Originally Posted by dan the marino
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.
Fair enough. I will never say that someone is a hypocrite if he wants the AE back but dislikes the heart attack segment. Hypocrites are these people who say that AE never stooped so low and that we never had this kind of segments in the AE
For example disliking a segment where Vickie gives birth to a foot but loving the segment where Mae Young gives birth to a hand.
I posted something similar in the heart attack thread: even fans who hated the heart attack segment should love the fact that it happened because it is a sign that WWE tries something what is different than family entertainment.
In the company where you could be fired for kicking flags and choking with ties you can have now a segment where somebody mocks a heart attack and this WWE what allows their wrestlers and writers to be edgy, controversial or even just dumb can help a guy like Dean Ambrose to be himself in his promos without being worried about that WWE suspends him if he says some things that are a little bit "different"
You talk about the Cena/Ziggler segment, that was just great but it helped a lot how much Dolph insulted AJ in the locker room what made Cena so furious.
If Dolph called her a Honey Boo Boo child instead of trash that segment would look so ridiculous and goofy. Dolph insulting AJ so much made the fight between the two more believable and that's why some people should appreciate that the Punk promo was so over the line because in that environment other guys like Ambrose, Ziggler or Barrett have a chance to shine because they have more freedom.
Originally Posted by dan the marino
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.
Of course and I would also rather have Austin vs McMahon or Taker vs Kane instead of Al Snow vs Bossman or Mean Street Posse vs Patterson & Brisco but this was all part of one era and if we see the signs that WWE has the balls again to recreate a Goldust & Luna-like storyline then it is very possible that they will also have a Ministry of Darkness-like storyline
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.
I get your point but it is acceptable for me because Jerry Lawler gave his OK. If I had a heart attack and made a thread in rants where I mock myself why is it a problem if I have no problem with it?
This is like when Tommy Dreamer did all the nasty things 2002 Undertaker told him. If he is ok with this storyline why should anyone feel sorry for Dreamer?
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.
But the difference is the Owen Hart stunt went wrong, Jerry survived.
I admit, if Lawler was still in hospital and nobody asked him I would say that they went too far but there is a big possibility that Jerry Lawler suggested this promo.
I simply don't get why people feel so sorry for Lawler in this segment when the same guy actually wanted it that way.
There is a big possibility that it went this way 1 week ago
Punk: Hey Jerry, welcome back
Lawler: Thank you Punk
Punk: You know that before the heart attack we had a little feud so it would be nice if you could act that you dislike me while commentating
Lawler: Sadly you can not attack me anymore because of my health but I have a better idea
Lawler: What about you and your manager mock my heart attack
Punk: Are you crazy?
Lawler: Why not? I heard that you have problems to be accepted as heel so what can be a better moment to make the fans hate you by ruining my return and mock my health problems
Punk: Are you really sure?
Lawler: You act like you just became a wrestler. People do it all the time in the business. Remember the whole stuff I did with Jake Roberts 1996, Goldust in 1997 or with Michael Cole 2011 where he even talked about my mother and Grandmaster Sexay came back
Vince: And at the same time this will finally make all fans cheer for Cena
What do you think John?
Cena: I have a feeling this time it will work
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).
I get what Cornette means although he bashes Russo once again but OK, he obviously missed the point of why Russo booked some storylines this way.
Remember the whole 1998 segments with DX when they had this giant water gun and pretended that was a penis? That also never sold tickets, added ratings points or helped continuing a storyline but that was typical acting of a face stable in the AE and the Punk/Heyman promo was typical acting of a heel wrestler and his manager.
He also said that he was better than Bruno Sammartino. They will sure never have a match but he mocked him anyway. Not every segment needs to further a storyline, sometimes a segment is supposed to make a face more loveable and a heel more hated, just like when Nexus attacked the WWE legends or R-Truth who attacked Hornswoggle, there was never a build up to a match
And btw Punk had problems with Lawler before the heart attack, Punk had problems with all the legends who disrespected him and he interrupted him just like he did it with Vince, JR, Bret Hart and Mick Foley.
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.
Of course, there can never be a new AE because the whole society was a big Attitude Era then. To make it work you first need to make the whole TV shows look like Jerry Springer or South Park, you can not have this AE feeling when Twilight, Lil Wayne and Jersey Shore are something the current generation is proud of but maybe you can have a new edgier era that is still weak comparing to the AE but still better than the PG crap.
Yes, these examples like Laurinaitis, Cena acting like Barney the Dinosaur or the horrible Brock Lesnar booking are all valid but look how WWE looked 1995 and compare it 2 years later.
Of course the AE will never be duplicated but why not having an era that is at least better than the crap we had in the last 3 years
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.
Fair enough, I already posted in the other thread that I draw the line when the victim is not involved. If Droz has the idea to appear in a segment where CM Punk pushes him in a wheel chair off the stage then I have no problems with the segment because Droz has no problems with it. To be honest there is a bigger possibility that a WWE storyline about Chyna would upset me more, no matter that porn is nothing compared to a heart attack. It would upset me more simply because nobody asked Chyna for permission and if people could talk to dead people and Eddie had no problems with the "Eddie is in hell" storyline I would also not care for it