Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0 Report post Posted January 1, 2008 I love the Rumble and it's the only PPV I buy on a consistent basis. The congressional steroid hearings should be starting too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jericholic82 0 Report post Posted January 1, 2008 I'm going to the Rumble, it should be a blast. Im hoping for surprise participants like in past years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrVenkman PhD 0 Report post Posted January 1, 2008 My bad, I didn't notice this thread when I made the other one. Carry on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Obi Chris Kenobi 0 Report post Posted January 1, 2008 Hopefully, I can save up and get to next year's Rumble - any idea where it is yet? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrVenkman PhD 0 Report post Posted January 1, 2008 It will likely either be in Texas, California, or Florida. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Obi Chris Kenobi 0 Report post Posted January 1, 2008 Sweet, all places I wouldn't mind seeing. Would make the trip from Newcastle, UK worth while, as well as the Rumble obviously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike wanna be 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 What's the general feeling on the Rumble having/not having surprise entrants? I mean, with a title shot on the line I can understand how it can be construed as unfair that one guy has to wrestle all year to get selected while a Honky Tonk Man shows up with a guitar and wrestling boots and gets tossed in there...and yet it somehow seems to cheapen the match when all 30 participants are known. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 What's the general feeling on the Rumble having/not having surprise entrants? I mean, with a title shot on the line I can understand how it can be construed as unfair that one guy has to wrestle all year to get selected while a Honky Tonk Man shows up with a guitar and wrestling boots and gets tossed in there...and yet it somehow seems to cheapen the match when all 30 participants are known. One or two surprise/nostalgia entrants are good, since obviously you're not going to book them to win. From a kayfabe/promoting standpoint, it makes sense to bring in some outsiders to fill out a 30 man match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scroby 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 I like the surprise entrants. The Royal Rumble has been promoted as a match where anyone in the Rumble could win it and get a title shot at Wrestlemania, it's also the match thats been promoted as the match that could make a career, so regardless of whose in the Rumble shouldn't matter, unless it's Gillberg and the obvious is about to happen, either way they're all in it for one thing and that's a title shot. The only entrants I don't like are the obvious joke entrys, like Drew Carey for example, and that's because I think only wrestlers should be in it, not celebrites. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawk 34 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 What was the problem with Carey? It made for a decent comedy moment and got free publicity. D-Lo wasn't going to do anything in the match, anyways. My issue is that surprise appearances are rarely surprises these days. I still think Perfect shouldn't have been hyped before 2002. Also, how does MVP not draw #1 in the Rumble and last awhile until Matt makes his return to a likely huge pop? That's the most obvious and needed booking moment in this upcoming Rumble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scroby 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 What was the problem with Carey? It made for a decent comedy moment and got free publicity. D-Lo wasn't going to do anything in the match, anyways. My issue is that surprise appearances are rarely surprises these days. I still think Perfect shouldn't have been hyped before 2002. Also, how does MVP not draw #1 in the Rumble and last awhile until Matt makes his return to a likely huge pop? That's the most obvious and needed booking moment in this upcoming Rumble. I missed Raw but didn't Hardy get the boot of death on monday? It could be done now if they played up a concussion angle and Matt wasn't seen on tv until the Rumble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawk 34 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 That's what I was going for. I didn't think Matt should appear at all until the Rumble as an absolute surprise but the concussion angle won't hurt it that much but I fear WWE will keep Matt on camera to build the Jeff/Orton deal which wouldn't be necessary. It'd really be a huge reaction if it happened in the middle of the match with MVP being the only guy in the ring. Has it been done before? Absolutely but it almost always gets a big pop and it'd build nicely for WM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 John Cena is #30 and eliminates everyone left in less than 90 seconds for the win, then he doesn't have to wrestle again until the end of March though they can keep him on TV for the hype and ratings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Diamonddust 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 What's the general feeling on the Rumble having/not having surprise entrants? I mean, with a title shot on the line I can understand how it can be construed as unfair that one guy has to wrestle all year to get selected while a Honky Tonk Man shows up with a guitar and wrestling boots and gets tossed in there...and yet it somehow seems to cheapen the match when all 30 participants are known. One or two surprise/nostalgia entrants are good, since obviously you're not going to book them to win. From a kayfabe/promoting standpoint, it makes sense to bring in some outsiders to fill out a 30 man match. It also helps from a pacing standpoint like when you have someone going on a monster run, and then the "legend" comes out for a few minutes. It can either jump start the crowd for a big stretch, or it can bring them down during the middle so they won't be burned out during the ending. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 I get the feeling Matt needs more recovery time, hence the concussion angle. Is he supposed to be ready by the Rumble? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawk 34 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 I get the feeling Matt needs more recovery time, hence the concussion angle. Is he supposed to be ready by the Rumble? Well, the original prognosis was 2-3 months and the Rumble would occur right in that time-frame. If he wasn't ready to actually compete, I think they could still do the spot with Matt anyways. Just have MVP eliminate himself to escape and Matt chases after him. It'd build the WM match, get a big pop, Matt does no physical action. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarvinisaLunatic 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 Smackdown is gonna be in HD on Friday and I cant get CW in HD.. BOO! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hawk 34 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 Aw, no clearer bacne shots! Damn it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. S£im Citrus 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 Hrmm... I wasn't going to bring this back up, since the mods closed the old thread before I could respond, but since the HD subject has been brought back up by somebody else, I'd wanted to reply to this last post from skullman80: I disagree. The difference on a properly calibrated TV is really really noticeable. I didn't say it wasn't noticeable, I said it wasn't life-changing. I've seen HD on a quality television, and it's just not that big a deal. I'm sorry that I didn't have the "I was blind, but now I see" moment that Marvin and some of the rest of you had, but I can seriously take it or leave it. If somebody told me tomorrow that I could never watch anything in HD again, I wouldn't miss it, even a little bit. To bring it back to wrestling, I disagree that HD could possibly enhance my wrestling watching experience in any way whatsoever. I mean, I can see the wrestlers just fine as it is: why should I give two shits whether I can more clearly see the nicotine stains on their fingers or, as others have intimated, the acne on their back? I honestly don't believe that you can name one thing that HD makes it possible for me to see which SD does not, that would actually improve my wrestling watching experience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 I think it's beating a dead horse on my part. I prefer a lot of programming on WWE 24/7; a good portion of what I enjoy doesn't exist on FHD in the first place. That aside, I have a television that works, why do I need a new one? I haven't even upgraded to STEREO tv for christ sakes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AntiLeaf33 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 I can really see this helping the WWE in the long run. I know when there is nothing on I'll sometimes watch something in HD just for the hell of it. This is bound to at least bump ratings a bit, and maybe even bring in some new fans after they watch the product a bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 Maybe it's because I have less than perfect eyesight, but to me HD is the best thing ever invented by mankind (that and air conditioning, heh). If the HD you guys have seen didn't impress then all I can say is you didn't look at the right TV. There are some less than spectacular HD sets at stores, but if you check out something like a Sony 1080p set it will make your jaw drop. The only hassle that an HD set brings is the constant flipping to different channels to watch stuff. Cable is Video 6, DVD/VCR is Video 4, and there are about 5 other channels you can use to plug in various stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jacques 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 Personally, I can't take the new Jericho seriously. He looks too pretty, non-threatening and gay with short hair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nate 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 I think it's beating a dead horse on my part. I prefer a lot of programming on WWE 24/7; a good portion of what I enjoy doesn't exist on FHD in the first place. That aside, I have a television that works, why do I need a new one? I haven't even upgraded to STEREO tv for christ sakes. you wont need a new TV as long as you dont use the old rabbit ears to receive a signal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. S£im Citrus 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 Maybe it's because I have less than perfect eyesight, but to me HD is the best thing ever invented by mankind (that and air conditioning, heh). If the HD you guys have seen didn't impress then all I can say is you didn't look at the right TV. There are some less than spectacular HD sets at stores, but if you check out something like a Sony 1080p set it will make your jaw drop. You can say that, but you would be wrong; my man has a Bravia, and we have a Panasonic TC-32LX700 in our video lab at work... It's just not that big a deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 Maybe it's because I have less than perfect eyesight, but to me HD is the best thing ever invented by mankind (that and air conditioning, heh). If the HD you guys have seen didn't impress then all I can say is you didn't look at the right TV. There are some less than spectacular HD sets at stores, but if you check out something like a Sony 1080p set it will make your jaw drop. The only hassle that an HD set brings is the constant flipping to different channels to watch stuff. Cable is Video 6, DVD/VCR is Video 4, and there are about 5 other channels you can use to plug in various stuff. Maybe it will make my jaw drop. Lots of things do. I'm not paying for it though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 I'd watch SD on a consistent basis if it's in HD. I like that the picture is way sharper and it fills my entire screen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
luke-o 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 So you would quite happily watch Batista/Khali matches for a few months, just as long as it was in HD? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MillenniumMan831 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 I'm not an HD elitist but I did purchase a HD-TV as a housewarming present to myself. I must admit, I hardly ever hover around the standard def channels anymore except for wrestling or local sports talk shows (apparently, they're not just for radio anymore). So far, I've noticed the biggest difference in quality watching basketball/hockey games. Not sure if the switch of wrestling to HD will really make THAT much of a difference in my enjoyment of it but it couldn't hurt. Besides, for every Khali/Batista match, there's a Maria and/or Mickey James entrance to watch so the pendulum goes both ways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2008 Maybe it's because I have less than perfect eyesight, but to me HD is the best thing ever invented by mankind (that and air conditioning, heh). If the HD you guys have seen didn't impress then all I can say is you didn't look at the right TV. There are some less than spectacular HD sets at stores, but if you check out something like a Sony 1080p set it will make your jaw drop. The only hassle that an HD set brings is the constant flipping to different channels to watch stuff. Cable is Video 6, DVD/VCR is Video 4, and there are about 5 other channels you can use to plug in various stuff. Maybe it will make my jaw drop. Lots of things do. I'm not paying for it though. What do you spend your money on Al? Besides stat books. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
