|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2007 18:45:27 GMT -5
Well, there were the Austin/McMahon/Angle segments.
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Dec 21, 2007 18:54:54 GMT -5
People can feel free to list as much as they like, I'm all for Stephanie being a good writer if there's examples of it. Those skits are some of the greatest ever produced by WWE.
But Russo was head writer for what many consider WWE's hottest period, a time when they became the international powerhouse they are now. I doubt Stephanie will ever write enough good stuff to have that effect.
|
|
TheKillShot
Don Corleone
The man with the flan.
Posts: 1,952
|
Post by TheKillShot on Dec 21, 2007 19:13:00 GMT -5
I think the problem with Russo is that his ideas are way too radical that it rquires no less than a 200% effort to make it come across as something good.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 21, 2007 19:24:03 GMT -5
Not one of us knows. Unless we were part of the creative team with both of them then we don't know what they have or haven't done. Exactly. I love how we speak about "bad" writing as if we were part of a writing team, or successful writers for "better" shows or Nobel Prize winners. We're just fans. Passionate, smart, knowledgeable and whatnot, but still just fans.
|
|
Jam
Unicron
Spiral out
Posts: 2,934
|
Post by Jam on Dec 21, 2007 19:27:49 GMT -5
They both have their faults. But I voted for Steph because WWE couldn't be touched from 98-99. Russo's shining moment. The guys still a douchebag IMO
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2007 19:31:43 GMT -5
I think Russo has gotten worse without Vince to edit and control his ideas. Apparently, when he came back to WWE creative in 2002, one of his ideas was for The Rock to develop homosexual tendencies. They got rid of them the next day.
Like I said, Russo can be good, but he also a very destructive force when he goes wrong. Stephanie does seem to have some grasp of common sense (with a few exceptions).
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 21, 2007 20:06:27 GMT -5
I'm no big Russo fan, but I at least admire that he books a pretty dynamic show. WCW was an unmitigated disaster, obviously, so his lows can be VERY low, but when he's on, the shows are typically pretty entertaining, or at least unpredictable.
Last I saw of Steph's writing (or what I read about it), it's too boring/static/etc. Not that I want "Crash TV" or anything like that, but it just doesn't do it for me.
|
|
|
Post by Primal Scream on Dec 21, 2007 20:48:49 GMT -5
Russo was only good during Attitude because he was working alongside Pat Patterson and Bruce Pritchard, and everything was ultimately filtered by Vince McMahon.
The two Vinces needed each other. McMahon could take Russo's raw materials, select the diamonds amongst the dog crap, and craft a great storyline. However, when Russo left, he had nothing to mine.
And like the yin to Vince's yang, when Russo lost his filter in WCW, that meant all of his whacky, insane ideas came out uninterrupted.
It's no coincidence to me that wrestling as a whole went right down the toilet bowl quicker than a slicked turd, when the McMahon-Russo connection came to an end.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Dec 21, 2007 22:00:28 GMT -5
Heh, McMahon-Russo. What Lennon-McCartney would have been had they been writers for a carnival sideshow instead of music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2007 22:13:57 GMT -5
No matter what Russo puts out something interesting.
Even WCW 2000 had the appeal of "What in the hell am I watching."
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 21, 2007 22:15:25 GMT -5
How would we know? It's not like the various ideas have credits.
|
|
|
Post by twiggy101 on Dec 21, 2007 22:16:03 GMT -5
Can someone give me a few examples of a Stephanie storyline?
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2007 22:17:42 GMT -5
How would we know? It's not like the various ideas have credits. Yeah.... Abyss went to jail for a few years for shooting his dad, then it turned out he was covering up for his mom, who had actually killed his dad, then Sting tried to convert him to Christianity. Oh, and he has another dark secret now as well. Man, that's all Russo.
|
|
|
Post by Primal Scream on Dec 21, 2007 22:22:56 GMT -5
How would we know? It's not like the various ideas have credits. Yeah.... Abyss went to jail for a few years for shooting his dad, then it turned out he was covering up for his mom, who had actually killed his dad, then Sting tried to convert him to Christianity. Oh, and he has another dark secret now as well. Man, that's all Russo. Well all you need to know is this: Russo began writing scripts for WWE in 1996, and he left in 2000. Coincidentally, 1996 was the year WWE slowly began getting watchable again. He was the main writer all through the Attitude era (the greatest era in wrestling shitory). And 2000 was the beginning of the end when storylines started becoming nonsensical and the wrong kind of wrestlers started getting pushed. That should say it all when it comes to the McMahon-Russo partnership.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2007 22:28:54 GMT -5
To be fair to Russo, people may turn their noses up at all the Abyss stuff, but it's no worse than the Taker/Kane angles of the attitude era that people ate up.
|
|
|
Post by Primal Scream on Dec 21, 2007 22:32:42 GMT -5
To be fair to Russo, people may turn their noses up at all the Abyss stuff, but it's no worse than the Taker/Kane angles of the attitude era that people ate up. At least the Attitude era had that "carnival" element to it that made wrestling great. There was something for everyone. The gothic stuff like Gangrel, Edge, Taker, Kane, Hardyz....the comical stuff with Val Venis, Jericho and DX, the controversial stuff with the Nation, Shamrock, Dudleyz, and the main event stuff with Austin/McMahon. The biggest problem with WWE and the Stephanie era is that way too much emphasis is placed on lame ass comedy. During the Russo era, there were still funny moments, like "Choppy choppy your pee pee" and "Bedpan McMahon" but I'd say maybe only 40% of the show consisted of humor. The other 60% was genuine drama with Rock, Taker, Shamrock, etc. Today, 80% of wrestling is lame ass humor. Even the main eventers like HHH and Cena are more concerned with making dick jokes than acting like they wanna tear somebody's head off. Thanks Steph.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Dec 21, 2007 22:56:30 GMT -5
How would we know? It's not like the various ideas have credits. I know. It's cute how much people think they know.
|
|
|
Post by Primal Scream on Dec 21, 2007 22:58:47 GMT -5
How would we know? It's not like the various ideas have credits. I know. It's cute how much people think they know. What's there to need to know? There was a Russo era, and a Stephanie era. Read Russo's book to see exactly what he did and didn't do, or various interviews with Dave Sahadi and Jim Johnston. There's nothing "cute" because some of us are more read up than others.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Dec 21, 2007 22:59:51 GMT -5
Ok, since you know so much, who wrote tonight's Smackdown?
|
|
|
Post by Primal Scream on Dec 21, 2007 23:03:20 GMT -5
Ok, since you know so much, who wrote tonight's Smackdown? This discussion isn't literally about which writer wrote which particular individual segment. I interpreted it more as which writing era was better - the "Attitude" era when it was primarily Russo, or the modern day "WWE" era which has been spearheaded by Stephanie. And once again, I say it's no coincidence that WWF immediately became watchable when Russo started writing, and immediately started going downhill when he left.
|
|