Shut Up and Wrestle!

Like many American males, growing up I was a professional wrestling fan. I grew up when most wrestling matches took place on the weekends in civic centers all over the country. When there were only four pay-per-views a year, maybe. When Jake the Snake, Ricky the Dragon Steamboat, Sting, Brett Hart, Ultimate Warrior, Hulk Hogan and the Undertaker stalked the squared circle. When the Nature Boy Rick Flair was young, sort of, and before he was "Stone Cold" few remember that he was "Stunning" Steve Austin. 

Recently, after a lengthy hiatus, I have found myself in my spare time following wrestling once again. I was aware of the merger of WCW and WWF what is now called WWE. I was prepared for the new talent to have replaced the old. (sort of) The one thing I was not prepared for was how incredibly boring the shows have become. After the WWE monopolized the wrestling world they have apparently sold their collective soul for the sake of marketing. Wrestling was always the risk taking television that regular programming hated. No matter how sexy or curse riddled or exciting your show was, wrestling was always more in your face.

Now I find that  every month of the year has a pay-per-view which pretty much means all of the good matches you have to shell out to see. The shows are also very top talent heavy which means only about three people ever really compete for the title. The straw that breaks the camel's back is how much of the show is devoted to mindless babble, the stupid one-liner laced talking that has almost made the shows unbearable. WCW Monday Nitro used to be three hours with about 12-15 matches and most of the time, it over ran its time slot because they refused to show commercials during matches. Now, shows are two hours long and I counted five matches a few weeks ago, FIVE, in two hours. The time is now filled with "I'm great because of this" and "you suck because of that" and 40 minutes to explain how these two are gonna settle their differences by *gasp* wrestling. Just shut up and wrestle already! We want to see more fighting and less jabbering, more blood and less commercials, more stars and definitely more style and profile! WOOOOOOOOO! 

This is my little victory dance.

The emphasis focused on the word "little." The fire between my opponent at The Dust Bowl and myself in the wake of my first pontification has since cooled to embers. The competition between Love Guru and The Zohan was less than stellar but the important thing to remember as always is that I won. A little vain? Absolutely, especially since the victory was overshadowed by the fact that both films were not exactly blockbusters. The Dust officially surrendered on his podcast "Views From the Booth." More Pontifications to come so stay tuned.

III    

Debate: Adam Sandler vs Mike Myers

While viewing a certain sports talk show on ESPN a conversation was sparked between a contemporary of mine over at The Dust Bowl and myself concerning two of arguably the most influential comedic actors of the 1990's. In one corner the operatic, punch drunk, Pauly Shore clone, Adam Sandler, in the other, one Mike "Franchise" Myers Esquire. While I threw my support behind Myers' new film "The Love Guru," my so-called friend has assured me that "Zohan" will be the better film. So with out further suspense here in my inaugural Pontification, here is my top 10 reasons why Mike Myers is more important than Adam Sandler and thus why "The Love Guru" will be better than "The Zohan."

1. Adam Sandler is a clone of Pauly Shore. Adam Sandler is not a new creation, in fact, he is another in a long line of comedians who rely on crazy sounds and weak plot to create hysterical situations. The only difference between the Weasel and Gilmore is about 8 million dollars.
2. Adam Sandler is a clone of himself. Adam Sandler's characters are clones of the same idea, that the lowly funny guy never wins. Unless, of course you're in Sandler land and then it is a lowly, funny, quirky guys wet dream. Every movie basically has Sandler in a different shirt. With the exception of "The Waterboy." 
3. Little Nicky. Enough said.
4. Adam Sandler is not a creator. Adam Sandler has not expanded into anything other than himself. Now, this is not including any role outside of his own productions. (Spanglish, Punch Drunk Love, Reign Over Me)  
5. Too much placed on Saturday Night Live fame. I among many others think Sandler was very funny on SNL but I have heard people state that he is the most successful cross-over star ever. Having the most respect for SNL, to be truthful, that is not really saying much even if it were true. (Bill Murray, Steve Martin, Dan Akroyd, John Belushi, Chevy Chase, MIKE MYERS, Chris Farley, Will Farrell.) Two of these stars were sadly cut down in their comedic prime. One is definitely more relevant today than Sandler and the rest are directly responsible for the fame Sandler receives today.
6. Sandler is commercially funny. In the world of comedy often the most main stream is the most successful but not the most important. Animal House vs Annie Hall.
7. Sandler really doesn't have any beloved characters. This is a tip toe point but still one I believe is true. If I were to ask you who the majority of people would pick as their favorite character who would you guess? The answer... most fans say the Wedding Singer Bobby Hart. Now compare that with Wayne Campbell, Austin Powers and Shrek.
8. The Franchise tag is unfair. One argument made against Myers is that he does not appear in many different films but sequels of the same franchise. This is very true but I would argue that this is no more a negative than being a franchise yourself, which Sandler is undoubtedly. Three created characters vs. the same guy in nine different films.
9. There was absolutely no reason to remake "The Longest Yard."
10. Flooding the market.  The average time between Sandler films is a year and a half, while Myers produces new material on an average of four years. So the final question is this: Does the same comical manifestation year after year have more or less of a societal impact than less exposure but comedically richer material? Substance over style all the way.

III