Guest bigm350 Report post Posted January 5, 2005 I've had this dvd for quite awhile and if I remember correctly, when it first came out, alot of people said the WWE did a great, job portraying the WCW side of things, now I hear its alot of revisionist crap. I tend to side with the revisionist side of things. A line that had me laughing was Vince saying " My motto is to help yourself, and not hurt the other guy". I guess he forgot that when he first took over the WWF and swallowed up all the territories. Anyway, I was wondering what you guys think. Is it a fairly accurate portrayal of the Monday Night Wars? Or a load of crap? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 5, 2005 It's mostly revisionist crap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mole 0 Report post Posted January 5, 2005 Did they talk about when Rude was on Nitro and Raw during the same night? Plus, ECW that same week? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest netslob Report post Posted January 5, 2005 it's like they say "History is written by the winners." A line that had me laughing was Vince saying " My motto is to help yourself, and not hurt the other guy". BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!! oh god i needed that...i haven't laughed like that in a while...that Vince always knows just what to say...priceless... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 5, 2005 I think the thing that annoyed me the most about that DVD is they completely ignored entire segments of WCW while it was on top and they try to downplay how bad it was for the WWF in 97. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravenbomb 0 Report post Posted January 5, 2005 is it entertaining revisionist crap? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 5, 2005 No, because they can't even be bothered to mention Sting once. Which is mind blowing considering his feud with Hogan was a big reason Vince was getting his ass kicked. And you can just tell most of the guys interviewed are just talking out of their ass most of the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jester 0 Report post Posted January 5, 2005 You also have to remember that when WWE produced this DVD, a lot of the guys who stirred up shit at WCW were under contract. So they couldn't go around saying "Hogan and Nash's political horseshit was a real problem." Bret Hart, however, wasn't under contract... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Evolution Report post Posted January 5, 2005 For me, I thought that it was as close to a "fair and balanced" documentary on WWF vs. WCW as we were going to get from the WWE. It was probably a real stretch for Vince and others to think even somewhat positive things about WCW. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bigm350 Report post Posted January 5, 2005 Another thing I get a kick out of is the WWE actually bashing WCW by saying that WCW never created any new stars, other than Goldberg. Yet, who are the same two guys at the top of the promotion, and have been for what seems like forever; HHH and Taker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
strummer 0 Report post Posted January 5, 2005 The one line I remember most from the piece was Jericho saying that WCW was winning the war because they had better wrestling matches than WWF, with the cruiserweights, Benoit, Guerrero, Malenko, himself, and Saturn etc. And he just sort of said "Oh, and the NWO too" It reminded me of WCW marks on the Net in 96 and 97 who insisted that the reason why WCW was getting great ratings and beating the WWF was because of the long cruiserweight matches and great midcard matches. It was like these WCW marks didn't want to give Hogan and the NWO any credit, because they represented the old WWF guard from the 80s/90s. I still hear people bring this up, but I don't buy it for a second. The great matche may have helped, but Hogan and the NWO were the reason for all the money, hate Hogan or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisMWaters 0 Report post Posted January 5, 2005 For a good comparison to what actually happened compared to what WWE said happened... Look no further than the WrestleCrap made book "The Death of WCW", and compare it to the Monday Night War DVD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted January 5, 2005 NWO should get the credit, but the thing was WCW was a much better top to bottom show also. I mean, they actually had structure to their shows with the cruiser openers to get the crowd hot, and each match would kind of build. On WWE ppvs, still to this day, the order of the matches often seems illogical and a lot of the time is messes up the crowd heat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted January 5, 2005 WWE uses rounded logic. On one hand, they argue that WCW never created any stars, and on the other hand, they justify not pushing guys who once worked for the competition because they're WCW creations. I thought WCW didn't create anything. I thought they just stole everything. Oh yeah, WWE only cites everything when it works for them to do so, and they're allowed to contradict themselves constantly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted January 5, 2005 Also, while I'm here, good time to put a revisionist theory to rest. Nitro matches were just as short as what we see on RAW today, if not shorter. It's just that instead of three minutes of generic hosses, we saw three minute spotfests with great wrestlers being wasted and limited. WCW, like WWE, encouraged their wrestlers to perform a certain style, and they were discouraged from ever going to the mat around 1997 or so. WCW, like WWE, used rounded logic. They'd put the cruisers in 3-5 minute matches on Nitro, then give them 15-20 minutes on PPV, then the audience would only be trained for a short match and they wouldn't get any heat, and then that would be used as justification not to spotlight the division. If the match did get over, it was just ignored and never mentioned on TV. That's the reality of WCW, folks. Nitro was basically the same episode over and over every week from about October of 1996 to October of 1998. The biggest ratings draws outside of the NWO were Flair, Luger and the cruiserweights. They were able to sustain that rating over a two-hour period, sometimes on shows where the NWO never even appeared. So, I think a large part of WCW's success can be attributed to the formula. They had Hogan and Savage for the old-time WWF fans, they had Flair and Sting for the WCW loyalists, they had Hall and Nash for the neophytes, they had the cruiserweights for the fans who were all about the pro wrestling and the production values of Nitro far surpassed those of Vince until RAW rebounded in '98. The problem came when fans got tired of both the faces on top and the run-ins in main events, and instead of planning long-term, all the booking started being reactive instead of proactive. They weren't booking to create any stars or build to any big matches down the line in '98, they were merely putting as star-studded a show out there as they could every single week in hopes of defeating RAW in the ratings again. Goldberg was the biggest rating draw in the entire industry by summer, which is why he got the push he did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
