Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2007 20:05:11 GMT -5
Production, yes. Convince me how the Morrison/Punk feud is being booked better than Raven/Sandman or Taz/Sabu. I won't try to convince you. The Morrison/Punk feud is lousy, outside of the tremendous matches that have resulted from it. Still, Big Show was never booked better at any point in his career than he was as ECW Champion, in my opinion. By 'booking', I also mean the booking of good matches - the fact that you generally get a handful of matches every time you watch ECW on Sci-Fi, and on any given night, at least one of them is head and shoulders above anything else on television right now. Some of the Punk/Morrison encounters have been stellar. There's lots of other gems to be found, if you want to look. Importantly, nobody is performing dangerous spots like flaming table bumps or other unnecessary junk. ECW also had an EXTREME rules trick or treat match. The other shows did not have an EXTREME rules trick or treat match, therefor ECW is superior by far. |
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Nov 4, 2007 20:06:43 GMT -5
ECW also had an EXTREME rules trick or treat match. The other shows did not have an EXTREME rules trick or treat match, therefor ECW is superior by far. When did this happen? Why wasn't I informed?!  |
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Nov 4, 2007 20:08:16 GMT -5
There may be a few common links between the D2D and "old" ECW.
But when you actually WATCH the ONS and old ECW events compared to D2D, the differences are as clear as day
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2007 20:08:29 GMT -5
ECW also had an EXTREME rules trick or treat match. The other shows did not have an EXTREME rules trick or treat match, therefor ECW is superior by far. When did this happen? Why wasn't I informed?! Didn't see Dreamer/Nunzio in costumes? It's here and it rules: uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F1U59yiHWlg |
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Nov 4, 2007 20:12:38 GMT -5
Vone! Two! Tree! Tree pies! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!! |
|
|
|
Post by drjayphd (feat. Pitbull) on Nov 4, 2007 20:14:51 GMT -5
But wasn't the booking brilliance of Heyman that he'd put people in position to succeed? Not overexposing them or their weak points? How much credit can you give him? Did he write the promos? ECW didn't have a team of script writers, nor did they have guys planning out whole matches in advance. All of the classic memories can be attributed to the efforts of the very same guys that you saw speaking and wrestling on ECW television. And for every guy that succeeded in his role, how many didn't? Wasn't 'GQ' Tommy Dreamer a huge flop when he first came in, before he tweaked his character with the caning angle? How many guys came and went without making a splash? Pretty much everyone I can think of that made an impact, was capable of doing so on their own - they didn't need someone to cover for them. My point is ... I think Paul Heyman gets a lot of credit, and yet, I don't see any decisive evidence for this supposed brilliance of his. ...which is my point.  His genius was staying the hell out of the way of the wrestlers who didn't need help, and limiting the weaknesses of those who did. Like you said, he didn't do everything, and the success stories were from guys who got themselves over. |
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Nov 4, 2007 20:15:44 GMT -5
...which is my point. His genius was staying the hell out of the way of the wrestlers who didn't need help, and limiting the weaknesses of those who did. Like you said, he didn't do everything, and the success stories were from guys who got themselves over. So, his genius lie in ... doing nothing at all? Hmmm. |
|
|
|
Post by drjayphd (feat. Pitbull) on Nov 4, 2007 20:26:07 GMT -5
...which is my point. His genius was staying the hell out of the way of the wrestlers who didn't need help, and limiting the weaknesses of those who did. Like you said, he didn't do everything, and the success stories were from guys who got themselves over. So, his genius lie in ... doing nothing at all? Hmmm. Which, as we've seen, isn't the easiest thing to do.  |
|
|
|
Post by 'Sweet n' Sour' A. A. Estrada on Nov 4, 2007 20:55:46 GMT -5
So, his genius lie in ... doing nothing at all? Hmmm. Which, as we've seen, isn't the easiest thing to do. Bleh. True enough. The world of professional wrestling could definately use fewer McMahons, Jarretts, Rottens, Zandigs. |
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Nov 4, 2007 20:57:04 GMT -5
I'm truly amazed that so many people agreed with the first poster on this. I figured this would be 8 pages of potshots by now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Nov 4, 2007 21:01:43 GMT -5
I thought ONS was more of a tribute show more than anything. D2D was just an utter disaster by WWE's part, but looking at logic, I can't really counter since I haven't really seen any ECW PPV's (except for the first and last ones)
|
|
|
|
Post by heyguesswhatidid on Nov 4, 2007 21:03:06 GMT -5
I've been saying that, ECW PPV's never made sense. They usually were better than D2D but they were booked the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Nov 4, 2007 21:09:45 GMT -5
I've been saying that, ECW PPV's never made sense. They usually were better than D2D but they were booked the same way. Remember all those PPVs where some match would just sorta happen but it wouldn't finish because of a run-in by 2 tag teams, then those tag teams would have a match? I'm not sure it ever happened exactly like that but some of their shows were completely insane. |
|
wwerules60
El Dandy
"Bring what? a vomit bag? a fig newton?"
Posts: 8,999
|
Post by wwerules60 on Nov 4, 2007 22:05:27 GMT -5
Yes, except old ECW ppvs were actually entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Nov 4, 2007 22:51:50 GMT -5
I'm truly amazed that so many people agreed with the first poster on this. I figured this would be 8 pages of potshots by now. Maybe because were aren't all RVD like drugies. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain Wonderful on Nov 4, 2007 23:37:59 GMT -5
There's a world and a half of difference, in my opinion, between the way a show is booked and the "authentic ECW" experience, which December 2 Dismember was not. I'll be the FIRST to agree on the similarities of the booking style, but ECW had infinitely better results.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTBartman on Nov 5, 2007 0:45:19 GMT -5
I'm truly amazed that so many people agreed with the first poster on this. I figured this would be 8 pages of potshots by now. Maybe because were aren't all RVD like drugies. Speak for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 5, 2007 0:57:43 GMT -5
I've been saying that, ECW PPV's never made sense. They usually were better than D2D but they were booked the same way. Remember all those PPVs where some match would just sorta happen but it wouldn't finish because of a run-in by 2 tag teams, then those tag teams would have a match? I'm not sure it ever happened exactly like that but some of their shows were completely insane. Very true, but in the end, at least for me, the complete insanity added to the fun of it, ya know? Matches would bleed one into another, and interference led to "you want in, screw you, you're in" rather than some shmazz DQ. Hectic, insane, but still fun,. |
|
JMA
Hank Scorpio
Down With Capitalism!
Posts: 6,880
|
Post by JMA on Nov 5, 2007 1:41:33 GMT -5
Besides the unannounced card, there were no similarities. The matches were in NO WAY similar to ECW ones. Seriously, look at the main event. I don't recall ECW using fake barbed wire and rubber crowbars, nor did they have juiced-up freaks like Lashley as their champions. There weren't even any feuds to speak of. It was a pathetic show that will one day be rightfully inducted into WrestleCrap.
As I watched the show, it almost seemed like WWE was trying to take up time without having to book any matches. It was like they didn't actually want to have the show. Do I think it was intentionally sabotaged? Maybe; the only other alternative is that WWE writers are simply THAT clueless. The former might actually show them in a better light than the latter. At least if they sabotaged it then they did a good job.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrodietheSlayer on Nov 5, 2007 2:19:56 GMT -5
Is all I have to say.
|
|
His genius was staying the hell out of the way of the wrestlers who didn't need help, and limiting the weaknesses of those who did. Like you said, he didn't do everything, and the success stories were from guys who got themselves over.
