Falcon and Teran Show Ep 3! Oh mah Gawd it's Wrasslemania!

Falconv1.0 · Apr 2, 2012

Link to original post: [drupal=5111]Falcon and Teran Show Ep 3! Oh mah Gawd it's Wrasslemania![/drupal]

Oh hey, hi, hello, how's it going. Didn't see you there I was just uh...not working out.

Falcon and Teran talk Wrasslemania! Or is it..Falcon and Hulk or...Brad and the Hulk wait no it's Brad and Cyr-wait.

Stream should be up eventually so if you're that ****ing lazy, well YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT, SON.

IZ WRASSLEMANIA BABY. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-eh.

Any of these dl links should work. Or not. **** you.

http://www.mediafire.com/?t1sk5wole73h4t0

Flacon and Trean suk lol noob.mp3 - 63.9 MB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BodwpgvTHjg&feature=youtu.be

Edit-BTW I SAID ****. THEN TERAN SAID ****. IT WAS AWFUL BE SCARED.

Teran · Apr 2, 2012

Oh yeah obligatory strong language alert etc etc.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 2, 2012

Stream is up!

Also I love how I start out the thing by drowning out Teran because I'm an ***. YOU JUST WEREN'T READY, BRO.

Mota · Apr 2, 2012

Been waiting for this

Shall listen as soon as work is finished.

Teran · Apr 3, 2012

If you don't like wrestling you won't enjoy or have a clue what's going on, btw.

Just a general heads up.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 3, 2012

If it makes you feel better, we'll hopefully be doing another show soon-ish about uh...other stuff!

Teran · Apr 3, 2012

No we won't we'll be doing it about Raw snd BASED CROWD.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 3, 2012

NOT IF I KILL YOU FIRST, DUDEJACK.

Also we could do like a mix of ****.

Budget Player Cadet_ · Apr 3, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuHrXMwnSXs

Melomaniacal · Apr 3, 2012

Do people actually like wrestling?
I ask out of ignorance.

To clarify, I mean this as in... do people like wrestling non-ironically. Do people actually enjoy it for what it is, or is it part of the joke to pretend to like it?

Teran · Apr 3, 2012

No it exists by making a net loss in revenue every year and having people travel on the road for like 300 days a year letting their bodies take a pounding in empty arenas.

They are also on TV stations all across the world just because network providers like to put unpopular things on TV to irritate their customers.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 3, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
Do people actually like wrestling?
I ask out of ignorance.

No, the 78,000 people who attended Wrestlemania don't exist.

And obv me and Teran love it because we're not people. We're actually a species of fish.

Yes, we're all hipsters, we're super ironic. Sure. That's why we're sarcastic the entire show.

NO. WE DON'T LIKE IT IRONICALLY. IT'S JUST ENTERTAINING. FACK.

Melomaniacal · Apr 3, 2012

Hulk Hogan said:
No it exists by making a net loss in revenue every year and having people travel on the road for like 300 days a year letting their bodies take a pounding in empty arenas.

They are also on TV stations all across the world just because network providers like to put unpopular things on TV to irritate their customers.

It wouldn't be the first time that something gets famous and makes money because of people who actually don't like it. Case in point: Rebecca Black.
People like **** ironically all the time as a joke. Nyan cat.

Falconv1.0 said:
No, the 78,000 people who attended Wrestlemania don't exist.

And obv me and Teran love it because we're not people. We're actually a species of fish.

Yes, we're all hipsters, we're super ironic. Sure. That's why we're sarcastic the entire show.

NO. WE DON'T LIKE IT IRONICALLY. IT'S JUST ENTERTAINING. FACK.

lolfish

Anyway, it has nothing to do with being "hipsters." I'm just genuinely curious. I watched all of five minutes of wrestling in my life, didn't get it, and dismissed it. Every single person I have ever come in personal contact with thinks wrestling is hilarious because it is awful. I have just never found someone who likes wrestling in seriousness. I guess I've heard of people liking it, but that barely counts for anything.

I'm not judging, I'm just confused. Wrestling is something I have never understood.

So you two can put the boners away and relax.

Teran · Apr 3, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
It wouldn't be the first time that something gets famous and makes money because of people who actually don't like it. Case in point: Rebecca Black.
People like **** ironically all the time as a joke. Nyan cat.

Wrestling has been around for like a century, and has evolved all over the years and s a global phenomenon of an industry. Sure a person can be a flash in the pan as a joke, but an industry does not work like that.

Anyway, it has nothing to do with being "hipsters." I'm just genuinely curious. I watched all of five minutes of wrestling in my life, didn't get it, and dismissed it. Every single person I have ever come in personal contact with thinks wrestling is hilarious because it is awful. I have just never found someone who likes wrestling in seriousness. I guess I've heard of people liking it, but that barely counts for anything.

I'm not judging, I'm just confused. Wrestling is something I have never understood.

So you two can put the boners away and relax.

I just think it was silly to ask if something was popular when it's an industry. Do people actually listen to music?

Falconv1.0 · Apr 3, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
Anyway, it has nothing to do with being "hipsters." I'm just genuinely curious. I watched all of five minutes of wrestling in my life, didn't get it, and dismissed it. Every single person I have ever come in personal contact with thinks wrestling is hilarious because it is awful. I have just never found someone who likes wrestling in seriousness. I guess I've heard of people liking it, but that barely counts for anything.

I'm not judging, I'm just confused. Wrestling is something I have never understood.

So you two can put the boners away and relax.

I never put my boner away.

And that's why I'm typing this message in jail

Anyway, I used to think it was ******** tbh. Then ****ING ******* TERAN had to ruin that and showed me clips of CM Punk and R Truf being just...amazing and I was like YOU KNOW WHAT **** I'LL WATCH A STREAM WITH YOU. Then I was hooked.

Teran · Apr 3, 2012

When you get over the whole stupid "LOLITSFAKE" mentality a lot of people have you get to appreciate it for what it really is.

A fictional sport environment with larger than life characters and over the top entertainment. You don't get extravagant pyro, ridiculous storylines, crazy characters, and insane crowds and chants in stuff like MMA or any sport, for that matter.

If it doesn't tickle your fancy that's cool, but it's a very nuanced and intricately crafted product that takes great skill to pull together and it's kinda sad how people just **** on it by saying LOLFAKE when there are people dead or paralysed in wheelchairs because of it.

Melomaniacal · Apr 3, 2012

Hulk Hogan said:
Wrestling has been around for like a century, and has evolved all over the years and s a global phenomenon of an industry. Sure a person can be a flash in the pan as a joke, but an industry does not work like that.

I just think it was silly to ask if something was popular when it's an industry. Do people actually listen to music?

This is where "I ask out of ignorance" comes into play. I have honestly no clue what makes wrestling an industry, and I have a very poor conception of how popular it is.

I have no idea how it's comparable to music... at all. Wrestling has... like, WWE, right? So they do their wrestling thing on TV, they have toys and other merchandise all relating to the wrestling you see on TV with the same actors, etc. "Music" isn't so much an industry as an art form that takes many forms. I guess things like record companies and other business aspects make it more of an industry, but I hardly see how they are comparable. You either like wrestling or you don't. You don't really dislike music (though I have met some who would say they do). You dislike genres, artists, labels, whatever.

I do get the whole "just because it's fake doesn't mean you can't enjoy it" thing, you don't need to really explain that. Though I'm fairly sure that any serious injuries caused in wrestling was due to mistakes in choreography, not because it's meant to be actually dangerous.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 3, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
"Music" isn't so much an industry as an art form that takes many forms. I guess things like record companies and other business aspects make it more of an industry, but I hardly see how they are comparable. .

You don't think there's a music industry because music is an art? Not trying to strawman seriously that's the impression I got there.

BECAUSE THERE IS MOST DEFINITELY A MUSIC INDUSTRY, SON.

Melomaniacal · Apr 3, 2012

Falconv1.0 said:
You don't think there's a music industry because music is an art? Not trying to strawman seriously that's the impression I got there.

BECAUSE THERE IS MOST DEFINITELY A MUSIC INDUSTRY, SON.

I was mostly arguing semantics. I would argue that "music" and the "music industry" are two different things. Not important, I understand what you mean when you refer to music as an industry.

Teran · Apr 3, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
This is where "I ask out of ignorance" comes into play. I have honestly no clue what makes wrestling an industry, and I have a very poor conception of how popular it is.

I have no idea how it's comparable to music... at all. Wrestling has... like, WWE, right? So they do their wrestling thing on TV, they have toys and other merchandise all relating to the wrestling you see on TV with the same actors, etc. "Music" isn't so much an industry as an art form that takes many forms. I guess things like record companies and other business aspects make it more of an industry, but I hardly see how they are comparable. You either like wrestling or you don't. You don't really dislike music (though I have met some who would say they do). You dislike genres, artists, labels, whatever.

Well there are promotions like TNA and Ring of Honor too. There used to a whole load of wrestling promotions across America but Vince McMahon of WWE (then WWF) decided he wanted to compete on a national level and drove a lot of territories out of business. There was a big competitior in WCW in the 90s and the alternative ECW with its gratuitous violence, but Vince bought them both out in 2001 thus gaining a monopoly on professional wrestling.

Wrestling now has several products depending on which promotion you follow, but WWE is the only real major promotion, the rest are pretty much independent, TNA is kind of a joke.

I do get the whole "just because it's fake doesn't mean you can't enjoy it" thing, you don't need to really explain that. Though I'm fairly sure that any serious injuries caused in wrestling was due to mistakes in choreography, not because it's meant to be actually dangerous.

Not necessarily. Hulk Hogan has had 8 back surgeries because stuff like his signature move, the atomic leg drop, have him leaping high in the air legs extended and landing flat on his backside, sending shockwaves up his spine. They are trained to fall safely, but ultimately being dropped on your back and *** every day for years and years does not do wonders for your body, you still get beat the hell up.

But yeah, botched moves usually have the worst endings, obviously.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 3, 2012

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-pro-wrestlers-are-best-actors-in-world/

Stuff.

Also, penis.

Dre89 · Apr 5, 2012

But Hulk Hogan is one of the worst wrestlers I've ever seen on TV. So many wrestlers have shot on him (not sure if I'm supposed to say it like that) too.

There are people like HHH and Austin who I think were competent but not particularly talented, but were marketable. But to me Hogan was outright awful. MVP is probably the only guy to make it onto a mainstream promotion who I think is comparable in terms of lack of wrestling ability. He's even worse than Golberg to me.

The problem with TNA is that it's basically just a smaller WWE. That's why it's kind of a joke. It doesn't really do anything different, except for the fact that the women's division is better.

I sometimes wonder though how successful a promotion would be if it was aimed at the attitude deomographic and based on talent instead of marketability. So they cut the mic time and fueds down, and focused more on talented wrestling. It could probably at least compete with WWE.

Also, everyone talks about Bret Hart being one of the greatest of all time, but I've never personally seen it. I was wondering if someone could explain what all the fuss is about. I'm guessing his family probably innovated alot of stuff that's mainstream today.

Melomaniacal · Apr 5, 2012

This talk of "talent" also confuses me. Isn't it all choreographed, with the winner decided before the match? So what role does talent play, other then the talent they needed to just get the job in the first place?

Teran · Apr 5, 2012

Dre. said:
But Hulk Hogan is one of the worst wrestlers I've ever seen on TV. So many wrestlers have shot on him (not sure if I'm supposed to say it like that) too.

That's because you only saw his American repertoire, the way he performed in the WWF was completely different. All they wanted was brothers, wide eyes, a cup of the ear, and a legdrop.

In Japan he was much more mat based. It is in fact true that Hogan was never a wrestling masterclass, but wrestling is a personality based industry, and Hogan had the look and the charisma to draw fans in.

Also I think it's how you keep referencing Hulk Hogan being terrible and overrated in some sort of vain attempt at trolling me, when in fact, the whole point of the Hulk Hogan gimmick I'm sporting is to poke fun at him.

I haven't really said anything about it up until now because watching people constantly verbally berate Hogan just because I go somewhere and make a silly all caps post is ****ing hilarious and cannot be topped.

Oh **** broke kayfabe brother.

There are people like HHH and Austin who I think were competent but not particularly talented,

Stop right there. HHH may not have been Bret Hart but he was pretty good. Austin was amazing in ring up until his neck got broken by Owen Hart's botched piledriver. He was originally packaged and brought in with the lame "Ringmaster" gimmick PRECISELY because Vince McMahon thought he didn't have charisma and DIDN'T want him to talk, but rather show off his top tier wrestling ability.

but were marketable. But to me Hogan was outright awful. MVP is probably the only guy to make it onto a mainstream promotion who I think is comparable in terms of lack of wrestling ability. He's even worse than Golberg to me.

MVP

Less technically gifted than guys like Batista, Mason Ryan, and Ezekiel Jackson.

Okay

The problem with TNA is that it's basically just a smaller WWE. That's why it's kind of a joke. It doesn't really do anything different, except for the fact that the women's division is better.

No the problem with TNA is that it's WCW 2.0 where they just saturate the roster with old and washed up ex WWE stars instead of building and pushing their own young talent to the top.

I sometimes wonder though how successful a promotion would be if it was aimed at the attitude deomographic and based on talent instead of marketability. So they cut the mic time and fueds down, and focused more on talented wrestling. It could probably at least compete with WWE.

>Attitude Demographic
>Interested in the in ring product

Really now? Attitude was nothing but gratuitous chairshots, bleeding, half naked ladies, swearing, and crazy bull****. I loved that era, I grew up in that era, but to say that it was so popular because of its superior wrestling product is silly.

WCW's cruiserweight division and even ECW probably offered better wrestling products.

Also, everyone talks about Bret Hart being one of the greatest of all time, but I've never personally seen it. I was wondering if someone could explain what all the fuss is about. I'm guessing his family probably innovated alot of stuff that's mainstream today.

Bret is one of them. It's because of his technical prowess in the ring. Also Bret Hart was an extremely safe worker, nobody who ever stepped in the ring with Bret was injured by him, which is actually no small feat.

Wrestling isn't about 50 scoop slams and **** like that, it's about mat based grappling and the ability to seamlessly flow between moves/spots. It's hard to really describe, but basically, if you don't understand why Bret Hart is one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, then you really have no ****ing right to even consider your opinion remotely valid.

Melomaniacal said:
This talk of "talent" also confuses me. Isn't it all choreographed, with the winner decided before the match? So what role does talent play, other then the talent they needed to just get the job in the first place?

Some people are more entertaining to watch than others. Basically your wrestling talent can be broken down into different categories

Pure wrestling talent - your in ring ability, that is to perform and sell a plethora of moves convincingly and with great fluidity and ease. The ability to work with anyone and everyone of different sizes and styles and get a good match out of them.

Charisma - no explanation required

Slamming 700lb giants - THAT'S WHAT MAKES YOU READY BROTHER

Dre89 · Apr 5, 2012

I only mentioned Hulk because he was brought up before.

The thing is what most people consider technical wrestling is just doing suplexes, which to me is more of a gimmick or angle than ability.

What I meant by attitude era is the age of those people. They're around our age. A more cruiserweight style aimed at our age would be really interesting I think.

The reason I ask about Hart is because I haven't seen much of him. All I ever saw from Austin was punches and strikes and his signature moves.

HHH to me was just a slow average wrestler who didn't sell moves that well.

MVP botched moves more than anyone else. At least the other guys had size, which actually genuinely matters in the ring unlike markebility.

Teran · Apr 5, 2012

Dre. said:
I only mentioned Hulk because he was brought up before.

The thing is what most people consider technical wrestling is just doing suplexes, which to me is more of a gimmick or angle than ability.

Actually suplexes aren't necessarily a sign of ability, big guys can do suplexes because they are strong, but they can't fluidly reverse moves, perform a bunch of realistic submissions etc.

Also performing stuff like german suplexes and stuff with great control takes skill, grapple based wrestling takes great skill.

What I meant by attitude era is the age of those people. They're around our age. A more cruiserweight style aimed at our age would be really interesting I think.

THOSE CRUISERWEIGHTS CAN CRUISER-WAIT, BROTHER!

The reason I ask about Hart is because I haven't seen much of him. All I ever saw from Austin was punches and strikes and his signature moves.

Well Youtube has some Bret Hart stuff I'm sure.

You probably saw most of Austin's stuff post neck injury, which eventually retired him a couple years later. Also like I said with Hogan, WWE basically limits you to strikes and signature moves. Everyone's repertoire is VERY limited, it's part of the WWE style.

HHH to me was just a slow average wrestler who didn't sell moves that well.

Triple H never really was the best of the best. As much as I hate saying this because I do believe HHH got to where he was on his own merits, you have to believe being married to Stephanie didn't exactly hurt. I mean, in terms of the way WWE hypes his legacy. Still HHH vs Rock in 2000 was some awesome stuff, and no it wasn't just The Rock carrying that feud, it takes two to tango.

MVP botched moves more than anyone else. At least the other guys had size, which actually genuinely matters in the ring unlike markebility.

Marketability exists because there is something to market. Size doesn't matter in ring, in fact immense size hinders in ring ability 9 times out of 10. Huge muscular guys are usually less athletic, really heavy (thus hard to lift), pretty ****ing clumsy etc. In fact size is only really sort after because of its marketability. Vince loves those chiseled, roided, tanned guys rather than a 200lb no six pack wrestling machine. With Austin and Triple H their personalities took them to where they were, but if they were unable to actually get the crowd on edge while wrestling, they wouldn't have been able to get to where they are. That is a skill in and of itself that's arguably the most important, being able to get the fans EXCITED when you wrestle.

Hogan just cupped his ear and did a leg drop, that's true. You know what?

The crowd went nuts for it, and to be fair to him, I doubt anyone could do what he does and actually get the same reaction.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 5, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
This talk of "talent" also confuses me. Isn't it all choreographed, with the winner decided before the match? So what role does talent play, other then the talent they needed to just get the job in the first place?

It's acting that also requires pretty awesome athletic ability. I'm seriously starting to question your abilities to deduce here. It's a live show where you need to be able to present an interesting character while having the ability to suplex mother****ers and look like a boss doing it.

Also the way I understand it, they don't exactly plan out the entire match, just the ending, or maybe it varies, ASK THE HULK, DUDEJACK.

You know everything in movies is planned out, I guess you don't need talent to act in one right?

Melomaniacal · Apr 5, 2012

Falconv1.0 said:
It's acting that also requires pretty awesome athletic ability. I'm seriously starting to question your abilities to deduce here. It's a live show where you need to be able to present an interesting character while having the ability to suplex mother****ers and look like a boss doing it.

Also the way I understand it, they don't exactly plan out the entire match, just the ending, or maybe it varies, ASK THE HULK, DUDEJACK.

You know everything in movies is planned out, I guess you don't need talent to act in one right?

It's a live show that is choreographed and heavily rehersed where each party has already been tested and trained to be at a similar level for performance. Very different. Acting talent, sure. Charisma? Eh... they script a lot of it, so while it does matter, that's a little shaky.

No need to doubt my ability to deduce, and no need to get hostile.

Arbuckle · Apr 5, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
No need to doubt my ability to deduce, and no need to get hostile.

Hostile?! I'll show you hostile!

Falconv1.0 · Apr 5, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
It's a live show that is choreographed and heavily rehersed where each party has already been tested and trained to be at a similar level for performance. Very different. Acting talent, sure. Charisma? Eh... they script a lot of it, so while it does matter, that's a little shaky.

No need to doubt my ability to deduce, and no need to get hostile.

I'm not getting hostile I'm just an awful human being.

And you're completely wrong if you think it's all just rehearsed and told exactly how to talk. Not to mention some of them are just boring as **** to watch like the Big Show who has like zero exciting moves and terrible mic skills while guys like Daniel Bryan make crowds go ****ing wild. Also I like how you seemed to miss the point of the whole movie acting comparison completely. You say you're ignorant to it so me and Teran explain it then you weigh in again as if you know something. The charisma bit is not an "eh", the **** are you even...what?

See now I am getting hostile because now you're apparently trying to flat out refute what we're saying without knowing anything about it.

Melomaniacal · Apr 5, 2012

Falconv1.0 said:
I'm not getting hostile I'm just an awful human being.

And you're completely wrong if you think it's all just rehearsed and told exactly how to talk. Not to mention some of them are just boring as **** to watch like the Big Show who has like zero exciting moves and terrible mic skills while guys like Daniel Bryan make crowds go ****ing wild.

I'm sure there's a level of improvisation, I just like it's less talent that's making one performer more successful than another, and more the accessibility and desirability of the character they made. If The Rock's character was, I don't know, a slob, his talent, charisma, acting ability, etc., wouldn't save him and he wouldn't be so well liked and successful.

This also addresses your actor comparison. In cinema, actors play multiple roles and they are respected because of their ability to perform well in many roles, generally. People don't fall for the character, they fall for the actor's ability to perform the characters. In wrestling, it is completely different. People fall for the character. Hell, the actors never leave character anyway. The accessibility of the character is what's important. Your comparison is just bad. Actors earn respect over many roles and dynamics. Wrestlers play one role, people either like that role or they don't, and the show gets adjusted by that.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 5, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
I'm sure there's a level of improvisation, I just like it's less talent that's making one performer more successful than another, and more the accessibility and desirability of the character they made. If The Rock's character was, I don't know, a slob, his talent, charisma, acting ability, etc., wouldn't save him and he wouldn't be so well liked and successful

Melomaniacal, explain the difference between this and a movie character right now. Does anyone dispute that it takes talent to act in a good movie.

Yeah. Uhuh.

But just to help you get it a little better, look at the Big Show, who barely gets crowds going compared to Bryan who gets people riled the **** up even though his character is a huge douche bag. They had him lose in the stupidest way to Sheamus, a boring good guy who the writers clearly want to be a fan favorite and the fans still kept cheering Bryan's name and during the dark match on Raw there was pretty much nothing but YES! YES! YES! (he yells that a lot after wins n ****) for him.

But no you're right it's rehearsed thus takes less talent than any other form of acting...or something. Because that's how things work in Melomaniacal land.

Edit-Oh you think people just fall for the character in wrestling, not their ability to play the character? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. SURE.

Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises · Apr 5, 2012

Jesus Lord, I hate SWF sometimes.

This is ****ing Wrasslemania, not the goddamn MassDebate Hall.

The Nameless Wanderer · Apr 5, 2012

The whole " people liking only the character" is false and just generalization. I also lol at the fact that you said the characters never leave their character which shows lack of information. Just want to say you shouldn't call someone's comparison bad if you don't even know what you're talking about.

Melomaniacal · Apr 5, 2012

Falconv1.0 said:
Melomaniacal, explain the difference between this and a movie character right now. Does anyone dispute that it takes talent to act in a good movie.

Yeah. Uhuh.

But just to help you get it a little better, look at the Big Show, who barely gets crowds going compared to Bryan who gets people riled the **** up even though his character is a huge douche bag. They had him lose in the stupidest way to Sheamus, a boring good guy who the writers clearly want to be a fan favorite and the fans still kept cheering Bryan's name and during the dark match on Raw there was pretty much nothing but YES! YES! YES! (he yells that a lot after wins n ****) for him.

But no you're right it's rehearsed thus takes less talent than any other form of acting...or something. Because that's how things work in Melomaniacal land.

Edit-Oh you think people just fall for the character in wrestling, not their ability to play the character? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. SURE.

Look, being hostile isn't making your points any better, and you aren't going to get a rise out of me, so just ease up. I'm not looking to get anyone upset, so if your intention is to continue like this, I really don't care enough to continue.

The Nameless Wanderer said:
The whole " people liking only the character" is false and just generalization. I also lol at the fact that you said the characters never leave their character which shows lack of information. Just want to say you shouldn't call someone's comparison bad if you don't even know what you're talking about.

All I'm saying is that if The Rock's character was a cross-dresser, I really, really doubt he would be as well-liked. I'm not saying there's no talent, or any less talent then in cinema, just that it works differently. The character built is every bit as important, maybe (in my opinion) a bit more important, than how well the performer... acts. I guess I'm just not so sure that The Rock's (I have no clue what his real name is, and I will continue to use him as an example) character couldn't have been performed successfully by at least several other wrestlers/actors/whatever. If you disagree, that's fine. Just ease up, haha, it's really not that big of a deal that I disagree.

Also:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-pro-wrestlers-are-best-actors-in-world/
I don't know, seems to me that they never leave character.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 5, 2012

If the performer can't play the character though, it's still ****. The Rock was not always the way he is now, he's had very different roles over the years but he was always GOOD AT IT. YOU KNOW, KINDA LIKE SOMETIMES ACTORS PLAY A BAD GUY IN ONE MOVIE AND A GOOD GUY IN THE NEXT, AND THE TALENTED ONES ARE PRAISED FOR THEIR TALENT. The only people who only appreciate the character and not the skill behind it are idiots who like ****s like John Cena. >:[

So **** about it.

Also the cracked article goes into how they keep a certain thing going, that doesn't mean the character never changes bro, because, you know, people change over the years. Fun fact, Sheamus used to be a heel, now he's a boring good guy and he sucks I don't like him and eh.

BWAAAAWGH KIK 18 SECOND VICTORY WHY IS EVERYONE CHEERING DANIEL BRYAN THO I DUN GET IT.

Melomaniacal · Apr 5, 2012

As i said, I really don't care to continue this if you're going to carry on like that. We obviously just wont go anywhere, and I'm not looking to waste your or my time. So... uh... congratulations. You win. Now I love wrestling.

Falconv1.0 · Apr 5, 2012

See I wasn't trying to convince you to love it. I was telling you why you were flat out wrong about certain things, like **** that has nothing to do with whether or not it's really good.

Also that last post from me included zero jabs at you, but yeah keep trying to play the "better man" role while you continue to be flat out wrong and continue to not actually address the fairly specific examples I've mentioned.

Melomaniacal · Apr 5, 2012

Falconv1.0 said:
See I wasn't trying to convince you to love it. I was telling you why you were flat out wrong about certain things, like **** that has nothing to do with whether or not it's really good.

Also that last post from me included zero jabs at you, but yeah keep trying to play the "better man" role while you continue to be flat out wrong and continue to not actually address the fairly specific examples I've mentioned.

It has nothing to do with taking personal jabs at me, it's just the way you carry yourself. It's not like I'm offended or anything, don't worry about that. It's just clear that we aren't going to go anywhere, and frankly you're just a little annoying to talk to, so I wont waste our time. The reward (which, really, there is none) isn't worth the effort. Nothing to do with being the "better man," it's just a waste of time and you know it. I've addressed what I wanted to address, I feel that my points still stand and you haven't done enough to refute any of them (you kinda just... said the opposite of what I said while being annoyingly sarcastic and mildly condescending. For real, if The Rock's character was a cross-dresser, would his acting save him? Hypothetical question, you don't need to answer), and it's not going to get any further than that. I feel the way I do, you feel the way you do, end of story. This isn't a formal debate. There isn't actually a winner (lolilied). Relax and drop it, you're making it into a bigger thing than it is. I'm not trying to stop you from enjoying what you enjoy, and I'm not judging the industry or its fans. So, it is what it is, we have different views and that's that. I'm only saying this because it is absolutely abundantly clear that we will not get any further in this discussion. So, again... done, haha.

Teran · Apr 5, 2012

Melomaniacal said:
It's a live show that is choreographed and heavily rehersed

Choreographed obviously, rehearsed not for the most part.

Most matches are called on the fly, wrestlers don't have time to rehearse their matches because they're on the road most of the time.

Falcon and Teran Show Ep 3! Oh mah Gawd it's Wrasslemania!

Smash Master

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Smash Master

"The snake, knowing itself, strikes swiftly"

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Smash Master

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Smash Master

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Champion

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Smash Hero

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Rookie

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Through Fire, Justice is Served

Information

Network