cabbageboy

Here's an idea: how about NOT having HHH in the main event for a decent interval. I mean the guy is a joke right now. He jobs a main event, then acts like it never happened and demands a rematch. Then jobs again, and demands another rematch with a gimmick stip. Problem is Raw right now is so short on notable heels who else is Cena going to wrestle? Angle? Anyway, this Raw tonight was just total ass. It's odd but since the ECW PPV it's harder and harder to stomach these bland, boring Raws. I assume since there was no mention of ECW tonight that the ECW angle is over as far as Raw goes? The wedding was silly, crowd was brilliant in chanting "BORING" during the vows. That Matt tease was one of the biggest bullshit moments in quite some time. I got legit excited when his music hit...and of course it was merely Edge playing a joke. And I dunno if anyone has mentioned this, but how in the fuck could Lita get a divorce from Kane in less than a month? I mean even in Reno and places like that it is a 6 week wait, isn't it? Further, why marry Edge anyway? The whole point of this storyline is that Lita is white trash, the Slut of the Century....she outta just shack up with Edge for a good long while, it fits the storyline better and adds to the sleazy nature of the angle. Also, why does Kane really give a shit if his whore (ex?) wife runs off with someone else? Dude, she literally called herself the Slut of the Century...be glad you're rid of her. The one amusing thing tonight is that they finally just jobbed the shit out of Muhammed Hassan. Thank the lord. It made me wonder if he's going to Smackdown now though, he isn't on the PPV as far as I know and he did a mega clean job to Cena. This Raw was really bad tonight, I had a hard time getting through it. Certainly didn't make me want to see this PPV real bad. Hell, I even kinda missed Chris Masters.

Batman Begins simply did not have a good trailer. It just didn't. Every time I saw it I got the feeling "I'll probably go see it, but I'm not sure exactly what it's all about. But hey, it's Batman." If you recall it starts by showing Bruce Wayne going up a mountain, then Liam Neeson is talking a bit, stuff happens, etc. It isn't until about 30 seconds goes by that you realize it's even Batman. We see none of the notable stuff in the film really, don't know who the villain is in the film, and so on. That was my comment on the Batman thread about Alfred, Slayer. Alfred is a role that requires a character actor type, not a major name like Caine. It might be a bizarre criticism but Caine is too cockney to ever be an upper class English butler type. Not that he was bad, but I think Gough was the definitive Alfred. Compare this to the Spidey trailers. We see notable action in the film, we see plenty of Spidey/Goblin or Ock fights, we have a decent idea what is going on. I don't think Batman Begins has a clear cut marketable villain or hook, and that's why it isn't making quite as much as some thought it would.

I do agree with you on that. I think one reason the Schumacher films got so cheesy is because the casual moviegoers got a bit weirded out by Batman Returns and wanted something a bit lighter. It's a balance really. They can't constantly do bizarre and remote things merely to appease geeky fanboys either. Doing a hard hitting Joker film...fine. Having Ra's Al Ghul be the main heel in every film from here on in...eh.

Well the problem here is that since they are making a notable mention on each show of the draft pick it almost has to be someone special. I mean if it was Kenzo Suzuki wouldn't it be a bit of a letdown?

I wish they were stuck in GOOD 80s wrestling. Watch some tag action with the Rockers from back then, or as I said Steamboat, mid sized guys from that era. Matches actually move, there isn't necessarily anything ultra innovative or shocking in terms of moves but it's crisp and actually moves. Wanna know what I think a problem could be? The ring is too big. On the ECW PPV everything had a little extra snap to it, and I think one reason is that the ring was a little smaller and it made things move quicker.

An A list villain is someone who the casual filmgoer and fans would instantly recognize and buy as a threat. The Joker, Penguin, Catwoman (if you consider her a villain), Riddler, Two Face. Hell, by the time they were getting to Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy they were getting to the somewhat B grade villains. Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow might have a cult following among Batman fanboys, but they're hardly important names to the public at large. To put the Scarecrow on the same level with The Joker is ridiculous, he's a B or C level heel on par with Mad Hatter or someone. He can't carry a movie as the lead villain or anything. By the way, yes I know that this movie has nothing to do with the previous 4. My point is that completely forgetting those films is not possible...the viewer brings in previous memories. Ah well, I'm sick or arguing this because I'm not sure quite what the point is. I liked the new film pretty well, though I think imdb having it in their top 100 movies of all time is fairly silly.

No the BWO is a product of its time and without the NWO around it really doesn't have any context or point. Doesn't mean you can't have Nova around again however, he'd fit in quite well with Hurricane and Rosie if he wore his superhero outfits.

Actually JHawk that was what a lot of people were saying at the time. Instead the decided to pull the plug on the Invasion angle and simply jettisoned what to me was a compelling Austin/RVD angle.

Haha, yeah Styles made that great crack about Simon Dean and acted like it'd get him fired. If anything you have to wonder why the management doesn't agree with him that Simon is a lame gimmick and let Dean go back to being Nova. Maybe they will?

I think if RVD hadn't been busting people open left and right they would have put the title on him at No Mercy. Thing is, he had pissed off so many people in the back that they didn't want to rankle feathers by putting the title on a guy who was "dangerous." So in other words they were booking to appease guys in the back rather than the fans in the arena. Thing is, if they had done this it might have been RVD cleaning up dogshit instead of Jericho...and lord knows I wouldn't wanna see that.

Dama, with the Joker thing I was referring more to the idea of Joker killing Batman's parents, I didn't really refer to Batman creating him with the chemicals, etc. Trying to compare the 1989 film with the 1966 film is silly. The 66 movie and TV series had no bearing on anything by the late 80s...it'd be like arguing that they showed contempt for the audience who saw 1940s Batman serials. Batman Begins was done by the same studio who did the other 4 films and most would assume it's a part of that overall series. The other films are still fairly fresh in people's minds. So they say "Gee, the past few have sucked so we're going to restart the series...forget the past 4 movies. But we'll have a new batch of villains because you've undoubtedly seen the past 4 movies." I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, but they're just speaking out of both sides of the mouth. On one hand they want you to forget the other movies even exist, yet they are down to using Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul because movies with top level heels already exist. I'd kinda like the Ventriloquist dude with Scarface the dummy. That was a favorite of mine on the cartoons.

I was about to say...who gives two shits about Hilary Duff having a flop? Hardly something to frame the box office report around. The Batman numbers being sorta eh isn't that shocking. There isn't really a huge buzz among the mainstream filmgoers about yet another Batman movie. Add to it the trailer doesn't really clearly explain what villain is in the film and what it's all about and it's easy to see these numbers.

Ha, my dad was also puzzled about Ra's here. He was like "Ra's Al Ghul is now a big Irishman?" Anyone remember the rumor that Viggo Mortensen was going to play Ra's? I think he might have been better in the role oddly enough. He has that boring monotone voice and the look of Ra's from the comics/cartoons. Neeson was cool however. Dama, you kinda answered your own question regarding the Joker. This is a new start of the series, thus you're supposed to forget the previous films. Which was my point earlier: you can't. I myself had the initial idea that this was an origin prequel, yet at the same time they introduced new villains in Ra's and Scarecrow. When I envision Knightfall I'm talking about a massive scale film series where Batman rounds up the Joker one movie, then Penguin in another, Two Face, etc. Some of it would have to be jettisoned at this point however, Azrael for instance. In fact the way it's been done now Ra's would be better in the Bane role, though he is hardly as physical or intimidating. It's a bind really. It'll be hard to do these same villains again because, well, they've been done. Most filmgoers think Jack Nicholson = Joker and nearly anyone else won't be as well liked. Having another Joker movie will seem repetitious even if in the storyline it isn't. I think this approach frankly shows contempt for the previous films and the people who went to see those, bought the tapes and DVDs, etc. It's like "Oh you're supposed to say fuck the previous 4 films and just accept our film....but we're giving you Ra's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow because they're some villains who haven't been done." It's contradictory.

Why did Bischoff even sign Sabu if he didn't want him putting people through tables? Isn't that a bit foolish? I thought Sabu looked solid at the ECW PPV but there were some spots set up that kept him from doing some really dangerous stuff that he could have missed, so it's hard to say if he can still hit some of that crazy stuff.

The odd thing about this is that I think Batman Returns has actually gotten slightly BETTER with time. I watched a marathon on Friday before seeing the new one and it was interesting to see how I reacted now with perspective in mind. At the time I truly hated Returns, much more than I ever hated either Schumacher film. Not only did I find it a really bad film, but it's not even campy or amusing...it was no fun. Watching it again made my opinion increase a bit (maybe from *1/2 to **1/2 or so), but there are still some truly retarded ideas here. Stuff like the army of penguins attacking Gotham at the end...what in the fuck was that? How is this in any way believable? Catwoman's origin made zero sense in the film as well, how did she keep living through shit and how did she learn to bust out kung fu and what not? The first film stayed about the same in my mind but I do agree that Keaton isn't that good. With his "I don't think I've ever been in this room" addle brained silliness he reminded me of Ty Webb as Batman. Keaton was more of a comedic actor which is why his casting always sorta puzzled me. In fact I think the reliance on the Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, etc. in these films is because I don't think Burton thought Keaton could carry it. What people tend to forget is that at the time of Batman Forever Joel Schumacher's approach was actually quite well liked. It wasn't until Batman and Robin that this camp approach was taken way too far as to be embarrassing. But Batman Forever seriously does not hold up with 10 years, in fact I was cringing at Jones and Carrey overacting all over the place in hideous fashion. I think I liked it a bit too much at the time, and now I hate it too much due to the Schumacher thing. Some of this is due to now thinking more about the thinly veiled gay subtexts, stuff like the Bat nipples on the costumes, the closeups of crotches and asses as they get dressed. All very disturbing, haha. Batman Forever DOES have some good stuff though. I liked Val Kilmer, though as a character Bruce Wayne still isn't given a huge amount to do. But at least this one seems centered more on the Batman-Robin dynamic and there is some attempt at characterization with Wayne discussing his nightmares. Besides, Nicole Kidman was smoking in this one....top 5 in the world at that point. This new film is perhaps being praised a bit too heavily for the simple reason that it finally gives Batman's origin and isn't as childish as the last couple. The whole idea of erasing the previous 4 films is foolish though because it isn't possible. My mom for instance kept trying to refer to things that happened in an earlier film, but in this case those films literally do not matter. By the way am I the only one who prefers Michael Gough to Caine as Alfred? When I saw Michael Caine in the role I thought "Hey it's Michael Caine as Alfred" whereas when I watch the old ones and see Gough I think "Hey, it's Alfred." Begins is an interesting film, a nice *** sort of film, but not an all time classic. It's just lacking....something. As I said the film visually isn't that interesting to look at and it's almost too bland. Or maybe it's because it seems like they filmed one of about 100 graphic novels dealing with Batman's origin. Let's face it, Batman going to the Orient and training with Ra's Al Ghul is something out of a geek graphic novel that about 10 people would buy. In fact the use of Ra's and Scarecrow here show that Nolan is slightly full of shit in saying it's a total restart of the series. If I was going to restart it I certainly wouldn't use lesser known B grade (or in Scarecrow's case C grade) villains. I personally think that the Batman series has nowhere highly interesting to go. Seeing Ra's Al Ghul again with his lava pits isn't exactly something I'm going to rush out to see (hell those cartoon episodes bored the shit out of me). Seeing The Joker again will only invite comparisons to the 1989 film...it's been done, guys. That said, if they wanted to do a full blown version of Knightfall with a much more legit Bane I'd be all for it. Bane was horribly misused to the point of offending the audience in Batman and Robin. Hell, they set it up nicely here anyway with all the nuts escaping from Arkham. I'm not sure how they'd introduce Azrael into the storyline, maybe just ignore him completely. Anyone think this is a good idea?

Yeah if Alfonso would chill with the whistle it'd be great to bring him in since RVD and Sabu need him somehow. It just wouldn't be the same. Thing is, they absolutely CANNOT job to fucksticks like the Bashams or MNM. I would absolutely puke. Here's one problem with Sabu working the WWE style to avoid injury: No one will like him. Sabu is so firmly established as a crazed daredevil willing to kill himself that if he doesn't bring that act he has no hope of getting over.

I'm just saying the Joker doing it is cooler for a one movie perspective. It just provided irony in that one film and made it better, and the memory of his parents' deaths can still drive him after that. Burton's films aren't that hot from a thematic perspective, focusing way too much on the heels and not enough on Batman...but his films have a great LOOK to them that this movie didn't have. This one had a bland look to it, I didn't find it nearly as visually compelling as any of the other 4 (good or bad). I wonder though, why not just set the film in the late 30s or early 40s? The whole depression thing makes sense then and it'd give a nice period atmosphere.

You know, if you look at this with the Sabu thread on here something is definitely up. I'd love to see these guys on WWE TV because they at least bring a crazy air of mayhem that has been sorely lacking of late.

RVD/Sabu vs. the Dudleys...a dork ECW fanboy like myself's heart skips a beat. I think there is perhaps more to this than the WWE 24/7 thing...Vince could use Sabu's footage from ECW anyway without meeting him. This hopefully is about bringing him in as part of an ECW faction or major angle. At least I hope so.

On the box office front the theater I was in had very few people, but then it was a fancy "director's hall" ripoff where you pay 2.00 more per person to have leather seats and an usher....maybe people just waited for the 1:30 showing and skipped that con job. Anyway, I thought the movie was pretty decent, better than the last 2 or 3 but not as fresh as the 1989 film. There's a bit too much going on here that isn't really marketable to the public...the avg. filmgoer doesn't know much about Ra's Al Ghul, Falcone is a remote character, Scarecrow is a jobber basically. It's more like a graphic novel of Batman (as said, stuff like Batman Year One) than a typical "Batman fights _____ heel." As in an interpretation of Batman's origin rather than something truly definitive. In the first film the Joker killed his parents...in this one it's a bum named Chill. Personally I think the Joker doing it is cooler, but I might be in the minority. Having Ra's Al Ghul involved in Batman's origin and training seemed like a geeky fanboy thing along the lines of Jango Fett being at the root of the Clone War....it's not a definitive sort of vision. Neeson was actually better than the Ra's on the cartoons...I never got Ra's on the animated series. He was just this boring dude in a cape who hung around a lava pit and called Batman "detective" in annoying fashion. It WAS nice to see a Batman villain who didn't go over the top like a fool, but it's really impossible to play Ra's that way. Then again I thought it was hard to play Mr. Freeze over the top too. And bear in mind we just saw the train crash, so we're not really sure what happened with Ra's at the end here. That said, I don't really want to see Ra's Al Ghul constantly in the series...he's just not as good of a villain as the Joker or whoever. Direction wise I think it was decent enough but the film has a sort of bland feel to it. Not really a distinctive look, especially after seeing the Burton and Schumacher movies. Good or bad those films had a definite feel to them, whereas this just looks and feels like Batman dropped into any number of cities. I think if you took this script and approach and merged it with Burton's visual style you'd have a truly jaw dropping film. Just wondering but what was all that talk about the depression? It seemed to be talking about the 1930s debut of Batman, but nothing in the film seemed at all like the 30s-40s.

Well one point WWE misses is that you don't necessarily have to do mindblowing, violent spots...but you also can't just grab headlocks and rest on the mat. They need to watch about 10 hours of Ricky Steamboat matches...not much in the way of dangerous spots, but the action is crisp and it flows. Steamboat/Macho from WM 3 for instance. Not much in the way of amazingly innovative stuff there, but there was no down time, no bullshit resting. The main theme should always be keep the action going. Storm/Jericho at the ECW PPV was a good example. Nothing revolutionary but it had flow and no down time, and thus was a solid matchup.

The odd thing is that until now neither team has been bad on the road. The Spurs took road games at Denver, Phoenix, Seattle in the playoffs (I think they clinched in both Seattle and Phoenix) while Detroit clinched their series in Miami (game 7 no less). It's time to be honest: neither of these teams are really championship caliber teams. They certainly wouldn't have been during the Jordan Era of the NBA (at least not the Pistons...they are 90s Knicks lite). The Spurs maybe could have made the finals but they would have been the token jobber along the lines of the Utah Jazz circa 1997-98. People kept blathering about how good this series would be. It has sucked ass, which I knew it would. I am even surprised it has been THIS horrible, not even a close or competitive game. I figured it'd be a long, boring series of 80-76 type games with a lot of gooning, hacking and bad shooting. The Pistons will remain a total joke, even if they win this series. They got past the Pacers due to the Pacers being shorthanded and banged up, you know the deal there. They only got past the Heat because they managed to goon Dwayne Wade to where he didn't play in game 6 and wasn't as effective in game 7. Did it shock anyone to see Ginobili go down in this series? One time might be accidental, but in the offseason David Stern needs to take a hard look at this shit and the overall state of his product.

Wanna know something funny? Here in Louisville our local critic Judith Egerton gave this movie **. I'm going to see it at 1:00, so I can't comment on this yet but it seems as though she was way off base. I tend to wonder why they even had a chick critic review something like this. When Sith came out they had the guy who usually does the music reviews do the review, and he gave it ****.

I'm going to see this tomorrow, but in preparation I watched the other 4 today in a big festival of Batman. Let's just say that this movie won't have to try that hard to top them. Only the first 1989 film is any good really, and it's got problems of its own (namely focusing entirely too much on the Joker to appease Nicholson). The first two I guess are the strongest, though I quite liked Forever when it came out. That said, man does that movie not hold up for shit now. Jones and Carrey was flat out embarrassing in their insane overacting...hell I think Arnold fared better as Mr. Freeze. Batman Returns is one I remember hating when I was about 13, but I think it is slightly better now. There are still a lot of really stupid ideas in it (penguins trying to bomb Gotham for instance) that rank among the worst things in the series, but Pfeiffer was good as Catwoman and De Vito had his moments. I should think the main problem with all 4 movies is that none of them are about fucking BATMAN. The first film is more about The Joker, the 2nd is mostly about the Penguin, Catwoman, and even Max Schreck. By the Schumacher films you have Robin and even Batgirl added to the mix, and poor Bruce Wayne is all but a bit player in things. Thankfully from what I've heard this film is pretty much all about Batman. Which is good since Ra's Al Ghul and The Scarecrow are both jobbers.

I actually read on imdb that Mark Hamill is quickly becoming the favorite to play the Joker. I'd be interested to see how it works out...I know he does the voice in awesome fashion on the cartoons, but would he work for a total performance? All this Katie Holmes talk makes me want to watch Harold and Kumar again. All the talk about her nude scene from The Gift will be all the more hysterical now.