Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Pillman: too much ?

 On 25 Jun 1996, Mark Davenport wrote:
 > Im curious why are people pissed off that Nash and Hall are using their
 > former gimmicks. But these people don't look twice at Pillman or Vader
 > or Steve Austin using their former gimmicks that were made popular in
 > wcw. Seems like selective reasoning.
 I really don't have a problem with it either way, and indeed wish 
 wrestling was the way it used to be, when a wrestler developed a gimmick 
 over long periods of time, and got a chance to become good at it.  The 
 only difference to me seems that their may be some legal entanglements 
 pertaining to Nash and Hall's gimmicks (i.e. copyrights), which I don't 
 believe are the case with Pillman or Austin's.  (To my knowledge, WCW 
 does not copyright gimmicks, if I am in error upon this, somebody please 
 correct me.)  As for Austin using the same gimmick he did in WCW, I don't 
 see where you get that.  The "Stone Cold" and "Stunning" names could not 
 cause any confusion (even if "Stunning" were copyrighted), and again, I 
 don't believe the name "Steve Austin" is copyrighted (though it is not 
 his real name, and, of course, was not an original WCW name, the name 
 came from the USWA)
 Travis Cook, The Sexiest MoMutant on Earth
 "Ooh, you're such a ladykiller, super sexy mister,
  I bet you're still there, posing in the mirror."--Lush