was the best episode in years. To me it was just the same as most recent weeks. But evidently, this week
Raw was massively different for some people than it was for others. It's just a case of us all second-guessing each other's
reactions. To you it seems that people who still didn't like Raw this week are too hard to please. To me it's like people that suddenly
loved Raw this week got some weird, new, different vibe out of the show that I missed.
Mainly angle advancement, no silly squashes of a wrestler we all like, Sheamus getting a credible win, and a guest host that doesn't completely
suck and/or has ten skits devoted to themselves. Like I said, this is the first RAW I can remember in ages where *every* angle got mentioned and
advanced and there was no filler. The lack of Hornswoggle save the beginning of opening segment is a point worth mentioning as well.
[Edited on 2-10-2010 by Psycho Penguin]
Psycho Penguin
And I am AWESOME
Posts 108
Registered 6-30-2002 Location Greenacres FL Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood.
posted on 2-10-2010 at 12:37 AM
double post sorry
[Edited on 2-10-2010 by Psycho Penguin]
LuckyLopez
Reeks of WCW
Posts 11345
Registered 2-13-2003 Member Is Offline
Mood:
posted on 2-10-2010 at 12:42 AM
quote:Originally posted by Psycho Penguin
1. Christian vs Sheamus was a fine match where neither guy lost any credibility and Christian gained some by going head to head with the WWE champion.
Yeah, Sheamus hasn't really DONE much as champ, but that's why you need to put him up against guys like Christian and Mysterio and have
him WIN. Guys that can afford a loss. Not someone like Punk who has momentum or a guy like Swagger which would be like beating Noble at this point.
People complained for weeks that Sheamus needed a big win, he got one, and now it's 'they should have done it weeks ago'. Sure, but
what does that have to do with THIS show and THIS match?
The problem here is that some just don't see it as a match that yielded any real results. Sheamus beat Christian clean. That's notable
purely because Sheamus hasn't gotten a clean win over anyone half way legitimate since his arrival. But Christian himself doesn't have
any more credibility than "midcard champion who has beat relative nobodies for the last year." So Sheamus gained little from it. Having midcarders
beat midcarders is a tough way to get both over. It can happen, especially if they really perform excellently, but the most direct way to get a guy
like Sheamus over on the main event level is to have him beat a main eventer. Thus far WWE has had him skirt by Orton and Cena in the same way Punk
skirted by guys and since Sheamus never beat anyone to get the first title shot we're left with "Who has he beat?" The answer is now
"Christian", which means what? Jack Swagger has also beaten Christian. I think Tommy Dreamer did. Mark Henry probably. Christian himself needs
to gain credibility if he were to rise up the WWE ladder.
So it was a nice little match between a midcard champion and a midcarder holding a main event belt that many of us don't think he's
"earned". But it did little more to legitimize him than beating MVP because Christian's real place in the WWE pecking order isn't
especially higher and is still well below the main event level that Sheamus is struggling so much to fit into.
quote:2. Okay, so now they're worried about Miz and Show in future weeks. Fine. What does that have to do with THIS show and THIS match? The
fact they're basically admitting it's a redo of Jerishow and Miz is a better partner than Jericho clearly shows they have SOME plan here,
and hey DX isn't champs any more. No one liked when they were, and now they don't like MizShow. So WHO should be tag champs?
I think its abundantly clear many went in wanting the Straight Edge Society to win, so I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or
what. But I also don't understand how "what does that have to do with this week" is a legitimate question. Why would I give a fuck about a
title change unless I was happy about that title change? If the title changes hands to someone I hate seeing get the title its bad. If the title
changes hands to someone I love seeing get the title its good. Isn't this obviously how it works? A title change in and of itself means
absolutely nothing to me except for me to envision where it will go. My best guess is you're implying that I should give the show points solely
for ANY title change because title changes have some sort of inherent quality to them.
quote:3. The same people that were marking out on January 4th? If they don't like the angle, fine, but at least it's using big name
wrestlers and not guys like Lashley and Umaga. And it doesn't seem like as big a waste of time as usual since there has been closure wanted on
Bret vs Vince for over a decade on the internet.
I feel pretty confident that if you take the people who are nonplussed by Bret today, most of them were nonplussed by him on Jan 4th. Assuming they
were marking for him then is silly and I'm pretty confident Moose and Dev weren't. On the other hand, I DID kind of mark for Bret on Jan
4th but am kind of nonplussed today. So what changed? The simple fact that this is the 3rd time I've seen Bret on WWE TV and in front of Vince
in 12 years, not the 1st. Its really simple. The more he shows up the less I mark and the more I look at the situation realistically. Others might
remain euphoric or emotionally invested in the story to remain into it but its not some standard level of marking we must all abide to. For me the
"mark" stuff has more or less worn off and now its just the reality of a feud that isn't doing much for me for a match I don't much care
to see. Others clearly have different views on it.
quote:4. How often has HBK been the heel? How often has Undertaker been potentially involved? What does that have to do with how the angle was
handled last night?
I really question whether you're just being deliberately obtuse or argumentative. If Moose doesn't like Taker and doesn't like DX
then why would he like last night's stuff? This is really simple. Last night they set up pieces for a story. If the story is unappealing to
you than last night's setups are unappealing to you. If the story is something you are excited for than the segments might have excited you.
Its really very simple.
quote:5. So they have had zero reason to care in the past and this means they shouldn't care no matter what the angle does or where it goes?
No, it means its up to WWE to MAKE me care but since I have no emotional investment in Dibiase and Rhodes and since they have no established character
then they're starting from scratch. If Dibiase is making a face turn, then the basic truth is I don't care about him enough to be
interested in that.
quote:Your entire post seemed to be 'people didn't care before so they shouldn't care now, and this show should not be judged by
the merits of what happened last night but instead what happened 5 years ago and what might happen 2 months from now.' Ridiculous. I judge on a
week to week basis to see how angle are developing and where the chances of them going are, but I won't give a show a 2.0 just because I think
they might fuck an angle up next month or fucked it up a month ago if I liked what they did on that particular show.
No. My point is that people who didn't care last week aren't going to start magically caring about the same characters and stories this
week because of relatively minor shifts. And a major shift won't immediately make people care as they have the free will to make up their own
minds about how they feel about it. So "change" isn't always good enough. Sometimes something changes and just makes a parallel move.
quote:There IS a lot of negativity on the internet and I shouldn't be criticized for 'standing on a soapbox' for pointing that out.
How many posts criticized the high ratings a few people gave already? More than the posts bitching about the low ratings, that's for sure.
I have no clue because I can't be bothered to count posts to see if you feel "positivity" has been properly represented. I know I originally
stuck up for the high ratings and reasoned why I think they happened after people complained, and then you complained about the low ratings and
complaints so I stuck up for them and reasoned why I think they happened. So I can't account for anyone else but I know I've had a pretty
well measured response. But just because someone else stepped on a soapbox before you did doesn't rationalize you doing it. All it does is put
you on the exact same level of credibility.
I swear, I think I've pointed out the basic truth of how "he hit me first" is in no way a proper adult response like 3 times today.
