Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2007 18:06:25 GMT -5
Russo's entire strategy is about shocking people to grab their attention, but he never stops to think about presenting a good story to keep their attention. He's better suited at a carnival than on TV. I like how Russo insists that he brought the WW(F)E to prominence during the Attitude era. I mean, there's no way talented guys like Mick Foley, Hunter Hearst Helsmley, the Rock, or "Stone Cold" Steve Austin had anything to do with it. The man is convinced he's some sort of martyr. He left the E because Vince didn't appreciate his talents when he clearly deserved all the credit for the promotion's success. In WCW, World Champion: David Arquette and Viagra on a Poll Matches were all actually AWESOME ideas, but people just didn't understand. His interview with RD alone practically proved how full of himself he was. He spent the entire time insisting RD was wrong, and critics were wrong, and fans were wrong, and anyone else who complained about him was wrong. "Yoo jus' dun undah-stand, RD...see, yoo hafta undah-stand...what yoo gotta undah-stand RD..." When he wasn't justifying his re-goddamn-diculous gimmicks (General Rection?) and angles, he was constantly blaming his failures on "da politics." I swear it's like "da politics" were a single evil force he was constantly at war with. WTF are "da politics" anyway!? In the whole Russo debate, I've been with Cornette. Now I'm also with Lance Storm. No doubt when TNA collapses, Russo will have a list of excuses for that too. [/Russo rant] Actually he puts Austin, Rock and Foley over as the 3 greatest performers of all time and says they were a major reason for the success of the Attitude era. He never said anyone was "wrong". He said people's opinions aren't fact. You might think a certain storyline is stupid or dumb, but that doesn't make you right. And to deny that their wasn't an insane amount of politics in WCW is selective memory. I'm won't argue that Russo didn't come up with some dumbass ideas in WCW. But also look all the half ass performances from the talent, the terrible production value, Schaviones moronic announcing etc, etc. You can't blame Russo for factors that were out of his control.
|
|
Boku AKA Da Green Guy
El Dandy
WC's Resident Pirate Otaku and Official Scapegoat
Always and Forever, Hurricane.
Posts: 8,371
|
Post by Boku AKA Da Green Guy on Feb 5, 2007 18:08:52 GMT -5
Russo's entire strategy is about shocking people to grab their attention, but he never stops to think about presenting a good story to keep their attention. He's better suited at a carnival than on TV. I like how Russo insists that he brought the WW(F)E to prominence during the Attitude era. I mean, there's no way talented guys like Mick Foley, Hunter Hearst Helsmley, the Rock, or "Stone Cold" Steve Austin had anything to do with it. The man is convinced he's some sort of martyr. He left the E because Vince didn't appreciate his talents when he clearly deserved all the credit for the promotion's success. In WCW, World Champion: David Arquette and Viagra on a Poll Matches were all actually AWESOME ideas, but people just didn't understand. His interview with RD alone practically proved how full of himself he was. He spent the entire time insisting RD was wrong, and critics were wrong, and fans were wrong, and anyone else who complained about him was wrong. "Yoo jus' dun undah-stand, RD...see, yoo hafta undah-stand...what yoo gotta undah-stand RD..." When he wasn't justifying his re-goddamn-diculous gimmicks (General Rection?) and angles, he was constantly blaming his failures on "da politics." I swear it's like "da politics" were a single evil force he was constantly at war with. WTF are "da politics" anyway!? In the whole Russo debate, I've been with Cornette. Now I'm also with Lance Storm. No doubt when TNA collapses, Russo will have a list of excuses for that too. [/Russo rant] Actually he puts Austin, Rock and Foley over as the 3 greatest performers of all time and says they were a major reason for the success of the Attitude era. He never said anyone was "wrong". He said people's opinions aren't fact. You might think a certain storyline is stupid or dumb, but that doesn't make you right. And to deny that their wasn't an insane amount of politics in WCW is selective memory. I'm won't argue that Russo didn't come up with some dumbass ideas in WCW. But also look all the half ass performances from the talent, the terrible production value, Schaviones moronic announcing etc, etc. You can't blame Russo for factors that were out of his control. But you can blame him for booking himself as Champ and making himself an onscreen character to begin with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2007 18:20:21 GMT -5
You could if it had any real effect on WCW.
People like to think that WCW was the greatest thing in the world and Russo single handedly destroyed it.
Long before Russo came along the company was already a joke. By putting the title on himself he just changed what the joke was.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Feb 5, 2007 18:24:17 GMT -5
Russo's entire strategy is about shocking people to grab their attention, but he never stops to think about presenting a good story to keep their attention. He's better suited at a carnival than on TV. I like how Russo insists that he brought the WW(F)E to prominence during the Attitude era. I mean, there's no way talented guys like Mick Foley, Hunter Hearst Helsmley, the Rock, or "Stone Cold" Steve Austin had anything to do with it. The man is convinced he's some sort of martyr. He left the E because Vince didn't appreciate his talents when he clearly deserved all the credit for the promotion's success. In WCW, World Champion: David Arquette and Viagra on a Poll Matches were all actually AWESOME ideas, but people just didn't understand. His interview with RD alone practically proved how full of himself he was. He spent the entire time insisting RD was wrong, and critics were wrong, and fans were wrong, and anyone else who complained about him was wrong. "Yoo jus' dun undah-stand, RD...see, yoo hafta undah-stand...what yoo gotta undah-stand RD..." When he wasn't justifying his re-goddamn-diculous gimmicks (General Rection?) and angles, he was constantly blaming his failures on "da politics." I swear it's like "da politics" were a single evil force he was constantly at war with. WTF are "da politics" anyway!? In the whole Russo debate, I've been with Cornette. Now I'm also with Lance Storm. No doubt when TNA collapses, Russo will have a list of excuses for that too. [/Russo rant] Actually he puts Austin, Rock and Foley over as the 3 greatest performers of all time and says they were a major reason for the success of the Attitude era. He never said anyone was "wrong". He said people's opinions aren't fact. You might think a certain storyline is stupid or dumb, but that doesn't make you right. And to deny that their wasn't an insane amount of politics in WCW is selective memory. I'm won't argue that Russo didn't come up with some dumbass ideas in WCW. But also look all the half ass performances from the talent, the terrible production value, Schaviones moronic announcing etc, etc. You can't blame Russo for factors that were out of his control. It's all well and good that Russo is willing to credit Austin, Rock, and Foley, but he seems convinced that he helped create their success. Given the opportunity to prove themselves, they were going to be stars no matter what. Russo wants to credit himself for great moments in their careers like "This Is Your Life, Rock," but the accomplishments are theirs, not his. No doubt he thinks he made them successful. When the truth is, the only people--aside from Foley, Austin, and Rock themselves--who can take credit for their success are JR (I think he was the talent agent who hired them) and Vince McMahon himself (for recognizing their potential when they came aboard). I don't deny that WCW was hampered by beauracracy and performers with far too much creative influence over the product. My point was Vince constantly referred to "da politics," rather than explain himself. It was always, "I hadda deal wit' da politics, RD! Yoo hafta undah-stand...da politics, RD...da politics...!" He never once went into any detail. Maybe he couldn't for legal reasons. I don't know. But by never explained what happened, and just giving a weak excuse like "da politics," his case is all the weaker. As for half-ass performances, I'm not sure I'd put forth my best effort if I was booked by Russo, either. I'm not one to ever defend Hulk Hogan, but I wouldn't be surprised if Russo wanted him to just walk out and job clean to Billy Kidman on free television. I respect Russo's desire to push new talent, but he's just a bad booker. Scratch that, he's a terrible booker. And no one bares more blame than him for the implosion of WCW in my book--except for the dumbass higher up's who decided to actually REHIRE the man after firing him once already. Look for a "Rise and Fall of TNA" DVD, a "Self-Destruction of Jeff Jarrett" DVD, and another shoot interview with Russo justifying all of his actions once again in 2008 if TNA doesn't pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and send him packing. [/second Russo rant]
|
|
|
Post by TripleMerc on Feb 5, 2007 22:39:06 GMT -5
There's probably some truth in that statement. Look at how many people complain about WWE programming every week and yet still watch it. I think I'm one of maybe a thousand, or 2, out of every single internet smark, hell every single wrestling fan that has found it to be shit, and actually stopped watching it. It's a sad rarity, really.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Feb 5, 2007 22:56:35 GMT -5
There's probably some truth in that statement. Look at how many people complain about WWE programming every week and yet still watch it. I think I'm one of maybe a thousand, or 2, out of every single internet smark, hell every single wrestling fan that has found it to be crap, and actually stopped watching it. It's a sad rarity, really. I actually have stopped watching TNA as well. It's weird... I have no problem missing TNA, ECW, or SmackDown (even though it's good nowadays, I had no problem missing it back when it was crap). But for some strange reason, I can't stop watching Raw. I think that I am just so accustomed to watching wrestling on Mondays that I feel like wrestling is a part of my regular Monday routine. Sadly, Raw is the worst one of the shows in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by invaderdave on Feb 5, 2007 22:58:27 GMT -5
I stopped watching televised stuff altogether myself.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Feb 5, 2007 23:33:05 GMT -5
I stopped watching televised stuff altogether myself. Me too.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Todd Grisham on Feb 6, 2007 0:26:11 GMT -5
It's all well and good that Russo is willing to credit Austin, Rock, and Foley, but he seems convinced that he helped create their success. Given the opportunity to prove themselves, they were going to be stars no matter what. Russo wants to credit himself for great moments in their careers like "This Is Your Life, Rock," but the accomplishments are theirs, not his. No doubt he thinks he made them successful. When the truth is, the only people--aside from Foley, Austin, and Rock themselves--who can take credit for their success are JR (I think he was the talent agent who hired them) and Vince McMahon himself (for recognizing their potential when they came aboard). I don't deny that WCW was hampered by beauracracy and performers with far too much creative influence over the product. My point was Vince constantly referred to "da politics," rather than explain himself. It was always, "I hadda deal wit' da politics, RD! Yoo hafta undah-stand...da politics, RD...da politics...!" He never once went into any detail. Maybe he couldn't for legal reasons. I don't know. But by never explained what happened, and just giving a weak excuse like "da politics," his case is all the weaker. ... I respect Russo's desire to push new talent, but he's just a bad booker. Scratch that, he's a terrible booker. And no one bares more blame than him for the implosion of WCW in my book--except for the dumbass higher up's who decided to actually REHIRE the man after firing him once already. ... [/second Russo rant] Here is where you fail to convince me. If you watched the whole shoot he says he couldn't have done it without the talent, in fact that's one of the reasons he gives that he failed in WCW. He says that we got the three greatest talents all at once and in the same promotion. He credits himself as being able to write things that show their strengths. Which, he did. I don't know where you are getting this thing about him crediting himself for everything. He credits himself for being the impotus and bringing the WWF to a new creative high. In fact he also credits Vince McMahon for being a man about the details. He said himself that whenever he wrote a script, Vince would look at it and fix it up and make it better than he thought it would be. NEVER does he take full credit. Regarding Russo in WCW you have to remember that he wrote for three months, and then he was sent home. He was not fired because he had an iron clad contract. Then he came back for six months and at that point he knew they were screwed. There were politics, we know there was. To say that the politics didn't affect what he wrote is absurd. WCW was having these issues BEFORE he came. If anything he should fess up that he can't general the troops. Regarding what he says about himself, he always bowed to their wishes, and the wishes of the old guys weren't best for the business. He did not have to deal with all of this in the WWF, and we didn't need him to tell us to realize this. Really to say Vince Russo was significant in WCW's demise isn't a good conclusion. His style was a nail in the coffin yes, but WCW was doomed to failure by the time Turner bought it. It was the whole management style that Russo didn't have any power over. Now I disagree with Russo on my issues. While I agree we can't insult the fans and the action needs to be action packed, he fails to do it properly without editing. He has the right idea, but the wrong execution. I think we should be fair with him, and to say that "no one bares more blame than him for the implosion of WCW" is the height of ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Hensley on Feb 6, 2007 2:21:39 GMT -5
Russo also hates Shark Boy. Russo must leave now. How is such a hate possible?!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Todd Grisham on Feb 6, 2007 2:37:00 GMT -5
Russo also hates Shark Boy. Russo must leave now. How is such a hate possible?! You see I'm an American. When I watch wrestling I want to see Americans. Not Mexicans, not Japanese, not Sharks, Americans.
|
|
Mitch 4:20
Don Corleone
The Cherry One
Posts: 2,062
|
Post by Mitch 4:20 on Feb 6, 2007 3:00:08 GMT -5
His justification for giving the belt to Arquette was even worse (I don't think it's on the link above, but it's definitely from the same shoot interview). Basically, no one expected it to happen, so it was a way to shock the viewers. Samoa Joe coming to the ring in drag and rehearsing scenes from Romeo and Juliet would be something none of us would expect either. Doesn't mean it's going to help. Russo had some good ideas, but my god, the Attitude Era killed wrestling long-term. SWERVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by The Blue Blazer on Feb 6, 2007 5:27:19 GMT -5
I don't need to watch this video to know that Vince Russo is dumber than a sack of oranges.
|
|
|
Post by Mad Johnny Maxx on Feb 6, 2007 8:18:07 GMT -5
At least Russo's vision of what the fans want involes less man-ass... Yeah, but more Mr. Ass. Or more Ass Cream...NOW WITH 25% MORE ASS!!!
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Feb 6, 2007 9:15:07 GMT -5
It's all well and good that Russo is willing to credit Austin, Rock, and Foley, but he seems convinced that he helped create their success. Given the opportunity to prove themselves, they were going to be stars no matter what. Russo wants to credit himself for great moments in their careers like "This Is Your Life, Rock," but the accomplishments are theirs, not his. No doubt he thinks he made them successful. When the truth is, the only people--aside from Foley, Austin, and Rock themselves--who can take credit for their success are JR (I think he was the talent agent who hired them) and Vince McMahon himself (for recognizing their potential when they came aboard). I don't deny that WCW was hampered by beauracracy and performers with far too much creative influence over the product. My point was Vince constantly referred to "da politics," rather than explain himself. It was always, "I hadda deal wit' da politics, RD! Yoo hafta undah-stand...da politics, RD...da politics...!" He never once went into any detail. Maybe he couldn't for legal reasons. I don't know. But by never explained what happened, and just giving a weak excuse like "da politics," his case is all the weaker. ... I respect Russo's desire to push new talent, but he's just a bad booker. Scratch that, he's a terrible booker. And no one bares more blame than him for the implosion of WCW in my book--except for the dumbass higher up's who decided to actually REHIRE the man after firing him once already. ... [/second Russo rant] Here is where you fail to convince me. If you watched the whole shoot he says he couldn't have done it without the talent, in fact that's one of the reasons he gives that he failed in WCW. He says that we got the three greatest talents all at once and in the same promotion. He credits himself as being able to write things that show their strengths. Which, he did. I don't know where you are getting this thing about him crediting himself for everything. He credits himself for being the impotus and bringing the WWF to a new creative high. In fact he also credits Vince McMahon for being a man about the details. He said himself that whenever he wrote a script, Vince would look at it and fix it up and make it better than he thought it would be. NEVER does he take full credit. Regarding Russo in WCW you have to remember that he wrote for three months, and then he was sent home. He was not fired because he had an iron clad contract. Then he came back for six months and at that point he knew they were screwed. There were politics, we know there was. To say that the politics didn't affect what he wrote is absurd. WCW was having these issues BEFORE he came. If anything he should fess up that he can't general the troops. Regarding what he says about himself, he always bowed to their wishes, and the wishes of the old guys weren't best for the business. He did not have to deal with all of this in the WWF, and we didn't need him to tell us to realize this. Really to say Vince Russo was significant in WCW's demise isn't a good conclusion. His style was a nail in the coffin yes, but WCW was doomed to failure by the time Turner bought it. It was the whole management style that Russo didn't have any power over. Now I disagree with Russo on my issues. While I agree we can't insult the fans and the action needs to be action packed, he fails to do it properly without editing. He has the right idea, but the wrong execution. I think we should be fair with him, and to say that "no one bares more blame than him for the implosion of WCW" is the height of ignorance. First, regarding the credit Russo takes, I'm only calling it how I see it. It's a 12-part shoot that the guy posted, and this part (part 7, isn't it?) is nearly 10 minutes long. I didn't listen to the whole thing, because I'd heard it all before. The man insists the same thing in every interview he does. Maybe I'm exaggerating, maybe I'm not. But he's still nowhere near as good as he's convinced himself he is. You seem to think I'm ignoring WCW's faults. I'm not. The company was fraught with problems from the moment it was launched. Creative squabbles, performers with too much power, and a list of other managements issues. They were all there. I've never denied that. If any one THING killed WCW, it was that. However, despite those apparent flaws, Bischoff managed to take a promotion that had never turned a profit and not only turn it around, but push its popularity past the WW(F)E. I doubt those problems magically disappeared while Bischoff was at the helm. Every company has beauracratic bull to sift through. It's the nature of any big business. If Russo was such a creative genius, why couldn't he work through WCW's problems the same way Bischoff did? As for my belief that Russo deserves most of the credit for WCW's demise, I've never said I was right. Hell, I could be wrong, but no one's convinced me otherwise. The company was in a valley when Russo was brought in. And he took it straight to hell. Apart from my own conclusions, there's no way to literally prove Russo was the death knell for WCW (but thanks for referring to me as the "height of ignorance"). However, one thing I can say with absolute confidence is that the man not only ISN'T the creative genuis he thinks he is--he's a complete hack, a self-proclaimed martyr, and the worst wrestling booker I've ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by I Got Heat on Feb 6, 2007 12:31:46 GMT -5
Most people who want great FREE matches on Impact are the people too cheap to buy the PPV. Lance Storm admitted he would never buy a TNA PPV (or any wrestling PPV) so you can understand why he gets pissed off that he doesn't get PPV-quality matches for FREE on television. Personally I don't mind watching a free television show with a bunch of interviews/angles (and no awesome FREE matches) setting up the PPV that I plan to purchase...to see the matches. Just because WWE, or TNA in the past, gave away a bunch of free PPV-quality wrestling on TV doesn't mean it's smart.
I know some of you are crying because you can't get your wrestling for free... get a job and buy the TNA PPVs because they're great...and they have a lot of WRESTLING on them.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Feb 6, 2007 12:50:33 GMT -5
Most people who want great FREE matches on Impact are the people too cheap to buy the PPV. Lance Storm admitted he would never buy a TNA PPV (or any wrestling PPV) so you can understand why he gets pissed off that he doesn't get PPV-quality matches for FREE on television. Personally I don't mind watching a free television show with a bunch of interviews/angles (and no awesome FREE matches) setting up the PPV that I plan to purchase...to see the matches. Just because WWE, or TNA in the past, gave away a bunch of free PPV-quality wrestling on TV doesn't mean it's smart. Lance has said that when all he sees on television are interviews and goofy segments with matches that always end in DQs no no-contests, why should he think the PPVs will be any different? You need to give away a good match now and then so that people believe you actually have them. Is that why fans chanted "We want wrestling" at a PPV not long ago?
|
|
|
Post by I Got Heat on Feb 6, 2007 13:28:57 GMT -5
Yeah, but those are the lame Impact Zone fans who chanted that, plus it was a very short segment and that PPV had a huge amount of wrestling that they were apparently ungrateful for. They didn't even pay to get in, talk about whiney fans. Lance did say he would not pay for a wrestling PPV.. it's in one of his Q&A things. Impact is pretty much a teaser show nowadays. There's enough wrestling to let the fans know they can blow the doors off if they want to, but they don't give it to them. It's like a tour on a porn site.. haha. But really, I think it's a better business model. The UFC should have taught the wrestling world what you can do with a 1 hour weekly show and what kind of buyrates that can generate. Look at The Ultimate Fighter show. 40 minutes of bickering (angles) over things that often times were completely ridiculous and trivial, like who spilled a cup of coffee in the kitchen, and they gave away maybe 8 minutes or so of ACTION per week. Their show rating was usually a 1 (like Impact) but the buyrates blew out Wrestlemania. Someone could have told them "nah, don't show all that boring house crap, just air 3 exciting matches a week" but this would have been completely wrong. TNA is going more with this formula (show drama - pay for the action on PPV) and it could work in time. TNA is pulling free wrestling from the fans on the TV shows, and that's going to be met with harsh criticism, but it's pretty much the same thing they're going to have to do with the Impact Zone. They've given away free tickets and free matches for long enough, they need to start making some money. Buy the PPV, buy a ticket to go see the show (once they start charging). Most people who want great FREE matches on Impact are the people too cheap to buy the PPV. Lance Storm admitted he would never buy a TNA PPV (or any wrestling PPV) so you can understand why he gets pissed off that he doesn't get PPV-quality matches for FREE on television. Personally I don't mind watching a free television show with a bunch of interviews/angles (and no awesome FREE matches) setting up the PPV that I plan to purchase...to see the matches. Just because WWE, or TNA in the past, gave away a bunch of free PPV-quality wrestling on TV doesn't mean it's smart. Lance has said that when all he sees on television are interviews and goofy segments with matches that always end in DQs no no-contests, why should he think the PPVs will be any different? You need to give away a good match now and then so that people believe you actually have them. I think we all know TNA has great matches on PPV, if people are saying "prove it to me" every week I think that's just their way of begging for more free content.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2007 14:14:14 GMT -5
Most people who want great FREE matches on Impact are the people too cheap to buy the PPV. Lance Storm admitted he would never buy a TNA PPV (or any wrestling PPV) so you can understand why he gets pissed off that he doesn't get PPV-quality matches for FREE on television. Personally I don't mind watching a free television show with a bunch of interviews/angles (and no awesome FREE matches) setting up the PPV that I plan to purchase...to see the matches. Just because WWE, or TNA in the past, gave away a bunch of free PPV-quality wrestling on TV doesn't mean it's smart. I know some of you are crying because you can't get your wrestling for free... get a job and buy the TNA PPVs because they're great...and they have a lot of WRESTLING on them. I agree. In the 80s. WWE only had a 1 hour show and it was mostly meaningless squash matches. That way when they had a PPV and all the superstars were facing eachother it was special. Realistically TNA can't go back to the squash match model of the past. Because todays audience doesn't have the attention span for it. So they pack the show full of mostly storylines, so when two guys finally face off at a PPV, it's worth buying.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Feb 6, 2007 15:28:50 GMT -5
Most people who want great FREE matches on Impact are the people too cheap to buy the PPV. Lance Storm admitted he would never buy a TNA PPV (or any wrestling PPV) so you can understand why he gets pissed off that he doesn't get PPV-quality matches for FREE on television. Personally I don't mind watching a free television show with a bunch of interviews/angles (and no awesome FREE matches) setting up the PPV that I plan to purchase...to see the matches. Just because WWE, or TNA in the past, gave away a bunch of free PPV-quality wrestling on TV doesn't mean it's smart. I know some of you are crying because you can't get your wrestling for free... get a job and buy the TNA PPVs because they're great...and they have a lot of WRESTLING on them. I agree. In the 80s. WWE only had a 1 hour show and it was mostly meaningless squash matches. That way when they had a PPV and all the superstars were facing eachother it was special. Realistically TNA can't go back to the squash match model of the past. Because todays audience doesn't have the attention span for it. So they pack the show full of mostly storylines, so when two guys finally face off at a PPV, it's worth buying. Only problem is I'm not ordering, Lance Storm isn't ordering, and neither are millions of other people.
|
|