We're on the road to WrestleMania, but you'd never tell from NXT's storylines. This week, we get the aftermath of the kidnapping of Matt Striker and the main event will feature Derrick Bateman going up against Smackdown's Hunico. Titus O'Neil faces Jey Uso as well. Read on for my thoughts on the show as it happens.
What's the over/under for non-NXT video packages this week? I'm going for 3.
I've wanted to see more of both of these guys. As impressive as Hunico was as the second Sin Cara, him not being used more is a shame.
Then again, that promo was quite unimpressive.
How long until someone rides Hunico's bike?
Funny entrance from Bait-man.
OUCH. That's not how you want to land.
I'm now distracted by how Regal said "ate".
So-so start.
Video package #1. I hope people took the over.
WHOA. That's a pretty impressive list of features from the website.
I wonder if these two faced off in FCW.
Maybe he'd show us his ring skills more if he was in the ring more?
Glad it's not over yet. That would have been kind of underwhelming.
Was that the Angle Slam?
As behind Bateman as I usually am, that match was a letdown from an in-ring perspective.
Video package #2. Pretty good stuff though.
That was pretty well put together.
I wonder how many other events have had both Metallica and Madonna as theme song contributors.
And here's #3. I set things way too low.
When it's finally over, I wonder what the score will be at Mania for Taker. Who would have thought it would have lasted as long as it has?
I wonder what HHH really thinks about the "Shawn being better than him" talk.
I think people will pretty much expect a huge top-of-the-Cell bump on Sunday.
Four commentators for the main event. Deep breath.
What are the odds that someone's watching NXT and doesn't know that Mania is on Sunday?
Vintage Punk videos. That was a pretty cool trip down memory lane.
Jericho's one of the best that I've ever seen. He's been "on" for years.
It's a shame that they kind of tacked on the "father's an alcoholic" thing. They could do a lot with it. Jericho seeking to force Punk to drink, etc.. They unfortunately only did a week with that.
Hahaha. At least they "explained" why Striker was on commentary on "Thursday" for Superstars.
I kind of hate that they make the matches seem unimportant. If "no one cares" about them, why should we watch them?
We haven't gotten Maxine vs. Natalya yet. That's a problem.
Really? Titus' singing was kind of embarrassing.
They're either ribbing Darren with the coconut thing, trying to force him out of his comfort zone, or they just have a weird sense of humor.
Guerrero reference by Darren. I should rank him higher just for that.
This is just... WEIRD. In a "why are they doing this with these characters (Titus and Darren)?" way.
And by next, they mean "after our other video packages".
Metallica, Madonna, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Triple H, and The Rock all part of WrestleMania hype. Maybe it is still the '90s.
That wasn't especially well-acted by Menounos. Nothing against her personally. In fact, I like her.
Please don't screw this up, Darren. I've liked his change of character, but a bad showing here could undo that good feeling.
This is why I dislike Young sometimes: After showing that he can do more soft-spoken stuff backstage, he went right back to the shtick he's had for months.
Jimmy Uso doesn't seem like he has a future on commentary.
Really? Nothing from Young when prompted?
Ooh. When Darren's not talking about being an aggressive, intense guy, he's lost with "improvising" what his character's doing.
Is it racist to put over Samoans like that (since it's a positive racial thing)?
Not a bad match. It just wasn't as important as it could have been (with the commentary being what it was).
Wait. It's already been mentioned that Tamina's the cousin of The Usos. Why is she now just a family friend?
At least the ending "stare off" was good and showed more range than just an aggressive wrestler.
Looks like that's a wrap.
On to evaluations. 5 is almost entirely "hit". 4 is more hit than miss. 3 is somewhere in between. 2 is more miss than hit, and 1 is almost entirely "miss". Note that I'm looking at things like charisma and talking ability in addition to what one does between the ropes.
Derrick Bateman- 5 (Last week: 5). Make no mistake about it; this was not a "5" week for Bateman. He's been noticeably slacking a bit lately as he becomes more of a background guy. He definitely didn't have the chemistry with Hunico that he showed with Curtis (though he's likely worked with/against Curtis a lot more than Hunico). This week was certainly a mis-step, and if he keeps this kind of thing going, he'll drop down to a 4. He needs to find his groove again, especially in the ring, if he wants to stay at a 5. (Grade: A-ish, but could be closing in on a B).
Titus O'Neil - 4 (Last week: 4). Not a bad week for Titus, including his match on Superstars. While he might not be improving every week, I definitely think he's "over the hump" as far as knowing what he needs to do to be successful. His demeanor backstage wasn't especially heelish and his character has been inconsistent in that regard compared to when he first turned heel, but as long he's consistently good/above average, I don't think he'll drop to a 3. In time, I can see him getting better and more comfortable, so he needs to stay on the right path and get more experience. (Grade: B-ish. Closer to a B- than a B+).
Darren Young - 3 (Last week: 3). He was so close to being back on the path for being a 4 until the commentary situation. It was like a putt that got the ball near the hole only for it to veer away at the end. I liked his more soft-spoken demeanor backstage. He was doing something different from the character I had gotten so tired of, and starting to show that he could be more than just an "angry, intense wrestler". Then he kind of fumbled on commentary, going back to the catch-phrases he had as a more intense character. It seemed out of place, since his character had kind of taken a turn towards a more laid-back and "soft" person. He got closer to being a 4. If he can tone down the aggressive wrestler part of himself (for when he needs to be the more sensitive persona that it seems like his character's becoming), he'll get there. (Grade: B-, slightly above a C).
If I had to eliminate someone, it would be: Darren Young. The mis-steps on commentary really doomed him. Had he done better there (and been consistent in his delivery instead of alternating between calm and more intense), it wouldn't have been as big of a gap. On the plus side, I'm wanting to see him get the chance to improve instead of just wanting them to replace him.
That's it for this week's NXT. Everything should be back on schedule now, with a news post up before morning. Thanks for reading!
I see your point about Young. This time on commentary was a mirror-image of last time. On one hand, he isn't being over-the-top and overdoing it, but you'd like to see more aggression and backing up of his points. Specifically, saying "back for the fifth time on MY show" needs to explain why. It seemed like Uso was kind of throwing punches his way and he didn't hit back, theoretically. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a huge setback, but he can improve there.
ReplyDeleteAre you going to have a post about your Wrestlemania predictions? I'm interested to hear those. By the way, who do you think is getting the better of this Rock/Cena battle? I think Cena is making more valid and "competition-related" points. The Rock has been dissing Cena, but it's never been based on anything relevant that actually has to do with winning at Mania.
Did you mean what you'd like to see of him? I think he's in a very weird place right now since his character's theoretically being put in a different role due to the Tamina angle. It felt like his commentary didn't reflect the character change. It also continues to feel like he just has a couple of catch-phrases and not much beyond that. After the initial line about being No Days Off, he seemed kind of lost with what to add to the conversation (though part of that could be because his character is something different now because of Tamina - maybe he's trying to find a way to balance the new more sensitive persona with the hyper-aggressive stuff he's done so far).
ReplyDeleteI generally post something more along the lines of "what I'd like to see them do" from a perspective of what I think would "work" for business. A lot of times it kind of boils down to "they should continue this but not this".
Prediction-wise could be a bit difficult because they'll probably change their minds on a lot of it and they still surprise me with who they have win at times. That said:
Taker wins, if Rock doesn't win in his hometown they'll have to do something really big to justify it and set up a rematch, Punk wins but they do a rematch at Extreme Rules in Chicago, Bryan escapes by a hair (DQ or something) but Sheamus beats him up, Big Show wins, Orton wins, Kelly/Maria win and maybe Team Teddy. I could of course be way off!
As for Rock/Cena, I've generally agreed with Cena more. It feels a little bit like Rock is just "Dwayne Johnson playing The Rock" in places though some of that's nostalgia talking. He generally is a lot more about trash talking and making fun of someone than saying why he'll win.
I have the same predictions except for maybe two. I'm on the fence with the Johnny/Teddy and the Bryan/Sheamus matchups. Something is really gnawing at me to think somehow Laurinaitus' team will win. I think with Johnny only being on TV for a number of months and with Long being the Smackdown GM for so long, they may view it as time for a change. Many don't realize Long has been the GM of Smackdown for about a decade.
ReplyDeleteSomething is also kind of gnawing at me with the Bryan/Sheamus matchup. With the way Sheamus has been booked lately and all of the hype he has been getting, something makes me think he'll be booked to win. Bryan has also had that title for a number of months. I want Bryan to win and it would be good for his character, but I think Sheamus could come out on top.
I also agree about the Rock/Cena confrontations. Rock has been getting good reaction from his jokes, but like you said, they're just about trash talking and not competition-related. Talking about fruity pebbles and Cena's "lady parts" have nothing to do with competition, and it makes it seem like Rock is just trying to entertain the crowd moreso than actually creating fear in Cena and making relevant points as to why he will win. I think Rock will win, though.
I keep having this sneaking suspicion, with nothing concrete to support it, that Long will win because of Laurinaitis having an important (legitimate) backstage role as VP of Talent Relations, though being Chairman never stopped Vince McMahon... one plausible theory I've heard is that Laurinaitis will win because there's more of a story and sympathy for Long to try to get his job back. It could be similar to Cole/Lawler where it seems pretty obvious that one side would win, but they drag it on. And they probably really like Laurinaitis knowing them.
ReplyDeleteThey've done some swerves at Mania before, saving the big babyface win for the next PPV or after. There's definitely more story to Bryan sneaking by again (so they can build Sheamus even more towards winning the title, and make Bryan even more booable). But, it's hard to tell. A lot of people are surprised that Bryan got the title at all, much less kept it this long.
That's kind of Rock's shtick though. I think he's trying to appeal to the older fans who see Cena as more of a goofy mascot than a top wrestler. Rock is something like how DX was more about crotch chops, parodies and inside references than serious competition. Some people eat that kind of thing up.
I'll be disappointed if it's a one-sided Rock win that doesn't do anything for Cena, since it would basically be saying that no matter what's happened in WWE in the past decade or so, the top guy isn't as good as someone who left years ago.
Fair points. We will see what happens. There are a lot of different sides of the coin as to who can and will win.
ReplyDeleteI would have wanted to see more credibility from Rock in terms of actual competition and HOW he can win the match against Cena. I know it's more of his range to joke about Cena, but from someone who is big on competition, he's not really beefing up the match from that standpoint. There aren't too many people who would be tuned into the match in part because of his jokes about Cena. With the WWE advertising the match as "Once in a lifetime", I'd like to see it more about competition that "lady parts" lol.
I've been looking at a lot of people's opinions on the outcomes of 'Mania, and there is a lot of disparity between the Long/Johnny, Rock/Cena and Sheamus/Bryan matchups. It seems with the other matchups, people are making it out to be axiomatic in terms of who will win, so I'm expecting at least one of the other matchups to be a surprise. Those three I mentioned are the most intriguing to me in terms of their outcomes. I agree on your point that some of the matchups may drag on until the next pay-per-view.
How do you think this 'Mania card stacks up against other ones in the past? I wasn't big on Snooki being in 'Mania last year, but from a celebrity standpoint, that Maria lady being the only one this year makes it a little disappointing along with the no Money in The Bank ladder matchups.
I see what you're saying, but like I said, that's kind of Rock's shtick. A number of segments they've had have been references to things Rock did back in years past (The concert, throwing things into the river, This Is Your Life). To older fans who don't like Cena, he's the contrast to the "kid-friendly", smiling mascot. It's hard to measure how many people that appeals to, but I think a lot of the point of using Rock is to appeal to people way outside of the normal WWE audience who watches every week. They want something very different from what WWE usually gives them. WWE would love to get some of those older fans back into the fold.
ReplyDeleteThere's almost always a surprise in matches people think "have to go a certain way". Some even think Taker will lose and retire, while HHH will stick around. That would be very surprising to me.
I'm more excited about this year's event, since I think there's some real potential from both a story and match perspective. The matches feel less thrown together and awkward than some we've gotten in the past. Better line-up than the last couple of years, but I think a lot of that is because of the history involved. I'm not just looking for "big matches" in the sense of people going through tables or whatever, and some of the "part-timers" I've watched for a while (and might not see much of in the future) so that really factors in.
I see why they do the celebrity appearances, though I don't know how effective some of them are. I know that they get non-wrestling fans talking and potentially wanting to see about WWE, which is good because sometimes even the best matches in the world can't get others to check things out as weird as that sounds.
I do know that Maria's a legitimate wrestling fan, so that's kind of a plus. The wrestling world is pretty different (I'd think) from the audience for the stuff that she's on, so it could go either way business-wise. My grandparents watch "Extra" but don't know who John Cena is. I don't think they'll end up becoming viewers, but maybe some people do. They wanted Shaq involved, but for whatever reason that didn't work out (even though he said he'd be there).
I'm fine with them taking off MITB to make it its own PPV. Mania already has a lot going for it with HIAC and The Rock. MITB could be overshadowed (as it would have in the build-up). That would be disappointing after the people involved basically injured themselves. The people involved will get a bigger spotlight when the PPV is built more around it. Supposedly they were going to have MITB with Barrett winning, but then he got injured and they decided to do the 12-man instead. I'm expecting that match to just be a bunch of bodies flying around in a short timeframe, which is kind of hard to sink my teeth into.
Yeah. When it comes down to it, you could make logical arguments for and against a lot of the decisions the WWE makes. It just comes down to what each person values as a fan. I know placing celebrities into the pay-per-view is a way to branch out to other non-primary targeted fans, so it does make some sense. I guess the main issue I, personally, have with that is the credibility of that celebrity and if it's not just pathologically a marketing ploy.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean by that is I was REALLY against Snooki being on the card last year, because of her history and lack of credibility (I don't even think she could name even 10 wrestlers lol) and the negative impact she's had on society. People like Shaq or even Maria are more credible, not only because they have been part of the company before, but are in the spotlight in a positive manner. You get what I mean there? I just don't like it when it all seems more of a marketing ploy than actual logicality.
I can also see how it's good from a "wrestling" and "storyline" standpoint, as well. If rivalries build up, not only do they gain credibility, but it's not just portrayed as just a "made-for-Wrestlemania" match and stops there. That goes hand-in-hand with how the more-tenured fans like us favor that, and how some of the "non-tenured" people who the WWE wants to eith "recruit" or "bring back" through putting celebrities on the card.
I personally am a fan of the MITB match. It kind of has been a fixture of the event itself over the years. I agree there are good and bad arguments for it, though. There is a lot on the card, and there is that risk from a injury standpoint and some can argue it's more of a "show" than "storyline", but I think it's a good way to capture the attention and getting fans to walk away saying "that was awesome", because often matches like that can be the most anticipated and fun.
I'm mainly playing devil's advocate in regards to celebrity appearances, as sometimes they're pretty bad.
ReplyDeleteWWE considers themselves more of entertainment and likes latching on to the popular trends like "Jersey Shore". I definitely share the "ick" feeling with it and know that a lot of celebs are just there for the press. Honestly, it is kind of a cheap ratings/attention ploy because they can't figure out how to build up the wrestling part of business to where it used to be. There's even the conspiracy theory that "Vince hates or is embarrassed by having a wrestling company" and that's why he branches out to movies and such.
I like the phrase about matches just being made for Mania, as it does seem like that at times. The Super Bowl wouldn't have special players who had been brought in for one game or two beforehand.
They're also trying to bring back fans with the part-time/'90s wrestlers. The '90s didn't work by just bringing in names from the '80s doing the same stuff they did then, but they keep trying to recreate things with the people who were big a generation or so ago.
I used to LOVE matches that were a bunch of carnage, but after a while they kind of felt more like excuses to do big moves and spots than tell a story. WWE's not as bad about it, but it was really prevalent in TNA for a while. They pretty much just announced a special match and threw a bunch of people in it who would do a bunch of big falls and impressive athletic stuff. It was great for a while, but then I got where I had seen a lot of it before and realized they didn't have much else in their repertoires.
I definitely see that mindset as a fan, but I know an old-school booker would be more concerned with getting fans to come back to see the next chapter of the story. I don't remember the whole argument, but other than it was more successful (and therefore "better"), there was something against going out and having a great match from a technical or athletic standpoint. It was definitely something I hadn't heard before and thought-provoking. I'm pretty sure it was Al Snow who talked about it.
^ Snow booked WWE's previous developmental territory for a while. Some of his ideas were REALLY old-school, like not taping your fists because way back when there were matches were people did that in order to "hit harder" than they normally would be allowed to. Kind of like brass knuckles but just with regular athletic tape. I guess it was believable decades ago.
ReplyDelete