Paid Members WeeAl Posted November 7, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted November 7, 2016 I'm pretty happy with getting 1996 I have to say. The top two matches are fantastic and it's the first VHS I went out and bought (though I had borrowed a lot of the 80's and early 90's tapes from a friend), so needless to say, it got a fair amount of watching. Ā However I've hit a snag. I can't review the main event as that would mean trying to do something even 1/10 as good as HG's review of it from his Survivor Series match a day thread, and that's not happening. And I'm sure the Bret/Austin match has been reviewed on this forum before, so I'm going to try and review one of the other matches on this show, which will take a bit of picking right enough considering what is left at that point. Looking forward to reading all of these next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator Onyx2 Posted November 7, 2016 Awards Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2016 For reasons I'll get into in the review, I've never seen 2010. My instinct is to review the traditional SS match, but would I be overlooking something by skipping to that? Ā http://network.wwe.com/share/video/31288319 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 didn't sign up for this (slightly regretting that now) but I'm about to watch '96 at some point this week, and I suppose whatever Taker and Mankind ended up doing would be the natural other match of interest Ā unlucky on who got '93. One of those shows that for sitting through I immediately had to go out and buy myself a decently big treat like a bottle of wine or a tub of posh ice cream, just to assign myself a reward for having sat through it. I've seen worse PPVs, but not many seemed to go on longer than that one. I'd pick the 4 Doinks shitfest as it sums up the show nicely and it really is one of the more visually unappealing matches and that's at least noteworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted November 7, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted November 7, 2016 unlucky on who got '93. One of those shows that for sitting through I immediately had to go out and buy myself a decently big treat like a bottle of wine or a tub of posh ice cream, just to assign myself a reward for having sat through it. I've seen worse PPVs, but not many seemed to go on longer than that one. I'd pick the 4 Doinks shitfest as it sums up the show nicely and it really is one of the more visually unappealing matches and that's at least noteworthy All this stuff depends on when you saw it. Yeah, 1993 is technically poor. But I'll watch that show another 5 times in my life. I probably won't watch one of the last 15 Survivor Series again unless drawn in a thread like this or someone has kidnapped my family and that's the ransom demand. Even then, I'm 50/50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam O'Rourke Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 2006. Oh fucking hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Yeah I obviously wasn't watching at that time, watched a lot of '93 a couple years or so ago cos it was a really intriguing year and a good one to take a stab at dipping into what with Raw starting and you could then see how the company would gradually develop over the upcoming years, while getting me more well acquainted with older workers to give me a place to backtrack from at another point. I honestly don't mind some of the more gimmicky stuff, I just know that I probably won't be getting the urge to put one of those four long elimination matches on ever again. Tried to tune in for the Harts story but that was littered with shit and the knights thing was just weird Ā Ā The last 15 Survivor Series? Call it 14 mate, '02 is one of the best shows they ever did in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted November 7, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted November 7, 2016 Shawn's title win may overcome his shit tights and shit hair but it doesn't erase the fucking Big Show taking the title off Brock Lesnar. Hated that ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MungoChutney Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 That's my task and I'm leaning towards reviewing Lesnar/Show as opposed to the more obvious Chamber debut. I think it ties in better given the main event of this year's show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grecian Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 By an odd coincidence, I'm watching 2002 as I type this. Hadn't watched it in a while, it's a hell of a good show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted November 7, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted November 7, 2016 "Gimme A Fucking Microphone!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Shawn's title win may overcome his shit tights and shit hair but it doesn't erase the fucking Big Show taking the title off Brock Lesnar. Hated that ever since. it seems odd today, but I thought they always had good matches with each other. Show in '02 was money as well it's easy to forget, with the ring-breaking stuff and the return after a bit. not Lesnar money obviously but he still wasn't small spuds, it's not like if it happened 10-11 years later or something. and yeah, Steiner that night, in my view with Jericho and AJ - probs the best debut they ever did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted November 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted November 8, 2016 Ā Shawn's title win may overcome his shit tights and shit hair but it doesn't erase the fucking Big Show taking the title off Brock Lesnar. Hated that ever since.it seems odd today, but I thought they always had good matches with each other. Show in '02 was money as well it's easy to forget, with the ring-breaking stuff and the return after a bit. not Lesnar money obviously but he still wasn't small spuds, it's not like if it happened 10-11 years later or something. and yeah, Steiner that night, in my view with Jericho and AJ - probs the best debut they ever did Ā He wasn't money. He'd been off at Fat Camp, been an impersonator and been beat by every man and his dog. They were trying to rehab him for that match but no-one bought it then. It was about the Heyman turn, Show was a passenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gaffer Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Angle beatĀ BigĀ JeansĀ the next month for the belt, right? I can live with it if the intention was there to set that up for not only a Heyman turn but Brock getting crowned again at WrestleMania XIX, which up until he fucked off a year later was the next logical touchstone from SummerSlam 2002 of saying "here's our man for the new gen". I don't think Lesnar running straight into WrestleMania and just defending the title would have been as good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.E Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Ā Ā Shawn's title win may overcome his shit tights and shit hair but it doesn't erase the fucking Big Show taking the title off Brock Lesnar. Hated that ever since.it seems odd today, but I thought they always had good matches with each other. Show in '02 was money as well it's easy to forget, with the ring-breaking stuff and the return after a bit. not Lesnar money obviously but he still wasn't small spuds, it's not like if it happened 10-11 years later or something.and yeah, Steiner that night, in my view with Jericho and AJ - probs the best debut they ever did Ā He wasn't money. He'd been off at Fat Camp, been an impersonator and been beat by every man and his dog. They were trying to rehab him for that match but no-one bought it then. It was about the Heyman turn, Show was a passenger. Ā Ā In fairness, at the time, I was really wanting to see that match. Ā They had built show up as this monster, and had the whole "I'm to big for you to suplex me" stuff going on, which I 100% believed at the time, as I dont think Lesner had a real "show of strength" at that point. In terms of the change itself, I thought the whole point was to have Heyman turn on Lesner, thus propelling Lesner as the super face going forward. IE, in that match Lesner does suplex the hell out of show, and drops him with the f5 (which was NUTS at the time), only for heyman to do his turn then. The change made sense to me, with the later additions of Angle coming in and winning it/fueding with Lesner, it was solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted November 8, 2016 Paid Members Share Posted November 8, 2016 I've no problem with the pay-off. Show was just way beneath Lesnar at the time. I'd have gone with Angle as a result of Heyman's treachery and then the recompense at WrestleMania. No need for Show to step above his station. No harm in rehabbing him for Lesnar to chuck around in the meantime but I still hate this. Each to their own though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.