There's a woman on every single competition reality show (Top Chef, etc.) that talks constantly about missing her kids. Then, when they are kicked off, they act like that's what they wanted all along, just to get back home. Mrs. Fairplay saw that she didn't have a chance in hell and bailed.

Not just a woman, the same thing is done with guys missing their family (wives, kids, cancer stricken parents) all the time. Pretty standard reality show trope. If someone is being eliminated and the shows editors haven’t already given the character a story arc, they need to give the audience a reason to care, so last minute they have the person talk about their family.

 

“Contestant mentions family=contestant going home” is a reality show cliché. It is such a cliché; that at this point the reality shows that have become efficient streamlined machines (Top Chef franchise, the Abrego but not the Salsero produced Vh-1 reality shows) use contestant talking about missing their family as a red herring to throw off audience.

There's a woman on every single competition reality show (Top Chef, etc.) that talks constantly about missing her kids. Then, when they are kicked off, they act like that's what they wanted all along, just to get back home. Mrs. Fairplay saw that she didn't have a chance in hell and bailed.

Not just a woman, the same thing is done with guys missing their family (wives, kids, cancer stricken parents) all the time. Pretty standard reality show trope. If someone is being eliminated and the shows editors haven’t already given the character a story arc, they need to give the audience a reason to care, so last minute they have the person talk about their family.

 

“Contestant mentions family=contestant going home” is a reality show cliché. It is such a cliché; that at this point the reality shows that have become efficient streamlined machines (Top Chef franchise, the Abrego but not the Salsero produced Vh-1 reality shows) use contestant talking about missing their family as a red herring to throw off audience.

 

Yeah, I forgot that there was just a dude on this season's Ultimate Fighter that quit to go see his daughter. My wife loves to try and figure out who's going to be eliminated on Top Chef just based on how featured someone is on an episode.

Yeah, and Tom is spot on. Top Chef has tried to mix things up to not be so obvious about it. You use to be able to tell at times by which chef was really in the weeds on a dish, especially if there was just one. Now they use that as a twist: chef is worried because they rushed through slapping shit together, but judges end up liking it.

 

And the "featured chef" gimmick where they'd show a lot of a chef because it was the last time we'd be seeing them... they've really away run from that quite a bit as it use to be a bit too obvious.

 

John

Todd Martin not getting it:

 

Alberto Del Rio did a brief interview. He said that Big Show brought that upon himself by disrespecting Del Rio. Then he did an about face and blamed Rodriguez. That felt kind of redundant with Miz and Riley doing the same thing on the same show.

Yes, Del Rio pretending that his henchman was dumb and ran over Show "accidentally" is the same as Riley getting insulted by Miz one times too many and epically kicking his former boss' ass.

So a guy on the Observer board randomly posted a legit picture of a naked woman holding a dead guy's severed head, apparently from an infamous sexual mutilation murder thing, in the middle of a TNA thread. And apparently it wasn't enough to get the guy suspended from the board from a few days. It's a special operation they're running over there.

Well, Bryan and a lot of the WO-4 folks are in Las Vegas... so maybe they haven't had the time to sort this shit out.

 

John

So a guy on the Observer board randomly posted a legit picture of a naked woman holding a dead guy's severed head, apparently from an infamous sexual mutilation murder thing, in the middle of a TNA thread. And apparently it wasn't enough to get the guy suspended from the board from a few days. It's a special operation they're running over there.

Everyone on the board wants the dude banned. Ive played the role of Bryan and Dave defender/corrector in this thread but I dont know what the fuck Bryan is playing at here.

 

Well, Bryan and a lot of the WO-4 folks are in Las Vegas... so maybe they haven't had the time to sort this shit out.

 

John

The thread was deleted though. Maybe Tony the webmaster did it I dont know. But the site has been updated by Bryan, Bryan posted on the forum today in the convention thread and I know at least one person who emailed him.

 

Figure4chan anyone?

This random note was included in today's update and cracked me up:

 

"I wanted to pass along this note, which puts on absolute exclamation point on the lack of continuity in today’s professional wrestling scene. Two nights ago, a rerun from the final season of ‘Cheers’ was on TV. In the episode, the man who owned the bar prior to Sam Malone stopped by and for one night was put in charge of the bar for old times’ sake. This character’s name was ‘Gus.’ The episode originally aired on Feb. 25, 1993. Last night, on a different channel, I happened to catch a rerun from the second season of Cheers. An angry customer walks into the bar wanting to speak to the owner, Gus, who obviously no longer owns the bar. That episode originally aired on Oct. 7, 1982. Why is this significant? As a big fan of Cheers, I don’t recall any other episodes in which this ‘Gus’ was ever referenced. That means that in 1993, the writing crew, despite over a decade having passed, had to have taken the time to research whether or a not an owner other than Sam had ever been referenced in any previous episode, and made sure to use the same name for this seemingly insignificant character. That is a continuity check spanning 11 years-worth of television. Yet in WWE, we have Alex Riley being re-signed to RAW despite having been drafted to Smackdown only weeks earlier"

Alvarez would have his mind blown by The Wire

Most TV shows have a Bible/Series Bible.

If that wasn't bad enough, I looked at Wikipedia and saw this.

 

"In the second episode, "Sam's Women", Coach tells a customer looking for Gus, the owner of Cheers, that Gus was dead and Sam now owned the bar. In a later episode, Gus O'Mally, however, comes back from Arizona for one night and helps run the bar."

Sean's second post is a hoot.

 

As rovert says, most TV shows have a Bible/Series Bible from the creator / series runner. They evolve over time, and some shows are more anal about it than others. On some shows, small things (such as prior Cheers owners) might not be in it, or even have anyone care. On other show, they back and forward stories are immense.

 

Tim mentioned The Wire, which was pretty rich. I don't think it had anything on Babylon 5, which as goofy as its acting and dialogue were at times, was fucking insane on it's backstory, foreshadowing/telling, reaching back/forward, etc. The creator says over and over that all his cards were on the table as the show goes along. The two parter "War Without End" (episodes 60 & 61) is nuts in that way. Supect that Lost Fans would say the same thing about that show.

 

John

Dallas had some crazy continuity up to the dream season. Not really intrusive but past episodes were referenced when needed. Even if it was from years before.

 

"In the second episode, "Sam's Women", Coach tells a customer looking for Gus, the owner of Cheers, that Gus was dead and Sam now owned the bar. In a later episode, Gus O'Mally, however, comes back from Arizona for one night and helps run the bar."

Well it was Coach saying it.

Well it was Coach saying it.

That was the first thing that popped into my head, actually. Just look at the series premier when he answers the phone.

 

"We got an Ernie Pantusso here?"

"That's you, Coach."

"Speaking"

And to top it all off....

 

Yet in WWE, we have Alex Riley being re-signed to RAW despite having been drafted to Smackdown only weeks earlier

This isn't even a continuity error. It's kinda dumb, and it defeats the purpose of the draft, but they acknowledged he was drafted to Smackdown and the Raw GM signed him back. They kept continuity.

I'm glad it was a reader who wrote in because I wasn't sure Alvarez would even know about Cheers, with his limited pop culture knowledge.

I am listening to last Wednesday's show and Chico praising ROH for booking Davey Richards/Eddie Edwards like Rashad Evans/Bones Jones while admitting the angle started before the UFC stuff actually happened saying that ROH booked something great that eventually happened for real in UFC almost made my head explode.

Hasn't the Rashad/Jones angle happened in pretty much every corporate situation.

Bryan's idea for the Punk angle on the latest B&V show is pretty bad and relies far too heavily on audience involvement and getting them to do the exact outcome you hope.

http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-sto...on-gate-usa-dvd

 

With Dragon Gate, there is a difference, in that the home style is light years faster, vastly beyond being a spot-fest, and featuring a complexity and a Lucha Libre foundation that simply cannot be readily put into words.

OH MY GOD

I like DG and everything because it tends to be mindless fun but wow, I think I threw up a little in my mouth reading that article.

I'd like to think the only people who read Babinsack do so to get material for stuff like this thread... :/

I was amused by Babinsack's review of Hooker. Basically he felt free to rip the book because he had to pay for it.

 

The first clash I had was with my rule about reviewing bought books, but that was the only way to get it, and the nature of the book meant that I simply had to read and review it. While rules are meant to be excepted, I’m reminded once more why I try to hold fast to my rules. I’ve now got a classic book by an all-time great, but no inherent deal to hype it, and one thing about me is set in stone: I’m opinionated without reservation.

Babinsack reviewed two DVDs for UWC. His reviews resulted in a net purchase of 0 DVDs. It brings up the point of if all of his reviews for things he's received for free are positive, that means none of them stand out over the other since he likes everything that he watches, not to mention the inherent credibility problem of a guy who writes positive things about every free wrestling product he receives, which means he will keep getting more free stuff.

I was amused by Babinsack's review of Hooker.

It's amusing, and not really well written. But a fair amount of the criticism he tosses at the book is stuff that others have said. The only "fresh" take is his wanting Lou to spend more time describing the art of working. That's actually an interesting point, though Lou probably isn't one who could do it: just not in his nature. Not really in the nature of any of those old timers. They tell their stories, but I don't think any of them sit around breaking down matches in detail or going over the tricks of the trade.

 

John