|
oldpainless posted:You know what has always annoyed the poo poo out of me for six years now? How the effectiveness of someone in the ring changes so widely in such a short amount of time. This is an example of what's bothering me about the current deal with Sheamus. Dude loses to Goldust, then he can knock out John Cena multiple times? what
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 08:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:You know what has always annoyed the poo poo out of me for six years now? How the effectiveness of someone in the ring changes so widely in such a short amount of time. This sort of lack of internal logic is both endemic to wrestling, and annoying primarily to smarks. Yes, to an extent looking at it like that is taking it too seriously, but on the other hand, there needs to be some kind of internal continuity. Perhaps 'Taker is the true holder of Vince's soul?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 08:39
|
|
|
hahaha in a forum I used to frequent there was a guy who would always freak out over Sweet Chin Music, saying how it shouldn't be a finisher now because Shawn used it when he was in The Rockers and it didn't knock people out. Whatever, it always seemed like acceptable kayfabe to just say that he "perfected the move over the years" or something along those lines. Similarly I guess you could just say that Hogan was "having an off night" at Wrestlemania XIX if you really wanna rationalize it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 08:47
|
|
|
Or the Undertaker endued a sense of horrifying terror into Vince. Hulk, being so mighty, would not feel that same terror, but doesn't cause enough of it to severely weaken Vince.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 08:56
|
|
|
ChikoDemono posted:Or the Undertaker endued a sense of horrifying terror into Vince. My long journey for an answer is at last ended. Truly, this reasoning is without flaws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 08:59
|
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:The Can-Am connection comes to mind. Also The Killer Bees The Bolsheviks The New Dream Team Rhythm & Blues Bushwackers/Sheepherders The Rougeaus (Had a title win, but it was overturned) King Kong Bundy & Big John Studd Terry Funk & Dory Funk Jr Dory Funk Jr & Jimmy Jack Funk Bob Orton & Don Muraco The Islanders The New Foundation High Energy The Orient Express Power & Glory The Young Stallions Those are just a few teams from the 80's/early 90's that never held WWF gold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 09:07
|
|
|
The most extreme and blatant abuse of effectiveness is when an all-powerful face becomes a heel and can no longer defend himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 10:18
|
|
|
Curtis of Nigeria posted:The most extreme and blatant abuse of effectiveness is when an all-powerful face becomes a heel and can no longer defend himself. And it happens every. loving. Time. Case in point: Batista. Who ran away from Kane. God dammit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 10:39
|
|
|
Oh, and what happened to the ridiuclous over the top amazing phenomenon that was wrestlicious? Will it ever see the light of day?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 11:20
|
|
|
That is an excellent question. I always wanted to watch a lotto winner blow all his money on something worthless before he inevitably kills himself. Poor kid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 11:34
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:That is an excellent question. I always wanted to watch a lotto winner blow all his money on something worthless before he inevitably kills himself. Look, the early ninties cartoon era is over, and some bastard lost a lot of money in giving us the oppurtunity to see Daffney as a vampire versus an ice princess. Oh hey, a second trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffcNrkNehFw appearance by the owner at 2:13.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 12:46
|
|
|
Wrestlicious actually could make money. I was listening to Meltzer talk about GLOW A while back, and appearently it did well enough on TV to turn a profit. However, they went on the road and lost their rear end, killing the promotion. Kinda reminds me of TNA, there's no way their live events can earn significant money but the TV deals make them money. All Wrestlicious needs is a distributor to syndicate them and to keep costs down, which shouldn't have been hard with indy wrestlers. Unless the dude was a dumb money mark, which he probably was. It seriously pisses me off though. The dude won $17m and is gonna blow it. If I won half that I'd buy a house and put 50-75% in long-term investments. Hell, you can get $100k interest off $10m and live a comfortable life. WeaselWeaz fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Dec 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 15:56
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:So how the gently caress does the relationship between these three men make any sense? Taker and Hogan are equal, Vince and Hogan are equal, but Taker is miles ahead of Vince??? Obviously, Hollywood Hogan is much more powerful than Hulk Hogan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 16:47
|
|
|
joshtothemaxx posted:This is an example of what's bothering me about the current deal with Sheamus. Dude loses to Goldust, then he can knock out John Cena multiple times? what There was a phenomenon in the late 80s/early 90s where a tag team would lose cleanly to the Bushwhackers on TV and then win the tag titles the next week or so. It happened several times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 16:52
|
|
|
Does CM Punk still own the rights to his name, or did he sign it away to the WWE when he signed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 18:19
|
|
|
Meat Recital posted:Does CM Punk still own the rights to his name, or did he sign it away to the WWE when he signed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 22:28
|
|
|
Atticus Finch posted:It's now property of the WWE. I'm almost entirely positive I have heard the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 22:31
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:I'm almost entirely positive I have heard the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 22:32
|
|
|
Meat Recital posted:Does CM Punk still own the rights to his name, or did he sign it away to the WWE when he signed? He has signed them away for merchandise while he is under contract, but he retains ownership of the name.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2009 22:41
|
|
|
Atticus Finch posted:It's now property of the WWE. My guess is that it works the way we talked about Kanyon's worked when he misunderstood the language in his TNA contract. CMPunk can keep his gimmick and name when he leaves, but WWE can use the name in perpetuity for the purpose of likeness rights for home video appearances, action figures, and video games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 02:44
|
|
|
Atticus Finch posted:It's now property of the WWE. You are 100% wrong. LividLiquid posted:CMPunk can keep his gimmick and name when he leaves, but WWE can use the name in perpetuity for the purpose of likeness rights for home video appearances, action figures, and video games. Pretty much this. Raven, Mike Sanders, and some other guys' contracts were made public when they sued WWE. It basically stated that the talent owned any names they used before signing with WWE. WWE has the right to use their name and gimmick in perpetuity when marketing anything produced while they worked for WWE, although they also have to pay royalties. In the case of Raven, it specifically listed what names he owned (Scott Levy, Raven, Scotty the Body) and what names WWE owned (Scotty Flamingo, Johnny Polo).
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 04:55
|
|
|
dudleys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 06:15
|
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:dudleys. ECW owned the name, didn't they? Or Heyman or some such thing, and the rights were sold to WWE and the Dudleys didn't find out until they were informed they couldn't use the name post WWE?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 06:29
|
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:dudleys. Here we go again...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 06:35
|
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:dudleys. dudleyz
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 06:42
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:ECW owned the name, didn't they? Or Heyman or some such thing, and the rights were sold to WWE and the Dudleys didn't find out until they were informed they couldn't use the name post WWE? Right. Heyman definitely owned the Dudley trademark. They allegedly had a gentlemen's agreement with Heyman to use the Dudley name after they left, but it was still Heyman/ECW's property when Vince bought all the ECW poo poo. Unsurprisingly, Vince was not inclined to honor any agreements Heyman might have made about what was now Vince's intellectual property.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 07:21
|
|
|
The only question left unanswered as to gimmick stuff is why Nash still gets to call himself "Big Sexy", Steiner gets to call himself "Genetic Freak", and Daffney gets to call herself Daffney, as all three names were created under WCW, which WWE now owns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 09:05
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:The only question left unanswered as to gimmick stuff is why Nash still gets to call himself "Big Sexy", Steiner gets to call himself "Genetic Freak", and Daffney gets to call herself Daffney, as all three names were created under WCW, which WWE now owns. Maybe they trademarked those names/nicknames.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 10:14
|
|
|
KungFu Grip posted:Maybe they trademarked those names/nicknames. Nicknames might be easier to get away with, and I'd be amazed if WWE cares about daffney.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 10:28
|
|
|
Nash may either have had a more lax contract on things like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 10:31
|
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:thats another thing: what are some notable tag teams that never held the tag titles in WWE/WCW? Jesse and Festus and Moore Wang both seriously deserved title runs but this was happening when Miz and Morrison were running roughshod on the Smackdown tag division.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 17:13
|
|
|
CM Junk posted:Jesse and Festus and Moore Wang both seriously deserved title runs but this was happening when Miz and Morrison were running roughshod on the Smackdown tag division. Yes, but now we've got Wang Slam and surely they will dominate the division.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 18:01
|
|
|
I think Master Wang is a better team name
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 18:09
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:The only question left unanswered as to gimmick stuff is why Nash still gets to call himself "Big Sexy", Steiner gets to call himself "Genetic Freak", and Daffney gets to call herself Daffney, as all three names were created under WCW, which WWE now owns. WCW is it's own retarded ball of wax. My guess is that for Steiner and Nash they had contracts which allowed them to own their nicknames and catchphrases. If not, the characters of Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner are owned by those guys, since it's their real names and personalities, which may be how they get around it. Plus WWE probably isn't interested in fighting that battle. For Daffney, I wouldn't be shocked if WCW never copyrighted her name and character. Remember, the company was completely mismanaged and contracts were insanely weighted towards the talent. They couldn't even suspend anyone without pay, which pretty well accepted as a horrible idea so of course TNA did the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 18:15
|
|
|
My understanding is that the company doesn't have to copyright anything. The way it works at most jobs is that anything you come up with or invent while under contract is the intellectual property of your employer whether they trademark it or not. For instance, Christian trademarked the Captain Charisma name just before leaving for TNA, so he owned it for a bit there. He wasn't allowed to use it, however, as he came up with it while under contract to WWE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 18:24
|
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:thats another thing: what are some notable tag teams that never held the tag titles in WWE/WCW? Serious post:  It pisses me off how they're constantly oh-so-close to the titles. Edit: not counting day long house show reigns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 18:24
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:My understanding is that the company doesn't have to copyright anything. The way it works at most jobs is that anything you come up with or invent while under contract is the intellectual property of your employer whether they trademark it or not. Nah thats not really how it works, it depends on what kind of a contract you have with a company, stuff like that has to be explicitly written down. They are still fighting copyright cases in other industries over work people did while under specific contracts from 60 years ago, also, considering WWE talent isn't even contractually considered employed by the WWE, it opens another entire can of worms. My guess is, if someone wanted to fight a WWE copyright claim they would have a number of ways to attack it, and we won't really know how valid WWE's claims are until someone takes them to court over things. Most wrestlers don't have the kind of resources necessary to argue something like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 18:32
|
|
|
The A-Team Van posted:Serious post: they never had a house show tag title reign vvvvvvvvv ah okay, misunderstood you. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv STING 64 fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 19:13
|
|
|
dusty udder smoker posted:they never had a house show tag title reign They're a notable tag team that has never held the belts, even during house shows. So, answers your question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
also Team 3D weren't the only Dudleys so there's that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2009 23:57
|
|