Guest Anglesault Report post Posted August 21, 2003 The picture says it all. I mean, did they make Booker T do Janitorial work? Storm did. I never understood why (before Buff ruined everything) the rogue company that went out of business and decided to steal show time from WWF wrestlers was gonna be a face organization. The heel turn was way to late. Why WAS WCW face at first? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Adrian 3:16 Report post Posted August 21, 2003 Because it was bought out by Shane as the next phase of his feud with his evil father- a perfect example of McMahon-centric booking overriding a storyline's need to you know... make sense. Anyway, I'm going to go against the grain and say Goldberg has been booked worse. InVasion, huge clusterfuck that it was, at least had a lot of potential for error. Clashing egos, refusals to job, contract problems, unplanned fan reactions, injuries to key players, bad timing, etc. There was a lot that could've gone wrong, and as luck would have it, a lot did. Goldberg is a different animal. How hard was it to debut the guy and have him destroy everything in his path? Yet they couldn't even do that right. Instead we watch him model wigs with Goldust, get exposed in long matches with The Rock, and struggle to beat guys like Christian. Meanwhile you have the Kliq trying to cut him down and Linda calling him a dissapointment at stockholders meetings, and people wonder why Goldberg doesn't give a damn about the business. I'd stop caring after putting up with all that bullshit too... I'd also like to throw in that the InVasion, as much lost potential as it was, still made for some entertaining TV the way it turned out. I remember being much more enthusiastic about watching wrestling every week in the summer of 2001 than I have been this year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted August 21, 2003 Well considering that Invasion wasn't even supposed to happen originally plus you got McMahon's ego there... He is both injury-prone, reckless, refuses to job, and won't work more than a set number of dates including no house shows I always found it funny that Goldberg didn't want to do house shows yet that's how he got his infamous high-numbered Streak in the first place. I never liked Goldberg, the 3 move wonder boy that worked 2 minute matches every fucking week! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted August 21, 2003 I will be honest about this: I never figured the WCW invasion would get over. The outcome was never in any doubt. The WWF OWNED WCW, so there was no suspense as to who would win. The reality of the situation is that most of the quality WCW talent from their peak was already IN the WWF by the time of the Invasion (Jericho, Eddie, Benoit, etc). The only scenario an Invasion would work in is if the WWF and WCW did a huge angle circa 1998. Both companies were fairly equal in ratings at that point, but the politics behind the scenes would make it impossible. In short, the Invasion was probably something best left in the "What If?" category. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Army Eye Report post Posted August 21, 2003 When considering the Invasion angle, ask yourself this: would the angle have been any better had Hogan, Hall, Nash, Steiner, etc. been signed during it? Bischoff as the leader. I mean, it would all just be a tedious revival of the NWO, and they would take over for a while before Vince rallies the troops. I asked myself, and yes, that would've been a much better inVasion. Of course if they were booked as weak as Booker T/DDP/Storm/etc. were, I guess it wouldn't have mattered. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
El Psycho Diablo 0 Report post Posted August 21, 2003 The InVasion was worse. Much, much worse. Including such of my "favorites" like making Steve Austin (a declining, aging preformer) the focus of the entire angle..and having the same guy beat the ENTIRE Alliance in one night before joining them. Cute. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheAnvil Report post Posted August 21, 2003 get exposed in long matches with The Rock I don't think he was "exposed" in that match. I feel the match was just booked poorly. Goldberg's moveset revolves around power moves (the powerslam, Spear, and Jackhammer), and when you have him injure his shoulder in EVERY MATCH, it detracts from his abilty to have offense. Rock/Goldberg was a casualty of WWE booking. I think given the proper opportunity, the match could have been decent. Goldberg did everything he was supposed to in that match. He sold his shoulder injury (far better than RVD or HBK sells a leg injury), and made his triumphant comeback to hit his finish. I think Rock actually took away from this match. His overselling made the match drag, and made it boring to watch. I'd say that I'd have to go with Goldberg. WWE didn't have the stars from wCw to work with, so the fans were going to be disappointed no matter what they did. Without Hogan, Sting, Nash, and Steiner the angle was really at a disadvantage to start with. The WWE has had all the tools to do the Goldberg angle properly (Rodney Mack match), and they've failed. They destroyed his entrance (the best part of Goldberg), and gave him a mic. DID THEY EVEN KNOW WHO GOLDBERG WAS? HE WAS ENTRANCE/SQUASH. That's the way it works. If you screw with the formula, you're gonna pay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lil' Bitch 0 Report post Posted August 22, 2003 There was no way in hell Vince was going to make WCW / WCW-related people look good. Its a sure bet sabatoged the whole thing on purpose just for the hell of it to make look like shit (which to most WWE fans it was) to the world as McMahon always thought it was. Goldberg was one of WCW's biggest (an overrated one at that) stars, Vince says he did it to get a ratings boost, but if you do everything against what Goldberg did, Vince hired Goldberg to ruin him and expose him for the no talent that he really is. Goldberg's backstage reported behavior didn't help him either. Invasion + Goldberg = Marshmellows in McMahon's fire Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BionicRedneck Report post Posted August 22, 2003 The Invasion was worse, because it was a bigger opportunity. The Goldberg thing is funny, though. They book Goldberg like a moron and then say "Boy...this guy has been dissapointing". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Trivia247 Report post Posted August 22, 2003 that was the other thing that pissed me off about the Invasion angle..... At the Invasion ppv you sorta got the feeling the wwf would push all those former WCW/ECW wrestlers most of whom on the ECW side was already in the WWF. But nooo once Austin turned everyone else in the Alliance fell by the wayside, everything was all about Austin. All the wrestlers were stuck in the background with very few who had anything to do on the shows beside backstage vocals. Like the Dudleys, RVD, Booker T. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted August 22, 2003 All the WCW 'stars' (except Sting) were brought in later anyways and all flopped because they suck. You make new stars, it is not that hard. The value was with the WCW name, not with Hogan, Nash, etc. Hogan was pushed to the moon in WWE, and he was a failure. Everybody else is even worse. Steiner, Nash, Goldberg, etc are all hated by WWE fans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Eddie Report post Posted August 23, 2003 am i the only one who liked the invasion angle? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 If the Invasion had a serious initial flaw (aside from Bagwell) it would be the idea of WCW as a face faction. I mean the WWF was literally asking for their own fans to cheer the same group that they were programmed to hate for years, and thus boo the guys they liked. But that said, the Invasion still had some truly mindblowing markout moments. How could you not mark out seeing Shane on the final Nitro? Or the wild show with RVD and Dreamer debuting and attacking, leading to the ECW addition to the angle? Or the SMDN with Austin flipping out and wanting to beat up any Alliance guy....only to have RVD walk in (and subsequently win the match). The Invasion actually ended up being a bit BETTER than people thought it would be after the Booker/Bagwell debacle. It just wasn't what people had expected to see after years of wait. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ILiveUnderABridge Report post Posted August 23, 2003 PP RULES ALL moles mommy rules Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest undisputedjericho Report post Posted August 23, 2003 I liked the InVasion. It did give us stuff like Austin/Angle, Jericho/RVD, and Jericho/Rock, afterall, with things like RVD's huge fan reactions and DDP's "Positively Page" gimmick, which was entertaining (Admit it~!) All I can say is, at least there is one more card that the WWE is waiting to play...and that my friends, is Goldberg vs. Austin, which will be bigger than Rock/Hogan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest ILiveUnderABridge Report post Posted August 23, 2003 nigger Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 If the Invasion had a serious initial flaw (aside from Bagwell) it would be the idea of WCW as a face faction. I mean the WWF was literally asking for their own fans to cheer the same group that they were programmed to hate for years, and thus boo the guys they liked. It wouldn't have hurt if they hadn't filled it up with WCW guys. Austin shocked me, didn't see that one coming, but Christian? I think the ECW thing kind of ruined it a bit, too. They did good bringing in Dreamer and Van Dam, and it gave the WWF jobbers a chance to look like a threat, but if they had gone with Foley as ECW mouthpiece instead of Stephanie, they could have blown the roof off the place. We haven't seen a serious Mick heel turn in..... ???????? Instead, they had Foley referee matches. Feh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Adam 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 am i the only one who liked the invasion angle? Yes. Yes you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ultimo Dugas 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 The Invasion of course. You can't compare fucking up what was to be the biggest angle in professional wrestling with how they handled one overrated guy for a few months. I have no problems with the way Goldberg is being booked now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kahran Ramsus 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 I liked the Invasion at first, but really soured on it after Summerslam when it became apparent that the only Alliance members that ever won were Austin & Test, despite several of them (RVD, Hurricane, DDP, Booker, etc.) being more over than the guys who they were jobbing to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 If the Invasion had a serious initial flaw (aside from Bagwell) it would be the idea of WCW as a face faction. I mean the WWF was literally asking for their own fans to cheer the same group that they were programmed to hate for years, and thus boo the guys they liked. It wouldn't have hurt if they hadn't filled it up with WCW guys. Austin shocked me, didn't see that one coming, but Christian? I think the ECW thing kind of ruined it a bit, too. They did good bringing in Dreamer and Van Dam, and it gave the WWF jobbers a chance to look like a threat, but if they had gone with Foley as ECW mouthpiece instead of Stephanie, they could have blown the roof off the place. We haven't seen a serious Mick heel turn in..... ???????? Instead, they had Foley referee matches. Feh. Yeah, in the WCW/ECW Alliance, why were most of the main guys from neither? I think this is why they had to stop doing individual chyrons (the star thingy for WCW guys, the purple barbed wire for ECW guys) for entrances because nobody was really an authentic WCW or ECW wrestler anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheFranchise 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 I liked the Invasion at first, but really soured on it after Summerslam when it became apparent that the only Alliance members that ever won were Test <snip> Erm... So there's a question of what was worse, anything else or Test winning? Case closed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 Actually RVD was on a roll and winning against most everyone during the July to October period. I remember the exact moment that RVD's big initial push was over, because I was there. He jobbed to Edge in an IC match to open Raw, just a WEEK after main eventing a PPV for the world title. Clean. I like Edge too, but couldn't help but think something was seriously wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheFranchise 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 I'll never get over how over Van Dam really was, it's one of those truely amazing things that happened with the WWE, that they didnt do anything with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cabbageboy 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 I think if RVD hadn't been busting people open back in Oct. 2001 they would have seriously put the title on him. The only real reason was that he was "unsafe" to work with. Also, the WWF was simply unwilling to break away from what they had in mind as a long term plan (HHH coming back to win the title) to actually push someone who was over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted August 23, 2003 I'll never get over how over Van Dam really was, it's one of those truely amazing things that happened with the WWE, that they didnt do anything with that. I think it was mostly at first because he looked like a young Shawn Michaels or something. I really really doubt that RVD had arenas full of people who knew what he was at that stage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KTID 0 Report post Posted August 24, 2003 am i the only one who liked the invasion angle? amazingly Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ultra Violence 0 Report post Posted August 24, 2003 am i the only one who liked the invasion angle? amazingly How could you like it? It could have been a smark's wet dream but it was fucked up. How do you think things would have gone if it had been a WCW owned WWF invading WCW? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheFranchise 0 Report post Posted August 24, 2003 am i the only one who liked the invasion angle? amazingly How could you like it? It could have been a smark's wet dream but it was fucked up. How do you think things would have gone if it had been a WCW owned WWF invading WCW? I cant believe i'm going to say this.. but InVastion wasn't that bad, sure, the general overview sucked, but there was a lot of little mini-angles that was produced (apart from Test becoming immune from being fired, i think everybody hated that) and of course, we'd never have had Milk-o-mania, would we? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted August 24, 2003 I liked the Invasion at first, but really soured on it after Summerslam when it became apparent that the only Alliance members that ever won were Austin & Test, despite several of them (RVD, Hurricane, DDP, Booker, etc.) being more over than the guys who they were jobbing to. Well, booking the top heel in the WCW faction initially (DDP) in a program with UT killed the angle before it started. Then absolutely annihilating O'Haire & Palumbo --- who blew both APA and Kane & UT out of the water --- just showed that it wouldn't work. But it did have some good matches. GB isn't being mis-booked. The MISTAKE would be allowing him to absolutely annihilate everybody --- he'd then hold out for more money and since nobody would be credible without beating him, business is hurt even more. -=Mike --- who wonders why Gewirtz still has a job Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
