Re: The Official WWE Thread - Part 10

by Onyx Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:29 pm

A fan who attended AJ Lee's New Orleans Comic Con Q&A this weekend noted that she was asked about her "pipebomb" promo from last year and said there was supposed to be a follow-up to it.

AJ said that while her character had been acting like a "douche" she still hoped that the other Divas would realize that she was trying to make things happen for their division and get them more TV time.

AJ revealed that some of the Divas took the promo personal. She said it was unfortunate that the follow-up to her "pipebomb" got dropped due to personal feelings that other Divas had.

by Tomwin Lannister Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:29 pm

Well WWE are trying to move away from stereotypical faces/heels

So instead of being either a complete face or a complete heel, it's more like a percentage if you know what I mean

On one end you have your suck up to the crowd, save the day type of guy. On the other you have your monster heels

So the chances are, Reigns would be likeable, but he'd still be a 'brawler' and probably wouldn't make generic 'I love *insert Citys baseball team*' comments.

by zizzle Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:30 pm

What if i told you that not every guy needs a gimmick to be interesting..

by RealGunner Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:31 pm

Cena has no gimmick but he is mad interesting :coffee:

by Tomwin Lannister Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:32 pm

Think everybody is just throwing the word 'Gimmick' about here. A lot of main eventers don't have a proper 'gimmick' just personality traits.

by Onyx Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:33 pm

Main eventers don't need character dedicated to an entire gimmick. It's the midcard where that happens and Cena had a rapper gimmick. hmm

by Tomwin Lannister Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:36 pm

Imo hugging kids and wearing jean shorts is a gimmick hmm

A hipster re-living his youth who is down wiv da kidz

by zizzle Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:36 pm

If the WWE push Reigns too hard the fans will turn on him like they turned on Cena and Batista. He needs a strong push but not a monster push, when he feuds with Ambrose it should be a long program where he eventually wins but loses along the way. Lucky for him his mic work is not all that so the WWE cant make him do all these lame jokes and genetic promos.

by Onyx Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:39 pm

Can't wait until the WWE network. Every single PPV, RAW/Smackdown, other shows etc.

I hope Sky don't make it into a WWE channel. I'd rather WWE network just be a separate thing. Although that seems unlikely since Sky own the WWE rights. Which means the only way to watch it on PS4 is through the Sky go app which has like 10kbps image quality. Also just realised Sky go isn't even on Playstation.

Isn't USA getting the WWE network app on consoles etc? So wouldn't it be the same when it launches in other countries?

by Onyx Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:47 pm

It's actually a streaming service, thought it was a channel. hmm

by zizzle Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:52 pm

It's both

by RealGunner Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:10 pm

Hope it's an online service. Would love to watch old RAW episodes. Specially RAW is WAR ones.

On a related note. I was reading about the RR 1996. I saw all the contestants and apart from 3-4, all were scrubs and jobbers who wouldn't even get in the mid card today.

I think people romantasice the past sometimes when they say wrestling was great back then. early 2000 was definitely brilliant in terms of star power but before that, i am not too sure.

by Firenze Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:16 pm

who hypes up 1996? 1997 and onwards >>>>>>>>

by Casciavit Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:24 pm

RealGunner wrote:Hope it's an online service. Would love to watch old RAW episodes. Specially RAW is WAR ones.

On a related note. I was reading about the RR 1996. I saw all the contestants and apart from 3-4, all were scrubs and jobbers who wouldn't even get in the mid card today.

I think people romantasice the past sometimes when they say wrestling was great back then. early 2000 was definitely brilliant in terms of star power but before that, i am not too sure.

They do. The attitude era was great and all, but the only reason so many people 'hype' it is because we watched when we were younger. The kids this generation will rip off WWE in 15 years, saying back then it was great nowadays its crap.

by RealGunner Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:28 pm

Today's WWE isn't crap at all. It was meh in 2007 when Orton had his title reign and the scrubs like Miz main evented but atm it's pretty good.

by Casciavit Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:39 pm

Nah it isn't so bad nowadays, but I'm speaking in general. You know the people who don't actually watch the product, but claim that it is horrible and was good 15 years ago.

The attitude era was great and all, as it allowed more variety in storylines and angles. But, I really don't think the product is that bad nowadays. Nor, do I think the attitude era shits on the current product.

Like you said in your original post, the 1996 royal rumble had only 3-4 great superstars, but the rest were all incredibly meh and wouldn't even be mid carders nowadays. People choose to ignore that, and rather over glorify the past.

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:48 pm

Lol there is no romanticism, i go back and watch PPVs from that time now and again and still enjoy them.

If it was romanticism i would see them for what they are like when i go back to play games from 20 years ago and think god did i really like this its so shit.

It was legitimately great from probably 1994 to say 2004.

Also you can't really say those guys were jobbers without watching them and going off their names.... Kane vs Undertaker at WM14 which would shit all over 99.9% of todays product was not even a main event.

Hell look at that WM card it was godly.... The Rock vs Ken Shamrock for the IC Championship and HHH vs Owen Hart was mid card match ups.... i mean seriously lol.

It was just vastly superior..... there is no nostalgia and there is no romanticism it just was.

I do feel a bit sorry for today's guys though as they are restricted by Vince in terms of what they can do because of the PG angle and the booking is obviously vastly inferior.

by Rebaño Sagrado Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:59 pm

Mole-TRUTH

by Pedram Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:02 pm

Yeah it's true that some people tends to overglorify the eras before 2000, this is how i would rate different eras:

1. 2000 ~ 2006.
2. 2007 ~ present (except Wrestlemania 27 when WWE was at a all time low)
3. Before 2000

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:03 pm

Also keep in mind about star power..... while star power was evident during that decade and it wasn't just 2000... there was more than just one product back then.

If it seems like the star product was lesser than early 2000s thats because you had ECW, WCW and WWF all at the same time and they had major stars.

The reason why the influx of stars was so huge because WWF bought them over.

Even so though in the pre 1996 era you had Diesel, Razor Ramon, Taker, HBK, Bret Hart, Jake Roberts, Yokozuna, Sid Vicious ( or Sycho Sid as he was called then) British Bulldog, Owen Hart and so on with the likes of Ultimate Warrior still around and the likes of HHH and Austin just starting out.

It was legitimately a great product and even if you didn't like it you had WCW and ECW as well.

No is there no romanticism it was great seriously.

If anyone thinks now is better than pre 2000 they are either on crack or didn't watch it much, its not even close.

by RealGunner Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:08 pm

Mole definitely has a strong argument from the other point of view.

I didn't say today is better than pre 1996 because I never watched it, but I don't think I would prefer that time over today. The best time for me was the early 2000 when Stone Cold, Rock, Undertaker, HHH, Kurt, Lesnar, Jericho, Kane were all there. Maybe Because I have seen all of those guys rather than someone like Jake Roberts or Diesel.

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:14 pm

Brah if you said pre 1995 i'd understand because the product was nowhere near as entertaining.... even Hogan wasn't THAT entertaining in the ring but made up for oozing charisma and quite a lot of guys where like that.

But 1994 or 1995 onwards to 2003/2004 it was fantastic.

It all changed after that, honestly i do feel WCW and ECW going out of the business was the worst thing which ever happened to wrestling.

Also of the names you mentioned like The Rock, Austin, Angle, Jericho and Kane were around in the late 90s too in fact it could be argued a lot of their best matches were in the late 90s or 2000 on the dot.

I do agree that 1996 to say 2002 was probably the best time but people do forget the amount of great talent that was around before then.

Bret Hart is probably in the top 5 greatest performer i have ever seen and he wasn't the only one.

by Firenze Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:22 pm

I genuinely believe random RAW's from the attitude era were more enjoyable than the majority of PPV's nowadays. You'd have DX/Prime Kane/Undertaker/Rock/Austin/Mankind/Jericho brawling every week with someone betraying the other and, with people getting put through the announce table. :bow:Something GOAT happened at the end of almost every RAW/Smackdown that left you hooked for the next one. You don't get that now.

by Great Leader Sprucenuce Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:28 pm

Firenze wrote:I genuinely believe random RAW's from the attitude era were more enjoyable than the majority of PPV's nowadays. You'd have DX/Prime Kane/Undertaker/Rock/Austin/Mankind/Jericho brawling every week with someone betraying the other and, with people getting put through the announce table. Something GOAT happened at the end of almost every RAW/Smackdown that left you hooked for the next one. You don't get that now.

That's a point as as well.... you can't really say that someone wasn't that good based on watching PPVs you need to see the Raw and Smackdowns leading up to the PPVs too.

It would be absolutely awesome if as well having all these PPVs on demand that they have past Raw and Smackdowns too but i some how doubt it.

Would give people who missed out a really good idea of how good or bad some of the guys were.

I forgot to mention Mankind btw :bow:

GOAT.

by Tomwin Lannister Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 pm

1997 Kane debut and Undertaker feud alone makes 97 and onwards GOAT

Not to mention all the other top guys at the time

I'm seeing general improvements on RAW nowadays, the future looks good so long as they don't waste people in comedy relief shite.

by Onyx Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:33 pm

PWInsider reports that Hulk Hogan and Jimmy Hart are both now officially booked for the February 24th WWE RAW from Green Bay, Wisconsin.

This is the same night the WWE Network launches.
Hogan has had an agreement to return to WWE for some time following his TNA departure. Hogan was originally slated to return during the WWE Network announcement in Las Vegas but the company changed those plans the night before.

As noted, The Undertaker will also be on that RAW. Other top stars are expected to appear.

by Sponsored content