The MeeThinks Friday FreeThinks: 03.07.08
Posted by John Meehan on 03.07.2008
What do Ring Of Honor and West Side Story have in common? Come inside to find out!
Welcome back to our regularly-scheduled week-end dose of intrawebz 'rasslin optimism, folks! And in case you've been living under a rock, we're just three weeks away from the single biggest spectacle of the wrestling calendar year (by the way -- do be sure to check out my WrestleMania Countdown article, yes?!). Lots of news from all over this week, so let's get right to it, eh?
This coming Thursday night at 9 p.m., WWE's Vince McMahon, John Cena, Chris Jericho, and Floyd Mayweather are set to square off against "The King" of cable news programs -- CNN's Larry King. Obviously the reason for this crossover will be to promote the upcoming WrestleMania 24 ppv (now just a mere THREE weeks away! And yes, I still have three extra ticket$ for this soon-to-be-sold-out event, for anyone who's interested).
MeeThinks?
It's no surprise to see John Cena among the slate of WWE guests that are scheduled to appear, as the WWE's "golden boy" has proven tremendously loyal and articulate in navigating WWE through some seriously rough water over the past two years (from the Benoit tragedy to the steroid fallout and everything in between). Ditto for Jericho, who -- even though he seems to be stuck right back in the midcard -- has been something of a media darling and a true company man for WWE even when he *wasn't* under contract with them.
But speaking of the controversies...
I wouldn't really expect this particular program to delve too deeply into the absolutely tragic (and highly controversial) year-that-was for World Wrestling Entertainment and for the professional wrestling industry in general. Larry King is the (ahem) "king" of softball questions, and so Thursday's crossover will probably serve as little more than yet another chance for WWE and its performers to pitch their upcoming megashow -- something that will be readily apparent (if it wasn't already) from the top of the program, simply by virtue of the fact that Vince McMahon will be right there along side of his stars in order to help keep the questions on the "friendly" end of the spectrum. This should prove particularly helpful in reigning in the talking points and "charisma" (or is it "lack thereof?") of one Floyd Mayweather, who has struggled to find his own voice on WWE programming (more on that below) as he prepares for one of the highest profile publicity stunts in WrestleMania history.
So set your TiVos (sorry, "Celebrity Apprentice" fans!) -- WWE's invating Larry King Live at 9 p.m. this Thursday night on CNN!
Since we mentioned that Mayweather flap-up, however...
In case you missed it on Monday (or if the videos are inactive), RAW opened with a disasterous video confrontation between the Big Show and Floyd "Money" Mayweather, which basically amounted to Show calling Mayweather out, only for Floyd to react by (whoops!) stopping himself just shy of calling Show "a weak muthafucka" (on live television, no less) -- only to catch himself, panic, and respond (numerous times, actually) by repeating the words "WrestleMania!" and then covering with something to the effect of "last time I broke your nose, this time I'm gonna' break your jaw."
Later in the show, Mayweather took part in a second video teleconference, this time with RAW's announce tandem of Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler. In that second conversation, Mayweather pretty much ignored just about everything J.R. and The King had to say to the guy, and proceeded to rattle on about whatever just so happened to be on his mind (all while suspiciously darting his eyes back to the upper righthand side of the camera, as if to indicate that he was simply responding to an off-camera teleprompter or cue card).
Needless to say, it made for some tremendously awkward television.
After the show, word on the street was that WWE's head writer, Stephanie McMahon, was steamed at the WWE producer in charge of putting those segments together (longtime WWE employee Bruce Pritchard, a.k.a. "Brother Love") -- and so she gave the guy a pretty stern earfull for having allowed such uninspired television to make the airwaves.
MeeThinks?
Steph had every right to call Pritchard out on these vids, as they really were pretty terrible, even by the all-too-hokey-and-badly-acted world of professional wrestling standards. They weren't downright offensive or anything, mind you -- but they were certainly not the type of publicity one might like to find themselves dependant on while rolling into one of their highest profile matches on their biggest PPV card of the year. So yeah, if Pritchard gave 'em the green light? Then he absolutely deserved the tounge-lashing he received.
HOWEVER --
There's something of a larger point at issue here, and that's the fact that SOMEBODY inside the WWE production staff (Vince? Steph? Whoever...) actually gave an untested promo guy (by WWE's standards, anyway) like Floyd Mayweather the opportunity to have a live microphone on their highest rated television show. Even if the guy *is* naturally charismatic (and if you look at his heat going into boxing contests and press conferences of that nature, he actually is quite good at what he does when speaking "naturally"), well that's just asking for trouble. This is the type of mistake one would hope to learn from, so as to avoid repeating it say... next Thursday on Larry King, for example.
Good news in all of this?
The mainstream media outlets are still far too hung up over that alleged "$20 million dollar payday" that Mayweather is scheduled to receive at WrestleMania to notice or care how well or poorly the guy comes across on WWE television (that payday, by the way, is looking more and more like just another well-crafted hype tool on WWE's part which sits nowhere near an actual figure). That said, though, mainstream attention or not -- WWE will need to do a fair bit of work over the next three weeks if they're going to get the best of their "Money's" worth out of Floyd Mayweather. As mentioned last week, the free publicity that the guy has already received is a great start in luring in the "casual" fans... but now it's up to the storytellers in World Wrestling Entertainment to pick which roles Mayweather and Show will be playing for the "Big Dance" and start in with the hard-sell.
Wrestling fans haven't seen Big Show in a long time. They missed the guy, he's naturally charismatic and looks to be in great shape, and so they're happy to see him back. Mayweather, meanwhile, is a relative "outsider" to many 'rasslin fans (and not in the cool, "Hall & Nash" kinda-way), and he continues to get just about as many boos (if not MORE) than John Cena. Jim Ross himself summed things up quite nicely in this week's blog, when he said:
I can say somewhat conclusively that I have yet to be in an arena where Floyd Mayweather, Jr. hasn't been booed and for the life of me I don't see that changing. Nor do I see that as a bad thing. The hotter Floyd gets as an antagonist the more, one would assume, fans will want to pay to see Floyd humbled.
So in light of last week's video-conference debacle, it will most definitely be interesting to see which road WWE decides to pursue on this one starting next Monday on RAW.
Word out of Stamford this week is that R&B superstar John Legend will be kicking off this year's WrestleMania with his rendition of "America the Beautiful." Now In case you're unfamiliar with John Legend, here's a snippet of his best-known single:
And here's somebody's homemade tribute video to the guy, which -- by chance -- just so happens to be set to my personal favorite John Legend tune:
Little known Meehan fact -- I'm a HUGE fan of John Legend, and have been pulling for him to be involved with WrestleMania PPV for (literally) YEARS. Proof? Three years ago, the 411 forums ran a contest where posters were asked to compete in a round-by-round challenge, fantasy-booking each of the components to their "dream card" for Chicago's WrestleMania 22. Basically, we were told to pick up our storytelling from the moment SummerSlam 2005 wrapped up (with HBK/Hogan and Y2J/Cena), and one of the challenges was to book who should sing "America The Beautiful" as part of the WrestleMania preshow festivities. Here's a quick excerpt of what I dreamt up (under my forum alias of "RockyIV"):
Chicago's native son and R&B / Soul sensation John Legend will perform "America The Beautiful" live at the top of the show. Legend will perform the song solo while seated and playing the piano in the center of the ring, much like Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin had done at WrestleManias before him.
Artist info: John Legend, a Chicago native, has been described as the "shooting star" of R&B. "Get Lifted," Legend's 2005 debut album, received four stars from Rolling Stone magazine, and was heralded by Entertainment Weekly as "an instant classic." Vibe magazine ranked Legend in the top 50 of its Hot 100 list, and the New York Times called this Kanye West protégé "the breakout R&B artist of 2005."
Better late than never, right? ;)
In the tradition of Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles, I think the guy's one-man-and-a-solo-piano schtick is an absolute perfect fit for the start to the WrestleMania show, and I couldn't be happier to hear that he'll be taking part in this year's event (especially because I'll be there LIVE!). Plus his voice is incredible... so take THAT, haters.
The other "big" official news item out of WWE's press people this week was in the form of the slate of celebrities that are scheduled to take part in this year's WrestleMania festivities. In addition to boxing champion Floyd "Money" Mayweather, here's the rest of the celebs we can expect to see at the Big Dance in Orlando this year:
John Legend - R&B artist, to perform "America the Beautiful" Snoop Dogg - rapper/actor, guest Ring Announcer for a "BunnyMania" Raven-Symoné - actress/singer, guest at WWE's charity Bacon, Bagels and Biceps Brunch Kim Kardashian - Playboy covergirl/reality TV star, ringside guest 50 Cent - rapper, will perform "Get Money" themesong for Floyd Mayweather
Now a lot of people have spent the past few days chipping their teeth about the relative star power of this year's "c"lebrity crop. See, the tendancy is to lump all of the bona-fide "GREAT" celebrities of yesteryear (Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, The Rockettes, Donald Trump, Mike Tyson, etc.) and remember them all at once under one big old banner of the collective "WrestleMania Stars" of yesteryear.
BUT --
A closer look at each of the WrestleMania celebrity cameos on a year-by-year basis tells a MUCH different story. And a quick look into each year's slate of "c"-lebz might actually help us keep a healthy perspective as to just how "star-studded" each individual WrestleMania event really was (hint: the answers might surprise you!).
So let's take a quick look.
Now this is a woefully unscientific scoring system, granted, but basically what I've done is tallied each of the major, ADVERTISED celebs who appeared at each of the previous WrestleMania events (though there were obviously others in attendance). Then I've gone ahead and given them either a "+" or a "-" according to their relative "household name" celebrity status and staying power. Relevant at the time? Maybe (think Robin Leach). But five years later? Not so much. So flashes in the pan (think "people who were on a commercial one time") or people who've history has forgotten (ala Jonathan Taylor Thomas) received a minus, as did celebs making repeat appearances in useless roles. Meanwhile, legit stars (or those whose names average folks would casually recognize in, say, a Trivial Pursuit question some five years after the event) received a plus, as did *most* celebs who actually appeared in the ring as competitors.
In the end, I've tallied each of the plusses and minuses for the celebs from each show in order to determine their overall "celebrity index." Each minus cancels out a plus, so as to reward shows based on their relative celebrity QUALITY over quantity, and to recognize those events that were packed with LEGIT stars rather than those which were just padded out with a bunch of semi-famous nobodies (so, for example, an event with three plusses and one minus would earn an overall "Celebrity Index" score of two).
Again, it's an inexact science... but it's the best we've got.
Rating The WrestleManias by Celebrity Star Power
WrestleMania I - Muhammad Ali (+), Billy Martin (-), Liberace (+), The Rockettes (+), Cyndi Lauper (+) Celebrity Index: 3
WrestleMania II - Ray Charles (+), Ozzy Osbourne (+), Susan St. James (-), Joan Rivers (+), Cathy Lee Crosby (+), Elvira (-), Tommy Lasorda (-), Richy Schroeder (-), Cab Calloway (-), Darryl Dawkins (-), Herb "the Burger King guy" (-), Clare Peller "the Where's the Beef?" lady (-), Joe Frazier (+) Celebrity Index: -3
WrestleMania III - Bob Uecker (+), Mary Hart (-), Aretha Franklin (+), Alice Cooper (+) Celebrity Index: 2
WrestleMania IV - Bob Uecker (- for repeat appearance), Vanna White (+), Gladys Knight (+), Robin Leach (-), Donald Trump (+), Sugar Ray Leonard (+) Celebrity Index: 2
WrestleMania V - Morton Downey Jr. (-, Roddy Piper totally made his segment), Run-DMC (+), Donald Trump (- for repeat) Celebrity Index: -1
WrestleMania VI - Steve Allen (+), Rona Barrett (-), Robert Goulet (+), Mary Tyler Moore (- for being 10 years past relevant) Celebrity Index: 0
WrestleMania VII - George Steinbrenner (+), Paul Maguire (-), Regis Philbin (+), Alex Trebek (+), Marla Maples (-), Willie Nelson (+), Henry Winkler (+), Chuck Norris (+), Macaulay Culkin (-), Lou Ferrigno (+), Donald Trump (- for repeat appearance) Celebrity Index: 4
WrestleMania VIII - Ray Combs (-), Reba McEntire (+) Celebrity Index: 0
WrestleMania IX - Natalie Cole (+) Celebrity Index: 1
WrestleMania X - Little Richard (+), Cy Sperling of "Hair Club for Men" (-), Jennie Garth (-), Donnie Wahlburg (-), Burt Reynolds (+), Rhonda Shear (-) Celebrity Index: -1
WrestleMania XI Pamela Anderson (+), Jenny McCarthy (+), Jonathan Taylor Thomas (-), Salt-N-Peppa (+), Nicholas Tuturo (-), Reggie White (+), Ken Norton, Jr. (+), Chris Spielman (-), Steve McMichael (-), Rickey Jackson (-), Carl Banks (+), Lawrence Taylor (+), MLB Umpire Larry Young (-) Celebrity Index: 1
WrestleMania XII - n/a Celebrity Index: 0
WrestleMania XIII - n/a Celebrity Index: 0
WrestleMania XIV - Mike Tyson (+), Gennifer Flowers (+), Pete Rose (+), Marvin Hagler (-), Vinny Pazienza (-) Celebrity Index: 1
WrestleMania XV - Boys II Men (+), Pete Rose (- for repeat appearance), Vinny Pazienza (-), Isaac Hayes (+), Big Pun (+), Kevin Rooney (-), Chuck Wepner (-), Butterbean (+) Celebrity Index: 0
WrestleMania XVI - Ice-T (+), Pete Rose (- for repeat appearance), Dustin Diamond (-), Michael Clarke Duncan (+), Martin Short (-), French Stewart (-) Celebrity Index: -2
WrestleMania XII - Motörhead (+), Jeff Bagwell (-), Moises Alou (-) Celebrity Index: -1
WrestleMania XIII - Saliva (-), Drowning Pool (-) Celebrity Index: -2
WrestleMania XIX - Limp Bizkit (+), Miller Lite Catfight Girls (-), Ashanti (+) Celebrity Index: 1
WrestleMania XX - The Harlem Boys Choir (+), Donald Trump (- for repeat appearance), Pete Rose (- for repeat appearance) Celebrity Index: -1
WrestleMania XXI - Motörhead (- for repeat appearance), The Black Eyed Peas (+), Billy Corgan from Smashing Pumpkins (- for being five years past relevant), Anthony Kiedis from Red Hot Chili Peppers (+), Ice Cube (+), Carmen Electra (+), Sylvester Stallone (+). Celebrity Index: 3
WrestleMania XXII - Michelle Williams (-), P.O.D. (+), Joe Theismann (- for being 20 years past relevant) Celebrity Index: -1
WrestleMania XXIII - Aretha Franklin (- for repeat appearance), Donald Trump (+ for in-ring role), Miss USA 2006 Tara Conner (-), and Rev. Run from Run DMC (- for repeat appearance). Celebrity Index: -2
If our slapdash "Celebrity Index" calculator is any indication, then this year's celebrity crop really ain't all that shabby, by comparison. And with two killer main events, a high-profile Show/Mayweather contest, the Flair/Michaels bout, and the return of the ever-popular Money in the Bank ladder match staple -- this card is shaping up to be just as strong as many of them in YEARS.
Give it a chance, eh?
Again, not much out of TNA this week aside from confirmation of a few live tapings over WrestleMania weekend (which we've covered over the month), as well as some murmurings of an "interactive" PPV on down the line.
At the promotion's recent Six Year Anniversary show, a much-ballyhooed angle staged by upstart promotion Ring Of Honor recently drew the ire of many wrestling fans and critics alike. My apologies if you've already heard this one, but since MANY fans out there are relatively (if not wholly) unfamiliar with Ring Of Honor and their product, kindly allow Mee the chance to recap things for a brief second. If you're already up to speed, feel free to skip past this next block-quoted section:
During the segment, ROH's resident uberbaddie manager "Sweet 'N Sour Larry Sweeney" hit the ring to garner some good old fashioned heel heat, both for himself and for the stable of rulebreakin' wrestlers he manages ("Sweet 'n Sour Inc."). Now if you've never seen the guy work, you seriously should track down some of his stuff on YouTube. He's really quite a tremendous talent (often drawing comparisons to a young Bobby Heenan) -- but the problem is that the guy is almost too good at being a bad guy, and so he regularly draws all sorts of cheers from the ("smart"-fan friendly) ROH crowds.
Anyhow --
Sweeney took the microphone and began to put himself over (in typical rulebreaker style) on a talk show segment dedicated entirely to himself. Pretty standard stuff, really... after which he called out ROH original performer and fan-favorite Allison Danger (who'd been with the company since day one) in an attempt to talk some smack on the girl and further cement his good-old-fashioned heelish dickery.
Long story short --
After calling Danger a "slut" (this sort of thing isn't really that new in wrestling, as longtime ECW, WCW, WWE, TNA, etc. fans can attest), he proceded to blindside her with a microphone shot to the back of the head (fully scripted, so again we're still in realm "perfectly acceptable storyline material" mode -- especially since the guy is supposed to be received as a BAD GUY). Again, all pretty standard stuff that we've seen COUNTLESS times in the world of professional wrestling, right?
Fair enough.
But for many fans, this was where things got ugly.
At this point, Sweeney turned to his young protege, Bobby Dempsey (think Eric Young's gimmick with the physique of Adrian Adonis in his later years), and told him that now was his chance to "become a man" by gettin' his freak on with the (storyline) "knocked out" Allison Danger who lay prone in the ring before him. When Dempsey balked at the notion, (in typical rabble-rousin' heelish fashion), Sweeney proceeded to conk *him* on the back of the head as well, sending the supersized superstar tumbling onto the disabled diva below, after which point Sweeney set a foot on the guy's rumpus and proceded to gyrate his buddy's (kayfabe) unconscious body against the helpless lady on the ring mat.
Now then --
A *LOT* of folks have been getting up in arms at this (in the words of 411's illustrious Larry Csonka) "air quotes" "alleged" "rape" storyline.
MeeThinks?
Not to make myself out to be *too* much of a flaming homosexual here (shhh! Don't tell my fiancee!), but this sounds awfully similar to a scene in the Broadway classic, "West Side Story," come to think of it. You know, the one with The Jets (the Americans) and The Sharks (the Puerto Ricans) fighting over a street corner in New York while Tony and Maria play Romeo & Juliet? You remember, the song-and-dance-classic that WWE spoofed for their Royal Rumble spot a few years back?
Yeah, that one. But back to the story at hand --
About halfway through that play, The Sharks' gang leader, Bernardo, gets killed by Maria's American boyfriend (Tony). Desperate to stop the killing cycle before it gets any worse, Maria sends her gal-pal, Anita, (who also just so happens to be the late-Bernardo's girlfriend) over to The Jets' headquarters -- with a message urging them to warn Tony to lay low and knock off the killing before it's too late. A good idea, in theory -- especially since (minus that one little murder incident) The Jets have pretty much been comedy characters up to this point in the show.
Unfortunately for Anita, The Jets don't trust 'Nardo's "whore" to come bearing news of good will... and so they proceed to taunt the hell out of the poor girl, even going as far as to knock *her* to the ground, and toss their resident comic-relief, "Eric Young/Bobby Dempsey" stand-in, Baby John, onto her prone body in an attempt to make him a man at the expense of their firey Latina enemy.
Thankfully, The Jets get interrupted by the store clerk, Doc, who promptly admonishes them for their heinous behavior (saying "You make this world lousy!") and kicks them the hell out of his store (they walk away with their heads hung in shame, and this is the last time we see them in the entire play). Sadly though, The Jets' damage has already been done... and the enraged (and nearly-violated) Anita never gets to deliver the message to Tony -- which ultimately doesn't end well for *anybody* by the time all's said and done.
Bottom line?
Even though it's often been said that "professional wrestling ain't Shakespeare" (which is ironic, since West Side Story is, in fact, based on The Bard's most famous tragedy) -- the point here is that WELL over fifty years ago, there was a clear precedent set in American theatre (and film) that "attempted rape -- however jokingly it may be implied -- is an unequivocally BAD act," that the attempted perpetrators of such a deed (again, no matter how "comical" they might previously have been) are indeed *BAD* people, and that we, as audience members, should always be sensitive in handling this issue and make every effort to react accordingly.
The problem for Larry Sweeney (and Ring Of Honor) is that West Side Story made it clear that The Jets are guilty as sin, and that even if they seemed cool enough before, they'd totally crossed the line to the point where their actions were no longer a laughing matter.
But not so much in ROH's case.
Since Sweeney and his minions are such goldmines of comic relief, it's really no shock that the fans in attendance simply did not react to this angle as one might otherwise expect, and so his audience ended up *laughing* at the entire affair (in an "oh that whacky Larry Sweeney!" fashion) rather than taking the entire thing to heart (and saying "dude, that's going too far even for HIM").
Now, of course, a string of tactical miscues in this angle's execution (like the fact that Dempsey is comically fat, ala Big Dick Johnson, for one) ultimately means that the responsibility in this entire mess falls primarily on the *booker* (Gabe Sapolsky) for his presentation of the material and *not* on his fans for their reception of it... but the bottom line is that this is a pretty clear example of a promoter (and by an extension, his promotion) excercising poor judgment and little more.
Following the fallout from this angle's reception, Ring Of Honor creative head/booker/announcer/guru Gabe Sapolsky made it known that he had no intention of including that incident's footage on the upcoming DVD release of the show in question. Several days later, though, Sapolsky changed his mind and had this to say:
Well, I was a little hasty in pulling "The Larry Sweeney Show Starring Larry Sweeney" from the 6th Anniversary Show DVD (mostly due to my lovely & beautiful wife yelling at me over it). After putting together the DVD last night, I felt that this segment needed to go on so you could judge it for yourself.
I stand by my apology and once again apologize if you were offended. Our goal in ROH is not to be controversial or offensive like some promotions. Our goal is to give you an enjoyable wrestling product. I still maintain that you will not see anything like this from ROH again.
Obviously this was a tough call to make on Sapolsky's part, as he runs the risk of a "damned if you do" yank the footage (think WWE/Chris Benoit) and "damned if you don't" (which will, inevitably, draw further negative attention to his upstart promotion). HOWEVER -- MeeThinks the biggest and most important part of the guy's message is in this line:
"I felt that this segment needed to go on so you could judge it for yourself."
As wrestling fans, this is a powerful opportunity to let your voice be heard. If you think the segment was in poor taste, let your opinion be known by skipping this purchase outright. If, on the other hand, you recognize this segment as a misfired attempt to prove a point (namely, that the Larry Sweeney character *really is* supposed to be received as a bad guy) -- then do as Gabe says, pick up a copy of the DVD, and judge for yourselves.
As for Mee?
It's no secret (simply by the relative lack of press that the 'fed gets in the pages of this column) that I'm still very much a casual outsider to the ROH product, and so I really have no vested interest or preexisting bias on this matter either way. What I *can* say, however, is that there is no reason for a double standard in entertainment media -- and so long as sensitive subject matter is presented in a similarly *sensitive* fashion regardless of where it appears-- there is absolutely no justification for allowing such stuff to be included in one form of entertainment (stage drama) and not in another (professional wrestling).
Of course, I personally have yet to see how this entire angle played out on video tape... and so the best I can offer y'all is to wait for the DVD release of the show (or the free YouTube clips that are sure to follow) and the chance to "judge for yourselves," as Sapolsky himself stated. Frankly, if (after viewing the footage) it appears that there was even the *slightest* indication that the "alleged rape" angle was intended to be played for laughs all along? Then -- as Sapolsky said -- we fans reserve the right to make our own judgment call as to how we feel on this matter, and in turn to choose whether or not to give our time, attention, and money to the ROH promotion in the future.
This weekend, TNA presents "Destination X"... which is rumored to be something of a "throwaway" PPV as the company sets their sites on next month's ALL CAGES ALL THE TIME outing, "Lockdown." But that's a story for another day. Let's see how we fared so far this year:
TNA Final Resolution - 5/7 WWE Royal Rumble - 3/5 TNA Against All Odds - 5/9 WWE No Way Out - 6/7
Cumulative Total: 19/28 Percent Correct: 67.86%
Bonus points to Mee for correctly guessing that we were due for a Big Show cameo at the last PPV. And if it weren't for Jeff Hardy eating the loss to Triple H in RAW's Elimination Chamber main event, I *totally* coulda' scored my first-ever perfect showing.
A full card of NINE matches this weekend, so I'll say BG James, Kaz & EY, The MCMguns, Team 3D (shenanigans!), Booker T, Rhino, Machismo retains, KONG retains, and not-so-disfunctional Team Angle in your SURPRISE (that's not really a surprise) OF THE NIGHT.
Nothing of note this week (that's the double-edged sword of the user comments section for ya'), so...
And With That, I'm Outta' Here
That'll do it for Mee again this week, folks. Thanks for reading as always, and do be sure to check out my other stuff around the site this week as 411 continues our coundown to WrestleMania 24 with my BONUS column which should be hitting the site any time now. 'Till next time, enjoy the TNA pay-per-view this weekend, and always stay positive!
John Legend is one of today's hidden gems. It'll be great to see him at Wrestlemania.
Posted By: BREAKING KAYFABE~!! (Registered) on March 07, 2008 at 12:54 AM
Your "Celebrity Index" is waaaay off. Macaulay Culkin wasn't a household name in '91?? He was probably the most famous child actor in the country at the time, and considering most of the WWF's audience at the time were children, it was a big deal to have him at 'Mania. Robin Leach was definitely a household name in '88. Boys II Men were household names in '99??? Uh, right. Kim Kardashian, a woman who can't leave her house without 10 camera guys following her, gets a minus?? Dude, you really need to get a clue
Posted By: Bob (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 01:10 AM
I don't know about the kim, but raven is going to be involved in the make a wish thing at the brunch event, so I don't think her appereance has anything negative there. She's no hurting the big show even though she's not an "in" celeb right now.
Posted By: Guest#9443 (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 02:18 AM
Not a baseball fan, huh? Noticed that anybody who's affiliated with baseball except bob Uecker got a "-",and Uecker is only famous because he was a lousy player and he made a comedic career based on that.
Posted By: Billy Castillo (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 03:04 AM
What about BILL CLINTON at Wrestlemania X?!!!
I'd say that whilst Billy Corgan wasn't relevant in 2005, neither was Ozzy Osbourne in 1986 or Salt-n-Pepper in 1995. You could also say that WWE only got Limp Bizkit in when Nu-Metal was on it's death bed after a week in the sun.
Posted By: Baron Skinny (Registered) on March 07, 2008 at 05:12 AM
A minus for Marvelous Marvin Hagler one of the greatest middleweight boxers of all time. That surely can't be right. Elvira, Macaulay Culkin, Donnie Walburg and Jeff Bagwell probably all deserves plusses as well. And how can anyone give Screech from Saved by the Bell a minus. Personally I'd give him a triple plus.
Posted By: AJM (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 05:58 AM
I rewatched every instance of Floyd Mayweather on Raw this week, and I STILL can't find him calling Big Show a "weak motherfucker".
Posted By: T.G. Corke (Registered) on March 07, 2008 at 07:35 AM
I think you have your celebrity index out of context. If you are going to rank them, you need to think of the impact that the celebrity had, not just who they were. Like Donald Trump last year was absolutely huge. As was LT at XI and all the celebrity involvement at the first on. So I don't think that applying a generic +/- system is the best way to compare them.
Posted By: Mickey Yarber (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 08:20 AM
Yeah, I've got Raw on DVR still. I've watched the Mayweather segments multiple times trying to find this phantom F bomb. Didn't find it there or on the youtube videos.
Posted By: lethargic (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 08:43 AM
I'm trying to figure out your celebrity index too. Are you talking about people who appeared when they were hot? Or their overall body of work? Or the quality of their appearance? You are very inconsistent about that.
For example: Morton Downey Jr gets a - for WMV, but in 1989, he was about as hot as they come. (And I thought he made that segment). That same year, Run DMC was beginning the downside of their career, and their segment was about as bad as I've ever seen on a WM--although perhaps not their fault (the sound was horrible).
No way does Burt Reynolds get a plus for anything he's done since the 80's. (Although he was in that CBS show Morning Star that was a minor hit).
Saliva and Drowning Pool get minuses in 2002 when they still somewhat relevant and Bizkit gets a minus a year later when the fans had stopped caring about them in 2001?
Also, you completely excluded Mr. T. who was pretty hot in 85 when he made his first WM appearance. This also didn't include the various football stars who appeared in the WMII battle royal.
and finally, why bother mentioning the WM celebrities who were only in the crowd and didn't do anything? (Michael Duncan Clark). You can't really call those celebrity appearances except by the loosest of criteria since they were not advertised.
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 09:48 AM
A + to P.O.D. in celeb index, but a - to Saliva and Drowning Pool. Guess what genius Saliva has had more radio hits recently than P.O.D. and Drowning Pool is still a name that gets peoples ass out of the chair and into the concert venues. That my friend is a re-take.
Posted By: Thomas M (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Meehan got do disagree with your WM celeb ratings...Genifer Flowers gets a plus? While Donnie Wahlberg, who is coming into his own as an actor, Drowning Pool, and Saliva all recieve minuses? Please explain to me how Genifer Flowers came to get a plus? What has she done lately?
Posted By: Todd (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Sorry Meehan, got another question for ya. In the Larry Sweeney Angle, how is it a big miscue that Bobby Dempsey is Comically Fat? How does it make the segment any more conterversial because they guy is fat? Is it okay for a skinny wrestler to rape a girl in the middle of the ring?
Posted By: Todd (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Maybe it is just me, but I kind of think repeat celebrities, if they were still relevant upon their repeat appearance, should have just been neutral and not a -. It just seems kind of unfair that somebody is a - just because they've already been there. If they are still a relevant celebrity at the time, I still personally consider that a good thing for publicity and star power. Also, how in the blue Hell are Saliva and Drowning Pool both a -? They were both pretty popular at a time, and I'm pretty sure they were both pretty popular when they appeared. Also, as much as Johnathan Taylor Thomas annoys the bejesus out of me (not even really sure why), he WAS pretty relevant when he appeared, so I'd have to begrudgingly say he should have been a + too. Well, anyways, to each his own. I love reading your articles, so please keep up the good work. Just thought I'd chime in with my thoughts.
Posted By: RavenEffect (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 11:26 AM
And Burt Reynolds was way past his cool years in the 70s, but was a few years away from being cool again thanks to Boogie Nights.
Posted By: Satan (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 12:28 PM
again folks, the "celebrity index" is woefully unscientific and simply used as a quick guage of the relative strength of the celebs AT THE TIME of their appearance. for as "hot" as many of those folks were back in the day, everybody knew full well that people like JTT was nowhere near a bona-fide celeb with "staying power." like i said in the article, flash in the pan acts (people in commercials, bands with just one/two singles apiece, actors on then-"hot" tv shows, etc.) were really no better or worse than a currentflash-in-the-pan like kim kardashian at this year's WM, and so i scored accordingly.
gennifer flowers earned points simply because she was a key figure in a high-profile historical scandal (who most people will still remember in a trivial pursuit game to this day). for as "past its prime" as nu-metal was by the time it made WM shows, limp bizkit will likely be remembered as *much* more indicative of that genre than acts like saliva/etc. (kinda like nirvana > candlebox).
other than that, acts like Ozzy, Burt Reynolds, Run DMC, Robert Goulet, etc. have managed to withstand the test of time and become pretty well-entrenched in pop culture trivia of their day.
Posted By: John Meehan (Registered) on March 07, 2008 at 01:17 PM
... and regarding the Bobby Dempsey being "comically fat" comment (hence the "alleged rape" angle not being received with any degree of seriousness)
my point in that one was that because Dempsey is more or less a comedy act (in physique and demeanor), it's kinda hard for people to take ANY angle involving him with a degree of seriousness... so (as if the angle itself wasn't "touchy" enough), maybe it just wasn't the smartest idea to involve him in the sweeney/danger angle to begin with, is all.
if ROH wanted to get the angle over and elicit a "seriously, yo -- that shit ain't right, even for sweeney" reaction -- then perhaps they'd have been better served trying to pull it off with sweeney trying to convince a more ***serious*** supporting character (with little to no history of over-the-top comedy angles to his credit) to do the deed.
again, the angle was suspect from the word go. but in loading it up with not one but TWO "comedy" heels, ROH didn't do themselves any favors if they were hoping to get people to react with any degree of seriousness, is all.
Posted By: John Meehan (Registered) on March 07, 2008 at 01:43 PM
I disagree with many of the celeb rankings. As someone said, celeb crowd appearances shouldn't count. If they did, you'd have to include Adam Sandler and Rob Schieder from WM22. As for why Genifer Flowers got a plus, technically, she was the first to smell what the Rock was cooking.
Posted By: LZ (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 01:50 PM
Meehan, your above comment defending your Celebrity Index makes no sense. First you say your ratings were based on "the strength of the celebs AT THE TIME of
their appearance", then you say it's based on "staying power" - which is it?? Macaulay Culkin, for example, ultimately didn't have much staying power, but there is no denying that he was a major household name in '91, especially among kids. Secondly, if your index was truly based on staying power, it would be completely inconsistent to penalize repeat appearances, as you did. Isn't a repeat appearance strong evidence of staying power?? Why don't you just admit that you didn't know what you were doing with the Celebrity Index?
Posted By: Bob (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Thanks Meehan, for clearing up what you were stating about the Sweeney rape angle. Much appreciated, and keep up the good work.
Posted By: Todd (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 02:10 PM
and once more -- "Again, it's an inexact science... but it's the best we've got."
"Now this is a woefully unscientific scoring system, granted."
pretty sure we've already covered this one multiple times.
just because somebody was popular AT THE TIME does not mean that fans even of that era recognized them as bona-fide A-List celebrities with any real staying power. for as popular as macaulay culkin might have been in 1991, everybody knew what was up (child stars = not long in the spotlight) and so there's no way any casual fan bought the show simply because they saw it as a chance to catch a glimpse of *this* particular "legit" star (as opposed to the likes of, say, a Willie Nelson, a Ray Charles, or an Aretha Franklin).
the bottom line is that celebrity appeal is and always has been a highly subjective matter, and my scoring index was never intended to be scientific in any way, shape or form (as stated repeatedly in the column).
point remains: "star quality" of past WM's isn't always as "star-studded" as nostalgia might lead one to believe (when the best of the best traditionally get lumped in together and remembered as a collective unit).
Posted By: John Meehan (Registered) on March 07, 2008 at 03:33 PM
That celebrity index is the biggest fucking load of total wanky bollocks I have ever fucking seen.
But on another note, I can't find Mayweather nearly calling show a motherfucker. Where in time is that?
Posted By: ButchReedMark (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 03:46 PM
No Meehan, you just seem to have either
a) Thrown darts at names written on Pieces of Paper on a wall...
or
b) Personal Preferences.
Posted By: ButchReedMark (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 03:52 PM
He called him weak mother fucka right around the time that Show tossed the guy out of the ring. The clip I saw of it on youtube was censored, so maybe on the West Coast it was cut out. On the East Coast, he certainly said it.
Posted By: Satan (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 04:04 PM
Wow. Some people are taking this thing a bit too seriously. Let me just clarify that while I didn't agree with some of your choices, I still respect your opinion and greatly enjoy your articles. Some people seem to be almost offended by your choices. LOL! Felt, I should clarify that I don't hold it against you as some others seem to be.
Posted By: RavenEffect (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 04:07 PM
Holy sh*t people, who cares about his damn Celebrity ratings. Go argue over something that actually matters. It's ONE MAN's OPINION!
Posted By: Marcus (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 04:24 PM
"for as popular as macaulay culkin might have been in 1991, everybody knew what was up (child stars = not long in the spotlight) and so there's no way any casual fan bought the show simply because they saw it as a chance to
catch a glimpse of *this* particular "legit" star (as opposed to the likes of, say, a Willie Nelson, a Ray Charles, or an Aretha Franklin)."
Meehan,
I doubt anyone buys a PPV simply because a celebrity makes a brief cameo appearance. As I mentioned before, the WWF's audience at the time was comprised mostly of elementary school-age kids, and very few if any of them cared about celebrity "staying power". At the time, Macaulay Culkin was definitely an A-list celebrity among the WWF's target audience of young children. The fact that he ultimately had a relatively short stay in the spotlight is completely irrelevant to how popular he was at the time. Furthermore, although Ray Charles and Aretha Franklin are certainly bigger legends than people like Macaulay, they weren't exactly major stars in the 7-12 demo. The average kid in '91 would much rather see Macaulay Culkin than Ray Charles. And finally, you never addressed why you penalized repeat appearances when the index was supposedly based on staying power.
Posted By: Bob (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Bob, you're just gonna keep bitching about whatever the guy says no matter WHAT he writes next, so what's the point?
Its a column about professional wrestling. Quit nitpicking over an irrelevant detail that's already been clarified many times over. All the guy was saying was that a lot of times Wrestle Mania celebrities are overrated when people look at them in hindsight. And he's right.
Quit whining about how famous or not the kid from Home Alone was. He was right when he said that pretty much nobody remembers him as a famous celebrity now. So get over it and move on.
Good column as usual, Meehan!!!!!
Posted By: Dingo (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 05:01 PM
How on EARTH could you give Motorhead and Limp Bizkit a + for WM Celebrity power. The performances were someone the absolute WORST in the history of music.
Posted By: natedoggcata (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 06:31 PM
"How on EARTH could you give Motorhead and Limp Bizkit a + for WM Celebrity
power. The performances were someone the absolute WORST in the history of
music."
Hey. Don't be dissing God (I'm talking about Lemmy of course, not Fred Durst).
Speaking of star power, the argument of McCauly Caulkin is irrelevant anyway since he was never an advertised attraction.
Posted By: Michael L (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 07:03 PM
That Royal Rumble commercial was one of the best they had ever done. This year's spot was awesome though. I loved HBK kicking Buffer in the face.
Posted By: William (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 08:08 PM
I think that not all McMahons are the same.
Stephanie puts on a good show even if she's married to HHH.
She should be taking over the show, she should get Roddy Piper to be running the show instead of the coach and the englishman Regal.
Maybe it will be better for the business.
Give piper a chance Stephany..You are the best.
Posted By: Billy Jack (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 11:01 PM
A minus for Elvira?! What the fuck are you thinking, Meehan?! DAMN!
I don't always agree with you, Johnny, but damn, people sure do like to rip for no reason.
In all seriousness, though, I haven't seen the ROH shit, but I didn't like what I heard about it. But I think it's good that Sapolsky isn't trying to erase it from history like it never happened. So, good job, and if it's actually as offensive as some have made it out to be, don't do it again.
Posted By: G-Walla (Guest) on March 07, 2008 at 11:58 PM
I have made it no secret that I am not a fan of Meehan's work and this week is no different.
As some other posters have stated, the only real way to rank someone is the impact they had on the event whether it is buzz they generated or their performance at the event. Basically your calculator is just a list of celbrities that Meehan likes as opposed to the ones he doesn't like. Defend your points!
Posted By: Willie D (Guest) on March 08, 2008 at 01:30 AM
Limp Bizkit gets a + ? epic fail.
Posted By: uh what? (Guest) on March 08, 2008 at 05:05 AM
"If our slapdash "Celebrity Index" calculator is any indication"
Read that people. The celeb index isn't put forward as any sort of definitive scientific exploration of the subject. Rather it is just a quick look at celeb involveent over the years.
If you really want a proper index? Do it yourself or, preferably, GET A LIFE!
Posted By: Drinky Crow (Guest) on March 08, 2008 at 06:32 AM
36 comments, and about 30 are complaining about a list of WM "celebs". You people kill me. Great column!
Posted By: Steve307 (Guest) on March 08, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Great column as always, Meehan... BUT...
Raven Symone not relevant? She's more relevant now than she ever was as Rhudy's "cute factor" replacement on The Cosby Show. She is as synonimous with Disney television as the Mickey Mouse Club was in the 50's.
Posted By: David Burcham (Guest) on March 10, 2008 at 02:50 AM
Who the hell was Cathy Lee Crosby anyways? I didn't know then and I don't know now. I'm gonna go Wikipedia her.
Posted By: -E- (Guest) on March 14, 2008 at 09:27 PM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
