WWE Network

1228229231233234246

Comments

  • James FrederickJames Frederick Posts: 53,184
    Forum Member
    Watching NXT is the Network frezzing and jumping for anyone else?
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    Steiner v HHH at the Rumble in 2003 was immediately followed by Angle v Benoit. I doubt there has ever been a greater jump in match quality between one match and the next on a WWE PPV before or since.

    All they had to do was have a 7 minute match and go for a DQ finish.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    hazydayz wrote: »
    I liked the stuff with Kane and Shane and when Kane attacked him in hospital and burst the bag of blood with his hand and it sprayed over Shane's face. The tombstone on Linda, Kane falling into the burning dumpster, the limo crash in the arena, Shane's balls being electrocuted by a car battery.

    That's entertaining stuff. That's a real proper story. Something different happening every week and it builds and builds and builds and you think how is this going to end? You don't get that anymore.

    yeah kane vs shane was some of the best post russo stuff wwe have ever done, it was brillaint,each week something big seemed to happen between the two.

    too bad it petered out when kane did not win the world title at armageddon even though he was on a hot streak.
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    whedon247 wrote: »
    yeah kane vs shane was some of the best post russo stuff wwe have ever done, it was brillaint,each week something big seemed to happen between the two.

    too bad it petered out when kane did not win the world title at armageddon even though he was on a hot streak.

    That one was odd why Kane didnt win the belt when he was going through a monster heel turn losing the mask.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That one was odd why Kane didnt win the belt when he was going through a monster heel turn losing the mask.

    i am a big hhh fan but kane should have won that triple threat for sure.
  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whedon247 wrote: »
    yeah kane vs shane was some of the best post russo stuff wwe have ever done.
    You have terrible taste.

    Or I suppose a terrible memory. Maybe both in fact.
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    AlexiR wrote: »
    You have terrible taste.

    Or I suppose a terrible memory. Maybe both in fact.

    I always felt after Russo had gone the Austin heel run wasent as great as they could have delivered. I guess if WCW had been around like 1998 they would have made it better.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I always felt after Russo had gone the Austin heel run wasent as great as they could have delivered. I guess if WCW had been around like 1998 they would have made it better.

    yeh it wasnt great, had some good moments but austin with a cowboy hat? hummmmmmmmm

    they didnt get much perfect 2000 onwards unfortuntely
  • hazydayzhazydayz Posts: 6,909
    Forum Member
    It's like Russo says, as soon as he left they slowly went back to what they knew which was old fashioned wrestling and entertainment. They wouldn't have known how to make a Stone Cold heel turn work. When you look at WWF 2000 you see very clearly the Attitude Era was done, the shows were much more entertainment driven, a lot of the promos relied on "comedy", everything became brightly light, the stage, the ring, back to the old ways, back to what they knew.


    Before Russo told Stephanie McMahon on the phone in 2002 he wouldn't be going back he had said to Vince McMahon, don't you remember how we got 8 million people? It was barely 3 years ago that I left, I didn't leave you a lifetime ago, it's barely 3 years. McMahon apparantly said to him that they became public in 2000 and they had to change how they did business because of that........which was lies because WWF was far more violent 2001-2006 than they ever were in the Attitude Era..........and Russo said to him, but the changes you've made aren't working. Why do you have 20 people writing the show when i wrote it alone then me and Ed wrote it alone, why do you have 20 people doing the work of 2 people? McMahon again blamed it on being corporate and things being different and Russo again told him........but Vince, you might have had to make changes but you've made things worse not better. You've halfed the audience in the 3 years I've been away. We were drawing 7 and 8 million at one point when i left, there's less than half that now so any changes you made, haven't been good, you haven't made your company better, you've made it worse and you've lost half the audience.





    And obviously it went in one ear and out the other. And Russo was right. In less than 3 years he lost half the audience at home. The ironic thing was it took them that amount of time to build the audience in the first place. What Russo was trying to tell Vince was, you KNOW what we had to do to keep those people watching, you KNEW how hard we worked to keep those guys over and keep those main eventers over, McMahon knew all of this yet when Russo left they just went back to the way they always did business? Just a waste of time considering all the hard work that was put in before it.
  • homer2012homer2012 Posts: 5,216
    Forum Member
    hazydayz wrote: »
    It's like Russo says, as soon as he left they slowly went back to what they knew which was old fashioned wrestling and entertainment. They wouldn't have known how to make a Stone Cold heel turn work. When you look at WWF 2000 you see very clearly the Attitude Era was done, the shows were much more entertainment driven, a lot of the promos relied on "comedy", everything became brightly light, the stage, the ring, back to the old ways, back to what they knew.


    Before Russo told Stephanie McMahon on the phone in 2002 he wouldn't be going back he had said to Vince McMahon, don't you remember how we got 8 million people? It was barely 3 years ago that I left, I didn't leave you a lifetime ago, it's barely 3 years. McMahon apparantly said to him that they became public in 2000 and they had to change how they did business because of that........which was lies because WWF was far more violent 2001-2006 than they ever were in the Attitude Era..........and Russo said to him, but the changes you've made aren't working. Why do you have 20 people writing the show when i wrote it alone then me and Ed wrote it alone, why do you have 20 people doing the work of 2 people? McMahon again blamed it on being corporate and things being different and Russo again told him........but Vince, you might have had to make changes but you've made things worse not better. You've halfed the audience in the 3 years I've been away. We were drawing 7 and 8 million at one point when i left, there's less than half that now so any changes you made, haven't been good, you haven't made your company better, you've made it worse and you've lost half the audience.





    And obviously it went in one ear and out the other. And Russo was right. In less than 3 years he lost half the audience at home. The ironic thing was it took them that amount of time to build the audience in the first place. What Russo was trying to tell Vince was, you KNOW what we had to do to keep those people watching, you KNEW how hard we worked to keep those guys over and keep those main eventers over, McMahon knew all of this yet when Russo left they just went back to the way they always did business? Just a waste of time considering all the hard work that was put in before it.

    some good points but what did russo do to wcw's tv ratings.
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Um, wasn't 2000 a more successful year for the company than anything before?
  • hazydayzhazydayz Posts: 6,909
    Forum Member
    homer2012 wrote: »
    some good points but what did russo do to wcw's tv ratings.

    He raised them the first 12 weeks he was there and was left alone. From November 1999 to March 2001 Vince Russo worked for 9 months in WCW. Only 3 of those months was he left alone to book the show and only in those 3 months was there a change in the ratings.

    He even gave Kevin Nash the book and left him to it because if they think they can do a better job why not let them? He also got out of his contract and got paid more because his contract said he was the head writer. After those first 3 months they put him in committees and basically broke the terms of his contract. It wasn't in his contract that he would have to write the shows with other people so as soon as they did that not only did he know he was gonna be rolling in the money but there was never gonna be any changes because no matter who he worked with, they would just argue with him.







    And the same thing happened in TNA. For all the years he worked there he was only allowed an 8 week window to write the show with Matt Conway, this was before Hulk and Eric came in and before that he was writing with Dutch Mantell and Jim Cornette. So before that 8 week window and after it he was working with people who just didn't care for him so nothing can change. Every idea he had was going to be argued.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    Um, wasn't 2000 a more successful year for the company than anything before?

    yeah because everything was reaching its peak,under russo 2000 would have eben even bigger.

    despite ratings and buy rates those 2000 raws were noticbly less creative than 1999. alot of people couldnt see that because they were wowed by how over the rock was etc, by late 00 people were clocking on of course and ratings slowly dipped away yea rupon year afterwards.
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whedon247 wrote: »
    yeah because everything was reaching its peak,under russo 2000 would have eben even bigger.

    That's just fanboy-ism Russo was burned out by late 99.
    despite ratings and buy rates those 2000 raws were noticbly less creative than 1999. alot of people couldnt see that because they were wowed by how over the rock was etc, by late 00 people were clocking on of course and ratings slowly dipped away yea rupon year afterwards.

    Creativity is subjective. I don't like just dismissing everyone who watched in 2000 as blind because they don't necessarily share your opinion.

    But I think we can point to three reasons for the decline that began to set in at the end of that year. 1) The war was basically over and the 'fad' for wrestling was beginning to die out. 2) The HHH. Stephanie and Kurt Angle love triangle storyline, which drew a lot of female viewers, was botched and essentially dropped without a satisfying conclusion. 3) WWE moved Chris Kreski out of his position and replaced him with an inferior head writer - Stephanie McMahon.
  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I always felt after Russo had gone the Austin heel run wasent as great as they could have delivered. I guess if WCW had been around like 1998 they would have made it better.
    As flawed as the execution of the Austin heel turn undoubtedly was the basic ideas they were playing with during it were some of the best story ideas the WWE have ever had. And once they got past the early bumps of the turn itself and Austin actually got going as a heel I thought it was really rather good.
    whedon247 wrote: »
    they didnt get much perfect 2000 onwards unfortuntely
    Do you actually believe this or is it just hazy-like trolling?
    hazydayz wrote: »
    It's like Russo says, as soon as he left they slowly went back to what they knew which was old fashioned wrestling and entertainment.
    This is true if you pay absolutely no attention to the actual WWE product for years after Russo left.
    When you look at WWF 2000 you see very clearly the Attitude Era was done, the shows were much more entertainment driven, a lot of the promos relied on "comedy", everything became brightly light, the stage, the ring, back to the old ways, back to what they knew.
    Two things here.

    1 - Again this is true so long as you ignore the actual WWE product during this period.
    2 - I enjoy the dismissive claim that the shows were more entertainment driven not just because the idea that being entertaining is bad but also because of the implication that the shows weren't entertainment driven during the Attitude Era.
    Before Russo told Stephanie McMahon on the phone in 2002 he wouldn't be going back he had said to Vince McMahon, don't you remember how we got 8 million people? It was barely 3 years ago that I left, I didn't leave you a lifetime ago, it's barely 3 years.
    Stories like this are hilarious. Its as if Russo forgets that he booked WCW.
    which was lies because WWF was far more violent 2001-2006 than they ever were in the Attitude Era
    And yet " as soon as he left they slowly went back to what they knew which was old fashioned wrestling and entertainment."
    You've halfed the audience in the 3 years I've been away. We were drawing 7 and 8 million at one point when i left...
    I imagine McMahon's response to this would be similar to mine - this isn't true.
    And obviously it went in one ear and out the other.
    Vince McMahon didn't listen to the guy who booked WCW into oblivion? What madness!
    And Russo was right.
    As demonstrated by his remarkable success booking companies since leaving WWE...
    FMKK wrote: »
    Um, wasn't 2000 a more successful year for the company than anything before?
    Yes it was but we don't like to let facts get in the way of a good story.
    hazydayz wrote: »
    He raised them the first 12 weeks he was there and was left alone.
    No he didn't.
    And the same thing happened in TNA.
    Yes its always important to remember that nothing bad is Russo's fault. Yet everything good can and absolutely should be credited to him.
    whedon247 wrote: »
    yeah because everything was reaching its peak,under russo 2000 would have eben even bigger.
    To be clear you think Test turning on the McMahon's and joining DX would have been bigger than the McMahon-Helmsley era booking we got?
    despite ratings and buy rates those 2000 raws were noticbly less creative than 1999. alot of people couldnt see that because they were wowed by how over the rock was etc, by late 00 people were clocking on of course and ratings slowly dipped away yea rupon year afterwards.
    This is the single most ironic post given your musings on the Attitude Era.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    oh my,you talk about dismissive but then point to fads and cycles as reason wrestling sucks

    this fad has lasted 15 years, whens it over bro?
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whedon247 wrote: »
    oh my,you talk about dismissive but then point to fads and cycles as reason wrestling sucks

    this fad has lasted 15 years, whens it over bro?

    Are you suggesting that part of the reason behind the wrestling boom wasn't simply fad? I think that's pretty hard to deny.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that part of the reason behind the wrestling boom wasn't simply fad? I think that's pretty hard to deny.

    wrestling would still be insanely popular today if good creative teams were in place.

    you have a very defeatist attitude to it all, nah its impossible,cant do that,wouldnt work anyway,best we can hope for etc
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whedon247 wrote: »
    wrestling would still be insanely popular today if good creative teams were in place.

    you have a very defeatist attitude to it all, nah its impossible,cant do that,wouldnt work anyway,best we can hope for etc

    Wrestling has always had peaks and troughs in business, that's just reality. There's no way that the attitude era peaks were sustainable. However, now we're in an unprecedented position where there is essentially only one major company who are publicly owned and are in a basically steady position. It's hard to see them shaking things up much.

    I don't see how my attitude is defeatist though. Just because I don't think crash TV is the model for improvement.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    Wrestling has always had peaks and troughs in business, that's just reality. There's no way that the attitude era peaks were sustainable. However, now we're in an unprecedented position where there is essentially only one major company who are publicly owned and are in a basically steady position. It's hard to see them shaking things up much.

    I don't see how my attitude is defeatist though. Just because I don't think crash TV is the model for improvement.

    what has crash tv got to do with anything? any style of ceative show would be more popular than the dross we get right now.

    yes raw is 1 unrivaled show, yes wwe is 1 company without competition BUT lets not forget its also very very boring.
  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whedon247 wrote: »
    oh my,you talk about dismissive but then point to fads and cycles as reason wrestling sucks

    this fad has lasted 15 years, whens it over bro?
    Actually he mentioned a wrestling 'fad' as being a part of the reason there's been a post-Attitude Era slow down.
    FMKK wrote: »
    Wrestling has always had peaks and troughs in business, that's just reality.
    Not just wrestling either. This is true of everything across the entertainment industry.
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whedon247 wrote: »
    what has crash tv got to do with anything? any style of ceative show would be more popular than the dross we get right now.

    yes raw is 1 unrivaled show, yes wwe is 1 company without competition BUT lets not forget its also very very boring.

    I never said that the product is great or anything. It's really, really not. But I'm just saying that, in the current environment, I'm not sure where the spark for any wide-scale change is coming from.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    I never said that the product is great or anything. It's really, really not. But I'm just saying that, in the current environment, I'm not sure where the spark for any wide-scale change is coming from.

    i cannot see it either,but its out there im sure,change is required though to find it.

    its not even rocket science. develop the characters,dont just throw them out there in meaningless matches,put together fueds with forward palnning,when someone is not in a program dont have them lose on national tv every week for 3 months. dont have champions lose every week etc

    revolution need even needed, jsut some common sense.
  • FMKKFMKK Posts: 32,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    whedon247 wrote: »
    i cannot see it either,but its out there im sure,change is required though to find it.

    its not even rocket science. develop the characters,dont just throw them out there in meaningless matches,put together fueds with forward palnning,when someone is not in a program dont have them lose on national tv every week for 3 months. dont have champions lose every week etc

    revolution need even needed, jsut some common sense.

    You may be surprised by this, but I agree with everything you said!
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    FMKK wrote: »
    You may be surprised by this, but I agree with everything you said!

    the week ends on a high! lets just not speak again today in fear of ruining it lol
Sign In or Register to comment.