Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well? - Wrestling Forum: WWE, AEW, New Japan, Indy Wrestling, Women of Wrestling Forums

 32Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-12-2019, 07:16 PM Thread Starter
 
Cowabunga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 3,067
Points: 6,888
                     
Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well?

I honestly don't think it has for the most part, especially 1999. I didn't grow up with it, myself, but yet I still love the best moments involving Austin, Rock, Undertaker, Vince, the Corporation, etc; so don't give me that "you're too young to know this, OP!". In fact, I think that the Austin vs. McMahon feud and segments and The Rock vs. Austin program leading to WM XV are the only parts that still hold up.

I've tried to rewatch full Raws from 1998-1999 and it's kind of a torture, especially 1999 Raws. Jesus , the matches are terrible and it's like WWF was more focused on shocking the audience with storyline twists and doing controversial stuff so that people would watch the WWF over WCW. I mean, it worked, so props to them for doing that. And I'm sure back in 1999 being a kid watching that stuff made you feel like a badass adult who stayed up watching TV-14 and R-rated movies without your mother knowing.

The midcard in the AE was kinda poor and most of the matches were either mediocre or just flat-out trash. People look back at the AE being star-studded, but that's more from mid-99 on. In 1998 it was pretty much Austin and his feud with Vince carrying the shows. Rock and HHH were midcarders still, Undertaker was already a veteran but it's not like he was still as respected and as old as he was in 2005-2012 when he was putting the best work in his career. He also successfully turned heel in the AE and it worked. No way a Undertaker heel turn would have worked from 2005 onward. The fans even booed Batista against him. While fans were clearly rallying behind Austin and Rock against him in 1999-2002.

Mid-carders like Billy Gunn, Road Dogg, The Godfather and Val Venis might be good for a laugh and might have been over back then, but they don't mean much to me personally since I didn't grow up with them. There's been just as good or better mid-carders since then. And guys like Godafther and Val Venis didn't transition well to the post-AE period. Val Venis pornstar gimmick was outdated by the turn of the century. And guys like Steve Blackman and Albert bore me.

I think the shows became better when Jericho, Benoit, Eddie and such jumped ship from WCW over to WWF. In 2000-early 2001 the shows become more watchable with the departure from Russo and Chris Kreski becoming the head writer.

I'm sure not having grown up with this era might influence my opinions, but again, I like Austin and Rock just as much as anyone else and I think all of their classic segments and the Austin/McMahon rivalry aged well and is gold... but those are pretty much the only parts of the 1998-1999 shows that I can sit through. I think 2000-2001 aged a bit better, even if they were much less "attitudish" and the height of that era was in 1999.

And no, before you ask, I'm not a fan of the current weekly shows.

I respect the AE and can see why it made a lot of money, but a lot of it doesn't hold up well and not everything that was done during it was done right nor could it work nowadays. A lot of the nostalgia over it is due to people missing Rock and Austin, the two greatest stars after Hulk Hogan. And also the fact that most of the vocal people online grew up in the 90s and thus during the AE. Notice how in the last 5 years or so we've seen more young adults reminiscing about the "Ruthless Aggression era"? A period that a TON of AE fans hated and turned them off from wrestling for years or even forever?

I think fans and the business just need to finally get over this era and stop deifying it. Instead they need to focus on the future and build a good CURRENT product and inject some fresh new creativity in the tank.
Piper's Pit and Alessio21 like this.
Cowabunga is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-12-2019, 07:44 PM
Moron
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 76
Points: 294
 
Re: Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well?

If you didn't grow up with it, how can you say whether it aged well?

It did age well, not everything was perfect, every era has bad stuff, what makes an era great is if it had the least bad things.

The "attitude" era, 1996-2002 boom period not only aged well, but is further enhanced in quality when compared to the "ruthless aggression" era and modern era.

The idea that 2000 improved because there was "more wrestling" is a myth, there was the same amount of 5-15 min matches. Kreski was smart to keep the same Russo formula but with more characters added, that's why 2000 was better, because there was more stories and character, not wrestling.

Last edited by OldPsychology; 09-12-2019 at 07:50 PM.
OldPsychology is offline  
post #3 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-12-2019, 07:51 PM
 
Alexander_G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Magna Germania
Posts: 2,366
Points: 7,444
                     
Re: Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well?

A lot of people want it back to this day, so I'd say it's more than aged well.

https://i.imgur.com/GYC9xhg.png


Die Matte Ist Heilig.
Alexander_G is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-12-2019, 10:21 PM
Currently booking tonight’s card...
 
Commissioner Michaels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Favourite(s): HBK, Commissioner HBK, Penelope Ford, HHH (2000)
Posts: 1,624
Points: 3,156
                     
Re: Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well?

Well 1998 and 1999 were a completely different time compared to 2019. It MANY ways unrelated to wrestling. 88% of that stuff couldn’t be done today.

It did make people feel cool back then to watch wrestling. Wrestling was a mainstream topic... I mean ‘trending’.

I would say it’s aged pretty well. Its always something a lot of fans still want to talk about. Wwe still makes a crap load of money from that era. All the video games showcasing ‘attitude era’ this and that. The DVD releases time and time again highlighting that era.

When something from 20 years ago, still makes good money today... it aged well

Commissioner Michaels is offline  
post #5 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-12-2019, 11:26 PM
I'm as real as a donut, mother****er.
 
Rick Sanchez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,974
Points: 14,361
                     
Re: Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well?

It's aged just fine. People still talk about it to death because there's so much to talk about. The only thing people will say about this era is that was WWE's worst era of all time.
egnuldt and InexorableJourney like this.

Rick Sanchez is offline  
post #6 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-13-2019, 12:09 AM
 
Bruce L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 796
Points: 1,730
                     
Re: Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well?

For the most part, no. A handful of segments are still considered classics, but on balance, the shows were no better than the ones the company puts out today. They benefited tremendously from being part of an era when people were apparently so hungry for anything that felt even slightly "edgy" that nobody ever stopped to realize it might also be total crap. The comedy wasn't funny, the drama wasn't interesting, most of the characters were stupid, the actual wrestling was an afterthought, and none of it made a goddamn bit of sense. To be fair, all except the comedy got better once Russo left (especially the wrestling), but the improved writing was still "improved" only by WWE standards, and even that improvement came to a crashing halt once the Invasion angle began.

To be honest, though, I'm not sure this is the worst sin in the world. I don't know that wrestling programming is designed to "hold up" the way other TV shows or movies or whatever are. With the exception of the wrestlers -- and even then it's not all of them -- nobody is interested in making something that people are still going to be raving about years from now. The priority is the present and what's next, and this was never more true than during the Monday Night War. So no, it hasn't aged well, but I can only hold that against it so much because it wasn't really designed to.
Piper's Pit likes this.

My Ratings System

DUD/No Stars = I hated it.

★ = I didn't like it.

★★ = Eh. It was there.

★★★ = I liked it.

★★★★ = I loved it.

★★★★★ = This is as good as wrestling gets.

Last edited by Bruce L; 09-13-2019 at 12:14 AM.
Bruce L is offline  
post #7 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-13-2019, 11:05 AM Thread Starter
 
Cowabunga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Portugal
Posts: 3,067
Points: 6,888
                     
Re: Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldPsychology View Post
If you didn't grow up with it, how can you say whether it aged well?

It did age well, not everything was perfect, every era has bad stuff, what makes an era great is if it had the least bad things.

The "attitude" era, 1996-2002 boom period not only aged well, but is further enhanced in quality when compared to the "ruthless aggression" era and modern era.

The idea that 2000 improved because there was "more wrestling" is a myth, there was the same amount of 5-15 min matches. Kreski was smart to keep the same Russo formula but with more characters added, that's why 2000 was better, because there was more stories and character, not wrestling.
The same way I can play a retro video game from the 80s or 90s nowadays that I didn't grow up playing and can tell if it's aged well or not. I think the NES Castlevania games aged poorly, while the SNES game Earthbound and the GBC game Link's Awakening DX aged well despite a few of their mechanics certainly showing their age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commissioner Michaels View Post
Well 1998 and 1999 were a completely different time compared to 2019. It MANY ways unrelated to wrestling. 88% of that stuff couldn’t be done today.

It did make people feel cool back then to watch wrestling. Wrestling was a mainstream topic... I mean ‘trending’.

I would say it’s aged pretty well. Its always something a lot of fans still want to talk about. Wwe still makes a crap load of money from that era. All the video games showcasing ‘attitude era’ this and that. The DVD releases time and time again highlighting that era.

When something from 20 years ago, still makes good money today... it aged well
But in a video game you're not really rewatching the shows. It's basically storylines based on that era being put in a video game, right? I'm talking about going back and rewatching full Raws and SmackDowns from that time period and also PPVs.

Also, why is mainstream recognition so important to wrestling fans? I know that a wrestler to be a star needs to draw, but just because a show has good ratings doesn't mean it's necessarily a good show.

A lot of people online miss the AE because the majority of people on websites and communities like this one are people who were kids or teenagers in the 90s and thus like to reminisce about their youth. Notice how in the last 5 years or so we've had been seeing more and more people talking about how much they miss the "Ruthless Aggression Era" and how great of an era it was when back in 2002-2007, the IWC completely shat on the product at the time because "WWE has gotten so boring!"? Because people who grew up watching in 2002-2007 are now in their early 20s and that was their childhood. Wait some years and we'll see a bunch of 18-21 year olds talking about how great the Guest Host era on Raw and Cena destroying The Nexus in 2010 were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce L View Post
For the most part, no. A handful of segments are still considered classics, but on balance, the shows were no better than the ones the company puts out today. They benefited tremendously from being part of an era when people were apparently so hungry for anything that felt even slightly "edgy" that nobody ever stopped to realize it might also be total crap. The comedy wasn't funny, the drama wasn't interesting, most of the characters were stupid, the actual wrestling was an afterthought, and none of it made a goddamn bit of sense. To be fair, all except the comedy got better once Russo left (especially the wrestling), but the improved writing was still "improved" only by WWE standards, and even that improvement came to a crashing halt once the Invasion angle began.

To be honest, though, I'm not sure this is the worst sin in the world. I don't know that wrestling programming is designed to "hold up" the way other TV shows or movies or whatever are. With the exception of the wrestlers -- and even then it's not all of them -- nobody is interested in making something that people are still going to be raving about years from now. The priority is the present and what's next, and this was never more true than during the Monday Night War. So no, it hasn't aged well, but I can only hold that against it so much because it wasn't really designed to.
Yes, the AE did a good job at capturing the Zeitgeist of its time period and also was on during the Monday Night Wars, the most exciting period in televised wrestling. I think that's also part of the reason why a lot of people missed it.
Piper's Pit likes this.
Cowabunga is offline  
post #8 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-13-2019, 11:09 AM
 
Freelancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,211
Points: 10,561
                     
Re: Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well?

Yes and no. Yes because people are still talking about it 20 years later. No because they couldn't do a lot of that on TV now.

"I will say it because I am trying to quell the burning in my heart--I hate Vince Russo. I despise Vince Russo. I want Vince Russo to die. If I could figure out a way to murder him without going to prison, I would consider it the greatest accomplishment of my life." - Jim Cornette

"To be the man, you gotta beat the man" - Ric Flair
Freelancer is offline  
post #9 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-13-2019, 12:43 PM
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 752
Points: 444
                     
I don't think soap operas ever age well. Characters like Austin, Rock, Vince, Foley etc yeah that's timeless but I'd never sit back and watch weekly episodes in order again. That goes for any era too. The head shots, treatment towards women, offensive to be offensive storylines also didn't age too well.
gillbergisback is offline  
post #10 of 37 (permalink) Old 09-13-2019, 12:57 PM
Cutting a Shoot Promo To Get Over
 
Shaun_27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,176
Points: 9,731
                     
Re: Do you think the Attitude Era has aged well?

I'm also not one to watch the weekly shows again in order, but I do find my self constantly going back to PPVs from this era, so yes, it has aged well.

Spoiler for GOAT Meeting:
Shaun_27 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome