WWE – Land of the Rehash?

[It's Damn Real!]

For a company who's fans lambast their rival as often as they do for rehashing the days of old, I sure don't see a lot of mirror pointing where there should be with regard to guys like Jack Swagger and Randy Orton right now, as well as others...

If you can honestly sit here telling me that Swagger's singlet, the fact he's using the ankle-lock submission maneuver and the fact he praises himself as the All-American American isn't the least bit Kurt Angle-esque, I have no idea what to tell you, other than to get your fucking eyes checked, because you need glasses. If you ask me, it's not just Angle-esque. It's Angle 2.0, and it's not working, because Swagger doesn't have a tenth of the charisma or personality Angle did/does.

The same goes for "The Viper" Randy Orton who's channeling tweener Stone Cold Steve Austin in nearly every aspect of his face/tweener run – down to the fact he uses a cutter for a finisher that he hits anyone with on the drop of a dime, just like he did to Evan Bourne on RAW this last week. He has no "friends" in the business, and is often seen as one of the toughest competitors in the company – sound familiar? No correlations between the "Viper" and the "Rattlesnake"? Come on...

It's not just these two, either – Ted DiBiase Jr.'s recent run with Virgil, and the fact he still carries that Million Dollar belt that his father made famous while touting his ability to buy anything he wants? What, so all of a sudden we all forgot his dad made all that famous before him?

Factor in the Hart Dyntasty channeling the Hart Foundaiton, the Uso's channeling Snuka, hell, even McIntyre channeling Orton, etc. and you've got quite a load of rehash going on with little backlash to it – why? It's OK for the WWE to re-use their own historical successes as a means to get over new versions, but it's not OK for anyone else to? Is that what this is really all about – the ability to point back and say "well we did this before, so it's OK"? Kind of pathetic if you ask me. Hypocritical, too.

Pot, have you met kettle? Holy shit, you're black!

Thoughts?

 

[Ferbian]

First thing I would like to point out is that the Stunner isn't a cutter. But that's another story for the grand children.

Yes I definitely see where you're going. But I wouldn't exactly be one to sit down and argue that TNA is shit because they rehash some of the storylines featured in WWE. Because it's been argued before - It's what wrestling promotions do. We've seen The Four Horsemen in 4. 4! different promotions. You could even argue that it might be 5 times if you count Main Event Mafia. But 4 times if you only count them when Ric Flair is around.

As well as the fact that we've seen the NWO stolen from a Japanese promotion. And rehashed in WWE, only to be rehashed in TNA. And The Band while it could be argued "They're not the NWO" well let me rebuttal that - The Band, meet The Kliq. So all in all. It's a thing there's done all the time, and it's unfair for TNA to get heat for it. Because WWE does it as well.

So rehashing is done all the time. WWE does it. TNA does it. And there's nothing wrong with it neither. If it works it works, if it doesn't, well too bad.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

First thing I would like to point out is that the Stunner isn't a cutter. But that's another story for the grand children.

That's true, but it's similar. Similar enough especially when you consider how many other attributes he's beginning to borrow from Austin...

Yes I definitely see where you're going. But I wouldn't exactly be one to sit down and argue that TNA is shit because they rehash some of the storylines featured in WWE. Because it's been argued before - It's what wrestling promotions do. We've seen The Four Horsemen in 4. 4! different promotions. You could even argue that it might be 5 times if you count Main Event Mafia. But 4 times if you only count them when Ric Flair is around.

As well as the fact that we've seen the NWO stolen from a Japanese promotion. And rehashed in WWE, only to be rehashed in TNA. And The Band while it could be argued "They're not the NWO" well let me rebuttal that - The Band, meet The Kliq. So all in all. It's a thing there's done all the time, and it's unfair for TNA to get heat for it. Because WWE does it as well.

So rehashing is done all the time. WWE does it. TNA does it. And there's nothing wrong with it neither. If it works it works, if it doesn't, well too bad.

Exactly – which is why I started this thread to begin with. All I hear about is how awful it is when other promotions "steal" the stories of old to rehash them as new day & age, but no one ever seems to discredit the originating company for doing the same when they do the same, so what's the real complaint here – that another company is doing something you did "first", or that you're seeing rehashed stories in general? If the latter, fine – that's legit (though short-sighted seeing as all of pro-wrestling is one giant rehash from some period in time before it), but if it's the former, all I smell is hypocrisy.

 

[Ferbian]

That's true, but it's similar. Similar enough especially when you consider how many other attributes he's beginning to borrow from Austin...

Only similarities it has is the ease of which it is popped off, as well as how it could be sold. Also to top it off if Randy decides to modify it a bit it could look a lot like a Stunner.

Exactly – which is why I started this thread to begin with. All I hear about is how awful it is when other promotions "steal" the stories of old to rehash them as new day & age, but no one ever seems to discredit the originating company for doing the same when they do the same, so what's the real complaint here – that another company is doing something you did "first", or that you're seeing rehashed stories in general? If the latter, fine – that's legit (though short-sighted seeing as all of pro-wrestling is one giant rehash from some period in time before it), but if it's the former, all I smell is hypocrisy.

Yeah but the problem is that fans in general is bashing the reuse of storylines as long as they're not good storylines. WWE obviously loves Stone Cold. So anything that comes close to Austin must be awesome.

Also it doesn't make it better that TNA is already bashed for bad things. As I've said before - The bad things overshadows the good things. AS well as the fact that the good things overshadows the bad things all depending on where the majority of it lies.

Everybody rehashes. Mostly because it's been a proved success, who wouldn't want to attempt and copy success? WWE has been doing it great before. Evolution. LayCool. Swangle (I think highly of it to say the least) and that's just a few of the things.

But TNA does it as well. WWE's great stuff right now (The Nexus, Kane's Undertaker storyline and The Straight Edge Society, Sheamus) just overshadows some of the awful things. Where as TNA has stuff like Hogan (not a hit against TNA mind you) and Flair (at least these are two I think is a major reason for some of the heat TNA gets. And these two are probably the primary two that could overshadow the rest of the product).

 

[DirtyJosé]

Professional wrestling is full of reused angles and gimmicks, this much is true through most any promotion. When people knock TNA's rehashes, it's not because it's an angle or gimmick that's been done before, but that it's a carbon copy down to the same older men playing the same role they played over ten years ago.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Professional wrestling is full of reused angles and gimmicks, this much is true through most any promotion. When people knock TNA's rehashes, it's not because it's an angle or gimmick that's been done before, but that it's a carbon copy down to the same older men playing the same role they played over ten years ago.

Not even remotely true, man. When people knock TNA's rehashes, it's because it's an angle or gimmick that's been done before – not because it's the same guy doing it.

The Montréal Screwjob they pulled with Angle nearly quitting TNA a few months back when he spit in Hogan's face was a rehash that was bombed by the fans – neither Hart nor McMahon were used in it.

The Anderson/Austin "asshole" thing has received it's fair share of criticisms, but no where in this entire thing has Austin himself come back to pro-wrestling to rehash the days of old.

I think you're confusing two of the primary complaints on this forum here – the concept of rehashed stories, and the concept of pushing older talent.

The Wölfpack was a prime example of the latter, where as the Screwjob was a primary example of the former.

The only story right now that might fit your argument is the Sting angle, really.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

I agree with you as there is a lot of rehashing going on right now in the WWE, but that can be said about alot of promotions, not just WWE.

For example, Abyss was originally basically just a ripoff of the Mankind character with the only real difference being the size between the 2 individuals, he still wore the same mask, was all about the hardcore, and who can forget the thumbtacks. Another one more recently would be this ECW stable that is currently forming in TNA, thats just a rehash of an old WWE idea, or the Main Event Mafia, which was very similar to the Millionaires club that WCW had in its dying days. Rehashing gimmicks and storylines is something that has been going on in wrestling for years (there are lots of similarities between Macho Man and Gorgeous George, or Buddy Rodgers and Ric Flair).

So all in all I do agree with you, but this is something that has been going on for over 40 years in wrestling. Hell, WCW in 99 was completely a rehash of old ideas used over again because they couldn't think of anything new (Like Brad Armstrong's ridiculous impersonation of Road Dogg).

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Only similarities it has is the ease of which it is popped off, as well as how it could be sold. Also to top it off if Randy decides to modify it a bit it could look a lot like a Stunner.



Yeah but the problem is that fans in general is bashing the reuse of storylines as long as they're not good storylines. WWE obviously loves Stone Cold. So anything that comes close to Austin must be awesome.

Also it doesn't make it better that TNA is already bashed for bad things. As I've said before - The bad things overshadows the good things. AS well as the fact that the good things overshadows the bad things all depending on where the majority of it lies.

Everybody rehashes. Mostly because it's been a proved success, who wouldn't want to attempt and copy success? WWE has been doing it great before. Evolution. LayCool. Swangle (I think highly of it to say the least) and that's just a few of the things.

But TNA does it as well. WWE's great stuff right now (The Nexus, Kane's Undertaker storyline and The Straight Edge Society, Sheamus) just overshadows some of the awful things. Where as TNA has stuff like Hogan (not a hit against TNA mind you) and Flair (at least these are two I think is a major reason for some of the heat TNA gets. And these two are probably the primary two that could overshadow the rest of the product).

Neither of which are working a rehash, though, so the complaints there are ancillary – they have nothing to do with the OP at all. Flair is technically rehashing the Horsemen, but that's been done so many times I'm not entirely sure it really fits the bill for what we're discussing here which is closer to rehashed stories from popular eras, not rehashing popular stories from numerous eras. The Horsemen work if you ask me is above "rehash" in this case, because while it is one by definition, it's also been done so many times as a means to elevate new talent that I don't consider it part of the discussion – especially when you take into account the fact they are using a different name, just as Evolution did.

 

[Ferbian]

Neither of which are working a rehash, though, so the complaints there are ancillary – they have nothing to do with the OP at all. Flair is technically rehashing the Horsemen, but that's been done so many times I'm not entirely sure it really fits the bill for what we're discussing here which is closer to rehashed stories from popular eras, not rehashing popular stories from numerous eras. The Horsemen work if you ask me is above "rehash" in this case, because while it is one by definition, it's also been done so many times as a means to elevate new talent that I don't consider it part of the discussion – especially when you take into account the fact they are using a different name, just as Evolution did.

Sure it's not what the OP is discussing. But what I'm saying is that the critique towards the two of them overshadows the things that TNA is doing right. The majority of things that TNA has going of big things is critiqued. Where as a thing like Jay Lethal and Pope is completely overlooked from the outsider who doesn't know the TNA product to a full extend.

And because WWE is doing stuff that the majority of people sees as an awesome thing. The Nexus etc. they get a good reaction "everything is awesome in WWE right now" etc.

And due to that, people will look positively on the rehashing that WWE is doing, compared to the things that TNA is doing. Until the tides turn and WWE becomes the crap. and TNA the good.

Yes the Four Horsemen thing might be above rehashing. But it's still a thing that has been done. As well as the fact that it kinda bummed with the fans. You remember how people were "yay" when Ric said "I'm reforming the horsemen" and then afterwards the reaction when he said "But we're calling it fortune"

People will always have something to complain about. And rehashing in a company that already gets enough heat. It just doesn't exactly help the popularity of the company. And I agree it's ridiculous because TNA is doing some decent stuff. The bad things just overshadows it.

 

[Tenta]

IDR....... Look, I'd never admit your logic is usually pretty sound. I'd never say that you weren't a logical and intelligent mind as it pertains to wrestling, so please, don't take offense at what I'm about to say. But this thread is, quite frankly, the most hypocritical thread you've ever had the balls to post on these forums. It seriously is. Either you have a very short term memory, or a selective one. I, however, intend to call you to the carpet, on something you pointed out in "Why Does TNA not get enough credit" Thread":

Name the time the WWE/F utilized a Top-10 contenders ranking system for any of their belts, let alone the world championship.

Better yet, Tenta, name me the time the WWE did anything that the ECW or WCW or AWA or NWA or any number of other federations before them did.

If the world of pro-wrestling were never allowed to beg, steal or borrow, we'd have no pro-wrestling to speak of right now, so enough with this bullshit about the WWE doing things first. No one does anything first these days. Everything is a rehash. Everything.

So let me get this straight: you're absolutely fine with TNA using Re-hashes, yet the WWE needs to be called out for it? Is that what you're getting at? You even say yourself, every promotion is capable of "rehashes", yet here we go again, with you protesting the WWE's use of what you deem "rehashes"

Now then, as for the examples you provide, the difference is simple, IDR: It all relies upon the wrestler performing the gimmick. The difference between TNA is that the WWE allows for different interpretations of a character, and though, in principle, it may seem the same, it falls upon the performer to provide a different spin upon the character. It's like you're looking at three different people playing the role of the Joker, IDR; Heath Ledger's interpretation of the character is far and away different from Jack Nicholson's version, and even both are infinitely than Mark Hamill's interpretation. While you're more or less watching the same character put into place, what you're viewing is different interpretations of the character, which are put on the actor's mindset of how the character should be played.

Thus is the case for Orton. You may see the Stone Cold character, which granted may influence it. However, it falls upon Randy Orton to create a functioning, different spin upon the character. Orton's chosen to play upon that difference by taking the "tweener Austin" character, and adding perhaps a little psychiotic disorder into the mix. At the end of the day, what keeps the character fresh befalls upon the actor to provide us with a reason to believe it's different. Swagger may not be used to playing characters, so for him, it's difficult. But he's young, and has plenty of time to grow into the character, given the chance to work, which you don't seem likely to give, as you've taken a surface glance, and shied away from Swagger's potential.

TNA, on the other hand, goes out to purchase the actor that played the role five to ten years ago, and gives him nothing more than to "just be that guy you were before". There's no desire to make the character different, because TNA realizes that guy is going to get the pop, anyway. They don't allow a character variation, and rather, insist the wrestler keep it as close to his original gimmick as possible.

Sure, some WWE talent doesn't have the ability to flesh out the gimmick fully and give whole 180 interpretations, but these men are young. And it comes off as more original than watching Hogan and Flair, ECW and the like, to pull the same schtick they've been pulling for about fifteen to twenty years.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Sure it's not what the OP is discussing. But what I'm saying is that the critique towards the two of them overshadows the things that TNA is doing right. The majority of things that TNA has going of big things is critiqued. Where as a thing like Jay Lethal and Pope is completely overlooked from the outsider who doesn't know the TNA product to a full extend.

And because WWE is doing stuff that the majority of people sees as an awesome thing. The Nexus etc. they get a good reaction "everything is awesome in WWE right now" etc.

And due to that, people will look positively on the rehashing that WWE is doing, compared to the things that TNA is doing. Until the tides turn and WWE becomes the crap. and TNA the good.

I see what you're getting at, and I agree. In this case, the consensus of everything else is what is helping to define the rehashes as good or bad, because in TNA, the general consensus is rather negative toward the product as a whole, so when rehashes (ECW invasion, Horsemen) are done, or debut in some fashion, they're shit on more than they might have been had "morale" been higher, yeah? I can get on board with that...

Yes the Four Horsemen thing might be above rehashing. But it's still a thing that has been done. As well as the fact that it kinda bummed with the fans. You remember how people were "yay" when Ric said "I'm reforming the horsemen" and then afterwards the reaction when he said "But we're calling it fortune"

Granted, but as I noted, it's been done so many times before that it doesn't really fit the same bill as the ECW invasion or the Screwjob, for example. I think part of the issue was that he even mentioned the Horsemen at all in the first place. I understand why it was done, but I'm just not sold that it needed to be done at all. All he had to do was come out and say that he was starting what will become the most dominant faction in pro-wrestling today – Fortune – and that he'd be watching all the talent closely, etc., ya know?

People will always have something to complain about. And rehashing in a company that already gets enough heat. It just doesn't exactly help the popularity of the company. And I agree it's ridiculous because TNA is doing some decent stuff. The bad things just overshadows it.

Agreed.

 

[BLU3DRAG0N]

There may never be another Undertaker, Stone Cold Steve Austin or The Rock, but hell, what do you expect the WWE to do? Gimmick wrestlers are always so highly criticized and non-gimmick wrestlers wind up as mid-carders at best.

The last successful gimmick wrestler that I can remember is the hip-hop rappin' John Cena. He's moved away from it some but you get the point.

Another obvious example is the Straight Edge Superstar CM Punk.

There are only so many gimmicks you can come up with and only a few are going to work. Non examples include: The ******ed Eugene The Gay Vito, The Stereotypical Mexicans, The Mexicools, The Black Guy, R-Truth.

I can't blame them for trying to incorporate some of the past success into the current superstar personas. They're not exactly the same person, but better something familiar that they know will succeed than something that will go up in flames.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

IDR....... Look, I'd never admit your logic is usually pretty sound. I'd never say that you weren't a logical and intelligent mind as it pertains to wrestling, so please, don't take offense at what I'm about to say. But this thread is, quite frankly, the most hypocritical thread you've ever had the balls to post on these forums. It seriously is. Either you have a very short term memory, or a selective one. I, however, intend to call you to the carpet, on something you pointed out in "Why Does TNA not get enough credit" Thread":

So let me get this straight: you're absolutely fine with TNA using Re-hashes, yet the WWE needs to be called out for it? Is that what you're getting at? You even say yourself, every promotion is capable of "rehashes", yet here we go again, with you protesting the WWE's use of what you deem "rehashes"

Now then, as for the examples you provide, the difference is simple, IDR: It all relies upon the wrestler performing the gimmick. The difference between TNA is that the WWE allows for different interpretations of a character, and though, in principle, it may seem the same, it falls upon the performer to provide a different spin upon the character. It's like you're looking at three different people playing the role of the Joker, IDR; Heath Ledger's interpretation of the character is far and away different from Jack Nicholson's version, and even both are infinitely than Mark Hamill's interpretation. While you're more or less watching the same character put into place, what you're viewing is different interpretations of the character, which are put on the actor's mindset of how the character should be played.

Not at all – I'm fine with rehashes, period. I think rehashing, as I noted then, and will note now, is part of the world or pro-wreslting for a reason. It's the same reason that action films don't get boring despite the same general premise being applied to "new" films year-after-year. Good guy wins, bad guy loses –*simplicity is the construct. The success of which is all determined on how well you alter whatever you decide to alter in the path from A to Z.

That's no different here. Sometimes the rehash is more direct and blunt a la any number of the Horsemen rehashes that utilized the same stable name and hand-gestures, and other times it's a little more ambiguous and implied like in the event of Evolution. Either way, it's a rehash, and either way the success was determined by how the stable was booked thereafter, not by the fact they were in fact a rehash.

The reason I posted this is becasue I see a lot of the same users complaining about the rehashes being done in TNA for being done praising the rehashes being done in the WWE for being done – that, my friend, is the definition of hypocrisy. Very few were complaining about the fact something was done the way it was done as much as they were complaining that it was done at all to begin with. Very few, for example, critiqued the Montréal Screwjob with Hogan/Angle for what it was – but a large majority criticized it for having been done at all – based on the fact that the "WWE did it first".

Thus is the case for Orton. You may see the Stone Cold character, which granted may influence it. However, it falls upon Randy Orton to create a functioning, different spin upon the character. Orton's chosen to play upon that difference by taking the "tweener Austin" character, and adding perhaps a little psychiotic disorder into the mix. At the end of the day, what keeps the character fresh befalls upon the actor to provide us with a reason to believe it's different. Swagger may not be used to playing characters, so for him, it's difficult. But he's young, and has plenty of time to grow into the character, given the chance to work, which you don't seem likely to give, as you've taken a surface glance, and shied away from Swagger's potential.

I agree, and explained earlier, but it doesn't change the fact it was in fact a rehash, which you have to admit, some users on this forum do bash TNA (or other companies other than the WWE) for using – not necessarily for using "wrong", or not using to their potential. That is what I'm combatting here – not how rehashes are done.

TNA, on the other hand, goes out to purchase the actor that played the role five to ten years ago, and gives him nothing more than to "just be that guy you were before". There's no desire to make the character different, because TNA realizes that guy is going to get the pop, anyway. They don't allow a character variation, and rather, insist the wrestler keep it as close to his original gimmick as possible.

Sure, some WWE talent doesn't have the ability to flesh out the gimmick fully and give whole 180 interpretations, but these men are young. And it comes off as more original than watching Hogan and Flair, ECW and the like, to pull the same schtick they've been pulling for about fifteen to twenty years.

Because sometimes that's what fits their role best. Should Angle have come in as a completely different character, or should he have come in as Kurt Fucking Angle? Come on, man – not everything needs a new wrapper just because it's being sold with a new promotional stamp.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Not even remotely true, man. When people knock TNA's rehashes, it's because it's an angle or gimmick that's been done before – not because it's the same guy doing it.

Then correct that to "When I knock TNA". I am not the Lorax, I do not speak for the trees.

The Montréal Screwjob they pulled with Angle nearly quitting TNA a few months back when he spit in Hogan's face was a rehash that was bombed by the fans – neither Hart nor McMahon were used in it.

But Earl Hebner was. So, yeah, not the same guy at all.

The TNA Screwjob sucked not because it was a rehash of an angle, but because it was a rushed "worked shoot" that lacked the real life drama that surrounded the original incident with Bret and Vince. I hated it not because it was a rehash, but because it was done too quickly and was too sloppy to the point of feeling offended as a viewer.

If it was meant to be taken seriously, they should have done more work on leaving their own mark on it, instead of play-by-play copying the original (Kurt spits on Hogan, wrecks the tables and cameras, etc.)? If it was done as a rib on the then current return of Bret Hart, why did they feel fit to waste the viewer's time and the company's money to make a not very good joke that only served to hurt it's image at a time when it was trying to appeal itself to a wider audience?

The Anderson/Austin "asshole" thing has received it's fair share of criticisms, but no where in this entire thing has Austin himself come back to pro-wrestling to rehash the days of old.

Anderson's current gimmick and Austin's old one have about as much in common as Randy Orton's gimmick and Austin's: they're tweeners. There are only so many ways to book a tweener. It's not rehashing Austin; it's rehashing the concept of a tweener. Call that a defense of both Anderson and Orton.

I think you're confusing two of the primary complaints on this forum here – the concept of rehashed stories, and the concept of pushing older talent.

The Wölfpack was a prime example of the latter, where as the Screwjob was a primary example of the former.

The Wolfpack reboot was both, actually. It served only to push Hall, Nash, and Waltman, and was a clone of their actions in WCW. Right down to the entrance theme.

I think you took my post as being far more argumentative than I intended it to sound. There's nothing wrong with visiting the past. There's nothing wrong with using the history that's available to you. TNA has plenty of shit wrong with it, and rehashing angles and gimmicks is pretty low on that list for me.

 

[Ferbian]

I see what you're getting at, and I agree. In this case, the consensus of everything else is what is helping to define the rehashes as good or bad, because in TNA, the general consensus is rather negative toward the product as a whole, so when rehashes (ECW invasion, Horsemen) are done, or debut in some fashion, they're shit on more than they might have been had "morale" been higher, yeah? I can get on board with that...

Yes exactly. If TNA had been at WWE's momentum in terms of getting a positive reaction. Getting incredible talk on the Internet and creating one of the arguably hottest factions in many years tracing back to NWO (People for christ sake named it NXTWO). And vice versa WWE would most definitely get heat with some of their good things if the rest of the product is shit.

Granted, but as I noted, it's been done so many times before that it doesn't really fit the same bill as the ECW invasion or the Screwjob, for example. I think part of the issue was that he even mentioned the Horsemen at all in the first place. I understand why it was done, but I'm just not sold that it needed to be done at all. All he had to do was come out and say that he was starting what will become the most dominant faction in pro-wrestling today – Fortune – and that he'd be watching all the talent closely, etc., ya know?

Sure it doesn't fit the same bill. But it's a rehash in some way no matter how you twist or turn it. The only way the ECW invasion and Screwjob is a rehash is due to the fact that TNA is doing something that's been done once but the Four Horsemen has been recreated numerous times. They have a far bigger legacy in the wrestling world. And people are fine with a lot of the recreations of great historical things.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Then correct that to "When I knock TNA". I am not the Lorax, I do not speak for the trees.

LOL!

But Earl Hebner was. So, yeah, not the same guy at all.

The TNA Screwjob sucked not because it was a rehash of an angle, but because it was a rushed "worked shoot" that lacked the real life drama that surrounded the original incident with Bret and Vince. I hated it not because it was a rehash, but because it was done too quickly and was too sloppy to the point of feeling offended as a viewer.

If it was meant to be taken seriously, they should have done more work on leaving their own mark on it, instead of play-by-play copying the original (Kurt spits on Hogan, wrecks the tables and cameras, etc.).It it was done as a rib on the then current return of Bret Hart, why did they feel fit to waste the viewer's time and the company's money to make a not very good joke that only served to hurt it's image at a time when it was trying to appeal itself to a wider audience.

Hebner was the same, yes, but the remainder weren't, and I actually agree with your assessment of the situation – my point is that that was never really the point here. I'd love it if half this forums users were capable of objectively discussing the various rehashes in pro-wrestling for what they are and not for being rehashes, but unfortunately that's just not the case. The MS was simply never treated as anything less than "I can't believe TNA is stealing from WWE again." when it happened, as did a number of other angles that have happened since.

Anderson's current gimmick and Austin's old one has about as much in common as Randy Orton's gimmick and Austin's: they're tweeners. There are only so many ways to book a tweener. It's not rehashing Austin; it's rehashing the concept of a tweener. Call that a defense of both Anderson and Orton.

Well what I meant was that Anderson is that "asshole" in the same vein that Austin was seeing as they were both going to do what they wanted to do when they wanted to do it and they both say what they want to say when they want to say it. I'm not saying the characters are that similar, but their basis is.

The Wolfpack reboot was both, actually. It served only to push Hall, Nash, and Waltman, and was a clone of their actions in WCW. Right down to the entrance theme.

I think you took my post as being far more argumentative than I intended it to sound. There's nothing wrong with visiting the past. There's nothing wrong with using the history that's available to you. TNA has plenty of shit wrong with it, and rehashing angles and gimmicks is pretty low on that list for me.

Same here – I just get a little frustrated reading some of the comments from the users here who can blindly accept the very things they complain about TNA doing (utilizing rehashes) when the WWE does it themselves.

 

[thenextbigthing]

Why can WWE re-hash and TNA can't? I'll tell you. WWE is rehashing their OWN product. TNA is not.

Yes the WWE has rehashed gimmicks like the nWo and I would fully criticize them for doing so. The E didn't need to use the nWo. Hogan, Nash and Hall could have gotten over three ways from Sunday without the rehashed angle, and they did (minus Hall who wasn't around for long). Immediately after Mania Hogan went face, Nash was injured returning as a rehashed Diesel character. Gasp, another rehash! But guess what? The E created that character so they can rehash it over and over and over again if they so choose. So slap Vince on the wrist for the nWo rehash.

WWE can rehash Austin (Orton), Trips (Sheamus) or any number of their previous gimmicks if they so choose because they created the gimmicks. When you have Jay Lethal rehashing Randy Savage, a WWE created gimmick it drives me crazy. Yes, the kid is doing a great job at selling the gimmick but give me a break. Why would you constantly remind your audience of your direct competition? The direct competition that is SQUASHING you in ratings as a matter of fact. If Lethal came out every night impersonating AJ Styles, one of TNA's home grown talent I would have no problem with it.

No, TNA cannot rehash the Montreal Screwjob and get away with it because it wasn't theirs first. I did in a small way appreciate TNA's Hogan/Angle mockery of the classic wrestling moment because it reminded me once again who the dominant force in professional wrestling is. The company who developed material being stolen by it's struggling competitor.

And now let me bash The E some more so I don't get the "hypocritical" finger pointed my way.

Yet another perfect example of this. Vince's rehash of ECW. Complete and utter failure. Why? It wasn't his product. The only time the ECWWE gimmick remotely worked was when Heyman was involved, because Heyman was the mind behind the entire gimmick.

As long as the Carter/Hogan/Bischoff/Russo regime continue to put focus on product generated by their competition I'll stay far, far away from any TNA programming. I'd take WWE's rehashes of their OWN product any day.

 

[Seabastion]

A current example of WWE rehashing is
"Dashing" Cody Rhodes sounds a lot like Ravishing Rick Rude but most of the younger fans don't have a clue who he was.

WWE can only successfully rehash thing they created.
Viper/Rattlesnake for example...

The Montreal Screw-job was NOT a gimmick it was real so the WWE can replicate it as a kayfabe as many times as they want no matter how poorly it is done....*cough *cough CM Punk-Taker *cough *cough

 

[Tenta]

Not at all – I'm fine with rehashes, period. I think rehashing, as I noted then, and will note now, is part of the world or pro-wreslting for a reason. It's the same reason that action films don't get boring despite the same general premise being applied to "new" films year-after-year. Good guy wins, bad guy loses –*simplicity is the construct. The success of which is all determined on how well you alter whatever you decide to alter in the path from A to Z.

That's no different here. Sometimes the rehash is more direct and blunt a la any number of the Horsemen rehashes that utilized the same stable name and hand-gestures, and other times it's a little more ambiguous and implied like in the event of Evolution. Either way, it's a rehash, and either way the success was determined by how the stable was booked thereafter, not by the fact they were in fact a rehash.

The reason I posted this is becasue I see a lot of the same users complaining about the rehashes being done in TNA for being done praising the rehashes being done in the WWE for being done – that, my friend, is the definition of hypocrisy. Very few were complaining about the fact something was done the way it was done as much as they were complaining that it was done at all to begin with. Very few, for example, critiqued the Montréal Screwjob with Hogan/Angle for what it was – but a large majority criticized it for having been done at all – based on the fact that the "WWE did it first".

Well, again, I think your big problem comes from the fact that, because it's a new face in the gimmick, the IWC assumes it to be different. Part of the issue is that TNA, for better or worse, and truth or fiction, has earned a reputation for signing the WWE's "washed up" wrestlers. Now, I find that a bit silly myself, but its the stigma is out there. There's no avoiding it, and there's no other way to put it; while the WWE has went out of their way to push new, and other stars, to the forefront, a la Sheamus and McIntyre, TNA still suffers from the sins of hiring the assumed "old guys". I, personally, feel its the case of TNA hiring the best available wrestler, but when those wrestlers are older, and have been running around with the same gimmick for years, let alone decades, TNA is placed with a punishing, perhaps unwarranted stigma.

I agree, and explained earlier, but it doesn't change the fact it was in fact a rehash, which you have to admit, some users on this forum do bash TNA (or other companies other than the WWE) for using – not necessarily for using "wrong", or not using to their potential. That is what I'm combatting here – not how rehashes are done.

We agree, somewhat in principle. Again, the stigma I'm referring to earlier plays a huge role in what you're talking about. And again, you gotta admit, when you have Hogan running around doing the same thing he did thirty years ago, that stigma gets reinforced.

Because sometimes that's what fits their role best. Should Angle have come in as a completely different character, or should he have come in as Kurt Fucking Angle? Come on, man – not everything needs a new wrapper just because it's being sold with a new promotional stamp.

But a good promotion knows that a good wrestler eventually gets old. Eventually, the fans do tire of the same antics. Thus, the WWE realizes if it's a new face, who has a new interpretation on the gimmick. It doesn't have to be a grand scale change, but more subtle changes as the years go by. The Undertaker is a perfect example of a character who's morphed into different characters countless of times, and if someone like Taker can do it, why not someone like Flair, Hogan, and the likes?

 

[AmericanDragonSW]

I will agree that rehashing is the nature of the business and to see any business exist or succeed without doing so would be a bloody miracle. Can we agree that sometimes the amount of rehashing like with the WWE sometimes looks like desperation because they can't come up with anything else? I mean we've seen glimmers of something new coming around by elevating Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston and this whole Nexus this is somewhat new since for those that watched Raw last night, I felt it brought something more out of a guy like John Cena. But the fact of the matter is that I feel that there is a difference between molding a guy to be like somebody else that was there before him and using the same storylines or stables that just aren't working anymore. For example, the crooked official/GM/Chairman, is anyone else sick of that? I mean we've had the Bischoffs and McMahons and we were even tortured and still tormented by Vickie Guerrero who I hope I'm not the only one that is sick to death of her because I'm sorry but the kind of heel heat she generates is not a good thing. Some rehashing which was said earlier does work out. I agree with that. But in the case with this annonymous GM and the Nexus, I'm worried that in the end it's going to end up like "It fricking figures." I'm hoping to be wrong.

 

[MeanGene]

Randy Orton and Stone Cold are completely different, that is a lame comparison. Austin was a beer swilling middle finger giving Vince McMahon/establishment hating sonofabitch....Randy is nothing like that, he is just the viper plain and simple..tortured and twisted

Yes, Swagger and Angle are grossly similar...

Jericho was right when he said Edge is a wannabe Y2J

 

[FightOwensFight]

My line of thinking on this falls in with Tenta. While I see IDR's point, I think the main difference that can't be ignored is that with what the WWE is doing with Swagger and Orton it is just having someone new perform in the same role as a previous wrestler. The issue I have with the way TNA frequently does things is they have the same wrestlers doing the same storylines from years ago.

I think the best way to look at it, at least in my opinion, is that TNA is guilty of rehashing (in many instances...The Band, Sting in the Rafters, ECW guys, etc) old story-lines with the same performers while the WWE is more reinventing (or "re-imagining" if you will) characters from the past with Dibiase (Ted Senior), Orton (Austin), Swagger (Angle), Morrison (HBK...a stretch, but the comparison has been made), Cena (Hogan with the good message to kids, etc).

On the surface it may seem like semantics, but I think the distinction is important to make.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It can be argued that rehashing is the life's blood that's sustained professional wrestling for decades now. Large portions of the classic WWF storyline with Ted DiBiase trying to buy the WWF Championship was taken from an angle in Georgia Championship Wrestling many years earlier with Larry Zbyzko trying to buy the NWA National Heavyweight Championship.

Much of what's been going on in TNA Wrestling for a while has been a rehash or an attempted rehashing of one degree or another. Every wrestling company does it or will do it at some point, so let's not single out the WWE just because it happens to be the biggest company and, by virtue of, the easiest target.

 

[TheBWO]

I think the only thing fresh now would be someone just bring a gun into the ring, murder their opponent, and wait for the cops to show.....oh wait...we've already had the gun angle (Pillman), the cops arrest the opponent angle (NUMEROUS times).....see? Can't even win with that! No matter how you're gonna look at it,......if someone digs deep enough, they're gonna find similiarities in persona's, angles, moves, skill set, etc. I think it's unavoidable. It's how you execute it is what's going to make a difference. That doesn't mean I don't like seeing some----READ: SOME!! of the same angles over and over again.....I like a good swerve as good as anyone when it's done right (face to heel turn, heel to face turn.....not so and so is going against so and so in the main event, and then something happen to them and they're laying sprawled out backstage)....but I think the argument is going to be a stalemate.

 

[shattered dreams]

My line of thinking on this falls in with Tenta. While I see IDR's point, I think the main difference that can't be ignored is that with what the WWE is doing with Swagger and Orton it is just having someone new perform in the same role as a previous wrestler. The issue I have with the way TNA frequently does things is they have the same wrestlers doing the same storylines from years ago.

So when WWE rehashes Vince McMahon vs Bret Hart what does that fall under? But but that is different somehow you say. These excuses get old. Just admit they do it and criticizing TNA specifically for that is hypocritical.

I think the best way to look at it, at least in my opinion, is that TNA is guilty of rehashing (in many instances...The Band, Sting in the Rafters, ECW guys, etc) old story-lines with the same performers while the WWE is more reinventing (or "re-imagining" if you will) characters from the past with Dibiase (Ted Senior), Orton (Austin), Swagger (Angle), Morrison (HBK...a stretch, but the comparison has been made), Cena (Hogan with the good message to kids, etc).

So when exactly was TBP a WWE idea? Does WWE buying out WCW mean they own those gimmicks for this purpose because Sting never was in WWE. Can Bischoff and Russo re-hash their ideas or does Vince get sole power over them? How is Sting still doing Sting any different than Taker still doing Taker? At least right now there is a twist to Sting. Everyone is always complaining that Abyss is man-kaned like it is a bad thing to remind people of one of the great personalities and hardcore wrestlers of all time packaged in a physique of one of the most dominant presences of all time. TNA has several re-imagined guys themselves. However, show me where TNA has copied an active wrestler's gimmick from WWE. I do not see it. While WWE has been guilty of the flip side on several occasions.