Kahran Ramsus

Aside from the obvious (ie. Steph gone from the creative team), I would like to see the three brands go in completely different directions. Turn RAW into an Attitude-esque, style over substance, sportz entertainment heavy show. The live atmosphere would benefit this type of show as well. Turn Smackdown into an old-school NWA/WCW-esque promotion with emphasis on the in-ring competition and less convoluted storylines/more realistic gimmicks. Leave ECW as the niche show and farm system to the other two, similar to what it was at its peak from 1995-97.

I was about to say the same thing when I saw the title of this thread.

Alright, random opinions without backing anything up. I can't help but join in myself. -JBL is the most entertaining wrestler on the roster, and deserves another long title reign when he comes back. -RVD always sucked, but he got better when he first joined the WWF and was forced to cut out most of the sillyness. -These nostalgia acts like the DX Reunion and the new ECW are destined to fail when people realise that these are enivitably going to be cheap knockoffs, just like every other wrestling retread (see the new NWO, new Four Horsemen, new anything...) -Except for a couple of brief periods during Chris Benoit's & Batista's world title pushes, Smackdown has been consistantly better than RAW ever since the brand split. -RAW should be a taped show. -Kane has been the most misused wrestler in history as far as crappy booking goes. -Randy Orton is a better wrestler than he is a character. For some reason most people seem to think the opposite, despite the complete lack of reaction he gets from the audience. -Giant Gonzales was better than Khali. At least he could do a chokeslam as a finisher. -Undertaker is a better wrestler now than he has been for most of career. -HHH has a credibility problem having been jobbed out repeatedly for most of the past year. -Of all the wrestlers in the company, the guy I'm least interested in watching is Ric Flair, and that's including Khali. It is just sad at this point. -Despite what WWE says, the World Title is their own creation, not a continuation of the WCW World Title. Same thing with the US Championship. -The biggest match the company has available to them right now is Undertaker vs. Batista, preferably at Wrestlemania.

WHAT?!?!?!?! My thoughts exactly. The movie was entertaining enough (from the perspective of someone who never read the book), but I thought it ended up being very predictable (you could see the betrayals and major plot twists coming a mile away, I figured out the code to the vial about 30 minutes before the characters did) and dopey (the claustrophobia storyline). The history, especially with regards to timing, was shoddy at best. For example, the movie explains that the Inquistion starts soon after Nicea. I don't consider 800 years to be 'soon', but maybe that's just me. As far as the story goes, I don't care too much about historical accuracy, but you'd have to be a complete idiot to see this as anything but fiction.

That didn't stop X2 from outgrossing Batman Begins. EDIT: I, for the record, thought that Begins was the better film too. I don't want to appear that I'm slagging Batman. I'm just pointing out that the X-Men are more popular as a brand than some people realize.

Recast then. Most actors aren't going to devote ten years to a series anyways. It works for Bond. With Jean out of the way, it is the perfect time to introduce Emma Frost.

This is my biggest complaint character-wise as well. After a great villain with Stryker in the last film, the humans were terribly underdeveloped here. Throw in Worthington II here too. His character was actually pretty good and realistic, but he didn't get nearly enough screentime for his importance to the plot.

Saw the movie and enjoyed it. Better than the first, but not nearly as good as the second and the difference in talent between Singer & Ratner is noticeble. My biggest problem is that the second act between Jean's escape and Magneto going to war is rushed. It felt like the human side in particular acted too quickly and that we were missing some information there. On the positive side, the story is sound and Ian McKellen's version of Magneto is still the greatest movie comic book villain out there. I couldn't care less about the changes from the comics. X-Men was always about the human/mutant conflict more than it ever was about any individual character. This isn't Spider-Man or Batman where the character IS the story. This film is certainly a lot better than people are giving it credit for.

Yep. Fantastic main event level talent like John Cena, Triple H, Vince McMahon, Mark Henry, Great Khali, and when he returns, Randy Orton. I really want to see those guys taking up every moment on both shows. HHH is a good wrestler who hasn't done anything new in a long time and is now more boring than anything (HBK fits here too), and the others are just plain horrible. Guys like Chris Benoit, Kurt Angle & Edge can have fun on Heat or enjoy retirement. Great times.

And did Mable belong in the main event over guys like Shawn Michaels & Undertaker in 1995? Did Sid deserve a dominant title run in 1996-97? Were guys like King Kong Bundy, Kamala & Akeem deserving of their pushes against Hogan in the 80s? Vince is going to magically take himself off television because he's no longer needed without the brand split? He was fucking WWF Champion back in 1999, and main evented FOUR (counting the Royal Rumble where Austin/McMahon was booked as the only important thing going in) PPVs that year. Look at any era in WWF history and you will find guys on the roster and being pushed without deserving it because they are either big or they have the 'look'. It has always been like this. End the split now and it isn't going to be Khali & Mark Henry out of a job. They will still be here and getting pushed. It will be the Finlays and Regals of the world. Vince & Steph cannot be trusted to put on an entertaining product anymore, so we need the split to at least minimize some of the bullshit. The two best matches of the year in WWE have been Taker/Angle from No Way Out and Benoit/Finlay from Judgment Day. Neither would have occurred without the split.

Delita Hyral is definitely high on the list. He knowingly betrays pretty much everybody in the game (good or evil) and slaughters countless numbers of people, and the punishment he recieves for it is a long peaceful reign as king with all of his political rivals wiped out and is remembered throughout history as the hero who saved the world. As for the psychotic killer-type baddies, nobody touches Luca Blight. He also has probably the best death out of any videogame villain ever. It takes betrayal from his own officers, a fall from a horse, getting shot by dozens of arrows, 3 consecutive battles against a total of 18 well trained opponents, another ambush on his escape route and a one-on-one duel with the hero to finally take him down.

This I agree on. Like the old Superman script where Krypton doesn't explode. That not happening changes the entire meaning of the story. But since the big issue in X3, at least as far as I can tell from the previews, is over whether mutants should be forced to be 'cured' or not and the continuing race war between humans and mutants, the creators seem to understand what X-Men is about.

I've been worried for awhile, since let's face it, Ratner is a huge downgrade from Singer. But as far as it not being accurate to the comics, I'm couldn't be happier. All of those ridiculous space battles, aliens and so forth completely ruined the original point of both the comics and the 90s series. X-Men was always and will always be about the conflict between races, and I'm glad to see that be the main focus of the films. We'll be hearing about it again if they ever do Venom's story in a Spider-Man movie, because his origin in the comics would never work on screen either.

I don't understand the controversy either. At my Church they LOVE the DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons. It is probably the most read series of books by people there aside from maybe Harry Potter and Jack Ryan.

I'm going to see it anyways since I've never read the book and my friends and family love it, but it sure doesn't look like I'm going to be inspired to read it afterwards judging by these reviews. I do find it odd that at least going by the trailers that Ian McKellen is going to have two movies coming out in two consecutive weeks where he is essentially playing the same character.

I thought it was interesting that the top three teams finished in the exact same order for the last three legs of the race. Either way, the hippies deserved it and they were easily my favourite team in the race.

Did we really need another Poseidon Adventure film? It wasn't like they had a lot of room to play around with the original story, as it was pretty much non-existant in the first place.

They'll probably stick Ric Flair in there to make it even more of a farce.

Do video games count or just in the wrestling world? Flair-Steamboat Okay. I admit. I liked their matches in 1994 too, but they still weren't as good as the matches in the 89 feud.

Chris Benoit (World, US, IC, Tag) also in WCW (World, US, TV, Tag) Kurt Angle (WWF, Euro, IC, Tag)

I still have those sitting on the shelf.

I figure it is more likely that people avoided it because they didn't like the second film. I know I am skeptical, although I will probably break down and check it out sometime this week.

Because they're an established group in wrestling history and people love a good trip down memory lane. If they do reform however, I guarantee the whole thing will feel like a watered-down version of their glory days. Which is why we are asking why people are excited when it is just going to be a tired, pale imitation of the original like every other wrestling re-tread. The new DX won't be any different than the new Hulk Hogan or the new NWO or the new Four Horsemen or the new etc, etc, etc. This never works and people are idiots if they keep falling for it. See the ECW thread.

Yes. That's the problem. WWE needs us more than we need them, even though they don't realize it. I'm happier watching football or 24 than RAW, so that's what I do, and it is a choice that millions of others make too. The problem is that the company would rather ignore (or blame) the fans for their problems rather than putting on a product that the fans would actually watch. If the McMahons want a vanity product on television, that's their choice, but then don't go bitching about it when nobody wants to watch it.

I really liked the first Mission: Impossible and utterly despised the second. Should I bother going to see this movie?