DMJ Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 No joke, I would be so much more excited to watch 60 minutes on WCW's midcard storylines (Blood Runs Cold, Raven's Flock, West Hollywood Blondes) than another minute of hearing the history of the nWo, the Montreal Screwjob, or the Austin/McMahon feud. Those horses have been beaten dead to me, while so much of this other stuff is untapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted September 20, 2014 Report Share Posted September 20, 2014 Bret Hart episode of the Monday Night Wars is up. This was particularly hard to sit through. The format of this show has degenerated to individual episodes of the stories which have been told a thousand times, all with the standard WWE revisionist slants. The amount of omissions and embellishments concerning the Bret Hart / WWE fiasco aren't even worth getting into. By the time Miz pops up as a talking head, the programme turns into background fodder. The format for this series is so miserable and wastes a potential game-changing piece of original Network content. As you said, the war is essentially over by episode 2 when WWE takes the lead back so now we're going to cover each guy that helped WWE win. This becomes nothing more than slightly altered single wrestler documentaries. Why are we not getting week-by-week breakdowns, discussions of booking decisions or shit, ANY discussion of WCW's dominance for a year and a half? We shoud've known how this was going to be, silly us for having faith that WWE could give some credit to the competition (THAT THEY OWN) That's what upset me most about the Monday Night War DVD they put out a few years ago. There's some talk about WCW and Nitro and then 80% of the DVD was about how great Stone Cold and The Rock were and how the WWF fought back from the brink of death. I want to hear more about what was going on in the locker rooms and the offices during this time. When Triple H said that they didn't know what the hell they were going to do if they actually got backstage at Nitro, that's exactly what I want to hear more of. Also, there was a clip on one of their DVDs of Vince going over a rehearsal of the "DX invades Nitro" skit. It was just a second or two of Vince laughing at something they were doing between takes. Can we get more of that stuff, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jushin muta liger Posted September 20, 2014 Report Share Posted September 20, 2014 I just watched the Bret Hart version of the MNW and it will be the last time I watch an episode of MNW. That first episode had so much promise when they debuted it a couple months ago. It's really awful cause they seem like they are wasting Keith David's narration for 15 episodes of the same old stuff. This series should have been Ken Burns style multi part documentary that told the story in chronological order. This series should've been the documentary version of Death of WCW but WWE's production dropped the ball again. I am really disappointed cause I had high hopes of it from the 1st episode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMick Posted September 20, 2014 Report Share Posted September 20, 2014 You were expecting something as classy as a PBS Doc from WWE? Come on...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jushin muta liger Posted September 20, 2014 Report Share Posted September 20, 2014 You were expecting something as classy as a PBS Doc from WWE? Come on...... I was expecting a series that followed the story in chronological order and highlighted certain aspects like Bret, DX, the NWO, Austin, etc. in the order as it happened. Plus they paid Keith David to narrate it like Ken Burns does with his docs. The opportunity was there for them to create something really good to get people to have interest in the Network when they debuted this series. For them to promote that they have award winning documentaries on the Network insults my intelligence because they don't have anything like that. They could've with this but didn't. They did a good job with the Daniel Bryan doc and the Warrior doc. Why did they drop the ball with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerva Posted September 20, 2014 Report Share Posted September 20, 2014 I don't know why they felt the need to do a "live breaking news" of the Roman Reigns injury on the Network. The only people that would know about it were people watching the live stream of the Network which is pretty few or people who spend all their day on the WWE website hitting refresh which is even less. They didn't even give a notification on their WWE app about the story. Not even an archive right now. I guess the WWE is hoping that the "dirt sheetz" break the story first so it gives people a chance to find it on WWE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboy hats Posted September 20, 2014 Report Share Posted September 20, 2014 Next MNW is extreme!!! A resume button finally popped up on the 360 app. Not sure how long it will save your space, but it's at least twelve(ish) hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 I feel like pulling out all the recent classic WONs that have shown the WWF outperforming WCW in every category in 1996-1997 except television ratings. Pay-per-view swung back and forth depending on what the top matches were, and the WWF was way ahead on house shows. Even during the time Michaels was supposedly this awful draw, the main issue was just that RAW ratings were lower than Nitro ratings. But on the road, he was doing pretty good. So it's not like if WCW continued to dominate the ratings, the WWF was going to go out of business. That is revisionist crap. They were fighting over the perception of who was number one more than anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakeplastictrees Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 And this is the problem I will have if there was ever a Vince McMahon autobiography. The guy just will NOT tell the truth. The long standing believe (as propagated by WWE and McMahon) is that if 1997 didn't pan out then WWE would be out-of-business. Then of course there is the boyout of WWF, The first WrestleMania, etc. All of these fake/overly exagerated underdog stories are something else. I can understand telling that story in the 90's, but why in 2014? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 I feel like pulling out all the recent classic WONs that have shown the WWF outperforming WCW in every category in 1996-1997 except television ratings. Pay-per-view swung back and forth depending on what the top matches were, and the WWF was way ahead on house shows. Even during the time Michaels was supposedly this awful draw, the main issue was just that RAW ratings were lower than Nitro ratings. But on the road, he was doing pretty good. So it's not like if WCW continued to dominate the ratings, the WWF was going to go out of business. That is revisionist crap. They were fighting over the perception of who was number one more than anything. That WON that I wrote up a couple of weeks ago showed that Vince was pulling out pretty desperate tactics at the beginning of 96 though. It was surprising how desperate and paranoid that all felt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 So why did Vince breach his contract with Bret? Was it because Shawn, for a lack of better term, "won" and convinced Vince to let Bret go to WCW, so he could have the WWE to himself, only to wind up getting hurt? Genuinely curious as to your theory here, since the story has always been that Vince couldn't afford Bret's contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efrim Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 I've never bought that Vince couldn't afford Bret's deal, particularly with Tyson coming in shortly after on a big money deal. I think the Austin ascendancy changed the calculus of what Bret was worth to the company. It wasn't too big of a deal in absolute terms, but it was too big for a guy that was going to end up second fiddle to a guy he had already feuded extensively with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 It was reported at the time that Vince's financial issues were fixed before Bret left and that he even told him that before he left. Dave said the financial issues were legitimately there and were legitimately fixed quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 I've never bought that Vince couldn't afford Bret's deal, particularly with Tyson coming in shortly after on a big money deal. I think the Austin ascendancy changed the calculus of what Bret was worth to the company. It wasn't too big of a deal in absolute terms, but it was too big for a guy that was going to end up second fiddle to a guy he had already feuded extensively with. In Your Houses went from 2 to 3 hours and WWE raised the PPV prices from $20 to $40 or whatever it was at the time. PPV buys bucked conventional wisdom as the PPV buys increased as the new increased price point. That information came in late in the game of the Bret Hart situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 I don't know why they felt the need to do a "live breaking news" of the Roman Reigns injury on the Network. The only people that would know about it were people watching the live stream of the Network which is pretty few or people who spend all their day on the WWE website hitting refresh which is even less. They didn't even give a notification on their WWE app about the story. Not even an archive right now. I guess the WWE is hoping that the "dirt sheetz" break the story first so it gives people a chance to find it on WWE This is something they should have been doing all along. Having an update on the Network like that makes the Network feel essential, like it contains elements you can't get anywhere else. Brilliant move by WWE, and hopefully they keep it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerva Posted September 21, 2014 Report Share Posted September 21, 2014 I don't know why they felt the need to do a "live breaking news" of the Roman Reigns injury on the Network. The only people that would know about it were people watching the live stream of the Network which is pretty few or people who spend all their day on the WWE website hitting refresh which is even less. They didn't even give a notification on their WWE app about the story. Not even an archive right now. I guess the WWE is hoping that the "dirt sheetz" break the story first so it gives people a chance to find it on WWE This is something they should have been doing all along. Having an update on the Network like that makes the Network feel essential, like it contains elements you can't get anywhere else. Brilliant move by WWE, and hopefully they keep it up. Yeah but right now it is more like "if a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound". I mean did you even hear that they were doing it? You can't expect the WWE fans to be watching the live stream on the Network like it is the NFL or MLB network. It would be a great idea but you can't make it complete random Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 You need to start somewhere though, and this is a perfectly fine starting point. They tweeted about it, they had something up on their website about it, and then they went and did it. If they keep doing it, and keep advertising that they are doing it, then the Network will gain more and more exclusive importance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efrim Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 The ECW episode felt like the most rote episode of Monday Night War yet. Really just nothing interesting or even slightly fresh about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebottom Posted September 25, 2014 Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 The episode would have been great... had it not been for the fact I watched Rise and Fall ten years ago... Another lacklustre episode there for sure. Again, it would have been refreshing to get some honest accounts which haven't been tapped to death. For instance, cover Shane Douglas coming in as Dean Douglas and honestly acknowledge why it didn't work on screen and off. The fact that Douglas was saddled with such a mid 90's WWE gimmick would have fit the tone of the show perfectly. Or how about covering the Public Enemies cup of coffee with the WWE and how that could have effected the Dudley's upon debut? Justin Credible was interviewed but no mention of Aldo Mantoya? Again, everything there would have fit the tone of the show and would've been fresh... Hell, cover the entire Jerry Lawler / Tommy Dreamer feud and all the cameo's it brought. Something. Anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 So "The Monday Night War" has pretty told us in the first episode all we needed to know about WCW and now every successive episode is about how great and innovative everything the WWF did from 1997-99 was? Okay, I wasn't expecting to see Larry Zbyszko. I thought he was one of those guys Vince held a lifelong grudge against? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 I think WWE made up with The Legend during the Bruno negotiations since he's on the Bruno dvd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted September 27, 2014 Report Share Posted September 27, 2014 There's a Bruno DVD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 Larry's been a talking head on a few things recently and I believe he was in Stamford a few years ago looking for an agent job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 There's a Bruno DVD? No. Cox is confusing it with the MSG DVD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artDDP Posted September 28, 2014 Report Share Posted September 28, 2014 I'll probably continue to watch "The Monday Night War" just because it's surreal to see Zbyszko, Vince Russo, and Tony Schiavone being interviewed on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.