Was WCW circa 2000 the lowest a Wrestling company ever sank?
>>1164250
WCW 2000 was better than WWE 2016
>>1164250
At least when WCW was burning to the ground it was a fucking hilariously bad spectacle to watch.
I'd argue 2008-2011 TNA got pretty fucking bad and not in a haha funny bad way.
>>1164261
As someone who watched WCW in 2000, there really is nothing you can really compare it to. Even TNA has more dignity than WCW did in that year. Even on Vince's worst day, he wouldn't greenlight half the insanity that ensued there; Arquette, the worked shoot at Bash at the Beach, etc.
WWE today is about WCW 1998/9 levels of quality, which is not a compliment incidentally, considering how fucked that company was.
I watched some of it on the network last week. Those FIRE RUSSO chants are kekworthy
>>1164250
Why is Russo an idiot?
>>1164250
how did jesse pinkman win a title?
>>1164289
Arquette worked, it generated buzz. Bash at the Beach was a great work until Hogan worked himself into a shoot over it because Brad Siegal couldn't afford to pay him any more from the dwindling and miserly WCW budget.
>>1164310
>Arquette worked, it generated buzz.
Fuck off Russo.
>>1164305
Science!
>>1164310
>Arquette worked
So that's why Slamboree sold so well right?
>>1164310
>Arquette worked, it generated buzz
Yep, burying your main title to get people talking about how retarded you are is definitely great.
>>1164330
You have to admit, Arquette coming out in a pimp coat and being a hollywood douche heel afterwards was fucking GOLD.
>>1164338
No Russo, it wasn't "GOLD"
No one got over, WCW tanked harder.
>>1164310
>There are still people who defend Arquette winning the strap
>>1164347
Ofcourse nobody got over, at least it was hilarious.
>>1164358
It wasn't hilarious, it was shit. Waste of everyone time.
>people still shitting on that brief Arquette run
Remember when Vince made himself WWF champion? Oh, and later when he decided to take a huge dump on ECW and booked himself as ECW champ. What a genius.
>>1164338
>GOLD
It's GOLD watching it now on the network as a reminder of just how bad wrestling can be.
If I was paying money to watch WCW in 2000 or w/e then I don't think I'd find it as funny.
>>1164366
One owns the company and the other is a "movie star"
>>1164366
>This fucking apologism
No one defends Vince winning the Title, but to compare it to Arquette is facetious. Vince was the biggest heel in wrestling history, and had a deep connection to the product. Arquette was playing babyface, had no reason to have the strap other than publicity, and it devalued the belt at a time when WCW could not afford mistakes, none of which were the case with Vince.
>>1164372
2000 WCW was always shit, in the best way. It was literally watching money burn on screen from every facet of expenses you could possibly spend on a wrestling show.
Retrospectively it's hilarious to watch. But if I were a paying customer in 2000 spending $60 on that shit I'd be royally pissed and probably quit watching.
But I didn't, so there's no bad taste left getting in the way of my ironic enjoyment of a point in time where wrestling will never have that much money be blown away and yet somehow still remain semi-popular ever again.
WCW was a fucking weird company, and I loved it.
>>1164387
>Vince was the biggest heel in wrestling history
Educate yourself
>>1164387
Vince was a babyface when he won the WWF Title.
>>1164398
He's not wrong.
>>1164402
Yes, but his heel run got him over with the fans; he wasn't just dumped on them one night.
>>1164289
>WWE today is about WCW 1998/9 levels of quality,
thats not true. at all. stop talking out your ass about things you have no clue about.
also, 18+ kiddo
>>1164436
Yeah, at least Nitro had the Cruiserweights tearing it up during Hour 1!
>>1164436
WCW had peaked the moment Sting VS Hogan happened and it went down fast, with Hart getting forgotten, the Radicals being buried, Flair being shat on, Goldberg being hotshotted, the NWO going full zombie, Nash vs Hogan political bullshit, the Fingerpoke of Doom, the talent jumping ship, Bischoff getting canned, Russo running roughshod, and getting Hart to recreate Montreal in Michaels' place, 1998 through 1999 was a long downward spiral, until they hit full rock-bottom in 2000. They actually somewhat improved in early 2001 surprisingly enough.
>>1164310
It got people talking, but for all the wrong reasons. Like "let's not watch that fucking bullshit"
Contrary to the Russo line of thinking, not all publicity is necessarily good.
>>1164330
Just threw Slamboree on and it's already better than current WWE. Mark Madden just said 'any time you combine hot cruiserweight action with hot tramps, that's pro wrestling.' Couldn't have said it any better myself!
>>1164701
The quality might be okay, but it didn't sell. That's the problem.
I am absolutely certain TNA has done far worse.
>>1164805
Probably.
I can remember more things that happened on Nitro in 2000, than I can remember from Raw in the past 5 years.
>>1164885
Because it was that bad
>>1164289
>WWE today is about WCW 1998/9 levels of quality
Nonsense. WCW in 1998 had Goldberg vs DDP at Halloween Havoc, Goldberg beating Hogan on Nitro, Chris Jericho at his peak, lots of great cruiserweight matches. The crowd marked out for everything. Much better than WWE today
WWF in 2000 was so bad that Coach had to stand with his legs split so he wouldn't tower over their manlet so-called "superstars"
>>1164916
>defending Arquette
>>1164366
Vince got a huge pop, should've jobbed it instead of vacating it though
>>1164916
>>1164916
>2000 WWF
>bad
WCW was by default a complete shitshow, with a few patches of really interesting programming.
>>1165160
No it wasn't. WCW had existed for decades before NWO/WCW.
Once you turn your biggest baby face heel (Hogan), the show falls apart. That's why smarks who want Cena to turn heel are retarded. You don't turn your company face heel unless you want to go out of business in 5 years.
>>1164305
>Got The Tittle,Bitch!
>>1164250
Is that Aaron paul from Breaking Bad?
>>1165165
I watched WCW in pre-NWO days (90-95) when it was the only Fed shown on the free UK cable channels. The pattern that always played out was:
>watch wcw
>find it flat, unexciting
>recognise there were some cool characters and good performers
>months later, they turn up in WWF
>Suddenly get as good as I always knew they should have been
Flair, the Steiners, Vader. Yeah, the last two didn't exactly set the world on fire in WWF, but the programming always felt way slicker.
>>1165165
>Hogan turning heel ruined WCW
That's what put them ahead in the Monday Night Wars for a year and a half. The problem was that they fucking buried anyone who could have been the face. They made Sting win dirty at Starcade, and had Goldie win the belt on TV, while jobbing to Nash a year later. Then they let the NWO get stale; Hogan going heel just as he went stale was one of the few brilliant moves the company made.
>>1165189
Yeah, it puts you a head temporarily. Cena turning heel would get ratings.
But once you cross that line, there's no going back. Now you have no face of the company. Who was the face of WCW circa 1999-2002?
And no, it wasn't Goldberg.
Exactly. You can't name the face of the company because WCW was forced to have shitty little midcarders like Steiner or Booker T as the face
>>1165201
>And no, it wasn't Goldberg
Why the fuck not? It alternated between Sting and Goldberg.
>>1165201
WCW went out of business because of corporate takeovers, it's WWE revisionism to say the storylines sunk them. Sting and Goldberg were huge babyfaces for them in 97 and 98, Steiner and Booker T didn't main event until much later when the free flowing corporate money had started to go and the show was booked badly. The only mistake with Hogan was giving him creative power in his contract, he was a huge success as Hollywood Hogan.
>>1165205
Because Goldberg wasn't the face past 1997/1998. Sting had also turned heel.
There's no problems with guys like Ziggler, Cesaro, midcarders turning heel. But once you have guys like Cena, Sting, or Hogan then heel, then that's bad for business.
Like it or not, Cena will never turn heel. Ever. He will never say "fuck you" to the fans like Hogan did. Hogan saying fuck you was basically WCW saying fuck you.
>>1165201
>Who was the face of WCW circa 1999-2002?
Sting, Goldberg and DDP
>And no, it wasn't Goldberg.
Are you absolutely fucking retarded?
>>1165201
>Who was the face of WCW circa 1999-2002?
Do you even need to ask...bro?
Reminder: Nitro had a sick intro theme circa 2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOg48lL7P0g
>>1165210
WCW went out of business because of shitty decisions, one which being "Hey...what if our biggest baby face of all time Hogan told all the fans to EFF OFF!"
Then crow Sting became their biggest baby face, and even he became heel
There's a point where you need big baby faces who are 100% baby face and loyal to the fans. You can't deceive and insult fans all the time.
That's partly why Cena will never turn heel and why WWE sucks ass at this point in time and the foreseeable future
>>1165230
>WCW went out of business because of shitty decisions, one which being "Hey...what if our biggest baby face of all time Hogan told all the fans to EFF OFF!"
Mark.
>>1165230
You're undermining your own point. You're admitting yourself that the problem wasn't Hogan going heel, but the lack of a good replacement. Hogan absolutely had to go heel when he did; it made mad bank. The problem was WCW's treatment of Sting and Goldberg, both of whom could easily have led the company, while I can't think of anyone in the WWE now who could be the new Cena.
>>1165239
I think you somehow foolishly believe that the NWO made Hogan. You forget that Hogan made the NWO. Hogan by 1995 could have easily retired a complete babyface and be a certified legend, more so than he already is.
But now he has a tarnished legacy because he drove a company into financial ruin and is generally seen as an asshole by everyone
>>1165230
>WCW went out of business because of shitty decisions, one which being "Hey...what if our biggest baby face of all time Hogan told all the fans to EFF OFF!"
lmao that literally led to their best business ever BY FAR. The only thing they did wrong was hold off Sting winning too long, then making it a screwy finish on top of it.
>>1165230
Hogan was stale as a babyface with the crowd and he wasn't an NWA guy so he wasn't loved like Flair. The NWO angle with the outsiders was red hot, probably the biggest angle ever so it was worth the risk. You're right that you have to have a top babyface that is pushed as such and WCW was a cluster fuck with constantly turning people but they did have top faces, Goldberg, Sting, Diamond Dallas Page, Kevin Nash all had runs where they were hot as faces and would of been big enough to balance out a heel hogan.
>>1164372
>This guy didn't have a cable descrambler.
I watched all the PPV's as a kid and never had to pay a dime. Good times.
>>1165247
You underestimate Hogan. See my Previous post. Hogan was the top selling wrestler up until that time -- anything he did made bank. He didn't have to turn heel. Retiring in 1995 would have cemented Hogan's legacy as greatest baby face of all time
I agree with Sting. Sting, even before crow, was the embodiment of WCW. He's similar to Undertaker in the WWE in the sense that both men were loyal to their company. Flair was the same way, but too old
>>1165252
Is it really good business when you're being forced to close your doors in 5 years?
>>1165261
That was because of Bischoff signing literally hundreds of has-beens and literally whos to guaranteed million dollar contracts, and giving big money to Rick Steiner and Stevie Ray because they were his biker buddies.
>>1165266
The number 1 reason was the AOL-Time Warner merger, if they had wanted a wrestling show then WCW would of carried on. WCW made a lot of stupid costly mistakes like signing Ultimate Warrior and giving him creative freedom but it wasn't enough to finish off the company, it's stuff like that they say on WWE documentaries along with 'they never made new stars' which wasn't true. Vince is eternally jerking himself off over victory.
>>1165266
You're kind of right but missing the point.
When you're writing a story, when you're directing a movie... You don't turn your main good guy hero into an asshole.
No one wants to see Obi-Wan Kenobi or Han Solo be complete assholes all the time.
No one wants to see Frodo and Sam kindly hand the ring to Sauron.
No one wants to see their hero get poked and lay down for the three count..
It's just not fun. It kills the hype. It destroys the story.
So no. Cena will never turn heel.
>>1164250
TNA has been far worse on several occasions in terms of on-screen product. Obviously nothing will ever match WCW's financial collapse.
>>1165273
Well Hogan was getting booed and not making them money. Their business actually kicked up first when he left in early 96 and Flair vs Savage was the main angle
and related:
>In a nutshell, the scene with Vader and the Emperor unspools the way it does in the final film. Vader sacrifices himself to take out the Emperor, and then Luke helps Vader to take off his famous helmet. And then — Luke puts on Vader's helmet himself. In the transcript of the story session with Lucas and Kasdan, Lucas says: "Luke takes his mask off. The mask is the very last thing — and then Luke puts it on and says, 'Now I am Vader.'
>>1165283
>and then Luke puts it on and says, 'Now I am Vader.'
That's fucking retarded/
>>1165283
>Well Hogan was getting booed and not making them money.
Hogan was the biggest name in wrestling since 1987. Macho Man was a close second.
>Hogan didn't make money.
Lol
>Lucas
There's a reason that didn't make the cut
>>1165201
Maybe because they botched Sting in 97?
If he won clean as a whistle they have their new face but Hogan politicked a shit finish.
>>1165307
Nope.
Sting would have been better as the original 3rd man.
>>1165308
>Sting would have been better as the original 3rd man.
What and have Hogan be the face against the nWo? Despite the crowd already turning on him?
>>1165313
>despite the crowd turning against him
Where does this meme come from exactly?
And yeah, general rule of thumb is: You. Don't. Turn. Your. Protagonist. Into. The. Villian.
Hogan = protagonist (stay baby face)
Sting = Lancer (can flip flop)
There you go.
>>1165307
It was so easy. Sting takes on Hall and Nash, they lose, rematch with Hogan they botch interfence. Then you have Hogan vs one then the other on PPVs, then Hall and Nash split and take each other on. Get the belt back on Hogan so Goldberg can win at Starrcade or whenever. Then Hogan can turn back face finally
>>1165324
>Then Hogan can turn back face finally
It doesn't work like that. Easier said than done.
You're probably one of the smarks who think turning Cena heel would be a good idea
>>1165320
He was stale for a while, WCW crowds would always shit on him since he was a WWF guy and he was doing the same shit with the same finish, but even in the WWF the crowd went apeshit when Sid eliminated him at the '92 Rumble
>>1165320
>where does this meme come from
He literally mentions it in the promo immediately after he turns. People didn't like how he kept leaving to do movies and booed when he randomly came back and went over their favourites who actually cared about wcw.
>>1165325
He was so over when he returned at WM they cancelled HHH's big push and put the belt back on Hogan a month later. Even in his heel turn promo he brings up how he did lots of charity and the fans still booed him so it would be very easy
>>1165308
Were you actually watching WCW during this time? Hogan as a babyface was not over the same as he was with WWF in the late 80's. If they kept Hogan red and yellow and never added anything to his character it would of looked ridiculous next the edgy stuff WWF was doing in 97. They also sold a hell of lot more NWO t-shirts than they did Hulk stuff at Turner.
>>1165320
Pro wrestling doesn't conform to the typical pattern of good storytelling in other mediums because it's continuous story that goes on and develops over years. Reveral is key to good drama and very high-order character reversal is necessary to keep something like wrestling fresh. You are clueless bro.
>>1165328
Do you have any evidence?
>>1165330
>>1165332
It's called a work
>"I'm angry at the audience because I'm a bad guy!" -- every heel ever.
>>1165333
No, but somehow I doubt you were at the time.
Which is why I said earlier, had Hogan RETIRED in 1995, not went to NWO, he'd be remembered today as the ultimate babyface. And why I said Sting would have been a better option for the 3rd man spot.
There's no reason for Hogan to be heel or for WCW to make him heel. That's why WCW floundered. You can't keep turning your babyfaces heel
>>1165261
Thunder in Paradise would like to have a word with you.
>>1165346
There's a reason television and story telling tropes exist. They've existed since the ancient Greeks wrote their poems.
Wrestling isn't any different. Bad guys, good guys, certain roles, etc.
For example, Big Show plays the same role of invincible giant every Rumble. It exist for a reason.
It's called story telling
Bro.
>>1165348
>it's called a work
Yeah, WCW had every crowd who booed him before the turn in on it
If you genuinely think Hogan's heel turn was bad business then I have no idea what to say.
>>1165348
He wouldn't mention the terrible reception if it didn't exist. Plus it was a WWF invasion angle, nWo would get cheered in Boston and the Northeast.
He's still remembered as the ultimate face anyways.
The only stupid thing they did with heel turns was having Sting and Luger join the nWo (even though the Wolfpack were more faces by that point).
>>1165250
Why do you think that? I made no comment about that at all. What a weird assumption.
Hogan had grown samey, just like he had in WWF. But this time he had no new territory to take his babyface role to. Someone like Hogan only really has one proper heel turn open to him in a career as a hero. He was the right age to do it then.
The "Mark" comment was aimed at the idea that a creative storyline decision is gonna be responsible for the real world company folding. It just ain't. You can recover from any single angle.
WCW went under from self-destructive back room politics, the lost ratings war, and the damaged company image. It meant they would be forever stuck signing the 2nd rung wrestlers.
>>1165364
How's WCW's business doing nowadays?
>>1165365
Once Cena retires, Hogan goes to second place.
I agree.Sting should have never joined NWO. If he did, it should have been Hogan's spot
>>1165367
>storyline gonna be responsible for the real world company folding. It just ain't.
I seem to recall #cancelwwenetwork last year.
On any other thread, people say that WWE's crappy story lines are Ruining them. Odd that you the opposite
>>1165353
Ancient Greeks didn't have weekly shows that continued stories with a set roster of characters over hundreds of hours and decades of runtime.
You are clueless.
>>1165383
>its weekly so the elements of a story don't apply to them
Authority = bad guy
Reigns = good guy
Wow. I just broke it down for you. Now you understand how story telling works!
It's almost like you're clueless.
>>1165275
>Vince Russo honestly believe that attempting a Montreal Screwjob 2.0 would be good in the eyes of fans
He is such a mess.
>>1165387
And basic storytelling is a good guy sometimes becomes a bad guy through his actions. There are thousands of stories of people gaining power and becoming jaded or corrupted
>>1165390
Every story follows the basic tropes. I don't know how to explain it better. Maybe your brain just can't comprehend that? I honesty don't know.
If a story doesn't follow basic story structure, then it's not a story.
>There are thousands of stories of people gaining power and becoming jaded or corrupted
And if they are the hero they ultimately find redemption. That's called a comedy.
If the not, it's called a tragedy and generally no one likes when tragedies happen.
HMM
>>1165394
The story was that the nWo was invading from Up North in the WWF and wanted to put WCW out of business, (and that actually did pay off I guess). And the redemption would be Hogan becoming a face again, which you already said wouldn't work, so I don't know wtf you're talking about
>>1165382
In the month following #cancelwwenetwork, wwe share price went up about 60%.
This kind of confirms my point that creative decisions can have some affect on the APPEARANCE of company health. But in hard cash terms, it's a lesser consideration.
>>1165394
No one likes tragedy?
Fuck, better get rid of all this Aeschylus and Sophocles and Shakespeare and Goethe und Schiller I've got fucking up my book shelves.
>>1165201
>Who was the face of WCW circa 1999-2002?
>2002
>>1165348
>No, but somehow I doubt you were at the time
I was watching, I was 12 at the time. The angle was WWF guys invading WCW and taking over the company so it worked better with Hogan, Sting was Mr WCW babyface not Hogan, Hogan addresses it in the promo:
>I did everything for the charities, I did everything for the kids. And the reception I got when I came out here? You fans can stick it brother!
>>1164250
it was bad but no where near as pitiful as how the awa went out
https://youtu.be/qa2LbYdVBpo
>>1165382
>How's WCW's business doing nowadays
They actually still exist, fun fact, Time Warner still owns a wrestling organisation - not called WCW though.
But anyway, thinking an angle in 1996 lead to a company going out of business in 2001 is fucking retarded.
>>1165456
>Empty Arena Turkey on a pole match
>Slaughter quits halfway through to go to WWF
I hope Vince experiences this one day.
>>1165394
>And if they are the hero they ultimately find redemption. That's called a comedy.
>If the not, it's called a tragedy and generally no one likes when tragedies happen.
Yeah, those stories also have endings.
Wrestling literally doesn't. Even WCW dying wasn't an ending.
>>1164289
As someone who watched WCW 2000 as it happened too, I'd gladly relive watching that entire year live than sit through WWE's current product.
2015 WWE was arguably the worst wrestling product I've ever seen. I've never been so bored out of my mind watching wrestling.
WWE's last truly enjoyable year was 2012, which in a lot of ways mirrored WCW 2000 is absurdity of booking.
>>1164261
>>1164289
This debate has come up before. To put it simply:
WCW c.2000 was more entertaining, but very stupid. Things like Arquette and X-on-a-pole matches were pretty insulting to the business and were just s-m-h matches, but they got people talking. It was shock value. It failed, but it was a spectacular failure that we still remember.
>Better to be remembered for how much you suck than to be forgotten
That being said, WWE today hasn't "sunk that low." It's still professional wrestling, it's just written terribly from a business standpoint and nobody wants to see it. Things like burying new talent/their finishers and having part-timers beat down hot full-time talent are just ridiculous. But it's not as stupid and gimmicky as WCW
tl;dr exciting faggotry vs boring garbage
>>1165521
>the guy who actually liked WM9
literally why?
>>1165389
Screwjob 2.0 was taking the belt from Hogan after he left the building
>>1164261
I doubt you were even alive in 2000. WCW in its last year was fucking GARBAGE.
>>1165522
Why the name, or why did I like it? I've talked about it in other threads, defending it.
Wrestlemania used to be a culmination of feuds. One gigantic set of blowoffs that had developed over the past year; Hogan/T vs. Piper, Andre vs. Hogan, Macho Man and Elizabeth reuniting, etc. Not just in the main event, but down the card as well.
Today, Wrestlemania is about having "big" matches that draw people in, and are built up over the past month or two, and that's it. Taker wrestles once a year, the Rock appears once a year, Bork appears every couple months. The Shane-Taker angle was poorly developed over a month. The IC title match was built over a couple weeks. Dean-Bork was built a bit more than a month.
Even the long-term feuds weren't blowoffs. I don't see the 3 Horsewomen or the Roman problem going away. There certainly wasn't any closure there.
Personally, I like Wrestlemanias that are the culmination of feuds. WM9 had that. I went back and watched all the Raws in order, watching the PPVs as they came up, and I thought WM9 was a good culmination of what had been building. If you didn't watch those weekly shows, then yes, it's not as good of a wrestlemania (and even I'm not saying it's one of the best - just that it wasn't one of the worst; it was ok)
>>1165535
Actually it really wasn't. A lot of new stars were built. When Ace got on the booking team, the company was making a huge turnaround by promoting younger talent.
NBT was a clear example of that. SuperBrawl 2001 is one of WCW's best PPVs ever. If they kept going, WCW would have recovered from the ratings drop within a year or two.
>>1165548
You could say that about all the old Manias though. And bot sure how Hogan coming out at the end to win the belt was culminating anything
>>1164250
TNA in 2016
>>1165549
>attendance: 4,395
>>1165553
>how Hogan coming out at the end to win the belt was culminating anything
The Bret-Yokozuna was the culmination of their feud (and of Yokozuna's rise). For his size, he was a decent wrestler. They'd really built up the Banzai Drop as a serious move, and Mr. Fuji was a great heel manager.
Hogan coming out at the end is basically the same thing as a new feud starting the next night on Raw, like happens every year. They just put it at the end of the main event, rather than doing it the next night. I think it was stupid to give Hogan the title, but the actual Bret-Yoko match was good enough.
>Again, I'm not saying it was great, just that it was ok enough for me to like it
>>1165521
Found the AJ mark.
>>1165548
fair enough, I just think of the hogan shit and the giant gonzalez match when I think WM9
>>1165561
>liking WM9
>>1164358
>of course nobody got over
Then it didn't fucking work. Do you not understand how wrestling works?
>>1165949
It's Russo.
>>1165601
I actually don't care for AJ. I didn't know him on the indies (not into Japan, and have seen little ROH/TNA - and that's mainly inspired by Main Event Mafia).
He's come into WWE on a rocket, and hasn't really done anything to improve himself - other than having Jericho shill on the Mark-Henry-for-Romaine level
>>1165629
the Gonzalez thing looks pretty stupid, but you have to look at the context. It was almost a Deano-Bork situation, where Undertaker just wouldn't stay down. As bigger and meaner as Gonzalez was, he couldn't keep Taker down, so he finally resorted to chloroform, and that kept him down. The fur-crotch outfit gets a bad rep, but when you had the likes of Bastion Booger/The Monk, Adam Bomb, Doink, The Repo Man... the fur outfit doesn't seem so ridiculous.
>>1165184
>WCW stars show up in WWF
>they are instantly buried by Triple H
>the one guy they don't ends up doing murder suicide
>>1166048
>I don't know who Chris Jericho is
>>1166037
>shit talking Doink
Why?
>>1166048
>Eddie Guerrero
>Rey Mysterio
>Chris Jericho
>Booker t (He won the world title)
>>1166048
big point here:
If they came before WWF bought WCW, they became stars
(Radicalz, Jericho, Mysterio, Big Show-ish, Foley, Austin, Undertaker, etc.)
If they came after the buyout, they almost all got buried. Booker T is really the only non-wwf-legend (Flair, Hogan, Hall, Nash) that was part of WCW at the time and ended up having any long-term success. Many ended up being buried by Trips himself.
>>1165320
Your general rule is bullshit and has been proven wrong in thousands of great works in all types of mediums with face-heel turns. Now, if your argument that a story is ultimately successful when a face-heel turn becomes a face-heel-face turn, I could maybe agree with you, but the idead that an ultimate face-heel turn can't be successful is pure bullshit. Fuck, look at Breaking Bad, haha. Ultimate Reed Richards? Black Suit Spidey? It's all about the execution, mang.
>>1164916
>WWF in 2000 was so bad
Please have sex
