Home | Search | FAQ

Displaying 1-4 of 4 messages in this thread.

Posted By	Discussion Topic: WWE Confidential: An excuse to bring back Mean Gene or an actual SportsCentury/Behind the Music ripoff as it claims?
Hello! Hello! Diamond Dust! Hello!	posted on 05-20-2002 @ 6:09 PM
Psychopath Registered: Feb. 01	Watching the PPV last night, outside of the HiTC match, I must say that the most interesting thing was the mention of an attempt to bring back to life the ratings of Excess poorly disguised as a new WWE program. Yes, folks, I'm talking about the mention of "Confidential." Certainly, just by naming Mean Gene Okerlund as its host, this program is already off to a lackluster start. Then I remember that Kevin Kelly or Michael Cole or Coach or the geek spazoid on Smackdown could all potentially be hosting it as well, and all of a sudden, I now contend this show is off to a great start. But, the thing I'm wondering is, "Does this thing have legs?" For those who don't know, the show is billed as a "Behind the Music" of wrestling. Being a huge fan of SportsCentury, BTM, and anything basically on the Hitler, I mean, History Channel, I would normally get a manly arousal at such a concept. Infact, for a good five seconds there I contemplated never leaving the house on a Saturday ever again. But then I realized that the thing is produced and controlled by the WWE. So, what good is it? The first episode deals with, what the fuck else, that whole incident happening sometime between 1996 and 1998 in an eastern Francophone city of Canada where one guy on his way out thought he was gonna win, but then the promoter thought, "Nah." and made him lose. It's been done to death by now to the point where if I TYPE Montreal, I'll go nuts. D'oh. I just typed Montreal. Anyway, Scheme Gene was shown interviewing Shawn Michaels, cleverly wearing a baseball cap to hide his thinning hair. One has to wonder, though, when they run out of controversies, will they have to settle for HBK wearing hats to decieve the public as controversial topics in the future? I mean, think about it. How many controversial topics is the WWE gonna allow to be exploited past this? You think the whole ring announcers as pedophiles in the '80s scandal is gonna be touched upon? Or Owen Hart's death and using it to pop a 7 rating for Raw? Or why are all these wrestlers dying in their 30s? Or just how dangerous and classless the Sgt. Slaughter Iraqi angle really was? If they are, then kudos to the WWE for showing some balls, but I fear they will not. If that is the case, the point of the show will be rendered meaningless and ratings will still be in the toilet. I mean, I can totally see the next episode being, "Tito Santana. Did Jesse Ventura go too far in calling him 'Chico?' " Not only that, but look at this episode coming up. Is Bret Hart going to be on to get his opinion? I mean, I personally completely disagree totally with his opinion, yet, I don't think it would be right to not get his when the whole thing is centered around him in reality. Granted, this is beyond the WWE's control, as Bret would never agree to it, so I'll give them a break there, but what about everyone else the WWE has a grudge with? For example, even if they DO the pedophilia topic, I doubt the guys who claim to have been molested would be on. This is why you have to have a somewhat impartial third party do these things. Everyone's gonna be skeptical from the get-go that this is all Vince McMahon's propaganda. So, in the end, I really think this thing is set up for failure. Nonetheless, I'm so curious about it, I know I'm destined to be taping the first few episodes at least to test the waters and hope to be pleasantly surprised. Is anybody REALLY looking forward to it, though? That's not a rhetorical question, BTW, I'm really curious about it. And, even if it IS a failure, I'm sure it's better than a recap-o-rama with the Coach trying to act black around Trish or whatever it was before I completely gave up on that abortion of a program, so maybe there isn't reason for gloom and doom after all. 2002 Crack Committee Objectives: 1. 94 Wins and NL East Title by the Mets this year 2. Hate the Braves with a passion 3. All 5 Starters have winning records this year 4. Mets win World Series 5. Hopefully come up with a better name for the Crack Commitee than something the Mad Dog came up with. Come on!
HeyBEERMAN420	posted on 05-20-2002 @ 7:34 PM
Psychopath Registered: Mar. 01	fuck all the bullshit, im just happy to see mean gene with a job. YOUR DRUNK& HIGH BROTHER,HeyBEERMAN 420 another proud graduate of AUSTIN's school... thanks for the pic austin
DonWest	posted on 05-20-2002 @ 7:39 PM
Psychopath Registered: Feb. 01	If they can make this show a shoot type show with all the wrestlers and ask real genuine questions pertaining to backstage shit and that type of stuff I think it would be a great show, somehow I dont see that happening though. The first one looks interesting with HBK.
Hello! Hello! Diamond Dust! Hello!	posted on 05-26-2002 @ 11:07 AM
Psychopath Registered: Feb. 01	Well, I just saw my tape of the first show, and while it isn't an hour spent on a topic as advertised (it was a few fluff peices like Trish Stratus ripping off Cribs and an update on Lita's injury with the Shawn Michaels story being the main event), it was definitely interesting and finding out Earl Hebner only knew 10 minutes before the match went on what was going to go down and Shawn Michaels FINALLY admitting he was in on it certainly made it worth it. If we're going to get some new info like this to shed a light on such topics EVERY week, then the show might be a success after all. Of course, they've GOT to get it out of that timeslot first, but whatever. 2002 Crack Committee Objectives: 1. 94 Wins and NL East Title by the Mets this year 2. Hate the Braves with a passion 3. All 5 Starters have winning records this year 4. Mets win World Series 5. Boo that piece of shit Rey Ordonez, regardless of his sexuality and/or deadbeat dad status.

Displaying 1-4 of 4 messages in this thread.