Message-ID: 

Wildwood wrote:

> Finally...  Michael  has come back to
> rec.sport.pro-wrestling.moderated...
> 
> 
>>Just out of curiosity, what's worse:
>>
>>- Shane being booked as the apparent tamer of Kane?
>>
>>Or
>>
>>- The booking of Steph over and over in big matches (that may or may not 
>>take place) on Smackdown?
>>
>>The plus in Shane's column is that he's shown more than a simple 
>>willingness to take insane bumps.
>>
>>Can't think of a plus in Steph's column.
>>
>>Michael
> 
> 
> Even though I really, really admire him, I think the Shane/Kane angle
> is much worse.
> 
> No one else can get *any* sustained heat (pun intended ;-) on Kane
> without it starting with a chairshot from behind.  Shane walks right
> up to Kane's face and beats him down, but Stone Cold got chokeslammed
> and RVD got destroyed time after time?  I don;t think so...

Good points.  It's not enough that Shane gets to be the Kane Killer, but 
to start off so strong as well.

> At least Steph *never* wins without heavy outside interference.  Of
> course, that goes to show the big plot hole in all of the Smackdown
> crap...  A-Train, Brock, Big Show and Sable are all Smackdown talent.
> Steph is Smackdown General Manager.  Why does she not fine, suspend,
> or "fire" (even if they only show up on RAW) them for laying hands on
> her?

Maybe because Vince still owns the company and, at least I assume, can 
void any firings or simply rehire them?

> And why do they keep up with the "do what I say or I'll fire you"
> angles?  All that would mean was that the talent would show up on tv
> on Mondays instead of Thursdays...
> 
> WWE *really* needs a storyline continualty editor, where they would be
> on call (live or by phone) to run story ideas by.  You know... someone
> to point out that firing is not a big threat anymore, or that Vince
> needs to publicly announce that he was changing the general managers
> from being autonomous with complete control of their brand (like was
> originally announced) to them having control, subject to his approval.

Actually, I think that's what it's become since Vince started showing up 
on both shows.  Remember that Linda was the one who set up the EB/SCSA 
co-GM thing on RAW some time back, then gave SCSA the "no Stunners 
unless you're provoked" rule.

I think in both cases it's "the GM's can do what they like unless Vince 
or Linda disagree".

Michael


--- Internet Rex 2.29