What might make it truly interesting is if they brought some young up-and-comer that was the 'next big thing' into the group and got rid of the dead 'wight', if you know what I mean...
---------- Whatcha Gonna Do??? ---------- "Thank you - thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your irrelevant opinion..." ---------- And the real wonder of the world is that we don't jump too ---------- So there's no simple explanation for anything important any of us do and yea the human tragedy consists in the necessity of living with the consequences under pressure, under pressure. ----------
Originally posted by shea To me, Michaels' return is only interesting if there's a solid angle behind it ....
But to know that, we'd have to actually HEAR HIM SPEAK
which those brains at WWE obviously decided would be a really bad idea ....
And who are we to question such decisions? These writers are trained professionals; SURELY they know what they're doing.
WWE does know what it's doing, they did the same thing with the Rock and (I think) Triple H. You bring the person back to spark interest, then the viewers have to watch the next episode to see him speak.
Originally posted by shea If the guy doesn't talk, it's like he didn't really come back at all.
Not at all. I think one of the most compelling appearances in all of wrestlling was when Ted Dibiase was going to be the manager (or whatever) of the NWO (when the angle still meant something) and just was in the audience and held up the 5 fingers. Made me turn back in.
I was never a HBK fan - I was watching wcw during most of his run and not watching WWF much. Hogan mark. But I am interested to see what he's going to do.
Wouldn't it make sense to smark us and get HHH in there and detox and bring back Razor? (Not as Scott - as Razor)
TONIGHT! It's the go-home show for Hell in a Cell! Yes, already! Will we see more development for Mark Henry/Randy Orton? Will we see some more buildup for Sheamus/Christian? Will we see more than four matches booked for a three-hour show?