RavishingRickRudo

Though there were only 15 episodes (11 aired), they still established a _ton_ of stuff in those episodes that people want to see some resolution to. Joss said that he does resolve a lot of the issues set up in Firefly for the fans of the show, but doesn't want to completely alienate the new viewer (I trust Joss with this, since he did make Firefly the best show ever - I stand by that) .The only problem is that they don't have any big name actors who can carry a picture (Nathan Fillion, despite being GOD, doesn't have the star power... yet) and draw in a big crowd. However, Firefly does have its hardcore fans who will see the movie again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. I know I plan to, considering I still watch the DVD more than I watch anything else on TV.

The first Hot Shots They had to come, it was the sequel.

I mean, if they changed their logo/identity COMPLETELY on 5/5/02, then there would have been a lot of confusion among the public. I swear to god, I was watching a video game review show this week and the host said "WW" Smackdown and "WW" RAW. Switching brand logos is a regularly hard thing to do, I think the WWE transfer would have actually made it _easier_ for them, considering they had to the perfect excuse to change it. Instead, they went with the long-passe scratch logo without the E which looked ridiculous.

Though "Ghostbusters" had the funky beat and the phrase "bustin makes me feel good", IMO "On our Own" by Bobby Brown is better than "Ghostbusters". "Too hot to handle, too cold to hold They're the ghostbusters and they're incontrol. Had em throwin a party, for a bunch of children, All the while, Slimer's up in the buildin'"

But the scratch logo is so in-style right now They should have changed it after the F got out.

WAR: It's FAN-tastic! Hot Shots: Part Deux What other film has Charlie Sheen, Lloyd Bridges, and Ryan Styles?

Yeah, the only move the fans really buy is the Brocklock 03, it's a wonder why he never put it on Guerrero. The next best bet is the Hogankiller (bearhug) which at least has more dramatic flare than the "rear naked choke" (FUCK YOU TAZZ! That's clearly a sleeper!) or the guthug. The chickenwing was the only submission, IMO, that looked 'weak' on the part of Brock (the guthug just looking inherently bad, though the transition into the throw was very nice); so weak that they never even called it a crossface chickenwing. I did, however, dig Tazz saying what the STF stood for. http://www.jerich9478.com/xslh1/index.php ^Sledgehammer^ Ya gonna have to sign up, though.

It's a misconception that the Buddha was fat; infact, it is said that he was very thin. The plump, laughing figures found in Chinese restaurants and curio shops are actually not Buddhas at all, but rather kitchen gods. Besides, Buddha wouldn't take the ladies even if they offered themselves to him. To break from from the karmic cycle, one must not bind themselves to desire, thirst, and craving. G-zuzz OTOH, was a clear daddy of mack.

I can't recall Angle interjecting himself into it either. And it certainly wasn't at the level of Eddie/Chavo and it was a more serious issue as well.

See H, Triple and his refusal to turn face. Ok, and this stops Austins heel turn in his hometown from sucking and the fans not wanting to boo him and the crappy programs which followed which ultimately led to the InVasion angle thus making it a failure... how? You just gave a reason why it did.

I don't know how to respond to that.

It "sucked" because it started a chain of events which led to the company sucking copious amounts of ass for years.

Than there was an ending that seemed to be a little out of the blue for what they were building to. Too quick for me. Not enough of a payoff. I agree with this. It felt like "ok now let's end it" rather than a natural climax to the match. They could have developed a lot of the things they built in the match (Brocks Leg when hitting the F-5, Eddies Frogsplash), stuff that really gave the work weight. However, it did fit in with the "macro-psychology" of "Eddie uses the ring" and "Eddie takes advantage of the opportunities" in Eddie hitting the frogsplash and Eddie turning the F-5 into a DDT; so it wasn't totally out of place.

If you have a fast computer, it's up at Sledgehammer forums. Hell, it was up a day after the show. I had to give it a week long grace period before I could look at it objectively. He was putting Eddie in various holds on the mat just to kill time which ruint the flow of this for me. To be fair, the majority (if not all) of those "various holds" were focused on Eddies ribs/cutting off his breath. It's Eddies fault that he didn't sell them. As for the pacing/flow, I thought it was a bit disjointed at times - it didn't go as smoothly as, say, Benoit/Angle RR03 which used breaks but they used them more wisely - but I didn't think they went _too_ long when working the holds. Another note, I liked how Eddie used his elbow to hit at Brocks leg when he had the hooks in, stupid Cole said he was hitting "the midsection" and Tazz didn't bother correcting him. But for the most part, the commentary was good. They didn't play up the more obvious psychological elements which would have added to the match, but they did have their moments.

Here's a snippit of CRUN-CH # 53 - 9 February 2004. It goes into about 3 ways... Low Ki vs. Chris Daniels vs. American Dragon This may very well be the best single-fall 3-way match that's ever taken place -- if anyone out there was going to set up some innovative tandem spots and find creative ways to get everyone involved, it was definitely these three. But, when dealing with something that's flawed by design, praise such as that only goes so far. The most obvious issue this has is that it's a 3-way; there's always that extra person to be accounted for. Not every spot can be a double-team, because, sooner or later, it isn't going to be believable that A) one person could take so much punishment or B) the alliances would keep shifting equally. It means that, during the body of the match, one man has to be essentially out of the way while the others work a segment. But, if someone is incapacitated, why isn't one of the other two trying to wear him down further? The easy answer to that is that the two active participants would balance each other out and have to beat on each other before they can take advantage of the situation. The 'winner' of that exchange gets to take out the weak man...but he's had time to recover, and now there's a new weak man. It's wrestling's version of the Möbius Strip, and while those are great for conveyor belts, they don't help make sense out of a wrestling match. It might be a bit more plausible if they had varying degrees of success against their two opponents and wanted to use that to their advantage, but that's far from the case here. http://www.airraidcrash.com/review/crunch53.html

In the WWE the heel generally is the most dominant wrestler in the match (that's their overused formula), so he would control most of the match. However, to just write-it-off as "the heel leads" is to ignore certain things. The ref, the bookers, and the agents help form the match. Wrestlers with seniority and most experience often get to lead (Taker vs. Cena, for example... Taker vs. Anybody, really). Or sometimes two wrestlers just let it all happen naturally and react to each other accordingly - they give and take. Of course, we don't actually _know_ what exactly the bookers/agents say, or what the ref says, or who is given the task to control most of the match, or whatever else there is decide backstage. BUT, we can watch. We can watch their reactions, we can watch them "give" or feed a move, the little things like pauses, usually there is a 'trademark' spot a wrestler carries with him that he'll use, there's the circumstances surrounding the match (crowd). There's way too many variables in what makes a match just to assume that "the heel leads". There's too many to just write it off as "Brock made that match because he was a heel". That's writting off _the work_ done in the match. Yes, Brock controlled most of the match because he was a heel, but the instances which I saw which lended itself to Brock "out performing" Eddie wasn't because of his time given to dominate.

1) Brock Lesnar outperformed Eddie Guerrero in their No Way Out match. True, I just watched it and Brock owned that match. He relied a lil too much on suplexes IMO, but it looked like whenever there was a mistake and botch in the match (the figure four spot looked to be that way) it seemed like Brock was the one who compensated. Eddies hurricanrana/powerbomb spot which Brock turned into a sort of spinning throw. Brock showed a lot of veteran ring awareness in the match. Not to take away from Eddie, I like how alot psychology of the match played out (Brock stops Eddie from coming into the ring early on in the match, as if to say "you don't belong in this ring", Eddie then -throughout the match- uses the ring to his advantage. He plays the system. This is something that I don't believe was brought up and I found it really added to the match. You can see a dozen ways how Eddie uses the ring to his advantage. And how he takes advantage of opportunities) Brocks leg selling, for the most part, was good. The F5 spot doesn't really help it, though. I thought Eddies rib selling was horrible. After Brock tears into his mid-section Eddie ends up i)doing the triple vertical, and b)hitting the frog splash for the win. That completely negates all the work Brock did (which was a _ton_). Brock's "mat wrestling" (gutwrench bearhug into a throw, the rolling bridging pins, the german suplexes) were really neat to see. Brock saying "DIE!" was great. Though I think he relied on the same move(s) a little too much; but admittedly, he did try to change it up a lil bit (crossface chicken wing with the hooks in, turned into a sleeper). Eddie "rising" from the sleeper and "looking to a higher power" is something I also found really fun. I'd give it **** and alot of that is based on Brocks work (and some was taken away by Eddies). 2) Brock Lesnar may soon be the best wrestler in WWE, if he continues to improve at his current rate. Hard to say. He is limited by his experience in the WWE system. Kurt Angle showed a lot of promise but has since plateaued and didn't really reach that full potential that people expected of him. I think that Brock is better than Angle, he uses the ring better, he incorporates his amateur work better, he uses his size better, he has better moves, he paces better. But whether or not he will reach _that_ level of the great workers, I dunno. _The Best_ in the WWE is a little more likely, given his age. But being the best in the WWE isn't exactly the feather in the cap that Brock's talent really deserves, IMO.

Yes, I mean recently. There are no McMahons on TV right now. Wouldn't you think this indicates that they realized there was too much McMahon crap on TV? Oh, so Vince wasn't on RAW last week, or the week before, or on Smackdown, or on RAW next week? Maybe you were literally saying "right now" when it came to McMahon being on TV, or maybe you were stressing the "s" in Mcmahons.. as is more than one. Rather they're using him now because they've changed the working style, they're doing longer matches and there's more emphasis on serious feuds and classic booking and he fits that motif quite well. Ah yes, this supposed changed working style. Tell me, is Benoit still doing the triple german? It's because they don't have anyone left. That's why Benoit was brought over. I thought that was obvious. Bullshit. If the WWE is as hell bent on destroying Eddy and Benoit as you think, why would they even allow them to get near that level? I don't think I ever said they were "hell bent on destroying" either of them, I said that they weren't exactly Rah Rah for Eddie and Benoit, hence their lacklustre, half-hearted pushes. But this seems to be a running theme. If I think the WWE can do better, I expect perfection. If I don't think they are using Eddie and Benoit very well, I think they are hell bent on destroying them. Why do they have jobs in WWE? Why haven't they been fired? Because they are enhancement talent. They make others look good. If a card doesn't have a lot of good "wrestling" on it, they'll throw Benoit and Guerrero together (Armageddon? Vengeance?) to help "fill the quota". They're a step above jobbers, but in-the-end they will never be placed in a position to carry the company because Vince doesn't think they can. You make it seem as if Vince thinks they're disposable, and he wouldn't be putting them in those roles if he did. I think that Vince sees them as a convenience. He's putting them in these roles not because he wants to -because if he really wanted to he would have done so before or done it now better-, but because he's used up his other options and is turning to "plan L". It was not a silly statement. You're being melodramatic because you think everything should be melodramatic. They've turned him face because he's facing heels and he's being treated like a babyface by the announcers. It was a silly statement. I'm not saying he isn't a face now, but you're making it seem that its an accomplishment that the WWE should be proud of. Cena was over, rather than continuing him down the heel path they went with it. Oooh they aren't complete morons, here's a fish. Yes. I also mean Rey Misterio, whose cruiserweight title defense against Chavo was actually a focal point of a lot of the advertising building to the show. But noticing that might mean that you acknowledge that WWE is attempting to present the cruiserweight division in a way that's important, so let's just ignore that. Let's. Because if we turned our attention towards it we may have to face things like the epic Jamie Knoble vs. Nidia match. They've never put Mysterio in a serious role and never will. But if you want to hang your hat on them doing a 3 week campaign with 2 latinos as the turn around, go ahead. Actually, yes, he's Jewish. They never mention that though, so I wouldn't exactly call it an ace in their favor. GOLDBERG is Jewish I wouldn't call Jews a minority, given that it's a religion. Eddie is Christian, does that make him in the majority? Either way, I wouldn't call Goldberg a visable minority as he has all the traits McMahon likes in a ME'er. If you look at all the PPVs for the last 12 months, it has gotten better hype than all of them except Wrestlemania XIX, Bad Blood, Summerslam, Survivor Series and the Rumble. That means it's behind the Big Four and the first RAW PPV. The hype was rushed, but it was not _bad_. Rushed _is_ bad. Makes the event seem unimportant. But they haven't. Were you praising Vince for making the decision not to make XX a legends show and instead focus on the talent they have? If not, you should have been. It's only fair. Actually, I was wanting them to do an homage to all the previous WM's. But I don't actually see your point here, elaborate, I'm slow Stacy and Jackie are there for the men. You know that. At the cost of the women, I know that. Kinda funny how the WWE is "trying to appeal to the women" while "insulting them by completely objectifying them". No, they couldn't have. That would require both Angle and Cena to switch shows, which would be even worse than the current situation based on your complaints about them not holding to the brand extension. They could have done an official trade, press conference and all. Check my previous posts, I am for that. There are many ways to get around that without insulting your audience. "No, they couldn't have" isn't exactly the most open-minded and creative way of dealing with things. Benoit/Eddy is not a Mania-calibre match, regardless of what you think of them as performers. I happen to think a lot, but 'Mania is about star power in the title match. Benoit and Eddie _now_ are not Main-calibre, but they could have been built up that way had the WWE invested the proper amount of time and effort into them. Which they haven't. Which is part of my problem. What they're doing now isn't helping Benoit and Eddie become mainstays, they aren't "main eventers". Once they lose the title they are probably going to go spend a lot of time in the mid-card and end up "failures" since they couldn't stay important. I mean he still won the Rumble and he's still competing for the world title. Oh, you mean they were keeping with the storyline they started at the Rumble. His RAW storyline. Is that what you mean by "intact"? The storyline that completely went against his Smackdown one? I mean months. Angle/Eddy has been building since January. Inwhich Eddie and Angle were still directionaless. Eddie was feuding with Chavo, which was a dead end. Angle was just wandering around the card. Only until recently were their paths set. Yes, there are other ways. No, they are not taking the absolute best route. No, they are not going where I wanted them to go with 'Mania entirely. But that does not mean that the direction being taken is a bad one. It hurts Benoit. It is bad. Agreed. I haven't been insulted by WWE since before Survivor Series. The product has been good since then too. I've been insulted plenty. Angle and Eddie being bestest friends didn't make sense. Benoit jumping to RAW didn't make sense. The "blind nidia" storyline has been horrible. Stacy and Jackies quest to be in Playboy is god awful. How about Little Johnny? What about "I still remember?". Where did they go? The product hasn't been good, the majority of the storylines (like 90%) are bad, the majority of the wrestling matches (90%) are bad. Could have been better. Absolutely. Won't argue that at all. But the direction they're taking is not bad as a result of that. Sure it is. If they aren't striving to reach their full potential, if they aren't recognizing the history in their storylines, making plot holes, and generally forgetting about things, if they aren't trying their hardest, then they haven't learned from the past, they don't care about the fans, and they haven't "turned around" at all. Just because they've made long-term booking up until Mania (which is the case every year), doesn't mean they are turned around. They still have fundamental problems that I don't see solved, nor do I see any indication of solving them.

JR: That Shawn Michaels, the Heartbreak Kid, wrestling with a career-threatening injury against the best in the game, HHH. Bah gawd, these men have history, these men ARE history, these men are certain first-ballot hall of famers and in my book the greatest wrestlers of all time. Oh, and Chris Benoit... he deserves to be here too. He, um, he may not be the biggest dog in the fight but, um, he deserves to be here too.

i geuss it just went OVER YOUR HEAD. Yeah, I guess so. (what did?)

When a person from the Christian faith says an "accurate portrayal" we mean "true to scripture" as you put it. It's part of that whole infallibility of the Word that says so. Who can that God isn't involved in "The Passion of the Christ"?

I think what AS is "alleging" is that no one should ever change off-screen. Angles "friendship" with Brock was totally off-screen. Are we to believe that these two men who hated each other for a 3 months are now buddy-buddy? We never heard one phone call from Brock saying "hey, get better soon", we never saw ANYTHING. It was just "oh hey, by the way, me and Brock are best buddies". It's hard to swallow. Then, are we to believe that Angle cares about the Guerrero family after his tour of Iraq, but didn't care about family after his child was born??? Riiight (which, under the "let's assume" way of thinking, was a lil bit before Kurt sacrificed his brother to Brock Lesnar). I just don't find it believable. I don't have a problem with Angle vs. Guerrero, I just didn't get why they were friends in the first place.

Oh shit, that was fucking great. His corner man must've had some money bet on Ruas cause he damn sure was trying to get him to continue.

Did any of that happen on screen? Or are we to assume it happened?

just to see if it projects an accurate portrayal of the events. Is that even possible? Or do you mean "true to scripture", or "true to the kings james version"? Considering many historians believe that Jesus was put up on a stake rather than a cross, I can't see that this film would be an accurate portrayal. RRR: Not looking to start a religious debate, just finding it rather silly to look for an "accurate portrayal". It's a film, not a documentary. There is creative and artistic license inherited in the storytelling process.