Regarding the whole "Fake Razor Ramon/Diesel" angle from the mid-90s: why go through the pains to find look-alikes of Scott Hall and Kevin Nash and pass them off as the real thing? Yeah, Glen Jacobs ("Kane") is a tall dude, but there's no way anyone would be able to make him a convincing Diesel with all the makeup in Hollywood.
Vince McMahon, apparently. I think (read: hope) he was alone in that.
Kevin Dunn, the head television producer, loved it too.
And that's why Dunn just got himself onto the WWE Board.
I'm amazed Journey Into Darkness managed to work her in. Nevertheless, Trips managed to apologize when they were on the same team and Kane brought it up.
Something else that baffles me is that nobody managed to prevent Vince from booking that angle. I mean, if they always managed to stop him from doing that incest angle he apparently wants to do (according to Stephanie McMahon herself), you'd think they'd also manage to cancel a freaking necrophilia angle!
I took that segment as just Triple H trying to smear Kane in a juvenile way. He's meant to be a tough guy, far removed from Degeneration X, but acting all tough and alpha-male-y won't intimidate Kane - so make up some appalling, rubbish comedy to send him into a rage - that way the Cerebral Assassin has an advantage. The Kane backstory mentioned is all rubbish there. But I might be thinking too clever.
Vince, according to some reports, is not the kind of guy who responds well to criticism. So it very well might have been that everybody was scared to tell him it was a bad idea for fear of the consequences. One example I read about: in 2004 fans were losing interest in WWE, and none of Vince's yes-men would tell him what was wrong with the product. So he brought Pat Patterson out of semi-retirement, since Patterson had always been straight with him. (No pun intended.) Patterson examined the problem, and finally told Vince that it might be a good idea for Triple H not to destroy everybody he went up against and for them to focus less on Hunter and more on building new stars. This was not received well, and Patterson was let go.
Kevin Dunn came up with the idea. Vince loved it and went with it, Triple H laughed himself sick (though this WAS in-character, but he revealed that he hated it from the start, as revealed in an online interview with Opie and Anthony in 2008), Glen Jacobs hated it but, being the ultimate company man, just did as he was told. As for why no-one talked Vince out of it, Vince habitually surrounds himself with yes-men. At that point, Steph hadn't reached a level where she could countermand him and, for some reason, Linda (who's the person who usually talks Vince out of his incest fixation) didn't step in. As for Shane, well, Vince has never cared what Shane thinks anyway.
If HHH has the kind of backstage power we all think he does, shouldn't this have been the time to use it?
The incident took place in 2002: HHH didn't marry Steph (for real), and thus have real backstage power because he was now in the family, until the next year.
What scratches my head about the Katie Vick thing the most is that no matter where I look, or how hard I search, I can't find a single explanation as to what it was! Seriously! I've never heard of it, and thus, dont know what was so bad! So I'm asking in all seriousness, anyone who knows/remembers: Who or what in the name of God Almighty is Katie Vick?!?!?
Thanks. Guess I wont be getting any sleep this week either.
Google "Seth Mates" and "Katie Vick". Mates said that the "Katie Vick" character was originally related to Scott Vick (aka Sick Boy of Raven's Flock in WCW). Scott Vick spent a few years doing dark matches and house shows and never made it to WWE TV.
With the recent Randy Orton storyline. Okay they can't fire him because he threatens to stop Wrestlemania with legal action if they do. But why not fire or threaten to fire his two cronies? They don't have a contract to appear at WrestleMania.
Hell, better question might be why Orton wasn't fired in the six days between Raw and the Royal Rumble.
If Vince doesn't say it, it doesn't count. It's in their contracts.
Why didn't they fire him after he lost after WrestleMania? He didn't get the WWE title, he admitted he lied about his disorder and could they really care if he stopped Backlash?
There's money to be made in a big rematch. Hence they'll keep him around and lead things towards it, so that they can make money from PPV buys.
Stephanie McMahon actually lampshaded this. "Firing you would be too easy," she told Orton. "We have bigger plans for you." The McMahon family is (kayfabe) a vindictive bunch, willing to engage in actions that skirt or even seriously teeter on the edge of legality. It's perfectly reasonable that they'd keep Orton around just so they can have someone in their goon squad "finish him off" one day. Think of it as Cruel Mercy.
Plus, look at all the things "Stone Cold" Steve Austin did to Vince during their feud. I think the "logic" behind this is that Vince gets the last laugh since he's profiting off of Randy's actions. Of course I think it's times like these where the MST3K Mantra comes in.
Matt Hardy does a number of terrible things to his brother Jeff, including: knocking him unconscious in a hotel, targeting him in a hit-and-run, sabotaging his pyrotechnics to explode in his face, betraying him at the Royal Rumble to help Matt's previous arch-nemesis Edge and costing Jeff the world title, and burning down Jeff's freaking house, resulting in the death of Jeff's dog. And yet, only a couple of months removed from a blood feud, Matt is sorry and they're tagging together. There are some things the Three Month Rule just doesn't cover.
Jeff was probably high.
Admittedly, Matt and Jeff are both a little...different...so it's not hard to argue that this one was potentially justified. But yes, it was still rather jarring.
Matt never admitted to burning his house down, if I'm not mistaken. He did admit to getting sick of protecting his little brother Jeff, and Matt was the first one called when it happened. The rest of it is pretty standard fare for wrestling.
Matt killed Jeff's dog? What the hell? Where was I when this was said?! Unless it was a joke, I don't think even a wrestler would get away with illegally killing an animal (or arson for that matter with the house), unless laws in America allow ruthelessly killing defenceless animals perfectly legal.
You must have missed the Al Snow and Big Bossman feud when Bossman fed Al Snow "Pepper steak".
He never out and out said it, but (Kayfabe of course) he strongly implied that he burned down Jeff's house, which caused the dog's death, and Matt brought Jeff's dog's charred collar to the ring to taunt him. Do something like that, and it's pretty clear what he supposedly did. The idea that Jeff "forgave" Matt for something like that in only a couple of months is absolutely insane.
I just thought it was all apart of the storyline to make their "sibling rival" more heated. No matter how close the two of them may be outside of the ring, no person in their right mind would forgive someone for burning down their house and also killing their dog in said fire.
OP here: obviously, I know that Matt didn't actually burn down his house in real life. In terms of storyline, I got the same impression as the above poster, that he was bluffing to goad Jeff into facing him at Wrestlemania. Still, since he never outright said one way or the other, the question of whether he actually did it lingered for a while.
I still want to know why Matt helped Edge of all people. EDGE. The man that tore Lita from you.
Well, this troper heard that the original plan was for Christian to make his re-debut by being the guy behind the attacks on Jeff, and the bookers dropped a few hints here and there. However, IWC fans and the like figured the clues out and immediately voiced their observations that Christian was the guy. Stephanie McMahon, however, got wind of this and pulled the entire storyline because she was assuming that the fans would be too stupid to figure the whole thing out. She also pulled this with the "Save.us.222" campaign in late '07 that hyped up the return of Chris Jericho, which dropped many hints that pointed to Jericho. So instead of re-debuting around the time of Cyber Sunday, as was originally planned, Jericho's return was pushed back into December, at which point the entire hype behind the Save Us campaign was lost and people didn't give a shit.
The above poster is entirely correct. Both Vince and Steph feel that their viewers are complete morons (even more so than other TV writers).
I'm probably one of the few people who didn't know the Save Us campaign was hyping the return of Jericho though that's more to blame on me not having a computer as all this was going on.
In the 1994 Royal Rumble, Bret Hart and Lex Luger, the last two in the ring, were adjudged to have hit the ground at the same time, and as a result both qualified for the prize of challenging for the WWF championship belt. But the way they worked it out was that one would fight Yokozuna and then the other would take on the winner. Surely this was highly unfair (on Yokozuna who would have to defend his belt twice in one night), and the correct way to do it would be the two of them to fight each other, and the winner would get to take on Yokozuna for the belt.
They evened it out by having Bret face Owen in the opening fight so Bret wouldn't be fresh for the final fight either. (The stipulation was if Luger won the right via coin toss to face Yokozuna second, he'd have to face Crush in the opener.) Both fighters of the main event (Bret and the winner of Yokozuna/Luger) would have already been in a match that night. It was about as fair to all three contenders as it could have been.
Why was he called the 1-2-3 Kid? Possibly the worst name a wrestler's had. I know he defeated Razor Ramon with a 1-2-3 count, but it's hardly a method unique to him... "The Kid", was a lot better, reminiscent of "Billy the Kid" or other such historical "kids".
There was a whole thing where he was a jobber, and he kept going through different "kid" names (Cannonball Kid, Kamikaze Kid, Lightning Kid.) According to Bobby Heenan, after, as "The Kid," he scored the surprise upset over Razor Ramon on the May 17, 1993 Raw, he suggested to Vince that they call him the 1-2-3 Kid, since he just got a 1-2-3.
I have never understood the logic behind having heel commentators. I get heel wrestlers; you need people the audience will pay money to see get beat up. I get heel authority figures; they add a degree of dramatic conflict for the underdog face to overcome. I even get heel refs for much of the same reason. But heel commentators hardly ever get beat up and they don't add any sense of tension for the face to overcome. They just annoy the viewer with their idiot comments and ass-backwards the-heel-is-always-right logic train. Is there anything of significance that's added to the program when Jerry Lawler would call Mick Foley an idiot every two minutes or Michael Cole whining about Daniel Bryan being from "the minor leagues?"
I never liked the idea that much either, but I'll try to explain the appeal. For one thing, it presents the audience another perspective as it makes things less black and white. Also, and I think it's the biggest reason: They're the only ones, if anyone, to call out a face's Moral Dissonance as opposed to handwaving, ignoring, or even justifying it. Especially in the Jerk Sue-populated Attitude Era.
Wouldn't a neutral commentator work just as well without the blissfully ignorant heel making annoying comments all throughout the show?
Because heel comentators are usually Affably Evil and most people love them, Bobby Heenan, CM Punk and Tazz are hilarious, and they play the heelish comentator role. And Heel Cole is awesome, and complaining stupidly about the faces makes one like the faces more.
I think the main use of a heel commentator is to explain the motivations of heel wrestlers to the viewers. Matt Striker does an excellent job of this whenever CM Punk is around, for example.
Actually the purpose of a heel commentator is to have someone on the commentating team who likes the heel on top of excusing any heel like actions the heel may commit in the match this essentially allows the heel commentator to not only come off as villian but also allows them to garner large amount of heat from viewers watching on TV, so basically if you hate heel commentators they have successfully done the job they're supposed be doing.
So, if Cole annoys me to the point that I either muted the TV or just changed the channel, he did his job?
No, Cole is an example of a bad heel, a guy who buries faces cheers for his favourite without logic, thus being irritating and getting nobody over. For examples of GOOD heel commentators, see Paul Heyman and John Bradshaw Layfield, they put over how good the babyfaces were (with Bradshaw he mostly did this, save one or two people he genuinely disliked) yet still supporting the heel, cheering when the heel won via dastardly means and professing his superiority to the face they spent 10 minutes putting over. Thus the face gets genuine credibility via the words of both commentators, the heel gets heat via cheating, and the commentator gets heat for supporting the heel and glossing over or ignoring his dastardly actions.
In re Bradshaw: Some of his most entertaining work may have been when Vito was doing the dress gimmick on SmackDown!, as Vito's antics + JBL's dead serious contempt for them = Hilarity.
Getting heat on the commentator really doesn't do a whole lot of good in and of itself. The really, really good ones at the role (Ventura, Heenan, Lawler before he went puppy-crazy) justify the heel's actions, but justify them in such a way that it makes the viewers hate the heel even more. It also lets the play-by-play man defend the face without looking like a shameless kiss-ass (Jim Ross was a MASTER at this during the Attitude Era; for the other side, look at David Crockett from the JCP days), by simply pointing out the gaps in the heel commentator's logic.
Because anything Bobby Heenan had to say was infinitely more entertaining than what was happening in the ring. Seriously, put Heenan and Gorilla Monsoon in the same room with a camera, you didn't need wrestling.
Being a commentator can actually help a wrestler if they are still semi active in 94-95 WWF top heel was also doing color on Raw, I miss HBK in that role he was great.
I love to hate Cole. Particularly right now with him and King and Austin interacting. That said it's not supposed to be a Face Commentator and a Heel, it's supposed to be color and play by play. Look at King/JR commentary from the 98-01 era. King rooted the bad guys because they did what it took to win, JR rooted the good guys because they had better sportsmanship. When someone did actual heel things both of them agreed on things.
Because Lawler and Cole aren't good examples of heel commentators. Everyone loves CM Punk on commentary and Bobby Heenan was one of the best commentators ever.
So many people go on and on about how Vince McMahon officially became the Devil incarnate when he backed out of Bret Hart's contract and then perpetrated the Montreal Screwjob when Bret refused to drop the belt. This attitude toward Vince "betraying" one of his longtime employees wouldn't bug me so much except that all the wrestlers who similarly betrayed Vince beforehand don't get called to task. Lex Luger, Scott Hall and Kevin Nash all decided to leave for WCW just days after telling Vince they were staying. Luger went so far as to conspire against Vince while still employed by him by still telling Vince he was staying put AFTER agreeing to sign with WCW just so he could pull the big shock of appearing on Nitro's premiere with no one suspecting. So employers are to give unwavering loyalty to their employees and not expect any in return?
Many fans don't know Luger, Hall, and Nash deceived Vince like that unless they watched the Monday Night Wars DVD or read up a lot on the backstage stuff. If you ask most smarks who demonize Vince what they think of Hall, Nash, and Luger, chances are they think they're motherfuckers, too. All three have a rep of being money-grubbing scumbags who take the paycheck for the least amount of work possible.
What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander. In any event the screwjob was at least a bad egg that was particularly deceptively set up, repeatedly lied about (including sometime after), and emotionally upsetting to the screwed party, certainly among instances well known to the public consciousness.
Hall and Nash both left at the end of their contract, with ample notice (necessary to prevent it from rolling over). None of the three were obligated in any way to sign a new contract or even negotiate a new one with McMahon. On the other hand, McMahon had Bret under a twenty-year contract (that he willingly signed) that he intentionally breached, and also violated a creative control "sunset" process in the contract language with the screwjob. Bret wasn't leaving for another month, had house show dates booked, and had approval from Eric Bischoff to continue working for WWE after his contractual start date in order to finish up with his storylines (Epileptic Tree conspiracy theories about Hart throwing the WWF title in a garbage can on Nitro break down due to a.) the lawsuit still going on, which the similar Madusa incident was a part of, and b.) Bischoff, Hogan, and Nash didn't want Hart to get over in WCW.)
To be fair, it's also been said that Vince was weary of what would happen if Bischoff announced on Nitro that WCW had just signed the WWF Champion. It probably wouldn't be such a good idea to have your top guy look as if he was easily taken away by the competition.
This, of course, was after breaching his WWF champion's contract, and telling him to get the best deal he could from the competition. In Wrestling With Shadows, when Bret offers to ask Bischoff to keep the deal quiet, Vince in fact turns him down and says not to worry about it.
Am I the only one left puzzled as to why [nowadays] when WWE shows replay footage from PPV's why initially in the days/weeks after the PPV the footage consists of nothing but still images of whatever they want to show viewers or fans what happened at the PPV whereas in the earlier days they almost always showed video footage.
They've been doing that since at least 1999. This troper distinctly remembers the still image montage they used the Raw after the Royal Rumble in '99. The logic is rather simple: they want you to buy the rerun of the PPV to see what actually happened. In the days of Youtube, it's less effective, but nonetheless...
They did it even earlier than that. This troper remembers still image montages happening way back in 94
Actually the logic gets kind of fuzzy when you remember that even in those days they still showed video footage of what happened at the PPV's whereas today practically all the PPV replay footage consists of still images unless it's Wrestlemania I think.
Unless it was being shown to reference a specific plot point (i.e. the moment Mankind supposedly yelled "I quit" or the Rock/Big Show tumble at the 2000 Rumble) usually in a wrestler's promo, they used still images at least until the reruns of the PPV had aired. They still do that; Cena famously showed the cascade of chairs at TLC 2010 from four different angles the night after.
That no wrestler possibly in history has won and certainly not made a gimmick out of winning by the knock out rule. The Last Man Standing mechanic is there but nobody ever uses it and you could get a monster WAY over if their gimmick was they knock you out. Like them actually going for a pin is a sign of frustration.
And since when has winning by knock-out exclusively meant "concuss victim to unconsciousness?"
His name is Chris Hero and he throws elbows.
It's odd that the unbranded Big Gold Belt was the "WCW Championship" and the current WWE-branded Big Gold Belt is unbranded as the "World Heavyweight Championship".
Is it? It was labeled as the "World title" following the end of the WCW invasion in 2001.
Speaking of the title belts, why do they keep the "World Heavyweight Championship" name if they don't have a weight-class limit on who can compete for the damn thing? Granted I may be limiting myself by the semantics here, but logically, shouldn't they play it as the WHC being...well, the world heavyweight champion, while the WWE title is only the champion of the company, but is open to any weight class?
There sort of was. Raw was home of heavyweights and Smackdown home of cruiserweights. Initially wrestlers like Matt Hardy would talk about trying to make the weight for which belt they would challenge for or if no weight restrictions existed on a belt. Rey Mysterio Jr becoming Heavyweight Champion, and then killing the cruiserweight division undermined this this though so now the World Heavy Weight Title and WWE Title are pretty much the same thing.
Unlike in modern day combat sports, where "heavyweight" has a very specific meaning, it used to mean pretty much the same thing as "open weight", i.e., no weight restrictions either way.
Why do they keep putting Jim Ross onscreen as a play by play man he often messes up the names of moves gets wrestlers names wrong and just repeats the same stupid catch phrases over and over again. While he can be entertaining and would make a great color man he is not cut out for play by play. It seems Kevin Dunn (or whoever is in charge of tv now) douse not relies this and made the much better play by play man Michael Cole into a clone of J.R. and then turned him Heel because people did not like that. While I respect JR and think he did a good job behind the scenes, he has never been as good in front of the mike as a lot of people claim especially compared to people like Vince McMahon and Michael Cole, when working with one of them he was at his best as he could give insight and color while the other one called the match. Now the best play by play guy is Todd Grisham hopefully they will not mess him up like they did Cole.
Grisham was a weak commentator and honestly had no business being at the desk with JR much less Striker the odds of them putting Grisham at the desk for any of the brand shows (again) looks largely dim at the moment, so you don't have to worry about them messing up his character. Also I don't know where you're getting the idea of Michael Cole being a better commentator than JR especially since the majority of the IWC likes Ross a great deal better than Cole though they're opinions tend to become irrelevant when they start criticizing Cole for making mistakes that even JR has made in his career.
Most people inside the business and out of it consider Ross to be one of the best play-by-play men in wrestling. It isn't about getting move names right (Vince didn't even try when he was on commentary, for one), it's about getting the fans to believe in the story of the match and the characters of the participants.
JR probably would be better color and Jerry would probably do better play by play being a former wrestler but that's not how they started out so Grand Father Clause always puts them that way. Fans will admit that JR could do better but few will talk of anyone one that does better than JR. And for any of JR's faults most fans will say Cole is worse. Really what should have been done was not replace a fan favorite with a Scrappy as Cole developed into one during his time on Smackdown with Tazz. Replacing a fan favorite with him was just begging for a Replacement Scrappy when you consider fans still liked Joey Styles and Paul Heyman and even they got hit with the "not good as JR" bug to a degree.
There isn't a general headscratchers section for wrestling so I'm putting this here. What happens if in a no-DQ match someone interferes and applies a submission one of the people in the match taps out to it. Do they lose? Does the other person win?
Nothing, really. The ref tries to break it up, or the person actually in the match says "Hey, thanks for the assist, I got it from here." If they lay out the ref and the other competitor then it may end in a No Contest.
Why doesn't the US championship count towards becoming a Triple Crown or Grand Slam champion?
Historical reasons, most certainly.
Because at the time that the Grand Slam accomplishment was established, the US title was a WCW Championship
So Vickie Guerrero is the "boss" of Raw at the moment (The official "title" escapes me). One of the major plot points was that the Board put her in power and Vince couldn't do anything about it. However since then he's made somewhat of a habit of coming out and bullying her into doing what he wants. Why though? Wasn't it painfully established that Vince didn't have any power over her? So why's she acting like he could fire her at any moment?
He's still Chairman of the Board.
Even if he can't fire her, he can still make things very difficult for her. Vickie knows Vince well enough to know not to get in his way too much.
Extreme Rules 2013, WWE Championship, John Cena vs. Ryback, Last Man Standing. The match ended in a no contest after Ryback speared Cena through the stage. Cena couldn't get up and walk away from it. Ryback managed to get to his feet on his own and walked off. So... why didn't John Cena lose the belt to Ryback? He accomplished the very objective of the match.
They wanted to have the match end with no clear victor so they could continue the feud. However while the ref. declared both men unfit to continue he forgot to count them both out or have the bell rung. So technically the match was still-in-progress until Lesnar vs. Trips started.
What would happen if a MITB winner wanted to cash in during a match? Would the match become a triple threat? Would the original match end and the MITB winner fight the champion?
If it ever happens it will be decided on the spot most likely with a lot of very intentional controversy. The most logical answers in order would be it would start a triple threat match OR start some kind of really odd two refs watching two matches, possibly with D Qs if anybody directly hit the not champion.
Why do MITB winners forget that the rules of the contract are you get a match when you want? It seems like the standard strategy is to wait until they've had an usually difficult match but there is nothing preventing the winner from using the brief case like the same way the Hardcore Championship used to work. You'd think someone like Damian Sandow or any genre savvy heel would blind side you in the middle of an interview and pin you then.
It's been pretty well established that when you cash in your MITB case the match does not start until both men are on their feet and the bell is rung. So in your situation you could attack the champ and then cash in your case but they would still get a chance to stand up before your match effectively making it the same advantage as waiting until they just had a match.
And then the big (and theoretically money-drawing) belts would hold about as much interest as the Hardcore Championship did around the waist of luminaries such as Crash Holly, Gerald Brisco, and one of the Godfather's ho's.
First the Hardcore Champisonship and Godfather's Ho's were damn interesting. But that being beside the point a once a year (granted once every year) shot wouldn't diminish the championships anymore than all the shenanigans that already surround each title. In addition waiting until the man is back on his feet isn't much of a condition Edge used the very first one to spear John Cena who clearly had no idea what country he was in let alone that he was in a match. It's a good question why the heels aren't smarter.
This always boggled my mind since WWE went TV-PG. Why have they made pay-per-views based around gimmick matches? And I don't mean anything like the Royal Rumble or Money in the Bank that can hook in fans due to their unpredictability. I mean anything like Hell in the Cell and TLC. Having them based around those sorts of gimmick matches kills any kind of storyline buildup that would have made said match memorable (especially notable in the case of Hell in a Cell) before the TV rating change and it makes things more predictable with what to expect for a pay per view.
I think they want to make each PPV have its own unique selling point. Before it was essentially just the Big 4 that were special at all. The rest were just shows with regular matches. The idea of a show having Hell In A Cell matches or TLC matches makes them unique and gives fans more reasons to buy them. WWE don't want unpredictability - they want reliability and to know what the customers are going to spend their money on. While it doesn't seem to have helped with viewership (the Hell In A Cell PPV always seems to be a dud), some of the gimmicked shows have caught on like Money In The Bank and Night of Champions.
It doesn't make those PP Vs unique. With gimmick matches like TLC or Extreme Rules matches, they were always there as a blow-off to any major long-term storyline feud they had going on between opponents. Money in the Bank, Royal Rumble and Elimination Chamber make sense in that you never know who could come out on top in them, which adds that sense of unpredictability to them. But for other gimmick-themed PP Vs like TLC or Hell in the Cell, they're just there to set up matches without the storyline buildup used for feuds before the PG era and it makes things predictable because you know there's gonna be a gimmick match that doesn't build up into anything other than its a gimmick match going along with the PPV's name.