I'm rewatching Nitro and I'm up to late 1997, it's hilarious how smug Bischoff was about getting Bret Hart only to do nothing with himDid he ever actually have any plans for Bret?
>>16277921>Did he ever actually have any plans for Bret?Doubt, Bischoff was basically making shit up as he went along. He bought Bret because he knew he was red hot. Even if Bischoff had actual plans, his boyfriend Hogan would squash them.
>>16277921Nash and Hall hated Bret. Hulk didn't like competition. Dude was screwed from the start.
>>16277921where you watching it? been wanting to do an old school watch thru
>>16277949Nash liked Bret. Hall thought Bret was a narcissist
>>16279161I'm using watchwrestlingup
Blaming Bisch for Bret's unprofessionalism and failure to get over in WCW is pathetic KEKnadian revisionism. Bret would show up for big events 20 minutes before his matches.
>>16280131Sup, Eric?
He did plenty with Bret. The problem is, Bret sucks and is an anti-draw
>>16277943>He bought Bret because he knew he was red hothe was nothing without stone cold and it showed. you was a total afterthought in wcw
>>16281186this. Shawn and Austin carried Bred
>>16277921>Did he ever actually have any plans for Bret?Outside of poach him from Vince, no. This is the same company that paid KISS $500,000 to perform one song. That should tell you everything.
>>16277921>Did he ever actually have any plans for Bret?That's the thing he might have but between everyone else's ego clashing and creative control clauses he was fuckedBesides, it was never gonna stop being the Hogan and NWO show. It never did, really.
>>16277921Just too many moving pieces. How do you put Sting over, debut the literal previous WWF champion and sow the seeds of discontent in the NWO and not fuck it up? I kinda hate faction based storytelling, man.
>>16279171I wonder why he would think that?
Stink should have pinned Hogan clean for the belt, nWo fucks off, and Bret comes in to feud with Sting. >but babyface vs. babyface They could have made it work if they weren't complete retards.
>>16281028Good, you?