WWE – Land of the Rehash?

[triniphenom]

ok its damn real iwould understand the swagger, angle thing but dont compare the orton thing to stone cold cause wwe not trying to copy that, orton is his own man made his own personality and the fans change him into a tweener not wwe, he started out as the legend killer and just evolve so know wat u saying

 

[harrythem]

So when WWE rehashes Vince McMahon vs Bret Hart what does that fall under?

How is that re-hashed when, from the moment it happened, Vince Vs Bret was off the cards due to how much hatred flowed between them. It was a few years too late, admittedly, but it wasn't a re-hash. More a continuation.

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'll actually agree with you on this part. WWE-biased people tend to go straight for the TNA copies and is full of old people stuff and it is wrong as, like has been said a few times before, that's the life-blood of the industry.

So when exactly was TBP a WWE idea?

No, that was clearly a stolen idea. The sad thing is in the WWE bubble there's a good chance that they thought it was a brilliant original idea. Still, TBP are just a rehash of Sunny's Bodydonna wanting to remove all the ugly people.

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.

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.

Because be it from minor to major wardrobe changes, character slants and the such, The Undertaker character has evolved over the years from when he was first introduced. There's a bit of mystery with Sting at the moment, I'll grant you, but he's still basically the same mute guy hanging around in the rafters acting all spooky that he was when he made the change back in late 96. Not a bad thing as he's still a big name but, there's not been much character growth in 14 years.

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.

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.

With Abyss it's more that he doesn't have the talent or charisma of Mike Foley to pull off the role. It's the same for both companies though. To give someone an imitation gimmick and the talent themselves doesn't have a chance of living up to the previous version. That's one of the reasons that Lex Luger never became the name he could in WWF and why Ted Dibiase's career seemed to stagnate while he tried to be his dad.

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.

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.

The only real case of WWE copying a TNA gimmick I can think of is TBP and, the thing is, TNA can't really copy an active wrestler's gimmick as TNA is a lot smaller then WWE and copying a gimmick would only re-enforce that image. With WWE they can do it to TNA because, sadly, TNA is still only a small, relatively unknown name in mainstream wrestling so, to the majority of WWE fans, the gimmick is new. Then if they catch sight of TNA they'll automatically jump on the "they copied WWE" bandwagon. It's a vicious cycle (as ECW found out when wwf took their hardcore style and made it appear they were original with it) but them's the breaks.


My problem with TNA is, as I've said elsewhere, not the talent or such. It's that they have the potential to be great as all the pieces of the jigsaw are there, they just seem to be being put into places that WWE would put them, instead of TNA making it's own way.

 

[Dave]

The main difference I see, IDR, is that the WWE is rehashing things that were pretty damn successful during their day, wouldn’t you agree?

Stone Cold Steve Austin is a legend inside of the WWE ring and beyond. He is often considered to have had as big of an impact as the Legendary Hulk Hogan and the formula used to create Austin was absolutely flawless in every single way. Kurt Angle was a whirlwind that washed over the WWE with his natural ability and charisma and was one of the best singles wrestlers I have ever seen in the ring. The Million Dollar Man was hugely successful back in the day and his gimmick still stands testament to how good he was. Obviously, the Hart Foundation were an amazing tag team and no one needs to be told of what Bret Hart and Owen Hart did inside of a WWE ring. Both of them are absolute legends to a T and the way I see it, it is both the natural road for some of the new superstars to take.

Orton is the new Stone Cold, that much has been very true for a while. He has always had a problem with authority and has always been a dangerous tweener-like character. Obviously, he has gone through spells where he has been a heel and a face but I feel as though they have been trying to get Orton over as Tweener for a long time now and it has finally managed to happen. I don’t think Jack Swagger has the personality of Kurt Angle ofr this aspect of Jack Swangle to get over but we will need to see what happen. DiBiase and the Hart Dynasty are the offspring of some of these legends so it only makes sense to include their heritage in their new characters. Hell, they have been doing that with everyone from Cody Rhodes all the way to the Rock, it just makes sense.

The way I see it is that the formula for creating these new superstars is clearly working and the WWE can be trusted to “rehash” things correctly. The problem with places like TNA, is that they take things like this for granted and just expect people to buy them right off of the bat. The WWE actually works on making these things work and get them over. If the Jack Swangle thing doesn’t work out, then they will move onto something else that will. TNA wouldn’t extend the same courtesy. They expect that things will just get over eventually and just keep going with an angle that is dead in the water. People don’t trust TNA with these things and I don’t blame them.

 

[Davi323]

I don't understand the Orton/Austin comparisons. Apart from technically being tweeners, their characters are nothing alike. Just because they attack anyone doesn't make Orton a rehash. Orton is a completely unique character. People cheering him is a result of longevity, familiarity, and being anti-Cena. Orton has never shown any redeeming qualities ever...Austin, anti-hero that he was, had a sense of morality, a sense of justice. Orton does whatever the hell he wants, whenever he wants, while Austin (mostly) went after the bad guys.

Austin was a legit anti-hero, not a full fledged face most of the time, but at least his face/heel status, while grey, gravitated towards the face side. Orton is a full fledged heel that fans happen to cheer for. Huge difference. What the hell has Orton ever done to earn the face reactions he gets? His character has remained 100% heel, done very little that could be considered redeemable, which is not the case with Stone Cold.

 

[shattered dreams]

Because be it from minor to major wardrobe changes, character slants and the such, The Undertaker character has evolved over the years from when he was first introduced. There's a bit of mystery with Sting at the moment, I'll grant you, but he's still basically the same mute guy hanging around in the rafters acting all spooky that he was when he made the change back in late 96. Not a bad thing as he's still a big name but, there's not been much character growth in 14 years.

Seems to me undertaker is essentially in vintage mode himself. Personally I would prefer sting to stay true to his gimmick instead of doing something like the american bad ass for the sake of change. I just find it hard to criticize a legend that can still work for doing a variation of what made him a legend in the first place. That to me is definitely a "continuation" and definitely not a re-hash.

The only real case of WWE copying a TNA gimmick I can think of is TBP and, the thing is, TNA can't really copy an active wrestler's gimmick as TNA is a lot smaller then WWE and copying a gimmick would only re-enforce that image. With WWE they can do it to TNA because, sadly, TNA is still only a small, relatively unknown name in mainstream wrestling so, to the majority of WWE fans, the gimmick is new. Then if they catch sight of TNA they'll automatically jump on the "they copied WWE" bandwagon. It's a vicious cycle (as ECW found out when wwf took their hardcore style and made it appear they were original with it) but them's the breaks.

While Angle made his name in the WWE, he is currently a big part of TNA. Making Swangle under those circumstances seems tacky to me. Imagine if TNA blatantly did such a thing to one of wwe's top guys. I always thought wwe made umaga as a slight to samoa joe but it is debatable. Where have I seen the faith breaker before? Having a diva take on the finisher of one of TNA's top guys is really classy.

My problem with TNA is, as I've said elsewhere, not the talent or such. It's that they have the potential to be great as all the pieces of the jigsaw are there, they just seem to be being put into places that WWE would put them, instead of TNA making it's own way.

I can understand that but if they have potential and are using a successful model, why are we against them again?

The main difference I see, IDR, is that the WWE is rehashing things that were pretty damn successful during their day, wouldn’t you agree?

Umm, seriously? nWo, kliq, Foley, Flair, Hogan etc. were not pretty damn successful during their day? That is news to me.

The way I see it is that the formula for creating these new superstars is clearly working and the WWE can be trusted to “rehash” things correctly. The problem with places like TNA, is that they take things like this for granted and just expect people to buy them right off of the bat. The WWE actually works on making these things work and get them over. If the Jack Swangle thing doesn’t work out, then they will move onto something else that will. TNA wouldn’t extend the same courtesy. They expect that things will just get over eventually and just keep going with an angle that is dead in the water. People don’t trust TNA with these things and I don’t blame them.

I think haters need to get on the same page. Is it TNA sticks with stories too long or makes too many changes. Everyone seems to have a different criticism side on this one and it simply cannot be both. IMO the whole stick with things even if stale until it gets over describes WWE way more than TNA. People have said the Aj/Flair and Hogan/abyss stuff did not work. I think it is pretty clear they are "extending the courtesy" on those complaints. Now I hear plenty of people questioning the Swangle stuff yet no courtesy currently. In fact why are they questioning it if wwe does their re-hashes "correct?"

 

[thenextbigthing]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave
The main difference I see, IDR, is that the WWE is rehashing things that were pretty damn successful during their day, wouldn’t you agree?

Umm, seriously? nWo, kliq, Foley, Flair, Hogan etc. were not pretty damn successful during their day? That is news to me.

The main difference is that the WWE is rehashing things that were pretty damn successful during THEIR day, wouldn't you agree? Is the nWo, kliq, Foley, Flair, or Hogan an original TNA product? nWo is a WCW product, Foley is WWE, Flair could be considered NWA/WCW while using his exposure to better his career and eventually during his old age get younger stars over in WWE, and Hogan is definitely WWE homegrown but helped invigorate the WCW scene in '96 and spur the Monday Night Wars.

TNA is one of the main components in the argument of this thread but those initials were never mentioned in the above paragraph. TNA needs to focus on TNA, not other promotions and what worked for them.

Quite frankly I hoped that Hogan would be successful in his jump to TNA. I hoped that it would create more interest in the product of professional wrestling as a whole, not a single company but in the product. But nothing on the booking side of things shows me he has been successful in any way. A move to Monday nights followed by a retreat to Thursdays shows there was no miraculous improvement done by Hogan. If this "new era" of TNA were successful, even eventually over the next five to ten years, originally spurred by the introduction of Hulk Hogan, that should be considered the greatest rehash of all time.

 

[JJYanks121]

Wow, I'm truly amazed by this thread. It seems that the definition of rehash has become the heated topic of the day and since no one can agree, examples are thrown out with no consensus ever reached. It's quite amusing, and it's become somethign that probably should fall under WWE vs. TNA because that is what it has become.

I could make arguments for ANY character taking mannerisms, promo style, a walk, a finisher from others and calling that a rehash. Let me give a few that haven't been mentioned yet:

WWE:
Cody Rhodes wore shirt shirt while in Legacy cut off completely on the side, which is very much an homage to Shawn Michaels. He also hit the moonsault much like Shawn did. Now, Rhodes' character is talking to mirrors, which some may remember was part of "The Narcissist" Lex Luger's character.

CM Punk's character has a lot in common with Owen Hart's Blue Blazer character, as he preaches living clean and doing good things in life, but does so to boos, as no one wants to hear it.

Dolph Ziggler's hair and song definitely liken him to Mr. Perfect.

TNA:
The Pope speaks in the third person and interacts with interviewers much like the Rock used to.

Robert Roode hits a spinebuster in the same way Triple H does, but the guy is also a walking comparison to Mr. Perfect in a lot of ways.

In looks and his crazed persona, Brian Kendrick has always reminded me of Brian Pillman.

That is just scratching the surface of comparisons that can be made outside of those already mentioned. The point is that basically anybody can be picked apart and revealed to have some characteristics from wrestlers in the past. But hell, isn't that how life is? Stephen Strasburg is the hottest young pitcher in the MLB, but I'll bet you could liken his delivery to someone, probably because he grew up watching other pitchers and modeled his delivery after some of his favorites. Because guys are obviously fans before superstars, they will likely imitate some of their heroes as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Now, as for whether WWE or TNA is more guilty of rehashing, I'd say that the examples presented show WWE to have similarities in their gimmicks while TNA has brought back things that were popular years ago. There is a reason for this, as TNA is looking to gain viewers, so using stars with name recognition, bringing back old groups, and using storylines that people can liken to the past is a way to get casual fans interested, as it may remind them of "the good old days". Many of us find it to be tired and done, but that's part of their marketing strategy and we kind of have to accept it. With that said, the one thing I will completely knock is the Montreal Screwjob because its execution was very poor. It's one thing to use elements of a previous idea and do a new take on it, but it is another to do a shot for shot remake. This was a definite low point in TNA, but since nothing like that has been attempted since, it gets a pass.

See, I don't have a problem with "rehashes" because I don't buy most of what many of you are selling as such. All ideas are somehow going to be evident in more than one case over time. It's just natural that elements will overlap. Hell, there's only so many characters that can be created, only so many moves that can be executed, only so many outfits that can be used, etc. We must accept that elements of the past will be part of our wrestling programming. The only thing we can ask for is that these elements be presented in a new and exciting way so as not to completely be a rehash of the past.

 

[shattered dreams]

TNA is one of the main components in the argument of this thread but those initials were never mentioned in the above paragraph. TNA needs to focus on TNA, not other promotions and what worked for them.

Why because smarks say so? TNA does not have a history beyond 8 years ago. So basically any veteran is going to have a history somewhere else. Why should they completely ignore that history? Any company needs veterans and to say these guys cannot use the evolution of their characters is simply ******ed. Where does this idea come from that TNA is not allowed to use any of the proven practices that work in the wrestling industry when building up their company? Talk about a huge handicap. If you are starting a competitor of any company and you are planning on doing every single little thing different that is pretty much guaranteed to fail IMO. Ask yourself do most competing tv shows have mostly similarities with maybe a few key differences or vice versa. I think it is obvious which one is the case. I do not understand why everyone keeps demanding TNA re-invent the wheel from scratch while WWE can use a cyclical goodyear assembly line.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I don't think you can blame guys like the Hart Dynasty, the Usos, Ted DiBiase, or really anybody with a family or history in the business for trying to play off the fans knowledge of their background. If you were the son of the British Bulldog, or the last trained member of the Hart Dungeon, or the daughter of The Anvil, wouldn't you want people to know it? It's just a smart move by the WWE to capitalize on talent that sells. The Dynasty needed a threat, and they brought in the Usos who have a legendary background as well, and a legitimate claim that they're family has always taken second-banana to the Harts. Ted DiBiase not only shares a name with his legendary father, but he has a lot of the same charisma and personality. He's got he Million Dollar CHampionship because it's helping to put him over, and give the fans something they recognize.

Let's look at the success of Ted DiBiase vs. Goldust. The Weird One has been around for a long time, and he's had ups and downs in the business, but he's never really been pushed that hard, or gotten over with that many people. He's legendary for being the strange golden jobber that just won't go away. But Ted DiBiase has a huge future ahead of him and everybody knows that. Don't you think Goldy-locks could have had a better career if he played off the name of his father? Look at Cody Rhodes on Smackdown! He doesn't have the personality of Ted DiBiase or even his father Dusty, and he probably wouldn't have made it if the WWE packaged him as some lame Grease-style biker guy (yes, that was a shot at Sim Snuka).

Now, I do agree that Swagger is being used as another Kurt Angle, but nobody is arguing that he isn't. It's pretty obvious what they're doing with him, but you're right, it isn't going to work because he doesn't have the charisma that Angle did/does.

I think the reason people get so upset at TNA is because they very rarely come up with new ideas. And it's not just the Hogan/Bishoff era either. A lot of guys on the roster are straight up clones of WWE characters, with less personality. For example, Abyss' character is modeled somewhere between Mankind and Kane, and it's REALLY obvious. He even had a Paul Bearer-type character leading him and confusing him for a long time. And instead of coming up with new angles and new things to do, or focussing on great talent they already have, they bring in old things that the fans will cling to, in hopes that they'll attract ratings.

WWE does re-use things on occasion, but after being in the business for so long, you run out of original material to work with... And I completely disagree with all the people who say the Rand Orton "viper" character is a complete rip off of the tweener Austin character. There's a good chance that WWE gave him that direction with Austin in mind, but Orton has done a great job of being his own character. Austin was never the possessed demon that Orton is. Yeah, he uses a cutter for a finisher and has no friends... Big deal?

I'm a fan of TNA, don't get me wrong, but bringing in Jeff Hardy, RVD, mocking the Montreal Screwjob, having an ECW invasion, and re-uniting the Band are not things that are going to keep me around.

 

[The Champ]

The very nature of wrestling makes it nearly impossible to come up with new and original ideas that haven't been done before. People who have been watching for a long time, such as ourselves, might say that we've seen all these things before, but the younger generation hasn't and sees it as something new and exciting. Elements of older generations will always be used because if something works, why not go back to it? It's not like Orton and Stone Cold have exactly the same character, Austin was a beer swilling redneck who represented the everyman of society, Orton is a dangerous psychopath who has no remorse for the destruction he causes. Even Swagger, who they're obviously trying to make into Kurt Angle 2.0, has some noticeable differences. But either way, I don't quite see the problem with reusing and tweaking old ideas every now and then, because new characters that work can often be very difficult to come up with.

 

[vanderhevel]

i don't even bother watching tna anymore cause all it is is old guys and overused gimmicks.
what i do hate is when wwe copies itself with guys like orton. orton is so far behind stone cold its not even funny. they arent even in the same stratosphere. orton trys way too hard and just stares blankly at stuff. guy should just stay a complete heel cause this tweener crap doesnt cut it for him. why bother copying yourself if its gonna be a shitty version.
of course there will always be dummies that feel like they are being different for liking him or something, so he will always have that appeal.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The main difference I see, IDR, is that the WWE is rehashing things that were pretty damn successful during their day, wouldn’t you agree?

And TNA isn't rehashing things that were successful? The Wölfpack were never successful? The Horsemen were never successful?

Stone Cold Steve Austin is a legend inside of the WWE ring and beyond. He is often considered to have had as big of an impact as the Legendary Hulk Hogan and the formula used to create Austin was absolutely flawless in every single way. Kurt Angle was a whirlwind that washed over the WWE with his natural ability and charisma and was one of the best singles wrestlers I have ever seen in the ring. The Million Dollar Man was hugely successful back in the day and his gimmick still stands testament to how good he was. Obviously, the Hart Foundation were an amazing tag team and no one needs to be told of what Bret Hart and Owen Hart did inside of a WWE ring. Both of them are absolute legends to a T and the way I see it, it is both the natural road for some of the new superstars to take.

Agreed on all parts, but none of that counters the point that TNA is lambasted for rehashing pro-wrestling history, where the WWE isn't, simply because the WWE was remembered for doing it most recently. It's hypocrisy.

Orton is the new Stone Cold, that much has been very true for a while. He has always had a problem with authority and has always been a dangerous tweener-like character. Obviously, he has gone through spells where he has been a heel and a face but I feel as though they have been trying to get Orton over as Tweener for a long time now and it has finally managed to happen. I don’t think Jack Swagger has the personality of Kurt Angle ofr this aspect of Jack Swangle to get over but we will need to see what happen. DiBiase and the Hart Dynasty are the offspring of some of these legends so it only makes sense to include their heritage in their new characters. Hell, they have been doing that with everyone from Cody Rhodes all the way to the Rock, it just makes sense.

But again, why is it OK for the WWE to go back to their laurels, but it's not OK for TNA (or any other company) to touch on history?

The way I see it is that the formula for creating these new superstars is clearly working and the WWE can be trusted to “rehash” things correctly. The problem with places like TNA, is that they take things like this for granted and just expect people to buy them right off of the bat. The WWE actually works on making these things work and get them over. If the Jack Swangle thing doesn’t work out, then they will move onto something else that will. TNA wouldn’t extend the same courtesy. They expect that things will just get over eventually and just keep going with an angle that is dead in the water. People don’t trust TNA with these things and I don’t blame them.

So TNA isn't working on the Sting v. Hogan/Bischoff/Jarrett angle?

I think too much of this is based on things that failed, like the Wölfpack, as if a wrestling company like the WWE never experienced failure itself... It's hypocrisy, Dave – nothing short of it. You can't call the kettle black when you're the pot.

 

[shattered dreams]

I think the reason people get so upset at TNA is because they very rarely come up with new ideas. And it's not just the Hogan/Bishoff era either. A lot of guys on the roster are straight up clones of WWE characters, with less personality. For example, Abyss' character is modeled somewhere between Mankind and Kane, and it's REALLY obvious. He even had a Paul Bearer-type character leading him and confusing him for a long time. And instead of coming up with new angles and new things to do, or focussing on great talent they already have, they bring in old things that the fans will cling to, in hopes that they'll attract ratings.

Ok first off when did wwe have a wrestler that was somewhere inbetween Mankind and Kane? They did not so this is not a "straight up clone." It is a combination of gimmicks from multiple wrestlers from the past. This type of thing has been done by countless wrestlers in any company ever. You also only give one example and claim "a lot" of the TNA roster is like this. Could you maybe give some other examples because one sort of example is hardly a lot. In fact you gave one example for WWE as well in swangle. Does that mean they have a lot as well? They have as much if not more than TNA but everyone seems to miss this somehow. Also, when exactly is wwe coming up with all these new ideas that have never been done in any way, shape or form before? These double standards are so blatant it is amazing how many people are blind to them. WWE is excused to do the things that TNA is crucified for on a regular basis. Why? I have no idea.

 

[King Booka]

wow this is an easy one, so your lord and savior of the smackdown kingdom will make this simple. Wwe is not fucking giving us the Nasty boys, The senior citizens verison of the nwo, and TnaEcw ( I liked ecw but you this isnt going to work.) Both the E and Tna have some good and bad re-hash groups but the E has better angles and marketing strategy. C'mon think about

Stone Cold Steve Austin- The E gave us the viper randy orton and tna gave us fucking sharkboy ( even though his promos were great)

NWO- The E brings us the nexus with an on going decent storyline. Tna gave us a 50 year old kevin nash, a alcoholic scott hall who couldnt wrestle at all anymore to his potential, a balding shawn waltman, and eric fucking young! Yeah ok!

ECW- OK the E fuck this one up in the end but you loved the shit out of it when it first was here and the ppv were great until the originals were let go. Tna dont fuck this up if you do this, it can be done but with no heyman and russo back there, i rather see a mother drown her new born in a tub full of bleach before i want to see TnaEcw.

Four Horsemen- Tna you got something good in fortune with ric flair leading the pack. When this starts make aj heel champ with a long title run and you will see a little ratings boost

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Its called storytelling. Every form of entertainment does it, to some extent, from movies, to TV, to wrestling, to subject matter in music. To speak negatively of it like only one place especially does it is beyond dumb

 

[FightOwensFight]

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.



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.

I never mentioned The Beautiful People or the Hart/McMahon angle (which I didn't like and felt was not "rehashing" but just duplicating). As for Sting in the rafters, it isn't so much that he is up there, it is why. When there was "strife" in WCW he went to the rafters and acted all cryptic, and here we are again. Though, it all honesty, it is the lesser "offense" of the ones I listed.

But, I also think it gets old when the WWE kept trotting out DX when even HH and HBK looked like they were just going through the motions. I just think TNA is more guilty of it than the WWE.