Attitude Era Nostalgia

FeetMagic

EDIT: there ya go...

jeffk

free on sky sports And The fact its free and not on ppv might show you how sky rate the ppv in general!!

jeffk

jeffk wrote: »

free on sky sports And The fact its free and not on ppv might show you how sky rate the ppv in general!!

What the?

Why aren't you at AWR? I'd have thought you'd have went along to it tonight?

jeffk

Deleted User wrote: »

What the?

Why aren't you at AWR? I'd have thought you'd have went along to it tonight?

Why me?Because im an ecw mark and sabus there?

CMpunked

Ok not to sound like a smart ass. but there is already a cyber sunday thread.

And some PPVs that have been free have actually turned out ok.

jeffk wrote: »

Why me?Because im an ecw mark and sabus there?

Yeah jeff, im confused?

jeffk

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

Ok not to sound like a smart ass. but there is already a cyber sunday thread.

And some PPVs that have been free have actually turned out ok.

yeah back when sky wherent smart and gave away big fours for free

jeffk

jeffk wrote: »

Why me?Because im an ecw mark and sabus there?

Well.. yeah.

That, and you like wrestling in general, and Brets appearing, too.

jeffk

Deleted User wrote: »

Well.. yeah.

That, and you like wrestling in general, and Brets appearing, too.

Ah i knew sabus broken down and assumed a no show or four was likely.
Not a big bret mark either, anyways enough of topic lol

RebelRockChick

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

Ok not to sound like a smart ass. but there is already a cyber sunday thread.

I suppose when it's gone back a few pages on the forum, but anyway, click.

Reminder that it is starting at midnight, as opposed to the usual time of 1am and it's on sky sports 2.

CMpunked

jeffk wrote: »

yeah back when sky wherent smart and gave away big fours for free

Or back in 2001-2003.

jeffk

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

Or back in 2001-2003.

ill take your word on the time frame

CMpunked

jeffk wrote: »

ill take your word on the time frame

Well, whenever it was on channel 4.

jeffk

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

Well, whenever it was on channel 4.

God the channel 4 days of ad breaks @ the worse times

lol



And the picture of Taker/Big Show with their hands on each others throats for when they went to and from a break :pac:



classic stuff!

CMpunked

Deleted User wrote: »

lol



And the picture of Taker/Big Show with their hands on each others throats for when they went to and from a break :pac:



classic stuff!

When was that from?

I remember once they had a break in the middle of an interview!

Comic-Book-Guy

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

When was that from?

I remember once they had a break in the middle of an interview!

I'm pretty sure they always used it.

I remember the royal rumble 2001.

The big show returned at it, and i really like the big show. His music hit "Weeelll, Well its the Big Show!" and the minute he appeared on the screen they went to an ad break.

CMpunked

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they always used it.

I remember the royal rumble 2001.

The big show returned at it, and i really like the big show. His music hit "Weeelll, Well its the Big Show!" and the minute he appeared on the screen they went to an ad break.

Apologies KKV, i get what you meant now.
The old style undertaker looking at show, with the blue background.

Oh yes, that was a staple in my earlier years indeed


I do remember that event that night and that happening too!


Remember when they used to mention the "Viewers in the UK, staying up late to watch us on channel 4".

Good times.

Ha, look at benoit:
http://freenet-homepage.de/Pommes253/2001/royalrumble2001.jpg

Furious-Red

Deleted User wrote: »

lol



And the picture of Taker/Big Show with their hands on each others throats for when they went to and from a break :pac:



classic stuff!

yea i remember when i recorded Backlash 2001 and the amount of ads they had. still have it on video. the good old days is right

ShawnRaven

Furious-Red wrote: »

yea i remember when i recorded Backlash 2001 and the amount of ads they had. still have it on video. the good old days is right

Not with Channel 4's ads! I still have a copy of Fully Loaded 2000 with a pile of ads in there on VHS somewhere, proof that the British can be as bad as the Yanks for their advertisements.

That was an awesome PPV too.

callaway92

Backlash 2000 was a class PPV..Not 2001

Mossy Monk

jeffk wrote: »

free on sky sports And The fact its free and not on ppv might show you how sky rate the ppv in general!!

It has nothing to do with how they rate it. They were contractually obliged to show it on Sky Sports.

CMpunked

Can a mod please change the title of this thread to something like:

Attitude era nostalgia?

herewegoagain

Can a mod delete this thread

citytillidie

And they are not free your still paying a subsciption to Sky Sports just dont have to pay more money

CMpunked

citytillidie wrote: »

And they are not free your still paying a subsciption to Sky Sports just dont have to pay more money

True enough.

But you would get used to paying Sky's bill.

So putting a 20 quid on top of that every month is stupid. So getting it without paying is Free.

Sky sports should get a deal with wwe that you can pay off for every ppv in the year for a one off payment of like 120 quid or something.

ShawnRaven

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

Sky sports should get a deal with wwe that you can pay off for every ppv in the year for a one off payment of like 120 quid or something.

No, they would lose money that way. Especially when that's the price of about half the years PPVs.

CMpunked

ShawnRaven wrote: »

No, they would lose money that way. Especially when that's the price of about half the years PPVs.

I dont know anyone who buys every ppv, usually maybe 3 or 4.

Royal Rumble/Mania/Survivor series, they would be near defintes for me.

So thats only about 80 quid everyone will pay. So for 120 would make more sense surely?

callaway92

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

I dont know anyone who buys every ppv, usually maybe 3 or 4.

Royal Rumble/Mania/Survivor series, they would be near defintes for me.

So thats only about 80 quid everyone will pay. So for 120 would make more sense surely?

Why??

Why do you prefer these over say, Backlash or No Mercy....???...Royal Rumble has 1 long match and probably 3 others...Survivor Series has very repetitive 8-10 man tags...Im not aiming this at you but, People are stupid, they fall for stff like this..Why is Summerslam included in the "Big 4"..What difference does it have to Armageddon..When people hear it being called one of the big 4 events they think they should buy it..

The T.V shows are advertisments for the PPVs

Machismo Fan

callaway92 wrote: »

Why??

Why do you prefer these over say, Backlash or No Mercy....???...Royal Rumble has 1 long match and probably 3 others...Survivor Series has very repetitive 8-10 man tags...Im not aiming this at you but, People are stupid, they fall for stff like this..Why is Summerslam included in the "Big 4"..What difference does it have to Armageddon..When people hear it being called one of the big 4 events they think they should buy it..

Its branding. The same thing happens in football- The majority of people will watch Man Utd and Chelsea instead of Wigan/Blackburn even if Wigan/Blackburn is a better game.

rovert

Summerslam has more real and memorable history than Armageddon. The term big 4 comes from when they just had 4 PPVs a year.

callaway92

rovert wrote: »

Summerslam has more real and memorable history than Armageddon. The term big 4 comes from when they just had 4 PPVs a year.

I didnt mean Armageddon itself, I was just using any name of any PPV

rovert

callaway92 wrote: »

I didnt mean Armageddon itself, I was just using any name of any PPV

Use any "off brand" PPV you like none have the recognition Summerslam does.

callaway92

callaway92 wrote: »

Why??

Why do you prefer these over say, Backlash or No Mercy....???...Royal Rumble has 1 long match and probably 3 others...Survivor Series has very repetitive 8-10 man tags...Im not aiming this at you but, People are stupid, they fall for stff like this..Why is Summerslam included in the "Big 4"..What difference does it have to Armageddon..When people hear it being called one of the big 4 events they think they should buy it..

The T.V shows are advertisments for the PPVs

The Royal Rumble because the Royal Rumble match itself is pretty much always worth the price of the PPV.

WrestleMania because its Wrestlemania.

Survivor Series because of the (albeit rare nowadays) elimination style tag team matches.


Some gimmick matches are very popular (Rumble for example) and are worth paying to see in most people's eyes, rather than PPV's that are quickly thrown together or have essentially the same matches as the previous event.

callaway92

rovert wrote: »

Use any "off brand" PPV you like none have the recognition Summerslam does.

Still though...This year..What difference in matches did summerslam have to any ppv

rovert

callaway92 wrote: »

Still though...This year..What difference in matches did summerslam have to any ppv

Same as most years.

callaway92

rovert wrote: »

Same as most years.

That being?

i'd assume its because there's more effort involved. The wrestlers care more and therefore put ona better show. Feuds are hyped more. There's more time for people to actually give a sh*t about who's rasslin...?

callaway92

Deleted User wrote: »

i'd assume its because there's more effort involved. The wrestlers care more and therefore put ona better show. Feuds are hyped more. There's more time for people to actually give a sh*t about who's rasslin...?

Thats what id think is the only difference..Better advertisements etc

CMpunked

I was going to reply to your question callaway, but seems some have beat me to it.

Basically all the above i agree with.


The rumble is the set up for mania, what happens between the two shows might not mean a whole lot, yeah sure, it might change the mid card slightly but the direction of the biggest PPV is created on rumble night.

For Survivor series it would be because sometimes (not all), the build up begins then.
Yeah sure, things can change and nearly always do, but you get an idea who is going to be moved up or down all from those few hours.

callaway92

callaway92 wrote: »

Thats what id think is the only difference..Better advertisements etc

I wouldn't say the advertisements would have much to do with it to be honest. We know what WWE's production crew are like. They seem to be amazing at pulling 5 Star quality videos out of nowhere at an amazing rate.


What i meant was, the feuds get a decent, proper build up. If a feud is created because santino stole the tracksuit that Shelton wears to the ring and the next week they have a few words and arrange a PPV match about it, chances are no one will care.

But if, gradually, over the course of a few weeks, a much deeper, more creative, realistic story is written up, people have more time to know and care about it, and want to see its outcome.

I don't think i know anyone who buys every pay per view each year. Pretty much, everyone i know, they will only buy a 'filler' PPV if they are off work on the following day, or are just extremely bored.


Cyber Sunday would have been a great PPV to charge for. With so many people having Bank Holiday monday off, a lot of people would buy it due to having nothing to get up for the following day.

Red Sleeping Beauty

rovert wrote: »

Summerslam has more real and memorable history than Armageddon. The term big 4 comes from when they just had 4 PPVs a year.

It was only from 1989-1993 that they had only 4 Pay-Per-Views a year. Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series. Then KotR came along in 1993. Even when In Your House started the "big four" where still bigger events than the other PPVs, they were treated as bigger events, held in bigger arenas and it was there that you usually had bigger singles matches and title changes and the IYH ppvs where used to trundle story lines along. Like the "Highway to Hell" from KotR '98 to SummerSlam.
The Austin/Taker angle started at KotR with the winner of the Hell in a Cell match getting a title shot and then that years Fully Loaded had Austin/Taker tagging up against Kane and Mankind. It was a good main event for the lesser ppv and setup the SummerSlam well.


Channel 4 had the deal for 4ppvs back in 2000 - RR, Backlask, Fully Loaded and then Armageddon. The deal I believe was for 4years, after 2years they dropped out of it I think it was because of the Mae Young flashing her "tits" spot at the Royal Rumble 2000. Sky then bought Ch4 out of the deal and then had these 4 PPVs on their Sky Box Office I'm assuming to make back the money they spent on them. Then I think it was in 2005 when a few more PPVs were being charged for starting with Wrestlemania.

Not sure how many they charge for now and how many are on Sky Sports though.
All above info could be wrong but I think I read about the Channel 4 deal in PowerSlam magazine back in the day.

Did anyone hear order the One Night Only PPV ? Uk and Ireland's first WWF pay per view I think. Great event.


I'm on NTL and I don't think they carry the WWF PPVs do they ? I remember hearing some horror stories of people ordering them and they didn't get them or something

ShawnRaven

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Not sure how many they charge for now and how many are on Sky Sports though.
All above info could be wrong but I think I read about the Channel 4 deal in PowerSlam magazine back in the day.

There's about 4 or 5 throwaway PPVs on Sports, the rest are box office.

Did anyone hear order the One Night Only PPV ? Uk and Ireland's first WWF pay per view I think. Great event.

Myself and three others chipped in to watch it at a mates place. Bought the video of it when it came out as well. I didn't think Shawn would make it out of Birmingham alive after some of the sh*t he pulled that night.

I'm on NTL and I don't think they carry the WWF PPVs do they ? I remember hearing some horror stories of people ordering them and they didn't get them or something

NTL don't carry WWF because they haven't been around since 2002!
Nah, i'm kidding. NTL carry box office on channel 862. But you're right on the horror stories with them, I remember Judgment Day this year wasn't even screened! It was a long ad for the Ricky f*cking Hatton fight.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I agree with the Shawn thing... that was ballsy booking there. Great ****ing match and finish though. He had some serious heat that night, kind of like the Survivor Series match . That was the second best European title match ever. After the first between Bulldog and Owen Hart at the European title finals . That was in .......... Germany if I remember correctly.

Anyone have any ideas why the Bret/Taker match from 1Night Only was on the Bret dvd and not the SummerSlam match ? That was far better with a belter of a finish. I miss the days when there was great drama in wrestling matches.

rovert

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Anyone have any ideas why the Bret/Taker match from 1Night Only was on the Bret dvd and not the SummerSlam match ? That was far better with a belter of a finish. I miss the days when there was great drama in wrestling matches.

Bret's call that one.

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

Bret's call that one.

Which was fairly obvious, given that Shawn was the ref for the Summerslam 97 one. It was the better match, but the ending was wretched, if not understandable. Undertaker couldn't look weak, Shawn had to find a way of heeling himself.

Not to say ONO wasn't a great match, it was, i actually prefer it. I always felt that match was too good for a secondary PPV.

ShawnRaven

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I agree with the Shawn thing... that was ballsy booking there. Great ****ing match and finish though. He had some serious heat that night

Well given that he was hurling all sorts of abuse at Tracy Smith, Bulldog's sister, who was living with cancer (who actually died shortly after that PPV), which a lot of people in the front rows were aware of. I'm not sure if that was booking or not. Even Diana looked fairly shocked when Shawn pulls off Davey's knee brace and threw it at Tracy.

Another thing that caused embarrassment to me as a Shawn fan. To be impartial though, there's some sh*t i can't turn a blind eye to, Wrestlemania 13's f*ckup being one, but this ranked waaaaay up there.

A bit off topic but what do people think of summerslam 97? Its always been one of my favourite ppvs. Good opener between hhh and mankind, I thought the austin vs owen match was very good (up untill the injury) and a great main event aswell. All this comeing on the heels of Canadian stampede the month before. Ive always said that the summer of 97 is probably my favourite time in wwf/wwe history.

rovert

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Which was fairly obvious, given that Shawn was the ref for the Summerslam 97 one. It was the better match, but the ending was wretched, if not understandable. Undertaker couldn't look weak, Shawn had to find a way of heeling himself.

I think the fact the ONO match was more "unseen" that the Summerslam match was Bret's reasoning for the selection.

Deleted User wrote: »

A bit off topic but what do people think of summerslam 97? Its always been one of my favourite ppvs. Good opener between hhh and mankind, I thought the austin vs owen match was very good (up untill the injury) and a great main event aswell. All this comeing on the heels of Canadian stampede the month before. Ive always said that the summer of 97 is probably my favourite time in wwf/wwe history.

Hate to mention him but that event shows that WWF would have been equally as successful without Kane as with him.

ShawnRaven

Deleted User wrote: »

A bit off topic but what do people think of summerslam 97? Its always been one of my favourite ppvs. Good opener between hhh and mankind, I thought the austin vs owen match was very good (up untill the injury) and a great main event aswell. All this comeing on the heels of Canadian stampede the month before. Ive always said that the summer of 97 is probably my favourite time in wwf/wwe history.

The best PPV they came up with that year. 1997 was a big transition year for WWE as they were still building new stars. Rock, Austin, HHH and Mankind were all in the midst of getting midcard pushes that year, while Bret was on his way out, as was Shawn (he just didn't know it yet). So given that it was a slow build to what would be a spectacular 1998. PPVs weren't given high expectations at all. On top of that, WCW was handing Vince his ass.

So Summerslam 97 is definitely the rabbit pulled out of the hat. Canadian Stampede is close, but realistically, that's a one match card.

ShawnRaven

rovert wrote: »

I think the fact the ONO match was more "unseen" that the Summerslam match was Bret's reasoning for the selection.

I'll give you that, however it's done it's rounds several times due to the fact that Bret had viewers choice air it in Canada, and it was aired in the UK.

The commercial release was cut to ribbons on the US version, but i'm sure the Bret/Taker match was left on it. It was something like the first three matches that were cut from it.

Hate to mention him but that event shows that WWF would have been equally as successful without Kane as with him.

Leave the can of worms alone, rovert.

rovert

ShawnRaven wrote: »

Canadian Stampede is close, but realistically, that's a one match card.

No