Metallo
Evil Dead Re-Animator
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Messages
- 11,908
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
LOL. Thats as bad as Jeffrey Dahmer as a convict in the Cryo prison in Demolition Man. Talk about the wrong prediction.
As for the branding campaign...nobody is going to take WWE seriously with that request the way they would like. WWE has a stigma on it as lowbrow anyway. Everything they do is built on wrestling.
I regularly rant about WWE putting 90% of their talent in shiny underwear. I miss the days when most wrestlers wore pants, singlets, or some type of body suit. I get really, really tired of close-up shots of nuthuggers. Gross.
A friend of mine isn't a big wrestling fan but he can take the guys in long pants more seriously. Thats why when we were watching a match He said at least Shawn Michaels is wearing pants...then he looked at Orton and laughed. It doesn't bother me as much but I prefer when guys wear something to cover them up more. Like Angle, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels etc. Orton looks a little disturbing running around with no pants all the time.
Its really hard to say at this point. The logical choice right now is Sheamus since he's really the only young new star in WWE that has any kind of story or history with HHH. De Rio, Barrett, and others really haven't had many dealings with him.
If Barrett is going to be a new top heel I'd like to see him end HHH's career. That makes sense. As far as favorites I'd like to see Morrison feud with HHH and try to get some credibility. HHH could teach Morrison a lot. that just leaves the question of who would be heel and who would be babyface.
I think HHH should be the bad guy...but I've noticed sometimes the guy retiring is the good guy. Thats what happened with HHH and Foley. Then other times you get the heel being retired (like Rey vs JBL). Then you have cases where its more neutral (HBK vs Taker or Flair vs HBK). Not sure which one would work best in HHH's case but he's always been at his best as a heel...but he's so popular and long tenured now that he'd get a face reaction against any younger guy.
Thats a good point. Matches usually have a simple built in story...but the matches themselves are usually the end and the payoff for the overall story. If the match is a failure even from a mechanical standpoint then it hurts the whole story. Like you said Hogan and Sting had a great story but the match didn't live up to it and that is what would have cemented that story as the classic it should have been.
HHH vs Orton is another one where the match didn't live up to expectations and it made an already iffy storyline look even worse.
An example on the flip side is HBK vs Angle series. The story was pretty simple but the matches were so amazing that it made that series a classic. The matches and the story they told inside the ring made that feud more than anything.
Angle vs Taker at No way Out was another time when the story outside the ring was simple but the match told a great story of its own.
Angle and Benoit could go in there without any outside the ring story and tell some brilliant stories inside the ring without any of the gaga.
Two guys can go in cold and have a brilliant one off match but if there is a great story ending with a sh** match then it kills the whole thing.
I really think you have to have both great matches and compelling stories. That makes for the best show. Take the wrestling out entirely and WWE is not going to be able to compete with the storytellers in Hollywood. Its the combo of matches/athletics and stories that make WWE unique and give it its drawing power.
