Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara created the greatest wrestling era ever, hands down. Jim Cornette and the smarks can gtfo, the guy is a decent booker and pundit but lacks any real creativity.
>>19424896He helped light the spark and deserves more credit for some of his legitimate innovations and ideas, but I agree with the assessment that he ultimately throws too much shit at the wall and never lets it stick.
>>19424915i used to think that also, i bought into the russo filter myth, but after researching it i discovered he was 100% the main driver behind the attitude era.Him and Ferrara wrote 99% of it, (people really underestimate just how much writing that is) and Vince McMahon didnt filter them at all, he gave them near total creative control.He couldnt replicate his success in WCW because the practices and standards committee blocked 90% of his material (Kevin Nash made this very clear in an interview).If you had to hone down where the magic came from in WWF in that era, its almost entirely the work of Russo and Ferrara. So the truth is the opposite of the myth propagated by Jim Cornette (who threatened to have him murdered, causing Russo to get a protection order).
>>19425043Is it wrong to put faith in Russo? I need him to save wrestling.
>>19425043Jim's truth has him screaming all his co-workers into backing down because they're idiots who are ruining everything. However, going the complete opposite is just buying into Russo's narrative, and he's got a very distorted view of wrestling and what it is. Imo.
>>19424896He's the Stern of pro wrestling. That was his main influence and he channeled the spirit of Howard very well if nothing else. Knew how to pop a rating with mean-spirited shock humor and could come up with a memorably wacky character here and there. Whether it was funny or cringe, it was very "of its time" and that's why it was briefly uber-successful.Once the tides were starting to change, he just didn't have the special sauce anymore and that's fine (or would have been if he got the hint and fucked off earlier). They say most wrestling bookers only have a good 3-5 years in them, you need to cycle people in and out to keep things fresh like Memphis did. Chris Kreski was perfect for 1999-2000, Heyman was perfect for 2002-2003 SmackDown, Russo had his day in the sun.
>>19425043I'm not a fan of much of his WCW work (although he did make the show 10x more interesting when he came in. mid-late 99 WCW was seriously boring), but his writing was a perfect fit for WWF and the WWF cast of characters. I don't know why people can't just give him credit for his work in WWF without having to headcanon it as "all the good stuff was McMahon". Vince McMahon wasn't paying him to be the writer for nothing. His job was literally to write the shows.https://youtu.be/G44ClhRVUfc?si=noOeanuBTFqVaGkpThis segment has Russo written all over it. He was a perfect fit for WWF at the time and obviously Austin was the perfect character to carry out his wacky storylines
>>19424896Russo caught lightning in a bottle and used it to elevate the company in the 90s. He drew dimes, no doubt. He deserves all that credit. But I would pump the brakes on calling him a genius, or the best of anything. WCW and TNA were busts, but you could chalk that up to backstage interference. I'm liking what I'm seeing from him with JCW, but I'm wary to declare anything about him until I see him recreate that success without riding off the larger Gen X culture wave.
>>19425106I actually think TNA was very solid. People don't realise he was there for all of the 2000s (excluding 05 I think). I thought TNA was very entertaining around that time and had a great mix of things for everyone on the show. I was a big fan
>>19424896Not even the spielbergo
Theres an entire raft of myths propagated by the existing wrestling establishment against Russo, and the attitude era and ra in general (not always overtly hostile but designed to undermine his legacy and more specifically blackball any attempts to replicate the format)I had considered writing a small article on this, entitled THE SMARKS AND THEIR LIES (keep an eye out for future posts)Needless to say one of them (repeated above), is the idea that the format was ''of its time'', and its success was conditional upon the media of that specific era. This ties into the argument that it was failing, and that WWF needed to reformat When (and this can be proven by looking in detail and at the stats) it was doing well, and the decline in ratings was proportional to the product being watered down.
>>19425333I agree, wrestling died because corporate faggots killed all the crazy shit that people liked.
>>19425365No one liked those bra and panties matches
The claim that Russo's Attitude Era format "failed" is revisionist history. The stats prove his format made WWE a pop culture phenomenon, and the ratings only tanked after they moved away from his model. The format wasn't the cause of the decline; the watering down of the product was.Here is the hard data:Russo Era Peak (1997-1999): Russo takes over creative, ratings surge past WCW. The product hits its all-time high of a massive 8.1 Nielsen rating in May 1999, regularly pulling 6-8 million viewers with TV-14 content. Conclusion: The format was a colossal success. Russo Leaves (Oct 1999): He leaves for WCW due to work disputes, not failure. WWF continues using is model under Chris Kreski who is also a great writer (but he learned from Russo and was using the same system for RA era) The Real Decline (Post-2008 PG Shift): The company officially moves to a family-friendly, TV-PG product years later to chase Mattel/corporate money. This is when the audience left. 2008 Average Rating: 3.27 2016 Average Rating: 2.28 Today: A fraction of the peak audience.The core fallacy is confusing the peak of the format with the eventual corporate shift that killed the viewership years later. The format worked perfectly; the business model changed and sacrificed ratings, but also money in the long run. They have high overall profits on paper now...but the company is dead (like how Michael Jackson makes higher profits now than when he was alive).Had they retained the older formats profits would be far far higher, WWE would be more like the NFL - and getting deals was never a problem.
>>19425388oh hey old wolfie pastas, those bring back memories
>>19424896Nah Haitch and Vince drew more more money without him and WWE is the most successful wrestling company of all time
Also...the PG shift wasn't really a PG shift, the attitude era was all PG....it was a PC shift. Theres nothing they did then that they couldnt do today. WWE is currently a disaster of a company (despite ''record profits'' - the MJ analogy is perfect). No company that looses 87% of its market share can be called a success. Its definitely a failure of a company, at least relative to what it was and where it should be. Reversion to a more traditional wrestling model is the reason. History turned in the smarks favor and WWE is now just like TNA, AEW and all the other indie wrestling companies.Its no longer really entertainment media, its just wrestling (with some awfully written scripts). Its everything the smarks ever wanted. Its how Bret Heart can say with a straight face ''yea the modern scene is great aye...some amazing talent and such great matches''. Because thats what they want, plain old wrestling - no drama, no comedy.
>>19425459>makes more money than they ever have>disasterLmfao you smarks are a trip man
>>19425472Is michael jackson creating profitable material today ? Hes making more money than when he was alive but hes dead. Exact same with WWE, its a zombie company, nobodies watching it anymore, lost 87% of market share - it sucks. But high profits from nostalgia driven merch sales (W2K25 was around 3-400 dollars a pop with all DLC), royalties ect.
like watch this....absolute masterclass in how to be a heelhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2PHCGCT41IThis is Russo
>>19425472my take is that besides the number of toys they sold it resulted in a less interesting and more sanitised product
>>19425516Drawing dimes is called drawing dimes. It's not called drawing phantom money. The measure of success is how many dimes you draw, not how many you "could". Haitch has drawn more than anyone else
>>19425459bret hart doesn't like modern stuff, he says AEW is phony and unsafe like that bastard bill goldberg, gunther is too stiff and unsafe like that bastard bill goldberg, and he has no idea who iyo sky is but he'd probably say she wrestles like bill goldberg
>>19425536No, making profit on the laurels of past success is not an indication of how successful the product is NOW (and its not successful, ratings are through the floor and they lost 87% of market share). Its an unmitigated disaster veiled as a success Again, Michael Jackson is dead. He makes higher profits now than when he was alive (because of what he did while alive - because now hes doing nothing)WWE is making money, largely off the era (and the people who created that era) that your denigrating, but the existing product is garbage The dimes your talking about are the residue from when it was a quality product and people actually watched it. And yes, it would make vastly more money now had it retained a larger audience
>>19425536Nah, Haitch has been a 'featured match' in an awful lot of PPVs, when it's averaged as you might expect the actual legends were the guys who sold ludicrous amounts of buys.They weren't always monthly back then too. You have to put the numbers in contextHaitch isn't a shitter that never sold a ticket or anything however, with the right foil he's fantastic.
>but they wouldnt be able to get deals had they retained attitude styleFirst, attitude was within pg13. Second, if adult cartoons like South Park can secure multimillion dollar streaming deals with large companies it would be no issue (esp for WWE which we can project would have had an immense audience). There are a raft of other smark myths/lies that im not even addressing in this thread. You could write an actual book refuting the smarks and their lies.
>>19425633smackdown was always pg. the wrestlers and the writing just became total ass as the years progressed and vince (mcmahon) had no idea what he was doing. ruthless aggression was like a boring parody of the attitude era made by people who didn't really understand it
>>19425043So if you’re basing this entire thing on something Nash threw out on a podcast (that 90% of Russo’s ideas didn’t make it through S&P) can I ask you a serious question? Why would you assume that 90 percent of those ideas would have been any good? Seriously. Don’t you think that’s very convenient that all his good ideas got veto’d? So 10 percent of his ideas did make it through right? Presumably that’s what made it to air? You know those ideas were hot dogshit and some of the worst wrestling TV ever that killed a fucking entire brand that ran wrestling on those channels for 2 decades. In 2 years they were tits up out of business and sold for pennies on the dollar. You know what Standards & Practices does right? They don’t give a fuck about wrestling or care what is “good” or “bad” they are there to make sure everything is FCC compliant. That’s it. They didn’t have it out for the guy. They didn’t want him to fail. What that means is that 90 percent of Russo’s ideas would have possibly triggered beef with the FCC. Usually that means Sex and language. Not even violence. It has to be Hellraiser tier violence or hot button stuff like terrorism and religious violence for them to care. They almost exclusively care about decency (sex and language). Please explain what this awesome shot down 90 percent of ideas that could have saved WCW would have looked like. I have an idea, You know what it almost assuredly would have looked like? The S.ports E.tertainment E.xtreme Era of TNA. I gotta tell you, almost no one looks back fondly on that. Even if you personally enjoyed it, it sure didn’t pop a rating.
>>19425600>no those dimes don't count because *autistic smark schizobabble*Kek>>19425604His booking produced money the industry has never seen. Cry about it
>>19425661Chris Kreski was a great writer aswel. He was working off Russos model tho. He took what worked and ran with it, adding his own spin. RA was decent to very good. Only a slight dip in ratings during RA, but then it was a softer version of attitude. But instead of going back to what worked they went in the opposite direction and watered it down ever more.
>>19425600Couldn’t you extend that and say that the Attitude Era only made money off the success of the Rock & Wrestling Era and Hulkamania? Or that era was built on the back of Bruno? Why is it that somehow nothing mattered before or after the Attitude Era? That somehow that’s the stuff people liked and only that and nothing else drew money or is truly a success. It’s kind of a baffling proposition that only seems to be made by people of a certain age or people who cast their lot for whatever reason with an old TV writer from that era.None of this shit is provable by the way. It’s all feeling based. You can look at numbers and extrapolate any story you want to fit a narrative. I can pull streaming and social media views that prove the Attitude Era is absolutely irrelevant. I don’t believe that but I could do it. The touchstone moments of the AE have been online for almost 2 decades and the views are hovering at mostly in the 10 millions. Something like Foley getting tossed off the cage is an unforgettable AE moment. But there are random Roman Reigns matches from 5 years ago that have 250 Million views. That is generating money right now, ad revenue and views. If people only care about the Attitude Era shouldn’t that be the top draw and earner across all platforms? It’s only a click away and yo can access it.>>19425089This guy gets it. He’s the Stern of wrestling. Very of his time. Did good business for a hot second. Very of its time and place and not really worth going back to or basing the future off of.
No we can infer actual facts from the stats. The attitude era was distinct in the sheer velocity of success it caused re ratings ect. It very clearly stems from the unique format introduced by Russo. The stories and characters of the shows at that time where the primary drivers of revenue. Its not the same with modern WWE, because nobody is watching it (meaning allot of the profits are residual and from other factors).On your comparison with social media views. First, the viewing stats from that era are allot more reliable for various reasons. I strongly suspect WWE uses bots to inflate views on social media platforms ect. Because the actual viewership is through the floor. Just look at the tiny venues they use now for shows. And yes AE was massively successful at the time, but people have already seen it. When compared properly tho it does absolutely blow the modern product out of the water. You also need to factor in per head population viewership if your doing serious comparative metrics.In 1999, the peak viewership represented approximately 2.85% of the total US population. In contrast, recent viewership numbers represent only about 0.4% to 0.67% of the current, larger US population.>He’s the Stern of wrestling. Very of his time. Did good business for a hot second. Very of its time and place and not really worth going back to or basing the future off of.Typical smark. To reduce Russo to a stern tier shockjock is to overlook the depth and quality of his writing. Aside from the comedy, which was brilliant, the stories had actual depth (the acting and delivery was on par with successful tv dramas or movies). Likewise, this myth that the appetite for edgy comedy evaporated in the early to mid 00s is demonstratively false. South Park and Family Guy are key examples (there are many others). Very successful, obtained all the high value streaming deals that smark mythology says wrestling wouldn't have been able to obtain
>>19426071Bro no one is reading all this smark bullshit try reddit
>The touchstone moments of the AE have been online for almost 2 decades and the views are hovering at mostly in the 10 millions. Something like Foley getting tossed off the cage is an unforgettable AE moment. But there are random Roman Reigns matches from 5 years ago that have 250 Million views. That is generating money right now, ad revenue and views.View Inflation & Manipulation: WWE is frequently artificially inflates YouTube views. They achieve this by strategically editing and re-uploading content, using deceptive thumbnails, and aggressively utilizing the YouTube algorithm to push their current product. Views are often based on short, shareable clips rather than long-form engagement.False Equivalence of Metrics: The Attitude Era had genuine, organic mass market dominance measured by consistent Nielsen TV ratings for live viewing. It achieved a peak of 8.1 ratings and ~2.85% of the US population watching weekly.Decline in Real Viewership: The modern, watered-down PG product has seen an 80%+ decline in this core linear TV metric, now reaching only ~0.4%–0.67% of the US population.Conclusion: YouTube views are a manipulated metric designed to drive ad revenue and create an illusion of popularity, while the hard stats (linear TV ratings) prove the edgier Attitude Era format was genuinely far more popular and culturally dominant.
prospective and existing investors in WWE will find it as the sweep the internet for such discussionswhich is why WWE shills are on here pushing their mythology
>>19424896Cocksucker
The Debunking of Streaming Numbers "Views" vs. "Viewers": Netflix uses a "Views" metric, calculated by taking the total hours viewed for a program and dividing it by the runtime. This number is an approximation of an average audience (similar to AMA), but it's not a direct, independently audited count of unique individuals watching from start to finish, as Nielsen attempted to track.The "Blended Views" Methodology: Netflix uses a "Blended Views" approach for live and on-demand viewing, which is less transparent than traditional Nielsen ratings. The exact methodology and how much time a person actually spends watching the content are proprietary to the streaming service, allowing for a narrative of success without full transparency.The Clip Culture Argument: The massive YouTube views (100 billion+) are often snippets designed for quick social media consumption. An argument against their validity as a measure of a dedicated fanbase is that people watch a 30-second RKO, not the full 3-hour Raw show. This does not equate to the full-show, "appointment viewing" dedication of the Attitude Era fan.How the Inflation is "Most Likely" DoneThe most likely methods used to create an illusionStrategic Content Clipping & Uploading: Constantly uploading short, viral clips to YouTube to game the algorithm, generating billions of superficial views that do not represent full-show engagement. Selective Metric Reporting: Netflix releases the most favorable metric ("global views" over seven days) rather than raw live US household numbers, creating a more positive headline. Revenue vs. Popularity Equivalence: Shifting the narrative from "ratings" (which are low) to "revenue" and the value of media rights deals, suggesting that financial success equals mainstream popularity, even if the underlying viewership has fragmented or declined
>>19430065Hi pepe, wanna take a ride with us?Chip wanna control it?Let me light the candle
Also even if you take those streaming stats, which i think are sketchy af....obviously inflated - still much lower popularity than when you adjust the stats for population increase.but even taking it at face value. WWE is still a disaster and a terrible product. Look at The Simpsons...still making money, but is there any debate that its abject garbage and died a long long time ago ?because the show was dumbed down so they could sell more merch to young children and woman, and so the show would appeal to people who dont speak english
so The Simpsons. Now it can sell tons of merch in Zambia and Cambodia. Now toddlers, woman and people who dont speak english can laugh at it. and to this they needed to downgrade it. The sharp edgy satirical humor that created it was abandoned and deliberately
but the Simpsons still makes moneySo is it a success ? I dont think soIt WAS a success, and would be even more financially successful had they continued making more high quality seasons
>>19425103>I don't know why people can't just give him credit for his work in WWFbecause everything he did was garbage. i was just reminded yesterday of the awful hawk jumping off the titan tron storyline. he hated wrestling and it showed. im too lazy but could someone list some of his 'best' ideas from the wwf and wcw
>>19425043>where the magic came from in WWF in that era, its almost entirely the work of Russo and Ferrara.But it wasn't good. Can't remember a damn thing about the attitude era but fondly remember the nWo story and undercard stories of Jericho, the flock, and DDP's rise. Only thing worth remembering in WWE during the time were their crazy matches. The rest was mindless, directionless, forgettable slop as always. Credit for the Rock corporate swerve, but like everything it was just done for the sake of being done, and pointless, and made no difference, like Austin being tied to an Undertaker symbol, Like yeah, for what? so what? who cares...It meant and did NOTHING
>>19431873>Austin being tied to an Undertaker symbolhe wasnt the only one. didnt he save steph when she was about to be crucified and then she eventually turned on him. the worst and i mean THE WORST was when the undertaker and paul bearer took austin to their actual funeral home and were going to embalm him alive. i felt so stupid and embarrassed watching that lame shit because it was so fucking fake
who is this reddit spacing dork thats playing defense for some guy hes never met that contributed to something he liked over 25 years ago and has done fuck all since?
>>19431885everything the Undertaker ever did was cringe, and ALL of his matches sucked. It's amazing that loser gets respect in the locker room for being a stooge and a reckless worker who ended multiple careers
>>19431873COMPARED TO FUCKING WHAT ? there is nothing to compare it to. Current era WWE ? AEW ? TNA ? All absolute dirt compared to attitude era (and a lesser extent RA). Sure WWF prior had some good writers, but it moving towards an entertainment model, which Russo ultimately mastered. Russo, Ed Ferrara, with some assistance from Vince McMahon. Brian Gewirtz also a decent writer, altho he was working off Russos model. This is another thing people dont understand....if your a fan of the RA era, that was pretty much based on Russos model. The sheer impact this guy had cannot be understated He definitely created the best ever period in WWF/WWE. Almost all of it (he wrote virtually every show and segment in detail). Its not hard to see why the internet wrestling pundit establishment absolutely despise the guy with a passion....its because he single handedly proved them all wrong and created something far superior to old school rasslin shows. They tried to stop him, arguing it could never work, but he proved them wrong. This is why they hate him, and its also why they spend in an inordinate amount of time propagating a mythology that says it cant be done again.They no longer deny his success, they (the people who said it would never work) now spend all their efforts arguing that ''it was of its time'', and cant be replicated now (meanwhile they all support the niche quasi indie tier modern scene....which has no real popular appeal).
>>19424896Vince Russo and Ed ferrara laid the foundation and they're the 2nd best but whoever was the writers during the RA era were slightly better in my estimation king.
haley j on a forklift match when?
>>19433261Compared to what? I literally said. WCW was the pinnacle of the business. WWE helped usher in the demise, when it was already helping the first time before Hogan's turn, which was powerful enough to revitalize the entire industry and support TWO companies. You dont have to repeat yourself about Russo. We get it. You think his stuff is great and he's responsible for the "success" of the Attitude Era. You are empathically wrong and Vince Russo himself proves it. He turned WCW into a shit show, by basically rehashing WWE in WCW, with him in charge, just like when he was in WWE and was rehashing everything WCW and ECW were doing. And just like when WWE does their rehashing, they strip it of any subtly, nuance, or proper context. It sucked. Sure, it had its moment, but that's all WWE is. Moments. But that's what their aim is. That's their model, and it sucks. It works on retards, which they milk dry and it's easier for them. Asking for one cohesive coherent episode of RAW is WAR with some originality and continuity would be a FUCKING MIRACLE. It was always mess, a shit show, sprinkled in with toilet humor, LOTS OF GAY HUMOR, and lots of TNA, (Sable, Lita, Trish deserve more credit than Russo) and some fun matches. Russo gets the credit for killing Owen though.
>>19433436WCW was garbage. Just another rasslin company. I think fundamentally the issue here is between ''wrestling fans'' and people who want to be entertained. Im the later. I came to like wrestling because it was good entertainment, not the other way around. That said, even a good chunk of technical wrestling enthusiasts can understand that attitude (and ra which is basically proto attitude or attitude lite) where better experiences than plain old rasslin.Re WCW (always a hollow b grade show that took sloppy seconds from WWF) - Russo couldnt operate in it. Kevin Nash makes it clear in an interview that 90% of Russos material was blocked by standards and practices in WCW and so it was impossible for him to work there. This is verified by others aside from Russo.Re your inverted reality where shitty indie tier wrestling > quality entertainment media....it doesnt matter what you think. The numbers show attitude wins. Its more entertaining period.>it was all just toilet humor. Id argue it was very perceptive satire with numerous layers. It was higher quality comedy than what allot professional comedians where putting out. Also drama, the acting was legitimately as good as what youd see in the highest tier TV/Movies (another testament to what was done, ie converting athletes with no background in theater into actual actors).
The comedy was sheer brilliance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS77onMfxlghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2PHCGCT41Ihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrD5U0C6S-Mhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTxelTaoH1Uhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIRVxrNDvJshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrUzLdc-XPkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H7TnlA7lOk
>>19433669The fact that you have to harp on the same points over and over makes complete sense why WWE and the attitude era, would appeal to you, . >Oh you didn't know? Your ass betta call SOMEBODY!! times one thousand...You're definitely their target audience. And no. No one is talking about WCW pre-nWo days. The WWE guys who came in, made sure it wasnt some plain old rasslin show. Only a complete stupid edrone would think that.WWE was insane, pieced together, throw all kinds of shit towards the wall to see what sticks, while also stealing bits like the NOD parody copying the nWo 4 horseman parody here >>19433726It's all unoriginal, goofy, and a sloppy slop. WCW had an actual good two years of continuous kino that was most than just a goofball show for dimwits.
>>19433745Ok, show me genuinely entertaining moments from your wraslin, post a few links and wel compare themIl keep posting links of absolute quality from WWE (mostly scripted by the man Russo himself) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1gPpDSuRw0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwjACCd3k6k&t=169shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgABOyTJJUMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEPs5C7Vdcchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt_vZiidNnYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-c6wDFjQ8II could go on, and this is just the comedy.Go ahead tho, by all means, find me something in the garbage boring shitshow indie tier WCW (or any other pro wresteling company that comes even close in terms of raw entertainment)Go ahead
>>19433819You win by sheer dedication. I have no inclination to go to any lengths to change your mind. I state my points for anyone else who reads the topic and when they see you call PEAK WCW an indy show, I win them by default LOL
>>19433745Face it kid, WWE attitude era is hands down the most entertaining highest quality production of its kind, there is no contest, its not a debate and the numbers dont lie (ratings/actual fans at the time per head population). I could post links of absolute epic quality here non stop. I challenge you to find one link of anything even moderately entertaining from your wcw/aew/indie tier shithouse rasslin. You wont because it doesnt fucking existYou want to know why ? because if your not interested in plain rasslin there IS NOTHING OF INTEREST in those shows, which is why people dont watch them. Go ahead tho, find me some comparable moments from WCW or any of the others
OH YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE ATTITUDE ERA. THOUSANDS OF FANS, WATCHING EVERY MOMENT, EVERY MOVEMENT. THEN THE SOUND. IT ROSE, IT ROSE UP LIKE AS STORM. AS IF FROM THE THUNDER GOD HIMSELF https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amoypkTcKCIwatch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdyB1wIBqd8actual stadiums and the ground itself shook at those shows
>>19433838keep same posting. No one agrees. You're just another edrone
>>19434529https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSfDX8OaYdg
>>19425712Kreski's model in 2000 was absolutely nothing like what Russo was doing in 1999.
>>19435365Kreski 100% took Russos underlying framework and ran with it. I would say even surpassing Russo in many cases.But it was Russos model
>>19424896>Russo is the Spielberg of Pro Wrestling A Jew who hasn’t been of any relevance since 1998? Fucking nailed it OP
>>19435484Watch a Raw from 1999, then watch one from 2000. They are completely fucking different.
>>19435669Hardly
>>19435669It makes a big difference, the car crash style was toned down hard. Matches would happen and not go for 2 minutes and only involve chairshots and getting all your shit in lightning quick.
>>19435639Itallian Catholic
>>19435692Sure bro. He’s a Marrano. You know what a marrano is? Same thing as a chazzer bro. That’s a pig that don’t fly straight. You see how quick he flung his rosary beads and became a born again when he tried to work a fundie gimmick. That’s because he’s lighting the menorah in secret this time of year bro. Trust me bro, I know people that used to carpool with his family to make seder. 2 and a half hours in the left hand lane all the way to Monticello. He used to wear a leather cap at temple he thought he was a badass this one.
>>19435728>i saw him in a yamaka dude for realhes itallian brah, jews dont talk likethat dif vernacular.besides even if he was what ? jews have never made any entertaining media ?
Triple H and TKO will kill WWE finally WWE is not real Pro Wrestling WWE is a talking reality show
>>19435745Seems like Russo and his fellow Jews make the exact sort of entertainment you’re pining for. >Brother sister incest angles>worked mother son incest angles>choppy choppy pee pee>interracial sex angles (with the elderly and a known human trafficker for extra degeneracy)>everyone is a racial stereotype but played serious and not even for laughs most of the time>Samoan man in thong rubs booty on everyone’s face. Proceeds to dance>all women are middle aged and bogged beyond belief but presented as hot except for the 2 on steroids with the ginormous clit dicks>gay shit multiple times every Monday night>dude beer>dude weed>no one to actually root for because it’s obvious the show is fake (this would get 10 times worse when he had more control in his other jobs)
Spielberg did more than one good movie
>>19436129>aaaah the good ole Attitude Era *cracks Barqs* now that was some wrestling that could draw. I still remember the Nielson ratings like yesterday
>>19425043>Vince McMahon didnt filter them at all, he gave them near total creative controlImagine pretending to believe this. Vince McMahon, a control freak to such a degree that he hates sneezing, just handed everything over to a magazine writer. Bill Watts quit the WWF after 3 months because McMahon wouldn't stop micromanaging everything. Literally everyone who has ever worked there talks about him doing this. But not with Vince Russo? And, despite the fact that Russo was controlling "99%" of creative, McMahon allowed him to walk to the opposition in the middle of a wrestling war?
>>19436150OP wasn’t born during the AE and is going through it closely on Wikipedia and streaming. He’s huffing his own farts on his Russo theory and is hoping to work a substack out of this brilliant theory crafting he’s game planning here. Let me save you the trouble OP you’re shits all retarded.
Russo is actually the George Lucas of wrestling.
Why is there so much discussion about Russo, but almost none about Tommy Blacha who replaced him? His podcast about his time there is pretty interesting.
>>19436175It reminds me of Terrance Howard doing math
