SEARCH!

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

1752 - Classic Bite Commentary: June 30th, 2002

The second ever Bite commentary I wrote back in 2002. This one covers a bunch of subjects that look silly today, but thanks to my trusty bold and brackety reflections, I can offer some semblance of context here.



Hello, folks. Thanks for taking the time to read my weekly rant session otherwise known as "The Bite." To sum things up, The Bite is my views and opinions on particular points of interest. Whether it will be on general events, movies, comics, wrestling, Power Rangers, or some other stuff, I will put it here and give you my own views.

Some of you may think that The Bite is to discuss things that the majority of people would like to discuss - or that this is one of those places where someone "requests" for my opinion on something of their interest. If the above thoughts are in your head, get them out. I don't take requests on what I write. I'm not writing about general interest. I'm writing about MY interests. If you are not interested in my interests, nobody blames you. That's just you.

(Not enough people go to your site to want to make requests of you, dude... then again, nowadays, I get requests to review certain games. For whatever reason.)

So without further ado, let's get this thing going.

Chris Jericho's Bashing of the Internet Marks
I am browsing through the wrestling webpages and I find this link which contains Chris Jericho's comments about the dirtsheets and critics (or as he calls them, "marks") who gave his match with Rob Van Dam negative reviews. If that was the case, then explain to me why this match was the second most-enjoyed match in the King of the Ring (according to a WWE.com poll on June 26th 2002 - 7:49 AM Eastern Time, for those who want to be technical). Explain to me why I actually enjoyed watching this match... It seems to me lately people are more interested in picking out the bad points of a product (in this case, the WWE) than to be entertained by it. They want to check for low ratings of the product and figure out what's wrong with the product.

(There was a longer version of this segment where I talked a bit more on the subject. I don't recall if I still have it or if I posted it on the blog. It really wouldn't do much because I can't seem to find the original article that this thing was referencing. However, as time progressed, it wouldn't surprise me to think that this aggressive stance Jericho took towards the "internet marks" was his way of working the crowd... even if some of the points he made did have some merit.)

On one of the dirtsheets Tuesday morning, I saw this article agreeing with Chris Jericho's comments. He thought the June 24th episode of Monday Night Raw was one of the best he's seen, despite the low rating. Sounds like this guy's been entertained pretty well. He also says the people who claim that "without big guys like Austin, Rock, or Triple H, WWE is going nowhere" are also the same people who a year ago have said that "WWF (F the Panda) needs to get the limelight off Austin/Rock/HHH, WWF needs to create new stars." These people are contradicting their own words by saying stuff like this now. If you're going to review a card, review both its positive and negative attributes. To claim that the crowd was pretty much dead is a joke. I thought the crowd was into it, especially during the RVD/Jericho and Lesnar/Test matches, both of which I felt were highlights of the card.

(Been years since I last saw the show.)

The ratings do not dictate whether the card was good or bad. It dictates how many people were watching the show with interest. You can have the absolute best quality television program that night and still manage to score a pathetic 2.9. That simply means in order to attract a larger audience, the writers have to do better than what they are providing.

On a side note, though, I didn't think Attack of the Clones was boring. I thought only the love scenes were boring, but the rest of the movie seems to make up for that.

(Attack Of The Clones certainly hasn't aged all that well with me. Maybe the Plinkett reviews had something to do with it, but whenever I try to watch the prequels, I get put off by the constant barrage of CGI and pedestrian performances, whereas I can pop in the original trilogy and still appreciate some of the technical details and the story being told. Yes, the old trilogy had its share of issues, but one thing it never was was BORING, which is something that exemplifies the prequels considerably. I still like watching the prequels, but I don't have that same sense of wonder that I had the original trilogy.)

Best... WORST of Power Rangers
The forth week of Power Rangers Turbo showings aired this morning. Good GOD! They skipped Power Rangers Zeo (the best of the "old-school" Power Rangers - (that's debatable)) for this shit?! If you've read last week's The Bite, you know my reasoning for this move. But now that the soccer episode is gone, could we have gone back to Zeo? Nope, let's continue Turbo because that's the best series... NOT! (God, that is so passe, but it is also 12:10 AM and I'm not thinking straight.)

Who came up with that brilliant move?! We've passed through roughly the three MMPR seasons in a couple of months, but now they're forcing this crap down our necks? I thought this was BEST of Power Rangers! Not the WORST! This was the worst idea to be concocted since Greedo shooting first. I would expect this kind of stupidity from Fox Kids, but not ABC Family. Most definitely NOT ABC Family...

...then again, it IS a Disney company... OW!

(It is a Disney company? What the fuck does that even mean? That bit of stupidity aside, I never understood the logic behind the episodes chosen. It seems like for a segment called Best Of Power Rangers, the episodes seem to be chosen at random, resulting in some episodes that I wouldn't call best being aired as a result.)

Oh, by the way, the Funaroverse website (a Power Rangers web portal that gives PR-related happenings) hasn't been updated since last Sunday as I write this. Nothing great must have happened, but still worth noting.

NWA-TNA Round 2
I caught the second of the new NWA Pay-Per-View weekly series. Although it was good, I can't help but feel unsettled over the inaugural winner of a new title called X. I'm glad AJ Styles won the belt, but... the NWA TNA X Champion? The X Title? Is this a title people are supposed to take seriously? What kind of guy would be proud to be the holder of a championship belt consisting of a big red "X" on the main plate?

(The "X" Division would go on to be a stable in TNA programming and is often considered the highlight of the promotion... when it isn't being booked like complete garbage, that is.)

Star Trek Nemesis
I managed to check out a teaser trailer of Star Trek Nemesis, the tenth in the Star Trek movie series. All I can say is: it's turning out to be better than the other ones. The official site of the movie is http://nemesis.startrek.com. Check it out.

(Nemesis would perform poorly both critically and commercially, prompting and necessitating a changing of the guard to the JJ Abrams crew and their "alternate reality" reboot. I liked Nemesis enough, but do agree that it "lacks" something.)

My thoughts on the Stone cold walkout
Sure this is old news, but I should get it off my chest... three weeks ago, Steve Williams (Stone Cold Steve Austin, for those who don't know) walked out on the WWE because he didn't like the direction his character was going... Mr. Williams feels that he should be winning world titles instead of jobbing to guys like Brock Lesnar (I think that was what the script called for at that time). Mr. Williams feels that his character was going nowhere because he doesn't have the spotlight anymore... Mr. Williams feels as though he has joined the has-beens club... Is there more to this story than meets the eye? Possibly. Does the recent "assault on Debra" thing seem to be connected to Mr. Williams' fall from grace? Perhaps. Do I really give an "F"? Hell no!

You know what this is all about? It's about ego. If you have a problem with the way things are going at work, you talk to your superiors and try to work it out. You DON'T carry your ball and go home, especially when you're expected to work hours later. That's exactly what Steve Williams did. He took his ball and went home. Sure, you do a better job when your spirits are up, but doing what he did is wrong. To Mr. Williams I say this: move aside and let someone get the F'n spotlight. You've held for well over several years and it's time to create new stars and new angles that will carry the wrestling world to the next level. What this business needs now more than ever is to produce new talent that can ensure its very survival in the future. The process is a circle; new talent is spawned, some turn out to be main-eventers, become the talk of the business, and then step down as the cycle begins again. Guys like Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan (okay, bad example), Bret Hart, and other greats stepped aside so guys like Triple H, Steve Austin, and others could get their shot at greatness; now comes that time where those guys must step aside for future superstars to earn their place in the history books.

(For someone who didn't give an "F", you sure had a lot to say... Steve Austin would return to WWE in 2003 and tell his side of the story; that being he didn't have a problem losing to Brock Lesnar if the match was made into a big deal. It wasn't, and Austin disagreed and walked out. The way he dealt with the situation was wrong - he's admitted that much - but after reading that bit, I could hardly place fault on him for wanting out.)

That's pretty much it for this week. I'm certainly glad I got to get that off my chest. Next week's piece might not contain much stuff, but who knows? Till then, take care...

DTM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep it real and keep it clean.