Wrestling Forum banner

Was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

12K views 41 replies 23 participants last post by  RoboCop 
#1 ·
now hear me out. I know we still had cartoony gimmicks in 1996 and the storylines weren't as big and exciting as the AE in it's peak, but do you think that 1996 brought a level or maturity and adult content that the AE never went to? yes we had Mankind almost killing himself in a HIAC, yes we had beer drinking, yes we had a crucifixion but look at 1996:


The Goldust character being far ahead of his time. he was bringing eroticism into his angles and would kiss his opponents. he was so controversial that the WWE had to kill the angle. Goldust was sexually harassing Razor Ramon and Rowdy Piper, he would constantly make subtle references to ejaculation and other sexual activities. he and Piper fought in a backlot brawl that was parodying OJ Simpson who was on trial for killing his wife




The Mankind character was schizophrenia and psychopathic to an artform. bringing up his tragic past with so much believability that it made you question if he was actually sick. he was a character right out of Silence of the Lambs



(this video aired in early 1997 but was filmed in 1996 and Mankind was doing this character incarnation since early 1996)






BRIAN PILLMAN HAS A GUN. Pillman threatened to murder SCSA on live television right when his home was being invaded







Livewire. this is a show before the internet took off where the WWF was interacting live with it's fan. in this episode alone Paul Heyman calls and accuses Vince of stealing his talent, swears at him, Russo makes fun of JR's Bells Palsy and tells Vince that his product sucks to his face, they reference WCW, Cornette references Vince's problems with the federal government. I never seen anything this unfiltered in the AE




and here's one with SCSA cursing out callers and even threatening to "hinder" a caller's life if she were to show up (at 6 07)






JR shoots on live television. it might've been a worked shoot, but there was so much truth in what he was saying






HBK had an angle with British Bulldog and his wife that started off lightly but ended with Shawn being accused of sexually harassing her




The NOD debuted in 1996 as a racist faction, and they were obviously modeled after islamic groups and the black panther. The angle cooled down by 1997 but it started out very controversial





Jake the Snake started an angle with Jerry Lawler in the middle of his alcohol problem. Jerry wouldn't stop making fun of it on live tv. even going so far as to pour booze all over him






there are many other examples but what do you guys think? was 1996 "edgier" than the AE?
 
See less See more
5 6
#2 ·
Re: was 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the AE?

I was coming in here to say absolutely not but you make some great points. 1998 and 1999 were cutting edge but usually you would laugh through most of Raw. It was silly and over the top.
After the disaster that was 1995 I think WWF was looking to go in a different direction and they started experimenting with realism. I think they soon realized that they were getting a little too real and serious with some of the above mentioned angles and tweaked it. Thus the Attitude Era was born.
 
#3 ·
Re: was 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the AE?

I was coming in here to say absolutely not but you make some great points. 1998 and 1999 were cutting edge but usually you would laugh through most of Raw. It was silly and over the top.
After the disaster that was 1995 I think WWF was looking to go in a different direction and they started experimenting with realism. I think they soon realized that they were getting a little too real and serious with some of the above mentioned angles and tweaked it. Thus the Attitude Era was born.
exactly. WWF was turning into their own version of HBO's OZ in 1996, and what made it seem worse was them coming right out of the cartoony 1995. it was a day and night contrast. introduced concepts like the boiler room brawl and buried alive matches when these concepts were never even heard of

AE did some crazy stuff but it looks like they dialed it back to being more kayfabe based and less personal. it was more juvenile. in 1997 they started creating more tangled storylines and the show became more "entertaining" going forward, but 1996 was testing an extremity that we'd never see from WWF again
 
#4 ·
Re: was 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the AE?

Great points OP. You obviously made a strong case in support of 1996 being more edgy, and honestly, I agree with you.

Especially considering 1995 and early 1996 being so far from that edginess. If anyone has old WWF Magazines, I recommend reading the January 97 issue (came out in December 96). There's a huge article about "attitude" that is all about the direction the WWF had began going. Great stuff.
 
#6 ·
Re: was 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the AE?

Great points OP. You obviously made a strong case in support of 1996 being more edgy, and honestly, I agree with you.

Especially considering 1995 and early 1996 being so far from that edginess. If anyone has old WWF Magazines, I recommend reading the January 97 issue (came out in December 96). There's a huge article about "attitude" that is all about the direction the WWF had began going. Great stuff.
I wish I could find it online. I remember the Vic Venom articles that were more outspoken than what you usually read. then they started doing the RAW magazine with bikini babes on the cover. I still have some of the magazines but not that issue you're talking about
 
#9 ·
Re: was 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the AE?

1996 is a damn underrated year. Especially the second half. Not saying it was fantastic but considering the previous year was such a disaster it was quite the turnaround. The weekly shows were turning into gripping television rather than just the usual squash matches. PPVs were consistently showcasing tremendous matches. I mean, Survivor Series that year is legit one of the greatest PPVs in the history of the company.

It just gets shat on because the nWo angle was overshadowing everything the WWF would do. In 1996 we saw the character arcs of Mankind, Austin, HBK, Bret, Pillman, Undertaker and Triple H progress into more 'realistic' territories. Pity about the horrendous Razor/Diesel angle though and the tag team division being in the shits. Still, Bulldog/Owen and (briefly) Furnas/Lafon provided some quality.
 
#10 ·
Re: was 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the AE?

1996 is a damn underrated year. Especially the second half. Not saying it was fantastic but considering the previous year was such a disaster it was quite the turnaround. The weekly shows were turning into gripping television rather than just the usual squash matches. PPVs were consistently showcasing tremendous matches. I mean, Survivor Series that year is legit one of the greatest PPVs in the history of the company.

It just gets shat on because the nWo angle was overshadowing everything the WWF would do. In 1996 we saw the character arcs of Mankind, Austin, HBK, Bret, Pillman, Undertaker and Triple H progress into more 'realistic' territories. Pity about the horrendous Razor/Diesel angle though and the tag team division being in the shits. Still, Bulldog/Owen and (briefly) Furnas/Lafon provided some quality.
true, Austin v Bret Hart at Survivor Series 96 is one of the most underrated matches of that decade because Wrestlemania 13 overshadows it, but it was a damn good match. HBK v Mankind at Mind Games 96 might be the first truly brutal encounter in the WWE and one of the best matches ever
 
#11 ·
Re: was 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the AE?

Just wanted to thank you Damn Skippy. My wrestling fan friends and I have been friends since childhood so our wrestling discussions can get pretty stale. I've had seven conversations with my close friends since I read this concept from you. We have been enlightened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RoboCop
#12 ·
Re: was 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the AE?

Looking back at that time I see it as maybe controversial.
But back then I didn't care about stuff being that way, it was just good wrestling to me, with a good variation of chars.

In fact I was proud of WWE for playing with a ''new generation'' of wrestler against the competition.
Besides being a Hogan fan, those mocks at him at that time were GOLD.
:ha
 
#13 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

1996? No, not more controversial than the attitude era. The AE was known for not pulling back any punches. They would do anything and everything in order to win the monday night wars. I remember when breat hart swore, and the commentary had to apologize for it.
 
#14 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

1996? No, not more controversial than the attitude era. The AE was known for not pulling back any punches. They would do anything and everything in order to win the monday night wars. I remember when breat hart swore, and the commentary had to apologize for it.
I didn't see swearing as being THAT controversial. RAW was TV-14 in the AE and swearing was a common thing for shows with that rating. correct me if i'm wrong but in 1996 the WWE were still PG and only went TV-14 with the advent of RAW IS WAR in late 1997, which makes the stuff they did in 1996 even more controversial

Diesel gave the middle finger to the Undertaker in January of 1996 and the WWE even used that footage in promo reels to hype their feud

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5qstc_diesel-kevin-nash-flips-up-the-bird_fun
 
#15 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

No, but what it does show is that the new gen and the rest of the product pre-AE, was still a show for adults. You can't say the same about the product today. And the apologists will still try and say "PG is okay, because the 80s and new gen were PG too!", nope, sorry the product has never been this kiddie and geared towards children.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

No, but what it does show is that the new gen and the rest of the product pre-AE, was still a show for adults. You can't say the same about the product today. And the apologists will still try and say "PG is okay, because the 80s and new gen were PG too!", nope, sorry the product has never been this kiddie and geared towards children.
True, but that wasn't the question. You're right as far as PG now is more geared towards children, and pre-AE more for adults, but what made AE more controversial is that it targeted young adults over the more traditional crowd. Which led to a lot more sexual comments, gestures, and acts. It led to where everything that came out of a wrestlers mouth was either a curse word or just shy of one, it led to a lot more bloodier matches, and hardcore match types.

Not to mention comparing guys like stone cold, the rock, DX, and even vince mcmahon, to previous superstars, and pre-AE Vince.

As far as more intense, and in your face:

Stone Cold > Roddy Piper
Rock > Hogan
DX > Micheals and Nash
AE Vince > Pre-AE Vince

Thats just scratching the surface.

Though I will admit roddy piper was amazing for that era, and still is.

It was just more controversial. Maybe before AE, yea, 1996 was more controversial than what was seen beforehand, but more controversial than the AE in whole? I don't see that.
 
#16 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

I loved the 1996 of WWE. It was way more edgy, and just look at the promos and interviews that Warrior had when feuding with Goldust, it was like Steve Austin-ism to it, but just Before Austin did them.
 
#18 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

I loved the 1996 of WWE. It was way more edgy, and just look at the promos and interviews that Warrior had when feuding with Goldust, it was like Steve Austin-ism to it, but just Before Austin did them.



"there's going to be squealing Goldust, and you're going to be the biggest squealing pig of all" Warrior with those Deliverance rape inuendos looool
 
#19 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

It was a really weird year. 90%+ of the product was cartoonish and PG but as OP pointed out there were a few pretty extreme anomalies that stood out like a sore thumb. The Austin/Pillman home invasion still sticks out to me as perhaps the edgiest single angle the WWF/E has ever done. From what i remember Austin in general seemed more menacing in 96/early 97 too. I think they toned down his evil heelish qualities a little when he became a face.

Overall though, its not an easy question to answer because like I said, it was 90%+ cartoonish with a handful of super controversial bits whereas the AE years were more all round edgy, albeit perhaps not reaching quite the same peaks of controversy for the most part.


Interesting topic though.
 
#20 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

In 1996 the WWE was in a transition period, as was most of 97, we had the company moving away, slowly but surely from the cartoonish, large, colourful, Hogan-esque characters which had dominated most of the 80s and early 90s towards darker, less wrestler looking characters such as Austin, Rock, Mankind, HHH and the rest of DX and so on. Of course these characters would require a different method of story telling, promo cutting and different motivations. Not to mention for some of those years, the likes of Warior, Jake the Snake and other 80s hangovers were still around. Luckily, at first the defection of guys like HOgan and Piper and Macho Man seemed a bad thing but in the long term, it helped the WWE elevate it's product to a whole new level of world wide attention.
 
#21 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

In 96 is where things started to change, it was the very beginning of it. 97 is when the Attitude Era came in but it wasn't until 98 that they basically advertised it as such. You don't start off one day and say "We're edgy", you have to build to it and in 96 those were the babysteps for what came after it
 
#24 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

Like many have said, the OP definitely opened my eyes a little more. You also forgot to mention Sable, and the extra influx of sexuality into the mix as well. While Sunny was around for over a year at that point, Sable definitely helped push it to the next level too.

Edgier? I guess you're right.

Better? no no no no no no and did i mention no haha. As a guy who relived 1996 a few months ago, watching it all was a CHORE. Sure those are "edgy" storylines, but they were really really crappy for most of the time. The Pillman gun thing was a one night thing and quickly dropped and NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN. The Nation still didn't know what they wanted to be and the stuff with Clarence and PG-13, while not awful, still wasn't at its peak. The jake the snake drunk thing was probably the WORST thing of all time. That one PPV where Lawler just abuses the hell out of him with insults is easily a top 20 worst "matches" ever". The JR thing was a good try, but Jim Ross as an honest "heel" just wasn't captivating enough. It was an angle where people said "hmm interesting, but so what...it's not like Jim Ross is going to fight Vince or anything". It definitely planted some early early seeds for evil Vince, but it was too early.

Yes Goldust was 100% a revolutionary edgy character by all means and Mankind too. Those were huge steps in the right direction.....the problem arose when Goldust became flooded with "******" chants, and being gay was seen as the ultimate heel move.

Again....definitely edgier than 1996...and probably more "realism" than in the AE...but the product was still pretty shitty.
 
#26 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

Like many have said, the OP definitely opened my eyes a little more. You also forgot to mention Sable, and the extra influx of sexuality into the mix as well. While Sunny was around for over a year at that point, Sable definitely helped push it to the next level too.

Edgier? I guess you're right.

Better? no no no no no no and did i mention no haha. As a guy who relived 1996 a few months ago, watching it all was a CHORE. Sure those are "edgy" storylines, but they were really really crappy for most of the time. The Pillman gun thing was a one night thing and quickly dropped and NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN. The Nation still didn't know what they wanted to be and the stuff with Clarence and PG-13, while not awful, still wasn't at its peak. The jake the snake drunk thing was probably the WORST thing of all time. That one PPV where Lawler just abuses the hell out of him with insults is easily a top 20 worst "matches" ever". The JR thing was a good try, but Jim Ross as an honest "heel" just wasn't captivating enough. It was an angle where people said "hmm interesting, but so what...it's not like Jim Ross is going to fight Vince or anything". It definitely planted some early early seeds for evil Vince, but it was too early.

Yes Goldust was 100% a revolutionary edgy character by all means and Mankind too. Those were huge steps in the right direction.....the problem arose when Goldust became flooded with "******" chants, and being gay was seen as the ultimate heel move.

Again....definitely edgier than 1996...and probably more "realism" than in the AE...but the product was still pretty shitty.
hey good post

it seemed like the WWF was struggling with it's identity at this time and throwing everything at the wall to see what stuck within the confines of what they could get away with doing on the network

what I find that distinguishes 1996 from the AE most was the harsh realism you would find on a show like HBO's OZ which started airing at around the same time, while the AE were taking elements of shock tv and the zeitgeist of the times and working them in amusing ways. it was "hipper" and more theatrical while 1996 was more provocative and disturbing in a much more subtle manner

you're right tho, the moments in 1996 were sparsed throughout cartoony silliness 101 but those moments stuck out even more because it was almost a sign of mad scientist Vince going completely schizoid in his own fantasyland. his cartoony vision of the past being mixed in was so absurd in those years that it was like a twisted parody of itself and made the transition so bizarre to watch

you can tell that there was a darker, more psychological tone to the show that made the viewers borderline uncomfortable whereas AE was structured in more developed and entertaining ways, the nature of it's content was more juvenile for the most part. AE is when WWE was understanding it's demographic, adjusting and branding themselves accordingly. and hey it worked
 
#29 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

1996 was certainly the yr. that laid the seeds for the Attitude Era. Goldust was about as edgy as any character that was around during the Attitude Era.
 
#33 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?




this channel just started uploading all the Livewire episodes and the first one I watched is the one where Farooq officially debuts the Nation of Domination. holy sh^t he's cutting a serious promo here about the intentions of his new militant group, getting into it with the callers referencing his NWA and football career (one of the callers comparing Clarence Mason to Johnnie Cochran), talks about being the first black champion and he's arguing with Ahmed Johnson while accusing him of being an "Uncle Tom"

:damn



I can't imagine the WWE doing anything THIS raw ever again. and to think that he started this months after debuting as the gladiator gimmick :lmao

Farooq bit starts at 13:00 on the first video and continues in the second
 
#34 · (Edited)
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

96 was pretty "raw" as some people put it.

I was watching 96 episodes, and now i'm into 97(again), and I have to say 96 was pretty controversial AND cutting edge. We saw a lot of things in 96 that ushered in the attitude era, and the attitude era simply built upon that. We had stone cold being born, and of course his ringmaster gimmick being debuted. We had mankind making his debut, we had goldust in his horniest form to date, with goldust trying to get into vince's pants at a point(lmao). Multiple sexual and spoof "commercials" and we had weirder acts, as in too weird to be successful.

All in all, 96 was the ushering, and some characters were more edgy then, than in the AE, but it also shows in vice versa. HBK was much more edgier in the AE, but that's not taking much away from how he was in 96. Same with of course, HHH going from hunter hearst to what he became in DX during the AE. Stone Cold was edgy in 96, mainly after the king of the ring spout, but he became even edgier in 97, as I can see, and he continued in the AE.

Undertaker became more edgy in the AE of course, and kane helped a lot with that. All in all, they are similar, with 96 holding a few more cutting edge moments, and edgier acts, but they kinda made up for it in the AE.

Hard call, but I give it to 96, only if it's just a couple more moments. Like the above post, farooq was pretty bold, but he was bold in 97-98 as well.
 
#37 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

96 was pretty "raw" as some people put it.

I was watching 96 episodes, and now i'm into 97(again), and I have to say 96 was pretty controversial AND cutting edge. We saw a lot of things in 96 that ushered in the attitude era, and the attitude era simply built upon that. We had stone cold being born, and of course his ringmaster gimmick being debuted. We had mankind making his debut, we had goldust in his horniest form to date, with goldust trying to get into vince's pants at a point(lmao). Multiple sexual and spoof "commercials" and we had weirder acts, as in too weird to be successful

All in all, 96 was the ushering, and some characters were more edgy then, than in the AE, but it also shows in vice versa. HBK was much more edgier in the AE, but that's not taking much away from how he was in 96. Same with of course, HHH going from hunter hearst to what he became in DX during the AE. Stone Cold was edgy in 96, mainly after the king of the ring spout, but he became even edgier in 97, as I can see, and he continued in the AE.

Undertaker became more edgy in the AE of course, and kane helped a lot with that. All in all, they are similar, with 96 holding a few more cutting edge moments, and edgier acts, but they kinda made up for it in the AE.

Hard call, but I give it to 96, only if it's just a couple more moments. Like the above post, farooq was pretty bold, but he was bold in 97-98 as well.
yeah some characters were definitely given more development in the AE, Hunter especially. the "edgiest" thing he did in 1996 (besides the curtain call incident) was the "jealousy" angle he was part of with Marc Mero over Sable, everything else was rather vanillla up until he debuted Chyna as his bodyguard and started showing more aggressiveness.

with Shawn I think it was simply the circumstances of him being the top babyface champion and I don't think that the WWE dared experiment with him too much in that position. he was already getting criticized for being a role model and simulating male stripping. besides the angle with Diana Hart and the hissy fits he would do in 20 second promos, he was basically a less corny John Cena. he was always "edgier" playing a heel because it fit his gimmick and personality better, even as far back as 94-95 he showed considerably more attitude than almost everyone else on the roster

97 was another crucial year for sure. the cross promotional ECW angle the did early that year and the patriotic canada v america storyline stand out as unprecedented stuff
 
#35 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

I can't see 2016 be as innovative or as refreshing like WWE was 20 years prior but fingers crossed the past makes a comeback (but not the old timers). Would love to see Cody Rhodes out as a bisexual (kayfabe) and New Day join with Prime Time as the WWE's NAACP or something. Push the envelope one more time by not breaking kayfabe but by making kayfabe "real". Dean Ambrose is often compared with Brian Pillman and to be honest it would be disappointing if he's not flashing firearms on camera.
 
#36 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

This is a very interesting thread that makes me think 1996 could've been more edgier than we think. I do remember a lot of the points OP made and I would have to agree. Mankind used to scare me as I thought his promos were very dark compared to the cartoony crap we were given.
 
#39 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

On the OP's point, I certainly have no intention of shitting on your argument here. 96 was certainly more cutting edge than 95, but just to take your points one at a time:

Goldust as the gay character had a short shelf life, and while shocking, they did get cold feet, edited some of his segments heavily and massively downplayed the character within six months. Contrast that with the full bore raunchiness of the Pillman XXX files or the utterly shameless "Artist Formerly Known As" phase.

Mankind was a great character, but at the same time it was only slightly more sophisticated version of the cartoon villains we'd seen go against Taker previously. In terms of being different from the past or cutting edge, I'd argue the promos Mankind did with Jim Ross in 97 was far more cutting edge and unique for the time they were in than the original Mankind character was.

Pillman with a gun is certainly an anomoly, and is probably why it's more jarring today than a lot of the other 96 desperation ploys, but that one I agree with. Of course this ended up being washed over, and the era of flamethrowers in angles, Hawk falling from the Titantron and Taker trying to embalm Steve Austin alive (ugh) were more attempts at shock value in the same mould, but Pillman's was better, I grant you.

The Livewire show, frankly, was awful, but you raise the a great point in how jarring it was to have WCW referenced on WWF TV. The idea that there was a wrestling world outside of the WWF was never acknowledged until 1996 by the company, and this did feel like the company was growing up a bit. I'd also tie-in this type of thing to JR's shoot promo as you mentioned as a good part of the reason was 96 wasn't as cutting edge. Ross did that great promo, but it was to lead to the fake Razor, a horrific idea. In 97 we had Bret and Shawn firing off every week, Nash, Flair and Piper doing the same, and far more reality based promos that were done in a way to build the story on a way that mattered and felt relevant, which they failed to do in 96.

The Shawn/Bulldog angle was more edgy than the norm, but again, what came later was far edgier than this and far more effective for the time (as the buyrate for Beware of Dog shows).

The Nation, in it's inception, wasn't really a racist group. There were Nation of Islam overtones, sure, but they were feuding with Ahmed and more just an entourage for Faarooq. Fast forward to 97 when Faarooq fires them and says his new Nation with be "Bigger, Badder & Blacker", Ahmed turns and they really lay it on thick with the racial stuff, that's were it got edgy. I'd argue they took it too far by the end of the year with the Nation's locker room angle (which I abhorred).

The Jake/Lawler booze angle, again, illustrates the bigger issue. Like Bulldog and Shawn, it was a thread of something that didn't mean much in the end, but was almost a trial run.

Ultimately, the WCW references and beginning of swearing, as well as a focus on eye candy at ringside is the best argument here. In all, I couldn't say 1996 was more cutting edge, but it was still cutting edge compared to 95, and came about completely because Nitro forced their hand a bit and put some pressure on to try different things. But as you mentioned, they are isolated bits against a wider backdrop of Vince still struggling with breaking away from the wrestling he knows, and in most cases, they either got cold feet or didn't go all the way with some of the cutting edge aspects in 96 that they later would, and go on to have more success with.
 
#40 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

On the OP's point, I certainly have no intention of shitting on your argument here. 96 was certainly more cutting edge than 95, but just to take your points one at a time:

Goldust as the gay character had a short shelf life, and while shocking, they did get cold feet, edited some of his segments heavily and massively downplayed the character within six months. Contrast that with the full bore raunchiness of the Pillman XXX files or the utterly shameless "Artist Formerly Known As" phase.

Mankind was a great character, but at the same time it was only slightly more sophisticated version of the cartoon villains we'd seen go against Taker previously. In terms of being different from the past or cutting edge, I'd argue the promos Mankind did with Jim Ross in 97 was far more cutting edge and unique for the time they were in than the original Mankind character was.

Pillman with a gun is certainly an anomoly, and is probably why it's more jarring today than a lot of the other 96 desperation ploys, but that one I agree with. Of course this ended up being washed over, and the era of flamethrowers in angles, Hawk falling from the Titantron and Taker trying to embalm Steve Austin alive (ugh) were more attempts at shock value in the same mould, but Pillman's was better, I grant you.

The Livewire show, frankly, was awful, but you raise the a great point in how jarring it was to have WCW referenced on WWF TV. The idea that there was a wrestling world outside of the WWF was never acknowledged until 1996 by the company, and this did feel like the company was growing up a bit. I'd also tie-in this type of thing to JR's shoot promo as you mentioned as a good part of the reason was 96 wasn't as cutting edge. Ross did that great promo, but it was to lead to the fake Razor, a horrific idea. In 97 we had Bret and Shawn firing off every week, Nash, Flair and Piper doing the same, and far more reality based promos that were done in a way to build the story on a way that mattered and felt relevant, which they failed to do in 96.

The Shawn/Bulldog angle was more edgy than the norm, but again, what came later was far edgier than this and far more effective for the time (as the buyrate for Beware of Dog shows).

The Nation, in it's inception, wasn't really a racist group. There were Nation of Islam overtones, sure, but they were feuding with Ahmed and more just an entourage for Faarooq. Fast forward to 97 when Faarooq fires them and says his new Nation with be "Bigger, Badder & Blacker", Ahmed turns and they really lay it on thick with the racial stuff, that's were it got edgy. I'd argue they took it too far by the end of the year with the Nation's locker room angle (which I abhorred).

The Jake/Lawler booze angle, again, illustrates the bigger issue. Like Bulldog and Shawn, it was a thread of something that didn't mean much in the end, but was almost a trial run.

Ultimately, the WCW references and beginning of swearing, as well as a focus on eye candy at ringside is the best argument here. In all, I couldn't say 1996 was more cutting edge, but it was still cutting edge compared to 95, and came about completely because Nitro forced their hand a bit and put some pressure on to try different things. But as you mentioned, they are isolated bits against a wider backdrop of Vince still struggling with breaking away from the wrestling he knows, and in most cases, they either got cold feet or didn't go all the way with some of the cutting edge aspects in 96 that they later would, and go on to have more success with.
while you do make a valid argument, i'll try to address a few things

Goldust in 1996 was the taboo breaker tho, and they only scaled it down because of network pressure. all the idiosyncratic behavior that made the character interesting stemmed from that year from his verbigeration of old movie quotes to all the sexual innuendos, it became so uncomfortable that Scott Hall himself had a hard time working through the angle. the Pillman XXX files was edgy i'll give you that, but it was also cut short due to Pillman's death and was supposed to lead into Terry betraying Goldust which would pacify the entire point of what made that angle controversial. if Terry was "in on it" then it wasn't a forceful sex slave situation and that changes the context entirely. "Artist Formerly Known as..." was an interesting direction to take the character, but honestly I didn't see it as anything more than Goldust trying to shock with visual surrealism at the end of the day because that's all it really ended up being, no different from Lady Gaga wearing a suit made of filet mignon. in 1996 the character simply had more fleshing out and had an interesting direction, the question of his sexuality, his true intentions, his master manipulating tactics on his vulnerable opponents, the language used, his limits were always questioned......it was all on point. in subsequent years most people felt like they jumped the shark with him honestly myself included. every attempt they made to reinvent him never helped him regain the momentum he once had

i'd argue that Mankind's boilerroom promos with the rat are the setup to the Jim Ross interview which wasn't conceived that far off from 1996. he was much more sophisticated than any of Undertaker's past foes because they tried to build a mature backstory and psychological pattern with him besides being the typical "big baddy wants to destroy the Undertaker shtick". he was looking at Paul Bearer as a father figure and was easily susceptible to manipulation because of his condition they were displaying every week. the Jim Ross interview only did it's job to put the exclamation mark on the whole year and make us sympathise with the human in him more

Livewire definitely had it's moments. it wasn't just the referencing of WCW, no topics seemed to be off the table (like the steroid scandal for example). they were being abnormally up front with their audience in ways never seen before and hardly seen since. even if the show had it's boring bits, there was always something on every episode that made it insightful or shocking even. it was as if the WWE were slowly adopting the ECW business model and tested the water there because it had a smaller audience to experiment on. it was catering very much to the insiders while disguising it as a interactive recap show for those that were casually tuning in


if you take Faarooq's introductory segment on Livewire, he and Mason explains that it isn't really a color thing and more about the code of conduct and princibles that he wants society to adhere to, it was at it's core a militant group pushing a social ideology, but at the same time he calls Ahmed an "Uncle Tom". there were strong racial undertones even if they were only subtle. Faarooq was basically fighting against the injustices of authority figures like Gorilla Monsoon, but the implication and vocabulary used was very race oriented and very touchy. unfortunately it came near the end of 1996 so the angle did somewhat plateau in 1997, but he was conceptualising the idea on Livewire better than he ever did later on which to me became more of a stereotypical gang war between them, the Puerto Ricans and the Bikers, which in turn was more about the dissension between Faarooq, Savio and Crush which were all previously in the same faction. the feud with Ahmed and the racial implications was already in full effect by 1996

as for the fake Razor and Diesel i'll agree that this hurt the credibility of JR's heel run, but at the same time it made sense if you viewed it as the satire piece that it was. it turned out awful, but the intention behind it was to provoke. no major argument from me aside from that because it turned out to be sh^t and a complete waste of time
 
#41 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

DAMN SKIPPY said:
Goldust in 1996 was the taboo breaker tho, and they only scaled it down because of network pressure.
In large part I agree, but as you say here, they did scale it down quickly. The Pillman XXX comparison works for me particularly because, while Brian died, they were unapologetic and just went for it, and that mentality was far more commonplace after 1996. Goldust was very different and was far more in tune with generating true emotion than the stuff that came previously, and was kinda funny in how many people at the time thought it was "awful" and a "career killer". Again, not denying it was cutting edge, but the overriding reason I can't say more for it is because the company backed off.

With Faarooq, I think you're right in referring to the racial stuff as "undertones". The group still had Crush and PG13. By the time 97 comes and you've got Ahmed and Faarooq outright using phrases like "I'm gonna kick your black ass" and "charcoal colour", it takes it from undertone to overtone. I think that's the general argument for me comparing 96 to 97 and beyond. The outward nature of what they did and their fearlessness in going the new direction. In 96 it was Vince trying stuff out but not committing 100%

Mankind is really the only thing I disagree on I think. The promos with the rat and uncle Paul,..it had more depth than previous freak Taker rivals, but he was still cast the same way by and large with the exception of a few wins (and ended up briefly stuck with the Executioner, a complete contrast to Foley in terms of depth). Mankind was an upgrade to me, not a departure from the norm. In particular there was a promo in April 97 before Revenge of the Taker where he mentions his wife and kids for the first time that was completely jarring, and the JR stuff meant more to me in terms of explaining why he was what he was, if that makes sense. In a sense, the first year of Mankind was a superbly done 2D character that was as good as it could be within the confines of what the WWF was fixed into being. In 97, he got the extra dimension, humanised him in a way that hadn't been done before, and was more of a break away from WWF convention than his heel run.
 
#42 ·
Re: was the WWE in 1996 more cutting edge and controversial than the Attitude Era?

In large part I agree, but as you say here, they did scale it down quickly. The Pillman XXX comparison works for me particularly because, while Brian died, they were unapologetic and just went for it, and that mentality was far more commonplace after 1996. Goldust was very different and was far more in tune with generating true emotion than the stuff that came previously, and was kinda funny in how many people at the time thought it was "awful" and a "career killer". Again, not denying it was cutting edge, but the overriding reason I can't say more for it is because the company backed off.

With Faarooq, I think you're right in referring to the racial stuff as "undertones". The group still had Crush and PG13. By the time 97 comes and you've got Ahmed and Faarooq outright using phrases like "I'm gonna kick your black ass" and "charcoal colour", it takes it from undertone to overtone. I think that's the general argument for me comparing 96 to 97 and beyond. The outward nature of what they did and their fearlessness in going the new direction. In 96 it was Vince trying stuff out but not committing 100%

Mankind is really the only thing I disagree on I think. The promos with the rat and uncle Paul,..it had more depth than previous freak Taker rivals, but he was still cast the same way by and large with the exception of a few wins (and ended up briefly stuck with the Executioner, a complete contrast to Foley in terms of depth). Mankind was an upgrade to me, not a departure from the norm. In particular there was a promo in April 97 before Revenge of the Taker where he mentions his wife and kids for the first time that was completely jarring, and the JR stuff meant more to me in terms of explaining why he was what he was, if that makes sense. In a sense, the first year of Mankind was a superbly done 2D character that was as good as it could be within the confines of what the WWF was fixed into being. In 97, he got the extra dimension, humanised him in a way that hadn't been done before, and was more of a break away from WWF convention than his heel run.
well it was also a more sophisticated way of getting the message across. "Uncle Tom" is even more insulting than calling a black man calling another black man black, they're just using terminology that goes over some people's heads. that's the general vibe I got from a lot of stuff in the AE, the "edginess" seemed more juvenile in nature outside of a few exceptions. it became more Howard Sternish in a way that made the audience say "oooooh, he swore, that's f^cking cool" or "oooooh, Sable's showing more skin, that's f^cking hot" whereas, in cases like the NoD started as something broader in characterisation and turned into straight forward generation x-derived entertainment near the end. the only real problem with 1996 like you mentioned is that they cut things off too soon when they were going in very interesting directions. Crush and PG-13 were white men that were black at heart and followed the agenda, I think that's what they were trying to imply. like David Horowitz, a white activist who was affiliated with the Black Panthers in the 70s

I can understand your points about Goldust and Mankind. I saw them as extremely dark, perplexed characters in 1996 while subsequent years they seemed to move in looser directions. the JR segment with Mankind was pure gold, but then he soon went on to feud with Hunter and that's when the character's complexities started to take a backseat in favor of highlighting Mick's aggressive nature. in humanising him it also seemed to transform him into an aggressive but less disturbing version of himself. in the case of Goldust they attempted to humanise him too, but I didn't think it worked as well because they never fully committed to it and it never went anywhere truly interesting for longer than 2 weeks imo
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top