DMJ

To me, if you're inducting the nWo, you should include (nearly) everyone or limit it to just the original 3 members. I just think its hard to draw the line when the fact is, the criticism that the nWo was "watered down" is not 100% the case - sure, it did nothing for Michael Wallstreet or Bubba Rogers and their inclusion did nothing for the nWo, but what about Buff Bagwell? Konnan? Scott Steiner? Friggin' Randy Savage? Curt Hennig came late to the party, but was the central figure in one of the nWo's biggest storylines. Does that mean Horace Hogan gets a ring? I hate to say it, but yes, yes it does. I'm not demanding equal time for Vincent when its time to give speeches and I'll also add that anyone who joined post-1999 should be ineligible (sorry, Ron and Don Harris) because nWo 2000 was just such dogshit and the WWE shouldn't go out of their way to induct Nazis. The WWE Hall of Fame has, at least since it became a televised event that they sold tickets to, all about getting the bigger legends on the show (because you're not going to sell out an arena without making sure you have "name" talent - most notably Hulk Hogan, who has seemingly either been inducted himself or inducted someone else at like 90% of these things. This year he'll be inducted as part of the nWo, one of these years they'll have him induct Eric Bischoff, and on and on...Triple H and Flair are in that same category too as I'm guessing one or the other will be inducted Batista. Similarly, I would not be surprised to see someone "Austin-adjacent" get inducted this year (maybe Heyman?) as, with Austin seemingly back in good graces with the WWE, I could definitely see him being there this year.

Not putting Reigns over Brock Lesnar at a WrestleMania is, to me, the defining non-moment of Reigns' career and really takes away much of his importance to me. His list of other kayfabe accomplishments is not so impressive either. As I referenced above, he couldn't beat Lesnar at either WrestleMania opportunity. He didn't retire Undertaker. He didn't retire Triple H. Him beating cancer should've been a massive story but was treated like no big deal. He's won a ton of championships in an era in which championships don't mean anything. I hate to beat a dead horse, but even when he's not been the recognized WWE/Universal Champion, since his return, Brock Lesnar has been treated as the absolute top guy, even usurping Cena and Undertaker at this point. Beating him was supposed to be Reigns' coronation, but he failed twice and nobody remembers that he eventually did beat Lesnar at a lesser show. From a non-kayfabe perspective, I guess his biggest impact on the WWE product was that, as part of the Shield, he was a catalyst for the company to produce quality six-man tags? To be honest, looking at this decade, I don't even think Roman Reigns is the most important wrestler in the WWE let alone the world. Daniel Bryan had a bigger impact on the product than Reigns has.

This could be moved to a more relevant thread, but as good as Lawler is as a wrestler is as bad as he is as a commentator. One of the all-time worst. I've not just come to this conclusion today nor have I been screaming it for 20 years - it is just one of those ideas that I think I've always been partially sure of, but am now willing to say, full stop. During the New Generation years, the commentary in WWE was woeful but just because he may have been the "best of the worst" doesn't mean he was good. Plus, I actually think his prevalence on commentary hurt his matches and angles, even against Bret Hart. I never "got" that feud because, to me, as a 10 year old kid with no knowledge of Lawler's background, it seemed like former World Champion Bret Hart was feuding with a slightly pudgy commentator who told bad jokes. And unlike Bobby Heenan, whose family of clients was filled with heavy hitters who did the fighting for him, Lawler's prized combatants were an evil dentist and Hakushi (who was, admittedly, super cool, but kinda came-and-went). Moving on from 95' and into the Attitude Era, Lawler's in-ring appearances for the WWE dwindled down and he became all about catcalls. His infatuation with women's breasts was not funny then, even to a now 13-14 year old DMJ, and it has not aged well at all in the time since. And while Jim Ross did make some legendary calls during this time frame, calls that would justifiably make his case for being the best pro-wrestling voice of all time, there's not a single match I can recall that I walked away thinking Jerry Lawler did anything remotely special or good. He has no 92' Royal Rumble performance like Heenan does. Was he even on commentator during Hell in Cell 98'? The only things anyone remembers are JR's calls. Ditto for every heel turn of that era or any time Vince McMahon did something particularly dastardly. Lawler's legacy as a commentator is "puppies." That's it. I'd argue that Lawler was actually at his best during the PG Era, basically just praising John Cena every week (Did he coin the phrase "Big Match John"?). He wasn't really a heel, he was no longer just objectifying women for 2 hours a night (though, he still did often find time for that), and because he had become RAW's "Not-So-Dirty Uncle," he had become wallpaper except when a heel needed to get heat and would berate him. He was fine in the role, but not iconic. He helped The Miz get even more over. He probably took an RKO or two somewhere in that timeline. So, when I read the post above and see the phrase "had two good years," part of me is left wondering, like, were those years 2007-2008 or something? Because it certainly wasn't 97-98. I know its a matter of taste. Jerry Lawler probably helped sell a lot of Diva calendars and DVDs in his time. But to me, even when I was a sex-crazed teenager with his hormones running wilder than Hulkamania, I did not tune in to wrestling to see half-naked women and was not entertained by a guy making corny jokes and "innuendos" that barely counted as innuendos. You could see half-nude women practically anywhere by then but especially on the internet (which, for those who possibly didn't know, was in fact aorund by the time I was 12 and was already filled with so much porn). And because that was Lawler's bread-and-butter, his few wrestling-related insights were always just a stop-gap before the next reference to a woman's body.

This is one of those matches where the entire concept is so galling to me that it was impossible for me to call it good - even though, in a vacuum, in a "video game wrestling" sense, it works because (a) as much as I don't buy Cole as a top guy, his execution is undeniably sharp and Dunne - while overexposed at this point - is just as good and (b) the crowd was definitely into it by the end. Cool moves, crowd that was into it, no real dead spots, those ingredients usually make for a good-to-great match. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is like having hot dogs and potato chips for Thanksgiving. It was simply the wrong match to have. Not only had Cole wrestled a WAR GAMES match before, he had taken a mega bump from the top of the cage through a table in said match, and also wrestled a ladder match on Wednesday (that I didn't see, but, lemme guess, he took some bumps off a ladder?). If I'm not mistaken, he also wrestled on SmackDown? Adam Cole not just taking the DQ loss or having his stablemates bumrush Dunne before the bell and beat him down with weapons or put him through a table and then give Cole the cheap makes him one of the dumbest heels ever and, instead of me watching the match and saying, "Wow, that Adam Cole sure is tough!" I'm left thinking, "Wow, the WWE really does not give a shit at all about building stories or characters, do they? WWE is just Cirque De Soleil or Ice Capades, where stories from 24 hours earlier don't matter, its all just the same show every night, like the circus." So, if you like the circus, if you like the athleticism of gymnasts doing floor routines, if you dig the Ice Capades, then you might really like this match. Unfortunately, I found it insulting, another example of Vince McMahon and Triple H mocking their own fanbase for actually maybe possibly thinking that a wrestling match on Saturday night might actually mean something on Sunday. * Edit - Also, the idea that Cole "only" putting in 14 minutes makes this match different than the 30-minute ones we're used to just goes to show how trained we are. This match was at least 10 minutes too long if you think about what it really should've been/could've been.

I think blatantly attacking the guy on Twitter is unnecessary keyboard warrior shit. But criticizing him, like any other performer on the show, is fair game to me - especially on a forum or when people write thoughtful reviews of the show. I don't mind him as much as others here, but defending him by saying, "Well, he's got to be good because he also calls fights for HBO" or "If he was so bad, don't you think the producers (Cole?) would tell him to tone it down"? Those things are all true, but it doesn't mean I have to think he's good. Its the old "Nickelback sold a billion records" thing... I don't use Twitter, but I imagine there are lots of really ugly, nasty tweets that go beyond just criticism. Hell, I saw a post on Facebook that showed a picture of Brock Lesnar's daughter and the comments were just appalling. I don't think anyone is defending those sorts of comments. Nobody wants to see Mauro Ranallo go through a mental health breakdown, but hey, he also has the option (I think) of "silencing" (or whatever the word is) the people who do tweet him with negativity. And, yeah, as for Corey Graves, he's a fuckboi who let a little bit of praise go to his head and thinks he's a genius.

Maybe I'm just super optimistic and positive, but I kinda think he's doing these big spots now because he's wise enough to see that - like with the aforementioned Foley or Jeff Hardy - if you're going to base your career on crazy stunts, it might be wiser to do them in your youth and use that reputation to carry you into a less dangerous style where you can really make bank on your persona/character and all the merch that a character like Darby Allin can generate. Of course, Foley and Hardy still took bigger risks in their late 30s than most did their entire careers (and arguably needlessly so), and both can still be viewed as somewhat cautionary tales despite the money they earned - Foley's is 54 but moved like he was 80 last I saw (unless the DDP Yoga has helped? Haven't really been keeping up with him) and Hardy's risk-taking behavior seems to exist on both sides of the in-ring/out-of-ring coin. So, yes, Darby Allin may need to look elsewhere for role models, but Hardy and Foley are also probably in the top 15-20 range for most successful wrestlers of the past 25 years - maybe even Top 10 - and if you're going to be compared to guys like that, it is really telling that Allin is already being compared to those sorts of acts rather than, say, Necro Butcher or Sabu or other guys that were kinda known for craziness but were also almost immediately seen as "too niche" or unmarketable or not what the WWE would ever want. If they could, the WWE would definitely sign Allin (and probably proceed to do nothing with him despite his marketability).

My god what a fucking dork Seth Rollins is. Like, he had to be the first guy to challenge Punk. He is that dumb idiot you went to high school with who couldn't help but leap onto the most obvious joke at the most obvious time even though it was usually not crafted in a clever way or even remotely funny. Like, the guy who saw they were serving hot dogs in the cafeteria and had to make the lamest dick joke as quickly as possible because he was more proud of getting their "first" rather than actually saying something clever or truly subversive. He's the "Buck Fush" patch of wrestlers - just too damn obvious to be clever and also less cool than just coming out and saying "Fuck Bush" in 2004 or whatever. And I'm gonna just go ahead and say that he's probably bad at sex. He's bad at wrestling. He's bad at Twitter. He's bad at not taking pictures of his dick and not dating Nazis. If he couldn't keep it in his pants long enough not to be the first idiot to "call out" CM Punk, I'm thinking he's a 2-hump chump too. Lord knows what Becky sees in him, but, then again, wrestling's weird because I never really "got" Stephanie and Triple H either.

- Just tried to get through that Lana promo. Eeesh. Its a chicken-and-the-egg scenario to me. What was worst - the awful, awful script or Lana's awful, awful delivery? I know people like to just say, "Well, its Wrestlecrap, so its supposed to be bad," but one of the core ideas behind the whole concept of Wrestlecrap is/was that these angles are supposed to generate fan interest and profit. That's why the fails are funny - they weren't designed to be fails. Hulk Hogan going to the Dungeon of Doom (where the water is not hot) was supposed to lead to record buyrates as the Hulkster tried to slay yet another huge monster. The purpose wasn't to create a meme 30 years later. This is the difference between a show like Tim & Eric (or the Eric Andre Show), where the sketches are poorly-acted and poorly-filmed and off-putting, as part of the "meta/anti-comedy." In pro-wrestling, or at least in good pro-wrestling, purposefully having talent perform poorly-written scripts is not going to achieve the goal of making me buy a ticket to see a show. Maybe there are fans who do enjoy this storyline, though, so I'm only speaking for myself. Still, objectively, the writing and delivery were garbage. (Like, is Lana explicitly told to refer to her boyfriend by his full name every.single.time she says it? Is that part of the "joke"? That Bobby Lashley is always referred to as Bobby Lashley while Rusev has no first name?) - CM Punk being a talking head on a WWE Weekly Wrap-up Show is sorta interesting but not really? Kinda like if you went to go see Penn & Teller and all they did was talk about other people's tricks? Or, for the Rush fans out there, an "Evening With Neil Peart" where he plays absolutely no drums and just talks about other band's drummers? I'm sure CM Punk is going to deliver a bunch of pseudo "hot takes" (that will pale in comparison to what you can find here, on Reddit, on just about any podcast, etc.) and we'll have lots of wrestlers trying to score points off him by challenging him to get back in the ring, but with an in-ring return probably not in the cards currently, this development doesn't have me any more excited about the product than I was before. I'm as big a fan of CM Punk's promos as anyone and would love to hear him verbally tear down Seth Rollins or Baron Corbin or whoever in the build to a wrestling match. Hearing him shill for the WWE and pretend to be excited about WWE wrestling is not intriguing.

I've been called out for over-analyzing it, but I don't think it helped that he was in Hobbs & Shaw and is presumably close with The Rock. You can say that a caemo doesn't mean anything, but The Rock himself used a cameo in The Mummy Returns (I think?) to eventually springboard to superstardom (with some career ups-and-downs, mostly ups for the past decade). If there is one guy you'd want giving you advice on how to go from headlining WrestleMania to starring in big-budget action movies, having that one guy be an ultra-successful producer in his own right and your cousin is a very lucky position to be in. And I think Vince, or at least Triple H, know that and may already be looking at Roman as having one foot out the door. (This also explains why Seth Rollins getting the big rub from Lesnar may have been an easy call for them - I mean, Rollins has a face for radio at best.) I've discussed it elsewhere too, but to me, it is really telling how the WWE has treated John Cena over the past 2 years. I know, he's been super, super busy - but considering how far the company has gone to bring back The Rock, Austin, Hogan, etc., etc., I find it very, very interesting that John Cena - who, for years, was put on that same pedestal as arguably the only post-Attitude guy to be on the same footing as those legends - has been noticeably absent. I mean, if I told you, in 2016 or even 2018, hell, 6 months before the debut, that SmackDown would be on FOX and that they were going to load the card with every legend possible for the debut episode, how much would you have bet that John Cena would be there? I feel like I would've taken that bet for $10,000 without hesitation. Like, absolutely no way that John Cena is not going to be there if he were alive and breathing. I would be dirt poor and probably wifeless today had that happened. And people don't find that weird?

Forgot where I read it, but I think the idea behind Omega/Moxley being the closer is that, as an "Unsanctioned"/"Lights Out" match, it technically shouldn't be happening as part of the "sanctioned" show. The added benefit is that it makes the ending to Cody/Jericho even more up in the air. If Jericho retains, the crowd will probably be pretty disappointed, while one would imagine that Cody winning would also lead to some "burn out" (as the crowd, having gone crazy for Cody's victory, would be spent for Moxley/Omega). Its hard not to just say Cody/Jericho should be the main event, but then again, I'm intrigued as to what Moxley/Omega are going to bust out in a stipulation match, as the closer of the first post-TV show PPV. Moxley strikes me as a guy with that Foley-esque mind for big, attention-grabbing moments and seemed very resentful about how his match with Lesnar didn't allow him to achieve that kind of moment. I'd be shocked if their match didn't feature at least a couple insane "WWE would never allow this!" spots. If this event was $15 cheaper and I could convince my wife to watch it with me, I'd be buying. Sadly, I don't think I'll have much luck with the latter, which makes the wishful thinking for the former a non-starter anyway.

To be fair, this doesn't sound too dislike situations in many workplaces. In the heat of the moment, in this case when you're in Saudi Arabia and you feel like you've been abandoned and you're wondering when you're going to get home, you're probably going to say things out of anger. Your emotions are heightened. A couple days later, you're back in the US, the ordeal is behind you, people are making jokes and then the boss brings you into a meeting to talk about it and your attitude is different. To put it in terms that I use with my MD/ASD students, you've gone from the "Red Zone" (angry, yelling, mad) back to the "Green Zone" (calm, happy, "ready to learn"). Plus I would wager that Vince's speech began with a disarming pseudo-apology - something along the lines of, "I'm sorry there was confusion," which places some of the blame on the workers who were confused - and featured a line or two that put himself in the shoes of the talent ("What a weekend, huh, pals?" or anytime he used the word "we" to collectively describe an experience that he and his inner circle did not actually experience). Vince has been referred to as a Jedi Master. He certainly knows how to verbally disarm a lockerroom and present (false) empathy with his "the WWE is a family" bullshit. This is all before we even get to the intimidation factor of this guy being in control of your career and having a history of being punitive and very shrewd about how he can both overwork you and underpay you simultaneously.

EDITED because of the retraction someone posted above. Kept this part because I thought it was worth discussing: I do believe that Seth is still liked and appreciated by his peers. I get the feeling that they sympathize with his frustrations and while they may not agree 100% with his tweets or even necessarily how positive he is about the company, I do think they respect his effort, experience, etc. I mean, we have a thread here based entirely on how terrible we think Seth Rollins is. I know it comes with the territory when you're an athlete/entertainer, but, to his co-workers, he's a real, living, breathing human being who does appear to be trying. I don't think anyone here has ever even accused him of laziness or indifference. He clearly is a hard-working guy. Unfortunately, to me, he works harder not smarter, embodies the whole concept of a "video game wrestler," and, by defending WWE Creative and making claims about being the best wrestler on the planet, has essentially positioned himself right in front of the basket waiting to be dunked on.

Maybe FOX didn't want a more sports-based product and that was all just gossip? Whether FOX wanted more a realistic, sports-like production or not, though, its still undeniable that Brock Lesnar is a bigger star than Bray Wyatt and, if you're FOX, you'd want as many big stars as you could get. (Same as USA) And even though it is kinda silly to even have to say what we all know, if this was the longterm booking, the WWE really has no fucking clue what they're doing anymore.

Watched the Balor promo. I also didn't think it was too good. For starters, that "shoot" comment about "laying down for someone just because they have a new mask" was stupid. You can get "shooty" and talk about "bad creative" without completely exposing that there is a writer/booker who is laying out the finishes of every match and choosing who wins. I think Jericho did a great job of it a few weeks back with his promo introducing the Inner Circle. He got his digs in against the WWE's creative without outright saying, "Jake Hager was told to lose and he followed the script but now that's he in AEW, we're going to book him to win more!" Second, all the lines that referenced "this business" reeked of Triple H putting words in his mouth. I honestly can't believe they never marketed a tee-shirt with Triple H's face and the phrase "This Business" right below it. It was like a drinking game for awhile with him and you could get sloshed every Monday Night if you took a shot each time he said that phrase in one of his endless, breathy promos. Finally, maybe don't talk about how there are boys in the back who don't look like wrestlers when you, yourself, are what? 210 soaking wet? Even in the relatively smaller world of pro-wrestling in 2019, Finn Balor is relatively small. Maybe the point was more that Balor is handsome and Gargano isn't? Okay. Fine. But here's the "ting," if you don't accentuate that handsomeness with some extra pizzazz or (for lack of a better term) flair, you're just a handsome guy in a cool leather jacket. Compare that to Ric Flair's extravagant suits and robes or "The Model" Rick Martel's get-up or even Shawn Michaels' ridiculous mirror-covered chaps and zebra-print leather daddy stuff. Or if you want a modern equivalent, just look at Velveteen Dream. It all exudes confidence, arrogance, narcissism. Even if you're going for "low key cool guy" (which we can debate is even a gimmick worth pursuing anyway), there are ways to spruce it up. I'm not saying Balor should be wearing over-the-top shit and coming out with a feather boa, but you can't knock the other guy for looking like a fan when you yourself look like a fan (who just happens to be handsome).

I'm a big Rusev fan and I think Lashley has quietly had better matches than he's been given credit for since coming back to the WWE - the Reigns match was a stinker, but I liked the Balor sprint at Mania and the LMS against Strowman - but I have zero interest in this angle or really anything on RAW these days. It just sits in my DVR list until I delete them. But I'd also note that it doesn't surprise me that this big scandalous angle is not having the same effect as similar storylines from yesteryear (such as the Edge/Lita Live Sex Celebration or, even years ago, the suggestive segment with Warrior and Sensational Sherri). The big difference, to me, is that those angles all involved characters that were over. Edge and Lita were despised in 2005/2006. Warrior was popular and Sherri was hated. But Lashley and Rusev and Lana have each had their legs cut out from them multiple times and have been treated like non-factors. In Rusev's case, its been what? A 4+ year process of making him "just another guy"? People are comparing this to Dreamer/Raven/Beulah, but this reminds me so much more of the Kane/Lita/Matt Hardy garbage (which was probably more over than this too) and the Nidia/Jamie Noble stuff and all those other tacky, terrible midcard angles they've run over the years. Its trashy, it involves a bunch of characters the fans are not invested in, and, according to the numbers in the report above, it is driving away every segment of the audience. Like, who is this supposed to appeal to?

Biggest takeaway: Vince's email is [email protected]? Anyone wanna try and find out? For shits and giggles, I might try to email Stephanie. 2nd Biggest Takeaway: Maybe this isn't a "semi-work" like I suggested earlier and maybe Triple H really was presented with the idea and explicitly wanted it to be more "teethy" - meaning he wanted to make sure the racism shined through.

I didn't think this was a work, but I'm beginning to think this is one of those "gray areas." Like, yes, he has a legit beef with the company - especially the TV shirt design department - but I highly doubt Triple H or Vince were at all involved. Not defending them because lord knows I love criticizing and shaming them, but before today, I doubt Vince could even pick Myles out of a lineup. Hell, even after today, I don't think he could. But part of me is thinking that his Twitter comments are also designed to rally support for himself and get his name out there after months of being off TV - especially now that NXT is a 2-hour show and the current Cruiserweight Champ just kinda did something similar and was essentially rewarded for it. The same can be said for Sasha Banks, to some degree, who "took her ball and went home" and returned to a major push while other workers toil in the shadows with no push in sight. It used to be that getting over in front of the cameras was how you got pushed. Now, you've got just as good a chance of getting a push by getting over on Twitter as a disgruntled employee standing up to your corporate bosses. So, yeah, I'm totally with Myles and there's plenty of evidence to suggest McMahon's views on race are about as enlightened as our President's, but I'm not sure he had his fingerprints on this particular incident. Though, of course, the buck stops at the top so he's not void of guilt. That being said, I do think Myles might also be working a little bit.

Completely agree. Not only is his appearance unimpressive - kinda reminds me of Baron Von Raschke - but I'm also going to admit that I don't view him as a "star" on the same level as other MMA or boxers they've brought in over the past few years. With Brock, you had a guy who had dominated the WWE when he came in, then left and proven he was the real deal in the UFC, then came back an even bigger star. With Ronda Rousey, you have the most famous female MMA fighter in the history of the sport, a woman who had totally broken through to the mainstream. With Floyd Mayweather, you had a self-promoting, media-grabbing machine who was the most famous boxer in the world and did not let anyone forget it. Like I said, I'm excited about this match because I'm really curious about what it will look like. But Cain Velasquez being a main eventer in the WWE moving forward? I don't see it. This match against Lesnar is just about the only one I am interested in. Granted, I haven't seen his other matches and I know people said he looked great, so maybe Velasquez/Reigns or Velasquez/Bryan would be fantastic matches...but I fear that, if you look at the rosters and consider Velasquez a babyface, we're more likely going to see him feuding with Baron Corbin and Dolph Ziggler anyway.

I'd also point to WCW here, just for history sake. If AEW strikes on a really hot angle - like, say, Randy Orton showing up and RKOing Kenny Omega - that number is going to go way, way up. I know that particular example is unrealistic, but hear me out: Hulk Hogan turned heel and the nWo started and WCW hit record ratings. I think AEW is more likely to somehow hit that sort of buzz level than WWE is because, well, WWE has actively booked themselves away from ever getting a "hot hand" while AEW seems to be running a playbook (or wanting to run a playbook) that will actually be driven by getting a "hot hand."

I don't think these shows are viewed by many people at all which, even with a stacked card, make them not major events. Granted, the two main events for this show are much more intriguing to me than a DX reunion or even Goldberg/Taker was, but I'm certainly not going to be tuning in live and will most definitely be fast-forwarding through the rest of the card to get to those two matches. But I do watch the regular PPVs, in their entirety, generally a couple days after they happen. Part of that is just the OCD in me, but also, its because these Saudi shows, no matter the card, no matter the stakes, are still ultra-glorified house shows in my eyes. Someone else even described them as not being canon. Maybe that changes if Cain wins the title, but they still seem like they're less "must see" than even Hell in the Cell was. I know, as I type that, how insane that is - but in a weird way its still true to me.

Like most here it seems, I'm not an Orton fan...but, yeah, him showing up would be super cool. Same for Cena. Same for Batista. Those three names are so inextricably linked to the WWE that them going to AEW would carry more weight than even CM Punk. Sadly, I don't think Orton is going to make the jump. I don't know his contract situation, but I'm guessing the WWE has him signed up for awhile and, when the contract comes up, will happily pay him some ridiculous salary to stay. When's the last time the WWE even did one of their "spring cleanings"? If they can pay what feels like two dozen guys to sit at home and collect a check, they'll pay Orton an ungodly sum to continue coasting and doing what appears to be a comparatively light schedule. On the topic of Omega and Rollins, I will say this -- Even if you hate Kenny Omega's work, like really think it is total overkill video game dogshit, he is undeniably over with his audience. In the context of NJPW and AEW, Omega's matches aren't booed. When he wrestles a 40+ minute match with loads and loads of crazy spots, the audience reacts positively to it. Compare that to Rollins and that's all you need to know about who the better worker is. Even in the WWE, with the full machine behind him, in front of audiences that paid lots of money to see WWE style matches, Rollins got booed out of the building against Ziggler, got booed out of the building against Ambrose, and got booed out of the building against Wyatt. And in only one of the cases (against Wyatt) was it because the audience was fully behind his opponent. Against Ziggler and Ambrose, the audiences shat on those matches because the matches sucked in the eyes of the very same fans who were most likely to enjoy them.

I wouldn't say they're too brutal - but I think anyone who thought that NXT was going to "go mainstream" and appeal to anyone beyond indie wrestling fans had intense "in the bubble" tunnel vision. While Tony Khan obviously injected a ton of cash into the AEW engine, its important to remember that the Bucks spent years and years pulling in a loyal fan base that was going to be fully on board whenever they made their big move. Compare that to NXT and there's no shocker here. You can't buy longterm grassroots support, which is exactly what the WWE tried to do. They thought if they bought all the big names in the indies and put them in their own league, they would create their own alternative mega-indy, but for various reasons we've talked about in other threads, they failed in the execution - especially over the past 18 months, which has been arguably the most important time for the brand. And, as this thread's mere existence is proof of, it doesn't help that the main shows are a total mess and can't be used to prop up what is basically a spin-off.

I think its way more possible, even with the Fox deal, even with the Saudi blood money, for the WWE to sink in the not-so-distant future. Obviously, we'd likely see some sweeping changes before that with what I would assume would be a hiking of the Network price, a bunch of talent releases, less touring, etc. But I don't buy that the WWE is "unsinkable." There's really no easy comparison to pro-wrestling, but there are ways the brand and the WWE's various products can be compard to content factories (like Disney or Marvel, who actually did go bankrupt in 96') or major sports teams/leagues. You've got TV, live events, merchandise, video games, and more - and its not just in the US, there are international markets too. And, for some of these things, like the MLB or Disney, even when they haven't had a hit for awhile and it seems like nobody cares, there's a never-ending stream of kids growing up with parents who take them to those movies and baseball games and will do so forever and ever because these are, at least in the US, our American pastimes. In Disney's case, you also have timeless characters that can rebooted, repackaged, remarketing, and resold forever. These companies and leagues are too big to fail because they generate revenue in so many ways that aren't really all that linked all the time. (For example, the Cavs here in Cleveland are going to really struggle to sell tickets, merch, etc., this year because we are going to suck, but the NBA will do just fine and the Cavs alone are still worth $1.3 Billion according to Forbes.) But for the WWE, I do think the links are significant and a domino effect could happen. Right now, attendance is not great and TV ratings are not great, but losing 25-30% more of the audience in 2-3 years doesn't even sound far-fetched (it doesn't even sound far-fetched to imagine it happening in 2-3 months). That would have a direct impact on merch sales, including the video games and other licensed products. It would also, most likely, have an impact on brokering their next TV rights deal. Meanwhile, the subjective quality of the content is making it harder and harder for them to reach and keep new viewers while the bank of stars that bring in current and casual viewers is getting smaller - something Disney or Marvel don't have to worry about as much because their properties are almost literally ageless. I guess it is possible that the Saudi money and the TV deals will be (or currently are?) enough to pay for all the losses in every other area of the business. But that isn't sustainable, right? Its certainly not smart to "take an L" on the revenue streams you actually control and bank on these outside sponsors/partners. I mean, if Saudi Arabia could woo the NBA or MLB to have them host an All-Star game there or convince Disney to build a Disneyland resort there, given the option of what they want to spend their billions on, the WWE would be left in the cold, right? Also, like what happened with WCW, all it takes a shake-up at the top of Fox for a powerful exec to come in and say, "No, I don't want to pay for pro-wrestling to come in 3rd on Friday nights when I think we can win 18-49 and total viewers with a singing competition."

I wonder if the "significant promises" that were alluded to in the post above were: - Strong ratings. They lost what? 25% from Week 1 to Week 2? And, while they did well 18-49, they still came in 3rd in total viewers. That's not too great for what is often touted as "DVR-proof" content that "reaches all ages." After two weeks, we know: there are still more Americans who'd rather watch Tom Selleck (on Blue Bloods) and a Tom Selleck-adjacent property (the Magnum P.I reboot) than the WWE. - Separate rosters. The first episode featured RAW superstars heavily. And while one could argue that some of those guys would be drafted a week later - Braun Strowman and Bray Wyatt, for example - the clear demarcation between rosters was probably something FOX would've liked on Day 1 because... - Many of the biggest stars on the first episode of SD were not full-timers. The Rock. Lesnar. Cain Velasquez. Hell, the first two segment on the Fox debut featured four characters - Vince and Stephanie, Becky Lynch, and Baron Corbin - who are all RAW characters. - Pair the above fact with the way that WWE is marketed and promoted to potential advertisers and investors, with a HUGE emphasis on stars of the past, and you can see why Fox might've thought that working with the WWE was going to be a HUGE deal. I mean, based on the advertisements, how could a weekly show featuring The Rock, Stone Cold, The Undertaker, John Cena, Brock Lesnar, and Hulk Hogan not be a huge hit? And before people jump at me and say, "Well, the Fox execs were smart enough to know those guys aren't weekly performers anymore," hold on a sec. How many TV execs are even casual wrestling fans? Probably not many. Even fewer would admit it. Even when it was popular, it wasn't "cool" or seen as high brow entertainment. There are also everyday people who still think Tina Fey and Will Ferrel are on SNL. If you ask a non-NBA fan to name some famous players, they might still say Kobe Bryant. Did you know Cameron Diaz retired from acting 5 years ago? PLUS, as explained above, if you watched the promotional materials that the WWE produced, you would reasonably assume that all those stars of yesteryear would at least appear in cameos every week. Its not like SNL advertises next week's show with clips of Opera Man and Jon Lovitz' "That's The Ticket" guy. You can't sell Cavs tickets by showing clips of LeBron hoisting the trophy in 2016 but that is exactly what the WWE did. - Lastly, the "sports-like presentation." It still looks and feels like the same ol' WWE. And there are still lots of corny gimmicks that sports fans will roll their eyes at.

What's her character exactly, though? Perennial loser? Like, what is she thanking him for? Having her get drafted to SmackDown? Because, if thats what she is thankful for, she is breaking kayfabe by saying that Vince controls who got drafted where. Which, if you go one more logical step, also means he controls who wins and loses matches. Which also means he booked her to lose to Becky Lynch decisevly last week. So, I don't get it. And I don't think she does either anymore. And I don't think many or really any fans are able to keep the thread of WWE's "gray" area storytelling where everyone is in character all the time except when they're not because they're all "playing characters" and nothing is real except what you see on TV except when that also isn't real because even the most nefarious heel, the biggest bullies on the roster, are still seen doing anti-bully PR work. It was way easier to enjoy Sasha Banks, as a performer, when she was a definable character with clear motives. Its not just her tweets - her whole character and presentation has been an absolute hot mess since they called her up and, for whatever reason, decided they could base her babyface character on being an "internet darling" and being the anti-Charlotte.