Did the Attitude Era ruin things?
- Thread starter TribalPhoenix
- Start date
ColePens
RIP Fugu Buffaloed & parabola
Nope.
its all about story lines. Insert that recent video about Adam talking about good stories. I would, however, get rid of hell in a cell, but technically taker and Lesnar just gave us a good one.
its all about story lines. Insert that recent video about Adam talking about good stories. I would, however, get rid of hell in a cell, but technically taker and Lesnar just gave us a good one.
TribalPhoenix
Former TribalPhoenix
It's just rough stuff to re-watch, a few years removed, Edge vs. UT and HHH vs. HUT.... seriously amazing matches.... where you really don't know.
The storylines have suffered so much, and people just don't care.
I'm honestly watching WM 28 between Triple H and Taker and am more marked out and engaged that pretty much anything in the past 6 months... short of the Dudley Boyz coming back for a few seconds...
I just want to be involved again..... it was just so good...
I'm surprised you can go back and watch Taker vs. HHH and get that feeling. The match drops in quality every time I re-watch it. Taker vs. HBK from WM25 on the other hand, or Taker vs. Punk from WM29? Ambrose vs. Rollins series in 2014? Classics.
I have no issues with a hell in a cell match or any other type of stipulation, but as long as it makes sense for the feud. The PPV Hell in a Cell, I would get rid of.
Agreed. It made so much sense for Ambrose vs. Rollins, too... too bad WWE ****ed it up by not having Ambrose win that match and instead had Wyatt and a dumb hologram cost Ambrose that one. But everything up to that point was money.
But a big part of what made Taker-Lesnar a good HiaC match was a non-PG tactic with the bleeding. I agree with getting rid of the Hell in a Cell PPV. I'd replace it with Elimination Chamber. That particular stipulation makes sense to have its own PPV because that stipulation is just not going to naturally fit into a story for a blowoff when it's a six man thing...plus it would be a good excuse to modernize War Games for a tag team triple threat or a six man tag blowoff like Shield-Wyatts should have been. On top of that, they need to get rid of TLC. I would probably replace it with a battle royal type of PPV and switch the order since they'd need to have that spaced out from Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania's match of that type.
Royal Rumble
Fast Lane
Wrestlemania
Payback
Elimination Chamber
Night of Champions/The Bash
Money in the Bank
Summerslam
Battleground (battle royal PPV makes sense here)
No Way Out/Unforgiven/Judgment Day/whatever
Survivor Series
Armageddon/Night of Champions/whatever
The gimmick PPV only makes sense in cases like the Rumble or MitB or Elimination Chamber due to the multi-man aspect as I said. A gimmick PPV that's mostly based on one-on-one will lose its meaning and desensitize the matches when feuds escalate to that level. And you can put a legitimate occasional King of the Ring PPV to keep things fresh if you want to take a multi-man gimmick PPV out now and then.
Yep, I really enjoyed Taker-Lesnar (didn't need a ppv named HIAC) and Triple H vs Taker. Those were great matches. They had good stories that had a finality to them. Which is when that type of match should be pulled out.
Bubba Thudd
is getting banned
bruins309
Krejci Fight Club
- Sep 17, 2007
- 4,718
- 88
Only to the extent that a lot of in-ring stuff went too far and they had to pull back much further in response. The product is a bit too sanitized and corporate right now and has been for a long time.
The era really damaged women's wrestling with parts of the audience, at least based on my own anecdotal evidence. At the RAW I went to in October, you got people chanting for "puppies" during a women's match. Total eye roll moment...
But: Good booking solves a ton of problems, but that rarely happens now.
The era really damaged women's wrestling with parts of the audience, at least based on my own anecdotal evidence. At the RAW I went to in October, you got people chanting for "puppies" during a women's match. Total eye roll moment...
But: Good booking solves a ton of problems, but that rarely happens now.
Falco Lombardi
Registered User
The problem is booking. Pure and simple. They do so many things wrong.
Forcing a HIAC every year just because it's October is dumb. Rollins and Ambrose is about the only one in the last five years that should have been in the cell.
Forcing pushes. It's ridiculous that Dolph Ziggler wasn't main eventing in 2012-2013. It's crazy that it took what it did for Bryan to get his push in 2014. Now it's Cesaro's time and they are doing everything to waste it.
50/50 booking every single feud. It's next to never when employing that strategy works. Nobody gains anything from that.
Cookie cutter scripting everyone. If you ever watch the WWE app promos or wwe.com exclusives or YouTube promos or whatever, anything that isn't on RAW and Smackdown, it's amazing how much better they are. Quit handcuffing your talent.
Change those things and wrestling will take off again.
Forcing a HIAC every year just because it's October is dumb. Rollins and Ambrose is about the only one in the last five years that should have been in the cell.
Forcing pushes. It's ridiculous that Dolph Ziggler wasn't main eventing in 2012-2013. It's crazy that it took what it did for Bryan to get his push in 2014. Now it's Cesaro's time and they are doing everything to waste it.
50/50 booking every single feud. It's next to never when employing that strategy works. Nobody gains anything from that.
Cookie cutter scripting everyone. If you ever watch the WWE app promos or wwe.com exclusives or YouTube promos or whatever, anything that isn't on RAW and Smackdown, it's amazing how much better they are. Quit handcuffing your talent.
Change those things and wrestling will take off again.
ColePens
RIP Fugu Buffaloed & parabola
Yep... I think the pulse of WWE fans is that we are all on the same page and realize booking is the worst. I would also throw in letting entertainers BE entertainers. Let wrestlers be creative. It's always better when it's natural (example - New Day).
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,276
- 10,194
Paris in Flames
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2009
- 15,903
- 7,935
He's not wrong. There's a reason I call Cesaro the 2012-2013 Dolph Ziggler. Robbed of main events and World Titles he clearly should have.
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 193,197
- 43,602
Hell in a Cell made perfect sense for their match. As a PPV, the concept is obviously completely watered down. It should be a rare event that is the culmination of a long main-event feud.
I actually think the Ruthless Aggression era was the best if you were looking for very personal rivalries.
Brock Lesnar vs. The Undertaker
Brock Lesnar vs. Kurt Angle
Triple H vs. Shawn Michaels
The Undertaker vs. JBL
JBL vs. Eddie Guerrero
Eddie Guerrero vs. Rey Mysterio
Randy Orton vs. Rey Mysterio
Kurt Angle vs. Randy Orton
John Cena vs. Edge
John Cena vs. Randy Orton
Edge vs. The Undertaker
Edge vs. Matt Hardy
and that's just all off the top of my head.
Android 16
Registered User
Attitude era ruined wrestling?
If you call getting to see Austin and Rock (Gretzky and Lemeuix) in their prime ruining wrestling. Then yes I endured years of wrestling being ruined.
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,276
- 10,194
pretty much, the overt scriptedness is the most crippling part to the show. wrestling used to be based on spontaneous moments and LISTENING to the crowd, but that doesn't happen anymore
you can put forth a good product with tv-pg but you need good writing, and that isnt happening
George Binks
#MakeAnaheimGr8Again
- Jul 28, 2012
- 8,580
- 986
That was the time that got me into wrestling. I wouldn't of been interested in wrestling without it.
To be honest, you don't need good writing. The whole writing/creative process complicates what is a very simple thing. Good vs evil is still a basic premise that works in this day and age but people need to believe in the good and believe in the evil and not the cookie-cutter versions that WWE throws out there. There are elements of gray in this world to blur the lines between face and heel/good and bad but it can still be framed to cheer the good guys if you actually give your good guys real faults and adversity and realize when it's time to cut the cord on a run when the crowd is responding a certain way. If the crowd wants to see someone go bad, they tell you and vice-versa but when that happens you need to take the element that is making the crowd want to cheer or boo someone with them as they turn.
Roman Reigns as an unstoppable Samoan badass that turns heel and does his five moves of doom schtick like Cena but actually becomes a bad guy with certain cheating tactics will get over as a heel and probably keep him a heel. That would actually bring entertainment to the product and whoever becomes the next protagonist will benefit from a quality heel character to overcome this time instead of the cowards that barely hang on to the title all the time in this day and age.
DD03
3D
- Mar 15, 2010
- 21,734
- 9
But couldn't it be said that it should have taught them how to appeal more to an audience? Austin seemed like the kind of guy a company wouldn't want as their champion and people got behind him. Rock was given a ton of freedom to work with and constantly came out with his own stuff that turned into catch phrases. Same with Jericho.
The difference is these corporate guys come up with idiotic ideas and they have to push them and they fail. They don't let guys who've grown up in the business actually deal with the business.
It's no longer wrestling, but people are watching it for wrestling.
