Jack_Bauer 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 no, it would get her more cheers, because more women in the crowd would relate to her. Yeah, christ knows about the huge female audience WWE has. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChick 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 EDIT: Never mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChick 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 That's weak. I would just think that Trish is a wuss for not leaving Jericho. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Invictus 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 Ya know, this is all good and well, but can someone tell me what started this, I am really watching this post and kinda don't wanna go back to the start. tmd said that my storyline idea was stupid, namely jericho playing or abusing trish to get more heat. Did you ever think about how an abusing Trish angle could effect her? It would almost kill her credibility as a wrestler, thus hurting the whole women's division. no, it would get her more cheers, because more women in the crowd would relate to her. "She's getting beaten by her abusive boyfriend, just like me! Yay!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 tmd, i have bought up several points that you were unable to dispute with a logical argument. all you said was that i was an idiot and bla bla bla Ummmm....we've all told you. That what we want was the storylines from 2000. That drew the most money and the best ratings. Then they switched to your style of booking and the ratings plummeted. That is a cold hard fact. That is also proof that people wanted to see what we want to see because they were paying for it in 2000. Yet somehow we're idiots that don't know anything and you are. Despite the fact that what I just said is cold hard proof that you are WRONG. Yet somehow you've brought up all these magical points that none of us can debate! yeah but you can only book like that for so long until things get stale. im not saying i didn't enjoy 2000, what im saying is that you need to keep things fresh and try new approaches. thats what shock tv is all about. i like surprises Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 That's weak. I would just think that Trish is a wuss for not leaving Jericho. well you saw how she looked at him. i dont think she'll be leaving too easily Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 no, it would get her more cheers, because more women in the crowd would relate to her. Yeah, christ knows about the huge female audience WWE has. that was just an easter egg to my main point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Invictus 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 tmd, i have bought up several points that you were unable to dispute with a logical argument. all you said was that i was an idiot and bla bla bla Ummmm....we've all told you. That what we want was the storylines from 2000. That drew the most money and the best ratings. Then they switched to your style of booking and the ratings plummeted. That is a cold hard fact. That is also proof that people wanted to see what we want to see because they were paying for it in 2000. Yet somehow we're idiots that don't know anything and you are. Despite the fact that what I just said is cold hard proof that you are WRONG. Yet somehow you've brought up all these magical points that none of us can debate! yeah but you can only book like that for so long until things get stale. im not saying i didn't enjoy 2000, what im saying is that you need to keep things fresh and try new approaches. thats what shock tv is all about. i like surprises There are good surprises and bad surprises. A good surprise would to wake up one morning and discover you won the lottery. A bad surprise would be to wake up one morning and step into dog crap the second you got out of bed. Which kind of surprise do you think the WWE has been giving us lately? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 tmd, i have bought up several points that you were unable to dispute with a logical argument. all you said was that i was an idiot and bla bla bla Ummmm....we've all told you. That what we want was the storylines from 2000. That drew the most money and the best ratings. Then they switched to your style of booking and the ratings plummeted. That is a cold hard fact. That is also proof that people wanted to see what we want to see because they were paying for it in 2000. Yet somehow we're idiots that don't know anything and you are. Despite the fact that what I just said is cold hard proof that you are WRONG. Yet somehow you've brought up all these magical points that none of us can debate! yeah but you can only book like that for so long until things get stale. im not saying i didn't enjoy 2000, what im saying is that you need to keep things fresh and try new approaches. thats what shock tv is all about. i like surprises Yet somehow this wonderful thing that you are presenting to us all....DOESN'T DRAW WORTH SHIT DIPSHIT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChick 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 That's weak. I would just think that Trish is a wuss for not leaving Jericho. well you saw how she looked at him. i dont think she'll be leaving too easily That makes her look weak and stupid for not leaving an abusive boyfriend. She's a heroin, not a dumb ditz like Stacy is portrayed as. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 right. and i suppose that if we took the 2000 appraoch everything would change, right? wrong. the enviroment is different, and on top of that kane wouldn't be where he is now.(despite the shane mcmahon crap obviously) and yes it does draw.... because the week after kane burnt jr the ratings shot up. theres evidence. there is nothing you can say. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 Yeah they shot up and then shot back down. People tuned in to see it..realized it was crap and quit tuning in. There's your explanation. And there's no way you can dispute that jackass(to steal your own childish debating skills) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisMWaters 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 right. and i suppose that if we took the 2000 appraoch everything would change, right? wrong. the enviroment is different, and on top of that kane wouldn't be where he is now.(despite the shane mcmahon crap obviously) and yes it does draw.... because the week after kane burnt jr the ratings shot up. theres evidence. there is nothing you can say. The 2000 approach would have further pushed Kane more and made him a bigger star. What you advocate is subjugating him to be Shane McMahon's personal punching bag. Which is better for Mr. Jacobs? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 That's weak. I would just think that Trish is a wuss for not leaving Jericho. well you saw how she looked at him. i dont think she'll be leaving too easily That makes her look weak and stupid for not leaving an abusive boyfriend. She's a heroin, not a dumb ditz like Stacy is portrayed as. yeah but if she loves chris and is dedicated, she will stick with him through the hard times, ya know. im not saying he should beat her up, im saying that either he should either bang her and dump her, or be really insecure and protective and critical of her. they would both serve to get them both more heat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobobrazil1984 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 Where is all this nonsense about whether this angle would help or hinder a Jericho rise to main event, come from? the people in charge of RAW have decided for the forseeable future, Jericho is not a true main eventer on RAW. That's that. It doesn't matter whether this angle with Trish happens the way the poster describes, whether it happens in a different way, or whether its dropped completely on Monday. Jericho will be "catapulted" to the main event when (if) those in charge decide to. Despite all their hoo-haa about the fans, THEY decide when and if he goes to main event, not reaction to an angle. I think the past, with talented over guys, has proven this well enough. Like that angle with Stacy, somebody mentioned how that didn't "catapult him to main event". Yes, it didnt catapult him because the writers/bookers/Vince/HHH/whoever decided that it wasn't. They coudl have easily had Jericho whoop Test's ass, beat HBK, and go on to main event ppvs, but they didn't. Their choice. So in conclusion, the arguments that yall are having are quite silly. This angle wont help or hinder any Jericho "main event" rise in any real way. Whatever his fate is, its decided regardless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanadianChick 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 That's weak. I would just think that Trish is a wuss for not leaving Jericho. well you saw how she looked at him. i dont think she'll be leaving too easily That makes her look weak and stupid for not leaving an abusive boyfriend. She's a heroin, not a dumb ditz like Stacy is portrayed as. yeah but if she loves chris and is dedicated, she will stick with him through the hard times, ya know. im not saying he should beat her up, im saying that either he should either bang her and dump her, or be really insecure and protective and critical of her. they would both serve to get them both more heat. But you're practically just re-hashing the Stacy/Test thing. It's so repetetive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 Yeah they shot up and then shot back down. People tuned in to see it..realized it was crap and quit tuning in. There's your explanation. And there's no way you can dispute that jackass(to steal your own childish debating skills) the ratings went down because they didn;t plan correctly. if they would have written that show differently, rating would be up. i am NOT a fan of booking on the fly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 That's weak. I would just think that Trish is a wuss for not leaving Jericho. well you saw how she looked at him. i dont think she'll be leaving too easily That makes her look weak and stupid for not leaving an abusive boyfriend. She's a heroin, not a dumb ditz like Stacy is portrayed as. yeah but if she loves chris and is dedicated, she will stick with him through the hard times, ya know. im not saying he should beat her up, im saying that either he should either bang her and dump her, or be really insecure and protective and critical of her. they would both serve to get them both more heat. But you're practically just re-hashing the Stacy/Test thing. It's so repetetive. yeah but no one cares about test. you all know that jericho would have made that angle very watchable. not to mention that this is just a secondary storyline. his real issue is with austin. this just gets him more heat. if it wasn't meant to, it wouldn't exist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Invictus 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 Oh no, now the thread is repeating itself! We've already gone over this umpteen pages ago. I made the same statement CC did, and then RVD420 said the same thing he is saying now. "The end is neeeeeaaarrrrr!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 right. and i suppose that if we took the 2000 appraoch everything would change, right? wrong. the enviroment is different, and on top of that kane wouldn't be where he is now.(despite the shane mcmahon crap obviously) and yes it does draw.... because the week after kane burnt jr the ratings shot up. theres evidence. there is nothing you can say. The 2000 approach would have further pushed Kane more and made him a bigger star. What you advocate is subjugating him to be Shane McMahon's personal punching bag. Which is better for Mr. Jacobs? no. i liked the beginning of this angle very much. as soon as shane got involved i got pissed. kane shoulld be fueding for the title. think about it. he's probably the only person goldberg will take caution with. not anymore ovcoarse.... because apparently someone i can beat up can beat kane. so by that logic i can beat kane too. i was never a fan of any mcmahon going over a wrestler in any way shape or form. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisMWaters 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 right. and i suppose that if we took the 2000 appraoch everything would change, right? wrong. the enviroment is different, and on top of that kane wouldn't be where he is now.(despite the shane mcmahon crap obviously) and yes it does draw.... because the week after kane burnt jr the ratings shot up. theres evidence. there is nothing you can say. The 2000 approach would have further pushed Kane more and made him a bigger star. What you advocate is subjugating him to be Shane McMahon's personal punching bag. Which is better for Mr. Jacobs? no. i liked the beginning of this angle very much. as soon as shane got involved i got pissed. kane shoulld be fueding for the title. think about it. he's probably the only person goldberg will take caution with. not anymore ovcoarse.... because apparently someone i can beat up can beat kane. so by that logic i can beat kane too. i was never a fan of any mcmahon going over a wrestler in any way shape or form. Yes, but you said you like how the "Shock TV" factor was working for WWE TV, and how it's going to help the company. The Shock TV factor you backed earlier in this thread is what made people bring in Shane in the first place. Hence, while you may not like it, you in a way are supporting the fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 Someone close this thread and ban the troll. This is getting old. Unless he can come up with some new bullshit to make us laugh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 right. and i suppose that if we took the 2000 appraoch everything would change, right? wrong. the enviroment is different, and on top of that kane wouldn't be where he is now.(despite the shane mcmahon crap obviously) and yes it does draw.... because the week after kane burnt jr the ratings shot up. theres evidence. there is nothing you can say. The 2000 approach would have further pushed Kane more and made him a bigger star. What you advocate is subjugating him to be Shane McMahon's personal punching bag. Which is better for Mr. Jacobs? no. i liked the beginning of this angle very much. as soon as shane got involved i got pissed. kane shoulld be fueding for the title. think about it. he's probably the only person goldberg will take caution with. not anymore ovcoarse.... because apparently someone i can beat up can beat kane. so by that logic i can beat kane too. i was never a fan of any mcmahon going over a wrestler in any way shape or form. Yes, but you said you like how the "Shock TV" factor was working for WWE TV, and how it's going to help the company. The Shock TV factor you backed earlier in this thread is what made people bring in Shane in the first place. Hence, while you may not like it, you in a way are supporting the fact. im not saying that creative is always right. there are many things i would have done differently that would at least have maintained credibility for all partys involved. any match in which a mcmahon goes over a wrestler i am strongly opposed to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisMWaters 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 im not saying that creative is always right. there are many things i would have done differently that would at least have maintained credibility for all partys involved. any match in which a mcmahon goes over a wrestler i am strongly opposed to. Even Gowen? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chaosrage 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 Holy shit. It's a dumb storyline. Why would you push something this retarded for 20 pages? Are you trying to get us all to agree with you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
{''({o..o})''} 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 Hell, I think the vhs copy of A Fat Albert Christmas I just found has better writing than this guys brilliant scenario. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest robvandam420 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 it is a good idea. do you have a better idea in which this angle will play out? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HarleyQuinn 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 it is a good idea. do you have a better idea in which this angle will play out? Simple...Jericho goes out with Trish a couple times. They begin to have a nice fling when Christian tries to get involved with Trish. Jericho turns Face, saving Trish from the heelish Christian who continues to try and ruin their relationship while slowly building heat for himself in the process. Finally Christian abuses Trish, whatever and Jericho makes the save. In the PPV Match, Trish aids Jericho in the blow off and Jericho gets the gal, voila. Toss in Jericho slowly falling for Trish throughout and slowly weening from trying to prove he's better then Austin, or in the end Jericho could prove that Austin was just like Christian thus turning Austin heel or something. Jericho = Pretty over as a Face Christian = Major over now as a heel due to his obnoxious character and genuine "what a horrible person" type heat(I'm thinking Triple H after he took Steph from Test type) Trish = More over for sticking with Chris and being a bigger fan favorite for the females Not the greatest thing but the best I could do directly off the top of my head Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Downhome 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 I'm against ANY of the women, who take part in the women's division, from being taken out by any of the men. It discredits the women, the division, the title, and it adds nothing to the guys who DO abuse them, except for CHEAP heat. Period. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted October 27, 2003 The funny thing is this.... I've actually met Brian Gerwitz a couple of years ago and discussed the business...and yes, he also said he was going to hook me up with a spot on the writing team. No shit. I never got it because I never completed my degree, like an idiot. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
