The Attitude Era - Pros and *Gasp!* Cons

[Eklipse]

Highly regarded by many a TPWW Forum poster as the "Greatest Era in Professional Wrestling History," the Attitude Era changed the face of wrestling as we knew it. It gave us superstars such as "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, The Rock, Hunter Hearst Helmsley, etc.

There were the Monday Night Wars. Being able to switch from one wrestling program to another and back again was very fun. I remember when Nitro was 3 hours long, I would always watch the first hour, switch to RAW, and watch Nitro in its entirety on the replay when RAW went off the air. I believe that had WCW not offered a replay of Nitro immediatley following, they might have been able to hold on for longer.

We were introduced to some wild gimmicks...Val Venis, The Godfather, Mideon, just to name a few. Hell in a Cell was also a product of the Attitude Era.

Ratings were at all time highs, and the money just kept rolling in. So where is the downside to all of this?

1.) The product was not appropriate for all ages. - - - The product WWF was producing on a weekly basis was not suitable for anyone under the age of 14. That really cuts sponsors and viewers down. I remember my parents telling me that I could no longer watch wrestling because of D-X and the Ministry of Darkness. I did anyway.

2.) No matter what "Era" it is, it will always be compared to the Attitude Era - - - Yeah. Personally, I don't mind the PG thing that WWE has going on right now. I just wish people would quit comparing it to the Attitude Era. I'm a wrestling fan...not an "analyst." Just a fan. An observer. I enjoy it, as I did before, during, and after the Attitude Era. Will it ever be as popular again as it was then? Probably not.

3.) The most negative and stupid thing to come out of the Attitude Era is...Backyard Wrestling. - - - Due to wrestling's popularity in the late 90's, especially with brands such as ECW, teenage and even college-aged fans started emulating what they were seeing. They are un-trained, un-skilled, un-talented, and lack the common sense to know that they can be crippled or killed pretending to be a professional wrestler. 90% are fat or out of shape. I honestly don't see what would drive anyone to do anything that these people do. Most of them honestly believe that they have a future in it. And they do it for the "love of the business." It's fucking stupid. I believe that had it not been for the Attitude Era, we would not have had nearly as many backyard wrestling "organizations."

And that's my rant.

Comments? Concerns?

[Favre4Ever]

The Attitude Era had the benefit of being without huge exposure to social media. For whatever reason, it seems like this new age has been more of a hindrance than a helper to wrestling in general. Despite it's attempts to "adapt to the times", the WWE hasn't been able to really recapture what it had between 1997 and 2001.

Also, from a personal standpoint, if being PG is what the WWE has to do to stay in the black...well then that fucking sucks. I was 13 in 1999, and I remember half the fun in watching RAW from 9-11 was a.) i stayed up past my bedtime to watch it's conclusion, and b.) i probably wasn't supposed to be watching it. You might say that a higher age rating is a downside, but in reality that rating is aimed at the PARENTS. If something is PG-13 and is forbidden/compelling, then i have some breaking news for you: kids are going to watch it anyways and participate in it financially somehow.

I'm a wrestling fan too. I "enjoy" it. And honestly, it was much more compelling in the Attitude Era, when I wasn't the only one into it. Now, i'll sit on my couch flipping though channels with my roommates, and it's a lock that if I flip to RAW I won't be there for more than 20 seconds before I'm forced to switch it to Monday Night Football, Law and Order SVU or the marathon repeats of Bones that are TNT every single night. No way that would have happened 10 years ago.

[glanville6]

Well I pretty much agree with everything you said. For me, a pro was that it got me a new hobby. Something to watch on Monday Nights, and if I wanted to, I had wrestling to watch on Thursdays and Sundays too. So a pro, like you said, were rising ratings.

Cons- You also talked about characters. A con of the Attitude Era then is that some characters can't be as entertaining in PG as they were in the Attitude Era.
Goldust anyone? I know he isn't going to go too much further in his wrestling career, but I believe his character would still draw some attention to his storylines when he would have them lately. But then again, without the Attitude Era, Dustin Rhodes career could have ended a long time ago.

And a con is a lot of us still living in the past. But a pro is the memory.

Good rant by you.

[Razzamajazz]

i think 99% of everyone will agree with you, the 1% being trolls. The reason everything is compared to the attitude era is because it WAS the most prosperous period of the business in history, so it can only make sense for something to be compared to what made it so successful in the past. Even if it is oriented toward a different audience now.

It could be compared to the early 90s and 80s WWF, but those were times when kayfabe was still well alive and not everybody knew more or less how everything worked like today.

[Razzamajazz]

plus now we have the main event and top guys stuffed down our throats with out much of an undercard if you don't much care for what's going on in the main event scene. That's what made WCW and WWF great back then

[Eklipse]

plus now we have the main event and top guys stuffed down our throats with out much of an undercard if you don't much care for what's going on in the main event scene. That's what made WCW and WWF great back then

I agree. Mid-Card in the 90's was excellent. The shows didn't focus entirely on the top champion.

[glanville6]

yeah, back then I couldn't wait for each Monday Night.

Now I just watch because its routine. I still like RAW, its just not nearly as good.

[Eklipse]

It's just as good in my opinion. You just have to get in the mindset that things are entirely different now. RAW now is something that I can watch with my son without having to worry too much about what he's seeing. That wasn't possible during the attitude era.

[glanville6]

I wouldn't say its "as good", but I would say its not as people like to make it out to be.

Times change, and the business had to change. While I'm sure a lot of these characters today would have been great in an Attitude Era, I think its great that there are a ton of wrestlers who are basically Attitude Era only people. As mentioned, Val Venis was one of those guys. Gangrel. Al Snow. These guys wouldn't have been much of anything (probably) so its great that they kind of have their "era" to be associated with.

So today's stars will have their own era to be associated with, hopefully with a name better than PG Era.

[Eklipse]

"Era of Cena?"

*Shudder*

[glanville6]

I was listening to a podcast about how the ratings seem to go down when the McMahons arent on TV. So whether its PG or Attitude Era, the struggle with power seems to bring out the best shows.

They are missing that now.

[glanville6]

"Era of Cena?"

*Shudder*

Era of AWESOMENESS

Although yours makes much more sense.

[Rammsteinmad]

STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!!!

[Rammsteinmad]

But seriously, the Attitude Era was awesome back in the day. Lots of good memories, and some crappy ones to.

However, times have changed and everyone still wishing for WWE to go back to the Attitude mentality are wasting their time, especially because it probably wouldn't work as well in todays social climate as it did ten years ago.

[Kane Knight]

A lot of good TV isn't suitable for all ages. I don't personally count this as a flaw of the era, but on the flip side:

There was a lot of garbage in the Attitude Era, even in WWF. Pushing the "extreme" made some really disgusting and dangerous and most of all unnecessary spots.

[Nicky Fives]

Attitude Era was awesome, but I could have gone without the 24/7 Hardcore Rule..... the matches were great, but the belt changing hands 3 times a show was alittle lame.....

[Eklipse]

Everyone constantly talks about how the Attitude Era was so great. I just thought that I would point out some of the negatives that came from it. I agree that WWE seemed to be more entertaining during this time. But you have to remember, in most cases, the audience consisted of 14 year old kids. And what do 14 year old kids like to see? Crotch-chops and satanist rituals, that's what!

I think people completely overlook how good it can be these days because of the nostalgia value that they feel toward the Attitude Era.

[Favre4Ever]

PG might be appropriate for all ages, but it isn't necessarily entertaining for all ages.

[Eklipse]

PG might be appropriate for all ages, but it isn't necessarily entertaining for all ages.

It entertains me just fine. If I want to watch something raunchy like something from the Attitude Era, I'll watch South Park or something. PG really isn't as bad as people like to pretend it is...they're just comparing it to the Attitude Era way too much....it's like apples and donkeys.

[Kane Knight]

Attitude Era was awesome, but I could have gone without the 24/7 Hardcore Rule..... the matches were great, but the belt changing hands 3 times a show was alittle lame.....


That wasn't so much the rule as it was they turned the rule into a joke. The premise that "anything can happen" doesn't need to be played out literally.

you just need the premise, and the occasional random title change or vignette is all you need to back it up.

[BigCrippyZ]

It entertains me just fine. If I want to watch something raunchy like something from the Attitude Era, I'll watch South Park or something. PG really isn't as bad as people like to pretend it is...they're just comparing it to the Attitude Era way too much....it's like apples and donkeys.

As big of a "mark"/fan as I am for the Attitude Era, I don't necessarily think it was always the raunchiness or violence that consistently brought in the highest ratings, not that it didn't help either. Although I do ocassionally miss the violence and raunchy segments, looking back on it now, the thing that made the Attitude Era to me was the pretty consistent, good writing and character/feud development.

That being said, I do think that WWE could push the envelope a little every so often to make matches/feuds just a little more intense, like the occasional bloody match/segment, especially in HIAC or No DQ matches. To me, if used sparingly and properly, it can add just that little extra impact to a feud/storyline, but I don't need/want to see a guy bleed all over himself for the sake of it.

[CSL]

I think people completely overlook how good it can be these days because of the nostalgia value that they feel toward the Attitude Era.

This more than just about anything written in here.

[Favre4Ever]

It entertains me just fine. If I want to watch something raunchy like something from the Attitude Era, I'll watch South Park or something. PG really isn't as bad as people like to pretend it is...they're just comparing it to the Attitude Era way too much....it's like apples and donkeys.

Not me. I could stand not to have my intelligence insulted on a regular basis just because the WWE is pandering to 12 year olds. I could give two shits that being "family friendly" is profitable. Nobody is "pretending" PG is bad, either; it's just different from the product we all fell in love with a decade ago, and not in a good way in my opinion. I'm 24 and I still want to be into wrestling, I still enjoy good matches and story-lines, and I like playing analyst like pretty much everyone here. But the notion that the product is "just as good" now as it was a decade ago is preposterous.

[Favre4Ever]

As big of a "mark"/fan as I am for the Attitude Era, I don't necessarily think it was always the raunchiness or violence that consistently brought in the highest ratings, not that it didn't help either. Although I do ocassionally miss the violence and raunchy segments, looking back on it now, the thing that made the Attitude Era to me was the pretty consistent, good writing and character/feud development.


Absolutely. Also in the Attitude Era, the titles all meant something and didn't have spinners on them.

[BigCrippyZ]

Not me. I could stand not to have my intelligence insulted on a regular basis just because the WWE is pandering to 12 year olds. I could give two shits that being "family friendly" is profitable. Nobody is "pretending" PG is bad, either; it's just different from the product we all fell in love with a decade ago, and not in a good way in my opinion. I'm 24 and I still want to be into wrestling, I still enjoy good matches and story-lines, and I like playing analyst like pretty much everyone here. But the notion that the product is "just as good" now as it was a decade ago is preposterous.

I completely agree man.

[Attitude99]

Screw PG & Screw The WWE

[Ruien]

Con: We get more threads of the past than the present.

[James Steele]

Eklipse, I like the sig. :y: