And as far as the first idea, that would've been sort of biker-Taker which isn't consistent w/ his character(deadman) then or now(this wouldnt bother me, but I could see why it would raise a question from Vince).....and the second idea, well Vince never wants to give WCW any shine whatsoever. As far as he's concerned, a mega-star like the Undertaker never existed before WWF.
Paul Heyman had 2 ideas before WM that Vince wouldn't let him use
- Thread starter FreshAIG
- Start date
Nah..a creative booker can do more with less it was done with Sting and Hogan
Last edited:
MrFirst2doit
All Star
As far as 2nd one though, They could have shown a quick still stock photo "courtesy of pwi" on the titantron of mean mark and heyman backstage or something from wcw during the wm 29 punk buildup and then played up the heyman trying to destroy taker angle of it more. .
Reality Check
Keepin' it 100
UFC owns that footage after the fight? I thought it belonged to SB Nation.
Dog Based Gremlin
Veteran
"The Streak" sells itself each year at Wrestlemania 
Second one is idiotic, there is no reason the WWE should ever acknowledge Taker as anything but Taker, he's a all-time great character.
First one would have made sense, legit beef.
First one would have made sense, legit beef.
1st one could've worked. 2nd one, nah. The story of the Undertaker is just that... showing him as a big-guy heel with a leather vest before he was "the Undertaker" adds nothing to that build. His & Brock's history makes more sense than just some clip from 1990 when Heyman managed him for 5 minutes.
Beautiful Bobby Eatin
SWEEEEEEEEEETNESS!
Vince killed the mystique of the Undertaker to anyone with memory when the whole Marrying/kidnapping Stephanie deal amd Vince saying Taker is "living his gimmick" im sure Heyman remembers this as well. Plus with the Heyman managing angle, it would give them a few more plugs for the network calling it a "network exclusive".
those ideas are why for as much as I love the Deadman and have such nostalgia for that character because it's legendary. Period, its so limited on what you can build and bounce off of it. .. it's also why the Big Evil version of 2002-2004ish was my favorite variation of the Undertaker because of how versatile he was at that time IMO, dude was showing he could talk his ass off and could really work and not "just for a big man"
Big Evil coulda pulled either one of those ideas off and coulda been intriguing as hell
Big Evil coulda pulled either one of those ideas off and coulda been intriguing as hell
Last edited:
All you griping about the "Deadman" Undertaker, we're just supposed to forget about ABA Undertaker 
I'm Billy FUCO!!
Banned
Pushing Undertaker as The Immortal Deadman then showing him chilling at a UFC event would've been a weird look tbh
Was just about to post this
All you griping about the "Deadman" Undertaker, we're just supposed to forget about ABA Undertaker
From WWE's perspective.....yes
For a gimmick like Taker's deadman gimmick, you can't be blatantly acknowledging times when the man is outside the character, during WWE shows
Imagine if someone tried to ether Kane back in the day by showing footage of him as Isaac Yankem to the crowd and TV audience. Yes, most of us know that he's not really a big red machine from hell, and some of us even know he had a dentist gimmick. Doesn't mean it should be acknowledged.
Scotch Hall
All Star
BikerTaker was so under-rated
Undertaker is a legend in the business. It's not like it'd hurt his character or legend if they showed Mean Mark.
Art Barr
INVADING SOHH CHAMPION
i would have liked it.
if they explained how taker came into the company of paul bearer.
which gave him the powers of the undertaker.
to transform from mean mark callous.
for me,...
i never bought into the taker gimmick.
all because i saw him as mean mark.
now, taking the general wwe fan into consideration.
both ideas would never get approval.
as both ideas are to heavy and lengthy.
for what the wwe portrays currently, productwise.
art barr