RavishingRickRudo

Curry: Man, that film makes me proud to be a canadian. I'm going to go home, smoke some BC-bud and pop open a Molsons. Rudo: And I'm gonna fill my van up with Saudi Oil~! ... the rest will be featured in RudoCurry Industries Present... Coming SOMETIME.

--UFC and Spike TV have officially announced the long talked about UFC reality TV show. The show, called "Ultimate Fighter," has been signed by Spike for 13 episodes starting in January. It will take 16-20 fighters with four winners getting UFC contracts, similar to Tough Enough. Both Hollywood Reporter and the New York Post have stories today on the announcement.

Why would Kane fuck _lita_ anyways? She's not even close to being the best female on the roster and she's not "evil", so genetically speaking -if we are to assume wrestling ability and morality is genetic- why wouldn't he pick Evil Asian Gail Kim? Or Evil Fat Chick Molly Holly? Or what about Evil Blonde Slut Trish Stratus?

I posted this over at the official board, but I dunno what kind of response it will get cuz, well, they're whacky. It is about the influences in Firefly... I think an obvious influence (obvious when you think about it, at least) is Blade Runner. From the Sinister Corporation, to the Asian influence, to the visual style, to -yes-, even the Browncoat, Joss Whedons vision of the future bears similarities to this great film. The two things that connected Firefly to Blader Runner initially for me were how boths vision of the future was darkly lit and gritty - yet still maintained a sort of smoothness in texture. Another was how Asian Culture was prominently displayed and mixed-in with the American-style. You'd see floating Asian billboards selling Coke (I believe, its been a while), which is akin to Blue Suns drink and methods of advertisement. So when I looked deeper, I was sorta surprised with how many connections one can make between the two. Decker (Ford) and Mal are very similar characters; Decker is an "ex-cop/ex-Blade Runner/ex-killer" just wanting to be left alone. Mal is a former soldier who -though its as if he seeks it- doesn't want any trouble and wants to be left alone as well. Fittingly, they both wear long brown coats and carry 6-shooter-style pistols. Of course, Decker was able to shoot at an "unarmed opponent." ("I thought you were supposed to be good. Aren't you the good man?" - is the follow up quote). So that is where the two differ. His relationship with Inara is close to Deckers relationship with Rachael (Sean Young), and Rachael and Inara remind me of each other - both harken back to an old-style, 1930's, film noire character. They initially are at odds with one-another, he breaks her heart, and they eventually find love together. The Tyrell Corporation is like the Blue Sun Corporation - except not as branched out. They deal with creating the Replicants - and Dr. Tyrell inparticular "worked on (their) brains", which is akin to River and what "they" did to her. And finally, though this was completely unintentional, the most memorable line from Blade Runner applies wonderfully to Firefly: So, what other influences have you noticed in Firefly?

At first I thought you were joking, but... http://www.1wrestling.com/news/newsline.asp?news=18837 So.. 1. 1wrestling reads this site (clearly) and took the information and has decided to -in their high-regard for credibility- post it. or 2. WWE reads this site and decided to create a gimmick or 3. It's a complete coincidence. All I have to say is.. This is funnier than any joke.

But Takers objective hasn't been "I want to get the World Title" - he hasn't really had any motivation at all expect "Oh no, they've got my urn". Which is the whole _point_. It's not about who holds the title, its about who wants the title. And for Taker, to just "jump up" to a title shot after not wanting it for the past few months doesn't make sense.

Personally, I don't need an announcer killing my ability to get into a match by TELLING ME "THIS is how you do a head lock!" or "THIS is pro wrestling!" or "This is no sorry ass Sports Entertainment!"... god what douches. PRIDE, on the other hand, has very good announcers and is more professional looking than not only ROH, but the WWE as well.

But it does put him in a mid-card position and FAR away from the World title.

I think GM has a point - if he doesn't think any of the matches -or wrestlers- are important in-part because of the venue and promotion, than why should he invest himself in them?

But... he faced the tag champs...

I'd say maybe, not because who is the champion, but because of how many people _want_ to be champion. Which is to say, 1. Eddie will be chasing, which could make it more important, but there are no upper carders left. They killed off any potential Cena had, Taker is too busy in the tag division (?), and thats about it.

What are the odds the WWE blames "the WCW name" as the reason why the show bombed and that next year it will be "WWE Fully Loaded"?? However, I am now looking forward to reading Smackdown spoilers now but not actually watching the show, which is a step up from "oh... look... Smackdown spoilers..." *clicks on another thread* and not watching the show. I am semi-quasi-interested in both what happens to Taker and JBL. Congrats WWE~!

We know it was meaningless. That's part of the reason why we picked it. WWE.com has such potential, yet they waste it on pointless articles and bashing the internet. The WWE has so much potential, but instead of giving someone like Cade an actual character, they make him incredibly bland and leave it up to us to impart one on him. Every single day, every hour, every minute, they have a chance to turn it all around. They choose not to. WM XX was where it was supposed to "all begin again", and nothing really happened. WWE.com had an overhaul where they visually changed and gave wrestlers some commentaries, but nothing really happened. This could have been the discussion of this thread, because it was featured in our post, it wasn't.

Dude, if Lita gives birth to Paul Bearer, it would be the greatest thing ever.

Our goal wasn't to "inform" or "entertain", if you entertained - that's great - if you weren't, fine. Some people liked it, some people didn't. Of those who voiced their concerns, I'd say it was 50/50. Of those that didn't, 100% could have hated it and that's their right, but they kept it to themselves because they didn't feel the need to share their opinion on the post. There is no responsibility on us to inform or entertain, we do not write for the site so there is no obligation whatsoever. We do, however, -as posters on a discussion board- have an obligation to _discuss_ and foster dicussion on WWE topics. There were _plenty_ of things to grab ahold of in our post and in that article that were up for discussion - yet you, and others, felt no obligation whatsoever to participate in that discussion, but rather, impart your opinion on the post rather than the topic. Why? I have no idea.

I, however, can miss it. *goes to www.paintdrying.com for something better to do.*

I wonder how Kane will feel when he finds out his father is dead? Oh wait, Kane is bad and bad people only do bad things and don't watch Smackdown.

And? How long has Paul Bearer been on television since WM? That's half rhetorical and half an honest question because I haven't been watching Smackdown for a while. But from what I've read, Bearer hasn't made _any_ impact at all in the past few months. He's not an important character and hasn't been for -what- 7 years? 10?? So what does killing him off do? Send him away AGAIN? Zzzzz. Who fucking cares? It has value in marking "a change" for the Undertaker, but they half-ass it here by not making Taker uber-evil in his approach. He shouldn't say "I'm sorry... it has to be done." He should say something like "There has to be a sacrifice for the new age..." or something that actually empowers him. "Death" shouldn't be done _at all_ in the WWE, but if it's done they should go balls-out. Here they're wimping out. And they sure-as-shit won't show any of the real consequences that goes along with death. They could go somewhere extremely deep with this -at least, comic-book deep- and they won't. It'll be an afterthought to mark "Bad Undertaker". Something they bring up off-the-cuff. "How could he do that to Paul Bearer, his friend! Damn him! Damn you Undertaker! Why?!" "I, I, I can't believe this Cole. I never thought I'd see the day". ... "Well, let's head back to the ring..." Stupid, Stupid WWE.

No, that's a column.

In 1999, during the Superbowl, the then-WWF ran an advertisment which had "owner" Vince McMahon walk through the halls of Titan Towers where various whacky acts would be performed surrounding him and he would act as all of it was natural and not bat an eye. At the end of this ad, the words "Get it?" appeared.. It was a brilliant tag-line that served two purposes: one, it made the WWE catchy where the people who "got it" loved it; and two, it said "get it", as in, purchase, support, and watch it. The WWE.com article entitled "RAW's Garrison Cade feels like the luckiest man in the world" is another example of how, today, the WWE simply doesn't "get it". The article is extremely bland and utterly pointless, which is fitting because so is Garisson Cade. It appears that the only purpose of it is to get over how "lucky" and "honored" he is to be in the WWE - two words that were repeated throughout and which he no doubt is. But, does anyone care that Cade feels this way? I certainly don't. Why would that be? Well, I think it is because I -as a fan- have absolutely no connection with the guy. All I really know about him is that he is tanned and wears cowboy boots in the ring. This article had the opportunity to "get over" a character -any character- that could possibly appeal to the fans, but instead they wrote a very basic interview full of, really, "nothing" at all. The "notables" are that he trained with Shawn Michaels, has achieved so much in such a short time, and doesn't see himself as being ready to teach others. What did he learn under Shawn? Well, he "learned alot" and that Shawn was the best teacher he could ever have. What did he learn? I still have no clue. I wonder if Shawn taught Cade all the "tricks" he used to get ahead in the wrestling world. I wonder if Shawn taught him how to backstab a friend, or how to demean other wrestlers, or how to "drop" the title without ever having to get pinned for it. Somehow I don't think THAT is what Cade was taught. Instead, he was probably taught how to throw a really nice dropkick and suck up to others. What has he acheived? Well, he's a former tag champion who has been in a championship match at Wrestlemania XX. He has wrestled the likes of Ric Flair and been in the ring with The Rock. The article actually makes it sound like he was in the ring with The Rock, HHH, and Ric Flair in a championship match at WM XX; even though, in reality, he was in a 8-man tag that had no build or actual purpose. He was a throw-away wrestler in a throw-away match, but it was at the "biggest event ever"... this, they say, is an honor. What has he actually acheived? Very little. He hasn't managed to distinguish himself from any other of the well-built, extremely tanned guys who can throw a nice dropkick on the roster. The fans don't actually care whether or not he was in the ring with Ric Flair or that he held a WWE championship. Yet, this article assumes that we care about any of this. They don't give us a reason to, but they assume we do care. And that is a major problem with the WWE -in general- today. They want us to care without making the effort in getting us to care. We are supposed to care about Litas problems with Matt and Kane. Why? A similar thought occured to me while watching the Dudleys vs. Storm/Venis - a heat match a week before WM XX to see who gets to be in the aforementioned throw-away 8 man tag. Venis and Storm were cheating and I wondered, "Do they cheat because they are bad, or are they bad because they cheat?". The perspective the WWE takes is that they cheat because they are bad. They assume we will boo their cheating because they are heels. They assume we will feel bad for Lita because she is "good". They assume we care about Cade because he used to be a wrestling fan "in the mid-80's". This perspective, at least how I see it, is wrong. It is a common habit in bad movies, where the villain is just a generic "bad guy" who does things because he's, well, "bad". Cade is "lucky" and "honored" because, well, they say so. In 1999 Vince McMahon would have said he "let's the fans choose who to cheer and who to boo", because "things aren't black and white... but shades of Grey". Well, in the WWE today, things are very white; infact, they're vanilla. There is no distinction to 95% of the wrestlers out there. And that 5% that are unique - the Eugenes and the Cena's (well, not Cena any more) - they get cheered like crazy. You'd think someone like Cade would see this and try to develop a character of his own, so he can stand out. Become "HBCade" and perhaps parody his blandness. I'm not talking about "boring" Lance Storm, but rather, have him believe that he is the most exciting man in the world despite -or inspite- of his inherant "whiteness". And don't have JR out-right say "this boy believes he's the most exciting man in the world", because spelling it out insults the fans' intelliegence. You have to let the fans find it on their own. So that once the fans "get it", they can see something distinctive about him and actually *gasp* remember his name. With Cena, he just threw the mic up whenever he said something that rhymed with "Shit" or "Fuck" and the crowd would say it for him - it was one of the reasons he got over. He didn't insult the fans' intelligence, he didn't do it "because he was bad", he did it because that's him and you decide if that makes him bad or good - the fans decided good. Articles like this don't let the fans decide; they tell the fans what to think. And you know what? The fans know what to think, and when they read crap like this, they think "I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading an article that had no bearing on anything at all." The only good thing I can say about this or Cade is that he at least knows how to suck up to the right people - which I guess is better than having talent or being interesting. He put over HHH, Ric Flair, the Rock, making sure he got their names in saying he tells others to go ask "them" for help, like Ric Flair could help anyone when he can't even help himself from getting out of this depressive and repetitive wrestling state. Why ask those guys? Because they're veterans. "Get it"?

The *article* which I am talking about is the WWE.com one - we just posted our responses to it. The purpose of your "critical feedback" was to elicit a negative response and to bring the the thread completely off-topic - which you have done successfully (steer it off topic, that is), so congratulations. The "praises" kept the thread static, so it didn't promote going off-topic. Yours did. So where is the punishment for trolling? This is the last response you'll get from me because I'm only contributing to this mess.

How is all of this NOT considered trolling? Slayer, CWM, and Kotz have not said a single thing regarding the Garisson Cade article and their only purpose in this thread is to bait Curry and me (mostly me) into a flame war. They have absolutely no legitimate purpose here and no intention for WWE discussion. Do they get a warning? No. I'd like to hear -from a mod- an explanation as to why their presense in this thread is warranted. PM me or respond in this thread, please.

"Preacher, you got a smutty mind! " "Perhaps I spoke out of term. I apologize. I'll make her up a room on the passenger dorm." "Good" .... "A special Hell"

How come there are no mods in here? We clearly have posters trying to sabotage this thread with no intention for discussion.

Our Smackdown thread was said to have come off like a column when Dames was reading it. Since it started out with me and Curry talking about what went on in our day and the majority of it focused outside the event itself, I can see his point - though I disagree with it. This, however, is focused on the WWE.com article. They are completely different. Your posts, much like Slayers and Kotzs, serve no purpose whatsoever relating to the article. Leave.