|
Mr. Carlisle posted:I've never been a fan of Gimmicks that go too far over the top. (Ultimate Warrior and Papa Shango to name a few) I guess its hard to walk a fine line between far and too far. The Undertaker is one of my exceptions - when the whole Paul Bearer as manager and fueled by the urn era hit I thought it was brilliant and interesting. I kind of thought the Boogeyman gimmick was interesting, even though I knew it is a gimmick that will keep you in the mid/undercard for the duration.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
All the copies of the Rise and Fall of WCW were rented out, so I rented the Starrcade DVD instead. It started off strong, with these detailed accounts of the 1980s Starrcades, then they just kind of glossed over the 90s and 2000/01. I was pretty disappointed, to be honest. Does anyone think there's any chance of the WWE releasing a complete Starrcade collection like they did with some of the WWE Pay Per Views?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
Magic_Ceiling_Fan posted:Does anyone think there's any chance of the WWE releasing a complete Starrcade collection like they did with some of the WWE Pay Per Views? .0587%
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 02:03
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Cut to: And then CM Punk cuts a promo on Jesus saying that because his blood is wine, CM Punk is straight edge and better than Jesus and that Jesus' followers are weak minded for following some illicit substance user like him. edit: This would probably draw so much heat that he's sent to hell and finally has that long-awaited match with Chris Benoit. nyratk1 fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 03:01
|
|
|
Jesus and CM Punk discuss the finer points of transubstantiation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 03:06
|
|
|
Magic_Ceiling_Fan posted:All the copies of the Rise and Fall of WCW were rented out, so I rented the Starrcade DVD instead. Just recently watched the rise and fall of WCW DVD and because the documentary itself was so disappointing I was really happy to see the selection of matches they had on there. Although there was crap like DDP and Karl Malone Vs Hogan and Rodman you also have stuff like Malenko Vs Mysterio, Guerrero Vs Malenko, Jericho Vs Juventud, Flair Vs Steamboat and Booker T Vs Lance Storm. All the reasons I loved WCW came rushing back while watching those guys in the ring. All the rest for me were 'take it or leave it' I suppose. I was also really surprised to see Goldberg give credit to the cruiserweights for putting on spectacular matches - and overall how much credit the cruiserweights were given in general. They were the main reason I tuned in. Dunno if I needed to spoiler that really but it definitely surprised me so 'just in case'. Orange Carlisle fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 03:19
|
|
|
grody but still def posted:.0587% This is what I assumed too. Oh well, a man can dream.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 03:42
|
|
|
I future endeavored wrestling from 2002-2007 and I was talking with my brother about the things WCW actually got right. The one thing that stood out to me was that they actually had the Title change hands on Nitro a few times. I know the WWF did it a couple times around when WCW did it. But more recently, what were the last 3 or 4 Heavyweight or WWE championship title changes not on a pay-per-view? Let's not count injuries and contract disputes, I'm looking for instances of guys going over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 08:57
|
|
|
The most recent title change on Raw not due to an injury was when Jericho beat Batista in a cage match on the 800th episode last year. Before that would be CM Punk's first money in the bank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 09:21
|
|
|
maniacripper posted:I future endeavored wrestling from 2002-2007 and I was talking with my brother about the things WCW actually got right. The one thing that stood out to me was that they actually had the Title change hands on Nitro a few times. I know the WWF did it a couple times around when WCW did it. But more recently, what were the last 3 or 4 Heavyweight or WWE championship title changes not on a pay-per-view? Jericho/Batista in a cage match. I think it was last year. edit: CHILLY!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 09:23
|
|
|
Nitro set the precedent of big stars facing one-another on television to begin wtih. Before Nitro, you'd get a known star fighting a jobber on television mixed with interviews from main-eventers. This is both good and bad. It led to the most screwjob finishes in wrestling since Dusty got the book. Then they predicated title changes on weekly television. Something the fans LOVED at the time and hate now, since fans, for some retarded reason, hate it when companies give away anything good on television. Even when it only happens twice a year. Nothing I've said is universal, but vocal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 11:15
|
|
|
Seriously, the Goldberg/Hogan title match should've been on paper view! Wasn't it the last time WCW beat the WWE in the Monday night ratings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 14:33
|
|
|
ColeM posted:Seriously, the Goldberg/Hogan title match should've been on paper view! Wasn't it the last time WCW beat the WWE in the Monday night ratings? No, the day after Halloween Havoc '98 was (DDP/Goldberg was cut off on PPV and they replayed it on Nitro)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 15:57
|
|
|
maniacripper posted:I future endeavored wrestling from 2002-2007 and I was talking with my brother about the things WCW actually got right. The one thing that stood out to me was that they actually had the Title change hands on Nitro a few times. I know the WWF did it a couple times around when WCW did it. But more recently, what were the last 3 or 4 Heavyweight or WWE championship title changes not on a pay-per-view? Most of the MITB cash-ins have been on TV and Punk the first time definitely wasn't an injury thing, it was part of the draft title shenanigans. The aforementioned Jericho/Batista match, obviously. Edge won the WWE title on RAW from RVD in 2006 which wasn't an injury or contract dispute.  Changing World titles on television is generally a terrible idea and was one of the things that led to the demise of WCW, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 16:56
|
|
|
ColeM posted:paper view! Sorry, but I just found this funny. You do know it's "pay per" view right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 17:26
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Most of the MITB cash-ins have been on TV and Punk the first time definitely wasn't an injury thing, it was part of the draft title shenanigans. The aforementioned Jericho/Batista match, obviously. Edge won the WWE title on RAW from RVD in 2006 which wasn't an injury or contract dispute. No, changing the world title 23 times in a YEAR was. In 2001, I think, the WCW title changed hands 2 times less than the NWA title did over a period of thirty years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 17:33
|
|
|
Justice Grieves posted:No, changing the world title 23 times in a YEAR was. In 2001, I think, the WCW title changed hands 2 times less than the NWA title did over a period of thirty years. That's a byproduct of changing it more than once in a blue moon on TV, though. You can't change it more on your television than your PPVs, otherwise you're conditioning your audience that nothing important or special happens on the stuff they have to pay money for. WCW was changing the title way too much on Nitro long before Russo came in and started flipping the title every week. No sane company would have given the Luger and Goldberg title wins over Hogan away for free, and those were in a time period where they were moving around the title less than WWE does now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 17:56
|
|
|
I honestly cannot see why ANYONE liked Lex Luger. The torture rack was a good move, but I didn't see him do anything in the ring that was original and couldn't be done by anyone else with some amount of strength. No charisma.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 18:04
|
|
|
Justice Grieves posted:I honestly cannot see why ANYONE liked Lex Luger. The torture rack was a good move, but I didn't see him do anything in the ring that was original and couldn't be done by anyone else with some amount of strength. No charisma. Some poo poo just catches on for some reason. But I'm with you looking back I don't know why I liked him. His ring work sucked. And now I'm not really a fan of that look either. I think the fact that most WCW fans at the time were hungry for anyone who looked strong against the nWo is a contributing factor because his run had definitely wore thin on me by his wolf pack days. Also what was the reason he and Sting joined the Wolf Pack? If they were supposed to be WCW guys and the nWo was against that why join? Was the original Wolf Pack idea that they wouldn't destroy WCW? I assumed that was the motivation behind the nWo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 18:41
|
|
|
I think the Wolfpack was the good-guy rebels against the evil NWO Black and White. WCW had been booked into looking incompetent thanks to repeated PPV losses (especially at NWO souled out, which did its best to make them look like jagoffs). Also, Lex was from the World Bodybuilding Federation, which explains why Vince pushed him so hard. He was "The Narcissist" but atleast he wasn't on roids, which was an absolutely huge scandal at the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:29
|
|
|
When is Sky Sports going to show WWE Superstars?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:30
|
|
|
Justice Grieves posted:He was "The Narcissist" but atleast he wasn't on roids 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:38
|
|
|
Justice Grieves posted:Lex quote:he wasn't on roids 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 19:42
|
|
|
What's the story behind Cryme Tyme getting released in 2007? Something happened in their last match with Cade and Murdoch, there was a botched finish, possibly involving a referee, but I haven't been able to find a really good report on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 21:16
|
|
|
Meat Recital posted:What's the story behind Cryme Tyme getting released in 2007? Something happened in their last match with Cade and Murdoch, there was a botched finish, possibly involving a referee, but I haven't been able to find a really good report on it. basically Cryme Tyme and Cade&Murdoch got into an argument backstage, and to rib them, Cade and Murdoch got Cryme Tyme counted out to mess with the finish. Cryme Tyme, for some retarded reason (I guess to send the crowd home happy or something), gave the referee their finisher (Which he was not trained to take) and threw the ref's belt into the crowd. They were on thin ice for their attitude backstage as it was, so they ended up getting released.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 21:24
|
|
|
They had the last laugh though as they're now in the WWE and cade/murdoch are wrestling for ham sandwiches** **They may actually be getting money for there wrestling edit: actually was the reason cade was released ever made public? I just heard he had a fit or something on a plane and was gone like the same week.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 21:27
|
|
|
The Croc posted:They had the last laugh though as they're now in the WWE and cade/murdoch are wrestling for ham sandwiches** nobody knows for sure, but JR's blog insinuated it was drug related.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 21:33
|
|
|
Eh, Bret Hart's book says that Lex wasn't on steroids, and Bret doesn't really pull punches on who's on 'roids at the time (he did them very briefly).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 22:04
|
|
|
Justice Grieves posted:Eh, Bret Hart's book says that Lex wasn't on steroids, and Bret doesn't really pull punches on who's on 'roids at the time (he did them very briefly). Bret Hart smoked crack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 22:11
|
|
|
Justice Grieves posted:The torture rack was a good move I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 22:37
|
|
|
N/A.
BobbyHeenanTinyHat fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Aug 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 22:43
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Changing World titles on television is generally a terrible idea and was one of the things that led to the demise of WCW, by the way. Nobody likes the way the WCW title was handled during Russo's runs, but to say that title changes should never happen on television is ridiculous. jeffersonlives posted:No sane company would have given the Luger and Goldberg title wins over Hogan away for free, and those were in a time period where they were moving around the title less than WWE does now. There's a balance. You can have a few title changes a year on television, but you need to pick which changes very carefully. It's especially effective if a beloved babyface loses the title to a heel and actually helps build your pay-per-view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 22:55
|
|
|
All this Luger talk has me thinking of how announces used to sell him back in the day. I distinclty remember from the 96 Starcade Dusty Rhodes says that he was so cut that it would hurt more when the Giant hit him. The logic being that his ribs were more exposed. There was also the selling of his 2% body fat level. And on the subject of on-air title changes. I think they're OK as long as they're done well. I'll never hate the time Foley won and then before wrestlemania Rock won it. I think both of those are good examples. The way I saw it the feud between Rock and Foley helped cement the Rock as a main event player and at the same time it gave Foley the rub that many felt he had coming. Shard fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Sep 2, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 22:58
|
|
|
Weird question maybe, but for the folks that have attended WWE house shows - are they not usually in arenas. I found this picture on a random image feed, and as far as I can see it's Ziggler vs Morrison in what appears to be a Chikara-size venue, rather than the usual WWE-size arena. Can anyone cast any light on this? I thought it might have been something like OVW or FCW but the turnbuckle pads have the WWE logo on them... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 23:15
|
|
|
apsouthern posted:Weird question maybe, but for the folks that have attended WWE house shows - are they not usually in arenas. They're sometimes in smaller places that hold 1-2000 people at most.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 23:25
|
|
|
apsouthern posted:Weird question maybe, but for the folks that have attended WWE house shows - are they not usually in arenas. It must depend on where the show is, some towns might not have a big sized venue. When they came here they used our civic center which I wouldn't call an arena. When I was in New Orleans though they always used theirs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 23:26
|
|
|
apsouthern posted:Weird question maybe, but for the folks that have attended WWE house shows - are they not usually in arenas. most of the time they use arenas, but in really remote places like central montana or poo poo, they use sports clubs and other similar venues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 23:27
|
|
|
apsouthern posted:Weird question maybe, but for the folks that have attended WWE house shows - are they not usually in arenas. Many Smackdown house shows are run in 2-3,000 seat buildings. That is a much bigger building than the smaller CHIKARA venues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 23:29
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Never changing the world titles on television sends the message to your fans that no title match not on pay-per-view matters and that there will never be surprises on television. And this is a bad thing how exactly? You should want the fans to have to buy the PPV to see the important stuff, if your primary goal is to sell PPVs. If you want to start giving important stuff away for free, you can't run monthly PPVs because there just isn't that much to go around. Plus, the less you switch your titles in general, the more they mean. quote:Considering they were doing incredible ratings and STILL doing insane buyrates, I'd say there's some give to this statement. Is there? The Luger change gave away the happy ending that should have been on Hog Wild or whatever the Sturgis PPV was in 1997, if you're going to switch the title to Luger briefly. Having Luger win the title at all made no sense within the Sting vs. nWo storyline either. It was a hotshot for the sake of popping a one-week rating and it didn't matter for business at all. Putting the Goldberg title switch on Nitro was a complete disaster and I think everyone involved admits this at this point. They could've done an absolutely huge PPV number with that match.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2009 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:And this is a bad thing how exactly? You should want the fans to have to buy the PPV to see the important stuff, if your primary goal is to sell PPVs. If you want to start giving important stuff away for free, you can't run monthly PPVs because there just isn't that much to go around. I think you're thinking too much like a bussiness man. Sometimes you're gonna have to sacrifice a few bucks here and there for the sake of making the show not suck. Taking this position will make you a retarded mark by default, but thems' the breaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 00:35
|
|
