The Importance Of… 06.19.09: Thunder
Posted by Mike Chin on 06.19.2009
What's that rumbling I hear? Ah, yes--the sound of thousands of wrestling fans changing the channel.
We Need Another Show Like WWF!
Riding an unparalleled wave of success, at the start of 1998, WCW launched a new show on TBS called Thunder. In looking back, Eric Bischoff has claimed that he was not wild about the idea of two extra hours of TV time, and yet, wrestling was hot and the Turner executives were looking to capitalize any way they could. And so, despite the better judgment of those who were actually in the wrestling business, WCW was off and running with its new program.
Thunder is Born
Thunder wasted no time in asserting itself as the B-level show, relative to Nitro. While commercials for the show touted the company's biggest stars (most prominently, Hollywood Hogan) in reality, such performers rarely made appearances, as Thunder became a center for lower-mid-card talent, with only the lightest sprinkling of top tier names. Looking back at old Thunder results, you can find that The Giant, Scott Hall, Hogan and others did make appearances. The problem was that they rarely made appearances together, or in back to back weeks. Thunder was the small-time show that big names would swing by periodically to give a little boost—not altogether different from established WWE talents making occasional appearances in the developmentals today. In past eras, such a formula may have held up. After all, in the eighties-to-early-nineties syndication era, it was customary for fans to watch shows filled with squash matches and lesser talents. In the days of the Monday Night Wars, though, fans had little patience for this sort of programming, and quickly lost interest in the show.
Beyond the lack of top tier talent, Thunder also suffered for the way in which it over-exposed WCW. Over three hours of Nitro each week was already challenging the collective attention span of the audience. Add in weekend programming, and pay per views, and the product was a bit over-saturated. Putting on an additional two hour broadcast grew tiresome for the television audience. What's more, as WCW began its decline in viewership and revenue, the company started taping Thunder on the same night as live Nitro's—subjecting those dedicated fans who stayed for the whole thing to five hours of the product in a single night.
It's hard to imagine Thunder succeeding under the circumstances, and yet, some might point that WWE is doing well today with five-plus hours of regular programming each week. It's easy enough to explain the difference—that being, the brand extension. Many balk at the separate brands, given how fluid they have become, between ‘talent exchanges,' drafts and cross over PPVs. Nonetheless, having two, and now three distinct ‘leagues' has gone a long way toward giving WWE the feel that it has truly separate, different products running at the same time. At different points, Bischoff has claimed that he had the same idea—whether it was the nWo legitimately seceding from WCW, or Bret Hart leading a separate roster on the second show. Regardless, Thunder featured just enough of the same talents, and just insignificant enough consistent talent to make the show consistently stale and uninteresting.
SAVE_US ARQUETTE
All of the above is enough to establish Thunder as a poor idea, and a bad wrestling show. WCW only further established this show's dismal legacy, though, with its most memorable moment—the one and only world title change to occur on Thunder. This would be the time when David Arquette won his first and only wrestling title.
Looking back at Arquette's title victory, there are divergent opinions. Some, including Bischoff, have rationalized the decision, because of the attention the move garnered, including significant coverage of WCW in the next day's USA Today. While this was valuable PR, true wrestling fans would never forgive WCW for this insult to the title. A lineage of strong champions like Flair, Sting, Vader and Goldberg is enough to make a title meaningful—meaningful enough to withstand the taint of (arguably) lesser champions like Dallas Page, Scott Steiner and Ron Simmons. But when you throw in a non-wrestler, and what's more, a 100 pound guy who was never even in the wrestling business—that's the kind of taint that a legitimate title may never overcome. This moment of garbage booking is probably what Thunder is best remembered for.
In a sign that WWF was decisively beating WCW, the launch of Smackdown on Thursday nights prompted WCW to retreat, pulling Thunder out of its alliterative home night and out of competition's way, relocating to Wednesdays. From there, it was only a matter of time before WWF truly won the war, acquiring its rival.
In Closing
Some readers will surely question why I devoted a column to Thunder, given how dismal, unentertaining, and insignificant the program turned out to be. The fact is that that Thunder was important for just how many things WCW did wrong. True, the company was forced into many of these decisions by the powers-that-be at Turner. Nonetheless, there are lessons to be learned from the show. Non-wrestling people should not wield so much power over a wrestling company. Expanding the programming schedule bears a very real risk of over-exposing the product (a lesson Vince McMahon has taken to heart in his consistent refusal to make Raw a three-hour show permanently). Fans aren't interested in watching a show when it's clearly secondary—when a promotion does nothing to hide that it's an inferior program. And David Arquette as world champ—well, this is a lesson that probably didn't need to be taught, but for those who were curious, it was quite the failure.
That's all for this column. Next week, we take a look at the importance of Smackdown. See you in seven.
Rick Steiner vs Buff Bagwell, the Top Rope Bulldog that almost broke the man's neck. Now that was memorable TV.
Posted By: The Weesel (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 01:41 AM
Then it is interesting what lessons Vince McMahon didn't get. It is clear that Smackdown and ECW are meant to be inferior shows to RAW. The fact that it isn't shows the importance of good booking and roster balance.
He also has six hours of programming and was pushing for a seventh. That, especially with the internet, is over exposure.
I don't know that you can say that WWE is doing well with the brand extension, though it can be said that they may be doing better than without it. What are the combined ratings of the WWE's shows? What was the combined Nitro+Thunder ratings? How far off are the numbers?
Posted By: Guest#1909 (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 02:17 AM
Thunder WAS awful, but I grant this column 1,000,000 Internets simply for "SAVE_US ARQUETTE". Well played, clerks.
Posted By: Decky (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 02:31 AM
Yeah Benoit ( oops I said his name) vs. booker T best of 7 sucked, I stand corrected.
Posted By: vampiro56 (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 03:42 AM
"lesser champions like Dallas Page, Scott Steiner,and Ron Simmons"? Thats bullshit. I totally disagree with this statement. Steiner is one of the best promo guys in the business. Simmons is one of the first credible African American champions!
Posted By: Guest#9304 (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 03:52 AM
This was such an awful show.
Posted By: Guest#5598 (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 08:36 AM
A little more depth would be greatly appreciated. You basically just said that Thunder wasn't as good as Nitro and the only specific event you talked about was the David Arquette title win which has been discussed to death already. Why even discuss the importance of Thunder if you're not going to talk specifically about what made it important?
Posted By: Bob (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 11:37 AM
It seems that saying you highlighted Thunder to show the mistakes Vince has avoided making, when he is arguably making exactly the same mistakes (especially the not hiding the fact that a show is a secondary show, is a little contradictory.
You just fancied a moan, didn't you.
"Steiner is one of the best promo guys in the business"
It's just a shame it's harder to make out what he is saying than pre-2009 Umaga.
Posted By: Quimby (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 12:03 PM
wcw would put all their eggs into one basket. that basket was nitro. they went all out every week for nitro, making it a weekly ppv. they would then have nothing for thunder.
as for the wwf, they initially featured different but equally as important talent on both shows. even prior to the brand extension, raw was austin's show and sd was fashioned for the rock.
i had a friend who went to a nitro/thunder taping. he said it was unbearable as the first two hours were somewhat exciting and the last two were a bore. they tried everything they could to keep fans from leaving after nitro ended.
Posted By: rey (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Why devote a column to this show's importance if you just kinda slag it for a little bit?
I always thoughts Thunder was awful at times but it was very underrated and had its moments. You actually got a few decent matches on the show.
The theme has been kinda stuck in my head lately.
Don't forget it even got its own video game.
Posted By: lilwayne1 (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 04:45 PM
I only watched Thunder, because it was a pure train wreck.
It had the BEST production quality, along with Nitro, but everything wrestling wise was just bad.
In fact, that's the only viable reason I had for watching WCW - It's awesome production values.
Posted By: Ant-LOX (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 08:57 PM
thunder was as whatchable once they brought in main event workers. actually kind of liked wcws last run with the nwo hart nash jarret steiner. it had a few memorable moments. but all wcw shows were always halfassed like the majority of their main events and ppvs.and if you missed what wcw was like there is currently a show on monday nights that reminds me of it a lot.
Posted By: mr x. (Guest) on June 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM
If WCW had used the brand-extension idea with Thunder, they had enough talent to make both shows memorable.
Posted By: Guest#2344 (Guest) on June 20, 2009 at 05:02 PM
Hey dude,
you totally dropped the ball with this article.
For a short time Thunder was the only wrestling show I was able to recieve on my television.
If I could be serious for a moment, I'd like to remember the following memorable moments I saw on Thunder:
Short lived somewhat intriguing fued Sting Vs Vampiro.
Chavo with his talking deer head Pepe.
General misfits in action stuff (horray for Lash Leroux).
A Canadain stable run by Lance Storm, where the U.S. Title was renamed the "Canadian" Heavyweight Title.
A sizeable chunk of Lodi and Lenny.
The tailend of Jericho's stint in WCW.
Sandman mucking about as Hardcore Hak.
The Deadpool and The Flock. A large portion of Raven in WCW in general.
Rey Misterio beating Juventud Guerrera to win the World Cruiserweight Title.
Countless matches featuring Chris Beniot, Dean Malinko, Perry Saturn, Eddie.
The inception of the Natural Born Thrillers.
I would go on but Im at work right now..
Posted By: I had bad cable (Guest) on June 21, 2009 at 08:34 PM
This column you say: "Some, including Bischoff, have rationalized the decision, because of the attention the move garnered, including significant coverage of WCW in the next day's USA Today. While this was valuable PR, true wrestling fans would never forgive WCW for this insult to the title.
In your column on celbs in wrestling you say: "this decision has been rationalized with an emphasis on getting the company attention, and the fact that this win gave WCW major coverage in the next day's USA Today. While this may be legitimate from a PR perspective, hardcore fans would never forgive WCW for this insult the title, removing any luster and legacy the belt could have had."
You are repeating yourself, you have jumped the shark, please turn the light off on your way out and leave this column for someone with an original thought.
Ta muchlies!
Posted By: British Bullfrog (Guest) on June 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.