• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

327 Excellent

About SorceressKnight

  • Rank
    Minnesota Purple Rage

Recent Profile Visitors

587 profile views
  1. Should I just watch it on Netflix to get a review up quickly?
  2. I went to a "can you run it?" site as well that said my graphics card couldn't run it, and it runs relatively well for me. So, don't put stock in those sites.
  3. That is basically my point- where it did stem from Ryback's argument for the problems. A union could make a minimum salary for wrestlers or benefits, but at the same time- where other sports leagues have their contracts worked out from their agent (so Michael Carter-Williams couldn't demand the same minutes James Harden gets or the same money), the WWE dictates who gets pushed and who doesn't get pushed, and from there that dictates how much money a worker gets...and if people are deserving of more comparable pay between Cena and Hawkins due to putting their bodies on the line equally, that would also stand to be a problem. With that alone, it would stand to reason that a unionized wrestling promotion would likely have to eventually deal with guaranteeing union members a push, just to keep a Ryback situation of cooling them off and hiding them on the pre-show as his contract expires just to offer a lower renewal from happening again. If that happened, it wouldn't be based on "well, the office likes Roman Reigns so let him get the World Title", and wouldn't be based on "well, the fans are begging for Cesaro to get a push so he gets the World Title"...but in all likeliness, based on seniority and"Well, Zack Ryder's a 11 year veteran, so it's his turn to get a World Title run."
  4. The problem with a wrestler's union is, and always will be, the way to make things equal for a union would go against everyone- promoters, wrestlers, and the fans themselves. When you have something where scripted wins and losses dictate who makes the most money and who gets the most benefits on the shows, then a union would, by definition, dictate that this issue is fixed in order to give that money and that power to union members in a way that is beyond either “the promoter’s choice of performer gets all the money and benefits” (what we have now)…or even the “meritocracy” manner of who the fans decide (to a union, why should the fans' cheers or boos dictate who makes the most money and benefits? It should be equal for someone over like Cena and someone like Curt Hawkins to make the same money", even if that is patently absurd to anyone who watches TV). From union regulations in most other unions, this need for equality to the union members would inevitably manifest in pushes being granted to performers based on their seniority and time without getting a big push, giving everyone a chance to get the intangibles of wins and pushes, so that they can get the most tangible reward they have (more money). This would inevitably kill wrestling. Even if you think this is a good reward for long-running veterans like Zack Ryder who still have a strong cult following eventually getting their moment, like at Wrestlemania 32 (or even a subsequent WWE World Heavyweight Championship reign so Ryder can take home the real money)…if people hated Jinder Mahal's WWE Title reign for India's expansion, just wait until the inevitable unionized PPV where you have “Even though he’s not particularly over and never really HAS been over in WWE…due to being a 9-year veteran on WWE television with no major pushes in the past, union regulations mean that Summerslam 20[XX] will be main evented by Primo finally getting his chance to fight for the WWE World Championship.”
  5. With these problems, it just comes to the same refrain. If there's one thing that the 2010s "Reality Era" has killed for wrestling, it's this Ricky Bobby era of "If you're not first, you're last" for wrestlers. It just seems to be that fans now think if you're not winning the World Title at Wrestlemania in the main event, then you're no better than the jobbiest jobber that ever jobbed.
  6. Yeah, this is (at least) the second, which muddies things up more.
  7. Even with that, there is the big problem here since again, both sides have a strong case for trademark and copyright on this argument. Using this case for example: CHIKARA usually keeps a "no outing the real-life performer behind the gimmick" (even though It's been pretty much widely admitted due to this issue that plays Cottonbelly), but each side can say it. CHIKARA has a pretty good argument for it: Mike Quackenbush did, in fact, create the Jervis Cottonbelly character, and it is his intellectual property. By this, Quackenbush can absolutely claim copyright on the gimmick. However, having said that, Cottonbelly is breaking out on the indy scene away from Quackenbush, and you can argue the trademark is on the hands of the wrestler who currently portrays Cottonbelly. You can prove financial harm to the wrestler behind the mask (it takes away the gimmick that has caught fire, and many [not all, but many] CHIKARA performers have found that they are not as over without the gimmick CHIKARA gave them), AND can prove intentional confusion in the marketplace to any promotions who book whichever WrestleFactory graduate Quackenbush gives the gimmick to and any fans who would go to a show because Cottonbelly is there (as they're not getting the performer who made the gimmick a star and getting a likely lesser product than they wanted),
  8. Yeah- on the one hand, Cottonbelly was a character created by CHIKARA on the beginning, but since then it had become far bigger on the back of the person who took over the gimmick and really owned it. Since the person playing the Cottonbelly gimmick has had a particularly big falling-out with CHIKARA recently, it's entirely likely this is being done out of spite.
  9. Didn't the story be that they wanted a grassroots movement to make Cesaro leave Paul E. and become a big babyface hero that way, only to be hindered since being a Paul Heyman Guy was seen as a big enough honor to satisfy people?
  10. DDP. He was white hot at the time, the Halloween Havoc match was really critically acclaimed, and you probably could have gotten multiple PPV matches out of DDP slowly getting closer and closer to beating Goldberg, never quite managing to pull it off- until finally some time in 1999, DDP pulls off the win. Considering that ECW had made "feuds where one guy can never quite get over the hump of defeating their arch-rival" in vogue at the time without it napalming the worker who can't do it's heat, DDP/Goldberg could have probably been the mainstream example of that feud
  11. If it's going to suck either way, at least make it make sense storylinewise and bring a few things together: Make Bayley the backup for Cedric Alexander vs. Noam Dar and Alicia Fox. Simple, effective, has already been hinted from months back, uses a natural storyline already going on, and makes a somewhat non-farfetched payoff as well. Plus, maybe Vince would be so blinded by Noam Dar saying "Alicia FOOOOOOOOOOOOOXXXX" that he'd forget to book Bayley like the simpleton there.
  12. I thought that NBA rules say you can't add protection to picks you got from a trade that weren't originally protected, which was being said a couple hours ago too.
  13. Celtics also lock up the Lakers' pick next year and the Kings' pick in 2019, all of which are unprotected. Not sure if Philly or Boston wins the trade.
  14. If anything, Bagwell seemed as close to "replacement level" for a pro wrestler as you could get in every way- charisma, in-ring ability, promos, connection with the audience...virtually everything but look. For most of it it was clear- if you were better than Bagwell, you were probably pretty good. If you were worse than Bagwell, you probably stunk at that aspect of the sport. if nothing else, he had that going for him.
  15. The most coherent argument there would be the Nuance by far. Whether or not HHH is a top star or not, his longevity as a top star in the ring (and the intangible of being able to seamlessly move into being a authority figure without a problem, while still being seen as a figure of menace throughout the sport enough for his one match a year) has to be mentioned as a good case. It's not enough to say "he's in the top 5 or 10", but enough to be top 100 easily. This would also probably work for The Undertaker's case for a similar argument: Both guys had a lot of longevity and a few memorable moments and peak matches, but the character work was also suspect sometimes (and the workrate got better with age in large part due to a limited number of matches.) The Undertaker's highs were higher than HHH's, but his lows were far lower (even when HHH was bloated or with Katie Vick/Hunter vs. Booker T, there were never moments where you could argue HHH was the WORST wrestler on the roster. With Undertaker, 2001 during the InVasion and 1999 with Big Show were times where you could make a case for that.)