WWE Network

1201202204206207246

Comments

  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I would guess that they'd start the Attitude Era shows from Vince's pre-Raw "cure for the common show" speech which from memory would have been around December '97 I think.
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    AlexiR wrote: »
    I would guess that they'd start the Attitude Era shows from Vince's pre-Raw "cure for the common show" speech which from memory would have been around December '97 I think.

    That was the night after Survivor Series wasent it when he did the speech.
  • gerry dgerry d Posts: 12,518
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Watched an episode of Raw from 93 last week & they showed a clip from Superstars Of Wrestling where Borga beat Tatanka (Tatanka's 1st loss in singles competition) by pinning him with 1 finger & then Yokozuna attacking Tatanka.

    I wonder why Vince never had this big angle (for it's time) on an episode of Raw?.I know Raw wasn't always live back in that period but Superstars was never live.
  • James FrederickJames Frederick Posts: 53,184
    Forum Member
    gerry d wrote: »
    Watched an episode of Raw from 93 last week & they showed a clip from Superstars Of Wrestling where Borga beat Tatanka (Tatanka's 1st loss in singles competition) by pinning him with 1 finger & then Yokozuna attacking Tatanka.

    I wonder why Vince never had this big angle (for it's time) on an episode of Raw?.I know Raw wasn't always live back in that period but Superstars was never live.
    Tatanka's win streak was also almost 2 years long and he lost in pretty much a throw away match.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lol I should say I don't have an issue with torrents or people using them, I just fully support anybody whether it be WWE, TNA, UFC or anybody else who is active in trying to shut them down to protect their property.

    I just wonder how people that regularly use torrents would feel if they owned a shop and once a month, hundreds, if not thousands, of people walked in and stole £10 of products.

    It subjective of course but nothing is purely black & white. One reason the network exists is presumably because ppv was not thought to be viable long term, and a major reason for that is piracy. Ergo, everyone is benefiting from piracy, even those who think piracy immoral, because it's forcing the entertainment companies to adapt to new technologies quicker than they otherwise would have.
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    gerry d wrote: »
    Watched an episode of Raw from 93 last week & they showed a clip from Superstars Of Wrestling where Borga beat Tatanka (Tatanka's 1st loss in singles competition) by pinning him with 1 finger & then Yokozuna attacking Tatanka.

    I wonder why Vince never had this big angle (for it's time) on an episode of Raw?.I know Raw wasn't always live back in that period but Superstars was never live.

    Back in 1993 Superstars was still considered the bigger show of what was televised. You could eventually see Raw being more important with Superstars being second place but dont forget Steiners/Money Inc battled over the tag titles in 2 matches on Superstars and Diesel won the IC belt from Razor on Superstars in 1994 so they still considered that show very important.

    I suppose in 1994 they could have done the tag tournament on Raw but kept it for Superstars.
  • Hollie_LouiseHollie_Louise Posts: 39,760
    Forum Member
    JCR wrote: »
    It subjective of course but nothing is purely black & white. One reason the network exists is presumably because ppv was not thought to be viable long term, and a major reason for that is piracy. Ergo, everyone is benefiting from piracy, even those who think piracy immoral, because it's forcing the entertainment companies to adapt to new technologies quicker than they otherwise would have.

    And as I said, my main problem is with these companies that get away with stealing WWE and others property.

    Of course it is forcing companies to adapt to new technology, that doesn't make it right.
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    Just watching Summerslam 1990. Great show.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,329
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tatanka's win streak was also almost 2 years long and he lost in pretty much a throw away match.
    Makes me laugh these so called undefeated streaks. Tatanka lost on the house show circuit to Ted Dibiase and Rick Martel and Taker lost to Warrior and Sid before losing to Hogan at Tuesday in Texts.
  • James FrederickJames Frederick Posts: 53,184
    Forum Member
    Makes me laugh these so called undefeated streaks. Tatanka lost on the house show circuit to Ted Dibiase and Rick Martel and Taker lost to Warrior and Sid before losing to Hogan at Tuesday in Texts.

    I know House Shows don't count during Lesner's first run he lost a few times to JBL in his first month.
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    Makes me laugh these so called undefeated streaks. Tatanka lost on the house show circuit to Ted Dibiase and Rick Martel and Taker lost to Warrior and Sid before losing to Hogan at Tuesday in Texts.

    I havent come across any one with a legimate undefeated streak. Even Andre back in 87 claimed he was undefeated and to a point he hadent been beaten in a decade in the 70s he did get pinned in japan.

    Tatanka was Chris Chavis when he lost to Dibiase which I believe was filmed as know someone who has the match. Undertaker there was 2 coliseum home videos where he lost to Hogan and I know Warrior had beaten Taker all over the house show circuit.

    In recent times Rusev got pinned by Ziggler in NXT so he wasent undefeated either and Goldust pinned Sheamus on Superstars so he wasent undefeated either.
    I know House Shows don't count during Lesner's first run he lost a few times to JBL in his first month.

    Lesnar lost to Perfect before he debuted on TV in a dark match

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwuLB4419Og
  • Steveaustin316Steveaustin316 Posts: 15,779
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dax 21 wrote: »
    The attitude era actually started August 97

    Although the change in the direction of the product was well underway by then, I don't think it officially became the attitude era until the Vince promo announcing the change in direction in late 1997.
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    The attitude logo debuted around survivor series
  • AlexiRAlexiR Posts: 22,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Network will air a preview of the new Ultimate Warrior DVD after Raw this week for those that might care.
  • Steveaustin316Steveaustin316 Posts: 15,779
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The attitude logo debuted around survivor series

    I think the December 15th 1997 Raw is when they started using the attitude era logo in the corner of the screen.
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    AlexiR wrote: »
    The Network will air a preview of the new Ultimate Warrior DVD after Raw this week for those that might care.

    It has a documenatry?
  • Dax 21Dax 21 Posts: 1,759
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It has a documenatry?

    It's a preview of the new DVD out next week
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    Dax 21 wrote: »
    It's a preview of the new DVD out next week

    Any ideas if the DVD has a documentary?
  • Dax 21Dax 21 Posts: 1,759
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Any ideas if the DVD has a documentary?


    Yes think so
  • Steveaustin316Steveaustin316 Posts: 15,779
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Thinking about it, I'm not so sure WWE will be adding any Attitude Era episodes on Monday after all. All we've heard so far is rumours on various sites and there's been nothing officially mentioned about it by WWE themselves.

    It does seem odd that WWE would add an entire year of Attitude Era episodes in a free month. If they did plan on doing it, wouldn't they hype it first?
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    Yeah. That does sound odd. Im not so keen on another free month, while they did it to promote the debut of the Network in the UK seems silly to give another month away. Hopefully we get episodes of Raw for paying customers.

    On a side note heard Raw from London will have a Fallout exclusive.
  • Jimmy_BarnesJimmy_Barnes Posts: 895
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Thinking about it, I'm not so sure WWE will be adding any Attitude Era episodes on Monday after all. All we've heard so far is rumours on various sites and there's been nothing officially mentioned about it by WWE themselves.

    It does seem odd that WWE would add an entire year of Attitude Era episodes in a free month. If they did plan on doing it, wouldn't they hype it first?

    Raw episodes from this time period are due to be added throughout the year. One would think they will finish uploading the remaining 1996 shows, of which there must only be about 8 or 9 to go, before proceeding with 1997 Raws.
  • dave_windowsdave_windows Posts: 5,937
    Forum Member
    Dax 21 wrote: »
    Yes think so

    Would that be the documentary WWE did for the Network last year or is this a brand new Documentary?
  • CoolWestiesCoolWesties Posts: 211
    Forum Member
    i cancelled my subscription before my first payment, so i watched wrestlemania for free.

    what turned me off was the lack of raw episodes after 1996, the years aren't as full as 93-96. i like to progress from the beginning but until they start uploading the rest i might not bother reactivating; the only exception to this rule would be seeing wrestlemania next year.
  • Dax 21Dax 21 Posts: 1,759
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thinking about it, I'm not so sure WWE will be adding any Attitude Era episodes on Monday after all. All we've heard so far is rumours on various sites and there's been nothing officially mentioned about it by WWE themselves.

    It does seem odd that WWE would add an entire year of Attitude Era episodes in a free month. If they did plan on doing it, wouldn't they hype it first?

    Seen an ad on the app from WWE
Sign In or Register to comment.