The Rated-R Superstar Edge attempts to do the unthinkable by becoming the first man to ever defeat the Undertaker at WrestleMania. For the second year in a row, Undertaker is looking to ... See full summary »
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
WORLD TAG TEAM TITLES - Kane and Big Show (c) vs Carlito and Chris Masters. MONEY IN THE BANK LADDER MATCH - Rob Vam Dam vs Finlay vs Ric Flair vs Shelton Benjamin vs Matt Hardy vs Lashley.... See full summary »
This wrestling show quickly grew into one of the most popular sports/entertainment shows ever. In addition to presenting matches between the stars of the WWF, this program spent most of its time on the elaborate backstage story that had developed, involving feuds, deals, backstabbings and romances between the wrestlers, managers, referees and commissioners. Written by
Jean-Marc Rocher <email@example.com>
This show was originally called Raw is War (1993), but in 1997 RAW became a 2 hour show, and the name was changed to WWF Raw is War, signifying the Monday Night Wars, the ratings "war" that the WWF was having with its rival, WCW. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the name was changed to simply WWF Raw, to remove the reference to war and to signify that the Monday Night Wars were over (WWF had bought out WCW that year). Finally, in 2002, the name was changed again to WWE Raw, due to the WWF being sued by the World Wildlife Foundation for use of the WWF logo. The show moved to the USA network again in 2005, after leaving TNN, and is now known as "WWE Monday Night Raw". See more »
In the "Pillman's got a gun" segment with Brian Pillman and Steve Austin in 1996, announcer Kevin Kelly mentions several times that Pillman is at his home in Cincinnati. But the on-screen graphic says the action is live in Walton, Kentucky. See more »
Pro wrestling...as a friend of mine said one time, it's the only type of program where you can screw up consistently for weeks on end, only to get one thing right and keep everyone watching. I don't have quite as awful an outlook on the program as he does, perhaps, but I can recognize that the vast majority of pro wrestling plotlines are poorly written, filled with laughable dialogue and complete rejection of continuity. But hey, they're still better than Snipes' Art of War. I still watch...for one thing, the in-ring portion of the show is usually an exciting stunt-fest, and a lot of the performers are really quite skilled at making the fights look believable these days. Much better than the cornball superhero antics I remember from the 80s. With better writing, I'm sure that the shows could be entertaining all around, rather than just in the ring. For proof, I can look to the few times good writing has been present in wrestling. 2001's Rock-Jericho fued was incredible, one of the few times I've actually been able to get into a plotline and enjoy the story. One guy (Rock) is an acknowledged champion, the other (Jericho) has a reputation for blowing the big match. So Jericho fights the Rock to try to prove he's got what it takes, and as they fight, he slowly gets more and more irritated by suggestions that he's not as good as everyone else, until finally he snaps. Pretty nice story, there. It didn't hurt that The Rock and Chris Jericho are pretty good actors. (Incidentally, I'm really hoping that The Scorpion King turns out to be a good film.) Or what about the current Undertaker-Ric Flair storyline? That's another entertaining plot. Sadly, most plots are like the current Triple H-Jericho-Stephanie storyline...up until recently, that was good too, but it has since descended into the realms of idiocy...poop jokes? Running over a dog? Promos based on Triple H and Stephanie's respective sexual prowess? It's this kind of thing that gives wrestling its reputation as a horrible show that only people of low IQ and low moral standards watch. Every now and then, there's a really good moment...and because of that, I, like lots of other people, keep coming back to watch more. But if the writers would actually try their best the entire time, maybe wrestling could be consistently exciting and involving, instead of being laughable most of the time.
0 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?