For Love or Money: Round Seventeen (The Return!) by John C. and Matt Seagull
John: Welcome to the first edition of For Love or Money in 2007 and the seventeenth edition overall. The first six questions will deal with current topics in WWE followed by two TNA questions and then the final two questions will be our usual "classic" questions talking about things from the past. Then we'll wrap it up with some Quick Hits. Think of it like a written version of Pardon the Interruption, the hit ESPN sports talk show program featuring Mike Wilbon on Tony Kornheiser. Not exactly like that, obviously, but loosely based on it.
Little backstory before we start. The last edition of FLOM happened last March before WrestleMania. Couple months after that I stopped writing. Matt moved on to a column with Leon Thomas, who has since stopped writing. I came back to writing (and watching wrestling), so here I am back with Seagull for some more For Love or Money. Maybe we're a bit rusty. I don't think we argued nearly enough, but we do cover a lot, so we hope you enjoy it.
Note: As always, Matt chose the odd numbered questions because he's odd while John chose the even numbered ones because he's not odd. Also, thanks to Mike Maloney for the snazzy new banner!
1. Bigger crock of a Wrestlemania snub, Londrick, Johnny Nitro or somebody else?
Matt: Johnny Nitro. Seriously. Why the hell wasn’t he at Wrestlemania? He wasn’t even down for the Women’s Title match. Since jumping to Raw, he’s consistently held down the upper midcard and filled in any role when necessary. He reminded me a LOT of 92-93 Shawn Michaels in his character and his in-ring performances. I really honestly thought they were going to have Nitro vs. Foley because Mick was showing up every other week on Raw, but Foley’s appearances turned out to be for naught. How The Great Khali got a Wrestlemania match and Johnny Nitro didn’t is beyond me. Joey Mercury getting fired the week of Mania probably didn’t help his chances, but it was still complete bullshit. I’m glad Nitro’s not making a stink because he’s a team player, but you gotta figure he’s disappointed. Hard work should breed reward. If there’s no reward, why even work hard in the first place? But we’ll talk about that later.
John: It's a tough call, but I'm going to have to go with the team of London & Kendrick. I think it's ridiculous that WWE would put the belts on these guys last May, keep the titles on them for ten months for one of the longest reigns ever and then do NOTHING with them at the biggest show of the year. They should move Benjamin & Haas to Smackdown since they're doing nothing on Raw and do a long feud with those guys. It would rule. Nobody wants to see Deuce and Domino. The other two people that were snubbed are Johnny Nitro and Ric Flair. Nitro because he's deserving after all the improvement he made in the last year and Flair simply because if he's an active wrestler on your roster he should be on the WrestleMania card one way or another. Pre-show does not count.
Matt: I had an idea a while back that I think could really work now, especially since the brand split is getting less and less divisive (we'll get more into that later). Unify the tag team titles and have one team tour all three brands. That's what I thought was actually going to happen when MNM faced Cena and Michaels in the cage, and then it would be Londrick vs. MNM at Mania. Well, it was all for naught. Seriously though, they have a funny way of rewarding wrestlers for their hard work.
John: I don't understand how Matt and Jeff Hardy are working on both shows. Unifying the belts might work, or they could simply have had Londrick defend them at Mania. I don't understand why you have a 10 month title reign, one of the longest ever, and then ignore it come Mania. Just bizarre. I guess you have to reward Khali for all of his great matches this year, right?
Matt: Khali getting a match at Mania was just absurd. Kane, I don't mind, because I've always been a Kane mark, but for Christ's sake I would have much preferred Kane/Nitro if they were going to have Kane feud with somebody on Raw. Khali even got a video package on Raw this week hyping that he's wrestling next week. Do people even want to [i]watch[/i] this guy?
John: I feel bad for Nitro. He worked hard, he was arguably the most improved guy on the roster in 2006 and then they reward him with nothing. Then again he's slamming Melina, so maybe I don't feel bad for Nitro.
2. Vince McMahon seems to have Bobby Lashley pegged as his #2 babyface to push hard after John Cena. Is he ready, but more importantly is the crowd ready for him in that role?
John: I think he's ready. You can't keep on trudging the same old guys like Undertaker, Batista, Michaels and HHH out there because the fans do get tired of it sometimes. They needed a new person to push to that level and they've decided on Lashley. I'm okay with it. I think he's somebody that's going to dedicate himself to getting better. He's a good athlete although not as good as somebody like Lesnar, but who is? The crowd seems like they're accepting him. Two months ago maybe not, but he's been the beneficiary of the head shaving of Vince McMahon. It's gotten Lashley over huge, which is what they wanted.
Matt: Lashley’s got two things going for him. A good look and good booking. Seriously, the stuff he did in the weeks leading up to Mania instantly made him credible. The dive through the cage, breaking the Masterlock, standing up to Vince, CALLING him Vince rather than Mr. McMahon. They did a very good job with him. Could his in-ring capabilities be better? Sure, but he’s far from horrible. I wouldn’t go so far as to call him the next Brock Lesnar, but yes, I think he’s ready. And yes, I think the crowd is behind him as well. As shitty as that Umaga match was the night after Mania, the crowd was red hot for Lashley when he finally made his big comeback.
John: People are definitely getting into Lashley now because he's feuding with McMahon. Vince knows that for him to get over he can use the one person that will guarantee the fans relate to the guy: himself. I want to see how Lashley does after he's done feuding with McMahon. We know how great of a heel Vince is. Let's see how Bobby does without the boss.
Matt: There's something about Lashley's smile that makes him endearing. That little wink he gives as he walks toward the back, as if he's saying to me "Don't worry, Matt. Everything's going to be alright." I want that in my champion. Dammit, I [i]need[/i] that in my champion.
John: I don't think he'd make a good heel at all. He just seems like the nicest guy out there and he's not a skilled enough actor to make that work. As a babyface he might just be the top guy, as long as he's healthy. Guys his size with muscles that big always seem to be injury prone. I hope it's not the case with him
3. Now that Colt Cabana has signed with WWE, what kind of role would you want to see him in? What show should he be on? Should he be paired with CM Punk?
Matt: Colt is a perfect fit for Smackdown. He can wrestle, so that definitely adds to the wrestling aspect of the show. Plus, there’s a lot of European style wrestlers like William Regal and Dave Taylor that he could have some fun with. I wouldn’t mind Cabana teaming with Steel to form a mini Second City Saints on Smackdown, having a little feud with Regal and Taylor where the Brits play the serious side and Cabana/Steel are the goofballs. As for how Punk fits in, Punk’s doing his own thing right now, but I wouldn’t be opposed to a full-on Saints reunion sometime down the line, especially should Cabana catch on fire, like I think he could.
John: I think he's going to be heading to OVW before he makes it on one of the big shows because they like to see what guys can do down there before they use them on Raw, Smackdown or the bastard child known as ECW. When he does get called up I would love to see him paired up with CM Punk. Of course this is WWE so they like to pretend that nobody ever knows another wrestler prior to their WWE. It's like no world exists outside of WWE. As for what show, I'll pick Smackdown because it's got the better roster as far as workers go and he can learn from people there more than on Raw.
Matt: I don't necessarily think WWE will mention anything about Punk and Cabana's past, but somebody in the office should have seen enough ROH DVDs to know that they have some great chemistry together. Maybe they'll "meet up" for the first time, or team up because they're from Chicago, or maybe WWE in fact will acknowledge that they trained together, but still, I think a Punk/Cabana duo would be awesome. Hell, they printed Punk's blog on the WWE.com website where he acknowledged "Crazy" Ace Steel as his trainer, so stranger things could happen.
John: Ace Steel aka Donald Trump! That match against Rosie was amazing. I just hope Punk's off ECW and onto a show that people actually watch because he's such a skilled performer. I wonder if Colt will get to keep his name. They'll probably change it to something stupid. If he does keep it I wouldn't put it past them to pair him up with Carlito because they've got the young Latin vibe thing going there and Carlito once had a talk show called the Cabana. Anyway, Colt will be in OVW for the rest of this year at least, I think. They'll have to train him to work WWE style like they always do.
Matt: Oh absolutely. Lest you forget, Punk reported to OVW in September 2005 and didn't end up on television until August 2006. Considering how trigger happy WWE is with their developmental talent and bringing them up too soon, that's a lifetime. I don't think we'll see Colt on WWE TV for a while, and I'm fine with that. Hopefully he'll pick up the WWE style quickly.
4. Carlito said before Mania that he hated being a babyface and that's why he's not performing at his best. Do you think wrestlers should speak out like that or should they just shut up and do as they're told whether they're happy or not?
John: I love when wrestlers speak out and in this case the dude is totally right. He sucks as a babyface in the ring, as well as in promos because they feel very forced. This guy needs to be a heel. He should only be a heel. He had good momentum as a heel, then they stupidly turned him face. Allow him to talk because he can get over on his promos and bring his talk show back too. I actually liked that about him. More wrestlers should bitch about things in public. I'm all for it.
Matt: What’s that saying? The squeaky wheel gets the grease? I think wrestlers should be able to speak up without fear of repercussions, but the way Carlito did it just seemed like whining to me. If you can eloquently state that you feel you’re being treated unfairly, I don’t think that’s grounds for release. I mean, the agents can’t be that heartless, can they?
John: Carlito was whining, I think we can both agree to that. However, I think he's absolutely justified in what he's doing. He's horrendous as a babyface. Thankfully it looks like he's going to be turning heel sooner rather than later. In ring I think he's just okay in either role. Long term, though, he definitely has to be heel if they ever expect him to be anything more than a midcard heel.
Matt: I was looking forward to Carlito's face turn after Wrestlemania, and he definitely had the backing of the fans as well, but he suffered from what I like to now call "Randy Ortonitis," where he turns face and suddenly loses all his balls, all his attitude, everything that made him so damn likable in the first place. So maybe this whining might actually make him more easy to hate if and when he turns heel, but he's going to go the way of Orton since they know he sucked as a babyface.
John: I just hope it leads to more wrestlers bitching about stupid angles. Maybe that will wake the writers up. Can somebody tell Shelton Benjamin to complain about the way they don't use him? Please?
Matt: Maybe they can bring back his Mama. Stupid as she was, I swear that was the most over he's been in years.
John: You only like her because you find her sexy, Matt. Admit it. We're all friends here.
5. No more brand-only Pay Per Views. Your thoughts?
Matt: Stupid stupid stupid. Completely goes against what the Brand Extension is about. The extension was to be able to showcase more talents. How can they be showcased if they can’t appear on Pay Per View anymore? And the logic for ending the brand-only PPVs is completely flawed. “Well, the numbers show that more people buy PPVs where all three brands are represented.” How about the fact those Pay Per Views happened to be Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam and Survivor Series, WWE staples? I think they made a serious jump in logic. The writing team couldn’t book a three-hour show featuring one brand, and now the lower card wrestlers lose their PPV payoffs as a result. Lovely.
John: I think it improves the quality of PPVs and also will probably lead to more money for WWE because if you've got top guys from both shows on every PPV then more people will watch. That's the good side of it. The bad side of it is there will be less matches with midcard talent that allows them to get over with a crowd by having longer matches on a PPV show. It also confuses the viewer because you just never know who's on what show anymore. I'm really not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing at this point. It depends on the quality of the PPVs as well as the buyrates. If both of those things go up then you'd have a tough time convincing me that this is a bad thing.
Matt: The only, and I say only, positive I can think of having every PPV be tri-branded is that the main feuds can be dragged out a little bit more. For instance, if Backlash was Raw-only, we would probably have Edge vs. Randy Orton instead of the four way because it needed to take up space. Now with the PPVs being tri-branded, Edge vs. Orton can happen at Judgment Day, and the eventual destruction of Rated RKO can burn slower. But otherwise, I'm not a fan of this.
John: I kinda feel bad ofr the midcard guys because now we're never gonna see a cruiserweight match on PPV again. Not like we got them often. Things like that, ya know? I do understand the decision because it'll lead to more people buying the shows due to the star power. It hurts the brand extension, but you're only insulting the fans intelligence with that and that's not a major thing ultimately since they do it regularly.
Matt: I don't even see the need for a brand extension anymore, really. Especially when the ECW Champion has appeared on Raw for three weeks in a row and didn't even bother showing up on the show he's champion on last week!
John: The brand extension is for house shows really. It just defines the shows. Now they can have 7 house shows per week instead of the four they used to have. They could do it like they did in the 80s and mix them up every month, but the business is not as hot as it was then.
Matt: Well I thought the brand extension was to establish new stars, but whatever. I'll wait to see how Backlash does in buyrates before I decide whether or not it was a good idea, but I will say this. Now that there are tri-branded PPVs, PLEASE regulate it to one a month. Either that, or if you're going to keep two PPVs a month, have different stars on different PPVs.
John: 12 PPVs in a year is definitely enough. They need to cut back for sure.
6. Ken Kennedy: The next great heel or just an average wrestler getting a push because there's nobody else?
John: I really do like him, but I think he's only slightly above average. Like I touched on earlier, the top guys in this company are old for the most part, so they need to put some fresh blood into the main event picture. Kennedy is part of that. I hate that he has no finisher. Sure, he uses that rolling Samoan drop off the middle rope that I think is called The Green Bay Plunge, but how many matches against big names has he won with that? His promos are fun and it's an original gimmick. He's also a student of the game and was smart enough to change his last name to the middle name of his boss. That's a great suck up move. Try that at your work! Anyway, I'm not here to bash the guy. I just need to see more before I call him great. I think he will be great, maybe in a year from now. He's not there yet.
Matt: The next great heel. Movesets are movesets, but when you have an undeniable charisma, one that really sticks out, you’ll go far in the business, no matter how mediocre to decent you are in the ring. Kennedy’s got that. He’s got charisma I haven’t seen since The Rock. Yes, he’s that good. There’s been an internet backlash against him lately because he’s popular and it’s suddenly cool to go against everything that’s popular, but I’ve been on the Kennedy bandwagon since he was Mr. Anderson down in OVW, and I’m still with him today. KENNNNNEDYYYYY!
John: The problem with being a great heel is there really is only one right now in Edge. It took him nearly a decade to develop into that. Kennedy's really good, but he's not there yet. I need to see more out of him in the ring and I think he needs to add more depth to his character. I will say that JBL really tries hard to put him over, especially his aggressiveness in the ring, and that helps a lot.
Matt: JBL could get a doorknob over if he wanted to. He makes the Miz intereting for Christ's sake! Anyway, to Kennedy. He ain't that young. He's 31, I believe. He should definitely get his shot now while he has a few good years ahead of him.
John: Do you think he needs to have a better finisher or one that he at least uses to win matches? Also, do you think he needs a definining feud to help elevate him to that level?
Matt: Finishers aren't necessarily a necessity. Hell, Carlito was in the company for like two years before he had a finisher. I don't think he needs a big feud becuase he already had one in the Undertaker late last year and I think he did a fantastic job with it.
John: I don't think it was big enough at all. He needs more.
7. Since it seems they'll hire just about anybody (Tomko, The Heartbrakers, Jacqueline, etc.), what WWE reject would you like to see in TNA?
Matt: I’d say Rikishi. You’d think I’d say Brock Lesnar but from watching a lot of his stuff lately I’m starting to think he’s really overrated. Look at the guys he was in the ring with: Benoit, Guerrero and Angle. They can make anybody look good. So can Undertaker when he feels like it. I think big Kish could come back in a big way, and could you imagine if he formed an alliance with Samoa Joe? My god, they could be unstoppable. Kish is fun, and he seems to have rejuvenated his career in Italy, so I’d like to see him come back.
John: I'm not going to say Chris Jericho because I think when he comes back this summer most likely it'll be to WWE. Brock Lesnar would be nice, but he seems to be committed to MMA for now. I'm going to cheat and pick two names: Doug Basham and Danny Basham aka Damaja. I thought they were terribly underused in WWE and I'd like to see both guys on their own in TNA. I read so much about how good they were in OVW especially on promos and then they were basically mutes in WWE.
Matt: See I thought about Jericho but I'm just considering that he's not even in wrestling anymore. Rikishi's still in it.
John: I was shocked by your Rikishi pick. Dude is in his 40s now. The last thing TNA needs are more guys that are past their prime. Use guys that were misused in WWE and show the world what kind of stars they can be. That's why I pick the Bashams. Of course I'd fire Vince Russo before any of this. He's the one kiling the company with his inane booking.
Matt: Dude, if Scott Steiner can do a Frankensteiner when he can barely form a coherent sentence then it doesn't really matter how old Rikishi is, now does it?
John: Yeah, but as a fan do you want old WWE guys or younger WWE guys that weren't given a chance before? I don't really care to see Rikishi dance again, to be honest.
Matt: I don't want to see him dance. I want to see him work. But you're right, the casual fans will demand that he dance. I'm just thinking about Jamal. How a trip overseas and working in front of a different crowd turned him into such a better worker. I'm basically just interested to see how Rikishi has improved since working in Italy. And you saw Raw, right? The fans there are NUTS.
John: The Bashams will probably end up there soon. Doug is engaged to Gail Kim, I believe. They'll be there sooner or later, so I'll get to see them have a decent shot hopefully.
8. Do you like the Lockdown concept of having every match in a steel cage or does it ruin the mystique of the steel cage?
John: I hate it. I really like the 5 on 5 Wargames style main event, but other than that this concept kills the allure of a cage match. Cage matches should end a feud, it should feature blood all over the place and there should be plenty of drama in the match because the guys absolutely hate eachother. If you're throwing out 6 minute singles matches and putting them inside a cage it makes the whole idea meaningless.
Matt: It was a dumb move when they did it the first time, and even dumber that they actually stuck with it. Cage matches are supposed to be the blowoff to a big feud. Having undercard matches contested in a steel cage really seems to take the point of having the cage in the first place away. Was Russo around when that decision was originally made? Sounds like something he’d do.
John: I saw Lockdown and I have to say once again that having a cage in every match sucks big time. There was no need for it in a bunch of the matches and the blindfold match between Harris and Storm was one of the worst matches I've ever seen. They tried to make the tag title match huge with the electrified cage. Guess what? Didn't work. Crowd was dead for it. The main event was just okay. Not a good concept for a PPV and it never will be.
Matt: Electrocutions may have worked in the old WCW or on Wrestling Society X (oh wait, they didn't), but in front of the smark TNA fans? Forget it. The problem with Russo is that he's not booking toward his audience. I'm glad in hearing that many of the undercard matches barely used the cage, because some of those matches just didn't need to be in a steel cage. It really devalues the importance of the cage to have Petey Williams vs. Robert Roode in a cage. OMG Team Canada EXPLODES!
John: They hyped up Gail vs. Jackie in the cage like it was a huge thing. Gail leapt off the top (or near the top) to win with a crossbody, but she missed her by a lot. Still a gutsy move. It's just that I can't imagine any fan buying the PPV because two women are wrestling in a cage match.
Matt: I can't imagine any fan buying the PPV at all. What pisses me off about TNA is that they have all the tools and talent to really take it to WWE and they're pissing it all away, but that's a whole other discussion for another time.
9. Seeing as how he just won the World Title, I think this is appropriate. What's your favorite Undertaker moment?
Matt: There’s so many, but I’m going to go with one of the obscure ones. Remember, I started watching wrestling when I was 7, so I was legitimately afraid of the Undertaker. He actually looked downright scary. And when he beat Hulk Hogan at the 91 Survivor Series I was stunned. Nobody beats Hulk Hogan. So my favorite moment was when he turned face on Jake Roberts. I believe it was Roberts who asked Undertaker, “Who’s side are you on?” and he answered, “Not yours,” I had a big smile on my face. I was glad that this big scary man was now on the side of good. There have been tons of great moments and matches involving Taker, but this one was probably the nearest and dearest to my heart.
John: Probably Hell in a Cell against Shawn Michaels at Bad Blood in 1997. Holy shit, it's been ten years! That's my second favorite match in company history after Hart/Austin @ WM13 because everything worked absolutely perfectly. The way they built up to spots in that match like the big chair spot, Shawn falling off the cage and then Kane walking in to give Shawn the cheap win was just outstanding professional wrestling. I don't think Undertaker's had a better night in the business. Also when he once asked a frightened, flat chested and very young looking Stephanie McBoobs: "Where to, Stephanie?" That was just classic in its cheesiness.
Matt: Hah, I completely forgot about "Where to, Stephanie." It was so cheesy in its brilliance, or brilliant in its cheesiness. I forget which.
John: My other Undertaker moments would be stuff like the way he really put over a guy like Brock Lesnar, his awesome year of 1997 when he had good matches all over the place, the surprisingly good match against Diesel at WM12 in 1996 and that title run he had in 2002 that shocked me with how great it was. I really wish he would go back to being that kind of heel again. Sadly, it ain't happening.
Matt: I don't know what it is, but Undertaker's been on fire for the past year. I recently re-read my "Deadman Leaving" column I wrote in 2004 [/shill!] and I recalled how horrible having dead Undertaker would be, and it was, for a couple years or so. But he's definitely deserving of holding the belt right now.
John: People are motivated by winning belts. Even 42 year olds that should know better. You'd like to see everybody try hard all the time no matter what, but that doesn't always happen. Can you blame him for busting ass when he's not working with crap like Khali?
Matt: I'll always say this about Undertaker: when he's motivated, there are few who are better in the ring. The problem is that from 2003 to that Angle match in 2006, he wasn't motivated.
John: Like I said, he should know better. And as a leader of the locker room he should lead by example. At least he's healthy. That's always important.
10. Backlash is coming up this month. Any Backlash (or other April-post PPV) memories you wanna share?
John: Rock vs. HHH in 2000 when Rock won the title from HHH thanks to a returning Steve Austin chairing the fuck out of everybody in sight. Should have been the WrestleMania main event. They saved it for Backlash, popped one of the best non big four PPV buyrates ever and delivered a very good match. It's somewhat forgotten because the Ironman they had a month later was better, but as far as moments go the sound of the glass breaking, chubby Austin coming down (he was recovering from neck surgery and couldn't work) and helping Rock overcome all the heels was a really cool moment. Chris Benoit making Shawn Michaels tap to the Sharpshooter in Edmonton in 2004 was an awesome moment too. Oh, and the wrestling debut of "God" at last year's Backlash was uh...heavenly?
Matt: Raven vs. Rhyno Hardcore Title match in 2001. It had no right to be as good as it was. Makes you wonder what they could have done with the new ECW if they really wanted to. I have the match on the WWF Hardcore DVD, but a point in the match I remember was when Raven was about to ram Rhyno with a shopping cart, and he waves his arms in the air trying to get the crowd behind him. And the building went NUTS. They absolutely stole the show on a card that not only featured Benoit and Angle wrestling for 30 minutes, but a main event featuring Austin, Triple H, Undertaker and Kane. It’s probably my favorite Hardcore match of all time.
John: I don't even remember that match you're talking about, to be honest. Haven't watched that show in a while. I recall Benoit/Angle from that show as well as being disappointed by a tag match in a main event. Otherwise, I have no recollection of it.
Matt: 2001 was a great year for PPVs. Backlash was probably the worst that year and it still had great matches on the card. What a golden year. Well, at least the first part. I really enjoyed the ending to the triple threat in 2004. It definitely was the first step in Shawn Michaels getting cheered by Montreal in 2006, which even I'm surprised that it happened.
John: I loved Rock vs. HHH so much in 2000. When Rock won that match he got one of the biggest pops I can ever remember. Well deserved too.
Matt: Should have happened at Wrestlemania, I say. Bad time to experiment with a heel retaining.
John: The buyrate for that Backlash was monstrous, as was Judgment Day. I understand people being pissed that it wasn't at Mania, but business wise it was a very good move.
QUICK HITS
Matt: John Cena is 4-0 at Wrestlemania, the second-longest active undefeated streak. Should he try to go for Taker's streak?
John: He should beat Undertaker next year. He's the only one that should do it.
Matt: Agreed. I want Taker's streak to eventually end, and if Edge didn't do it this year, Cena should do it next year.
John: Is Cena losing the title at Backlash? If so, to who?
Matt: He's not. I don't think he's going to lose the belt for a while, actually. I expect a year-long-plus reign.
John: I say Michaels wins it, mostly because I want it more than anything. He deserves one more run.
Matt: Santino Marella as IC Champ, smart move? No? Too early to tell?
John: I don't think it's very smart. Then again I think they poorly book midcard titles all the time, so it's to be expected at this point.
Matt: His debut reminds me of Savio Vega, and I was a huge Savio fan, so I'm a little excited to see what he can do.
John: Who's your favorite woman in WWE right now?
Matt: Maria, and even [i]her[/i] hairdo is starting to turn me off.
John: I feel bad picking against Maria because she's Greek and all, but I say Kristal Marshall despite having a stupid storyline.
Matt: More useless title, Women's or Cruiserweight?
John: Women's. The quality of the women in the ring is so bad right now.
Matt: I agree. At least the Cruiserweights can wrestle. But they'll only put the Women's Title on Pay Per View. I think they should both be retired, though.
John: Are you going to see The Condemned in theatres, on DVD or not at all?
Matt: On DVD. Right now I've got The Marine and See No Evil in my Netflix Queue. Condemned will join it when it comes out. It reminds me of Battle Royale, which I'm reading now and very much enjoying. I'm sure it won't be nearly as interesting though.
John: I might give it a look in theatres. I'm an Austin mark, so I feel obligated to drop down the money to see it. Have not seen the other two WWE movies and have little intent on doing so.
John: Thoughts? Questions? Comments. Email us at the addresses below or feel free to talk about it with us in the column feedback section of our forums. Also, if you've got an idea for a topic that we can use please let us know and we might use it.
The next edition of For Love or Money will come whenever we get the chance to do it. Since we don't have a schedule for this stuff I would say roughly between 4-6 weeks from now.
Visit the For Love or Money Archives for previous editions. Thanks for reading.
On another note, if you're an NBA fan you can read my NBA playoff preview with Mike Maloney on Saturday only at the Sports Oratory, so check that one out. Go Raptors! I'm picking Suns over Pistons, but the Raps are my team, so I hope they do well.
Thanks for reading.
Matt "The Love" Seagull - OratorBirdman@gmail.com
John "JC Money" C. - oratoryjohn@gmail.com
