We're not.
There is no WCW now.
Punk isn't Leaving with the belt to a WCW.
Christ... Bret wasn't Leaving with the belt to WCW: he always was going to drop it.
This is something so Inside Politics that only means something to hardcores and doesn't mean dick to the majority of current WWE Fans. For fuck's sake... Montreal was 14 years ago. How many of the WWE's *current* fans were even WWE Fans in 1997?
Think I'm full of shit? Someone should track how many DVD's the "Shawn-Bret Montreal" set sells when it comes out, and then do the math on what % of WWE Fans dropped a dime on it. You'll find it's a low %.
Montreal meant something to a generation of fans... but even within that generation it's wildly overblown. More people watched "Rock: This Is Your Life" and the freaking Beer Truck than Montreal, and Rock & Stone Cold are more iconic to that generation than Bret & Shawn and something like Montreal.
I'll give you a real sports equiv: The 1975 World Series, Game 6, Fisk hitting the dinger. It was an iconic moment. Huge in that era.
Now?
It means dick except to baseball hardcores and fans like me who were fans in 1975 and lived that great moment live.
"But jdw... that was 36 years ago. Montreal was only 14 years ago. They're no analogous."
Okay.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1993/B10230TOR1993.htm
Four years prior to Montreal. Massive baseball moment. 25-30M people watched it live in this country, which is saying something since one of the teams involved was a non-US market.
How big is that dinger to current baseball fans? Do we hear people talk about it like they did Maz's HR when we were kids in the 70s?
Now also recall that Baseball Fans tend to be an older fanbase than Wrestling Fans, and that Baseball tends to have less "drift" among fans than Wrestling where fans grow up and away from it similar to a lot of forms of Entertainment.
The non-actualization of Montreal means something to a group of pavlovian hardcores like ourselves (well... other than those who go tired of hearing/talking about Montreal back in 1998-2001), but means little to the mass of WWE Fans.
To them, this angle lives and dies on whether they give a shit about:
Punk
Cena
Vince
I suspect the Cena aspect means little since the "Cena Is Fired" gimmick not only was crippled by being recently run, but by Punk specifically pointing out it was meaningless.
So it comes down to Vince, who means a hell of a lot less now than when he was going around in circles with Stone Cold, and Punk... a wrestler they're trying to elevate up.
Basically comes down to whether they give a shit about Punk being the latest in a long line of wrestlers who have had issues with Vince.
Not hardcores giving a shit about Punk, but WWE Fans.
John
Amen. Jury's out on the reactions at the upcoming venues that aren't Boston and Chicago-level reliable atmospheres. Not taking anything away from Punk because the work has been spot on, but Boston wasn't blowing the doors off for him as much as they were for Vince IMO. Definitely great buildings to build the necessary steam in though.
The taped show between the live Vegas and live Boston shows hurt them with getting a chance to pick up anything they could off the mainstream mentions from ESPN, etc. This will be the second round of that attention and let's see what they do.
I do think you're jaded on Vince's value to the angle. He's a fresh character again after being off TV for a while, and the last few times he's been there as a face.