C.S.

Because you sort of missed the point of what I said. I never suggested plain, vanilla Harry Smith. I suggested some kind of British Bulldogs type of gimmick for them (but not specifically "The New British Bulldogs," as that never works - but rather something in the same spirit) . Something with color and flash, pomp and circumstance. But I'm not hung up on Harry Smith specifically. That was just an example. Primarily, I meant that someone "new and fresh" should be Neville's partner in this scenario - not a stale WWE midcarder like Kofi who has been overexposed for years.

It was an FF issue for me and fakeplastictrees. Not sure about flyonthewall2983.

Which is why I said this earlier:

The same thing happened to me. I cleared all WWE.com cookies, closed and reopened the browser, and logged back in. That fixed the problem.

No, because Kofi is over-exposed and isn't over at all. A tag team with two "newer" people - maybe Neville and Harry Smith, like I suggested above - would be a better bet. A tag team is a good idea, but Neville + any stale WWE midcarder wouldn't work. It needs to be fresh.

Meltzer may call himself a reporter, but he could call himself the Easter Bunny and it wouldn't change the fact that he's also a critic - just like Ebert. Meltzer's five-star reviews are one of the most famous things about him. Ebert was the screenwriter for a movie. He may not have acted in it, but I'd argue that screenwriting is every bit as important a contribution (even if Hollywood and the public don't see it that way, because Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie sell more tabloids). However, I'm not sure if "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" pre-dates Ebert's association with the Chicago Sun-Times. It very well might. But either way, I don't think it ever compromised his credibility as a critic. With that said, I can see the merits of your A.O. Scott comparison too.

More color is fine, but the gimmick we're hearing about is Red Rooster levels of bad - and I don't see Neville possessing the necessary charisma to make chicken salad out of chicken shit. Terry Taylor couldn't, and even he had more personality than Neville. If I had to give Neville a gimmick, I'd go with a modern-day spin on the British Bulldogs (minus Matilda). Hell, why not bring Harry Smith back and make them a team? Not "The New British Bulldogs" since "the new anything" always falls flat on its ass, but something in that spirit.

And this thought process is exactly why wrestling fucking sucks now. A competent promoter or writer would try to get the most out of every talent. Are all of them going to be main eventers? No, of course not. But handicapping and cutting someone off at the knees from the get-go isn't the solution either. Try to use everyone in the best way possible and let the chips fall where they're naturally going to. That makes for a much more compelling product. For all of the criticisms of the Attitude era, every character mattered. Hell, every character had a character. That's not the case today, and it makes the show a slog to get through. Does that mean D-Lo Brown was as important as Stone Cold Steve Austin? Obviously not, but at least D-Lo got to be the best version of himself. That hasn't been the case in the WWE for a long time now. Some crappy "Mighty Mouse" type of gimmick for Neville would not allow him to be at his personal best, whatever that ends up being.

Also, Ebert wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and worked with (and presumably had a friendship with) its director, Russ Meyer. Did it compromise his career as a critic? Not one bit IMO. In any case, Ebert never pretended to be "unbiased." He always said he had an opinion - about movies, politics, religion, etc. - and brought that to all of his reviews. Meltzer really isn't any different. Besides, if you want to go down this rabbit hole, you can argue with Meltzer has already been influenced by his admiration of and/or friendship with Ric Flair and others. Ditto for Keller and X-Pac, etc. They may be reporters, but they're also editorialists, and everything they write reflects their own personal opinions. That's the nature of the beast. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem comes in when people start to take their word as gospel - e.g. Meltzer rated this match five stars, so it must be!

I've been heavily critical of Adrian Neville - I am slightly warming up to him, but I'm still not a fan - and even I can't agree with what sounds like a horrible, lower-card, cartoon, comedy gimmick. What is the point of ruining him before he even gets started? Look at what happened with Terry Taylor and the Red Rooster. Yeah, people like Michael Hayes have said *puff puff, snort snort* that Rooster would've worked if Taylor had only embraced it. Maybe so. But it still wouldn't have gone past the midcard even in a best-case scenario. One can argue that Neville won't go past the midcard even as himself, but he deserves a legitimate opportunity to try.

How many of us even watched that? I didn't, had zero clue about his past with reality television except what was brought up on screen. Wrestlers have overcome worse perceptions than that to look a threat. Agreed. I never watched it. I assume this was more of an issue with locker room bullies like Bradshaw and Benoit than most of the audience.

When Miz was pushed as a main eventer, he should've been booked like Edge IMO - an opportunist who makes use of weapons in the most brutal and barbaric manner possible...chairs, the Money in the Bank briefcase, etc. That would make up for any perceived "softness" in the ring. The early characterization that was all wrong for Jericho - hitting Chyna with a hammer, etc. - might have worked for Miz.

That's a fair point. But did HBK look like a threat either? Not even remotely. But because HBK is an IWC darling (not around these parts, I realize), people will overlook that about him but criticize Miz for the same. Obviously, HBK is bigger than Miz and better in the ring, but he does not come across as a threat at all IMO.

I blame the WWE's horrendous writing for this. Same sort of thought process that relegated WWE Undisputed Champion Jericho to 4th place in his own feud behind Trips, Steph, and their pet poodle. Just awful garbage all around. When Miz cashed in Money in the Bank and won the title, it was a HUGE moment. CM Punk was butthurt that it wasn't him vs. Cena that year, but quite frankly, it shouldn't have been. Miz was far more over and entertaining at that point, and felt like a much bigger star. The CM Punk documentary, which was one of the best otherwise, made him look like a whiny asshole in that regard. Punk moaned about not getting the match, bashed Miz, etc. Miz, meanwhile, praised Punk on the same documentary. Like I said, Miz is a great spokesperson for the company and always shines in those segments. Even Daniel Bryan comes across as a smark douchebag when he's a talking head, but Miz is great. Overrated character and wrestler. His message is indeed off, but the biggest problem is that he doesn't feel like a real person in any way. Being a "cartoon" (for lack of a better word) was fine for something like Undertaker, but it doesn't work at all with Bray.

Miz will get another run eventually, mark my words. Might be a late career twilight JBL run, but he'll get it. Like him or not, he's a fantastic spokesperson for the company.

Great interview with J.R. here. http://thebiglead.com/2014/12/19/a-long-conversation-with-jim-ross-part-i/ Am I reading into it too much, or does he seem less than enthused about Jarrett picking Striker? Much more in the link: Flair's party lifestyle, CM Punk, Vince, WWE's medical staff...tons of interesting content. It's well worth a read.

The first WCW Uncensored - I loved that damn truck match, even if both wrestlers ended up getting fired over it (something I doubt I knew at the time, unless Alex Marvez mentioned it in his newspaper wrestling column) - Big Bubba (Boss Man) getting an upset victory over Sting. For some reason, I found this awesome. - I don't remember the rest of the card, but didn't it involve some dumb finish with Flair in drag losing a match he wasn't even - Hogan and Vader? Survivor Series '92 - Just remember every match being fun and good. Now, by fun and good, I don't mean five-star classic. - First Bret vs. HBK match on a PPV. For this reason alone, it has historical significance. Such an interesting time for the WWE...a major transition period. I don't think Bret vs. HBK was even the main event or a World Title match when this card was first announced.

Third opponent now: Roderick Strong. http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/ROH_News_29/article_82352.shtml

I actually saw this. The movie was kind of a confusing mess, somewhat redeemed with an ending that put it all together, but I still wouldn't call it good.

They are actually fraternal twins, not identical. It's easier to tell them apart in backstage/interview/Total Divas type settings, but in the ring, in motion, it's damn near impossible.

Good news for Canadians: A second cable company, Eastlink, just picked up the WWE Network. http://www.wspa.com/story/27651986/eastlink-launches-wwe-network-hd-and-breaks-200-hd-milestone

The Call had a good premise and real star. That helps. Ultimately, the movie wasn't great, but it wasn't bad by any means either. It was good enough to generate a bit of buzz. I thought Dead Man Down (Colin Farrell) was very good, but I can understand people not liking that or not even wanting to see it in the first place. It was a strange movie and probably a hard sell. Wade Barrett looked goofy and out of place in it, but that doesn't really matter too much because he was such a small part of the movie. That's What I Am was really good, but I doubt it made money, and it's mocked by wrestling fans for the nutty Orton "I'll go to the papers if I have to" scene. I liked The Condemned, but I'm guessing people feel mixed about that one, and it probably wasn't strong at the box office. The Marine with Cena was pretty bad, but the sequel with DiBiase Jr. was better, and the third movie with The Miz was actually quite good for what it was - and Miz was the best of the Marine actors, believe it or not. The one with Edge and Jamie Kennedy was decent. Not great, but there are certainly worse ways to spend a couple of hours. The Chaperone was exactly what you'd expect - a bad kids' movie with a certain goofy charm to it. Other than Condemned, the first Marine, The Call, Dead Man Down, and a couple of others, most of these have been straight-to-video, I believe. The profit margins should be higher if they bypass theaters and stick to a lower budget, but who knows, I could be wrong on that.

Was it really, or were you being sarcastic? I found the DVD for $2 at Walmart and bought it for the hell of it. Hopefully the movie is good, but that doesn't exactly speak well of the WWE film division's fortunes. Then again, they had a lot of stuff on sale from major studios from $2 to $10 (like Doom on Blu-Ray for $7 - not a good movie, I admit, but I love Dwayne's batshit crazy performance in it, LOL).

I might have been unintentionally misleading in my post. Other than the strange "of all things" line, he was never embarrassed or dismissive of pro wrestling at all. I just remembered another story from the book: Kunkel and his business partners/friends would play the Atari 2600 game Air-Sea Battle, with the winner being the World Champion and then the rest going after the U.S. or I-C Titles...a concept he admitted he took from wrestling. That made me smile, because my childhood was exactly the same way...except with NHL Hockey on Sega Genesis (never mind the "logic" of playing a hockey game for wrestling-sounding titles). Of course, there's very little mention of wrestling overall, but that's to be expected from a book focused on his career in gaming.

He was also booked like hot garbage as champ. He lost more than he won. It was ridiculous.