Hello to all the readers of ACA-CT. I know it's been quite a time since I've posted something here, and because of that, I decided that I should make up a valid reason to why I haven't posted....or at least try to. As of late, I've been very busy with some school shit and some hard examinations. Unfortunately, the exams may last up until the rest of March and maybe into April. But when I have some more time to write, I promise, I'll deliver.
Vafa
March 22, 2010
March 8, 2010
HBK vs. Taker 2.0
It's almost time for WrestleMania again, and the card looks decent. That is, until I see Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker for the second year in a row. Don't get me wrong, I loved their match last year. But why should I pay to see the same basic match again?
I don't know if the problem lies in WWE not having any new ideas, or if I'm just expecting too much from them, but either way, I was hoping for something else. To make matters worse, it's a retirement match for HBK. Granted, it would be a good way to send him out, but not to Taker. My ideal plans would see Triple H try to talk his partner out of facing Taker, only to have HBK flip and challenge Trips instead. Have him go out that way.
Undertaker and HBK had a great match, there's no reason to do a sequel. Some things are better left with just one installment. Again, I know Taker faced Kane twice, but those matches were 6 years apart, and Taker was still in good shape. I don't want to spend $70 to watch 2 old farts hobble around the ring for the second year in a row.
I want something new, something different. If you want to end the streak, end it with some up and comer. A veteran who is on his last legs doesn't need the push, and WWE is in dire need of new main eventers. Defeating Taker at WM would be a great career starter.
I do see the flaw in that it may make said youngster look like a one trick pony, but it's worth the shot. It's unique, it's a definitive angle, and whoever does it will be catapulted to household name status in an instant. This would best be done by a heel as well, because it would inflate his ego to epic proportions.
But back on track, give someone who isn't your son-in-law's best friend a chance. Don't put an established superstar in the ring to beat Taker, let a young guy do it. They need the rub more than an aging relic.
Also, if HBK doesn't retire, how much longer can he go? For that matter, how long till Taker's knees totally die on him? There will be a point when both guy's bodies give out, and let's hope that WM 26 is their last stand.
As much as I like Taker, he needs to retire. If the streak were to end, he should. I think that is the only way Taker will retire, barring his knees blowing out permanently. HBK could do so much better to retire. Like I mentioned above, HHH should be his final opponent.
I would much prefer to see HHH beat Michaels at WM instead of Taker for a second time, or Michaels beating Taker.
But my main gripe is that it's not a new direction, it's a carry over. WWE is hoping to capitalize again on the success of the match last year. Booking the same match again isn't the way to do this. Find 2 other superstars that could put on hat kind of match.
People are going to get bored. You shouldn't need stipulations or clauses to keep people interested, it should be about the feud itself and not what the outcome will be.
But fear not, WWE, there are still 3 weeks to make things right. Let's hope you wake up and do something.
Nic
I don't know if the problem lies in WWE not having any new ideas, or if I'm just expecting too much from them, but either way, I was hoping for something else. To make matters worse, it's a retirement match for HBK. Granted, it would be a good way to send him out, but not to Taker. My ideal plans would see Triple H try to talk his partner out of facing Taker, only to have HBK flip and challenge Trips instead. Have him go out that way.
Undertaker and HBK had a great match, there's no reason to do a sequel. Some things are better left with just one installment. Again, I know Taker faced Kane twice, but those matches were 6 years apart, and Taker was still in good shape. I don't want to spend $70 to watch 2 old farts hobble around the ring for the second year in a row.
I want something new, something different. If you want to end the streak, end it with some up and comer. A veteran who is on his last legs doesn't need the push, and WWE is in dire need of new main eventers. Defeating Taker at WM would be a great career starter.
I do see the flaw in that it may make said youngster look like a one trick pony, but it's worth the shot. It's unique, it's a definitive angle, and whoever does it will be catapulted to household name status in an instant. This would best be done by a heel as well, because it would inflate his ego to epic proportions.
But back on track, give someone who isn't your son-in-law's best friend a chance. Don't put an established superstar in the ring to beat Taker, let a young guy do it. They need the rub more than an aging relic.
Also, if HBK doesn't retire, how much longer can he go? For that matter, how long till Taker's knees totally die on him? There will be a point when both guy's bodies give out, and let's hope that WM 26 is their last stand.
As much as I like Taker, he needs to retire. If the streak were to end, he should. I think that is the only way Taker will retire, barring his knees blowing out permanently. HBK could do so much better to retire. Like I mentioned above, HHH should be his final opponent.
I would much prefer to see HHH beat Michaels at WM instead of Taker for a second time, or Michaels beating Taker.
But my main gripe is that it's not a new direction, it's a carry over. WWE is hoping to capitalize again on the success of the match last year. Booking the same match again isn't the way to do this. Find 2 other superstars that could put on hat kind of match.
People are going to get bored. You shouldn't need stipulations or clauses to keep people interested, it should be about the feud itself and not what the outcome will be.
But fear not, WWE, there are still 3 weeks to make things right. Let's hope you wake up and do something.
Nic
February 21, 2010
The Next Generation
As there are ends, there are also beginnings. This happens in most of the cases, an era leads to another, a show leads to another, a season leads to another, etc. As I formally said goodbye to ECW in my last post, I decided that I should also welcome the successor to ECW, The Next Generation. What I only know about it is that it'll have the same timing and the same wrestlers as ECW. So, is there anything different to this show other than the psycholigical change - will there be anything different to ECW apart from the stage set and name? Vince McMahon claimed it'll be a "next evolution of the WWE". Personally speaking, that was real ambigious, was Vince referring to the young talent that'll find their way on NXT, similarily to ECW, or was that just propaganda that Vince usually bullshits us with?
To answer the original question of if there was any change between NXT and ECW, I went out to wwe.com, to see if there was any information about NXT. Apart from some hype thrown here and there, there was nothing. So unfortunately, until I do, you'll have to do with this post.
Vafa
Hehe, I'm just screwing around with you. Instead, I'll be talking about NXT's future.
First and foremost, they should try to make people have a reason to watch this show. Yeah, I know young talents and technical match-ups are great with the smarks, but admit it, for the mainstream, it's not what they really want. And as well as we all know, not being on good terms with the mainstream has its consequences, as shown with ECW.
Cancel Superstars, seriously. It's just hogging the ever growing WWE time spots. Including WWE Vintage Collection, there's now over five wrestling shows per week. And trust me, the mainstream won't take NXT over Raw, nor Smackdown. Also, Vintage Collection has some interesting past matches, and because of that, they'll also take it over NXT. Superstars is yet another threatening competitor over NXT. The average wrestling fan doesn't even have time to watch both Smackdown and Raw weekly. Because of that, I'll heavily doubt that they'll free up some time for NXT.
Yeah, we all know that NXT is hyped as a "new WWE, new talents etc..", but if that was the case, ECW wouldn't have even ended, because ECW was doing a great job of getting new talent into the mainstream. NXT should become a show with some young talents and some known wrestlers. If that doesn't work out, you can always work out with the match quality. Go for the more high-flying and more adrenaline pumping type of matches - this will be both good with the smarks and the mainstream. This has worked well with TNA, so why won't it work with the WWE?
As for the PPVs, they'll stay in the same format for now. You don't want to be having a single branded PPV filled with nobodies, it's just a recipe for disaster. The commentators, referees and mostly everything else will stay the same.
So, as a final verdict...make it a show which is a breeding ground, while having some interesting promos mixed with some good wrestling action. This way, young talent can learn their trade while, at the same time, NXT can bring in some good ratings and avoid demising like ECW.
This post ends now...for real lol.
Vafa
To answer the original question of if there was any change between NXT and ECW, I went out to wwe.com, to see if there was any information about NXT. Apart from some hype thrown here and there, there was nothing. So unfortunately, until I do, you'll have to do with this post.
Vafa
Hehe, I'm just screwing around with you. Instead, I'll be talking about NXT's future.
First and foremost, they should try to make people have a reason to watch this show. Yeah, I know young talents and technical match-ups are great with the smarks, but admit it, for the mainstream, it's not what they really want. And as well as we all know, not being on good terms with the mainstream has its consequences, as shown with ECW.
Cancel Superstars, seriously. It's just hogging the ever growing WWE time spots. Including WWE Vintage Collection, there's now over five wrestling shows per week. And trust me, the mainstream won't take NXT over Raw, nor Smackdown. Also, Vintage Collection has some interesting past matches, and because of that, they'll also take it over NXT. Superstars is yet another threatening competitor over NXT. The average wrestling fan doesn't even have time to watch both Smackdown and Raw weekly. Because of that, I'll heavily doubt that they'll free up some time for NXT.
Yeah, we all know that NXT is hyped as a "new WWE, new talents etc..", but if that was the case, ECW wouldn't have even ended, because ECW was doing a great job of getting new talent into the mainstream. NXT should become a show with some young talents and some known wrestlers. If that doesn't work out, you can always work out with the match quality. Go for the more high-flying and more adrenaline pumping type of matches - this will be both good with the smarks and the mainstream. This has worked well with TNA, so why won't it work with the WWE?
As for the PPVs, they'll stay in the same format for now. You don't want to be having a single branded PPV filled with nobodies, it's just a recipe for disaster. The commentators, referees and mostly everything else will stay the same.
So, as a final verdict...make it a show which is a breeding ground, while having some interesting promos mixed with some good wrestling action. This way, young talent can learn their trade while, at the same time, NXT can bring in some good ratings and avoid demising like ECW.
This post ends now...for real lol.
Vafa
February 18, 2010
Gimmick PPV's -- How they are ruining great matches
Everyone loves a good gimmick match. Notice the phrasing: a GOOD gimmick match. This seems to have gone right over the heads of those in WWE. This past year saw new "exciting" PPV events featuring a few too many gimmick matches.
I'm going to break down each of the gimmick PPV's to date and explain why they're shit (oh, like you didn't see this coming).
Bragging Rights: First off, this is quite literally Survivor Series. We don't need 2 PPV's with the same theme. Oh wait, they're fixing that by getting rid of Survivor Series for some odd reason. Bragging Rights will never be as good as Survivor Series, simple as that. I don't think I need to go into detail on why.
Hell in a Cell: I miss the good old days when HIAC matches were a year or so apart, and they were only used as for final showdowns. Also, until HIAC, there was a very unique record. Until that fateful September day, every HIAC match featured either HHH or Undertaker. I am aware of Kane vs. Mankind, but that match never officially started. Then, they went and ruined that with the likes of John Cena and many others.
TLC: See the above about matches being a year apart and so on. The magic has been taken away form these matches because it's no longer exciting to hear about them. It used to be "OMG TLC MATCH!!" now, it's "TLC match, kinda obvious." Also, these matches supposedly shorten careers, so assuming that this happens every year, plus the stagnant title pictures, these people should be retired by 2012 (that is NOT an apocalypse joke).
Night Of Champions: This one I actually like. The only gimmick is all titles on the line. We don't see the same match 4 times a night with different people. Plus, with all titles on the line, it properly builds hype. I mean, it gives a chance to shake up the title picture (not that they really do) and the idea is sound. With some tweaking (IE the title pictures themselves) this makes a great event.
Extreme Rules: Way to bitchslap ECW. This whole PPV makes a mockery of hardcore matches. Also, has anyone else noticed that hardcore, extreme rules, no DQ and street fights are just the same match with different names? You could wrap shit in tinfoil, put hooks on it and call it earrings, but in the end it's still shit in tinfoil. These matches are in no way extreme. One chair shot, 5 seconds in the crowd, whoopity doo. I WANT BLOOD DAMMIT!
Now, for the names. Do they really need to be this obvious? I mean, we know there's going to be Elimination Chamber matches at No Way Out, so why does the name need to reflect that. Plus, the names sound stupid. Seriously, when the poll asking about new names for NWO, there was one good option, and that was "Heavy Metal." I thought that if the name HAS to be changed, this is the one to go for. It's got an ominous sound, it gives a general idea of the theme, but it's not obvious.
I get the feeling that WWE thinks that people can't follow along with something that isn't obvious. They think that they need the dumbed-down version of things for their fans to comprehend. But if they didn't try to attract idiots, they wouldn't have to.
In the end, these PPV's take all the magic out of these once special matches. WWE thinks it will make things interesting, but they are going for quantity over quality. Again, you may have 5 tons of shit, but it's still shit. Give me one good HIAC match a year, and I'll be happy. Give me one good TLC match a year, and I'll be happy. But make me waste $40+ on a PPV that's ruining something's former glory, I'll want your head on a platter.
Start focusing on quality, and you MAY stand a chance. Just make sure you have a solid idea first, which these PPV's aren't. 2010 is a new year, let's see some progress.
Nic
I'm going to break down each of the gimmick PPV's to date and explain why they're shit (oh, like you didn't see this coming).
Bragging Rights: First off, this is quite literally Survivor Series. We don't need 2 PPV's with the same theme. Oh wait, they're fixing that by getting rid of Survivor Series for some odd reason. Bragging Rights will never be as good as Survivor Series, simple as that. I don't think I need to go into detail on why.
Hell in a Cell: I miss the good old days when HIAC matches were a year or so apart, and they were only used as for final showdowns. Also, until HIAC, there was a very unique record. Until that fateful September day, every HIAC match featured either HHH or Undertaker. I am aware of Kane vs. Mankind, but that match never officially started. Then, they went and ruined that with the likes of John Cena and many others.
TLC: See the above about matches being a year apart and so on. The magic has been taken away form these matches because it's no longer exciting to hear about them. It used to be "OMG TLC MATCH!!" now, it's "TLC match, kinda obvious." Also, these matches supposedly shorten careers, so assuming that this happens every year, plus the stagnant title pictures, these people should be retired by 2012 (that is NOT an apocalypse joke).
Night Of Champions: This one I actually like. The only gimmick is all titles on the line. We don't see the same match 4 times a night with different people. Plus, with all titles on the line, it properly builds hype. I mean, it gives a chance to shake up the title picture (not that they really do) and the idea is sound. With some tweaking (IE the title pictures themselves) this makes a great event.
Extreme Rules: Way to bitchslap ECW. This whole PPV makes a mockery of hardcore matches. Also, has anyone else noticed that hardcore, extreme rules, no DQ and street fights are just the same match with different names? You could wrap shit in tinfoil, put hooks on it and call it earrings, but in the end it's still shit in tinfoil. These matches are in no way extreme. One chair shot, 5 seconds in the crowd, whoopity doo. I WANT BLOOD DAMMIT!
Now, for the names. Do they really need to be this obvious? I mean, we know there's going to be Elimination Chamber matches at No Way Out, so why does the name need to reflect that. Plus, the names sound stupid. Seriously, when the poll asking about new names for NWO, there was one good option, and that was "Heavy Metal." I thought that if the name HAS to be changed, this is the one to go for. It's got an ominous sound, it gives a general idea of the theme, but it's not obvious.
I get the feeling that WWE thinks that people can't follow along with something that isn't obvious. They think that they need the dumbed-down version of things for their fans to comprehend. But if they didn't try to attract idiots, they wouldn't have to.
In the end, these PPV's take all the magic out of these once special matches. WWE thinks it will make things interesting, but they are going for quantity over quality. Again, you may have 5 tons of shit, but it's still shit. Give me one good HIAC match a year, and I'll be happy. Give me one good TLC match a year, and I'll be happy. But make me waste $40+ on a PPV that's ruining something's former glory, I'll want your head on a platter.
Start focusing on quality, and you MAY stand a chance. Just make sure you have a solid idea first, which these PPV's aren't. 2010 is a new year, let's see some progress.
Nic
February 5, 2010
The Day ECW Tried To Live
Listening to Soundgarden the other day definitely pumped me up - if you think Axl Rose can shatter glass, Chris Cornell then can surely shatter rocks. And hearing that they reunited a month ago is surely some great news. However, after hearing Cornell's solo album, I somewhat doubt that he'll regain his voice and songwriting talents of his Soundgarden/Temple of the Dog and maybe Audioslave days. Because of that, it reminds me of another 90s alternative rock band that were the best of it's kind, only to have a really grim demise. The band I'm talking about obviously are the Smashing Pumpkins.
However, this doesn't also apply to music only, heck, it even comes into play in the WWE. Yes, I'm talking about ECW. Like the Smashing Pumpkins, both were at their best at what they were doing around the 90s; Smashing Pumpkins released two amazing albums(Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness), while ECW was the best at showcasing some hardcore, blood-pumping action. In the 00s, both were still good, however, slowly reaching the end of the century, they were getting worse and worse. Yeah, the Pumpkins occasionally have a good gig or two, and that's the same case with ECW - one or two good shows.
Last year, I made an appearance at Ez's ECW Analysis blog and I talked about how ECW is an unrespectful successor to the old ECW. I said that ECW was nothing like old ECW, and all it did was to farm new wrestlers for other brands.
Here's an excerpt from the post:
However, three to four years ago, it wasn't the C show because of its wrestling talent. See, back then, it was real entertaining or at least remotely entertaining. Nowadays, ECW is neither. It's a place for youngsters to job while looking to make an impact, or washed-up has-beens who are looking to restart their careers. Even if they get the occasional wrestler who has talent, they instantly export him or her to some other brand, and in exchange, they get even more youngsters and has-beens.
The post can be seen here.
And with the news that ECW is going to be dropped after Elimination Chamber, it's both great and stupid. It's great because ECW completely does not resemble the old ECW, and that it'll leave ECW to rest in peace finally, waiting to be grasped by maybe another revival, a decade, a year or even a couple of months later. It's stupid simply because I thought it would've been discontinued at Wrestlemania, you know, with the "grand finale" and shit like that. But then again, it also may showcase the new show with a bang at Wrestlemania.
So, for better or worse, I guess this is the end of ECW.
Vafa
However, this doesn't also apply to music only, heck, it even comes into play in the WWE. Yes, I'm talking about ECW. Like the Smashing Pumpkins, both were at their best at what they were doing around the 90s; Smashing Pumpkins released two amazing albums(Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness), while ECW was the best at showcasing some hardcore, blood-pumping action. In the 00s, both were still good, however, slowly reaching the end of the century, they were getting worse and worse. Yeah, the Pumpkins occasionally have a good gig or two, and that's the same case with ECW - one or two good shows.
Last year, I made an appearance at Ez's ECW Analysis blog and I talked about how ECW is an unrespectful successor to the old ECW. I said that ECW was nothing like old ECW, and all it did was to farm new wrestlers for other brands.
Here's an excerpt from the post:
However, three to four years ago, it wasn't the C show because of its wrestling talent. See, back then, it was real entertaining or at least remotely entertaining. Nowadays, ECW is neither. It's a place for youngsters to job while looking to make an impact, or washed-up has-beens who are looking to restart their careers. Even if they get the occasional wrestler who has talent, they instantly export him or her to some other brand, and in exchange, they get even more youngsters and has-beens.
The post can be seen here.
And with the news that ECW is going to be dropped after Elimination Chamber, it's both great and stupid. It's great because ECW completely does not resemble the old ECW, and that it'll leave ECW to rest in peace finally, waiting to be grasped by maybe another revival, a decade, a year or even a couple of months later. It's stupid simply because I thought it would've been discontinued at Wrestlemania, you know, with the "grand finale" and shit like that. But then again, it also may showcase the new show with a bang at Wrestlemania.
So, for better or worse, I guess this is the end of ECW.
Vafa
February 3, 2010
Total Nonstop Hogan
Since Hulk Hogan debuted with TNA, there have been several changes made to the company. Some of them for the better, some of them not so much. there's also been a few other things that I feel need to be addressed.
To start, I like how Hogan is making everyone earn their spot. Even if this is scripted, I think it's a good idea. If you just give handouts to anyone you like, you end up with a million Cena's running around thinking their King Shit. I figure that if everyone has to prove themselves, it's going to make for some interesting matches.
I also like the new stage, except for the ring-level ramp. Probably so the ancient hacks they hire don't have to do extra work, which brings me to the first negative.
TNA (or as I now call it, TNH) has always had a habit of hiring former WWF/E stars. This can be okay, if they have some career left. Kennedy/Anderson was a good pick up, as was Angle and a few others, but the Nasty Boys? Lashley? Foley? What is up with that? Do they assume that because they were famous in WWF/E, they'll have the star power to pull in viewers?
This is not the case at all. Who gives a shit about Knobs and Sags? Nasty Sags, sounds like Mae Young's tits. Back on track, TNH shouldn't be relying on "big" names from yesteryear to draw viewers. I'm all for the Ric Flair/AJ Styles mentor thing, but that's different. Flair is actually doing something of value and not just taking up residence in someone else's locker room or hogging the spotlight.
I figure that these people are getting preferential treatment for being friends with the Hulkster. Seriously, who wants to see NWO again? Not me. They had their day. Let someone else be famous for a while.
I'm also not a fan of the 4 sided ring. I know, I know, it makes no difference what the ring looks like, it's the action that goes on inside it. But, it was still one aspect of TNA that was unique. It made for some great spots that just don't come from a 4 sided ring.
There is also the matter of commercials. Honestly, the January 4th show had so many commercials that I swear it was the only reason they were able to fill the extra time. They would return for literally 30 seconds or less, and then go back to commercial. I don't care who's walking to the ring next, I'll find out after the commercials. I don't need to know in between ads for Enzyte and Manswers. Am I wrong for expecting at least 5 minutes of show before another commercial?
The matches are suffering too. How does one get disqualified in cage match (which is by definition no-DQ) for doing exactly the objective of the match (take out your opponent(s) so you can get out). It makes zero sense.
Even WWE has better match endings with Cena falling through a table on his own, or CM Punk screwing Taker at Breaking Point.
While I'm on that note, let's talk about storylines. I saw things that TNH aired last week that were in WWF in 1997. First of all, reality can't be scripted (hard as they try) and reality shouldn't be repeated as a work.
Yes, we know the Angle screw job was a work. I think that blending reality with wrestling should only be done when it enhances a storyline and doesn't rip off an actual event that A) didn't happen to anyone involved (no, I do not count Hebner. He was following orders from his boss) and B) was done the exact same way.
So, with so many things wrong with TNH, is there anything that can be done to save it?
Only time will tell
To start, I like how Hogan is making everyone earn their spot. Even if this is scripted, I think it's a good idea. If you just give handouts to anyone you like, you end up with a million Cena's running around thinking their King Shit. I figure that if everyone has to prove themselves, it's going to make for some interesting matches.
I also like the new stage, except for the ring-level ramp. Probably so the ancient hacks they hire don't have to do extra work, which brings me to the first negative.
TNA (or as I now call it, TNH) has always had a habit of hiring former WWF/E stars. This can be okay, if they have some career left. Kennedy/Anderson was a good pick up, as was Angle and a few others, but the Nasty Boys? Lashley? Foley? What is up with that? Do they assume that because they were famous in WWF/E, they'll have the star power to pull in viewers?
This is not the case at all. Who gives a shit about Knobs and Sags? Nasty Sags, sounds like Mae Young's tits. Back on track, TNH shouldn't be relying on "big" names from yesteryear to draw viewers. I'm all for the Ric Flair/AJ Styles mentor thing, but that's different. Flair is actually doing something of value and not just taking up residence in someone else's locker room or hogging the spotlight.
I figure that these people are getting preferential treatment for being friends with the Hulkster. Seriously, who wants to see NWO again? Not me. They had their day. Let someone else be famous for a while.
I'm also not a fan of the 4 sided ring. I know, I know, it makes no difference what the ring looks like, it's the action that goes on inside it. But, it was still one aspect of TNA that was unique. It made for some great spots that just don't come from a 4 sided ring.
There is also the matter of commercials. Honestly, the January 4th show had so many commercials that I swear it was the only reason they were able to fill the extra time. They would return for literally 30 seconds or less, and then go back to commercial. I don't care who's walking to the ring next, I'll find out after the commercials. I don't need to know in between ads for Enzyte and Manswers. Am I wrong for expecting at least 5 minutes of show before another commercial?
The matches are suffering too. How does one get disqualified in cage match (which is by definition no-DQ) for doing exactly the objective of the match (take out your opponent(s) so you can get out). It makes zero sense.
Even WWE has better match endings with Cena falling through a table on his own, or CM Punk screwing Taker at Breaking Point.
While I'm on that note, let's talk about storylines. I saw things that TNH aired last week that were in WWF in 1997. First of all, reality can't be scripted (hard as they try) and reality shouldn't be repeated as a work.
Yes, we know the Angle screw job was a work. I think that blending reality with wrestling should only be done when it enhances a storyline and doesn't rip off an actual event that A) didn't happen to anyone involved (no, I do not count Hebner. He was following orders from his boss) and B) was done the exact same way.
So, with so many things wrong with TNH, is there anything that can be done to save it?
Only time will tell
January 28, 2010
DX; Have they achieved Cena level of annoyance?
Annoyance. It's a noun which means a non-pleasant state of thought, usually caused by irritation, repitition, anger and frustration. In the WWE, it's a noun which means a non-pleasant state of thought, usually caused by irritating promos, repeated lines, pissing-off wrestlers and frustration at a blown chance for a rookie push. Vocab aside, is there actually a wrestler, or in this case, a tag team, that is as annoying as John Cena? As the title suggests, I'll be nominating DX, the hundred year old tag team. They are the very definition of annoyance, as they are the professionals at making irritating promos, repeating lines, destroying fresh talent and of course, being really pissing-off wrestlers.
DX have been around even when Cena was still was molesting barnyard animals for a living(He now does it for leisure). But don't get me wrong, Triple H and HBK were really good back in their heyday. Back when Triple H was kicking ass with Evolution, and when HBK was rivalling with Orton, oh yes, they were fantastic. But around in 2006-2008, they got reunited. Great innit? Nope...DX have been thrashing tag teams after the other. Legacy, Jerishow and in the near future, Hart Dynasty. Despite destroying some young talent, they've recruited none other than probably the youngest talent in the WWE, Hornswoggle!(I'm pretty sure Hornswoggle isn't higher than 12 years of age)
Yeah Hornswoggle, RVD is just a step away! Just keep the faith....and a few cavities(His "dad" Finlay may have some, JBL probably has a few stored somewhere)
Erm...never mind...
Oh great now, they're gonna rub it into the faces of the young talents by making them lose to Hornswoggle. Watching Jon Heder getting pinned by Hornswoggle last week was absolutely painful. However, we all know that if DX have achieved the level of annoyance of Cena is an oppinionated matter, but the one thing that I think all of us have reached a consensus on is that DX are surely not a tag team you want your fresh tag team to face. Week by week, they're responsible for the boring shit that is evident on TV, and the one thing that Cena is more preferable to them is that DX are the unified tag team champions, which means that they appear on all three brands, while Cena only terrorises one.
Hope you've had a good read,
Vafa
DX have been around even when Cena was still was molesting barnyard animals for a living(He now does it for leisure). But don't get me wrong, Triple H and HBK were really good back in their heyday. Back when Triple H was kicking ass with Evolution, and when HBK was rivalling with Orton, oh yes, they were fantastic. But around in 2006-2008, they got reunited. Great innit? Nope...DX have been thrashing tag teams after the other. Legacy, Jerishow and in the near future, Hart Dynasty. Despite destroying some young talent, they've recruited none other than probably the youngest talent in the WWE, Hornswoggle!(I'm pretty sure Hornswoggle isn't higher than 12 years of age)
Yeah Hornswoggle, RVD is just a step away! Just keep the faith....and a few cavities(His "dad" Finlay may have some, JBL probably has a few stored somewhere)
Erm...never mind...
Oh great now, they're gonna rub it into the faces of the young talents by making them lose to Hornswoggle. Watching Jon Heder getting pinned by Hornswoggle last week was absolutely painful. However, we all know that if DX have achieved the level of annoyance of Cena is an oppinionated matter, but the one thing that I think all of us have reached a consensus on is that DX are surely not a tag team you want your fresh tag team to face. Week by week, they're responsible for the boring shit that is evident on TV, and the one thing that Cena is more preferable to them is that DX are the unified tag team champions, which means that they appear on all three brands, while Cena only terrorises one.
Hope you've had a good read,
Vafa
January 26, 2010
Never Mind
About two or three weeks ago, I talked about how Cena may become a heel in 2010. However, completely ignore what I said. It seems that WWE Creative Team are still going to remain stubborn. Yeah, the toddlers swimming in Cena shirts and replica spinner belts and the old, horny chicks are more important than the knowledgable fans.
Did you see the past week of Raw? In the tag match between Kingston + Cena and Legacy, John Cena comes in and completely bulldozes Cody Rhodes(as always) and appears to be a bit fatigued after Ted DiBiase "hit him from behind". Later in the night, he gets into a brawl with Big Show, and he throws him out as if Big Show were a chocolate wrapper. He then gets thrown out by both members of DX, to make it seem that it was "2 on 1". Speaking of DX, they've officially achieved Cena status. Not only did they bulldoze another young tag team after the other week by week, but they also buried the World's Largest Athlete, Big Show, another young talent, The US champion, The Miz and possibly one of the best guest hosts of Raw in a long time, Jon Heder. And seriously, did you see how they completely embarrassed Heder? It was very painful to watch, to say the least.
So ACA, do not expect anything from the WWE regarding Cena turning into a heel for at least early 2010.
Vafa
Did you see the past week of Raw? In the tag match between Kingston + Cena and Legacy, John Cena comes in and completely bulldozes Cody Rhodes(as always) and appears to be a bit fatigued after Ted DiBiase "hit him from behind". Later in the night, he gets into a brawl with Big Show, and he throws him out as if Big Show were a chocolate wrapper. He then gets thrown out by both members of DX, to make it seem that it was "2 on 1". Speaking of DX, they've officially achieved Cena status. Not only did they bulldoze another young tag team after the other week by week, but they also buried the World's Largest Athlete, Big Show, another young talent, The US champion, The Miz and possibly one of the best guest hosts of Raw in a long time, Jon Heder. And seriously, did you see how they completely embarrassed Heder? It was very painful to watch, to say the least.
So ACA, do not expect anything from the WWE regarding Cena turning into a heel for at least early 2010.
Vafa
January 15, 2010
Okay, I ran out of ideas......
For those of you waiting the finish to "Shane Resigns" -- don't hold your breath. It seems I've pulled a WWE and run out of ideas, so I just decided to stop it dead. At least I have the heart to tell you instead of just dropping it randomly one day and never speaking of it again (Brett DiBiase).
Sorry to those who I've let down, and I'll find a way to make it up to you.
Nic
Sorry to those who I've let down, and I'll find a way to make it up to you.
Nic
January 10, 2010
Future of John Cena
As I did my Crystal Ball post, I got reminded of the future of John Cena. And judging by the way he's being booked, big things MAY happen. Keep on reading to see my analysis of what could happen to John Cena in 2010.
But first, is it actually possible that Cena may get a *gasp* heel turn? Well, with his future well in doubt, evident because of the way he's being booked in the mid-card, he may well gain the attention of the WWE Creative Team. Thank god the Creative Team finally have gained some common sense. He's a whooping five years overdue for a heel turn, and it could not have came in a better time.
So, how do we transform Cena into a heel? Nic already demostrated one way back in June. However, I'll give another possible way. Simple, make him start feuding with somebody like Triple H, make him pull off a dirty move(Such as a low blow, or a chair shot without referee noticing). Then when questioned by the fans/Triple H of his motives, Cena states that he's tired of the face bullshit. That leads him to attacking Triple H, and thus officially turning him into a heel.
But wait, there is one problem of making Cena a heel, however, this problem is a HUGE one. You've all guessed it, merch sales. Let's face it guys, there isn't another superstar that brings in merch sales as Cena. Eg. For every single CM Punk, Randy Orton, Triple H, HBK, Hornswoggle, Batista, Rey Mysterio, Morisson, Finlay, Undertaker, Kane, Christian or Goldust t-shirt sold, there are four Cena shirts sold at the same time. And since most of his buyers are under the age of eleven, turning Cena into a heel will make him seem "bad", therefore since kiddies despise "bad people", it'll make kiddies despise Cena. And if Cena is despised, Cena's merch won't be bought. And if Cena's merch won't be bought, sales will take a huge hit. Okay, if that was confusing for some of you, I'll just simplify it. Cena turning heel => Cena being despised by kiddies => Kiddies not buying Cena merch => Cena merch taking a hit. It's quite simple, eh?
But then again, can you risk ratings and the more intelligent fans for merch sales? I think not. I hope the WWE gets to their senses by 2010. Will this be the year?
Vafa
But first, is it actually possible that Cena may get a *gasp* heel turn? Well, with his future well in doubt, evident because of the way he's being booked in the mid-card, he may well gain the attention of the WWE Creative Team. Thank god the Creative Team finally have gained some common sense. He's a whooping five years overdue for a heel turn, and it could not have came in a better time.
So, how do we transform Cena into a heel? Nic already demostrated one way back in June. However, I'll give another possible way. Simple, make him start feuding with somebody like Triple H, make him pull off a dirty move(Such as a low blow, or a chair shot without referee noticing). Then when questioned by the fans/Triple H of his motives, Cena states that he's tired of the face bullshit. That leads him to attacking Triple H, and thus officially turning him into a heel.
But wait, there is one problem of making Cena a heel, however, this problem is a HUGE one. You've all guessed it, merch sales. Let's face it guys, there isn't another superstar that brings in merch sales as Cena. Eg. For every single CM Punk, Randy Orton, Triple H, HBK, Hornswoggle, Batista, Rey Mysterio, Morisson, Finlay, Undertaker, Kane, Christian or Goldust t-shirt sold, there are four Cena shirts sold at the same time. And since most of his buyers are under the age of eleven, turning Cena into a heel will make him seem "bad", therefore since kiddies despise "bad people", it'll make kiddies despise Cena. And if Cena is despised, Cena's merch won't be bought. And if Cena's merch won't be bought, sales will take a huge hit. Okay, if that was confusing for some of you, I'll just simplify it. Cena turning heel => Cena being despised by kiddies => Kiddies not buying Cena merch => Cena merch taking a hit. It's quite simple, eh?
But then again, can you risk ratings and the more intelligent fans for merch sales? I think not. I hope the WWE gets to their senses by 2010. Will this be the year?
Vafa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)