|
Post by darbus alan on Jan 31, 2007 12:49:11 GMT -5
Hell no. The old ECW was innovative and always had good matches. The new ECW, while having great talent like CM Punk and Monty Brown, has abysmal booking and next-to-no interesting angles.
|
|
|
Post by valiens on Jan 31, 2007 12:52:28 GMT -5
Fine, I'll take the challenge: New ECW is (or should I say could be) better than the old because the old version was purely about the blood-and-gut matches with no real story telling involved. It's like watching ultimate fighting, which I don't like. Some of us would rather have the comic book soap opera story lines than the sick bumps. If WWE could marry the two successfully they'd have a monster hit on their hands. Thus far they have failed.
Also, too many high spots kill the mystique and the story. If someone going through a table in every other federation knocks them out but in ECW they just keep getting up, then there's no logic to what moves hurt and how much.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jan 31, 2007 12:57:53 GMT -5
Nope, it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Jan 31, 2007 13:05:46 GMT -5
no real story telling involved. What an asinine thing to say. ECW began the concept of 'edgy stories'. Before ECW the most hardcore story you had was Jeff Jarrett vs HBK because Jarrett wanted to release a country album. ECW had many classic stories- Raven/Dreamer, Taz/Douglas, Taz/Sabu, Sabu/RVD, Dudleys/ECW, Network/ECW (So I liked The Network, sue me). But ECW was also about the wrestling yes, but not about 'blood and guts', it was about good wrestling, giving the fans the best match they could- Storm, Corino, Malenko, Snow, Benoit, Eddie, Douglas, Little Guido, Taz all specialised in technical wrestlnig so they did their best technical matches. RVD, Rey, Psicosis, Sabu,Super Crazy specialised at high flying so did great aerial matches. Sandman, Dreamer, Balls, Raven, The Dudleys, Rhino, Credible specialised at brawls so they did the best brawls they could. Awesome, Tanaka, Tajiri, The eliminators specialised at Japanese/stiff style, so they did puro-esque matches, then you had guys like Jerry Lynn and Nova who could do every style. ECW had plenty of sotrylines, and ECW WAS NOT all about blood and guts. And that is why I'd take Old ECW over any other federation, past or present, especially New ECW.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 31, 2007 13:15:32 GMT -5
the old version was purely about the blood-and-gut matches with no real story telling involved. Sorry, but that post was just begging for this.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Jan 31, 2007 13:19:06 GMT -5
That's like asking whether you prefer having beautiful women feed you chocolates or being hit in the crotch with a bus.
|
|
|
Post by valiens on Jan 31, 2007 13:22:50 GMT -5
no real story telling involved. ECW began the concept of 'edgy stories'. Right, by having a bunch of hardcore high spots during matches that had no logic to them, and wrestlers who were just like regular people (except they could have a safe fall on their heads and still kick out.) And then WCW & WWE picked up on it and made it better. They turned the muddy seed into a flower. Maybe this is why so many people are sick of WWE: when they had competition, they stole their competitors' popular ideas and improved upon them. Not remembering that that's what happened, they think they actually killed the competition with their own ideas. No, it was their own original spin on someone else's ideas that worked. So now they've got this ECW brand that they know not what to do with because there's no one "edgy" left to steal from and turn mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jan 31, 2007 13:30:44 GMT -5
ECW began the concept of 'edgy stories'. Right, by having a bunch of hardcore high spots during matches that had no logic to them, and wrestlers who were just like regular people (except they could have a safe fall on their heads and still kick out.) And then WCW & WWE picked up on it and made it better. They turned the muddy seed into a flower. Yes of course, that's all ECW was, high spots and no storylines of course, except the for rejection of the NWA title story line....and the Triple Threat vs. Tazz storyline....and the Tazz the unstoppable nutcase ultimate figther storyline....and the Pitbulls vs. Shane Douglas storyline....and the Dreamer vs. Brian Lee feud....and the Tazz vs. Sabu feud....and the Rhino vs. Sandman feud....and The Network/ECW storyline....and so on and so on. Saying ECW was all high spots and no substance always comes up in threads like this and it's still the funniest and most blinkered view of the promotion anyone can have.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 31, 2007 13:33:30 GMT -5
ECW began the concept of 'edgy stories'. Right, by having a bunch of hardcore high spots during matches that had no logic to them, and wrestlers who were just like regular people (except they could have a safe fall on their heads and still kick out.) And then WCW & WWE picked up on it and made it better. They turned the muddy seed into a flower. Maybe this is why so many people are sick of WWE: when they had competition, they stole their competitors' popular ideas and improved upon them. Not remembering that that's what happened, they think they actually killed the competition with their own ideas. No, it was their own original spin on someone else's ideas that worked. So now they've got this ECW brand that they know not what to do with because there's no one "edgy" left to steal from and turn mainstream. You wouldn't happen to be making purposefully ridiculous arguments just to stir people up, would you?
|
|
|
Post by lechuck on Jan 31, 2007 13:36:00 GMT -5
Yes ECW was just garbage wrestling....no selling, no storytelling. And ECW was full of vanilla midgets.
And the stupid strippers and stuff, well at least WWECW kept that tradition.
Let's ask "Big Sexy" Kevin Nash what he thought of ECW in 2001
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Jan 31, 2007 13:37:18 GMT -5
Stop. Just stop.
|
|
|
Post by The King of Memphis Tennessee on Jan 31, 2007 13:39:44 GMT -5
Not even if the New ECW gave out free Zebra Cakes & Asian Hookers. For Asian hookers, I'd probably reconsider. But after seeing the doctor to cure the burning, my answer would still be no.
|
|
|
Post by valiens on Jan 31, 2007 13:42:35 GMT -5
You wouldn't happen to be making purposefully ridiculous arguments just to stir people up, would you? Partly. Someone asked for a defense of the new ECW. This is the best I can come up with. I've actually grown to appreciate the old ECW, but I didn't watch it that much when it was around because I thought it was an unappealing approach to put the stunt work before the story. I felt like they didn't get the balance that made wrestling good and not just appealing to crowds who would cheer on lions eating Christians if that were still available. (By the way, is it?) And I'm sorry but no amount of saying "That isn't what they did" makes it true. Of course that's what they did--that's what made them different and appealing to fans who wanted it to be "real."
|
|
King Rich
Samurai Cop
Just here for the fads.
Posts: 2,244
|
Post by King Rich on Jan 31, 2007 13:47:18 GMT -5
I'm making my first post in two months just to say...
Edge: New ECW Cena: Old ECW
Oh yeah, gotta love the classic fads
|
|
|
Post by skskillz on Jan 31, 2007 13:55:07 GMT -5
I can't speak for the poster, but I think he means there were no storytelling in the matches (i.e. no long-term selling, unrealistic high spots, etc). I didn't see much of ECW, but I can almost guarantee that any RVD, Sabu, New Jack, etc, match had the storytelling of a backyard wrestling promotion. Whether their "regular" matches concentrated on storytelling, I don't know, but I'm guessing high spots were more important either way.
ECW was popular because it did a lot of things that weren't seen in wrestling before: openly curse, high spots, tons of blading, breaking kayfabe, encouraging lewd chants from the crowd, etc. It was Jerry Springer in a wrestling ring, and considering that's the way society was going in the mid to late 1990's, it naturally had its little niche market. It was definitely a trend setter in that regard. Just not my cup of tea though.
|
|
|
Post by valiens on Jan 31, 2007 14:00:39 GMT -5
skillz Thread Killin Fan Hater - that is what I meant, thanks!
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 31, 2007 14:12:06 GMT -5
You wouldn't happen to be making purposefully ridiculous arguments just to stir people up, would you? Partly. Someone asked for a defense of the new ECW. This is the best I can come up with. I've actually grown to appreciate the old ECW, but I didn't watch it that much when it was around because I thought it was an unappealing approach to put the stunt work before the story. I felt like they didn't get the balance that made wrestling good and not just appealing to crowds who would cheer on lions eating Christians if that were still available. (By the way, is it?) And I'm sorry but no amount of saying "That isn't what they did" makes it true. Of course that's what they did--that's what made them different and appealing to fans who wanted it to be "real." Fair enough. But the fact is you're wrong. Not trying to be mean, but there's really no way around it. ECW told very compelling stories. If they didn't, they'd only have gotten as far as CZW currently is. Those stories and the plot twists involved have already been mentioned, so I won't go over them again. But they happened. The booking was also logical. Tommy and Raven hated each other because they were childhood enemies. That's it. Sure there were extra twists thrown in, but the story always revolved around that. Same sort of thing for every other feud. The E took their ideas and their wrestlers and toned them down for a broader appeal. They didn't make them "better." They just made them easier for larger audiences to grasp. (i.e. "dumbing down" according to some people) I don't think the E made those ideas better or worse, personally, but to argue that they're better is purely subjective and unfair. ECW put the wrestling first, yes. In ECW, the storylines revolved around wrestling. In WWE, the wrestling revolves around the storylines. That's the basic difference. Some people just prefer one to another. EDIT: It's fine to say you prefer one promotion to another. But you're trying to argue certain things about the old ECW that just aren't true.
|
|
|
Post by valiens on Jan 31, 2007 15:15:15 GMT -5
Of course taste is subjective. I'd prefer if WWE treated ECW like the Attitude era. Then I think it would go over.
But it's not a matter of taste to say that the matches were generally too over-the-top to be realistic, which is ironic considering we equate hardcore with more realistic. And so, watching this, and watching the fan reaction, I think, 'Okay here's a federation that's primarily about the brutality. Not for me.' It's the part about it being primarily about brutality that's in question as a fact. You're saying it wasn't. I'm saying if it wasn't then what set it apart to such a degree and why did it turn me off and make me (and so many others) think that that was its focus?
(Maybe it's all in how you like your porn: hardcore in-your-face wham bam thank you ma'am. Or the softcore story-and-tease.)
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Jan 31, 2007 15:54:43 GMT -5
You know, I have watched OVW and DSW and they are tons more entertaining than the current ECW.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 31, 2007 16:04:52 GMT -5
Of course taste is subjective. I'd prefer if WWE treated ECW like the Attitude era. Then I think it would go over. But it's not a matter of taste to say that the matches were generally too over-the-top to be realistic, which is ironic considering we equate hardcore with more realistic. And so, watching this, and watching the fan reaction, I think, 'Okay here's a federation that's primarily about the brutality. Not for me.' It's the part about it being primarily about brutality that's in question as a fact. You're saying it wasn't. I'm saying if it wasn't then what set it apart to such a degree and why did it turn me off and make me (and so many others) think that that was its focus? (Maybe it's all in how you like your porn: hardcore in-your-face wham bam thank you ma'am. Or the softcore story-and-tease.) You're still just talking about an opinion. How was ECW more over-the-top than WWE? ECW featured Tommy Dreamer feuding with Raven because the two guys just hated each other their entire lives. Tommy was the popular kid in school, and Raven was the outcast. It was a story that reflected a lot of people's lives, and a lot of people got into it, as a result. WWE at the time featured an outlandish "Heartbreak Kid" Shawn Michaels, an apparently walking deadman in the Undertaker, and King Mabel. It wasn't even the cartoon-style show that kids enjoyed anymore. It was a goofy circus. The E noticed they were losing fans and stars to WCW, so they took notes from ECW and were successful because of it. The outrageous, "hardcore" matches you're talking about were only a part of the original ECW. They also introduced the northeast to lucha libre and Japanese wrestlers like Rey Mysterio, Psicosis, Super Crazy, and others (can't think of some Japanese names right now). Plus they were the first to feature Chris Benoit, Dean Malenko, Perry Saturn, and Eddie Guerrero. And those men didn't get over with flames tables or babwire baseball bats. All of them got over with pure wrestling. ECW just got stigma'ed as being "hardcore" so they ran with it, but they never stopped featuring great wrestling. If you think men lasting longer in the ring than they should means wrestling for over 5 minutes, that's fine. But a large number of fans, wrestlers, and promoters will disagree. Matches regularly lasted over half an hour before Vince and Co. became the center of the wrestling world. So again, if it's not your personal preference, that's fine. But I think you're making unwarranted claims about ECW that simply aren't true. Along with being innovative, they also featured great wrestling and intriguing storylines. To even suggest that this...THING...on Sci Fi even compares is outrageous. But that, of course, is just my opinion.
|
|