Another WWE PPV name change?

[justtxyank]

I can't wait for the E to make a "One Fall" ppv.

[djthefunkchris]

Apparently I'm not as knowlegable on WCW gimmick matches as I thought, but is the blood REALLY that important?

 

I know with the recent Hell In A Cell PPV, there were complaints about the lack of blood, and blood certainly could have helped a match, but I don't think it was the be-all-and-end-all. Blood is a tool. It adds drama depending on the context of the match. The REAL crime of the HiaC PPV was the lack of stories that involved the Cell. With the exception of DX/Legacy, they didn't use the environment to create drama and therefore wasted a gimmick.

 

The same would be true for a WarGames match. Even without blood, if you tell a good story that properly uses the rules, it could be really good. Blood would make it better, sure, but it wouldn't necessarily suck without it.

 

Agreed. I don't remember blood really in many war games matches. Not to say it didn't happen, but it didn't stand out in my memory. The telling of a story in the cage is what is awesome. The rules of the gimmick work very well.

 

Agreed 100 %.

 

Not that it matters, though, as WWE will make it suck with or without blood.

 

I agree. I often times am critiqued as being "Too easy" to please, but I'm not really that easy to please, and current programming has not been great for me. I emphasize over and over my love of ECW brand over the rest of the shows available to watch.... The reason is not because I am "easy to please".

 

Things that make it hard to please me.

 

I don't like gimmick match's that the whole match depends upon the gimmick... What does this mean? It means I don't mind gimmick match's at all, as long as there is something else going on in it that holds my attention. For example, I don't dislike table's ladders and chairs, as long as it's not all about the tables ladders and chair spots. If it is, it starts to look like "ok, your turn, Now my turn, Now his turn" to me.

 

I don't like garbage type match's, and most the time Hardcore type match's. I can ussually see exactly when someone blades themselves (like when Jericho beat HHH... I seen HHH blade himself in the cage, and it ruined the whole match to me. Walked right out of the room. Litterally cussing.. HATE IT.

 

I don't like "no reason to do it" type things. I don't mind a run in here and there, but I hate it when it has no bearing on the story, no bearing on the outcome of the match (Why run in and do something, when there was no clear clue who was going to win yet). Something I can't stand, and it always looks amateurish, and unorganized to me, which leads me to another thing.

 

I can't stand it when a show looks like it's out of controll.

 

I can't stand watching ladies match's, when they obviously cannot do what they act as if they are doing. This goes for small men as well. "Oh my god, did you see her flip that 350 pound man!!!" It's just not working for me.

 

Don't get me wrong... I don't mind blood as long as it's not every show, every time, etc. I don't miss it though, has never ever looked real to me.

 

Not that I expect things to look real to me, as they most of the time don't (look at all the messed up match's lately on WWE programming, especially during womens match's).

 

I hate how HBK always gets thrown to the corner, landing upside down, in every match, similarly how I hated almost every match Flair was in that he bled... A reason I never liked him till his later years (and mostly only because I was in awe he was still in the ring).

 

Juicing, blading, bleeding, whatever you want to call it... To me never makes a match better. It's interesting if it's done where I can't spot it, and it looks as if something actually did cut them, but... that's about it. I would be more impressed if someone recieved a nosebleed from a punch, it's more believable... Or a bloody mouth from the same.

 

Never understood how throwing HBK into the wall of the cage would cause him to bleed, unless it was built rather raggedly with lots of metal sticking up to puncture you (and it never is).

 

There is alot of things that make it hard for me to watch wrestling period, but as long as it is interesting.. in an "A-Team" sort of way (doesn't have to be a masterpiece), I love it. If I didn't know all that I do now, perhaps those other things would interest me... But there is no way a gymnastic show is going to be any more interesting in wrestling, then it is if I were watching the olympics (Boring to me... unless I know someone).

[Remianen]

Apparently I'm not as knowlegable on WCW gimmick matches as I thought, but is the blood REALLY that important?

 

I know with the recent Hell In A Cell PPV, there were complaints about the lack of blood, and blood certainly could have helped a match, but I don't think it was the be-all-and-end-all. Blood is a tool. It adds drama depending on the context of the match. The REAL crime of the HiaC PPV was the lack of stories that involved the Cell. With the exception of DX/Legacy, they didn't use the environment to create drama and therefore wasted a gimmick.

 

The same would be true for a WarGames match. Even without blood, if you tell a good story that properly uses the rules, it could be really good. Blood would make it better, sure, but it wouldn't necessarily suck without it.

 

Lemme get this straight.

 

It's your assertion that a bunch of men in a steel encased structure, would not bleed as a direct result of the venting of pent up anger and frustration? With no blood, it looks like tiddlywinks in a cage. Put yourself in that position. Your mortal enemy is inside a cage with you. The cage is made of steel. Will you NOT use it to inflict as much pain as humanly possible? Will using the cage not draw blood? It's like being locked in a room with a gun and slap fighting your adversary. Hell no, most everyone I know would be emptying a clip first thing.

 

If you bang or rake the human head against a steel cage, skin is bound to be broken. When skin is broken, bleeding tends to occur as a result of the body trying to close that broken skin.

 

That's why, as darthsiddus2 pointed out, blood is typically a central part of booking hardcore style matches (which cages qualify under). A cage match with no blood begs the question, why use a cage at all? Yes, it's a storytelling device but in this particular instance, part of the story you're trying to tell is one of brutality and the venting of anger previously constrained. In another thread, you mentioned how Undertaker doesn't look like the toughest fighter on Smackdown. That's real. Now, tell me what's real about two (or four or six or eight) men who supposedly hate each other, being confined in what amounts to a weapon, not using that weapon to cause harm. In reality, people would use the cage pretty much every minute of the fight. Throwing each other into it, raking each others faces across it, slamming each others head against it and so on. Blood is a compromise. Since you can't have workers having their noses ripped off or eyes pop out of the socket (both of which are common results in reality from raking a person's face across a chain link fence), you compromise and use a little (or a lot of) color.

 

That's why I say blood is necessary. Without it, no one's buying your scripted conflict. Self, you're big on things making sense and adhering to kayfabe. Who's going to believe a story like that without the shedding of blood (which is traditionally symbolic in many ways)?

[Antithesis]

Some folks might be forgetting this as well, but unlike HIAC, Wargames can't end with a pinfall. It ends either with a submission or ref stoppage. Plus Wargames is two teams of 4 or 5 guys booked to culminate multiple feuds all within one cage.

 

The reason blood adds to this is the difference between pinning a person, and 'beating' them, but with bad feelings not between two folks, but 8 or ten.

 

I suppose you could have a good match without blood, but then you'd have to have some kind of convoluted finish to justify the loser submitting/getting beaten like a prop in the Sting vs Dangerous Alliance Wargames or a turn in the Horsemen vs NWO Wargames. Barring that a bloodless finish looks weak in comparison.

[djthefunkchris]

On the topic of "Cage Match's", it is often used as a way to make sure no one else can be involved in the match, storywise...

 

Ok... You were able to run out of the arena, and not get pinned, and being disqualified doesn't lose the belt... Fine, now you have to do a "no disqualification, pin's count anywhere" match... OH... You had the support of friends/stable... So next time, you will be in a Cage Match.

 

Remi and Anti both bring good points to why blood would matter, and I have to agree if used in that way, it makes sense (something I can get behind).

 

However, there are times a steel cage is used to keep interference, running away, etc... Other problems ALA WWE type things, from happening... storyline wise.

 

This is why I'm not as offended by the PG rating I suppose... That and the other things I brought up.

 

 

This is also a reason it's hard to just watch a PPV, or just read people's views of how horrible something is... Without knowing exactly why things were implemented the way they were, etc... You won't get as much out of it if you don't know the whole story behind it.... That's not to say that it always makes sense either...

[Self]

Lemme get this straight.

 

It's your assertion that a bunch of men in a steel encased structure, would not bleed as a direct result of the venting of pent up anger and frustration? With no blood, it looks like tiddlywinks in a cage. Put yourself in that position. Your mortal enemy is inside a cage with you. The cage is made of steel. Will you NOT use it to inflict as much pain as humanly possible? Will using the cage not draw blood? It's like being locked in a room with a gun and slap fighting your adversary. Hell no, most everyone I know would be emptying a clip first thing.

 

If you bang or rake the human head against a steel cage, skin is bound to be broken. When skin is broken, bleeding tends to occur as a result of the body trying to close that broken skin.

 

That's why, as darthsiddus2 pointed out, blood is typically a central part of booking hardcore style matches (which cages qualify under). A cage match with no blood begs the question, why use a cage at all? Yes, it's a storytelling device but in this particular instance, part of the story you're trying to tell is one of brutality and the venting of anger previously constrained. In another thread, you mentioned how Undertaker doesn't look like the toughest fighter on Smackdown. That's real. Now, tell me what's real about two (or four or six or eight) men who supposedly hate each other, being confined in what amounts to a weapon, not using that weapon to cause harm. In reality, people would use the cage pretty much every minute of the fight. Throwing each other into it, raking each others faces across it, slamming each others head against it and so on. Blood is a compromise. Since you can't have workers having their noses ripped off or eyes pop out of the socket (both of which are common results in reality from raking a person's face across a chain link fence), you compromise and use a little (or a lot of) color.

 

That's why I say blood is necessary. Without it, no one's buying your scripted conflict. Self, you're big on things making sense and adhering to kayfabe. Who's going to believe a story like that without the shedding of blood (which is traditionally symbolic in many ways)?

 

I've re-written this post a bunch of times, but the (mercifully) short version is that while I agree that blood is a great tool for adding drama, and expected given the environment, I stand by my original belief that it's not NEEDED. There are other stories you can tell. I seem to remember Bret & Owen having a damn fine Cage Match where the story was that both wanted to escape first and win. I question the need for the cage in that scenario, and I'm not fond of the "first to escape" rules, but the story made sense, was bloodless, and effective.

 

Plus, I really liked DX vs Legacy at Hell In A Cell. Why? Because it told a solid story that was completely dependent on the Cage. Would it have been better if Shawn had bled? Probably... like 5% better. Did he need to bleed to make it a good match? Heck no. The drama, the story, worked without it.

 

I am by no means against blood. I have booked one Cage Match in my (3-time award winning) diary, and in it Edd Stone bled like a stuck pig. It helped the story, but it wasn't a necessity. The drama of Jeremy Stone unable to get into the ring to save his little brother would have worked almost as well if Edd had suffered a Submission based assault.

 

Fair point from Anti about the WarGames rules though, I'd forgotten the No Pinfall rule.

[sebsplex]

It could also mean the WWE are considering bringing back WCW as a fully fledged brand! The rumours have been running rampant.

 

Maybe in 2002 or 2003 at a push, but 2009? The time for WCW to be a 'legitimate' brand within the WWE has truly been and gone. Of course if you mean as a C brand that has absolutely nothing in common with the values of the promotion is it supposed to represent other than it's initials, then yeah why not.

 

As for the blood issue. I agree that it's not required for a typical cage match, like Chris mentioned, sometimes the cage is more of an obstacle to prevent escape or avoiding conflict. But as Remi pointed out, if the feud is based on the intense hatred between the participants and the cage is being protrayed as a brutal setting to conclude the feud, then I'm not going to a) buy into the match if the cage is ignored as a weapon or b) if after repeated raking/slamming there's no hint of bloodletting.

 

War Games is supposed to be brutal and unforgiving if it's going to be a case of just running a PG-friendly match using weak, dry TKO's to account for any eliminations that aren't submission based, then the WWE should just leave it alone. Unless they're on some sort of drive to convince younger fans that War Games and any other resusitated concepts were originally this bland and hollow before.

[Hive]

Is there really any brand value left in WCW nowadays anyway?

 

Still, if that is indeed their plan, it could explain the rumors saying that they're trying to re-sign Booker T... not to mention that Sting may very well be done in TNA soon...

 

Let the conspiracies begin!

[Self]

I don't think there's much left in the brand value of WCW itself, but the company had some good ideas in it's time and it wouldn't hurt WWE to explore some of them.

 

I doubt them wanting Booker has anything to do with WCW. He's a recognisable name who can come in, selling some merchandise, and make the Main Event scene a little less stale for a bit.

 

And Sting is Sting. He's worth signing just for the potential DVD release. Any dream matches you get out of him would be pure, delicious, gravy.

[Hive]

So who thinks Sting might be on his way to WWE...? They're now family-friendly for the average Christian to love and they're seemingly lacking a good main event face pretty badly... maybe Vince might offer him some sort of creative control in order to win him over, meaning he can be sure not to end like Booker T...

[wrestlingfan1]

I loved every single war games match i've ever seen. As was stated above It usually involved the devious stable ala the four horsemen and the normally individual singles competitors who were tired of their gang attack style and constant interference to keep the titles they held. One or all of the horsemen would usually help Ric keep the world title and Arn and Tully would constantly be cheating to keep the World or TV tag titles depending on which they were holding.

 

It'd be great if they brought it back but I wouldn't want to see it used to hodge podge a bunch of singles feuds together.

 

Now that said a match I would LOVE to see make its return would be.... the THUNDER DOME!

[wrestlingfan1]

So who thinks Sting might be on his way to WWF...? They're now family-friendly for the average Christian to love and they're seemingly lacking a good main event face pretty badly... maybe Vince might offer him some sort of creative control in order to win him over, meaning he can be sure not to end like Booker T...

 

Everytime vince has approached him Sting has always told him no. At this stage in his career their isn't anyone I would want to see him wrestle. Besides most any "dream match" I would have wanted they gave us before the collapse of WCW, and even then no one involved was in their prime.

 

Edit: Just re read that, its nothing against sting as I think he can still go better than most wrestlers who have been in the sport as long as him. Its just that their isn't anyone I see a good pairing against currently in wwf. If anything I say if he doesn't re sign with TNA than he'll simply retire (at least for 2 years) isn't his son getting ready for college or graduate from it? Then maybe in a few years when they make a new main eventer he'll be going through a laundry list of all the big names he's beaten on his way to the top, the lights go out and when they come back on enter sting....

[djthefunkchris]

Is there really any brand value left in WCW nowadays anyway?

 

Still, if that is indeed their plan, it could explain the rumors saying that they're trying to re-sign Booker T... not to mention that Sting may very well be done in TNA soon...

 

Let the conspiracies begin!

 

There's name brand value in ANY Of the older promotions, really....

 

People don't even have to know what WCW was about, to bring it out as a brand.

 

 

The problem I have with another brand, period... IS can they make it different then what they already have.

 

I remember the TEW stuff, about making brands totally different then the main product, and the reason it couldn't be that way, but it could be "Different" within' the promotions standards. I remember thinking "it doesn't have to be that way", but now I'm not so sure. I'm thinking that WWE has to be a certain way (TV Deals, etc), with their whole product, or else they might not be able to have the deals they do, be on in the time frame they wish to be on, etc.

 

In other words, I think I can see how making a totally "Different" product out of a brand, could hurt them. The example I can give is perhaps a bit over-the-top, but imagine it in this way. Your an Actor, you play many different parts, many different movie types. You have your family friendly movies, and you have your Action Movies, and you might even have done a "horror" movie here and there... However, what family movie will you be able to star in, if at the same time your doing Porno for Hustler?

 

My belief is that although their might be name value in having a WCW Brand (or any other older promotion as a brand), it just wouldn't/couldn't be AS IT WAS, unless it's already very close to what WWE are already doing.

 

They could do a WCW Brand, and it would probably work, and be a huge success for them... But it wouldn't be "Like" WCW, it would be like "WCW Being run by WWE".

[Franchise22]

 

They could do a WCW Brand, and it would probably work, and be a huge success for them... But it wouldn't be "Like" WCW, it would be like "WCW Being run by WWE".

 

i think the brand split would be more meaningful if it was sold as wwe vs wcw and to a degree ecw.... instead of raw and smackdown with a pinch of ecw. trades would mean more, "bragging rights" and "suvivior series" could mean more. "free agent signings" would seem to mean more. right now we and general public know its all wwe, and its presented that way. if it was pushed as two seperate "companies" i think would be awesome!!!! even if its only cosmetic, i think it would make a huge difference.

[djthefunkchris]

i think the brand split would be more meaningful if it was sold as wwe vs wcw and to a degree ecw.... instead of raw and smackdown with a pinch of ecw. trades would mean more, "bragging rights" and "suvivior series" could mean more. "free agent signings" would seem to mean more. right now we and general public know its all wwe, and its presented that way. if it was pushed as two seperate "companies" i think would be awesome!!!! even if its only cosmetic, i think it would make a huge difference.

 

WWE, or Vince I should say... His whole premise is that we (the fans), know that wrestling is all pre-determined... although he holds just enough suspence to make sure it doesn't ruin it for Younger (very young) children. To know this as fact (as was stated out of his own mouth, years ago, and even more recently with the online interview), I sincerely doubt he would go that route. TO go that route would mean that he thinks it can actually "get over" as seperate products, and I don't think he ever believed people at any time would "Fall" for it.

 

Cosmetic would mean that he would have to critique the other brands, as well... Meaning, if he pulled it off as some war, then WCW (or ECW) would be saying things like "Much better then that RAW show!" Although stuff like that does happen sometimes, they always have their own commercials of the other brands storylines on each show.... meaning, you don't believe them.

 

So... Although I agree that it would be neat (kind of like a couple diary's out right now), to see Vince bassically "Feud" with himself... I don't see it happening. Too much risk for no reason (could backfire bigtime).

[djthefunkchris]

Also... Let's not forget that WWE/WWF ever since Vince has controlled it, has been all about the story's, not the wrestling (for the most part). He does this because he thinks the "Entertainment" part is more important... because he feels that everyone knows it's Pre-determined (or FAKE, as he put it). In his mind, Why highlight the wrestling, when the public knows that the better guy (at wrestling) doesn't mean they will be champion.

[Stennick]

WCW barely had any name value left by the time it folded. It was doing what low 2's in the ratings? Its been my experiance that a lot of fans now days (the very kids Vince is marketing to) weren't around for nWo, Attitude, and the Monday Night Wars. That was going on a decade ago that operation folded up there is no money to be made in bringing back as a "brand". They make their money with the footage because even if you don't watch their product anymore you're going to buy a "best of the eighties" a lot quicker than your going to tune in see "WCW" and in five minutes realize its not your WCW and turn it off. I'm really surprised Vince did the whole ECW brand. I think he got caught up in the big numbers the DVD did, the book did, the pay per views those two years. He put Heyman in charge and then oddly enough when Heyman tried to give us an updated look of ECW Vince then went in and changed everything around.

 

I've never been a big fan of the "RAW" and "Smackdown" brands. They should have done WWE, and WCW in 02 back when the name meant something. When you had Flair, Goldberg, Hogan, Outsiders, Rey Mysterio, throw in some new talent like John Cena and Randy Orton that were debuting around that time.

 

That was then and this is now and the only place I want WCW is in my best of DVD's that they put out.

[dvdWarrior]

I think there's a possibility that Vince brought back the ECW brand to either kill off the E-C-Dub chants, or at the very least make them his own or something.

 

That's just one dvdWarrior's opinion of course.

 

[Antithesis]

Low two's arent a bad rating for a cable TV show. The problem was that immediately after the purchase, nearly all of WCW's headliners sat at home collecting on the rest of their contracts (who could blame em). With no WcW main event stars, the viewers who made up those low two ratings didn't follow along to the WWE. Even the one guy who did jump early, DDP, was made to look like a fool in that stalker angle. So Vince didn't spend the money for the big names to jump right at the start, and those wcw wrestlers that did come over were made to look weak. The wcw brand wasn't dead until vince killed it.

[Stennick]

Low two's when your competition is doing six's is pretty much dead. The only people that were still watching WCW were the die hard WCW fans. Even I had given up watching and I sat through all of their early nineties crap. When Nitro debuted it was doing nearly double the rating it was doing when it died. If any other television show drops half the viewers of when it first debuted its going to get yanked so yeah WCW was dead.

[Self]

WCW as the seperate brand could have worked IF they did it in 2002 and IF they ran it as though they were two completely seperate companies, with the annual super-show. Doing it now wouldn't work. Everyone knows WCW belongs to Vince McMahon so you could fool enough people to believe they're seperate (without some kind of major conspiracy) and 'Smackdown' has more name value these days.

 

The RAW/Smackdown names work for what it is. It's a soft split. Although it is annoying to hear all this "Our brand is the best" junk or seeing Heels and Faces banding together to defend 'their brand' because it's so clearly the same company. ON this subject, Bragging Rights makes no sense to me. Sure, a 7 vs 7 tag match could be interesting, but where's the drama? Where's the prize? What are they fighting for? "Bragging Rights"? What the frak is that? Why would any of the wrestlers (in kayfabe) care?

[Franchise22]

WCW as the seperate brand could have worked IF they did it in 2002 and IF they ran it as though they were two completely seperate companies, with the annual super-show. Doing it now wouldn't work. Everyone knows WCW belongs to Vince McMahon so you could fool enough people to believe they're seperate (without some kind of major conspiracy) and 'Smackdown' has more name value these days.

 

The RAW/Smackdown names work for what it is. It's a soft split. Although it is annoying to hear all this "Our brand is the best" junk or seeing Heels and Faces banding together to defend 'their brand' because it's so clearly the same company. ON this subject, Bragging Rights makes no sense to me. Sure, a 7 vs 7 tag match could be interesting, but where's the drama? Where's the prize? What are they fighting for? "Bragging Rights"? What the frak is that? Why would any of the wrestlers (in kayfabe) care?

 

 

what i dont get about bragging rights is the fact that it sounds like a traditional survivor series type match. they could have easily ran this "bragging rights" story line at the series. and furthermore, the PPV should have been all raw vs smackdown matchups to really push the theme of the ppv.

[Self]

As for brand vs brand, they've got Miz vs Morrison which I am legit super excited about. They had a little face off in a tag match at the Smackdown 10th Anniversary Show, but given their quick break-up at the last draft, there's enough unfinished business, enough story to the match that it could be pretty cool.

 

If I could tell WWE "I am buying this show for this one match" I'd do it for this. As it is, I may get it if I'm having trouble sleeping that night.

[Antithesis]

Low two's when your competition is doing six's is pretty much dead. The only people that were still watching WCW were the die hard WCW fans. Even I had given up watching and I sat through all of their early nineties crap. When Nitro debuted it was doing nearly double the rating it was doing when it died. If any other television show drops half the viewers of when it first debuted its going to get yanked so yeah WCW was dead.

 

According to

http://www.twnpnews.com/information/WCW/wcwnitro.shtml

 

The debut Nitro show did a 2.9 and following shows were in the 2.5 range then dipped down to a 2.0 show before slowly climbing back up then consistently pulling over 3.0 after Hall and Nash appeared and the NWO started, and then kept climbing until 99 when they started to decline. And for WWE

the numbers I saw for 2001 showed mid 4's to mid 5's with a decline into the 3 range by the end of 2001. So, in reality, WCW didn't lose half their numbers for the debut of Nitro, and WWE wasn't pulling 6's when WCW ended either.

 

If what you meant to say was that WCW had lost half its viewership from its ratings peak in 98 to its end in 2001, then by that argument WWE would be considered dead now as well.

[sebsplex]

ON this subject, Bragging Rights makes no sense to me. Sure, a 7 vs 7 tag match could be interesting, but where's the drama? Where's the prize? What are they fighting for? "Bragging Rights"? What the frak is that? Why would any of the wrestlers (in kayfabe) care?

 

I certainly don't see every minute of WWE TV these days, but I did catch a few pieces of RAW and Smackdown this week and I wondered the same thing, thinking that maybe I'd missed some sort of storyline behind it (as no one seemed to mention it). Is there really nothing up for grabs (other than bragging rights)? I thought maybe something like the winning brand gets to main event Wrestlemania or something was the deal... I guess not.