[Tyslice]

Majority of wrestling fans long for the days of the nostalgia filled attitude era. Images on Stone Cold propped up on the turnbuckle downing beer after beer and Mick Foley being thrown off the top of the cell at King of the Ring at etched in the hearts an minds of a generation.

I for one do not want the days of the attitude era back. I believe that the current state of the WWE is only a little off where it needs to be. If we got the same style of the attitude era there would be nothing exciting or new the WWE would have to offer. Of course the product would be fun for a while but the luster would wear off fairly quickly.

A better way for the WWE to enhance their programming is to have a few PPV's a year tailored to the older demographic.

Just think we have the big 4 PPV's now: Wrestlemania, Summer Slam, Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble. Now add to those 2 attitude style events (possibly Extreme Rules and Hell in a Cell) and now the WWE has 6 home run big events. And with the WWE not embracing a complete R rated overhaul of the product it makes those attitude style events that much more special.

 

[HiddenViolence]

Cheap plug.

 

[Tyslice]

Cheap plug.

And about the content?

 

[MR.BOTCHAMANIA]

All i ask for is, well written storylines, with things i care for. The attitude era, seemed to have 2 or 3 storylines that i felt i liked. Now, you're lucky to care about 1.

You can then work the matches around the story, Cena, lesnar was a perfect example. What's the point in putting punk, and Bryan in a ring when there's no story there really?

 

[HiddenViolence]

Whilst I agree you can't recreate the attitude era, I do not feel product is near where it needs to be like you say. It's too tame and predictable, matches (especially on TV) are too short, and there is too much filler. Now WWE have shown us that it can be good in these times (Summer of Punk). But often it is just terrible. It would be nice if they tailored to more demographics.

 

[Tyslice]

All i ask for is, well written storylines, with things i care for. The attitude era, seemed to have 2 or 3 storylines that i felt i liked. Now, you're lucky to care about 1.

You can then work the matches around the story, Cena, lesnar was a perfect example. What's the point in putting punk, and Bryan in a ring when there's no story there really?

True true, I think they just threw cm punk and daniel Bryan together to get a few sales from die hard fans

 

[HiddenViolence]

True true, I think they just threw cm punk and daniel Bryan together to get a few sales from die hard fans

Well yeah they gave it away on a filler PPV to make us happy. However it seems like they actually are having faith in this program. I mean a rematch is likely to happen at No Way Out. Hope it continues to Summerslam.

 

[Tyslice]

Whilst I agree you can't recreate the attitude era, I do not feel product is near where it needs to be like you say. It's too tame and predictable, matches (especially on TV) are too short, and there is too much filler. Now WWE have shown us that it can be good in these times (Summer of Punk). But often it is just terrible. It would be nice if they tailored to more demographics.

I mean almost where it needs to be rating (pg-13 ish) wise. The storylines are definitely lacking with the exception of a select few

 

[HiddenViolence]

I mean almost where it needs to be rating (pg-13 ish) wise. The storylines are definitely lacking with the exception of a select few

Yeah the storylines suck and the mid-card barely gets any storylines.

 

[Tyslice]

Well yeah they gave it away on a filler PPV to make us happy. However it seems like they actually are having faith in this program. I mean a rematch is likely to happen at No Way Out. Hope it continues to Summerslam.

I noticed in the past raw when cm punk got DB in the anaconda vice that DB could flip that move similar to cm doing it to the yes lock at over the limit for the pin. I can see them having the same finish just switched with DB winning and continuing to summerslam

 

[LINK]

I stopped reading when you said the current product is only a few beats off or something...

I mean I don't mind if the attitude era never comes back as long as the product doesn't completely suck anymore as it does. I don't really think the majority of fans want the attitude era back as much as they just wish something entertaining would happen.

 

[Tyslice]

I stopped reading when you said the current product is only a few beats off or something...

I mean I don't mind if the attitude era never comes back as long as the product doesn't completely suck anymore as it does. I don't really think the majority of fans want the attitude era back as much as they just wish something entertaining would happen.

If you would have kept reading... Not far off rating wise not storyline

 

[FlyingElbow]

Just think we have the big 4 PPV's now: Wrestlemania, Summer Slam, Survivor Series and the Royal Rumble. Now add to those 2 attitude style events (possibly Extreme Rules and Hell in a Cell) and now the WWE has 6 home run big events. And with the WWE not embracing a complete R rated overhaul of the product it makes those attitude style events that much more special.

Curious why you picked those two events specifically. Personally, I've never associated the Attitude era with "extreme" wrestling. Actually, I do somewhat associate it with that style, but I wouldn't say it typified the era in the same way it did, for example, ECW. For every instance of Foley getting thrown off the cage or hit in the head with a chair, for every E&C/Hardyz/Dudleys TLC masterpiece, there were 10 times as many Rock/Austin/Triple H straight forward main events, Jericho/Angle/Benoit wrestling clinics, etc. In fact, there have been 3 times as many Hell in a Cell matches outside the attitude era as there were during it. If anything, McMahon seemed to go out of his way to make a mockery of "hardcore" wrestling since, by his own admission, he didn't "get it." Looking back at that era of Crash Holly and the 24/7 title defenses (including bizarre locales such as arcades & pizza places), it's kind of hard to take that style seriously.

If anything, I associate stupid gimmick matches with the modern era, especially since we seem to be inundated with them. In the Attitude Era they were at least used sparingly, but now entire PPVs are devoted to them! A Hell in a Cell used to be special, now we need only wait until it's up on the calendar. Ditto the Elimination Chamber (a gimmick, I might add, that wasn't even created until after the Attitude Era). Don't even get me started on "Money in the Bank," which I think is the dumbest concoction of the last 10 years. There's way too much emphasis placed on the match, and not the participants. It just seems like a crutch for poor storytelling. I tend to like gimmick matches as a way to get an extra match or two out of a feud that has already been milked (almost) dry. Now they have spinning wheels that determine stipulations for no good reason!

 

[8 Pound Gecko]

Nice custom title plugger.

 

[Tyslice]

Curious why you picked those two events specifically. Personally, I've never associated the Attitude era with "extreme" wrestling. Actually, I do somewhat associate it with that style, but I wouldn't say it typified the era in the same way it did, for example, ECW. For every instance of Foley getting thrown off the cage or hit in the head with a chair, for every E&C/Hardyz/Dudleys TLC masterpiece, there were 10 times as many Rock/Austin/Triple H straight forward main events, Jericho/Angle/Benoit wrestling clinics, etc. In fact, there have been 3 times as many Hell in a Cell matches outside the attitude era as there were during it. If anything, McMahon seemed to go out of his way to make a mockery of "hardcore" wrestling since, by his own admission, he didn't "get it." Looking back at that era of Crash Holly and the 24/7 title defenses (including bizarre locales such as arcades & pizza places), it's kind of hard to take that style seriously.

If anything, I associate stupid gimmick matches with the modern era, especially since we seem to be inundated with them. In the Attitude Era they were at least used sparingly, but now entire PPVs are devoted to them! A Hell in a Cell used to be special, now we need only wait until it's up on the calendar. Ditto the Elimination Chamber. Don't even get me started on "Money in the Bank," which I think is the dumbest concoction of the last 10 years. There's way too much emphasis placed on the match, and not the participants. It just seems like a crutch for poor storytelling. I tend to like gimmick matches as a way to get an extra match or two out of a feud that has already been milked (almost) dry. Now they have spinning wheels that determine stipulations for no good reason!

Those events were just a possibility a mere example.. Probably because when I think about that era i remember the blood aspect. I think if they had a few PPV's tailored to an older demographic the WWE can promote it as an adult event and inform parents to use caution when exposing kids to those said events.
That being said, hell in the cell matches were far better in the attitude era because of the lack of danger in the time since. You never see anyone bleeding or going to the top of the cell anymore. Those two things made the match special and kept viewers on the edge of their seats

 

[Aytiau]

Val Venus, Godfather's Hooooooooooooooooe Train >> Brodus Crap & Ryberg

 

[Combat Analyst]

Even if WWE went back to TV-14 that wouldn't help the product, Look at TNA. Probably the same ratings as WWE's Attitude Era yet people sill complain about their product. The rating doesn't determine the product, it's the talent and booking that does.

 

[FlyingElbow]

Those events were just a possibility a mere example.. Probably because when I think about that era i remember the blood aspect. I think if they had a few PPV's tailored to an older demographic the WWE can promote it as an adult event and inform parents to use caution when exposing kids to those said events.
That being said, hell in the cell matches were far better in the attitude era because of the lack of danger in the time since. You never see anyone bleeding or going to the top of the cell anymore. Those two things made the match special and kept viewers on the edge of their seats

I get what you're saying, but I guess my point is that it's impossible to recreate the Attitude Era in a single night, like they were able to do with ECW & "One Night Stand." That wouldn't work with the Attitude Era because that's not what the Attitude Era was. It was about tuning into RAW every Monday night because you literally had no clue what was going to happen next, shocking twists & turns, cliffhanger endings, larger than life characters, and the feeling that "anything could happen!" Those are the hallmarks of episodic television, not single night PPVs. People tend to get so bogged down in stuff like tables matches & blood that they miss the point that none of that was really why people tuned in.

 

[Tyslice]

I get what you're saying, but I guess my point is that it's impossible to recreate the Attitude Era in a single night, like they were able to do with ECW & "One Night Stand." That wouldn't work with the Attitude Era because that's not what the Attitude Era was. It was about tuning into RAW every Monday night because you literally had no clue what was going to happen next, shocking twists & turns, cliffhanger endings, larger than life characters, and the feeling that "anything could happen!" Those are the hallmarks of episodic television, not single night PPVs. People tend to get so bogged down in stuff like tables matches & blood that they miss the point that none of that was really why people tuned in.

Yea true, the idea behind the PPV idea was just to give a taste of that style and not over saturate the product

 

[Jupiter Jack Daniels]

Good thing about the AE, aside from some rather tasteless angles, was that nearly everybody had a storyline. I recall many episodes of RAW where the opening match furthered some kind of storyline, whether it was about Jeff Jarrett/Owen/Debra or Godwinns/LOD.

Nowadays, WWE only takes time out to build angles around Cena and Johnny. People just get randomly placed into that angle, while all the other angles get no build, are dropped after a few weeks or are just thrown together with no true pay off. Only build WWE has done recently with a pay off was the slow DB heel turn. Brock/HHH may be good but with neither around full time, WWE still hypes it to death, while nobody else outside of Cena/Johnny gets any build or decent mention on TV.