Matt Hardy has been released by WWE... and for those who follow him on Twitter and keep up with his series of YouTube videos, you'll know it's been quite the saga. We discuss Hardy's release and what he might be up to next.

We also chew the fat over the upcoming Bragging Rights ppv - is this just Survivor Series-Lite? And we talk about WWE's upcoming film, Knucklehead, as well as the possibility of Wade Barrett playing a significant role at WrestleMania 27.

Nice to have you with us for this week's edition of Gimme Five.

1) Matt Hardy is gone and he's very pleased apparently. He suggested it was harder for him to get fired than it was to get hired. Presumably the easiest part was the limbo he hovered in for the last half-decade or more. So what next for Matt Hardy? TNA? Teaming and/or feuding with Jeff again? Repeat and rinse. Or will he move on to something else? And what do you think of his comments/actions over the last few months?

Steph:
I would not be at all surprised to see Matt show up on TNA. Haven't really been following the drama!

Kirsty:
Matt Hardy is driving me nuts. His tweets are so facetious of late it makes my teeth ache. "I hope to have several of my family, friends, & fans help me to make that difference so we can make our world a better place. I BELIEVE." Puhleeease! It's just so trite, and he's been making such a song and dance about how hard it was for him to get released (as if WWE were begging him to stay) and how fabulous he is now that he's not with WWE, it's all a bit much. It also seems to be a case of "methinks he doth protest too much" as well. Were it not for the fact that I have to keep up with Twitter news, I would have un-followed him long ago.

I have no doubt we'll see him in TNA, where they will no doubt reunite the Hardy Boys sooner or later. They will not be able to resist.

I used to have a great deal of respect for Matt Hardy and all that he has contributed over the years, but that respect is rapidly eroding in the face of this constant onslaught of precious, self-important autowittering of gibberish.

If you haven't read it yet, Stevie McCleary's recent column about the whole Matt Hardy saga is bang on the money and totally worth a read.

Stevie:
I've said most of what I wanted to say about Matt in my Editorial this week. But I'm dismayed and appalled at him faking mental illness in order to get fired. That really got to me. Add that on to how he seems to have no issue getting in to shape now and I'm left with the impression he's a self-serving backyarder with an overly generous opinion of himself. What a child.

Luke:
Repeat and rinse. Hardy will go to TNA, it's been obvious since Jeff left that Matt was going to follow him there. I think that Matt has handled the entire situation unprofessionally, pretty much destroying and burning all the bridges with WWE as the months went on. I will give him credit for being the first wrestler to use Youtube to express himself, though to me it seemed like he was trying to become the first guy that complained using Youtube in order to receive a push. I used to be a Matt Hardy follower, but I believe he has blown his chances of ever making it big. And for that, he can join the alumni in TNA, rack up a paycheck, still stay fat and then bash WWE on TNA programming like every other reject has.

David:
Matt will sit at home, eating grapes, for the remainder of his 90 day no-compete clause, then head on over to TNA and probably have himself a little feud with Jeff Hardy before the two get back on the same page and reunite, filling the void left by a retiring Team 3D. I'm in two minds about how Matt got his release. On the one hand, it was immature and unprofessional as anything - but you can't say it wasn't entertaining.

Simon:
Well it's already all been said - and I'd agree that Stevie covers it very well in this week's Editorial here. And well done to him for that. Matt Hardy has, to me, been a bit like Pearl Jam albums for the last decade. You know they're going to work, you know they're going to remind you of the best of the old bits from time to time and you know they're also really just a little bit shit and rather out of date, struggling to remain relevant.

And yes, he'll go to TNA and work with and against Jeff. As someone said, that's been the plan - from TNA's point of view anyway - since they got Jeff. TNA will take anyone and everyone it can from WWE. It always will.

Scott:
Well, Matt Hardy won at the interweb, so clearly the future is boundless! Right? Right? Look, Stevie's Editorial said most of what I think about the 'self-destruction of Matt Hardy, though I would've made more of a point about his utter lack of professionalism. I don't care at all what he does now; one of my once favourite performers now makes me just feel very very sad.

Matt:
I think TNA will embrace him with open arm bars. Like I said a while back, I'd be more than happy to see Team Xtreme go one on one with The Machine Guns, Beer Money and the like whose tag team efforts of late make anything the 'E has served up pale by comparison. As for his antics in the past few months? What else could he do? If you're midcarding/jobbing in the 'E for any length of time I think you know that the clock is ticking on your career. Good on Matt for taking his destiny into his own hands! I wonder if he wished himself all the best with his future endeavours?

Dion:
It's been a bit of a sad decline for Matt Hardy. He was such a key part of the reinvention of WWE in the late 90's, but the last few years have been forgetable, unfortunately. His best days are almost certainly behind him, but I also have no doubt that we'll see him showing up in TNA sooner rather than later.

I actually hope it lights a fire under him and opens a new chapter in his life - be it out of wrestling, or getting back into shape and having a final run and an opportunity to say goodbye.

2) NXT continues its burrow toward new lows, RAW still has a computer for a General Manager, though Edge mangled its voicebox sufficiently (along with his dignity). So how are you enjoying Michael Cole's voice across these shows? Is it a breath of fresh air hearing Cole with some anger, with some awareness and self-parody? Or do you find him even more annoying lately?

Steph:
Oh sweet God someone get Michael Cole the hell off SmackDown. It's not even that it's Michael Cole, worst commentator in the world, but seriously, last week they had four people talking at once. And while I can appreciate his fantastic heel-ness, he just sucks as a commentator. Learn the wrestlers' names, learn what the spots are called, and stop trying to make yourself look clever by "predicting" the next move in a scripted bloody match.

Kirsty:
I like heel Michael Cole. I agree with Steph that he should be consistent across all shows though - I don't like this chop and change thing they have going on with him. I think that if they concentrated on really developing his heel persona he could be a force to be reckoned with on commentary.

Also, like Steph, I wish that he'd spend a bit more time concentrating on his accuracy... it's just embarrassing when someone of his tenure continues to screw up the names of simple and oft-used moves. All that said however, I think we're seeing a great new side of him, one with lots of potential.

Stevie:
I like NXT! And I enjoy the silliness of a computer barking orders at folk. At least it's something different. I am being entertained by Cole's new personality (as opposed to the complete lack-of there used to be) but he needs to reign it in as well as be consistent. It's jarring to hear him suddenly rant and rave... then compliment the same person. Also, he claimed last week on RAW that Daniel Bryan cost Team WWE the match at SummerSlam when WWE actually won that match - thanks partially to Bryan eliminating a few of Nexus. Someone should have caught that, it's a bad look that he can't remember what has been going on.

Luke:
I think that the Michael Cole character has finally found its niche. I think that WWE have finally developed a character that they can combat the internet wrestling community in a way that is intelligent. For years Cole has had heat for his commentating skills, and with JR finished now, this new character gives Cole a credible role in WWE. I agree with Steph and Kirsty, Cole's actions should be carried across all the shows and pushed further as a heel character. Perhaps as RAW General Manager as well?

David:
I have unfortunately missed the past few weeks of WWE programming, so I haven't heard Cole on SmackDown. Still, I'm kind of a big fan of the new Cole, not that I didn't like the old Cole though. His gimmick isn't necessarily the sort of thing I'd want someone who wasn't already a wrestling fan to watch, but I just find everything he does hilarious.

Simon:
I really like Cole at the moment but I echo calls for consistency and I also echo calls for him to be removed from one of the shows perhaps. I think a clued-up on-form Striker could be really good going against Cole, because really he can easily out-bark Todd or Josh or anyone like that - they throw like girls. Really.

Scott:
NXT is great! What are you on about? It has Kaitlyn and A.J.! What more do you want!

But as for Michael Cole; I dunno. I can see why he's so popular with WWE management with his ability to constantly bring the focus back on the storylines. But, at the same time, that's why he can be so annoying; he often doesn't talk about the matches actually occurring in front of him, let alone calling moves. And his addition to the SmackDown team dilutes the knowledgeable fun Grisham and Striker were bringing, and at times just leads to too many voices trying to speak at once. I guess, to nick a theme Lance Storm has been writing about recently, Michael Cole is a good storyline announcer, but not a good angle announcer. He can propel a story well, but he's not so good at when the story needs to reach a conclusion in the ring.

Matt:
Cole is at his best when he remains the straight man, butt in the passenger seat, and the butt of all jokes. To have him getting antsy with the talent is a little unbelievable, in that any one of them could snap his twiggy little arms off and beat him with them at the drop of JR's hat. I would have loved seeing Daniel Bryan (pre-tweener turn) sending Cole nigh-nighs with The Lebell Lock. Bring back Jonathon Coachman I say? At least The Coach could run the ropes in the ring when needed.

Dion:
Cole is incredibly annoying and I miss JR more and more by the week. But ask yourself this - is Cole annoying because he's doing a great job as a heel-ish commentator? Does it even matter why you're finding him annoying? The fact that we are could well make his move a victory for Creative.

3) Bragging Rights, also known as Survivor Series-lite, is an unncessary pay-per-view and crowds the ppv roster? True/False? Your thoughts? And will you be watching?

Steph:
FALSE! Come on, last year's Bragging Rights gave us a ridiculously smug Jericho and the schadenfreude of the Miz being able to legitimately point out he won RAW's only victory. This is a ppv that cannot go wrong. I hope.

Kirsty:
I'll be watching. I enjoyed last year's Bragging Rights and I always like the idea of RAW vs. SmackDown. Plus there are some other interesting matches going on - namely Randy Orton vs. Wade Barrett with Cena in his corner. That's going to be lots of fun.

Stevie:
I'd argue there's a few others events that crowd the roster more than this one, but yes, that's mostly true. And it does take away from Survivor Series especially with it being so close. But I will still watch it. What else am I to do on a Monday night?

Luke:
I have always thought that this was a concept that could have just been executed at Survivor Series, considering it is two teams from both brands "surviving". The concepts are almost identical, however the branding of Bragging Rights is fresh compared to Survivor Series. I personally would rather see Survivor Series utilized like the 1998 Deadly Game tournament each year, which would distinguish the show from Bragging Rights. I will most likely watch this ppv though as I have enjoyed the last few shows.

David:
Adopting elimination rules for this year's Bragging Rights match, as opposed to one-fall-to-a-finish at last year's show, certainly makes Bragging Rights dangerously similar to Survivor Series, but, if anything, this should just push Survivor Series to be a better show, rather than being an example of an unnecessary pay-per-view. If I were in charge of WWE, I wouldn't have created Bragging Rights last year because I would have already been having the occasional SmackDown vs. RAW clash at the big four pay-per-views, but seeing as we already have Bragging Rights, it's nice to have a show where you can get those inter-promotional rivalries going. I'm booking it on Monday; should be awesome.

Simon:
I have zero interest in Bragging Rights. I think it's daft. I do think the match with Orton/Wade and Cena looking on/getting involved will be gold. Potentially. But I think it's a stupid ppv event.

Scott:
True; but the same can be said for about half of WWE's current ppv card. Too many shows, too little interest. Too many storylines progressing, too few angles culminating. They're really not doing anything to make many of their ppvs 'much watch' affairs; no wonder their numbers are plummeting.

However, I will be watching, because it's a public holiday here in New Zealand. Monday afternoon wrestling FTW!

Matt:
Unnecessary as any of the other "filler" ppvs we now cop between the big four. I'd like to see them go back to the wrestling angles determining the gimmick, rather than imposing a gimmick on the entire roster. If there's a genuine beef between rosters, then lets have Bragging Rights. If a feud demands certainty in the finish, put them in Hell In A Cell. If there are so many viable contenders for a title, then have a Money In The Bank. But don't impose the ppv for ppv's sake. As an aside I dont think the "brand vs. brand" thing matters a hoot these days anyway? Theres so much talent swapping (which is the way it should be) who really cares about bragging rights? PS: does the lowly talent of Superstars get an invite?

Dion:
I actually enjoy Bragging Rights! Ironically, I'm not a fan of the roster split and of the over-crowded pay-per-view scenario, but the SmackDown vs. RAW interaction is great!

4) Speaking of will you be watching, hot on the heels of the grand indifference that met Legendary WWE Films is set to release Knucklehead with the Big Show. This marks an attempt at pure comedy. Will you be watching this when you get a chance? Or do you have zero interest?

Steph:
Argh no. Maybe if I had a small child in need of entertaining.

Kirsty:
I don't know if I have zero interest, but to be honest I haven't been all that enthusiastic about this film. I like Big Show and I'm sort of curious to see how he handles this sort of role, but I very much doubt I'll be rushing out to buy the DVD. Or even renting it until it hits the "$3 for 8 days" shelf.

Stevie:
I'm a fan of Big Show, I think he's under-rated as a comedian. But this movie looks terrible. The plot is tepid and the trailer makes me cringe. I may still watch it randomly but it won't be any month soon.

Luke:
I thought the trailer looked funny. I will definitely catch Knucklehead when it hits NZ shores. It should be fun and I've always found the Big Show's comedy acts entertaining. Captain Insaneo!!!

David:
I'm so keen for this movie! WWE films have been considered laughably bad by critics for a while now, so it's about time they had a crack at a legitimate comedy - something that can appeal to a PG audience. Big Show is one of the funniest wrestlers I've ever seen, so I think he's a perfect choice to star in WWE Films' first attempt at a comedy. And Melora Hardin (of The Office fame) co-stars! I'll be renting this for sure, even for $8 overnight.

Scott:
Zero-interest again, but I'm also confident Big Show will acquit himself well. But things like this won't get WWE Films the mainstream credibility they seem to so desire.

Matt:
He was awesome as Captain Insaneo in The Waterboy so I can't wait! In fact, I have all his movies. Awwww... who am I kidding? I won't be rifling through the bargain bins when it lands.

Dion:
The Big Show has proven in years gone by that he has a knack for comedy - I'm looking forward to this one!

5) Wade Barrett could headline WrestleMania 27 the way he's going now. What do you think? And if that's the case who would you have him going at it with?

Steph:
I never say never and currently Wade's doing a bang-on job. I long for a UK vs. Republic feud between him and Sheamus, possibly broken up by a sledgehammer-wielding Triple H?

Kirsty:
Hum. Well, I've never been a proponent of pushing guys too far, too soon. I like Barrett a lot, and for that reason I want to see him go the distance in WWE. That means building him carefully. The way he's going now, yes I can see him headlining WrestleMania but I would not WANT to see that. I think he needs a nice, slow, well-thought-out build (see Edge circa 2005). What I'd really like to see is Barrett taking out Money In The Bank, the way Edge did, and run with it for the whole year. Eventually I'd love to see him in an angle with John Cena, where they're both on equal footing and it's no holds barred.

Stevie:
I think he's getting the Kofi treatment from the same time last year. I could have sworn Kofi was heading to WrestleMania as the Rumble winner at October last year. So I expect to see Barrett possibly picking up Money In The Bank but most likely cooling his jets for half of next year while they push all the returning old guard who want their WrestleMania payday.

Luke:
He could. And perhaps he should do. I think that he should be pushed into WrestleMania 27 as a challenger for the championship. He has already hit the main event level, and why not push him to the top? He's a total package and managed to go from a nobody to the guy who has led the single greatest storyline of the year. I say let him win the Rumble while his momentum is still high and push him to the top. I would rate him at a better place in his career today than Sheamus was when he won his first WWE championship.

David:
Well, he could... but he won't and shouldn't. Brock Lesnar headlined WrestleMania in his rookie year, but that's Brock Lesnar, and I think his hasty exit from wrestling may have forced WWE to think twice about anyone they've wanted to hotshot to the main event. Sheamus shot up the ranks to take the WWE Championship in his rookie year, but not even he, against Triple H, got to headline WrestleMania, so I don't see why Barrett would be given the opportunity this soon in his WWE tenure.

Simon:
I like where they're going with him, for now, but I don't think that should be WrestleMania's main event. Surely he could go nuts in Money In The Bank, presuming that still goes ahead despite having its own ppv brand now...

Scott:
Let's get real here. WrestleMania is all about the big names that will get the infrequent WWE fan going "oooh!" WrestleMania is Undertaker versus Shawn Michaels, John Cena versus Batista. Matches involving newer stars, like Sheamus versus Triple H, are squarely set in the mid-card, not as a main event. Barrett will feature prominently at WrestleMania, but if they're going to take a punt on a 'newer' star in the headline slot it'll be The Miz, not Barrett.

Matt:
I guess if Sheamus could buck the system and leapfrog the established main-eventers then Barrett could? That said, I think the best he could hope for would be a geurnsey in a triple threat though. Probably vs. Cena/Orton?

Dion:
He absolutely could. I think he could go up against anyone and make a must-watch main event. The obvious choice would be to run the Cena / Nexus angle for the next five months leading in to WrestleMania. I'm not sure if the angle can get that sort of long term interest - but I sure hope it does.