|
Who SHOULD take over after Vince? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google Boomarks Google Buzz MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
badguy 
Hall of Famer 
Hall Of Fame 2010 Joined: 09/November/2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Online Posts: 11562 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Who SHOULD take over after Vince?Posted: 16/July/2010 at 14:23 |
|
|
Shane I think IMO would have brought in a more edgier product, because it was Shane who wanted to bring in ECW to the WWE (just not the shitty version that WWE had offered). So yeah I think Shane wouldve no doubt brought in MORE of an attitude to WWE rather than the family friendly crap Vince is doing now days.
|
||
Premiers: (VFA) 1902, 1905, (VFL/AFL) 1920, 1921, 1932, 1934, 1943, 1967, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1980 |
||
 |
||
|
MissCorrieHardy
OVW 
Joined: 02/July/2010 Location: Scotland Online Status: Offline Posts: 103 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 17/July/2010 at 11:10 |
|
|
Vince has really ruined the WWE, I mean WWE is still good, but not as good as it should be.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
Kondor
Wrestlemania 
Joined: 02/June/2010 Location: Right here Online Status: Online Posts: 444 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 17/July/2010 at 14:10 |
|
Then it's truly a case of Vince destroying his own creation (as was the storyline from when he brought in the nWo 8 years ago,  ). Vince made the WWF all that it has been since 1982; and I say he's still done tons more good for the company since then than harm he's done in recent months. I myself would rather watch WWF wrestling from 1982 than 2010; but I'm an old school fan. But on the same end, if it weren't for Vince, I think it's a safe bet the WWF wouldn't be even important enough for us to talk about being "ruined" nor speculate on who will take over at all. And the company might not exist today. |
||
 |
||
|
||
|
John The Baptist
PB Members 
Joined: 26/August/2008 Location: West Mids Online Status: Offline Posts: 3931 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18/July/2010 at 01:15 |
|
|
I no way at all is Vince responsible for WWE's downfall.
Looking at all the things hes had to deal with, including - * the WWF to WWE name change * mass exodus of huge stars like Rock, Austin, Hogan and Goldberg * Benoit and Eddie dying while still on the roster * millions of Attitude era fans turning away because they got older it isnt a huge surprise that the WWE has sunk. BTW, Shane has very little creative experience to warrant taking over. |
||
|
||
|
||
|
MariaS
Hall of Famer
Hall Of Fame 2010 Joined: 26/April/2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 6063 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18/July/2010 at 01:51 |
|
|
it's comical to say that Vince has ruined the WWE. They are absolutely rolling in the money. Even with all the crap they have had to endure over the past few years, they still continue to draw in crowds and make millions. I'd like to have such a problem.
If people have such a problem with the WWE, they can do like others and stop watching. I did it for a while. It's not that hard to do. |
||
 |
||
|
||
|
badguy
Hall of Famer
Hall Of Fame 2010 Joined: 09/November/2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Online Posts: 11562 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18/July/2010 at 02:58 |
|
|
Vince never ruined WWE, its just the whole business has changed. If it wasnt for Vince and the WWE (or WWF back then), there is a BIG chance that wrestling as a whole wouldn't have been as popular as it is now.Vince also gave us a HELLUVA lot of good television back in the day whether if it was during the Hulkamania Era, the New Generation Era, the Attitude Era, the whatever you wanna call it era and this era, Vince has done a LOT for this business. Yes we've had a fair few shit storylines or gimmicks over the years, but the good outweighs the bad.
|
||
|
Premiers: (VFA) 1902, 1905, (VFL/AFL) 1920, 1921, 1932, 1934, 1943, 1967, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1980 |
||
|
||
|
MissCorrieHardy
OVW
Joined: 02/July/2010 Location: Scotland Online Status: Offline Posts: 103 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 18/July/2010 at 11:50 |
|
|
Yes true, good does outweigh the bad but I still think WWE has the potential to be as good as it's always been because the superstars are good, all you need are the good storylines.
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Kondor
Wrestlemania
Joined: 02/June/2010 Location: Right here Online Status: Online Posts: 444 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20/July/2010 at 11:33 |
|
He has more than Vince Jr. did in 1982. But my choice at the moment is still Steph. |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
badguy
Hall of Famer
Hall Of Fame 2010 Joined: 09/November/2006 Location: Australia Online Status: Online Posts: 11562 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20/July/2010 at 13:10 |
|
I think IMO the storylines are good, its just the interest in the business now, as time goes on and being a fan for 20 years you seem to get distant from it after awhile, after you see so much of the one thing, even if it changes in time, it just gets more boring and more distant, like a relationship with say a partner... At the start you're only getting to know that person, then you fall in love and then from there it tends to go up hill, then hit a slump, wrestling is the same.
I think the storylines are fine, its just the interest has dropped from older fans.
|
||
|
Premiers: (VFA) 1902, 1905, (VFL/AFL) 1920, 1921, 1932, 1934, 1943, 1967, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1980 |
||
|
||
|
MissCorrieHardy
OVW
Joined: 02/July/2010 Location: Scotland Online Status: Offline Posts: 103 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 20/July/2010 at 13:29 |
|
Thats is very true. |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
