Was this era overrated?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by seabs, Dec 28, 2011.

  1. This is going to be completely from my opinion however does anyone else share the sentiment that the attitude era wasn't the perfect entity many IWC members would have you believe? There were some major upsides such as one of the best rosters in history and the crowds being hot every night.

    Onto the problems
    • The titles were passed around too much.
      Many people class this as a problem with the modern era however lets look at the wwf title history from January 1999-January 2000
      Show Spoiler
      The rock, mankind,The rock,SCSA,Undertaker,Austin,Mankind, HHH, Vince McMahon,HHH,Big Show, HHH
      12 titles changes over a year. How bad does that make the belt look? Everyone seems to have had a turn with it. I'm not saying the belt doesn't get passed around too much today but how can people complain about this but praise the AE?
    • SCSA was a superman. I know every top face gets this treatment. People hate on Hogan for it. People hate on Cena for it. I've even seen Bruno get some hate for it. So why not Austin? People say this era is predictable but how many times was there a group in the ring were Austin cleared them all?
      Just one example

      or even this ?


      Imagine the hate Cena would get for doing this to anyone? The amount of ''Teh Cena buriess everyone'' would be huge but Austin does it and is praised for it?
    • The over saturation of gimmick matches. Undertaker and SCSA had a hell in a cell match on Raw vs Kane and Mankind. Don't believe me?
      http://www.veoh.com/watch/v1027029Ba8aCnpY?h1=WWE+-+The+Undertaker+and+Stone+Cold+VS+Kane+and+Mankind+%28Hell+In+A+Cell%29.
      It wasn't even a one off they did it again


      Not to mention all the hardcore matches they had when that title was in effect.
    • Every main event feud usually ended up involving the McMahons. Wrestlemania 2000 - The McMahon family.
      In fact the whole of the year 2000 was essentially the McMahon Helmsley era vs the Rock.
      Austin vs Vince in 1998. Had to involve the rest of the family with Linda giving her share of the company too Austin.
      The higher power in 1999 had to be Vince didn't it ? Even though they had kidnapped his Daughter. Just to get to Austin...
    • Some storylines seemed to be done for shock value and didn't add anything to the product see Mae Young giving birth to a hand. Yeah Youtube that if you haven't seen it I'm not going to see that again.
    • It took multiple finishers to put a match away. This is more of a personal gripe. I prefer it when one finisher ended the match rather then multiple. It's what we're used to as wrestling fans now but it takes away from the story for me. Compare this huge Mania match

      When Hogan kicked out of the gorilla slam it seemed special because very few people did it. Compare that to Rock kicking out the stunner at WM17 it was expected to happen so didn't feel as special to me as it had been done multiple times. It still was a big crowd reaction but there is none of that edge of your seat deal for me.

      So yeah I'm not saying the Attitude Era was bad by any means I grew up with it and loved it but to say it was a perfect era some people paint is far from the truth surely? Anyone agree disagree or just want to flame feel free.

     
  2. Wow, very detailed thread here, good job.

    As for the topic in hand, I think the IWC has changed completely over the years and that's why no one complained then. They are a lot more picky now, back then the title changing hands no one cared about. No one cared about ratings, no one cared about burials. Over the years we've just become more picky, which is certainly not a good thing. One theory of why Stone Cold was such a superman is maybe because it didn't take much to get a heel really over in those days. I would of personally liked to see more interesting matches where I had no idea who the winner was going to be, for example now if a hot heel who's going over everyone goes to face someone like Orton, I have no idea who's going to come on top (different for Cena).

    I lol'd at how many title changes there were, interesting to see HHH had 3 of them. If that happened today, wow. Cena is getting slack from everyone for winning it twice this year. Which just brings me back to the IWC are a lot more picky. I mean some people weren't satisfied with Masked Kane's return because of his attire... but that's another discussion for another day.

    You're definitely right about the McMahons being involved in practically everything, that's one thing I was annoyed with too. They had such a good roster, so instead of Vince McMahon holding the title why not one of them? But hey, I certainly enjoyed the Stone Cold vs Vince segments as did many because everyone likes it when you say fuck off to your boss.

    With that Mae Young situation, if that happening now'adays people would call it cringeworthy, and an absolute sham of a segment. Back then people were loling and enjoying shit like that. It's just the IWC changing yet again. But in general you're right, if the things that happened back then happened now, then the IWC would go absolutely insane. SCSA would probably get boo'd by some, like Cena is now. But many people say "Turn it into TV-14 again and make it more Attitude-Era like..." and I don't get it, it wouldn't work at all. So yeah, at the time the attitude-era was great and not many people will disagree, it was by far the most entertaining era, but if it happened now it wouldn't be. There's too many hypocrites, 99% of people will slate Cena for winning a match but if SCSA does it, The Rock does it, Hogan does it or any other super face then it's fine.
     
  3. I would agree that it is overrated, but the World Wrestling Federations goal was to beat WCW in ratings. Vince Russo was the one that brought in the idea of the attitude era that contributed edgy, controversial storylines involving sexual content, on-camera profanity, swerves or unexpected heel turns, and worked shoots in the storylines.

     
  4. No it is not.
    Stone Cold was great at what he did, and the fans loved him (not me). People wanted to see him kick ass, so most of the time he did. Perhaps not fun for everyone, but you just have to give the fans what they want sometimes.

    I had no problem with this, each match was entertaining and different.

    Nothing wrong with shock. Undertaker hanging Big Boss Man, and Big Boss Man towing Big Show's fathers coffin is about as shocking as it gets, but it created immense tension between the wrestlers, makes the build-up and fight more enjoyable.

    Yes, sometimes this was annoying. In matches with more than 2 people though it's fine.

    Attitude Era had very few poor or stupid moments, but most of it was excellent. So much happened that you won't witness in today's WWE. For example,

    - 6 man hell in a cell. This was brutal.
    - Undertakers wife being stalked. So entertaining, they acted this scenario out brilliantly.
    - Most other hell in a cell matches.
    - Shane McMahon falling 50ft to the ground.
    - Kane setting people on fire.

    You just don't see this stuff any more.
    Compare the personalties of both era's,
    The Rock, Undertaker (American badass), Masked Kane, Kurt Angle, Rikishi and 2 Cool, Hardy Boyz, Dudley Boyz, DX.
    All acted very well, very entertaining.
    I just don't see this variety any more.
    Story lines were better, acting was better, fights were more gruesome and looked real. That's why the Attitude Era was better, and that's the general opinion of Wrestling fans.
    Also, the crowd is not half as loud any more.
     
  5. I agree with this, but the PG limit does restrict some of it. But that's not an excuse either, there's such a lack of gimmicks now. Undertaker still has his gimmick, Cena I suppose has a gimmick (although it's boring), HHH's gimmick is just burying people, but there is no outrageous gimmicks any more. I mean Foley had 3 characters? All of them were more interesting than any character in WWE now (except Taker). So I do give you that.

    Acting isn't the problem at all I don't think, it's the booking. It's the same old stuff which annoys the fans. Winning in the same way, same main events (tag team main events normally) and all that. The crowd was better, even though Chicago and New York would put up a great fight at the moment, but generally most crowds back then was hot. There's no question what the better era was, but people do go on about it. I think the point Seabs was making is that if the same sort of things happened in modern WWE, they would complain about it. If Cena won as much as SCSA, they'd complain.
     
  6. I sure wouldn't complain if it were similar now.

    Yes, that's annoying.
    Who would of thought Chris Jericho could beat Kane in a last man standing match? Squashing him with barrels, nobody predicted that one.
     
  7. Yeah, that's defnitely the main thing I miss about the Attitude Era. It's the unpredictability of story lines. I can agree with AE fans when they say now is predictable and stale, because the majority of RAW's someone gets attacked, next RAW they explain why, next RAW they have a tag-team main event (like most RAW main events) with the 2 feud superstars involved, then at the PPV one wins. The heel either wins dirty with an interference or something, or the face wins clean.

    Definitely need some more edgy wins, I understand PG limits some things but it doesn't need blood or chair shots to the head to be epic.

    On the other hand, sometimes AE I think over-done the gimmick matches. It became out-right crazy at times, if that were to happen now it would get criticized because kayfabe is almost dead.
     
  8. I agree, and it's why I watch TNA. RVD, Kurt Angle, Matt Morgan and Crimson, all entertaining athletes without weapons.
     
  9. To be honest, WWE has the athletes (and in my opinion; more and better than TNA) to do this. Daniel Bryan (Bryan Danielson) is probably the best wrestler in the world for real, and Punk, Orton, Ziggler and couple more are certainly up there.

    What would you suggest then for more entertaining matches? Perhaps some different endings, like we had "Free or Fired" last year when Cena was against Barret. If Barret lost the match (cena was referee) Cena was fired, if Barret won the match (remember Barret is bad guy, Cena is ultra-good guy) Cena was free. I think they should perhaps do some more storylines like this, because even if the match is lack-luster the actual outcome is what keeps the audience interested.

    A more recent example is Punk vs Cena at MITB this year, where if Punk won he takes the WWE title and leaves WWE (which he did win, but returned only 2 weeks later).
     
  10. The matches are probably OK. It's the build-up which really makes it. For example, the Kane, X-pac and Tori 3-way went on for around 2 months building up tension and creating excitement, and the match was brilliant. (Kane destroyed DX)
     
  11. Answers in bold you make some really good points tbh.
     
  12. You made a really good point there with the IWC, I bet you didn't expect The Rock to get some hate from the IWC if you said he'd return this year after 7 years out. And he still does. "He's not as good as before, he's not as entertaining as before" is some of the quotes I see, don't get me wrong many still love him, but the IWC is like this. Hang on to the past. WWE has had some great spot moments, they're just spread out more which I personally appreciate more because they're few and far between, and is ever more special when they happen.

    We've had some pretty good ones recently, with Del Rio, Ricardo and Morrison being the highlights really. Sheamus high-crossing Sin Cara from the middle of a ladder and through a ladder was pretty brutal.
     
  13. I stopped watching around the end of it, back into it now. It was a lot more over the top and exciting back then. Now it's a lot more bland.
     
  14. you dont need TV-14 to be entertaining, it certainly helps but is definitely not needed. That HIAC match between Kane and Mankind was PG but they were using chairshots to the head and thumbtacks. You can do edgy things with PG, you just have to push the boundaries of PG but not break them. Thats the problem with WWE now they try so hard to fit the PG mold, but they can do so much more with what they have
     
  15. Excellent post, that's what bothers me when people blame PG for everything when as you say you can do all the edgy stuff under the banner.
     
  16. @Seabs' OP:

    - the titles were passed too much, but only in 1999 tbh. And guess what - it was Russo's last year in WWE. The situation stabilized in 2000. But at least someone got over with the title changes (The Rock, Triple H, Angle), not like today where any jobber can win the title (Swagger, Christian, Del Rio, Hardy, etc.)

    - Austin was Superman, yes, but damn - it was AUSTIN, a working class (anti) hero, beer drinking tough SOB who kicks people's asses and fucks his evil boss in the ass. Who wouldn't cheer that? Would you rather cheer tough guy Austin, or the Sesame Street Ass Kissing Baby Boy JOHN CENA? Btw, Austin also had some superb rivals, like The Rock, Taker, Vince and Triple H, and they played great heels, so it was easier to cheer Austin anyway.

    - yes, the gimmick matches were over used, but again - it's Russo's shit mostly, but at least the whole enviroment was funny and entertaining, and it was tailor-made for the chaos called Attitude Era.

    - agreed with McMahons, but those were only the sub-stories to the major one: Austin vs. Vince, and Vince was such a great heel, it was logical to introduce his family too, especially STEPH. Boy, Steph was awesome.

    - yes, shock value stories were truly horrible, but they didn't over shadow the main eventers

    - meh... no one enjoyed the AE because of the matches, that stuff was secondary, there were only maybe a dozen of ****+ matches in Attitude Era (Taker/Mankind, HHH/Cactus, Austin/Rock, HHH/Rock, Angle/Austin, Angle/Benoit, Benoit/Jericho, Kane/Taker, RVD/Eddie, HHH/Jericho, Rock/Benoit, and few more).
     
  17. It did have some great moments, I'm not going to deny that but it just annoyed me how it's treated as if it was this flawless era, yet the PG era especially is criticized for doing a lot of the same stuff. This wasn't a criticism thread more questioning was it over rated.
     
  18. I will leave my responses in red.


    This is going to be completely from my opinion however does anyone else share the sentiment that the attitude era wasn't the perfect entity many IWC members would have you believe? There were some major upsides such as one of the best rosters in history and the crowds being hot every night.

    Onto the problems
    • The titles were passed around too much.
      Many people class this as a problem with the modern era however lets look at the wwf title history from January 1999-January 2000
      Show Spoiler
      The rock, mankind,The rock,SCSA,Undertaker,Austin,Mankind, HHH, Vince McMahon,HHH,Big Show, HHH
      12 titles changes over a year. How bad does that make the belt look? Everyone seems to have had a turn with it. I'm not saying the belt doesn't get passed around too much today but how can people complain about this but praise the AE?

      You have a valid point, no argument here.

    • SCSA was a superman. I know every top face gets this treatment. People hate on Hogan for it. People hate on Cena for it. I've even seen Bruno get some hate for it. So why not Austin? People say this era is predictable but how many times was there a group in the ring were Austin cleared them all?
      Just one example

      or even this ?


      Imagine the hate Cena would get for doing this to anyone? The amount of ''Teh Cena buriess everyone'' would be huge but Austin does it and is praised for it?


      I my opinion, Austin played the Superman role very well. He was one of the most entertaining superstars of all time and played it much better than Cena. The IWC gets more mad about Cena's gimmick than superman. Although, you do have a great point.
    • The over saturation of gimmick matches. Undertaker and SCSA had a hell in a cell match on Raw vs Kane and Mankind. Don't believe me?
      http://www.veoh.com/watch/v1027029Ba8aCnpY?h1=WWE+-+The+Undertaker+and+Stone+Cold+VS+Kane+and+Mankind+%28Hell+In+A+Cell%29.
      It wasn't even a one off they did it again


      Not to mention all the hardcore matches they had when that title was in effect.

      Thank you, they were overused like crazy and made it seem less exciting when they declared one at a PPV.

    • Every main event feud usually ended up involving the McMahons. Wrestlemania 2000 - The McMahon family.
      In fact the whole of the year 2000 was essentially the McMahon Helmsley era vs the Rock.
      Austin vs Vince in 1998. Had to involve the rest of the family with Linda giving her share of the company too Austin.
      The higher power in 1999 had to be Vince didn't it ? Even though they had kidnapped his Daughter. Just to get to Austin...

      This is the worst part. I like Vince being involved at sometimes but they overdid badly. Shane had a few good matches though.

    • Some storylines seemed to be done for shock value and didn't add anything to the product see Mae Young giving birth to a hand. Yeah Youtube that if you haven't seen it I'm not going to see that again.

      This is something I never understood. They also did this up until around 2008. For example, when Snitski killed Kane & Lita's baby.


    • It took multiple finishers to put a match away. This is more of a personal gripe. I prefer it when one finisher ended the match rather then multiple. It's what we're used to as wrestling fans now but it takes away from the story for me. Compare this huge Mania match

      When Hogan kicked out of the gorilla slam it seemed special because very few people did it. Compare that to Rock kicking out the stunner at WM17 it was expected to happen so didn't feel as special to me as it had been done multiple times. It still was a big crowd reaction but there is none of that edge of your seat deal for me.

      This is one of my favorite things about the AE. Nowadays, when you see a finisher you basically know that the match is over. This added more excitement and shock value to matches.


      So yeah I'm not saying the Attitude Era was bad by any means I grew up with it and loved it but to say it was a perfect era some people paint is far from the truth surely? Anyone agree disagree or just want to flame feel free.



    Good post, lots of good points. But, I think the AE was still the best era of time, every time had it's flaws.
     
  19. I think just like the old ECW (according to some people anyhow, I didn't watch or like the old ECW), people tend to only remember the good things about the Attitude Era because the good by far outweighed the bad. I agree with most of what's been brought up.

    It had colorful personalities and larger-than-life characters like Austin, Rock, Triple H, Mick Foley, Undertaker, DX, etc. Also, as far as "pushing the boundaries" go, no one had ever had edgy content like that before in wrestling. ECW did, but it had a very small audience overall. WWF was doing it on a much more mainstream platform. The whole novelty aspect (in my opinion) of seeing these sort of boundaries pushed on a wrestling program is what made it attractive. That's why "bringing back the Attitude Era" today wouldn't automatically work or fix anything.

    12 title changes in one year (they also had exactly 12 IC Title changes in 1999, I believe) is ridiculous but that was part of Vince Russo's whole belief of titles just being props and thus having no real value. Titles still felt important otherwise at least.

    I didn't mind Austin being a superman character and I think the difference between Austin and Cena is that it didn't go on nearly as long for Austin because his career was cut short because of injury. We saw him throughout '98 and '99 and the last part of '00 and all throughout '01 and the first part of '02 and that was it. And he was a heel throughout almost all of 2001 so that doesn't count. He wasn't booked as a superman per se in 2002 so that doesn't count. So that's a very short time frame for when Austin would seem "invincible" at times. It's been going on a lot longer for John Cena and it's beyond stale now.

    Gimmick matches were also more special back then. The Hell In A Cell, for example, was new back then. But now? It's been done so many times that it's lost a lot of it's impact. Same goes for the Elimination Chamber match.

    When most people say they wish it was like the AE again, they usually don't mean they want the Shock TV aspects back, but they want the color personalities and larger-than-life characters back. AE did that better (IMO) than any other era in wrestling. You just need believable characters who can act and have charisma and are good on the mic and can have a believable feud and match and it will attract people and you can do that in PG. That's pretty much the basis of selling tickets and PPV in wrestling - take two guys, put them into a believable conflict (title, personal hatred, etc.) and make people want to see the eventual match and payoff on PPV.
     

Hide