Roger Ebert's review of 300 made me mark
 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/506949713

He includes a few wrestling references, in an insulting way to the movie, but I'm surprised by how accurate they were.

Has there ever been moments where you see or hear professional wrestling mentioned accurately in a place you didn't expect it to be?

Yeah, kind of a fan boy thing to mark on Noid. I still will always love you though.

Did I miss some of the references? I count three, all of which are kind of vague and seem to draw any accuracy from exactly that.

Well he does mention the Edge-Undertaker feud...

Which is one of the ones I noted, but hardly think there's any specific similarities outside of a vague sort of comparison. Noid was talking accuracy, and I'm missing it. Anyone want to point out how it's specifically accurate in the subject matter, be my guest. I just looked at his summary, looked at the feud, and thought "Yeah, okay, vaguely true."

Ebert seems up on terms like "feud," and the actual ongoings of the WWE. I've seen him mention Haystacks Calhoun in previous articles, too. I'm just throwing out there how it's sort of cool a man as educated, successful and influential as Roger Ebert doesn't seem to completely condescend the wrestling industry, and has obviously at least done research on it.

If you're hiring Nickelodeon writers, Freddie Prinze, Jr. and writers who want to ask JBL how he makes the fake blood keep coming out, you might as well give Roger Ebert an offer.

Also, BDC, Roger Ebert will forever be a) more successful than you, and b) better than you. His review is also spot-on about the movie. It was really shitty.

There is a movie Roger Ebert wrote coming out of college called "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls."

Watch it and then let me know if you would still want him as a writer with WWE.

I'm well aware of that movie. It makes more sense than Russo booking, and would at least get us out of the "kiddie era."

"Feud" is a pretty widespread term, and while it might be hice that he mentioned Calhoun in another article, that was somehow left out previously.

Considering that he uses it to compare to a genre that he apparently hates most of all, I'm not sure that any of that is particularly a good thing. I mean, whether or not he "completely" condescends professional wrestling, he's bringing it up in terms of cardboard monologues and such.

I'm not sure how much I'd want a guy who starts asking logic questions about an action movie writing for WWE, period. I mean, to ask how they supplied all those people...I think his head might explode if he tried to tackle the logic behind the way steel chairs work.

Something smells like not giving a shit.

Oh wait, it's me.