goodhelmet Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Kidnapping Stephanie... not as bad as Katie Vick or Kiss My Ass. Not even close. Sacrificing Dennis Knight... would offend my religious sensibilities but I have none. Embalming Austin... stupid but didn't offend me. A better comparison that makes me think this shit sucks... The Rock vs. Billy Gunn Kiss My Ass match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 The Taker sacrifice stuff was stupid but he didn't screw a corpse or shove a man's face in his ass. Well... Taker did shove J.R.'s face in Vince's ass to turn heel. Right!!! During the Kiss My Ass run, not the 1999 Sacrifice period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 I get the point you're making, but I don't think people would have been as offended if they liked most of what WWE was doing at that point. Smackdown had an angle around the same time where Al Wilson actually died. I realize death in itself isn't necessarily offensive, but it's also the same type of soap opera storytelling, and it's not remembered with the same amount of vitriol. Why? Because people generally liked Smackdown at that time and were able to look past it. People weren't really into RAW in 2002-2003. Along the same lines, why did most people love HHH in 2000 and hate him in 2002? It's not like he had a mass regression as a worker during that time. It's that in 2000, his strong push hadn't gone so long that no one thought he could be beaten, whereas by 2002 that was clearly the feeling. This meant the nearfalls in 2002 didn't get the pop they did in 2000, which is a big part of the house style. In addition, people liked WWE in 2000 more than 2002. You can point to bad stuff in just about every good era, and good stuff in just about any bad era. But with a few obvious exceptions, I don't think there's a single angle that will turn most people away. I think it's usually the overall composite takeaway of the watching experience as a whole that leads to people either becoming fans or jumping off the bandwagon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 I find myself agreeing with Loss on the time differences and how they affect the "quality". Part of that may be the "dated" argument, but another may be the "hot/cold" argument. Look at Austin: whenever he came out during 98/99 in some sort of motorized vehicle, it was hot stuff. Anytime it was done in the latter years, it received a fair amount of criticism. Angle doing the milk truck felt very copycat and fake. Austin himself in a four-wheeler in 2004 felt dated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Of course, the angles and apathy on RAW have been horrible. Having Punk and Bryan around have kept me interested in the product regardless of angles and storylines. With Punk gone, and Bryan one injury away from retirement, there isn't much there to keep me holding on to the current product. I didn't mention this in my original post but you know this from many of our conversations... I did stop watching wrestling in 1999 during their hot period. I stopped watching WCW too. Too much stupidity from both companies The only thing that kept me into wrestling was finding internet wrestling culture and tape traders. My disagreement is that we are only shitting on angles during down periods. I disagree with your specific examples but not with the sentiment that stupid shit happens during hot periods also. However, when lackluster wrestling is combined with insulting storylines being pushed at the top of the card combined with poor booking, it all fits into the picture. Add a tragedy like Benoit or Owen and it expedites the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 Mae Young giving birth to a hand. How many times have you read this phrase in 15+ years wrasslin fans ? Still marvel that this was a thing. Katie Vick was at the top of the card tho, wasn't it? But it's a real sum up point for that time. A good many fans decided it was time to broaden their wrestling horizons. The internet's increasing speed was only there to help. Not surprised to see it cited here frequently. Or reading about people finding Strong Style Symphony in the early 2000's. It's deeply woven into people's histories for many reasons. You can't put it in a vacuum of objectivity easily for a lot of people. Which is why it's worse than the hand, or the weird JR skits, or take your pick.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted February 5, 2015 Report Share Posted February 5, 2015 As long as they're putting on good matches, I'll watch it how I choose and probably enjoy it. This. There have always been things about WWE to enjoy, but their shows haven't been appointment viewing for me in years, and I don't suppose they ever will be again. If they're not gonna try to be important, why should I treat them like they are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricR Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 I DVR most episodes of Raw/Smackdown, but I breeze through those in 30-45 minutes. I rarely watch any of the talking segments, but watch most matches unless it's somebody like Kofi or Miz. But WWE has a lot of guys I like and a couple matches per show get an opportunity to be good. I would stop watching if they stopped having matches. That's probably about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 The breaking point would probably be family commitments, failing that it seems I am a lifer. Still, I skip most RAW's and only watch the PPV's and NXT at the moment, which free's up more time for other footage which at the moment is too numerous to mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohtani's jacket Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 I think if you went back and read archived discussion of the Undertaker angles you'd find plenty of people bashing them (as well as defending them.) The Ministry of Darkness stuff was controversial at the time and had a shitty payoff that failed to match the fantasy booking of most smarks. It was similar to the Austin hit and run mystery, which was another dud surprise. Maybe people didn't stop watching over these things, but they chipped away at people's fandom. People want payoffs and WWE didn't fail in a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 Along the same lines, why did most people love HHH in 2000 and hate him in 2002? It's not like he had a mass regression as a worker during that time. I thought the consensus was that he had significantly regressed after coming back from his quad injury. That's what I remember Scott Keith saying in his contemporaneous rants. Also, I've seen quite a few people point to the crappy payoff to the 2000 HHH-Angle feud as a jump-the-shark moment. That might be more in retrospect, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantastic Posted February 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 I think if you went back and read archived discussion of the Undertaker angles you'd find plenty of people bashing them (as well as defending them.) The Ministry of Darkness stuff was controversial at the time and had a shitty payoff that failed to match the fantasy booking of most smarks. It was similar to the Austin hit and run mystery, which was another dud surprise. Maybe people didn't stop watching over these things, but they chipped away at people's fandom. People want payoffs and WWE didn't fail in a day. I'm interested in whether this stuff posed an issue with Kurt Angle. I remember reading that Angle basically said "no thanks" to ECW when they did the Raven/Sandman crucifix angle. But, the Ministry of Darkness stuff was far more intense IMO. Not only did Taker "crucify" Steve Austin, but they were abducting women (Stephanie and Ryan Shamrock, there may have been a couple more too), setting fire to kid's toys, and hanging Big Bossman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 WWF paid more than ECW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 Also, people standards change the more they need fame and fortune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funkdoc Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 loss: again, al wilson wasn't remotely close to a main-event angle. apples & oranges there! that said, you are right in noting that there were some other smaller examples of this popping up here and there. you could even argue the HHH-stephanie wedding as falling into that category. it may have been more a matter of it all adding up over time, with katie vick being the last straw for a portion of the fanbase. the surrounding context with HHH's godawful title reign was obviously a major part of that as well, and i'm not overlooking that if that's what you're suggesting. i really think you're underplaying the "oh god STEPHANIE'S writing the shows now!!!" panic that smart fans had at that time, and suspect that her recent improvement as a performer may be leading people to forget the old perceptions of her. women getting into positions of power in a male-dominated business & fandom...same thing video games are going through right now, and comics and so on. always ugly for the first few years after it gets noticed, at minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthedoctor Posted February 6, 2015 Report Share Posted February 6, 2015 I don't know, HHH accusing Kane of being obsessed with a friend, and raping her after dying in a car crash, then having HHH himself playing the role of Kane and doing a simulation of that, seems worse than your typical Undertaker stuff from 98-99 or the Mae Young deal. Probably worse than the date rape angle that launched HHH as a main eventer. Didnt they do a angle where Kurt Angle basically said he wanted to rape Sharmel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strand Peanut Posted February 7, 2015 Report Share Posted February 7, 2015 Yes, Angle had a promo where he mentioned wanting to have "beastial" or "beastiality" style sex with her. They wanted Angle to be heel at the time, but the fans weren't really having it. They tried a couple different ways to get the fans to boo him. Can't remember if anything worked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I can see myself tune out the day Johnny Sorrow can't even defend the bad booking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 Im hindsight I think them using Eddie Guerrero's corpse as a plot device to be worse than any of the other angles mentioned. Still pisses me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 loss: again, al wilson wasn't remotely close to a main-event angle. apples & oranges there! that said, you are right in noting that there were some other smaller examples of this popping up here and there. you could even argue the HHH-stephanie wedding as falling into that category. it may have been more a matter of it all adding up over time, with katie vick being the last straw for a portion of the fanbase. the surrounding context with HHH's godawful title reign was obviously a major part of that as well, and i'm not overlooking that if that's what you're suggesting. i really think you're underplaying the "oh god STEPHANIE'S writing the shows now!!!" panic that smart fans had at that time, and suspect that her recent improvement as a performer may be leading people to forget the old perceptions of her. women getting into positions of power in a male-dominated business & fandom...same thing video games are going through right now, and comics and so on. always ugly for the first few years after it gets noticed, at minimum. In fairness, the weekly TV got noticeably worse as soon as she took over for Chris Kreski. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 What Bix said, plus I think a lot of the heat was because of Vince McMahon's nepotism promoting his daughter to a position that she was clearly not ready for (as demonstrated by the deteriorating quality of WWE's programming under her watch). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steenalized Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 It's hard for me to imagine something so patently offensive in a single segment or angle that I'd stop watching. It'd take an accumulation of bad booking, characters I don't care about, an uninteresting wrestling. It's happened to some extent right now, but it's nowhere near as bad as the mid-00s when Evolution pushed me away from WWE for about 6 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I can see myself tune out the day Johnny Sorrow can't even defend the bad booking. Yea, that's about where I'm at, but thankfully I don't think it will ever get that bad That said, the often dull and uninspired product, the lack of respect for the audience, and the hilariously awful writing/booking.....sometimes it feels like I'm watching this stuff out of morbid fascination, like how I'll watch a terrible TV show/movie because it's so bad it's sorta good....but I'm basically just laughing at it The thing is, as bad as it is at times overall, there is still lots of good stuff in there For better or worse I'll probably never stop watching because this is where some of the best and brightest talent in the world is and this is the biggest stage in American wrestling. But 3 hour RAWs test my endurance, I haven't bothered with SD! in years because it's just a RAW rehash most weeks, and while I like Main Event well enough it's a throw away show....which is part of what makes it good because they don't micromanage it the way they oft do.....which is sad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted February 8, 2015 Report Share Posted February 8, 2015 I actually like it when WWE does ridiculous garbage like Katie Vick and HLA and 'torrid sex' live on Raw and Al Wilson dying from a heart attack after romping with Dawn Marie. It is compellingly awful and usually unwittingly humorous. Much better than the utter, predictable, repetitive tedium that is three hour Raw these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButchReedMark Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 I actually like it when WWE does ridiculous garbage like Katie Vick and HLA and 'torrid sex' live on Raw and Al Wilson dying from a heart attack after romping with Dawn Marie. It is compellingly awful and usually unwittingly humorous. Much better than the utter, predictable, repetitive tedium that is three hour Raw these days. Yeah. I was 17 when all that happened so I found it pant pissingly hilarious. 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.