Kahran Ramsus

Man, the US is too big.

When Rowling first started the series (I'm not sure if this is still the case), the idea was that kids would read the first book, and then as the kids grow up, the audience grows up alongside them and the tone of the books gradually becomes more adult as a result. The finale is supposed to be the darkest of the series.

And his mummified gimmick. He'll go nowhere, no matter how hard he is pushed, unless he dumps the 1998 pornstar act. I'd have no problem with him going to back to just being an angry ass-kicker, as he was during his feud with Rikishi in 2000. His run with RTC killed him. -=Mike That Val was great. RTC was terrible, although he did eventually bounce back with the Chief gimmick. After Bischoff fired him, he should have just been plain ol' Sean Morely, or reverted to his 2000 character.

And his mummified gimmick. He'll go nowhere, no matter how hard he is pushed, unless he dumps the 1998 pornstar act.

What about the Sea Dogs?

They picked the right one. Fantasia was far beyond everyone here. This wasn't exactly Reuben/Clay in terms of suspense.

Mine's accurate.

No. The username goes into the ban filter as well.

I disagree slightly with the above star ratings. ** is mediocre. *** is good. **** is great. ***** is outstanding, but not necessarily perfect. By calling it perfect you end up comparing it with other matches too much. If Match A is ***** and Match B is *****, but Match A is slightly better than Match B, people will deliberately lower Match B for that reason. The ratings are not meant to work that way. The Godfather is better than The Godfather Part 2, but they are both **** films.

Not in terms of overness or his gimmick. Then there's his lack of credibility (i.e. he's being used as a jobber). Agreed on the first two. But credibility can be built up. You would have to for RVD as well since he has been treated as a jobber for two years. A gimmick change for Val would be a good start.

No way.

If similar wrestlers have flopped in the past (and I really can't think of one success, at least in WWE), then I don't see how it is a good idea to go down that road instead. You would have a better argument for Cena. Incredibly over, great charisma, questionable skills...sounds a lot like Hulk Hogan to me. I wouldn't give him the title either, at least not now, but at least there is a historical precedent. There are better candidates than RVD (Booker, Haas). They should get a shot first. I agree. That's what I was saying. No, but he shouldn't lose it yet either. He has only had it since February. RVD may be leaving the company in 2 months. There is no need to take the risk when you have a perfectly good champion as it is. Smackdown needs better challengers, not a better champion at the moment. Yes and no. Pushing an unover person to the belt isn't a good idea, but you don't want someone's popularity peaking with the title win either. Your best champs are over guys on the way up, like Hogan or Austin the first time.

And all three flopped as champ. Lumping RVD in with those guys is reason for him NOT to be champ. Irrelevent. Chris Benoit wasn't WWE made either. Bret Hart could talk much better than RVD. Just look at his promos from 1997. Also, back in 1992 when he first won the title, it wasn't as necessary either as it is today. I have mentioned earlier about Benoit. Yokozuna was flopping as champ until Jim Cornette came in as his mouthpiece and gave him new life. I dare you to find someone worse than Nathan Jones or Giant Gonzales. This isn't very important. As I've mentioned earlier, the two champions that can best be compared directly with RVD are Ultimate Warrior & Goldberg. Both ended up being disasters. Look at where he's at, not at who's better or worse than him. You won't find anyone arguing for Billy Gunn to be champ either. Bradshaw has better mic skills and a better character. In-ring he is worse than RVD. It isn't as easy a decision as you might think. 2 years ago it would be. There is also the issue of getting RVD to resign first. If he's leaving in July, he isn't getting squat. Bradshaw is no threat to take off in the middle of a feud/title run. You wouldn't think that someone could argue with popularity, but there are plenty examples of over wrestlers who ended up being terrible champions when placed at the top of the card. Warrior, Goldberg, Diesel, and to a certain extent Shawn Michaels, who has far more charisma and talent than RVD. Overness does not necessarily translate to being a draw. John Cena shouldn't be getting the WWE Title at this point in time either, and he's more over than RVD is. As for giving him a chance, here is the big problem. Smackdown is down in the dumps as it is. To give RVD the title, you would have to take it off the one sure thing that Smackdown has in Eddy Guerrero. RVD as a World Title contender is fine, but putting the title on him is a completely different animal. There is no way in hell that he should be put over Eddy.

BTW, anybody else see that Brendan Gleeson (Gangs of New York, Troy) has been cast as Professor Moody in Goblet of Fire?

It depends somewhat on position too. Catcher is obviously a much tougher position to play than first base.

Cleveland should be #1. The Indians haven't won anything in 50 years, and in the 1990s they had to suffer the 1997 World Series and being the only team to lose to Atlanta, the biggest chokers in MLB history. The Cavs have sucked for like ever. The Browns have done nothing since Modell bought them, were stolen by Baltimore, brought back, only to see the old team win the Super Bowl. Tim Couch was pretty heartbreaking in general.

The problem with most of the recent ones is that they mess with the formula. Instead of having a disaster and then weeding out the characters until a handful are left at the end, they usually try to form some sort of agenda. Man should not mess with nature. That sort of thing. Oddly enough, my favourite disaster movie, Jurassic Park, is of that type, but Spielberg had a much greater vision than most of those that followed him. It was also a good thing that he didn't villify Hammond too. That is the one difference from the book that I prefer the movie verision.

Normally, but the way Ebert uses it *** is thumbs up, **1/2 is thumbs down. My favourite Ebert review was of Concorde - Airport 79. Anybody who has read this in I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie will know what I am talking about.

Back when it came out he and Siskel gave two thumbs down, but were forced into seeing and reviewing it again on their show about two weeks later. They were considerably annoyed by this and trashed it quite a bit on that show.

He didn't hate ID4, he merely disliked it. He liked the first act, but felt they brought in too many characters, not all of which that worked, and that it got too goofy at the end. Very valid arguments that I agree with, even though I think he placed too much emphasis on it (I like the film). He gave it **1/2 which makes for a thumbs down, but not significantly so. He did hate Godzilla and disliked Stargate too though. EDIT: Thanks, teke and Mike. That was what I was looking for.

Probably. Just that Edge & Christian were so obnoxious that they probably just felt they were getting what they deserved.

That's because he was an asshole to them from the beginning. It fit with their history.

Source? Not that I disagree with you, but I would like to mention this elsewhere and need the reference.

His stuff with Edge & Christian was good.

Sounds like Jack Tunney.