Lariat reviews the WWE 50th Anniversary DVD.

[It's...Baylariat!]

It's not going to be some KB-esque type of review. I have no idea what those grades mean in his reviews. Anyway... I'll hit some bullet points and feel free to chime in. I posted this in spam because ... the DVD was mostly one big spam post. Here's what I gathered from the DVD...

• Everyone liked Vince Sr. Very few liked Vince Jr.
• The WWWF was made to be a big time promotion back in it's early days due to being in NYC. Not true. The NWA was still recognized as the biggest promotion in those days. Vintage WWE to spin things their way.
• Hulk Hogan was given his due for what he did for the WWE in the 80's. I feel this is the first DVD that really shined a light on how big Hogan actually was in those days.
• The WWE painted Bret Hart as a selfish asshole who was expendable. They basically said they WANTED Hart gone and didn't care if he went to the WCW, they just wanted the belt off of him.
• Very little mention of Shawn Michaels other than his role in the Montreal Screwjob. Still think he drew tons of money for the WWE?
• Bruno Sammartino wouldn't have been involved with the WWE if it weren't for them toning down their product post-Attitude Era.
• Not enough focus on Austin. He was mentioned along with the Attitude Era, but without Austin, the WWE would have been done. He was the box office and it seemed as if the WWE didn't want to give him full credit for it, calling it a team effort.
• Ivan Koloff sounds weird without his Russian accent.
• Hardly NO mention of the Undertaker or his streak. Seems to me that is a very vital part of the business these days.
• No mention of creating the WWE network, yet they plugged their Classics on Demand service that's going to be discontinued in February.

Not to mention the lack of talking about Buddy Rogers, the first WWE Champion, Pretty much saying that between 1963 and 1983, Bruno, Superstar Billy Graham, and Bob Backlund were their only major stars.

They also admit that their's not as much fire under their ass because there's no competition.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I think they meant New York made the biggest dollars.

and like I said in the thread I made about the exact same thing yesterday, it was pretty lackluster, and messy. I feel like Austin wasnt even mentioned by name, and if he was, it was among a list of names. very, very odd.

The Bret Hart section was chuckle-worthy. They always leave out that he had creative control for the last thirty days of his contract.

 

[Shocky]

In the grand scheme of things, Bret wasn't that big of a star.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

They don't talk much about Austin? WTF? That's really bizarre. Austin was THE reason WWE became as big as it did in the late 90's, it's very strange they don't mention this.

 

[Shocky]

Because in the 50 years of the WWE, their business model has been a certain way. The 2 year period of Austin during 98-99 is not what their business model usually is.

 

[justinsayne]

The lack of Austin may have something to do with the fact that they've released like 8 SCSA DVDs over the years, probably thought they covered it pretty well in in all his DVDs.

Also Bret was a selfish asshole that was expendable.

 

[Coco]

Hardly NO mention of the Undertaker or his streak. Seems to me that is a very vital part of the business these days.

"Vital" is really overstating it for one match a year on a card that generally sells itself. The Rock and Donald Trump have done more good for the box office appeal of modern Manias than Undertaker could ever dream of doing.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

It's not going to be some KB-esque type of review. I have no idea what those grades mean in his reviews. Anyway... I'll hit some bullet points and feel free to chime in. I posted this in spam because ... the DVD was mostly one big spam post. Here's what I gathered from the DVD...

• Everyone liked Vince Sr. Very few liked Vince Jr.
• The WWWF was made to be a big time promotion back in it's early days due to being in NYC. Not true. The NWA was still recognized as the biggest promotion in those days. Vintage WWE to spin things their way.
• Hulk Hogan was given his due for what he did for the WWE in the 80's. I feel this is the first DVD that really shined a light on how big Hogan actually was in those days.
• The WWE painted Bret Hart as a selfish asshole who was expendable. They basically said they WANTED Hart gone and didn't care if he went to the WCW, they just wanted the belt off of him.
• Very little mention of Shawn Michaels other than his role in the Montreal Screwjob. Still think he drew tons of money for the WWE?
• Bruno Sammartino wouldn't have been involved with the WWE if it weren't for them toning down their product post-Attitude Era.
• Not enough focus on Austin. He was mentioned along with the Attitude Era, but without Austin, the WWE would have been done. He was the box office and it seemed as if the WWE didn't want to give him full credit for it, calling it a team effort.
• Ivan Koloff sounds weird without his Russian accent.
• Hardly NO mention of the Undertaker or his streak. Seems to me that is a very vital part of the business these days.
• No mention of creating the WWE network, yet they plugged their Classics on Demand service that's going to be discontinued in February.

Not to mention the lack of talking about Buddy Rogers, the first WWE Champion, Pretty much saying that between 1963 and 1983, Bruno, Superstar Billy Graham, and Bob Backlund were their only major stars.

They also admit that their's not as much fire under their ass because there's no competition.

Haven't seen it, so can't really respond much... but to some of your points

- WWWF was one of the biggest companies in Senior's day. New York was where guys could make the most money. The NWA though (which the WWWF was actually a part of), was the biggest company
- Surprised they would have went there on Hart. I don't know that he was 'expendable', but it got to the point that it was either going to be him or Michaels, and they saw more money in HBK than they did Hart at that point. Still, they'd previously buried that hatchet. Surprised they'd do something that might open up new wounds (especially since now it seems like there's a chance they can start moving forward with Owen stuff)
- It's about time they recognized how big Hogan was for them in the 80's. Truthfully without Hogan as their main draw, I don't think the WWF ever separates itself from the rest of the territories back then, or that their national expansion is successful. Hogan caught the national conscious better than any wrestler ever did before him, including Andre and Bruno (who both transcended the sport in their time as well).
- Other than how the WWWF was formed, there really wouldn't be much need to talk about Buddy Rogers. He was just really there for the very beginning
- Outside of not including Andre, Bruno, Graham and Backlund probably were their three biggest stars for that first 20 years. There were other guys of course, but most were really secondary talents who would come in for a run, then move onto another territory for a while, which was typically just how it went with the majority of guys back in those days.