But in AE you had Austin vs Vince but at the same time you had Hawk's suicide. You had the great The Rock vs Triple H feud but at the same time Mae Young giving birth to a hand.
Same here, you have the Cena/Ziggler brawl or Ryback threwing Maddox into the ambulance but at the same time you have Punk and Heyman mocking a heart attack. Every era had great and disgusting moments.
Oh, no doubt about it. This stuff happened even more during the AE than nowadays. But my deal is when people (not you) call others hypocrites and babies for wanting the AE back but then saying something like this is crap.
Hell even at that time Hawk's suicide, Katie Vick, and in WCW Oklahoma were all so poorly received, these angles were quickly dropped. My whole point is that when people say they loved the AE, what they loved were the great and engrossing storylines and the characters, both of which have been lacking for a while now. To say that because someone loved the AE means that they must have loved every single moment of it is just ridiculous (again I know you're not saying that but just in general). It'd be like saying "Stone Cold's your favorite wrestler? Well then you must like it when wrestlers punch their wives".
Like I said, the Ziggler/Cena brawl was a good example of the "edginess" from the AE that people are usually talking about when they say that needs to be brought back. It was unexpected, cool looking, and helped progress the storyline in a way that makes you want to tune in. Ziggler got the upper hand for once and Cena's been (or at least is supposed to be) hurt, making it much more personal and engrossing. Something as simple as that just made a Cena/Ziggler feud that much more interesting.
I disagree with you because I think this segments have place in wrestling but I still respect your opinion. Why? Because you have arguments and you don't look like a hypocrite.
It's one thing saying that you dislike this kind of storylines no matter if AE or not, I even have no problem with new fans who watch it for 2-3 years and are now shocked.
But the people who embarrass themselves the most are some "experts" who post BS how Attitude Era was never like that because it was
And I can respect your opinion too, and same with others who were fine with the segment. In fact, I wasn't offended or uncomfortable with the King segment either, precisely because he must've given it the o.k. However I still thought it was tactless and a really really cheap way to try and get heat, and my whole point is that I can see why some people would be offended by it or just flat out not want to see that on the show.
When people say "I miss the Attitude Era", usually what they're talking about is Stone Cold and Vince always trying to one up each other week after week and Undertaker trying to deal with his brother. Not the Kennel from Hell match or Triple H dry-humping a corpse. Though I do agree, that definitely was apart of the AE, most people look back on that as a part they groan and roll their eyes at, and that is the point I'm trying to make.
What the fuck are you talking about? I wasn't suggesting that the entire attitude era was like the Rock/Austin video I posted. I used that video as an example of some of the things people missed from the attitude era. i.e good storylines, drama, characters etc... Nowhere did I state that the entire attitude era was like that video.
Nice try. You called people retarded who think a heart attack has anything to do with the AE and posted a video package of Stone Cold vs The Rock ignoring the dirty stuff of AE (and I mean dirty in a positive way because I loved this stuff)
Is that the match from WrestleMania XV in the video? Why not posting the other WrestleMania XV match Undertaker vs Big Boss Man with the hanging?
Originally Posted by TheRainKing
How am I a hypocrite? I never said there was anything morally wrong with the Paul Heyman skit. The only issue I had was that it was dull and not very funny. Please try to READ my posts before you make stupid accusations. As for your comment about The Rock and Austin funeral looking legit. Everyone knew Rock throwing Austin off the bridge wasn't real and The Rock's promo about fitting Austin's roody poo candy ass in the casket was a pretty dead give away that the whole thing was part of the entertainment. Only a fucking moron would actually think the funeral was legit.
It was never the intention to be funny. Why in the blue hell is the response of everybody "the segment sucked because it was not funny" It was never supposed to be funny or inspirational like a Mick Foley promo. This was supposed to be a promo by two kayfabe assholes and it worked.
And Jerry Lawler is alive and well what makes it no different than the Stone Cold funeral.
Scripted, part of the entertainment but with a bizarre touch
Originally Posted by TheRainKing
I never liked ECW and don't give a fuck about it. So this means nothing to me.
It should because the storylines and shows were similar
Originally Posted by TheRainKing
Who exactly are you arguing with? Where did I state that none of that was true?
Your response might have been logical if you were actually responding to someone who claimed to like the style of attitude era but then said the Paul Heyman heart attack segment was inappropriate. But considering I never said that.. Fuck off and argue with someone else.
Considering that you are the one who said that he liked the excitement of the AE but this segment didn't represent this era at all makes you no different than these people.
And the fact that you quoted my post about ECW but ignored the same stuff I posted about AE shows that you are indeed no different
ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS ANOTHER SHOOT INTERVIEW
Location: East of the Pacific Ocean, West of London, England, South of Mars, North of Hell
Re: Do you agree with what Paul Heyman said?
Originally Posted by DualShock
No, the people are retarded who put some wrestler from the Attitude Era in their avatar and think they know it all. How cute to post a video from the greatest feud between the greatest two superstars from the AE and thinkng you proved something. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Yes, AE was about excitement, drama, wrestlers who can actually act, great characters, interesting storylines, adult promos and hardcore wrestling but it was also about mocking religion, racism, homicides, suicides, chopped dicks, BDSM, gang wars, sacrifices, cults, eating animals, mocking Bell's palsy, interviewing a widow 24 hours after the death of her husband, hypersexuality and many other stuff and that made AE unique.
Your very avatar was from a segment where The Rock had a funeral for Stone Cold that looked legit you little hypocrite.
Same with ECW Paul Heyman talked about. Crucifixion, woman abuse, encouraging fans to jump from a balcony and killing themselves, playing with fire in front of the fans what even burned some of them.
Attitude Era was spectacular but it was also sick and twisted simply because all other successful TV shows were sick during that time like Jerry Springer, South Park or even in music with Eminem when he first appeared or Marilyn Manson but unlike other people I am not a hypocrite and admit it and that I loved it because of that
You're missing kind of a key point, and that's the fact that as racy, raunchy and twisted as Attitude became, it was a contained story 99% of the time. That's what largely made it more acceptable. OK so Undertaker was leading a cult. That doesn't mean Mark Calloway is a cult leader. You can differentiate between reality and fiction. Its when they started using serious real life events that as a way of gaining ratings that I have a problem with. For example, Melanie Pillman. That wasn't cool back then, either. Its just universally regarded as something you don't do because its not telling a story concerning characters that are fictional, you're exploiting a real life event.
Smut was definitely part of Attitude, and I agree that it helped make it great. That being said, there's smut and then there's doing something like faking a heart attack in front of a guy who had a real one two months prior and then laughing in his face at his plight. We didn't see Triple H try to get cheap heat by climbing to the rafters and start dangling off mocking Owen Hart because the man legitimately died from doing that. Or the Eddie is in Hell thing (granted that was some years later). I'm guessing Vickie gave her blessing, so why is that considered really offensive but this isn't? Simply because Lawler didn't die? That's kinda fucked up. Real life death or near death experiences don't exist for Vince McMahon to make money off of, and I stick by that.
It becomes different when you start taking serious real life circumstances and inject them into a fictional situation, however. Hawk attempting suicide, for example. We know that Hawk isn't actually going to kill himself, and we know that this story is being told by characters who are not real and are only being portrayed. The suicide thing, while controversial, is part of a fake story that revolves around that concept. They aren't trying to use one person's particular suicide to make money.
Using a serious, dramatic concept in a story that isn't real featuring characters that aren't real is fine because we know nobody is being affected by this serious dramatic concept. Its when the other elements become real that there's a problem (ie. a real story with real characters with a serious concept being exploited to further a product).
I'd like to quote Jim Cornette on this, because he really put it best. Here's an excerpt from an interview he did and was talking about Terri Runnels having a miscarriage.
Skip to the 6:00 mark, that's what I wanted to quote. This whole Punk and Heyman thing-"how did it add a rating point, or sell a ticket, or do anything but make a lot of people in the audience who have experienced something like that really uncomfortable?" Its not like they're making fun of a fake heart attack that happened to a fake character, they're making fun of a real heart attack that happened to a real person, and they're doing it to his face. Yes, I know that it was CM Punk the character who was doing it, and those aren't Phil Brooks' actual views, but most people will take it at face value and say "they're mocking really serious things that really happened to this guy, not cool." It just comes off as really low to take something like this and turn it into an angle. Again, serious things do not happen so Vince McMahon can try and create business opportunities that make him more money. In fact, the ratings for that part of the segment bombed, either because people didn't care or they were turned off (meaning that it failed big time in whatever case).
Now I'm a gigantic Attitude Era mark. Best period of wrestling of all time, IMO. However, I have expressly stated in the past that I do NOT want Attitude back. Attitude was not just swearing, tits and depravity. It was the characters who stood out. There's no Steve Austin, Rock, Ministry Undertaker, Triple H, DX, Mr. McMahon and company to lead the way. If you take out the personalities of the era that helped so greatly to define it, and replace them with the comparative losers of today like Cena, Punk, Ryback and Sheamus, its a concept that doesn't work. Attitude was a perfect storm-the fans were dying for it, you had all the right wrestlers to make it happen and the sleaziness of crash TV was at its height. It was a once in a lifetime thing and it will never be replicated. On top of that, I don't want it to be replicated. My memories of Attitude are the fondest wrestling memories I have. Why in God's name would I want to see that ruined by having the Fed redo the era with Cena as Rock and Punk as Austin? That would completely suck.
On top of that, just because the product becomes edgier does NOT mean that things will magically get better. Just because elements of Attitude are brought back doesn't mean the booking or the writing are fixed. In Attitude, the first real match between Austin and Vince was in February of 1999 (yes, I know they technically had a match on Raw in May 1998, but Dude Love interrupted, I'm talking a real one on one) at St. Valentine's Day Massacre. This was 11 months after Austin vs McMahon had began. You think that today's writers, who are under the impression that all their viewers have ADD and need new feuds every month, who can't convey good pacing worth a fuck, are gonna take the time for this slow a build up? No, Cena and Laurinaitis feuded for 2 months and it was over. Punk and Laurinaitis was just completely forgotten and swept under the rug. Does Attitude coming back suddenly improve AJ Lee's atrocious acting, or Cena giggling while his opponents tell him they're gonna rip off his head and shit down his neck? Will Attitude suddenly fix Brock Lesnar's horrendous booking at Extreme Rules? No. Only good bookers and good writers will do that, and the WWE does not have them right now.
Attitude is like a really awesome movie. You love going back to watch it, but current WWE-stay the fuck away from it because if you try to redo or replicate it, you will fail in every way possible and will only succeed in ruining its legacy.
I'm not gonna backtrack over what I said before and rewrite my opinion like some others might. Those are my views for a reason. I'm not easily offended, and honestly really don't care what shit they caused, but I do know a line exists. Its hard to describe in words, I did the best I could. There were a lot of other ways that they could have been way more successful and not gone the low road. The reason I care in the first place is that doing fucked up things like this are what gives wrestling a bad name, and by association, wrestling fans. Back in the day, you could be proud to be a wrestling fan, but now, its like a secret shame or black mark against your character. People on the outside don't look at the pimps, the hos, the pornstars, the transvestites, the affairs and whatnot and think badly of pro wrestling-those things are everywhere today. What they DO look at and judge harshly are the fake heart attacks mocking the guy who almost died of one, the interviews with widows 24 hours after the death of their husbands, the daughter of the boss comparing a terrorist attack to the steroid trial the government connected with her father, using performers' real substance abuse problems as plot points, etc.
You're asking a wrestling forum if Paul Heyman is right. This isn't productive.
Visualizing the realism of life and actuality
Fuck who's the baddest a person's status depends on salary
And my mentality is, money orientated
I'm destined to live the dream for all my peeps who never made it
If WWE does something controversial, media and others would be quick to jump on WWE for doing this. Yet I'm sure some of those people are same ones who loved attitude era like crazy, and are probably people who love watching those 14+ shows which really do those scenes(or contain those one liners) you can't believe a tv show just did.
WWE gets attacked for anything they do, that's probably part of why they've toned things down. In the 90s, that was part of the culture, not just in WWE, but most tv shows in general.I was watching a tv show from the 90s, that was reairing on a tv channel last week. The show was rated G in the 90s,yet on tv top of the TV screen, I saw the 14+ logo appear. That proves how diff the 90s and todays standards are.
Other Faves:The Rock,Edge,Jericho,Kaitlyn,McIntyre,Usos WWE isn't in PG ERA, It's in REBUILDING ERA