A History of WrestleZone Forums: A Ken Burns Film

[Coco]

Watching Ken Burns' work on baseball, jazz, and the Roosevelts, I've been stunned by just how thoughtful and significant the writing and oration of previous generations always seems in his work -- even when the writing and oration is neither thoughtful nor significant. Rather, those words are elevated by Burns being great at his craft and by the selection of familiar voices he has read for his work.

In that spirit, we should all take a moment to consider just how thoughtful and significant our writing here at WrestleZone would sound as spoken by some of Hollywood's most recognizable voices.

A History of WrestleZone Forums
A Ken Burns Film


FEATURING

Sir Ian McKellen as "D-Man"

What are you saying? Hackers should change their minds because Blake's phone wasn't unlocked? I'm lost here.

I'm looking at this realistically and I'm not acting like I'm running for office. I honestly think that all of you guys siding with the fact that Blake is some innocent little unicorn is total bullshit. She's a young girl in the age of wireless technology that made a horrific judgment call, just like Paris Hilton, the singer from Paramore, and many others. All of these girls know the risks of taking these photos, yet they take them anyway and get all sleazy with their boyfriends by sending them out.

In addition, they don't erase them afterwards!! Like, they're thinking, "Gee... I'll save these nude photos for the next guy whose dick I'll suck in a Hollywood club's VIP room." They watch the news, they have publicists, and TONS of people who advise them not to do such things, yet they do it anyway.

Realistically, we live in a world full of creeps, rapists, crooks, and other bad people. If I had a genie's magic lamp, I just might use one of my wishes to clean this shit up, but I don't. Therefore, I'm forced to adapt to the fact that this world is fucked up. Women in Hollywood should take lessons from this and not take naked fucking pictures of themselves using any type of internet platforms, whether it be PC or cell phone.

While you all have a 100% valid argument stating that it is illegal and wrong to obtain these private pieces of media, we all have just as much of a right to say the victim is a fucking moron and should be held just as accountable.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?p=3153287#post3153287

Martin Sheen as "Slyfox696"

Yeah, you guys obviously weren't watching the same episode of Monday Night Raw. That was a verbal beatdown by Cena, while the Rock just stood there and took it. What's funny is if the same thing had happened the opposite way, everyone would be talking about how Rock destroyed Cena, but since it is John Cena doing it to the Rock, suddenly it's "even footing".

Rock said nothing of importance, and Cena threw down a GREAT promo, in which he explained his calling Rock out, and then telling the Rock that, unlike Dwayne Johnson, Cena isn't afraid of being who he really is. While Dwayne Johnson was off making movies and trying to avoid ever being called a pro wrestler, denying what he once was, Cena is the real deal, and will never be ashamed of doing what he does and being the hero to millions around the world, that he won't change his morals and values to be accepted.

It was a beatdown. He called Rock a small person for belittling Cena's morals of "hustle, loyalty and respect", mocked him for his million catchphrases and then scolded him for both denying who he was and for trying to cheapen the value of children in wrestling.

Cena owned the Rock, and owned him hard.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=2980038&postcount=36

J.K. Simmons as "The Mighty NorCal"

Telling you how to live your life? By what, telling you that you sound like an utter fool spewing this bigot shit?

Full of myself, and shit, is it? Ask Milky if I am full of myself. So full of myself that I can sit here and condemn entire groups of fucking people, based on oh, I dont know, nothing? Like you? I would never threaten to beat your ass. You cant beat ignorance out of someone. I know that is probably what you think is the best way, but it just doesnt work.

Who the fuck do I think I am? I dont know, maybe a person who has any fuckimg modicom of fucking experience with the group of people you are talking about, very much unlike you? Who the fuck am I? Im a fucking opponet of bigotry.

You know EXACTLY who the fuck I am, but hey, its cool to get tough with Mighty NorCal, isnt it? "I AINT ASKEERED A YOU HUR HUR DERPA DERP"

Really, the assault NorCal's character bit has been done before, dude.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=2344637&postcount=137

Morgan Freeman as "I Am Phenom"

As I said, DJ is 14. According to him, he's been having sex with boys since the age of 8 and with men since last year (age 13). He wants a steady relationship and has been going out recently with a 21 year old guy who he met online. Now in my eyes and more importantly the eyes of the law, DJ's partner is a pedophile and DJ is a victim of child abuse and statutory rape. That's not how DJ sees it however. "I want a boyfriend", DJ says. "It's my choice. No one's abusing me. Why should we be treated like criminals?" Again, I tell him all of the societal norms. You don't know what you want or what you're doing, this guy is only after sex with boys, he doesn't love you, blah blah blah. I find myself talking to DJ as if he's a child. In the eyes of the law, he is a child and that should be enough. Is he really just a little kid though? He assures me that he is not just a child. Plus, his sophisticated gay image makes him look older than 14. I mean, he comes across as bright, articulate, sure of himself, and above all else, mature beyond his years. It's hard to imagine anyone getting away with taking advantage of him.

So we continue to talk (honestly this is the best conversation that I've had in years and it's with a 14 year old) and we get to the law breaking part of his relationship. DJ is concerned with the law, which in Nevada states that men over 19 who have consensual sex with guys under 18 are classified as dangerous sex criminals on par with child rapists. After serving their sentence, they would be required to register their address with the police for minimum of five years and could have their identity revealed to the public. Needless to say, this is a huge problem for DJ. Not only because his current partner is 21, but because he prefers older guys as opposed to guys his own age. He said: "I don't like guys my own age. They're too immature. I like men in their 20s to early 30s. They are more experienced and serious. With them, you can get into a closer relationship than you can with a teenager." Now I had him. "If other guys your age are too immature for serious relationships, what's the difference with you", I asked. "If they're too young for that sort of thing, aren't you?" "No", he said almost angrily. "Not all guys my age are immature like that but most are. Some kids mature faster than others." He continued with: "I don't consider guys who's balls have dropped as mature. I'm talking mentally mature. Some guys around my age have jobs and help support their families while still being on the honor roll at school. Yet the law still says they're too young." "The law is stupid", he exclaimed. "If I know what I'm doing and I'm not harming anyone else, I should be allowed to be with whoever I want."

Although I still have plenty of doubts, he has a point. If nobody forced him to do something he didn't want to do. If he wasn't tied down, drugged, or beaten. If he truly wants to be with an older guy and he truly understands the gravity of what he's doing and the consequences; is it wrong? Same goes for women and straight people in similar situations. I used to think that underage relationships were wrong no matter what. Was I wrong? I'm not saying that people go out and find an attractive 15 year old and get them to say yes or anything like that, however, if an underage teenager is truly in love with an older person, they understand everything that is going on, and they are a willing participant in the relationship; is it still wrong?

What do you guys think? Underage relationships are wrong no matter what? Depends on the situation? They're still kid? I'd like to know your opinions on such a taboo subject. I told DJ that I'd be posting this topic on here, so please be respectful.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=5385225&postcount=1

John Travolta as "xfearbefore"

I find it hilarious that you only pick to address the insults, yet have not once responded to the fact that you've proven yourself a hypocrite several times already.

So heres a quick list of things you have yet to address.

1) Your parents and anyone who has ever had sex ever is going to hell for incest, since you claim we all came from the same two people.

2) How did those people just magically appear out of thin air?

3) How can all drugs be a sin if the Church uses alcohol daily, and it's been proven that Jesus and his followers used marijuana for several different purposes?

4) Please explain to me how a book that was written by humans, and not God or Jesus Christ, can be 100% correct about everything it says, even when a majority of it has already been proven wrong by science?

5) How can some science be correct, and other science be incorrect? I'd love to hear your explanation as to how the exact same tools and methods are correct in one case, but incorrect in another.

6) Have you ever taken a science class? Have you ever passed a science class? If so, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

Just off the top of my head.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=703014&postcount=125

Julianne Moore as "Milenko"

and the MVP is none other than.....

Mark Henry


Crowd Reaction: he got pretty good heat when he walked down in the ramp to interfere in Bog Show's cage match.

Promo/Mic time: He didn't have a Promo persay but he did a great job getting even more heat while he was arguing with the fans.

Quality of their match: Again he didn't have a match but he was awesome beating down Big Show

How they handle their character: This is where he shined. The past few weeks I was skeptical because we've seen it all before but after tonight I have to say I'm loving it and if done right I can see him as World Champion for at least a few weeks between PPVs.


2nd Place this weeks goes to A-Ry. I've always been a fan but this man is going places. He is awesome in the rinf gets good popd and puts on good matches. If he had a Promo or mic time in general this week he may have ended up the MVP

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=3216659&postcount=1

Gilbert Gottfried as "TheOneBigWill"

​

I wouldn't go off and create a Bar room thread whining and complaining that he lost, if he does, if that's what you're thinking.



Actually though, while everything would be opinion based, it'd be hard to argue that the Undertaker's accomplished more than Edge has in the same time frame of their career's.

The Undertaker is a 19 year vet. He's won 6 Heavyweight Championships, 7 Tag Team Championships, 1 Hardcore Championship and 1 Royal Rumble victory.

Edge is an 11 year vet. He's won 9 Heavyweight Championships, 12 Tag Team Championships, 5 Intercontinental, 1 United States, 1 King of the Ring and 2 MITB cases. Albeit, only 1 was by way of winning the actual match.

Still, that's quite a lop-sided list, in almost half the time, that Edge has made himself as opposed to the Undertaker.



I wouldn't say Raven faced pure crap for opponents, but naturally next to none of them were of the quality that the W.W.F was producing. (If they were, they'd of had higher paying jobs, in a Company that isn't owned by their one-time rival now)

And I actually side with believing Raven is better in that environment than any other. But I still think people over-played how much they felt Edge wouldn't win - just because they felt Raven was vastly superior. That was just plain stupid.



Well hey now, you can't go complaining to me about sticking up a "vote Edge now" thread, when Sam created one in a section that gets MORE traffic, earlier in the day.

All I did, was copied what the rival was doing first. It's not my fault, my trick worked - whereas my rivals hasn't yet. (Lesnar's last ditch "vote me" thread didn't work, and neither did Austin's)

I will say thank you for giving me credit though on putting up good arguments. I didn't think compliments were within your style.



My only problem here is, people are going to naturally complain that Austin "tore Edge a new ass".. whereas they'll turn around and claim Taker barely suffered in his "squash" against Benoit. Both are complete and total fabrications and utter trash arguments.

I'm not saying Edge wouldn't of went through hell to win, but look at the history of ANY Wrestler who's went through a harder line of opponents. Typically, that Wrestler wins over the "more rested" of opposition.

Need proof? Mr. Ass, 1999 KOTR. He went through Mabel, Shamrock, Kane then X-Pac just to win the KOTR. That's damn impressive for a guy coming off being a "Tag Team specialist".

And you can't even begin to sit there and tell me Edge isn't better than the former Stylist of the Beautiful People.



LMAO True. This brings back memories of the Smackdown vs Raw video game, when they'd have that one gauntlet match where it was You against the entire roster of the game, over and over and over until you finally lost. Ah, great times. I'd use Triple H and just pedigree people over and over to get a KO instantly.

I'll have to see if Edge is in that version of the game, if he is (no reason why he wouldn't be) I'll have to use him and see if this logic of Edge vs the entire roster could work.



The official KOTR didn't begin until 1993. Then you're looking at the overall Heel winning throughout. And typically, it's the heel who's had the more impressive "road to the finals".

Who's Jericho beaten? Rob Van Dam. Bam Bam Bigelow in a match formatted for him to win! Scott Steiner (toughest match to my knowledge) and Bob Backlund.

Thats hardly going through the likes of Lesnar, Austin & Raven. Not to mention - Steamboat, who had the Hall of Fame backing this year. Edge's weakest opponent was the World's Strongest Man. That's not too shabby of a winning streak for tourney standards.

So by this logic - Edge would surely win, once again like I said to KB, because he'd have the biggest bragging rights of all - to say who all he defeated to win.



Angle is arguably better than both Austin, or Taker. But you're 100% right, Rhyno is in NO way, shape or form, either Austin or Taker. Yet you surely have to give some minor credit to Edge being a guy breaking free from the Tag team ranks in this tournament to make a statement against Angle of all people, who was one of the top guys in 2001.



I don't think I ever said you couldn't use Taker's victories over Edge. But it defeats purpose when Edge's defeated the Undertaker. (by pinfall, at least once to win a World title - and more so in Tag matches and other meaningless matches)

I'm only counting Edge's tournament victory, because it shows he can win these style of matches. Whereas Taker stumbles in them. For various reasons, he still can't seem to win tournaments.



I still swear the Judgment Day match was thrown out, after Taker used the Hell's Gate(s) on him - when Vickie said using that move would cost Taker the match - and the title. (which is how the title was held up for One Night Stand to begin with.)

And naturally Taker would've won at Backlash, it'd have made him look like a shit Champion to lose 2 weeks after Mania.



He hasn't won all of their one-on-one encounters. But he's won more, which also stands to reason that it's "Edge's turn" once again. As typically in Pro Wrestling, that's how they do things with two big names.



I've already defused why none of that matters, to KB.



How can I show you proof, that you couldn't counter with your own? You say you're voting for Taker, because he's beaten Edge. Well, I could show you several videos in which Edge has beaten Taker. It won't change anything, it'll take us to a stale-mate.

All the "proof" I can give you, is pure speculation based on kayfabe logic, and overall storyline booking. The Undertaker is simply the wrong type of character, and individual to win here. Edge is the perfect type.

Why? Because Edge's character thrives off this type of match, this type of setting. A tournament, in which you seize every moment, every opportunity. Again, even if my vote could be bought - unless someone show's me where the Undertaker can thrive even remotely in a tournament, much less as many as Edge's won (over just as big of names) then I fail to see how Taker is a proven winner in this match.



Its okay, my posts in this thread shouldn't be AS long. I'm not trying AS much.



I think if I didn't know any better, you'd be trying to use Idiocracy on me. You know the difference between a victory that means something, and a victory that's just another win.

Yes, winning means something.. but not always does it mean everything. If this were a regular match, with no out-come that means anything - Edge would get counted out and just walk away. But it's not just some match.

It's a match in which the winner is moving on to the Finals of a very important tournament. One, Edge, will put more heart, passion, desire and focus into - than the Undertaker, who goes into everything the same way. (unless of course, once again, this is Wrestlemania)



How is there not? Have you read a word I've said? I gave plenty of full-proof theories and opinions on why Edge not just could, but should and would win. Very logical reasoning. A lot more so than just being "out-matched" should bring you a victory.

If thats the case, why isn't this a match-up between Big Show/Lesnar/Vader on one side and Austin/Rock/Hogan on the other?

Once again, proves that your opinion of "the better, more well-rounded athlete should always win" theory doesn't work.



What the F ever. How is the Undertaker NOT overrated? He dresses in black, and has fake parlor tricks "spook" his opponents. Wow, thats fucking talent right there, KB.

Taker's went through 19 years (mainly and mostly) off of being considered a "Deadman". He's only ever going to be remembered for Wrestlemania, and if it wasn't for the event that comes once a year and has brought him a 17-0 streak.. he'd be just as useless, forgettable and overrated as the Big Show.

Wrestlemania makes the Undertaker relevant. The other 364 days of the year, he's either gone, jobbing, or tied up in useless, nonsense feuds that go no where for the most part.

Edge is ALWAYS relevant, and doesn't just rely on any one thing to make his name remembered.



Riigghhtt.. so, go find me a video of Taker winning a MITB match. How about finding me a video of Taker winning 9 different Heavyweight titles. Wait, better yet - where's the video of Taker fucking Kane's girlfriend?

Uh huh.. so, he's NOT quite as better as you say he is. I see. Any other false elaborations you wanna lay on these people so I can put you back in your place, or does this wrap it up?

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=1148684&postcount=36

 

[Coco]

And in a position of highest honour...

Pierce Brosnan as "Y 2 Jake"

​

Collectively, excluding bank phonecalls, I've never been on the phone for more than three hours. That's in 25 years.

Ring.
''Out?''
''Yes''
Click.

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=74509&highlight=jake

 

[Hyorinmaru]

Julianne Moore?

I can live with that.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

So who's playing the village idiot Doug Crashin?

 

[Harthan]

I had entirely forgotten the Mark Henry as MVP debacle. Probably the forum's proudest moment.

CSS vs the World was a good time too. I got infracted in that thread.

 

[JGlass]

J.K. Simmons as NorCal is fantastic casting if you ignore appearances, body type, and accents. Because Simmons can be the friendly, lovable dad in Juno, or he could be the teacher in Whiplash.

 

[ScreaminNormanSmiley]

So who's playing the village idiot Doug Crashin?

Extra

 

[D-Man]

Wait... I'm Magneto/Gandalf? And I received top billing?

I don't hate this.

 

[Coco]

Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor was billed over Chris Reeve. Doesn't mean Hackman was the star.