The Attitude Era Fans Vs. The PG Fans

[TheAwesomeF'nTruth]

I think it's stupid how the same people who claim to hate the PG era still sign into wrestlezone every week to read and discuss what's going on during this era. I agree the attitude era was great but I think that wrestling fans really don't know what they have until it's gone. I feel that 10 years from now fans will look back and realize the PG era really isn't as bad as they thought, just like when fans go on youtube searching for old moments from the attitude era people will do this in the future with the PG era. The thing is when you search for videos all you will see is the best of the best or highlights which makes the era seem unflawed, I know for a fact that every WWF show during the AE was not always great but when you watch the highlights you will never witness a dull moment. I don't think fans during the AE were thinking to themselves this is the best era until they looked back later in life at all the great moments during this time. I think when people look back on the PG era years from now they will see a lot of great moments instead of the moments that weren't good enough to be carried on into wrestling history.

 

[CM Steel]

Yea, and the tude era was like Kid Rock. Trashy as fuck, sells a lot, but pretty much only to rednecks and white trash. I have no idea what the fuck you mean when you say "lacks insight and meaning" unless that was purely in the context of old school rap vs modern. The tude era had NO insight and certainly no meaning.

What do you mean "the way it's supposed to be"? WCW until russo, WWF/E every year except the tude era, Jim Crocket Promotions, WCCW, etc were pretty much ALL closer to the product today. Ever wonder why so many old timers HATED the attitude era? They wanted it to be more family friendly. It's a HUGE reason why Bret Hart and Sammartino had such a falling out with Vince. Even Hogan says that wrestling should be family oriented. What you mean when you say "supposed to be" you mean "how I remember it" but if you actually do research, most successful pro wrestling shows and companies were more family friendly. In the old days they may have had more blood (sold realism) but it wasn't trash TV.

This PG era is not like the Hogan era, that shit was REAL cartoony. It's not even like 1993-1995. I swear to god most of you guys have never actually watched shows from older times, just a few manias and what you've heard.

The modern era is actually a LOT more like 1996-1997 Nitro. It's PG, and there are some kid-friendly characters, but there is an adult and modern context to a lot of it. Vince pointing out the similarity of the protest with the Wallstreet protests. Punk holding out of his contract like the NFL and NBA CBAs. Guys feeling like they don't have a safe work environment, etc.

Today's WWE is trying to be Toy Story 3, the Attitude Era was trying to be Jerry Springer.

The guy who said "they didn't get cheap heat like today" is full of shit too. That's ALL they fucking got back then. Do you have any idea how easy it is to keep people's attention with titties, blood, and cussing? That's about as cheap as it gets. Today's wrestlers have it harder. Ask The Rock whether it's easier to get over under PG constrictions or with none where you can cuss and say outrageous things.

That's what I don't think most of you realize. You think that "modern guys just aren't as talented" and that's bullshit. How interesting was Godfather as papa shango or Kafa or whatever the fuck it was? Not very. He only became interesting when he had "hoes" and acted like a pimp (again, Kid Rock). Val Venis? Talented in the ring, confident on the mic, but when you're making dick jokes and talking about being a pornstar (Kid Rock) that's pretty fuckin easy to to.

Guys back then weren't more talented, they just had it easier. South Park, Jerry Springer, etc were all coming out, it was cool to cuss and be vulgar. South park is actually somewhat intellectual (and is the only one left really in the same style).

It's like this, if I say "paint a sunrise" that's easy to do when you can chose whatever colors you want, but if I say "only use black, white, yellow, and blue because Chris Benoit murdered the other colors" then it gets a lot harder.

I'm not trying to say one era is better than another, just pointing out how ridiculous some of the tude era marks are. It's apples and oranges, both are good at what their goal is.

Didn't Jerry Springer host a Monday night RAw over a year ago during the WWE-PG era? So what is that having to do with the WWF/E at the time of the attitude era being like Jerry Springer? And what do you mean the WWE is trying to be like Toy Story 3? How did you come up with that logic??

The Attitude era wasn't trash TV, and the PG era isn't at all like Toy Story 3. Get a grip "man"!

 

[Headman]

Didn't Jerry Springer host a Monday night RAw over a year ago during the WWE-PG era? So what is that having to do with the WWF/E at the time of the attitude era being like Jerry Springer? And what do you mean the WWE is trying to be like Toy Story 3? How did you come up with that logic??

The Attitude era wasn't trash TV, and the PG era isn't at all like Toy Story 3. Get a grip "man"!

It's actually pretty easy to understand. Toy Story is child friendly and just adult enough for the parents to watch without wanting to blow their brains out. This is what WWE is striving for. As for Jerry Springer guest hosting, that has nothing to do with anything. He's comparing the trashy nature of WWF programming during the late 90's to the kind of raunchy programming that was regularly seen on the Jerry Springer show.

 

[ryan86]

Todays PG era is decimating the WWE's ability to expand it's audience beyond the 7-10 year olds who watch, and the attitude era loyalist who still remain. Of the 9-10 million viewers who watched each weak in the late 90's, i would venture to say that only about 2 million have stuck around with the other 2-3 million being PG era only fans. That means 55-60% of current fans have never seen a WCW Nitro, the Montreal screw job, the NWO, the original DX, any Rock-Austin WM fueds, the Mcmahon-Helmsley regiem, the rise of Goldgerg, or any of the things that made wrestling truely great. I would even venture to say that the Big show-Mark Henry "ring implosion" was the first time they had ever seen such a thing, (Big Show-Brock Lesnar 2003...).
That means that most current fans just simply dont know what a good wrestling product is. With absolutly no historical prespective, how could they?
17-18,000 used to sell out EVERY Raw From early 98 to early 01. Now I mark out when they actually sell out. Hardly ever now.

 

[JWGunslinger]

I'm a WWE fan far and above any fan of a certain Era. I may have my favourite time periods but at the end of the day I have been watching WWE for almost 18 years and aslong as the product is entertaining I don't mind who it is targeted at. I think there will always be something for everybody and aslong as that remains I will be happy. I loved the Attitude Era but I like watching WWE with my younger cousin who I would not want to be exposed to some of the stuff that happend during that time period. I would be all for some sort of warzone type deal being bought back for the later part of Raw but really as I said I just want some good entertainment and times have to change or things get stale. I am sure a time will come when things get much more edgy again but right now things are ok. Definitely better than a couple of years ago anyway.

Right here, I am definitely in agreement with poppycock. I loved the Attitude Era and I love the PG Era, I don't side with either because I love both and think that it's pointless that so many have to be pro attitude and anti PG or vice versa. I love being able to tell my brother about the Attitude Era and show him dvds of it but some of it isnt cool for someone his age, do I mind the fact that things arent the way they were back then? I miss it but I'm certainly not upset over it because whatever era we're in I love the WWE and I think that there are enough people like that who are just going to enjoy it for what it is and not make a fuss about this era or that era.

 

[J.J.]

Granted it may be targeted to younger audience, we are still watching it as well! Kids parents buy them that merchandise, I definitely am not wearing a wrestling shirt in public(maybe around 15 years ago i would've). I just want the company to grow and perhaps we can adopt WCW's luchador division as proper filler on Smackdown or Raw. I enjoyed the Attitude Era but I'm over than and just look forward to seeing how creative and more mainstream the company can be as it has in recent years, especially the latter.

 

[ryan86]

JWgunslinger:


The reason why the WWE has remained flatlined since the spring of 2002 (the last time WWE produced a 4.8 rating) is because Vince McMahon carries that same attitude you have just expressed.
He has no competition and knows that wrestling will allways have a minimun fanbase of 4-5 million. With that market all to himself, he can continue to give the very minimum, and still profit 50+ million each year. But that can only work for so long.

If you translate the WWE's networth in 2000 and adjust for inflation, for what that means today, they were worth $1.5 billion.

Today the WWE is worth $749 million.

Now you can continue to slash poduction cost, cut lower base sallery, downsize your workfore, increace events, offset travle cost by combining shows, and just continue to find every wich way save money. But just because your posting a healthy profit, doesnt tell the story of what you had to do to get that profit.

The WWE's networth is steadilly shrinking even though profits are high. DISASTEROUS!

 

[RicoLen]

Of the 9-10 million viewers who watched each weak in the late 90's, i would venture to say that only about 2 million have stuck around with the other 2-3 million being PG era only fans. That means 55-60% of current fans have never seen a WCW Nitro, the Montreal screw job, the NWO, the original DX, any Rock-Austin WM fueds, the Mcmahon-Helmsley regiem, the rise of Goldgerg, or any of the things that made wrestling truely great. I would even venture to say that the Big show-Mark Henry "ring implosion" was the first time they had ever seen such a thing, (Big Show-Brock Lesnar 2003...).
That means that most current fans just simply dont know what a good wrestling product is. With absolutly no historical prespective, how could they?
17-18,000 used to sell out EVERY Raw From early 98 to early 01. Now I mark out when they actually sell out. Hardly ever now.

You're right. Did you realize that? Most fans today haven't seen any of that. Same can be said of the generation before.

I suppose you never saw when ECW fans stormed the ring to celebrate and the ring collapsed? I bet you never saw the formation of the original 4 Horsemen did you? How 'bout Andre the Giant's "Streak" where he went undefeated for years and years and the critics boo'd him because he couldn't wrestle like Lou Thez and refused to job? Do you remember Hillbilly Jim getting criticized for being an anorexic knockoff of Haystacks Calhoun? What about Ric Flair being boo'd because he was the fake Nature Boy? You remember Superstar Billy Graham blowing the roof off arenas everywhere when he criticized Hulk Hogan for stealing his gimmick? Do you remember the Hippie version of Macho Man Randy Savage where he wore overalls, a straw hat, and a tie-dyed t-shirt and tons of martygras-esque jewelry? What about the best mainstream feud of all time with Jerry Lawler vs Andy Kaufman (The intergender wrestling champion).

Neither do I. But it all happened, and the older fans I grew up around always talked about how THAT was the era when wrestling was best.

Some of those things I was just too young for, are things I would really love to see too, but I just can't find much more than an article talking about it, or a few youtube clips here and there. From all accounts though, Rock vs Austin, & Austin vs McMahon have nothing on Lawler vs Kaufman. I believe it too simply from what little I HAVE seen plus what I've seen from the movie Man on the Moon.

Going back in time and seeing the history that you missed out on is great. I fully encourage it, hell I'm doing it myself by watching the WWF's attitude era right now (and I think I'm going to RE-live the WCW's heyday as well once I'm done), but that's not to say that what's happening right now isn't worth watching.

HOWEVER

The PG-era isn't hurting "the WWE's ability to expand it's audience beyond the 7-10 year olds who watch" any more than the second golden age did with all their cartoony gimmicks and promos of Hulk Hogan talking about slamming Andre so hard the earth would crack open and only his little hulkamaniacs who say their prayers and eat their vitamins will be safe from the destruction. Seriously that was some cheesy-ass stuff back then, but the kids from that era look back on it and can't help but smile because it brings back so many fond memories.

My kids right now keep talking about how great it was when R-Truth got got by little Jimmy (referring to when he got the drink thrown in his face by that kid). In their short time as wrestling fans, that's the greatest thing they've ever seen, and as my considerably much longer time as a wrestling fan, I think they've latched onto a very good modern day "greatest moment".

Things are FINE just as they are, but don't forget, no one forget that next year is the launch of the WWE television network. Once that thing goes live the possibilities are endless. I would bet you anything that they're going to have, once again, tv-14 wrestling programs on again as soon as that network gets on its feet.

 

[ryan86]

To "RicoLen"

I guess your correct in a sence but considering this was a topic about Attitude era Vs The PG era, not The Golden era vs PG era, i cant understand your complaint with my reply.
Just remember, it was the attitude era that garnered over 120 million in profits in 3 years, adjusted for inflation, in todays terms: 160 million. And a company valued at 1.15 billion (todays terms: 1.5 billion).
Today's PG era WWE is worth 749 million.

1.5 billion vs 749 million: Facts are facts.

How much revenue did that Lawler-Kaufman bring in you were referring to? Profits? Net woth of the company? Sucess is based on facts... not opinion.

If it is your opinion that the Lawler-Kaufan fued was was better than Austin-McMahon, that that is purley subjective.

But objectivly speaking your way off base.

 

[RicoLen]

My point is this.

Your post was based on the idea that WWE can't get better because the PG-era has stunted its ability to grow. With all due respect, that's not a very well thought out argument. You can throw all the numbers at me you want, but when they're taken out of context and the reasons for the growth are not explained rationally, they mean nothing.

The attitude era came from an absolutely massive fanbase that was grown during the 2nd golden age and the new generation era. Old fans were coming back after a few years of stagnation, new fans were coming in, and WCW had as much to do with WWF's numbers as WWF itself did. The old fans were watching WCW, and when word that WWF was getting better, and eventually WAS better than WCW, sooner or later they switched over and didn't go back.

Thing is the WWF lost it's old fans to WCW. Those old fans, however, were still hanging around in the world of pro-wrestling. NOW WWE is just losing them to nothing. It's a lot harder to get fans back from no where than from a rival company.

The problem with the PG era isn't just it's product while John Cena was champion. It's problems (and there are many) come from a bad economy, a piss-poor image it created for itself during the attitude era, bad health practices during the attitude era, no relevant competition today, and a liberal media that demonizes any form of violence. You combine all that together and I'm surprised the WWE isn't doing a whole lot worse.

The WWF did a number of things right during the attitude era, but it wasn't looking towards the long term effects of what their product would create. Nor was it creating a culture that could appreciate amateur style wrestling that had rules enforced. People see that kind of wrestling today and think of Steve Austin chanting "BORING" and then change the channel, even though in era's prior to the attitude era it was considered par for the course and helped to extend the viewers attention span. Instead, the attitude era took a short cut of having run-ins conclude a significantly higher percentage of matches for the sake of making things more exciting than a great comeback from a favored wrestler.

But according to your first post, the problems of today have more to do with the fact that "most current fans just simply dont know what a good wrestling product is."

And that's a halfway decent arguement too, but then you go on to hold up the attitude era in the WWF as an example of what a good product is supposed to be, and it simply was not a good example.

That's why I mentioned the WWE Network. The WWE Network will be able to give a very broad group of fans something they can enjoy. There's no reason there can't be at least one show aimed directly at a specific demographic. This includes one for the kids (probably many since they're the future customers), and one for those born and raised fans that enjoy pro-wrestling as a whole, and those elitist attitude era bandwagon hoppers that didn't like the golden ages, don't like tna, don't like the pg-era, but went absolutely nuts for WWF during 97-02.

 

[ryan86]

RicoLen:

You are absolutely 100% correct about the rise of the "Attitude Era" and how it happened. I know exactly what the viewership breakdown and trends were and are and why it happened. We are not in disagreement on that.

However, thats just pointing out the symantics.

But I think you are confusing opinion with fact. When I point out numbers it is to prove a point. I base my arguments on results. I do not say the Attitude era was the greatest based on opinion. It is a fact that it was WWE's most financialy sucessfull era. There is only one reason for that and the market place determines it. The larger the market, the more sucessfull the business is. The market buys what the market likes. If the product offered is not desirerable, than people stop investing. That means PPV buys, Tickets, Merchandise, ratings, and I.P.O's all suffer; along with the true fans whom havn't left.

Everyone in that WWE locker room knows that todays product is stagnent and will require a transformation for a new era.

 

[RicoLen]

Not exactly... you're missing my point.

The point is not that the Attitude era was successful and thus better. The point is that the attitude era was a double edged sword that won the war successfully and then killed itself. PG-era is still trying to pick up the pieces from the ruins the attitude era left itself in.

 

[ryan86]

Ok, Yes.... everyone is entitled to an opinion and it can not be disproven.

However no-one is entitled to their own facts.

I'll just ask you this; Do you think WWE was in a better position for sucess going into the attitude era, or the PG era, regardless of what brought them about? Nothing in wrestling last forever, it is why they are refered to as eras.

But you have to put out a desierable product to create another "era".

as proven by the last 9 years, this product is not desireable to the same size of a main stream audience that the attitude era was. business is declining in every aspect and only a transformation to a new product will suffice. I know a good product when i see it and WWE is lacking 9-10 months out the year, every year... since '02. The other 3 months being a "stable" product. Do I have to break out the stats on that...LOL.

 

[RicoLen]

You're having some kind of disconnect with what I'm saying that I don't understand. The attitude era, just like the new generation era, ended in utter garbage that resulted in viewers leaving. Only now, the viewers didn't migrate to a rival company and are more or less still around, now they're scattered. I'm still talking with guys that were fair-weather wrestling fans during the attitude era that don't even realize that finally, The Rock has come back to the WWE. They just left, and still talk about how bad wrestling is now, and how great it was when they were younger. (The logical argument here is that obviously they wouldn't know WHAT the product was like now, if they don't even realize that The Rock is back in the WWE, however) It's pretty obvious that they're just prejudiced. No numbers are going to help that.

If fans won't even give the new product a shot because they refuse to take off their rose-colored glasses it can be a million times better than the attitude era and you wouldn't see the results that "factually prove" it's better. The whole idea of quality is an opinion that can never be factually proven because quality in this context is an assessment of whether or not personal desires are being met. And THAT is a fact.

So what's REALLY wrong here? Prejudiced fair-weather fans, or a group of talent that's working their ever-lovin asses off to entertain the fans that DO give a damn enough to watch and succeed in generally get over well with them? Have you ever compared ratings from today with ratings of 1990-1992?

And lest you forget, for it seems the significance of this point hasn't yet sunk in, unlike the attitude era, this group is building a future, bringing in a very young generation of fans, and restoring the image that pro-wrestling isn't gutter-trash that panders to the lowest common denominator that IN FACT the attitude era did do. If you need to see the proof of my claim, just look at the sponsors the WWF/E has gotten and lost over the years and who was/is their clientele. In the 2nd golden age it was hasbro (maker of children's toys), during the attitude era it was stridex & motor oil and lost everything having to do with children on the grounds that WWF no longer had an image of family friendly programming, NOW? it's the national guard & K-Mart. What does that tell you? That it was aimed at children during the 80's, teens & men during the 90's and pretty much everyone now.

I'll just ask you this; Do you think WWE was in a better position for sucess going into the attitude era, or the PG era, regardless of what brought them about? Nothing in wrestling last forever, it is why they are refered to as eras.

Obviously it was going into the attitude era that it was in a better position to succeed, and what does that tell you about the job the attitude era did at setting up future stars to succeed?

 

[XXJJ]

IMO a lot of the current wrestling matches are better now than in the attitude era. I think some people miss the stunts. They want to see guys getting thrown off the top of cages, going through tables more often, and bleeding in every match etc.

I do prefer them not being TV PG. I think the storylines are better when they are not so restricted.

The biggest thing I miss from the Attitude Era were the crowds. The crowds during that era were great. Even after the Attitude Era and into the mid 2000's, the non pg crowds were so much louder than the current crowds. I guess when you have a crowd with more adult males compared to a more family oriented crowd...you will get a much different atmosphere.

 

[foreign_objects]

In my honest opinion this topic is really getting old. The pg era is what it is. the attitude era is what it was. Its as simple as this, and I've said this MANY times before. This business moves in circles. it went: PG family friendly, Then got edgier and edgier as the "target audience turned into teenagers, then it turned into the attitude era. Just as we did. Then, when we grew up, and had kids, it was time to make it family friendly again. its been going on for about... what six-eight years? and guess what, its getting edgier again. If you want the attitude era, watch youtube. until then, sit back and watch. Complaining that there is no boobies, blood, and not enough swearing isnt going to get you anywhere. If you want all that, you arent a wrestling fan. you want to see blood? and alot of violence? watch UFC. you want to see people fake fight, and cut themselves open for blood? watch tna. you wanna see boobs? watch porn. you want to hear lots of swearing? watch a martin scorsese film. seriously. Its wrestling. thats what its about. its about pleasing your audience. If you dont like it... then dont watch it. fuck.


And by the way, you are right in the fact that the kids arent buying it. but guess what, neither were we when we where 13-19ish during the attitude era. our parents were. just like the parents by the shit for their kids now! he IS taking stock in his target audience.

False.

The Attitude Era was created to compete with WCW, which was beating the WWF senseless in the ratings.

If there's anyone to blame for the decline and state that is today's product, look no further than Vincent Kennedy McMahon, who has tried to disguise the WWE/pro wrestling as a reputable business and has gone to great lengths to improve their image to attract investors.

Oh, and the PG rating won't be going away anytime soon since Linda McMahon is once again running for office. Sorry folks.

 

[ryan86]

To RicoLen:

We are going to have to gets some facts straight first:
You can not compare the ratings system from the early 90's to the late 90's because we entered into what is now referred to as the "Tech Bubble" during that period were everything electronic grew at the fastest rate in modern time. House holds with TVs actually doubled over that period along with the percenctage of people who had access to "cable channels", instead of just "network". It grew from 40 million to 80 million in that time you were referring to; 90-00. So in 1990, if 5 million viewers watched, the rating would have been an 8.0.
In 1999 though, if 5 million viewers watched, the rating would have been a 4.0.
Today, 5 million viewers would garner a 3.4.
PPV buyrates work the same way.

Now as to advertizing: Yes, unfortanatly the most extreem groups among the political system, (liberal or conservative interest groups) do threaten/pull boycotts on companies that disaline from their interest by attacking their sources of revenue.

 

[RicoLen]

To RicoLen:

We are going to have to gets some facts straight first:
You can not compare the ratings system from the early 90's to the late 90's because we entered into what is now referred to as the "Tech Bubble" during that period were everything electronic grew at the fastest rate in modern time. House holds with TVs actually doubled over that period along with the percenctage of people who had access to "cable channels", instead of just "network". It grew from 40 million to 80 million in that time you were referring to; 90-00. So in 1990, if 5 million viewers watched, the rating would have been an 8.0.
In 1999 though, if 5 million viewers watched, the rating would have been a 4.0.
Today, 5 million viewers would garner a 3.4.
PPV buyrates work the same way.

Now as to advertizing: Yes, unfortanatly the most extreem groups among the political system, (liberal or conservative interest groups) do threaten/pull boycotts on companies that disaline from their interest by attacking their sources of revenue.

OK... so what's the point you are driving at here? This reads like you started off giving me some facts, but then never made any conclusions. Tell me, what do YOU think about this?

 

[ryan86]

RicoLen:

my point was, that you can not compare ratings from 1990 to 98,99,00. and i layed out why.

this whole discussion is pointing out the most successfull era, and that was the attitude era. 10 million viewers, 3 consecutive years of attendance averages exceeding 13,800. The average for each raw was closer to 16,000 and PPV's at 18,000. Now this was over a period of 500+ events and profits in todays terms exceeded 150 million. and the net worth of the company, again, in todays terms: 1.5 billion. I could go ond an on but its pointless because while i am being objective in my analysis while everyone else wants to introduce subjective opinions. I cant prove that it was the superrior product to any other era, that is up to each individual to decide. But i can prove it was the most sucessfull.

If it was a double edge sword, so-beit. So is just about anything that is highly successfull.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

the attitude era was trash TV, much like jersey shore. Jersey shore is more popular than the WWE.

One can pretty logically conclude that if you want a high-ratings show, make the trashiest train-wreck you can.

However, that's short-sided and as the WWE found out, not sustainable. You end up losing fans who are turned off and you have more people who HATE the product than who like it. Right now, a lot of people like the WWE but most people are indifferent. In the tude era, there were groups being organized to keep their kids from watching the WWF. STILL to this day my girlfriend's mom sees me as somewhat of a lower class person because I like wrestling because she thinks it's that "show where they have nude women and cuss and bleed".

The attitude era is like the housing and financial crisis. Yes, allowing sub-prime mortgages to be sold to fannie mae and freddy mac made AMAZING short term gains, but where are we now? We're fucked. if the WWE continued down the path of trash TV, they too would be fucked.

Instead they were smart and hedged. They're trying to rebuild their image and doing a fantastic job. Who cares if their numbers are slightly lower, they're CONSISTENT and they'll be healthier for a longer time frame.

Or I guess they could just get rid of the ring, get rid of the arenas, replace it with a million dollar house, hire a bunch of italian wrestlers to drink and hump and fight each other and call it "Jersey Shore at McMahon's house" or something. Kinda funny since the humping and fighting and drinking is pretty much the attitude era.

 

[Alittude]

I was posting this in the other thread but it got closed so I'll post it in this.

No actually that really was all the attitude era was. Go back and actually watch the shows. They are garbage. "Good wrestling"? You mean punch/kick bullshit? Maybe some blade jobs? It was a jersey shore/jerry springer version of wrestling.

No, Chris Benoit and all the negative publicity made that type of programming unsustainable. Learn something about business.

Ratings are a shit way to measure. Numbers-wise anyways. They're still tops pretty frequently you are wrong, no other show on TV is consistently top 3 in their timeslot year-round for this long.

They aren't going backwards, you are. No one wants to watch trash TV, well they do, but there are more haters for that style of TV. There were more people who watched the tude era, but also more haters. Parents made groups to protest it for christ's sake. Learn something and actually research, don't rely on your memory.

"fresh personalities" and "pops" are cheap when it's titties, blood, and beer. If 10 ******s from New Jersey can become millionaires doing it, it can't be that hard.

As said by many others, today's product is NOT really all that much like the golden era. More like 1996-1998 Nitro but with more stars being made. It has adult storylines with family-friendly characters and dialogue.

You have awful logic and your opinion has been stated a million times by a million other like-minded (simple-minded) people.

Okay I was wrong, it hasn't been stated a million times by a million other people, there aren't a million people who have that opinion, it's a much smaller number.

In conclusion, your inability to think outside the box makes me hate the IWC. This thread is everything that's wrong with the IWC. Instead of thinking "hmm, vulgarity is profitable in the short run, but doesn't last long" you think "I like the way things used to be".

Not only that, but since you obviously know jack shit about wrestling, I'll educate you.

In the mid 80s, Vince was fairly revolutionary in not having blood and being more family-friendly. Most places didn't cuss, but they weren't all that family friendly. They were smoke filled arenas with grown men and lots of blood. Vince made more money being family-friendly. In the late 90s, vince killed his own reputation (that a lot of people still hate the product to this day because they think it's like it was in the tude era). Vince is going back to a more family-friendly product, but has added a more adult theme to it. Basically what I'm saying is, the attitude era wasn't all that much of an evolution. Wrestling had been gritty before. Wrestling has been family friendly before. Wrestling is cyclical. Do your homework.

I also think it's funny that you think wrestling evolved from "holds and slams" in the tude era. What exactly did Austin do that was all that different? Do moves even matter?

Pro wrestling is still storytelling. It always has been. You can dress it up, but it's still the same basic thing good guy vs bad guy. It's like how you can't reinvent the wheel. You can put different treads on it, put spinners on it, but it's still the wheel. -Al Snow, knows more about wrestling than you, used to train people for the WWE

WWE is like Pixar, not disney kids channel. It's also sure as hell not trash tv and shouldn't be. If you want WWE to get higher ratings, get rid of the ring and hire a bunch of sleazy italian-americans to hump each other.

This thread idea is more over-done than my "if you want WWE to have higher ratings, turn it into Jersey shore" line.

Again you always have this weird obsession with the IWC like it's one entity with one opinion it's just the dumbest thing ever especially because most fans are the IWC technically now as WWE promotes it all throughout the show with Twitter and facebook and such so it's totally stupid. The IWC is just the WC now and not everyone has the same opinion so how the hell can you generalise like that and to say you hate the IWC? What the hell so you hate yourself because I don't know if you realised but you're apart of it. You obviously aren''t with the times and still think it's 10 years ago when there was a clear difference between a small internet community and the rest of the general fans, that line has been crossed especially with social media so you are just blind if you can't see that.

Now onto the thread more specifically, you are absolutely delusional if you think today's product is better and more entertaining than it was in the attitude era. Wrestling is all about entertainment, that's it's purpose and there's no question it was at it's height of popularity during then. I don't even know how you can say that today is anywhere near on the same level my god it's been horribly dull and stale for years now, there is hardly anyone with personality bar a few anymore and most backstage segments actually most segments with any kind of talking involved are cringe worthy, it's just so bad content wise and the performers cant execute it. The Veterans now all seem amazing compared to the vanilla newbies that are raised from WWE and WWE alone as they are all taught exactly the same way to be inside and out of the ring and nothing at all sets them apart. This isn't everyone but it's a large part of the roster probably about 75%. Attitude era was full of personality so people cared more, that's why people would go absolutely crazy when someone's music hit or at some point in a match the whole crowd would be jumping up and down completely invested into it, that never happens anymore apart from money in the bank this year. I mean the crowd use to be like that for every single show from start to finish pretty much. Now the crowds pretty much don't care about nearly everyone in the midcard with a couple of exceptions and the crowds don't even care about some main eventers, such as Del Rio. I mean if you have a large amount of your roster and they are hardly over at all and get small as reactions how is that a good thing? You are talking about it being a business so why can't you see wrestling is all about who is over and now there isn't that many people that are because there's only a select few most people care about. That's the WWE's fault as well as some of the performers.

The booking pretty much is solely based around the main event with nowhere near as much emphasis on the rest of the show. No one cares about any title apart from the heavyweight and sometimes they don't even care about that because wwe rush superstars to the title, such as Swagger just for an example. I mean I don't mind Swagger and he is a gun in the ring but the guy has some of the worst mic skils I've seen and he makes me cringe every time he opens his mouth, has 0 personality and this guy was champion? He would never ever have been champion in the attitude era because the talent pool was so much bigger but in this day and age the wwe are desperate for stars.

Maybe you like WWE better these days but that does not mean it's better just because you like it. The generalistion again saying that everyone who liked that era likes trash tv is insanely stupid and it's funny that you are saying someone should think outside the box when you obviously don't. I mean you completely contradict yourself as you say Wrestling is all about story telling, but storytelling when done well invests the crowd and the crowds were most invested in that era because of the amount of personality so people cared about the characters. So how is it better now? You have so many holes in your argument it's ridiculous mate.

 

[Alittude]

the attitude era was trash TV, much like jersey shore. Jersey shore is more popular than the WWE.

One can pretty logically conclude that if you want a high-ratings show, make the trashiest train-wreck you can.

However, that's short-sided and as the WWE found out, not sustainable. You end up losing fans who are turned off and you have more people who HATE the product than who like it. Right now, a lot of people like the WWE but most people are indifferent. In the tude era, there were groups being organized to keep their kids from watching the WWF. STILL to this day my girlfriend's mom sees me as somewhat of a lower class person because I like wrestling because she thinks it's that "show where they have nude women and cuss and bleed".

The attitude era is like the housing and financial crisis. Yes, allowing sub-prime mortgages to be sold to fannie mae and freddy mac made AMAZING short term gains, but where are we now? We're fucked. if the WWE continued down the path of trash TV, they too would be fucked.

Instead they were smart and hedged. They're trying to rebuild their image and doing a fantastic job. Who cares if their numbers are slightly lower, they're CONSISTENT and they'll be healthier for a longer time frame.

Or I guess they could just get rid of the ring, get rid of the arenas, replace it with a million dollar house, hire a bunch of italian wrestlers to drink and hump and fight each other and call it "Jersey Shore at McMahon's house" or something. Kinda funny since the humping and fighting and drinking is pretty much the attitude era.

Who cares if their numbers are lower their consistent? Ahaahah what the hell that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You're talking about what they should be doing for business and then you say who cares that their numbers are lower? Contradiction again mate.

Also your argument is just so hypocritical because you keep saying how Jersey Shore is so massive today but then say WWE wouldn't be successful if they continued like that? Trash TV is bigger now than it ever has been so why would WWE not be as big now? It doesn't make any sense what so ever.

Attitude era had tons more personality as well as the booking and creative being extremely superior to how they are today so people cared more bottom line.

 

[ryan86]

TWJC The Beginning:

Attitude is oh so clear in being right.

Exactly what was the WWE supposed to do when it became clear that they were going to be bankruped financialy with-in 1 fiscal quarter?

That means that in Oct '97, the WWE had a life or death descision to make:

1) Continue down the path that Bret Hart was demanding, and keep the product geared towards his needs, as to keep him on top and into the forseeable future. (remember that 10 year, $20 million deal Bret was demanding and threating the WWE with?) That was the path to bankrupsy by March of '98.

2) Go all in with the Attitude era and make SCSA the face of the WWE. Also, get rid of the Mr. greed, who refused to put company first. Promote stars who fit in with the new direction, and target the product to the fans that were growing up into teenage years.

Had we gone with "TWJC The Beginnings" argument, option 1 would have been implemented and WWE would not exist today, nor would WCW.

Get a clue people

 

[Paralyzer Z]

All right so we have a shit load of arguments going on but I will give my thoughts.

The Attitude era fans against the PG era fans? When it comes to lively hood the AE fans win. Which era is better? That really is solely based on opinion. Wrestling is not anywhere near as popular as it was back then. You cannot argue that is because of the PG rating itself. The ratings itself dropped during the Ruthless aggression era which was very similar to the PG era. In reality it is PG or TV 14 are symbols that represents the age groups that it is appropriate for. It does not in anyway increase of decrease the quality of the show. That is based on the product and how compelling storylines are. Saying "ass" or "fuck" all the time does not make the program better, saying it in meaningful context like in the past couple of months can actually contribute to the stories. Wrestling is wrestling it is guys in the ring competing. I enjoy it because of that and the promos and skits are just extra for me. Whether it is adult content or tame content the Era vs Era thing will never be truly resolved it have a decisive conclusion and winner, it is only a matter of opinion.