Skip to main content

QOTD - June 24th, 2013

Greetings all. After seeing the disappointing Man of Steel, I needed to cleanse my pallet, so I finally saw Richard Donner's cut of Superman II. Man, that's one of the greatest super hero films of all time. Fantastic stuff. Plus, there's no ridiculous Superkiss, making the film that much better alone. Anyway, on to the QOTD...

Today we have a question from a returning Gavin Lee.

"If WM30 is indeed going down the route of UT/Cena would that be a good time for the deadman to hang it up? They could even do a angle like if cena beats him the streak is over but UT beats cena his career is over. So that would be an awesome dilemma either take a loss and still have a career or keep the streak intact and retire. Also there has been discussion on the blog lately about the merits of mark Henry going in the HOF would Kane be a better inclusion?"
 

Oh, definitely. This should absolutely be Undertaker's last match. I think that should not only the streak be over, but 'Taker should have to retire. However, there has to be something else for Cena other than retire, because you know there's no way that Cena would retire. So, perhaps something like Cena couldn't challenge for the WWE title for a year. Either way, it'd be a hell of a match.

Kane definitely deserves HOF induction. He's been around for over 15 years, wrestled every name in the business, and been involved in some pretty big angles. Plus, he's been an absolute class act, and I've never heard a bad word spoken about the guy. Hell, he should get the inclusion for having to wrestle as a dentist with bad teeth, and a fake Kevin Nash.

How say you?

Comments

  1. Henry and Kane are both deserving Hall of Famers. Not headliners in either case (Unless BoD/Bearer would go in together for whatever reason), but solid additions to any class.


    And I'd love to see WWE run Cena ending the Streak in N.O. It would help tell me how soon I should move far far away from here, depending on the reaction both that night and at the following Raw.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AmericanWolves02June 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM

    I just watched the Richard Donner Superman 2 and I thought it was pretty mediocre. I think Man of Steel is easily the best Superman movie. Maybe it's just because I just saw it. The music was great and Reeve was a great Superman.

    Kane is a definite Hall of Famer. Easy.

    Henry is a little iffy but I think the last five years have been enough to induct him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. YankeesHoganTripleHFanJune 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM

    Why exactly should The Undertaker retire anyway. He has had the best match at the last 5 wrestlemania's, (6 if you think Taker/Edge was better then HBK/Flair) the crowd is always pumped to see him and he doesn't wrestle that much anyway.
    I can say that I am one of the few out there that doesn't really like or hate Cena but having said that I will be rooting SO FUCKING HARD for the Undertaker to beat him at Mania. I am pretty much in the camp of people wanting to see the streak continue.
    Kane might not be a first ballot hall of famer but he gets in after a few tries.

    ReplyDelete
  4. YankeesHoganTripleHFanJune 25, 2013 at 9:38 AM

    They might burn the stadium down displacing the Saints yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Caliber_VoorheesJune 25, 2013 at 9:52 AM

    How on Earth could MOS be the best Superman film? It's an alien invader movie that takes itself DEALTHY serious. So serious that they can't even call him Superman. That's pathetic. The bad-guys have zero charisma, zero character, and are completely interchangeable. They're beyond boring. Then we have Superman, who apparently loves these people, but has no problem doing battle down-town and destroying EVERYTHING. I mean, Zod throws a gas-truck at Superman, and what's he do? Does he simply stop it to avoid further destruction and possible death? Nope. He jumps over it and lets it crash into the building behind him, causing it to blow up and collapse the building.

    In 20 years, this film will not be looked upon like the Superman films from the 70's & 80's. There's nothing iconic about this film.

    Nolan once again has to come and be completely serious, and set everything in absolute reality, and we have to have an explanation for EVERYTHING. I don't care about how Superman dealt with his powers as a kid. He just did. Then we really have to have Zod and crew unable to deal with this Earth's atmosphere? Yawn.



    Also, this film shows just how stupid Batman's inclusion in JLA is. What would he have done in either of the big battles from the film? He would have been destroyed in a nano-second.



    Terrance Stamp, Gene Hackman, and Christopher Reeve all give some of the greatest performances in film history, and those characters alone trump the entire film of MOS.



    Superman without the John Williams score is simply not Superman.

    But if you dug it, that's awesome. Because I'd much rather enjoy something than hate it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Until they actually build a HOF museum, induction in said thing is probably one of the stupidest awards in aaaaaaalllll of entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There's a charm in the Reeve movies that's seriously missing from MOS. I liked the plot in MOS more than the 78 movie, but Reeve made watching the movie fun. That's one reason why I don't look at MOS that highly.


    Kane if a HOFer, easily. Henry? Doubtful, but if Koko can make it despite being the wrestling equivalent of the Houston Astros, Henry should be put in.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think as a wrestler, or a wrestling personality, it would be an honor. I mean, it's not about being put into the hall, but it's more about having that night, and that moment to celebrate your contributions to the wrestling business. So the fans and your peers can really let you know you're appreciated.

    I mean, just because the Baseball HOF has a physical building that makes it better? It's just a building.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Although a matchup against Cena at WMXXX would be very compelling, if that's Undertaker's last match (which is doubtful in and of itself), there's NO way Undertaker goes out 21-1. NONE.

    Forget it.

    Not gonna happen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's a building you can visit as a fan and read about all your favorite athletes, watch old highlights, see memorabilia, etc. Yes, that simple fact makes it a million times better.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why should taker retire? He's looked fine this year. I don't see why he couldn't work till wm35. Also why is ut vs cena set in stone. Wwe loves rematches, especially with taker at mania. My money would be on a punk vs taker rematch

    ReplyDelete
  12. davidbonzaisaldanamontgomeryJune 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM

    The Donner cut still feels like it was cobbled together; Cellophane "S" aside, I still think the Lester version is still the best Superman film.


    COME TO ME, SON OF JOR-EL! KNEEEEEEEEEEL BEFORE ZOD!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Snootchy bootchies haha!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Would defo add some intrigue to the match if there was another stipulation

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm with ya on Man of Steel. I enjoyed Cavill as the lead, and Michael Shannon is always awesome when he's angry. Thought the movie was a blast. Don't get me wrong...I LOVE Superman II. But I enjoyed MOS even more.

    ReplyDelete
  16. One of my friends suggested that Man of Steel was the first step in getting a Justice League movie together. I think he's also still waiting for reports on Hulk Hogan's condition after losing the title to Yokozuna.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd love to see a promo where some new guy (or CM Punk) talks about how he *doesn't* want the career of The Undertaker, he wants his Pride. Beating him at Wrestlemania means that Taker is no longer a legend, and like so many wrestlers before him, he'll trot out, do his song and dance, collect a paycheck, and disappear for a few months.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If they put that into TItan Towers ala Patriot Place I would be there TOMORROW.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pro-tip, when a big name is attached to something as a 'Producer' as Nolan was, he probably had very little to do with the actual film.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AmericanWolves02June 25, 2013 at 1:45 PM

    I honestly don't even like the Superman character but I decided to watch this movie with my dad because he's a huge Superman fan.

    Sure I had certain issues with the movie. My issues can be summed up in one short scene. Superman is knocked into a crowded iHop full of innocent people and decides to engage in super human battle right there inside the iHop instead of leaving. Basically Earth would have been better off had Kal-El never come to Earth.

    But honestly? The old Superman movies were just too corn-bally and cheesy for me. Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor just didn't seem threatening at all to me. He doesn't need to be deathly serious but he seemed like a parody of a villain.

    The score was great in the old movies and I thought Reeve did a better job mixing the charm and obviously caring about the people around him, so in that sense the older movies were probably more faithful to the character. But since I don't like the character and know very little about his history or mythology, those aspects didn't anger me. I found myself cringing a lot at the cheesiness of the old Superman movies a great deal, while I found myself enjoying Man of Steel for the most part.

    I thought Michael Shannon was great as Zod too.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AmericanWolves02June 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM

    I figured they just added Nolan's name to get people intrigued. Silly as it may seem I've seen more than a few people decide to give MOS a chance simply because "the guy who did Batman" has his name attached.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Does the WWE hall of fame even have ballots?

    Taker should retire b/c eventually he'll be too old to pull himself together for one great match a year.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't think it's an either / or situation. Luthor's characterization was the glaring weak spot of the Reeve movies; the intervening years have proven that the LexCorp approach is an infinitely better choice for the direction to take Lex.

    But Man of Steel... man, I know they wanted to show that Superman was "learning" when he was more focused on stopping Zod than saving lives, but... that's just not Superman. He's supposed to have that belief that his job is to protect everyone from moment one.


    It worked for Batman in Begins when he let Ra's die - Bruce learned his lesson and saved Joker the next time out. But this is just SO MUCH WORSE.

    ReplyDelete
  24. As a diehard and obsessive basketball fanatic, I kind of wish the basketball hall of fame didn't exist as a physical building. It's a travesty.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yeah, it's a bit of an unfair comparison. I don't like Lester's goofball humour in the battle sequences, though. It just feels so out of place, and bogs down the movie.



    In Superman III, everything's more in-context... that one has actually held up better than I'd remembered.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think Henry depends on what the baseline for induction is. If we're going with Koko B. Ware then, as a former HWC, Henry deserves in. If they're going to try and up the stakes, then no he doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Slow clap for this. Not quite as good as the takedown of the film on io9, and you don't even mention the ludicrousness of the plot that much, but I agree with most everything you said.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nah, the WM crowds aren't smarky enough. The burning would be on Raw the next night. Not sure how they'd get past major FCC fines with 3 hours of "FUCK YOU CENA" chants clearly audible.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Nolan once again has to come and be completely serious, and set
    everything in absolute reality, and we have to have an explanation for
    EVERYTHING. I don't care about how Superman dealt with his powers as a
    kid. He just did."


    There's a lot of REALLY good material in this type of thing - read Mark Waid's Birthright, for instance, or even Byrne's Man of Steel series.


    I've got no problems with explaining things, since that's part of the fun of science fiction - hearing how warp drive "works", that type of thing. It appeals to the inner tech geek.


    But the overwhelming sense that Superman didn't give a shit about saving people at the end of the movie damn near killed it for me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. AmericanWolves02June 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM

    I agree with you there. My statement of Man of Steel being "by far" the best Superman movie is more an indictment of how little I like the older Superman movies than me thinking Man of Steel is perfect.

    I really don't understand the love for Hackman's Luthor. He came off like an oaf playing at villain. He reminded me of every super villain cliche there ever was.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Physical building or not, until you go to Cooperstown then it's just a list of names. So unless you've been to Cooperstown, I don't really see the difference. More than anything, it's a public acknowledgement of their career and their achievements. That's just as important as being able to see their boots in a glass case.

    ReplyDelete
  32. davidbonzaisaldanamontgomeryJune 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM

    IIRC, he basically just created the story arc with Goyer and that's pretty much it, he never even touched the script.

    ReplyDelete
  33. davidbonzaisaldanamontgomeryJune 25, 2013 at 3:57 PM

    I definitely agree with the overdose of collateral damage and the lack of "fun". Superman willingly throwing Zod into high-rises in the part of Metropolis that was yet to be hit by the weapon didn't sit well with me.


    I disgaree with something you said about Nolan, though; he took his story seriously, but he knew how to lace action and humor in his movies and never forgot he was making a summer superhero movie (although, you could probably make the too-serious case with TDKR). I think Goyer and Snyder got the "grounded and serious" part but forgot the levity. Watching MOS, I felt it could've used more of the lighter touches used in Begins and even in TDK at time, just a feeling of, for lack of a better word, "fun". It should've roused me at its big moments the way Nolan's Batman films did, but Goyer and Snyder really suppressed that exhilarating feeling. Even the climax ends on a rather unheroic moment that left me feeling down at the end, although it didn't bug me the way it did others. I still liked the movie, but I also prefer the original two films.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Wait, is this some philosophical point about a tree and noise and whether you can hear it or not? What you said is weird to me, Cooperstown exists. You can go there and touch things and look at statues and stuff. If you choose not to go there, that's on you, but it's not close to the same thing as a non-existent WWE HOF.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yeah, it's pretty shitty. I lived near Springfield for a year in the late 90s and I couldn't believe that the HOF was in such a crappy town and also, how disappointing the museum itself was. Maybe it has improved in the last 10-13 years?

    ReplyDelete
  36. My point is it doesn't need a physical building to be real and it isn't a stupid designation without one. I don't get why there *must* be a physical structure to make it valid. An actual building will have the same exact group of people that have been inducted so the only change is having a place to display things.

    I'm a huge baseball fan but never had the opportunity to visit Cooperstown. As far as my life goes, the museum itself might as well not exist for all intents and purposes. I *know* there's a building with memorabilia and relics, but I've never been there. So why does it matter if it's there if I've never been to it?

    At the end of the day, it's a list of names more than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  37. So you're basically saying that museums are useless. Hey, let me stare at that Van Gogh on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Cena vs. Taker is their go-to "dream match". It doesn't need contrived stipulations. Just give them a simple reason to fight and give it a suitably larger-than-life build.


    The stipulations would only cheapen it. Who would care if Cena didn't get a title shot again? Dude has like a hundred reigns in his career. Either do Title vs. Streak (if Cena is still champ), or simply make it as simple as Cena challenging the one thing no one has been able to accomplish. He can get eliminated from the Rumble late or something, then say "I've been champion, I've headlined Wrestlemania, I beat the Rock last year....it's time to challenge the Streak." Advertising "Cena vs. Taker" is enough.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Justice League....zzzzz

    ReplyDelete
  40. This pic and name gets all the upvotes, sir

    ReplyDelete
  41. Well, museums *are* pretty useless thanks to the Internet. They can sometimes be fun and/or informative to visit, but that doesn't make them useful. What more will I glean from looking at a Van Gogh in person I can't from looking at a hi-res image on the Internet? But that's besides the point. I wouldn't say Vincent Van Gogh's paintings are stupid because there wasn't a building to display them.

    I just don't understand how the existence (or lack thereof) of a physical building invalidates WWE's HOF.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I can't add anything else to this conversation after you said equated admiring a Van Gogh on a hi-res image over the real thing. I guess I'm old school.

    ReplyDelete
  43. If you can explain the difference, I'm happy to listen. Just seems pretentious to me. I can find a 20MB hi-res image in 10 seconds along with background info and analysis. Or I can travel hundreds of miles to get the same view.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It's the difference between listening to your favorite band on your iPod vs. seeing them live. It's the difference from admiring the earth on top of a mountain vs. seeing a picture. If you don't know there's a difference, I can't help you. And, it's far from pretentious, I don't know where you pulled that one from.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yeah, the difference is music sounds much better on my iPod. Your mountain example doesn't really work though; there's no dropoff in quality when listening to an mp3 or viewing a jpg of a 2D painting while there's a major dropoff when viewing a jpg of a 3D space.

    It sounds completely pretentious when you say looking at the real thing is somehow better than looking at a computer image that is a perfect 100% replica. You may not be pretentious, that's just how it comes off to me. I'm happy to listen to your argument, but so far you haven't given an actual reason. All you've said is "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you". I've experienced concerts and museums and I don't see what you see.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The future in Wall-E was made for you in mind. Good Luck.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Works for me. The chair better be free though.

    ReplyDelete
  48. It hasn't. I live in Mass and go back every 5 years. Ostensibly just to remind myself that it still sucks. Also, you may know this, but it's in Springfield b/c that's where basketball was created. Still a shitty location though. Move it to Indianapolis or Manhattan or something.

    ReplyDelete
  49. as stated before, there are stipulations that could make it more interesting.

    biggest one: "I Quit" match. we have seen Cena lose via pinfall. but did he ever lose via submission?

    ReplyDelete
  50. btw: I think the initial writer of that question had something different in my mind.

    "They could even do a angle like if cena beats him the streak is over but UT beats cena his career is over. So that would be an awesome dilemma either take a loss and still have a career or keep the streak intact and retire."

    I don't think he meant that Cena's career is on the line, but Taker's is. so either Taker's WrestleMania winning streak ends OR his wrestling career.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment