Controversial question: Do you agree or disagree that the Attitude Era was actually a bit overrated?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Aztecwarrior480, Jul 2, 2015.

  1. As exciting as a lot of the Attitude Era moments were along with the legends that they've produced(Stone Cold, The Rock, Mick Foley, etc.), I kinda thought the Attitude Era was a bit overrated at a wrestling skill aspect. There were far more edgy segments than there were wrestling matches. Most of the times, the Attitude Era felt more like another Jerry Springer or Steve Wilkos-like show(the type of TV shows that I greatly despise to watch and am appalled that these shows still even exist today because of the stupidity behind these TV shows along with it's followers). The obvious reasons that many people greatly loved and worshipped the Attitude Era was rather because of the edginess, profanity, blood, violence and sex alone rather than at least some of the wrestling skills and matches. Kinda like how some people only enjoy watching a sport like boxing strictly for the blood and slugfest/brawling rather than the technical boxing skills(defense, agility, footwork and counter-punching). People often blame the PG-ratings for the reasons why the WWE has gone downhill recently when the WWE has always been PG before the Attitude Era(The Golden era with the likes of Hogan, Taker, HBK, etc.). It's rather the half-assed scripted storylines from mediocre storywriters rather than the PG rating itself that harmed the WWE's fan base recently.

    My opinion may sound a little unpopular but there's a reason why I actually preferred the Ruthless Agression Era slightly over the Attitude Era and that reason is because they've actually balanced the two different styles of wrestling entertainment(maintaining some of it's edginess that they remained since the AE and mixed it with longer and more wrestling matches that the AE has ever had).

    What do you think?
  2. I haven't watched much from the AE, so I'm not one to judge. But I do agree with you that the problem with the current programming is not the PG banner, but the bad booking.
  3. Yes. The AE is the definition of rose tinted glasses. There was a lot of good stuff in the AE, but A LOT of bad stuff not to mention the outright stupid stuff like the kennel from hell or the PMS angle.
  4. The Attitude Era not only defined what the WWE is today, but without it WWE wouldn't be in existence.

    With that being said, that doesn't mean that the Atiitude Era is "better" it just makes the point that it defined the rest of the company and made it thrive going forward.

    I do feel that the Attitude Era is better for several reasons. First, the superstars back then had more freedom to do as they please. They were able to be the best of themselves. WWE was in survival mode so Vince allowed a lot more shit to happen and was more open to ideas.

    Stone cold, the rock, taker, etc. we're so great because they had the ability to not only be themselves, but everything felt
    Organic. That's a feeling that's usually not generated today. And, it's sad at times. I don't blame the PG era for this, but I do think it's part of it, I mainly blame how the company is now. It's a different environment.

    The current era has lots of talent. The issue is that WWE will make money in spite of itself, so they don't have to recognize all the talent now and they can script whatever they'd like to script. It's all too planned and structure, which I'm all for as far as storylines are concerned, but not with how people talk on the mic every time, however.

    I look at it this way. Cena is the face of this era. Stone cold was the face in the attitude can't go wrong with stone cold.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. #5 Aztecwarrior480, Jul 2, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2015
    Yeah. I mean it's not to say that the Attitude Era was bad. They still had memorable matches, legends and segments. It's just that they had so much potential with a lot of their story angles(that lasted very short) like the Higher Power storyline with the Ministry of Darkness stable yet they killed it by making Vince the mysterious higher power instead of someone else better for that role. Too many wrestlers keep constantly switching from a face to heel to face again in a 1-2 month cycle, thus making some of the story angles confusing. Wrestling Stables like the Union and Unholy Alliance(although the only reason why this stable disbanded so soon was because of The Undertaker's groin injury) had a lot of potential to stay as tag team stables yet they only lasted for 1-2 months. But I do completely agree with you about how wrestlers back in the AE had more freedom with their mic speech in front of the audiences rather than letting the WWE script writers micromanage everything that they are and aren't allowed to say in front of the fans.
  6. I'm fairly certain Mark Callaway isn't a zombie cult leader in real life, his real age aside, and biker taker was garbage. Or that Mick Foley is a tortured pianist who broke his own fingers because he made his mom cry, or a hippie or road bandit from Truth or Consequences New Mexico. Were they allowed more freedom? Yes, but it wasn't always for the better. See the divas division for a prime example
  7. The way I look at the negative aspects of the Attitude Era is that it wasn't the "offensive"/disturbing segments and contents and the free speech of the WWE wrestlers at the time that bothered me about the Attitude Era. It was the desperateness of the WWE for controversial attention from the media, rushed story angles, and rushed wrestling matches that bothered me about the Attitude Era.
  8. But a lot of the desperate stuff was disturbing and offensive. In what world is a man killing another man's dog and feeding him said dog good writing outside of a grindhouse flick? Or a man having sex with a corpse, or a geriatric woman giving birth to a hand?

    The Attitude era wasn't necessarily good TV, it was entertaining TV, especially for the time period it took place in (the nihilistic 90s). Out of the entire time period of the Attitude era (97-01) only 2000 consisted of majority good/logical stories for the WWF, and that was because of the man in charge at the time, Chris Kreski. 2001 lived a lot off of what he had planned out but there's a clear point were they start reverting to booking week to week.

    Was it entertaining content? For the most part, yes. Was it all good? Fuck no.
  9. Well I never said that a lot of these desperate stuff weren't disturbing and offensive. I'm just saying they weren't the main reasons why the Attitude Era had it's negative aspects. I could care less if these disturbing contents offended some overly sensitive individuals who can't handle a borderline-mature content(People get offended about almost everything these days with the annoying political correctness influence anyway). I mostly care about how well-written, well-thought the storylines were along with a good wrestling match. I don't mind if the contents had some disturbing or "offensive" contents as long as it wasn't very blatant and is rather more subtle about it.
  10. Then the attitude era isn't for you outside of 2000 then.

    Wrestling is and always will be a reflection of society and culture. And society is defined by the conflict the generation at the time faces. Post WW2 society was colored by the cold war so wrestling's villains were evil Russians and other foreigners facing off with stoic American heroes defending good values. The 90s didn't have a great conflict or as the movie fight club put it, the war was a spiritual one within ourselves, this led to a much bleaker and nihilistic society, which wrestling reflected. Got no big bad we can look at? Let's go with corporate America and "crummy old timers" and what not. But then 9/11 and a lot more happened which gave society more clear conflicts/threats. We had a clear barrier of good and evil again, which wrestling reflects.

    The same can be said about any other medium, compare movies, comics, TV and music from the 90's with pre and post 90s media and it paints a fairly clear picture.
  11. Stop, when I said they were able to be themselves and have more freedoms, I meant that in the sense of their character. They were able to play not only the character they wanted to play, but edit it a lot how they saw fit. That's what I meant. I know he's not a cult leader, no shit.

    I would argue that their freedom did make everything for the better or else they wouldn't have beaten WCW. And, true, you can have some hits and misses. But, what's been proven is when you allow more freedom, well, you can get a stone cold or rock.

    I'm all for that.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Yeah. Since you speak of how the WWE reflects on current trends of society(at the very end of your statement), I just hope they don't turn the WWE into a very liberal, PC-fest where there's an anti-white, anti-male double standard, especially since people still constantly complain up to this very day about how the WWE still never had a "pure" black WWE Champion(exluding The Rock who's only half black) along with not taking the women's wrestling division serious enough(in today's era at least), kinda like how people in society(particularly in America) still rant about how there's still constant racism against blacks and how women aren't still equal enough by not being paid the same amount as men(despite that men work in more rigorous fields). I'm all for equality of all races/ethnic groups and genders and defending blacks and women from racist and sexist prejudice in the world but please, I don't want to hear the race and gender card bullcrap being pulled when things don't always go their way. The same thing about the issue that I'm talking about can also be applied to the "purely" black WWE wrestlers and female wrestlers in today's era.
  13. No worries. WWE are also run by a right wing conservative nutjob. The IRS gimmick was Vince taking potshots at the IRS for having to pay taxes, the Union stable was him mocking workers rights and the PMS angle was him mocking women's rights .
  14. I think it was entertaining, but mainly adapted to the time of the 90's it was. I don't believe it was perfect, or even the best era overall. I do think it is a overrated in a sense being that it was mainly just edgy.
  15. Yeah. Like I said, it wasn't a bad era, just overrated by casual fans who don't appreciate the true art of professional wrestling technical skills. There were more segments than wrestling matches that were good during the Attitude Era. However, that doesn't mean the Attitude Era wasn't entertaining. It certainly was. It was just the rushed storylines, disappointingly short matches and desperateness for a Jerry Springer or Maury-like controversial media attention that bothered me about the era.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Agreed. I think the perfect balance of wrestling and entertainment was founded in the Ruthless Aggression era personally.

    The attitude era is in my opinion something worth watching for entertainment value regardless though, if one enjoys raunchy humor and stuff like that.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Disagree 100%. I watch stuff from the AE a lot, it's a lot better than anything you get today.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. It's overrated. It's fun to watch but it's definitely not the best era in wrestling history. It's better than the crap they feed us today but it's not better than the 80's or 70's. The only thing really good about the attitude era was the major competition in the 90's.
  19. I think calling it overrated based on the lack of pure wrestling is pretty misguided because you never hear anyone praising the AE for its quality of great wrestling, you hear them praising it for its characters, storylines, and the fact that the WWF were always putting on a must-see show every week that you knew you had to watch and couldn't afford to miss. And even then, there were still a long list of exciting matches, its just that many of them were gimmick matches and garbage brawls. But if it's entertaining fights that you want and not just technical masterpieces, they're there.

    If we're being unbiased and putting aside all subjective preferences, there is no objective argument to calling the Attitude Era "overrated" that holds up. It's not everyone's cup of tea, and it certainly had its fair share of terrible moments that most people would prefer to forget about, but it also produced some of the biggest stars (Steve Austin, The Rock, Triple H, Mick Foley, etc.), one of the biggest factions (D-Generation X), and some of the most historical and talked about rivalries that the industry has ever seen (Austin vs McMahon, Austin vs Rock, Rock vs HHH, Rock vs Foley, HHH vs Foley, etc.), and when you break it all down, the good far outweighs the bad.

    You can't deny its impact. They've released two separate DVD sets and a large book about the AE, what other era or time period have they done that for? Hell, just look at next year's Wrestlemania - they have to sell 100,000 tickets to fill the AT&T Stadium, and right now what is their planned main event for accomplishing that? Oh, yeah - The Rock vs Triple H. Two Attitude Era stars looking to rekindle their feud from back then one last time. The prospect of "Stone Cold" Steve Austin (another Attitude Era star) wrestling one final match is also an interesting talking point for many people in relation to next year's show as well. Parts of the AE still live on today, as you can see.
    • Like Like x 1
Draft saved Draft deleted