Making James Ellsworth GET MY BAGS
Join Date: Jul 2013
Re: DX: Revisionist History, or Deserve the Rub?
I believe that the premise of D Generation X, their name and antics are all the embodiment of one half of what the style of the Attitude Era was: brash, edgy, controversial, very blunt/in your face mixed with "adult humor" and certainly completing the burial of the old traditions of "rasslin" (The New York territory had obviously already had the blueprint for some time). I think given DX's strength as symbolism for WWE's financially most prosperous time, I think that is where the augmentation comes in.
In reality, DX was a strong faction, but I always felt that at least within the scope of the main event scene, the individual entities were larger than the group, particularly when HHH busted out in 98 ahead of the pack. I think the revisionist history comes in too when you look at DX on paper is stronger than actuality. Chief example, Austin's completion of his meteoric rise can be read as Austin vs DX, and seeing how the ratings tide shifted sharply afterwards, DX could with time passing be seen as a big cause playing off Austin, but I would much more attribute Mike Tyson. Mike Tyson was a red hot sports commodity that brought in a slew of perspective audience members from the sporting world that many didn't know about wrestling, and as they like the current wrestling fans held the very strong vicarious connection of Austin's character performance; they fell in love with the character and surrounding zany product and stayed on board, but Tyson drew the crucial first watch in off his star power, DX was just the platform for Tyson to join. I hope this somewhat answers your question.
Edit: Greatest staple in my eyes? Not even close. Greatest in WWE's eyes? While not "home grown" and not as explicitly expressed, there still seems to be that reverence for the Four Horsemen even in WWE, leading me to think that is where they would lead.
Last edited by WrestlingOracle; 10-20-2014 at 11:04 PM.