RavishingRickRudo Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 Then what is the purpose of selling? Why be consistent? Why get hurt? If "adrenaline" is something that comes along without rhyme or reason, why don't two guys just fight until one of them dies? Extreme, yes, but that's essentially what you're saying. HBK's *bad back* - the reason he retired from wrestling in the first place, sure as hell was a factor in the match. I'd equate the amount of moves Jericho did on Michaels in that match to a sledgehammer shot. Besides, if 4 years couldn't totally heal HBK's back, then why should 6 months? Why is Michaels back the focus of his matches anyways??
chaosrage Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 Then what is the purpose of selling? Why be consistent? Why get hurt? If "adrenaline" is something that comes along without rhyme or reason, why don't two guys just fight until one of them dies? Extreme, yes, but that's essentially what you're saying. ........he kips up once. He doesn't keep doing it throughout the match. HBK's *bad back* - the reason he retired from wrestling in the first place, sure as hell was a factor in the match. I'd equate the amount of moves Jericho did on Michaels in that match to a sledgehammer shot. Besides, if 4 years couldn't totally heal HBK's back, then why should 6 months? Why is Michaels back the focus of his matches anyways?? It's not, Flair went after his leg and Orton went after his shoulder. A backbreaker and a boston crab is the equivalent of a sledgehammer? Are you serious?
Guest Rob Edwards Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 Try reading my fucking post. The point is that it isn't meant to be good in the super-technical Smark sense, it's meant to be good in the markish sense, which is what really matters because they're out to make money and a card full of nothing but matches smarks would want would be boring as all-fuck and make very little profit. I didn't see a lot of technical marvels in the WWF main event during the Hulkamania era, did you? Look at all those ***** money matches going on during the 98-99 period. Technically sound matches have their place, but it isn't meant to be the only mode of operation, and only in sparse doses as the main attraction. Not meaning to be an ass Kotz but....Shawn didn't draw
Guest wildpegasus Posted November 28, 2003 Report Posted November 28, 2003 Top Ten Grossing Films of all Time, courtesy of imdb.com: 1) Titanic 2) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 3) Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 4) Jurassic Park 5) Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 6) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 7) Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 8) Independence Day 9) Spider-Man 10) Star Wars Boy, you told me. Side note: Are those receipts adjusted for inflation? Note that all except one are from the last decade, with 6 coming within the last 5 years Of course not. Those rankings are the Worldwide listings, that's all. The US rankings for all time are quite different... 1 Titanic Par. $600,788,188 1997 2 Star Wars Fox $460,998,007 1977 3 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $435,110,554 1982 4 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $431,088,297 1999 5 Spider-Man Sony $403,706,375 2002 6 Jurassic Park Uni. $357,067,947 1993 7 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers NL $339,789,881 2002 8 Finding Nemo Dis. $339,666,356 2003 9 Forrest Gump Par. $329,694,499 1994 ...and the following is the US rankings, only adjusted for ticket price inflation, listed is the amount for inflation and the other one also.... 1 Gone With the Wind MGM $1,268,839,894 $198,655,278 1939 2 Star Wars Fox $1,118,591,056 $460,998,007 1977 3 The Sound of Music Fox $894,368,562 $158,671,368 1965 4 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $890,845,225 $434,974,579 1982 5 The Ten Commandments Par. $822,680,000 $65,500,000 1956 6 Titanic Par. $811,387,059 $600,788,188 1997 7 Jaws Uni. $804,334,978 $260,000,000 1975 8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $779,570,661 $111,721,910 1965 9 The Exorcist WB $694,371,245 $232,671,011 1973 10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $684,520,000 $184,925,486 1937 ...by the way, why the hell is this in this thread? But in fairness for the overall movie ratings we must point out that some movies get released over and over in the theatre.
Art Sandusky Posted November 29, 2003 Report Posted November 29, 2003 I never said that success = good, I said success = profit-making. I really wish you'd all stop twisting that.
RavishingRickRudo Posted November 29, 2003 Report Posted November 29, 2003 "Exciting matches are GOOD. Exciting matches get the crowd into them. The crowd then is more willing to spend more time and money on the product after they leave the arena, as will those watching on television. This is why nonsensical action films make so much money."
Art Sandusky Posted November 29, 2003 Report Posted November 29, 2003 Very well then: success = profit-making, and profit = good. Is that sufficient for you? For a bunch of smarks (the operative part of "smark" being "smart"), you sure can't make logic connections.
Guest Rob Edwards Posted November 29, 2003 Report Posted November 29, 2003 Yeah but Shawn didn't make profit and Hogan did when confronted by the idea of Hogan being better most Shawn marks would tend to laugh it out of the thread
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now