Jump to content
TSM Forums

Wally Balls

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    647

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wally Balls

  1. Posted · Report reply

    There are so many different directons that they can go but I think it's a safe bet to say that the main event pitcure will revolve around Cena, HHH, Batista, HBK, Orton, Edge and Taker.

     

    No way in hell is Orton going to main event. He had a botched push in 04, and was lucky that Cena got hurt to where they had to give him the title. I don't think they were seriously planning last year for him to main event a Wrestlemania, I actually think they were going for a HHH/Cena rematch, but Cena got hurt. Hell, they were going to do that match at Wrestlemania 23, but HHH got hurt. Come to think of it, The only guys you have listed that I think will be in the main event is HHH and Taker. Putting Cena in it is just annoying and not needed, he hasn't done shit since his return, but job to people. HHH is very likely since, well, its HHH having control of a show backstage. I don't think HBK has any momentum to main event, so I don't think he will. Edge most likely will be buried on Smackdown through the rest of the year, and Taker is very likely, since it seems like a running joke that Taker has to win the title at Wrestlemania.

     

    I agree that Orton's push in 2004 wasn't that great, but he's tne times over as a heel, and yes I still think that they were penciling in Orton as the top heel in the company, and he's done a damn good job of playing that role.

     

    If you think that Cena will be excluded from the main event, then you're probably fooling yourself. I didn't say that all of those guys would main event, but those are the ones with the best chance.

  2. Posted · Report reply

    I can't believe some of you are actually suggesting that turning Cena would be a good idea. He's the top face in the company and certainly the most over. They've built up Cena as a hero for little kids, so in a sense, he's like Bret Hart was. If the time comes where another "Austin" comes and is able to build up the amount of heat that Austin and Bret had, then yes I would say it would be a good idea, but until then, keep Cena face. He's the only reason why females have become fans, so turning him heel would lose a HUGE fanbase. Just because females can't recite every one of Ric Flair's matches doesn't make them any less of fans than you and I and certainly not to the WWE.

     

    And on the subject of heels moving merchandise, they sell a few things here and there, but the majority of the merchansider consumers are little kids and their parents. When you look at the shows, there are loads of Cena, HBK, HHH, Mysterio merch. Not exactly that much for Edge, JBL and the like. Randy Orton is probably the heel that sells the most merch, but no where even close to the faces. So from a business perspective, turning Cena would be horrible.

     

    Cena is the top face on Raw even though Punk is the champ (I dont think CM Punk is over enough to be champ), and with Jericho, Orton, Kane, JBL and others, the Raw scene can't afford to give up any faces, espcially not one the magnitude of John Cena. At this point, arguing over Cena's overness is pointless, because I was under the imperssion that theres no arguement.

  3. Posted · Report reply

    FoleyFan's Wrestlemania seems really good, but it's probably a stretch considering The Rock is involved. I'm sure Austin will be involved somehow considering that this is the year where he more than likely goes into the HOF.

     

    But right now, it's way too early to determine what they're going to do. It's still July and they have over half a year left to prepare.

     

    There are so many different directons that they can go but I think it's a safe bet to say that the main event pitcure will revolve around Cena, HHH, Batista, HBK, Orton, Edge and Taker. I'm not sure how they fit all of those names in, but I'm willing to bet by the time WM comes rolling around, they'll still be at the top of the card. I don't see CM Punk as main event material, but then again there is still a lot of time left. In all honesty, I don't think Punk is over enough to main event WM. Jeff Hardy definitely is, but Punk isn't anywhere near as over with the fans as Hardy. Hell, I think Matt Hardy is more over than Punk.

     

    I don't know, thinking about all the possible ways they can go makes my brain hurt, but it's probably pretty easy to determine most of the wrestlers involved.

  7. Posted · Report reply

    This D.C. crowd is terrible.

     

     

     

    I remember the last time they were at D.C. (or at least the last time I remember) The Rock appeared on the titantron to give a promo about the battle of the billionares and they barely made any noise.

     

     

    Bunch of lame-asses...this crowd is worse than Toronto.

  12. Posted · Report reply

    Way off topic...but has anyone seen Hancock by any chance? I read on Rottentomatoes that its gotten luke warm reviews.

     

     

    And yes, I think it would be great if JBL brought in a tag team to counter Cryme Tyme. Maybe Rhodes and Dibiase. I'm worried that Cryme Tyme may have to change their name or gimmick to cater to the kid friendly show. Plus, I doubt any more divas will be doing Playboy. And if they do, it's sort of contradicting the kid friendly environment.

  15. Posted · Report reply

    Kwai, the Russo shows were drawing that much but bear in mind the Kreski stuff did as well or better in 2000 and most of that was HHH and The Rock fighting over who was the better man. And one major difference is that the PPV buyrates were up in 2000 with more wrestling centered shows, but they had a better roster then anyway.

     

    True, but keep in mind that 2000 also had "Who ran down Austin?" and I think that, more than anything else, was the focal point of that year for the WWE.

  16. Posted · Report reply

    A key reason for the shift in viewing to the new attitude era is that it was such a departure from everything professional wrestling once was. However, that has passed. Instead, these stunts are merely poor efforts to recapture that aura that is no longer around.

     

     

    It might not change the ratings intially, but I do think that angles like this are a good start in the direction that WWE needs to head in if they want to continue to make money and stay in the mainstream (if it still is).

     

    If WWE weren't on TV, if it was just live events, then yes, there wouldn't be a need for these elaborate angles. However, drama and comedy are the two oldest forms of entertainment when it comes to theatre, so its only natural that just about every show on televison right now has some sort of comedic or dramatic aspect to it.

     

    Also, if this were a legit sport, then it wouldn't need the theatrics, but like I said, its a televison program first. It needs the extra drama and comic relief to stay afloat.

  17. Posted · Report reply

    To be honest, it's endings and elaborate, over the top storylines that get ratings...not two superstars "competing" to see who's the better wrestler.

     

    Glad to see you're back on the board, Mr. Russo.

     

    If only Andre and Hogan involved some exploding boats and bastard dwarfs, maybe people would have went to see that match.

     

    Heh, okay...

     

    First of all, that was 21 years ago. You may not have noticed, but society, television, and pop culture has changed dramatically.

     

    Second, Russo-like shows were pulling in 6.0 and 7.0 a night.

     

    Third, you're Hawk34. You act like you're the professor of Smark University with a PhD in this shit (if such a thing existed). Just because you post with your stern, no nonsense, internet forum genius approach, it doesn't exactly make you correct.

     

    Fourth, there isn't a point in arguing this with you guys because the ratings and television history speak for themselves.

  18. Posted · Report reply

    To be honest, it's endings and elaborate, over the top storylines that get ratings...not two superstars "competing" to see who's the better wrestler.

     

    Glad to see you're back on the board, Mr. Russo.

     

    I don't care if you ridicule it. It's the truth. Let's take a look at history...todays angles compared to the Attitude Era's in terms of ratings. Yep

  19. Posted · Report reply

    To be honest, it's endings and elaborate, over the top storylines that get ratings...not two superstars "competing" to see who's the better wrestler.

     

    I'm glad they seemingly decided to do a big storyline such as this one. It will definitely have viewers more interested in the program.

  22. Posted · Report reply

    The WWE needs to remember that it's the dramatic element that most people want to see. After all, it is a television show, not a sports event. The problem is that there aren't any interesting storylines anymore. Regardless of what you say about the Attitude Era, the storylines were much more interesting and captured much more people. Feuds were actually because of some dramatic element between the wrestlers such as Austin being run down, The Ministry and the Higher Power, The Austin and Rock rivalry, The Corporation trying to screw Austin every week. There were television aspects which is exactly what this show needs.

     

    Why are Cena and HHH wrestling? Because both men want the title...big fucking deal.

     

    Why were Austin and The Undertaker fighting? Because Taker tried to embalm him, sacrifice Stephanie McMahon, sided with his sworn enemy Vince, on top of possibly wanting the title. The matches definitely need dramatic elements definitely need to be part of the show as well. Why not just have Vince try to screw Cena every week? It worked before and it certainly can't get any more uninteresting than it is now...

     

    Just try something new...The attitude era was their most successful period ever...if it's not broken, then don't try to fix it. But this WWE is beyond broken...it needs fixing.

  23. Posted · Report reply

    Hopefully this won't be taken the wrong way, but the WWE could do with another Chris Benoit legit wrestler on their cards and Danielson would be awesome for that. Plus, he's got the added extra of having a bit of charisma and being good on the mic, something Benoit always sort of lacked.

     

    Chris Benoit legit wrestler? What exactly is a legit wrestler? Lesnar? Angle? Benjamin? or how about every wrestler on the roster. They're all wrestlers. If by legit you mean having amateur credentials, then why are you talking about Benoit and Danielson?

×