|
I never interpreted as JJ actually not knowing Sting wanted Hogan, just that JJ was handcuffed legally by Hogan's lawyers and Bischoff's contracts and all that stuff and he couldn't just sign "Sting vs Hogan". "Sting vs Syxx" was easy so he offered it and hoped Sting would bite. "Hall vs Sting" was tougher but he made it happen and hoped Sting would bite on one of the nWo founders. Sting proved unwilling to compromise so eventually JJ just had to pull every string he could to get the guy who never wrestles unless WCW finds a legal reason to force him to to wrestle a crazy dude who hadn't wrestled a match in over a year. Of course that begs the question of HOW he got those contracts, but it made a lot more sense than JJ Dillon not noticing the weekly signs that kept multiplying every time he offered one of those other matches.
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 10:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Yeah but that doesn't really reveal anything since you can "work with" peers, subordinates, or superiors. Amazing Red could wander into the room and wave the X Title and suggest he should defend it and suddenly he'd be "working with" them too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2009 22:44
|
|
|
I don't even know if I buy that WCW's lows were especially worse than anyone else's. WWF/E's had some pretty terrible runs and some really horrible stuff. I think the big thing is that its just really easy to laugh at the guy who had it all and then fell from glory. ECW was a terribly run organization but Heyman never really got them much above the indies or "cult" status so the fact that he screwed over his employees, spent frivolously, had his share of terrible booking, and ran ECW into the ground doesn't really matter. ECW were the underdogs and the rebels who just couldn't stay alive in this wrestling world. And all of WWE's mistakes are justified by the simple fact that they're THE company. Nothing they did could have been THAT bad, could it? Not if they're where they are. But WCW was the #1 company that lit the world on fire and pushed wrestling into the mainstream. So the fact that they managed to gently caress things up so badly that they died a few years later is easy to mock, and even a little fun in that schadenfreude way we love to rip people off pedestals. And that gets exaggerated and the further you get from the truth the more it gets foggy. History's written by the winners and if WWE tells you WCW was always crap and just got lucky using WWE's stars then who is around to say different? Of course Bischoff and Hogan think they did good, its their legacies. But listen to all these disgruntled ex-employees or guys who were on the other side of the fight had their careers tied into the fight. When people/companies/whatever are exceeding expectations or running flush then instinct says that they must be doing it right. When they're struggling to grow or falling then its easy to assume they hosed it up. Because if you weren't doing so much worse than ____ than why is _____ where they are when you're where you are? And for WCW to have been where it was and to now be dead? drat... they must just have been terrible in a way no one else has been because no one else has done that. Its faulty logic but its no different than the logic that has sports fans saying "No one's ever lost X games in a row! You're unbelievably terrible!" "Yeah, but a bunch of teams have lost 1 game less than X in a row! And look at the circumstances of these losses. Its really not nearly as bad as you're making it sound." "Dude, you're the worst loser in history. Its as simple as that. Plain as the numbers. HAHAHAHA!"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 03:39
|
|
|
See, I'd put RAW a couple of weeks back right up there with some of the worst shows I've seen from WCW, TNA, or whoever. But then we're just talking about subjective opinions and comparing stuff years or decades apart that you just can't see as clearly as you once could. So what's the point? But at least personally speaking there's been periods of time where I found WWE TV to be as big of a chore to watch as I did WCW during those days. And just like I'm sure many people can find gems in the trash of WWE's worst periods I remember almost always being able to find some things to enjoy and put hope into during those dark WCW days. But there's no sane reason for us to argue whether or now WCW '99-'01 was an impossible bit of bad to match or whether WWE had periods comparable because its all just personal feelings.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 03:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I think he's thinking about Jett/Money who was tearing poo poo up there for the last few months of WCW. I think there was lot of fun stuff in the midcard in 2000-2001. Everything Lance Storm related. Booker getting the main event push even if it could have worlds better. The Yung Dragons/3 Count stuff that led to the resurgence of the CW division, guys like Jason Jett and Elix Skipper, and the CW Tag belts. A really solid tag division a lot of the time. The Natural Born Thrillers. Silly comedy stuff like the Boogie Knights or Glacier/Smiley. Daffney/Crowbar. Ms. Handcock (when she wasn't having babies). I'm sure there's stuff I'm forgetting. But you had to get PAST the crappy top stories to find it. I felt it was very similar to the way WCW was traditionally with an undercard and midcard that would carry shows. But for the most part I think most people were done with WCW after the New Blood fiasco and the little attention they paid was spent on the big stories to see if it was turning around. So the fact that the midcard was once again delivering like it had been a couple of years ago just fell through the cracks. EDIT: Whoops. Guess it was Kash. My bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 04:25
|
|
|
Magic_Ceiling_Fan posted:The sad thing about this kind of thing is, while it wasn't the best idea for an angle ever, it would have been salvageable if it weren't for the retarded pin. It makes (kayfabe) sense that the nWo would have a fake sting to try and trick WCW guys into turning on the real sting, it makes sense that Stiener and Jarrett would be upset at having their match made a no contest by fake, but the loving pin makes no sense, and literally serves no purpose. I think that's just one of the many things from the nWo era that just doesn't hold up. The nWo thing was so intense and hyped up that stuff like that just worked because everyone was so crazy. The story was two pro-WCW guys who had been plagued by the nWo were faced with this nWo crap. And Sting's up in the rafters dressed in black and everyone thinks he's nWo. The nWo just pulled this trick successfully and well with the dupe Sting at Wargames that managed to ruin Sting's relationship with WCW and score yet another big win for the nWo. So, yeah, Jarrett pinning "Sting" makes no sense and that doesn't look even remotely like Sting but with the way poo poo was going it were stupid little moments like that which WCW wrestlers and referees would just do to keep morale up. Because they were never getting the real wins. 90% of the nWo story just doesn't seem to hold up because it lacks that crazy atmosphere. I also loved that double elimination tag tournament and the tag division in general at the time. And I loved the idea of the giant rear end World Title tournament, even if it just fell apart in execution. I love the idea of big tournaments, but it takes a good booker to tell that story with the proper pacing so it doesn't all fall apart or just burn out.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
I actually love Harlem Heat and I thought the division was solid and entertaining prior to the nWo. Mind you I was basically just becoming a wrestling fan so the only real basis for comparison I had was WWF and I liked some teams and wrestlers that others probably don't. For some reason I had irrational love of Bagwell when he was paired with 2 Cold Scorpio or the Patriot and so I tolerated him with Riggs. And I loved Luger/Sting as a tag team. But in retrospect I admit I can't think of too many teams from that era who were much to talk about (Pretty Wonderful, American Males, Public Enemy, Dick Murdoch/Bunkhouse Buck) or who weren't well past their prime (Steiners, Road Warriors, Nasties). But no, I was referring to 1999 or so with Benoit/Malenko, Rey/Kidman, Raven/Saturn, Hennig/Windham, the Jersey Triad, and then some lesser stragglers like Jindrak/O'Haire, 3 Count, Yung Dragons, and Team Canada. By then I think my wrestling tastes were a bit more refined and WWF was actually doing good/great tag wrestling so I wasn't just settling on what was there. Those teams I'd put up as genuinely good teams, even if they weren't established enough and long lived enough to be "great." The tag scene carried WCW for me for awhile. In between those eras the titles obviously were just vanity belts for the Outsiders or fell victim to that "two main eventers form a super team" thing that WWF loved doing as well but which completely killed tag team wrestling.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
I am firmly of the opinion that the "New Blood were faces" theory is 100% nonsense. I'm not defending the story or execution in the slightest. It was a terribly executed angle with ridiculously structured roles. But I never for one second doubted that the New Blood were the heels. They weren't the young wrestlers who had been hitting their heads on the glass ceiling. They were the cocky upstarts who wanted to be given the top roster spots without earning them. It was a backwards and retarded bit of booking especially given the fact that there was a real feeling that they REALLY WERE being held under a glass ceiling, but that was the story I saw. And the Millionaires Club were the legends of the company who deserved respect and were being pushed out by new management. That's why when Kidman and co challenged them they accepted those challenges head on while the New Blood would get the odds stacked in their favor or cheat. Again, this was backwards casting made worse by a name that screamed heel, but that's what I remember them being presented as from Day 1. The "New Blood" were basically the guys the Main Event Mafia were scared of. And the Millionaires Club were the faces that the heel Mafia claimed to be, standing up for what was "right." It was stupid and rear end backwards from the start, but there's no way anything will ever convince me that Vampiro and Shane Douglas were the faces to Sting and Flair's heels or that Russo and Bischoff were supposed to be noble heroes. Russo himself could claim this was the plan and I'd be unsure if I could believe him. I know I went back and rewatched that first episode a few years back to test that theory and still felt certain the New Blood were the heels, but I'm almost tempted to do it again. The whole theory definitely feels like the sort of thing that happens when snarky people take something already mostly terrible and go over the top to make it 100% irredeemably the worst possible thing ever. And that happens with films or TV shows or whatever, too. Its always so weird when I find myself defending a bad film or TV show just because the criticisms of it start to become worse than the actual product. What I do know is that if I'm wrong then I was wrong the night it happened because I remember being beyond annoyed that they had cast the guys I wanted to cheer as the heels. And I remembered WCW doing this same thing multiple times in the recent past with the Revolution or a short term story where (of all people) Buff Bagwell and Disco Inferno started acting as young lions who wanted to break through the glass ceiling.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
I never really thought the Nitro Girls were a problem, especially in the 3 hour show days. There were the occasional extended segments with them but for the most part they were just dancing in the parts of the show where we'd normally be looking at fans or the outside of the arena or the announcers sitting at their desk running down what's coming up next. And I'd rather look at the Nitro Girls than Michael Cole and Jerry Lawler. To that end I thought they were a fine part of the show, that you'd think served a purpose for the live audience during commercial breaks. Cheerleaders may not be high art but this is just wrestling. Its when they got their own extended segments that it got a little tiresome. Then it came close to the uselessness of Kelly Kelly's Extreme Expose. But in small doses as transitions between segments or commercials? You won't see me complaining about hot chicks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:I just remembered something and have decided to post it itt because if I don't I'll probably forget it forever. Of course not soon after the Dungeon of Doom would appear, but still.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 03:29
|
|
|
Wikipedia says his second firing came after a Career vs Career match for the TV title against Duggan. So it just looks like the usual thing where they were gonna let Regal go but did it on air.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
I believe it goes: WCW (Goldberg incident) WWF ("Man's Man"; drugs) rehab WCW for a short and forgettable time Pillman Memorial match WWF til today.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2010 01:06
|
|
|
Its a matter of looking at the bigger picture. These mistakes are rarely unique one time things. They're almost always sympathetic of a larger problem. People didn't like Morrison/Miz on RAW because it would have been better for everyone involved to do it on PPV, that could have built both men up and given something new on PPV. This speaks directly to people's main problem with WWE that they're unwilling to take any chances and thus run out the same tired stuff every time right down to a WM built largely on Attitude Era stars, announcers, and Snooki. People didn't like Goldberg/Hogan because it spoke directly to WCW's poor decision making and focus on winning the ratings war each week at the sacrifice of the real matters. WCW was so focused on getting pyrrhic victories that they consistently cost themselves money, backed themselves into corners, and eventually built their own downfall. Bottom line, people want on some level for WCW and TNA to be good and strive. People want for WWE to be good and Morrison and Miz to be legitimate and bankable stars. They could lose themselves in the one moment and forget the consequences but sticking your head in the sand is harder than it sounds. They can't ignore what it means in the big picture.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
I think the most telling part of Goldberg/Hogan wasn't that they booked it on 4 days build for a free Nitro, it was that they did it for a Nitro that was already sold out and a big deal. If you're going to give the match away free at least get a sellout gate for it. That match literally had no business positives besides a relatively meaningless 1 day rating battle.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
You're an optimist. That much is obvious. You want to see the best side of this stuff and appreciate it, and that's good for you. But its not as if people see a match get booked and then go looking for a way to feel bad about it. The reason people were upset about Morrison/Miz is that they had been anticipating the match but on PPV. They had been thinking about what that meant to Morrison to get a PPV main event spot and world title match, even if he lost. What it would mean for Miz to get a PPV main event he could win clean without too much shenanigans. What such a match would mean to the "youth movement" that fans have been telling themselves is inevitable, coming, or here for years without it ever really taking foot. The reason people reacted badly to the RAW match is because it shut down all those things they wanted to see happen. So when all is said and done you can walk away and say "It may have been a bad business decision but it was a good match I enjoyed." That's a good thing for you but for many others you can't blame them for the fact that their memory will be a good match, but not one for the books or that really did anything for either man, meanwhile they will remember their frustrations about what the match could have meant if the bookers had followed out what seemed to make sense. In the grand scheme of things its quite possible that match will be a notable part of the story in how Morrison never got his big shot or Miz's title reign never really worked. And hell, consider the bigger picture. 10 or so years ago I wasn't arguing with my friends over the business logic of Goldberg/Hogan. I was just excited and talking to friends how it was a sure thing we'd be watching more Nitro than RAW on Monday. But now, looking back on it, I can't revel in vague memories of fun from a pretty chaotic period of my life and wrestling. That stuff fades. I can however look back and see how that was a bad decision on top of more bad decisions that really helped bring the ship down. And I'll remember the day Vince and Shane appeared on Nitro and the day I knew WCW was dead and the golden era was officially over a lot longer than I'll remember how it felt when Goldberg won the belt. Also consider that many of the people who complain about such things aren't TOO hard up for wrestling. For many WWE fans they may just appreciate Miz/Morrison as a good match on a show where they so rarely happen. But when other fans have SD, Superstars, maybe even Impact, ROH on HDnet, the internet, and DVDs then they're not going to say "I just appreciate getting a good match on Monday night" because that's not enough. Appeasing them with scraps doesn't work because they're not hungry enough to think that's a life saver. They're really just frustrated and tired. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Apr 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2011 19:50
|
|
|
And more to the point the issue isn't "giving away a PPV match." Its "not giving the younger guys the big stage, not giving Morrison a proper title shot, and not giving Miz a good win on a stage where all of this really could have made an impact on all parties." I personally don't have much problem with "giving away" matches. But that assumes it serves some real purpose, that you have something equal or better for the PPV, and that it isn't counterproductive to the bigger picture.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Man, this is something to think about. What if one day some bigwig at the new NBC decides either "You know, we don't need wrestling" or "Dump Smackdown?" What does WWE do? Nobody notable wants them. Spike has UFC. Anyone who would want them wouldn't be anywhere near as big as they would want. Raw on Versus or Fox Sports would be a disaster. I think its safe to say WWE would have to drop a lot further than it is not to be able to get anywhere on regular TV. I mean, some basic cable channel will be willing to stick them on some night instead of reruns or old movies. It might not be an ideal spot or for a lot of money but beggars can't be choosers. WWE would either have to be in the toilet with ratings that don't seem appealing or be demanding too much money. The latter is certainly a real possibility but if WWE were so arrogant as to make outrageous demands that landed them off TV or on some tertiary network because they wouldn't take a lesser deal than that's on them. Either that or they'd have to be dealing with truly disastrous PR. Like Vince McMahon decides to commerate 9/11 by having the Great Khali turn heel and throw Evan "Air" Bourn into Horneswoggle's miniature Leprechaun village, then later that night Randy Orton murders his wife and children while at the same time HHH overdoses on drugs and dies in the ring on live TV. Then they probably couldn't get a new show. Otherwise wouldn't their ratings realistically have to drop well below the level of Impact's or Superstars' or ECW's before someone wouldn't be willing to take a flier on them and shove them on a dead night in their schedule? Surely FX or TNT or whoever has some 2 hours that do crap that they'd take a bargain basement RAW on for a chance? It wouldn't be a spot WWE wanted and those of us in the know would see the embarrassment for what it is, but WWE could still land 2 hours on MTV2 in place of Lucha Libre USA or replace SD with RAW if they wanted to bad enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 10:44
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I still would love a WWE channel. Every other major sport has one and they could easily find enough programming from all their archives to keep it stock full of footage. Do a couple reality shows, some call-in shows, interview shows, maybe a Superstars type show, NXT, and second runs of Raw & Smackdown. Then play old shows and PPVs the rest of the time. You can't tell me that wouldn't be an interesting channel to have. The problem is every other SPORT has a channel. A Wrestling Channel would be awesome. Something that covered WWE, TNA, ROH, PWG, Chikara, SHIMMER, NJPW, AJPW, NOAH, CMLL, AAA, UK feds, Australian feds, whatever. A nightly news/roundup show, a variety of opinions and topic shows, footage and wrestling from all around the globe. It would be amazing. But if you've ever watched a network run by one sports teams you know that as interesting as it can be for awhile eventually they're just showing the same stuff over and over. Diehard fans may never lose interest because they live and breath their team, but others can only watch "classic games" so many times before the novelty wears off. WWE has enough stuff archived that it would take them a long time to burn it out, but there's two problems. One, putting stuff on their cable channel would kill DVD sales, which is one of their biggest money makers. It would make more business sense for them to sell Nitro or RAW seasons on DVD than to run them on a channel most people would get for "free" on a cable tier they already pay for. You'd be walking this tight rope of trying to divvy out your material at the right pace to not waste it. Because the other problem is the amount of original content coming in will always be limited and unless you make it very exclusive and hard to come by you're still talking about reruns. A WWE channel would turn into replays of the week's shows, airings of stuff like NXT, some kind of long Sportscenter/talk show type thing that was a lot of talking and the same hype and recap videos we already get too much of with some original and fun content like Zach Ryder's web show, and then maybe a few unique things. But WWE wouldn't air an ECW Hardcore TV episode every night because within a year they'd air the whole thing and within a few years everyone will have seen it. Its why syndication turns over so often and shows like Seinfeld or Friends that were once on 10 times a day give way to shows like Scrubs and How I Met Your Mother which will one day give way to Big Bang Theory and Modern Family or whatever. A WWE channel done right would be fun for a few years, probably, but would eventually lose a lot of its appeal in the same way their on demand channel seems to have. In order to make a WWE channel really work I think they'd have to really drastically change their business and either showcase a lot of other promotions and grant them the respect and attention they don't now, or to expand the "WWE Universe" hugely like in that fantasy scenario we've heard a few times about them opening companies all around the world to feed in talent in different styles and regions of popularity. Because an archive of filmed material, huge though it may be, will be depleted over time if you don't have a comparable amount of original stuff coming in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 12:00
|
|
|
Logically we should be getting some 8-12 minute matches, often using midcarders who won't get big showcases on PPV so can build themselves up on free TV, and one or two bigger matches amongst the top players that don't have to be "PPV matches" but could be solid matches we've seen before, mix and match tag matches, or matches not quite ready for TV. Or even one big PPV match a month that keeps us hooked and watching all those matches to see if this is the big, awesome one. Because if the company can't spare 1 or 2 big free matches a month then they really suck. There's 90 minutes or so of TV available every week on RAW. There's no reason at least 45 minutes of that can't be set aside for 3 or 4 solid matches and RAW could still get all its promos, hype videos, recaps, and other non-wrestling in. Sue Denim's opinion that the only place she can catch a match with any real story, psychology, or time is on PPV is a really sad state of affairs that wasn't true for a very long time but seems to have been true for RAW so long that a lot of fans have accepted it as inevitable. Which is weird when you consider SD kind of makes a point of regularly debunking it. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 12:54 on Apr 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 12:51
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:I would imagine what they would get per subscriber across cable and satellite providers for a whole channel would be much more than whatever they are making with WWE On Demand on JUST Comcast/Xfinity. But the cost and work put into a WWE Channel would way outweigh the On Demand channel. Really, I don't think anyone ever really considers what a WWE Channel would mean. New studios, a ton new production, a major hit to the DVD market, potential daily live shows. Who knows if the increased profit would outweigh the increased cost of business. Skinty is almost certainly correct. Its a nonsense bluff used to threaten networks when they're negotiating TV deals. "Well, we don't have to re-sign with you, USA. We could just start our own network. We have enough footage and knowledge." WWE might one day make the decision to go with it because they''ve never really been shy about overextending themselves, but no one should be holding their breath.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 12:07
|
|
|
See, its hard to know what you could and couldn't put on the WWE channel because its such a huge idea. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. How do you fill those hours? Obviously fans hope that WWE would just open the vault and air constant stuff all day every day but that doesn't strike me as financially feasible. People with big DVRs and lots of harddrive space would max out quickly and have more wrestling than they could handle. Even if you weren't using a lot of stuff you would have put on DVD its still got to hit the DVD market in the fact that if fans have all this wrestling available to them on cable that lessens the need to buy DVDs to get more. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it even impacted TV ratings and PPV buys. Why pay for a subpar PPV card when there's hours and hours of wrestling on your DVR? Why watch a RAW you don't care about if there's stuff saved? Are you going to watch Superstars, a match of meaningless jobber matches, or some old bit of wrestling history? I was tempted to challenge people to try and put together an actual 7 day schedule. Not just prime time hours, all the hours in the day. Just to show how hard it really is and how much material you'd burn through quickly. But I didn't bother because this really isn't the topic and I can't imagine doing it myself. Every time I started thinking about it I was overwhelmed and bailed quickly, so there was no point in asking others to do so. Point is, its a really big effort to try and imagine a full schedule that both warrants the channel existing but also doesn't flood the audience with so much material that you over-saturate the market and burn out your library. But you're probably right. Its probably not a 100% completely empty bluff. If Vince McMahon thought he could start a music label, a movie studio, a bodybuilding league, and a competitor to the NFL than he almost certainly believes he's capable of starting a network. I just doubt its much more than a vague idea they bring up from time to time but abandon because its just too big a task, but then use in the course of negotiations with USA, SyFy, WGN, or whoever. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Apr 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 13:53
|
|
|
Oh my God. I've been watching for like 20 minutes and I've seen Revolution form and the Rap is Crap music video! And Vampiro just jumped Konnan before he could threaten to toss his salad! How could anyone hate WCW entirely? There was just so much happening!
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
Ernest Miller just came out with Sonny Ono and did a big dance thing before Buff Bagwell showed up and kicked his rear end. Then we get a recap of Judge Mill Lanes refereeing a boxing match between Roddy Piper and Buff, being seconded by Judy Bagwell. Really, I'm not saying its good... but how can you take your eyes off it?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Bischoff revealed himself later but they said he was in it pretty much since right after Nash powerbombed him. That was their end around for all the plot holes, that Bischoff was pulling the strings in the back and helping it happen. The nWo contract stuff really made sense, or at least felt like it did. For those first few months they were always coming through the crowd and getting run off like the infamous "lawn dart" incident. Or they'd show up at the end of the show and spend 5 or 10 minutes taking advantage of chaos to end the show. Then once they started winning titles and getting on shows people actually asked how this worked but they pushed it as Hogan being able to do it by being champ. Then eventually Bischoff is revealed and says he was making it happen. It might have some plot holes if you looked closely enough, but it was working so well that you didn't want to nitpick the logic of it. Same with the "why didn't WCW gang up?" In the early stages WCW did, but the Outsiders were always one step ahead. If I'm remembering correctly the lawn dart thing happened on a Nitro where a bunch of wrestlers were ringside acting as security, which is why the Outsiders were able to sneak backstage and do such damage without the entire locker room coming down on them. Then once Hogan jumps, Giant jumps, and Sting appears to jump the locker room stops trusting each other. The nWo were always playing the locker room against each other so they'd stay splintered. Again, there were probably holes if you looked for them but it was fun enough not to.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
The Master's nonsensical ramblings were amazing. If I could make that voice I'd say stuff like that too. I loved the Dungeon of Doom when it was happening in I think the same way people love Brodus Clay now. I wasn't yet cynical enough to be unable to embrace the ridiculousness of it. It was just so fun and goofy. I used to tune in anxiously to see what new monster the Master would reveal each week. If WWE put out a Dungeon of Doom DVD with all of those introductions and caves from the tunnel and stuff like that freaking Yeti block of ice on Nitro. I'd be the first in line and I'd watch that thing every few months when wrestling was boring me. It was terrible, I'm not denying. But if WWE just started packaging their FCW losers as monsters and had Raven or the Warrior instruct Cody Rhodes or someone on how to destroy Randy Orton. I don't know, something. I'd watch that crap. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Jun 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I was cool with the cliffhangers. It was frustrating sometimes and funny after awhile but a cliffhanger that leaves you wanting more is a good thing as long as you deliver. And Nitro was pulling it off for awhile. I'm not sure if the nWo beat down ending was quite as often as remembered but it was close. And the memories probably blur with "nWo get a cheap win and celebrate" and "nWo come out for a show ending promo just because." Any way round a night that didn't end with the nWo in the ring for some reason was a rare one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I definitely remember few of those. The nWo would do their giant show of coming out and hitting their phrases and you'd be waiting for Sting or whatever to happen and nothing. It's like sometimes WCW went with the default, couldn't figure out an ending, and just said screw it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
How was Crow Sting original? I honestly don't see the difference between Joker Sing and Crow Sting or Razor Ramon. Wrestling does this all the time. I was watching some FCW and Husky Harris' new gimmick is a direct lift from Cape Fear. And it's the second time WWE has done that exact one. Razor straight up quoted Scarface. Don't get me wrong, I dont have a problem with people hating it. It seems like a very love it or hate it gimmick. I just really dont get why it's any different from his iconic character ripped off from a movie or Razor, the only differences I can see are a) Ledger's Joker is put on some kind of pedestal, or b) "haha, TNA."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
Lone Rogue posted:People keep trying to compare the actual Joker character. He's not trying to be "THE JOKER". He's taking elements of the Heath Ledger joker to portray that he's a little off now. They didn't say it to you but it was pretty clear he went, "crazy" because there he was, in 2011 having to do the same thing he did in 1997: Fight Hogan and Bischoff from taking over wrestling with an evil faction. Yeah, I don't think it was a story done well enough to rave about or anything but he did "go crazy" over the course of months. With Hogan and Bischoff arriving and him insisting they were the bad guys again and no one believing him. He spent weeks back in the rafters as the "crow" character, got suspended by Dixie, was part of the "heel" stable with Nash and Pope who all said they knew Hogan and Bischoff were up to no good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1O__RFuBMk Then he leaves TNA when Immortal forms and it turns out he was right. He comes back months later, wins the title, and Immortal screw him again and then the Joker thing comes out. He did go crazy, gradually. It actually looked like it was all supposed to parallel the original nWo/Crow story. It wasn't a super well told story and it was a LOOOOONG burn so casual viewers might have missed it, but it happened.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
Its a common problem with TNA. They have a good idea, a lot of ambitious elements to it, and some good performances or parts, but they never pull it together into a very strong or coherent story. It drags out too long or it gets broken up with nonsense. Then you have the casual internet audience who watches TNA in bits who can't follow the story, weekly viewers who can't really explain it in a simple way, and you get a whole mess of negativity that just makes things worse and even harder to follow.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Ktik posted:Watching 1996 Nitros, right around when the NWO started, WCW had a tag team division of: The crazy thing is, that wasn't even the entire division. I think Sting and Lex Luger were competing regularly in the division and in the title picture well before the Outsiders showed up. The Blue Bloods, American Males, and Fire & Ice were kicking around. I think the Quebecers had come in by that time as The Amazing French Canadians. The Power Plant grads High Voltage. It was just tag team after tag team. WCW even had jobber tag teams like The Border Patrol and Men At Work. Mid-90s WCW was tag team crazy and it was wonderful. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jul 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
That reminds me, I kind of miss the way Mean Gene used to interview WCW players at the top of the ramp. Its such a lost thing now as the big center of the ring promos completely took over. They were quick, got to the point, and got a lot of guys and stories screen time. Even if Gene just talked to a guy for 30 seconds before or after a match for some generic stuff at least it helped you get to know the guy as a character.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
The doc was fun but only really works if you know enough of the story to fill in the blanks and catch the BS. Then you can enjoy the good and laugh at the bad. But if you're kind of ignorant to the Monday Night Wars and WCWs history then you have no way of deciphering it. It's why I've never bothered with the WWE WCCW DVD. I don't know much of anything about WCCW so I'd just be walking myself into lies. Man, WWE is writing wrestling history and in a generation no one will know the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
I always really dug The Giant in WCW. Probably just because they had a million wrestlers so there was a never ending supply of people to let Giant squash so he always remained this insane monster who could only be beat by the handful of top guys. And this being emphasized by the guy taking his matches so casually that he'd smoke during them always just cracked me up. I guess I was supposed to be outraged he wasn't taking it seriously or something but I always just laughed and said "Yeah, he's that loving scary! Its that loving easy!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
The nWo stuff they aired was all just nWo guys wrestling jobbers or WCW guys in hostile environments. But I believe the theoretical plan Bischoff had was basically the brand split. He wanted to run WCW and nWo separate as unique companies that had their own shows, rosters, and PPVs but could feud with each other at big events like Starrcade. The same thing WWE apparently originally toyed with doing with WCW and the same thing they eventually did with RAW vs Smackdown for awhile. Here is what I will always remember as to why I saw WWF and WCW different and why I was a WCW fan after years of not being a WWF fan and seeing only WWF as "wrestling." I watched WWF because I was a kid and if you didn't know who the Legion of Doom was in the playground you were a social pariah. And there was some stuff like Bret/Owen and Michaels/Razor that I enjoyed but for the most part the whole thing was so silly and cartoonish. Clowns and hockey players and Mantaurs and Bastian Boogers. It was ridiculous. And every time someone new came in it always went the same. "Hi, I'm Duke Droese and I'm a garbage man who has decided to wrestle." "Hi, I'm Sparky Plugg and I'm a race car driver who has decided to wrestle." "Hi, I'm Jeff Jarrett and I'm a country singer who has decided to wrestle." Then someone introduced me to WCW and it was different. There was some silly stuff like the Dungeon of Doom but the show wasn't wall to wall cartoons like WWF felt. Then one day after watching for a few months they showed a clip of some guy I had never seen before get out of a limo wearing a suit and I waited to hear what his day job was. "Hi, I'm Chris Benoit and I'm a wrestler." To me that was the difference between the two companies. WWF had serious wrestlers and WCW had silly wrestlers, but WWF by and large seemed determined to convince me that most of its wrestlers were just people moonlighting from other walks of life. WCW actually seemed interested in convincing me its wrestlers were athletes who took their sport seriously. That went a long way for a kid who felt he was getting too old for cartoons. That all got messed up in the later years especially when Russo showed up, but that's always how I look back and see the difference to me as a kid. Aesthetics, graphics, and production mistakes might have factored into it in some ways like what people are saying about WCW being lit like sports while WWF looked like a circus, or WCW having reasons for his interviews or footage while WWF just had stuff happen. But in the end the thing that made a lasting impression on me was simply how the two companies presented its wrestlers to its audience. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Rad R. posted:I found the picture you used as well, but I didn't post it because it's not a screenshot. It does, however, have some nifty Photoshop tricks involved like the mighty lens flare. It's not 100% identical to the Superman logo, but they were used at the same time, but I never found out if they were designed by the same person, or if the Thunder logo was basically a ripoff. They're definitely similar but I think there's plenty enough differences that they're not the same thing. The basics are the same but a lot of the edges and ends are clearly different so I imagine that's enough to make them different. It's probably not hard to imagine that they were coming up with the logo and saw the Superman thing and said "like that".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Phenix Rising posted:I don't think it was really a ripoff. Torberg played The Kiss Demon in WCW but was also an actual baseball player (I don't know at what level). I guess when The Demon ran its course, they combined the face paint of The Demon with the baseballiness of baseball and just had him use his real name. I remember him using his real name, but I don't remember his crappy face paint. I think Torborg was a college player with potential to be in the majors until an injury ended his career. After WCW folded he went back to baseball as a coach and has been a part of a couple of World Series winning teams. His dad is also a pretty famous player, manager, and broadcaster. They're actually kind of notable names for hardcore baseball fans. So yeah, I don't think it makes sense to call that a ripoff. It was just some weird thing based on his past Demon gimmick and his real baseball connections.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Monkeycheese posted:I'm reading that Pillman thing and holy poo poo Meltzer's writing sucks nuts. I swear a few times I had to reread the same poorly structured sentence four times just to try and makes sense of it and be sure I was getting the right message. I never read the Observer because I just don't care to that degree and I've always heard he was a bad writer, but that's ridiculous. How do you write as long as he has and do it so badly?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
quote:MOST DISGUSTING PROMOTIONAL TACTIC
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
VogeGandire posted:Well, bear in mind, Andre had only been dead for a few years when that happened. Yeah, but I mean Paul Bearer wasn't even cold yet before Punk started using him for an angle. Different time, maybe, but two to three years seems like a long time in wrestling. Like I said, I guess I can somewhat understand it if its just that Andre was especially revered and the relatively short time since his death made people uncomfortable to be trading off him. It just struck me as odd since I never saw that one as sleazy and that brand of "carny" seems to be a very widely accepted part of wrestling with much worse examples even in very recent memory.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 13:21
|
|