'We want CM Punk!': Netflix's ‘One Piece' cast shoots their shot at WWE
The cast of Netflix's One Piece live-action series has sent social media into a frenzy after expressing their interest in joining the WWE. In a video clip that quickly went viral, the stars of the popular adaptation made direct references to WWE stars and moments, even name-dropping CM Punk as someone they'd love to face in the ring.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The energy was playful yet passionate, and while the moment was clearly light-hearted, fans online couldn't help but debate the possibility of a crossover. The video has amassed over 550,000 views and counting, with reactions ranging from wild excitement to deep skepticism.
Celebrity involvement divides the wrestling community
As with any celebrity involvement in WWE, fan reactions were swift and polarized. Some took to X (formerly Twitter) to mock the idea, especially in the wake of recent appearances like Travis Scott's controversial backstage segment.
One user sarcastically remarked, 'WWE moving to Netflix was the worst thing that ever happened,' while another chimed in, 'Let them main event WrestleMania!' There were also quips about CM Punk vs. Luffy happening before GTA VI drops, underscoring how bizarre yet entertaining the concept sounded to many.
Meanwhile, Reddit users were surprisingly more open to the idea. Many appreciated the cast's enthusiasm and referenced
.
Rudd has previously attended live WWE events and was seen posing like the Hardy Boyz - a gesture not lost on longtime fans.
Fans speculated about what potential involvement might look like. From fantasy matchups like 'Hornswoggle vs. Chopper' to Sanji calling out CM Punk, the comments section became a playground of imagination.
, 'Zoro looks lost. Usopp smiling but scared. Sanji having a laugh. And Luffy being Luffy.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Perfect casting does exist.'
Given WWE's recent push for broader entertainment integration, especially with its upcoming move to Netflix in 2025, such a crossover doesn't seem entirely out of the question. TKO executives have been bullish about reaching new audiences, and the One Piece cast clearly already has fans within the WWE Universe.
While no official statement has been made, the buzz generated by this moment is undeniable. As one fan joked, 'Of course TKO will say yes.' With CM Punk back in WWE and the One Piece series gaining momentum globally, this could be one of those celebrity moments that actually connects with fans.
Only time will tell if the Straw Hats find their way into the WWE.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
When A Maharani Regally Reminds About Real Vs Reel Royals
Last Updated: Radhikaraje Gaekwad's wry but succinct observations about real vs reel royals point to a common flaw: lack of domain knowledge about them The Royals, the Netflix version, that is, has elicited an elegant and timely repartee from a 'real' maharani about what bona fide royals were and are. Radhikaraje Gaekwad, wife of the 'Maharaja' of the erstwhile princely state of Baroda (and daughter of a 'maharajkumar' of Wankaner) ended her riposte with, 'Yet after all these decades, our country continues to view us—all 565 families and a few thousand nobility—with an odd mixture of awe, ignorance and distaste." Spot on! Indeed, the only redeeming feature of Netflix's version of royals is Ishan Khattar as Aviraaj Singh, 'Maharaja' of the fictional Morpur. Even his nickname Fizzy is what seasoned royal watchers might consider a clever inclusion because it not only encapsulates his effervescent on-screen persona but also harks back to 'Bubbles', the late Maharaja of Jaipur Brigadier Bhawani Singh, whose flamboyant young grandson Padmanabh ('Pacho') Singh is the current 'ruler'. But the rest of the series is a mishmash of what Bollywood thinks the lives of Indian royals are—or were. It's as if the writer(s) pored over back-issues of Hello! and Marwar to cobble together a storyline for a couture and interiors promo. Sadly, while it was filmed in 'real' palaces, The Royals' clothes, ceremonial or while partying (apparently their sole occupation) were hardly aristocratic—Abu-Sandeep at best. And SoBo English did not make them to the mahal born. Even so, this series offers a good reason to take a proper look at the progress of Indian royalty in democratic India in the past eight decades. Cinema in socialist India immortalised the trope of wicked, licentious feudal rajas, taluqdars and zamindars living off the sweat and tears of their suffering praja (subjects), taking advantage of poor women and spending lavish amounts on hunting, gambling, alcohol and any other debauched habit that screenwriters could conjure up. Now, with being rich becoming cool again in post-socialist, liberalised India, feudal scions are shown in fast cars with arm candy or flaunting gowns and jewels, albeit more in society and fashion magazines rather than on the silver screen. One point that the Netflix series gets right—but only superficially—is that many an Indian royal family is on skid row, and live sham lives of grandeur. Unfortunately, the plot is too thin to present a credible picture of their existential dilemma. For the uninitiated, despite India no longer recognising royal titles they flourish in private and tourist circles, especially in the latter as they validate 'royal hospitality' premium rates. Radhikaraje has painted a very saintly picture of our princely states' life under the British and then their accession to independent Bharat that Sardar Patel may have a few quibbles about, but overall she makes a valid point: they all work hard now, not rest on their, well, crown jewels. So, the life portrayed in The Royals is not true-to-life, even if it isn't meant to be a documentary, but a rom(p)-com about a playboy prince and a self-made hospitality industry diva. Even so, a modicum of understanding of royal protocol and relationships beyond 'khama-gani' and 'hukum', gaudily embellished mahals, bowing and scraping mustachioed-and-turbaned retainers, not to mention polo matches, racing cars and fashion shows, would have been welcome. Indian royals foraying into the hospitality sector with their palaces (in varying stages of grandeur and decay) leveraging the aura of their glittery past was a story that began in earnest soon after liberalisation. Three decades on, there is hardly a fort, palace, shikargah, haveli, villa or even cottage with royal links that have not become hotels, some with the former feudal owners still in residence, but most with professional managements who adroitly heighten the 'royal" experience. So the plot of The Royals—a hospitality professional seeks to turn a princely pile into a hotel where 'commoners" can have a taste of regal life in the midst of actual royals—is hardly new or earth-shattering. Equally clichéd is young Fizzy Morpur swanning around New York having affairs or modelling bare chested in some sunny and sandy locale. While some may think they know who Khattar's Aviraaj is based on, rich and reckless playboy princes simply don't exist anymore. Heirs to one-pistol salute 'states' like Morpur could not afford such layabout lives. Most scions of actual former princely states have pretty mundane day jobs now—tourism, marketing, politics—even if they do get to trot out the family regalia, swords and horse-drawn carriages for marriages and funerals. Very unlike a century ago when Indian 'rulers" (real power was mostly vested in the hands of their official British 'residents') and their excesses were the stuff of legend. From the late 19th century till 1947, the world's top couturiers, jewellers, vintners and carmakers beat a path to their palace doors to seek their custom. Though these rulers were cleverly called 'princes' and only had 'HH' or His Highness prefixed to their names rather than His Majesty—thereby keeping them below the British Royal Family and other European monarchies in the blue-blooded pecking order—maharajas paid a king's ransom to procure the world's finest goods. Today, our de-recognised royals are at best brand ambassadors for the world's top labels. They are not sitting in the front rows of international fashion shows as coveted customers, they are more likely to auction their baubles than bid for some at Christie's, and they are no longer the world's biggest buyers of premier cru wines and vintage champagnes. Many of them do still, however, wear their inherited gem-studded kalgis, necklaces and bracelets with rare elegance. That regal elegance is hard to replicate, and The Royals fails miserably on that count, no matter how reputed their stylist/costume designer. No maharani worth her French chiffons and graded Basra pearls today would wear what The Royals' widowed queen and queen mother do. Radhikaraje, always a picture of elan in traditional weaves, is not the only one who cringed royally. Only the royal brothers Aviraaj and Digvijay in their side-strapped trousers looked authentic. A more ineffable yet crucial aspect of real royals is their protocol and bearing, which is not about swagger or walking around stiff-necked. Anyone who knows Indian royals would vouch that most of them have an innate old-world grace and courtesy—a sadly misunderstood word these days. There's something about their carriage and manners that sets most of them apart. Caricaturing is easier than accurate portrayal and The Royals' writers, unfortunately, get neither right. For anyone familiar with the protocol of India's royals, especially Rajputs from Rajasthan and affiliated families, the consistent use of the word 'Maharaj-ji' to refer to Aviraaj and his father is especially jarring. In royalspeak, the titleholder is Maharaja. Maharaj (without the 'a') is what all the younger brothers of the king are called, short for Maharajkumar. So The Royals' Digvijay is Maharaj(kumar) while Aviraaj is Maharaja. And his mother would be Rajmata, not Rani-sa. Maharaja, Maharani, Maharajkumar, Maharajkumari, Raja, Rani, Yuvraj, Yuvrani, Rajkumar, Rajkumari, Baijilal, Rao Raja, Rao Rani, Kanwar, Bhanwar, Pattayet, Pattayet Rani, Tikka Raja, Bapji, Shriji and more—royal prefixes and honorifics are varied, but very specific and hierarchical. Even though none of these titles are officially recognised anymore, they are actually an article of faith in royal circles and cannot be used at will interchangeably or bandied about. Earlier films on Indian royals delved into 'history": Jodha-Akbar, Bajirao Mastani etc. Only Zubeida, Khalid Mohammed's take on his mother, Jodhpur Maharaja Hanwant Singh's second wife, was on a recent person. Manoj Bajpai as Hanwant was more Hindi heartland than Rajputana, but Karishma Kapoor as a Gayatri-Devi-like Zubeida and Rekha as the older first wife looked and sounded more authentic than Sakshi Tanwar and Zeenat Aman as Aviraaj's mother and grandma. top videos View all In Zubeida's case, Khalid Mohammed's personal knowledge perhaps ensured a higher degree of authenticity at least in the appearance and manner of the royal protagonists, even if the script deviated often from what really happened. The Royals is totally a fictitious tale and hence should have been far easier to conceptualise. But the obvious lack of domain knowledge on a small but well-defined segment—Indian royalty and nobility—makes Maharani Radhikaraje's words ring so true. The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : Bhumi Pednekar Ishan Khattar Netflix The Royals Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 05, 2025, 14:14 IST News opinion Opinion | When A Maharani Regally Reminds About Real Vs Reel Royals
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
6 Kamal Haasan controversial movies to watch on OTT
6 Kamal Haasan controversial movies to watch on OTT June 05, 2025 Kamal Haasan is known for bold, thought-provoking films that often stir controversy due to their political, religious, or social themes. Here are 6 of his most controversial movies and why they sparked debate. The movie was accused of portraying Muslims negatively. It was banned in Tamil Nadu temporarily due to protests. Vishwaroopam - Prime Video The movie sparked outrage for showing Gandhi's assassination from a radical's viewpoint, which was seen as anti-Gandhi. Hey Ram - Youtube Credit:IMDb The Movie was criticized for glorifying caste pride and rural feudalism, especially as it was linked to the Thevar community. Thevar Magan - Prime Video A sci-fi meets mythology film that sparked outrage over its religious symbolism and portrayal of Hindu beliefs. Dasavathaaram - Prime Video A gritty tale of crime and justice that questioned the death penalty and exposed caste-based violence. It was seen as a politically sensitive movie. Virumaandi - Prime Video Mani Ratnam's gangster drama, Thug Life, sparked a buzz after being banned in Kannada following Kamal Haasan's 'Tamil is born out of Kannada' remark. The film is enjoying a grand release in theatres all over India, except Karnataka. Thug Life - Soon on Netflix
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Sirens' and the women that men love to blame
Before sirens became screeching beacons on police cruisers and ambulances, they were winged women who lured sailors to their island with seductive songs. Not even Odysseus, the great Greek hero, braving his way home to his beautiful wife and son after the Trojan War, was immune to their song, thrashing against bindings of both rope and duty to reach them. Centuries later, their legacy lives on, not in the pages of mythology but in the way society still views women who wield power, allure, independence, or simply dare to step outside their house. Netflix's new limited series Sirens, created by Molly Smith Metzler (based on her 2011 play Elemeno Pea), revisits this age-old archetype through three modern women who, depending on whom you ask, are either victims or villains, or perhaps both. The women of Sirens seem to embody the mythical creatures they are named after. Michaela 'Kiki' Kell (Julianne Moore), a wealthy socialite, is rumoured to have murdered her husband's first wife. Simone DeWitt (Milly Alcock), her sweet yet sharp secretary, is accused of manipulating her way into the lives of powerful men, including her boss. And Devon DeWitt (Meghann Fahy), Simone's older sister, is hinted to be a nymphomaniac, seducing everyone from her boss to the ferry captain. The men in their orbit are helpless — or so they claim. Ethan Corbin III (Glenn Howerton), a wealthy playboy, calls Simone a 'monster' after she rejects his marriage proposal and blames her when he drunkenly topples off a cliff. Peter Kell (Kevin Bacon), Kiki's husband, blames her for his estrangement from his children before discarding her for a younger woman, Simone, who was his best friend's girlfriend until yesterday. Even Devon's boss, who nearly drowns in a reckless midnight swim, tells her, 'You have this crazy pull over me.' The sisters' own father blames their late mother for the abuse and neglect he heaped on his daughters — as if her suicide, not his actions, doomed their family. Are the men on to something, then? Are these women, who allegedly ensnared them with their beauty and 'honeyed' siren song, to be blamed for their misguided actions? Or are they simply being cast in the same role as the sirens of old — beautiful, dangerous, and always at fault? The series opens with Kiki walking through the fog with a peregrine falcon, whispering to it before it takes flight. Later, we learn she runs a sanctuary for raptors, nursing wounded birds of prey. The symbolism is heavy-handed but effective: These women, like the falcons, are predators by nature, but they are also victims of circumstance. The falcon, once freed, returns in the night, too afraid to leave the safety of the sanctuary. It crashes through the glass of Kiki's home, destroying what little stability she had — a foreshadowing of her own fate. Kiki fires Simone after discovering that her husband has set his sights on her. However, Simone — a predator herself, and a wounded one at that — refuses to go back into the wild once she has seen what her life could be. Simone, like Kiki before her, is a survivor, clawing her way up from foster care into the gilded cages of the elite. Devon, trapped in cycles of self-destruction, seeks validation in the arms of men who see her as both temptation and scapegoat. It is clear that a wounded predator is still a predator, but the question to ask is: Who hurt them in the first place? The women are in no way innocent. They are flawed, sometimes cruel, often selfish, but so are the men. The difference is that the men's actions are ignored and excused, while the women are vilified, seen as monsters rather than just human. For centuries, men have refused to take accountability for their decisions, accusing women of bewitching them, robbing them of their free will. It is an argument which continues to crop up even today. Men blame women dressing or behaving provocatively, for having the audacity to step out at night or rub shoulders with them at work, while their own behaviour is put down to an inability to control themselves. Cast off on an island in the middle of nowhere, the sirens are trying to survive like everyone else in this world. But their greatest sin, it seems, is crossing the path of sailors. One might wonder whether at least some of the responsibility lies with sailors who stray from their course. 'The Sirens bewitch everyone who approaches them. There is no homecoming for the man who draws near them unawares and hears the Sirens' voices: No welcome from his wife, no little children brightening at their father's return,' Circe warns Odysseus in The Odyssey. Of course, she had 'coerced' Odysseus into a relationship and sired a son with him before that. What else is to be expected from a witch?
