On why WWE has changed the product when they know what will be successful.

[Indeed]

The best way to win a war is to look at what your mistakes in the past have been and to learn from them. It's also to see what you did right. Let's rewind to 1998, Monday Night Raw is routinely pulling 5.0 Nielson ratings with the new "attitude" product that is captivating millions of people and bringing more and more of WCW's viewership back to the WWF. The well-written storylines, the creative and varied personalities, fantastic feud building and more adult-oriented material is slowly but surely pushing Vince McMahon's wrestling promotion past Ted Turner's World Championship Wrestling in ratings and arena attendance. Megastars, like the Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, are becoming relevant outside of the wrestling community as actors and celebrities. Monday Night Raw is the most watched weekly telecast on cable television, and the success of this era is launching the World Wrestling Federation to a global phenomenon. Let's face it, if Wrestlezone was around back then, Josh Isenburg would probably be giving Raw an A every week, and the "What I Disliked" portions of his Title This! columns wouldn't exist.

So, fast forward 14 years to the present day.

The industry is a completely different landscape now. Kayfabe is at this point entirely dead; and no one seems to even try to uphold it anymore (a couple weeks ago on iMPACT!, footage from MMA Uncensored Live was aired in which they openly talked about how the wrestling business wasn't real. Regardless of whether or not this is "that big of a deal", it still confirms my point that no one even TRIES, which is part of the reason a marketable superstar can't be built in today's industry unless they do a shoot promo or shout YES! YES! YES!) . The "WWE" (what I never understood is why they didn't change the name to something similar to federation. You almost can't say "the WWE" because you can't say "the world wrestling entertainment") is now adhering to a strictly PG product, disallowing chair-shots directly to the head of performers, blood on television, excessive cursing, excessive violence (violence bad in wrestling? Daniel Bryan lost his job over it once...) and very much less sexual content. WCW no longer exists and WWE's main competition are TNA which has been on a steady decline in recent months/the last year in the same vein as WCW, and ROH, which has yet to find a national audience nor any true marketable product.

Now, Paul Levesque has offered the explanation that the move to PG was done for two reasons:
- 1. To make moments where there IS excessive violence or blood that much more shocking.
- 2. And because the WWE demographic is apparently dominated by girls and children now.

Over the years, the whole basis of what professional wrestling is has changed considerably. And not positively. Wrestling is and always will be a mock championship contention sport mixed in with story-lines. But over the past two or three years especially, the logic of wrestling has fallen apart, especially in WWE. Some of the past mainstays of professional wrestling can still be seen in TNA (an authority figure who books matches, whereas in WWE matches just "happen" or as CM Punk showed us last night, are just booked on the fly by whoever wants to make them, contender systems, which the WWE almost entirely lacks, and so on), but as far as WWE goes, things are just chaotic and disorganized, almost painfully unwatchable. The word "spot" in WWE only means a suicide dive through the ropes at this point. The word "jobber" now means former WWE Champions in WWE now. The word "mark" in WWE at this stage is ANYONE, absolutely ANYONE, oh god please ANYONE who buys into John Cena.

Logic is severely lacking in WWE is the point I'm attempting to get across. Now, when you look at where WWE has gone in 14 years, or, rather I should say where they've failed to go, you'll see the bigger picture.

- 1998: Monday Night Raw is the highest rated cable television show on TV, regularly drawing up to six million weekly viewers and Nielson ratings of 5.0 and higher.
- 2012: Raw is struggling to maintain a weekly 3.0 in the Nielson ratings while Smackdown! has fallen to iMPACT-esque numbers.
- 1998: The top stars in the WWF are The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, arena crowds are lively and attentive during the majority of the program, and the commentary is to this day considered to be the best in wrestling history with the face Jim Ross and his ridiculous color skills and the heel Jerry Lawler who offers the perfect counterpart.
- 2012: The top stars in the company are John Cena (who regularly gets booed even though he's been touted as a face since his debut), CM Punk, and Daniel Bryan. Instead of seeing the two most over guys in the whole company compete in the main-event, they're wrestling the mid-card (which is funny considering the crowd in Raleigh at Over The Limit was pretty much only alive during their match and was chanting "This is awful!" during the main event). The commentary team is now Jerry Lawler doing an unmotivated face imitation and Michael Cole doing a horrific attempt at heel color.
- 1998: Wrestlers rarely turned from face to heel, feuds were built up over months, and logic was the most important factor in the entire product.
- 2012: Wrestlers commonly turn their stance, feuds are short and boring, and logic is non-existent.
- 1999: WWE opens on the New York stock exchange at $17.00 a share with an initial movement of 11.5 million shares. PPV buyrates were at historic highs and "capacity crowd" meant no taped-off sections or faked crowd noise.
- 2012: WWE stock price this year dropped to historic lows, barely above $7.00 per share. Movement of shares is dismal and PPV buyrates are abysmal. Fake crowd noise is often flooded through the arena and sections of the stands are commonly taped-off due to a lack of a pure sell-out.

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point. In 14 years, the once mighty WWF has become the uninteresting and frankly, bad, WWE.

So this is my question to WWE: If females and kids are your core demographic, why do you do best in ratings in the 18-35 male demographic? Why are the majority of your crowds that same demographic? Sure, kids watch the product, but who buys those kids the shirts? Buys themselves the DVDs? Kids loved wrestling in 1998, too. Why would any company focused on the success of their product allow this slow deterioration when history shows exactly what is successful and what will earn them the most money and best critical response? Is it because Vince McMahon, now pushing 70 years of age, doesn't care about his "experiment" anymore? Is it because he's allowing his idiot daughter and his inexperienced son-in-law run the company? When Vince McMahon goes to sleep at night, does he think about the glory his company used to possess? The prestige of the WWF Championship, which has now been relegated to the mid-card? The landmark events in professional wrestling such as the first hell-in-a-cell match, the first ladder match, TLC matches with the best tag-teams this industry has ever seen, incredible main-events on shows as beloved and honored as Survivor Series, The Royal Rumble, and Wrestlemania? Does it trouble him to see what it's all become? Or is he just a senile old man with no more vision, no more heart, and no more motivation? Has the glory-days of this sport we've all come to love, professional wrestling, ended, never to return?

Does the wrestling business even stand a long-term chance if the WWE fails?

Thoughts?

 

[The Liar]

If having an adult-oriented product guarantees high ratings and PPV buyrates, why did business steadily decline from 2001-2006? The WWE during that time period was filled with blood, swearing, sexualized divas and controversial characters, yet the excitement and popularity of the attitude era seemed to fade every year. Likewise, why does nobody seem to care when TNA has flaming tables, guys cussing every other word or lesbian knockouts?

That type of stuff isn't considered shocking anymore, and it's not cool anymore either.

 

[TimeIsWasting]

I agree with this post. The WWE needs to do more and make some changes. Use proven formulas. As far as the business steadily declining from 2001-2006 is simple...........Poor writing,recycled storylines. Plus the roster is steadily going down. There are too many people on the roster that will never or should never be in major fueds or hold world championships.

 

[Indeed]

I agree with this post. The WWE needs to do more and make some changes. Use proven formulas. As far as the business steadily declining from 2001-2006 is simple...........Poor writing,recycled storylines. Plus the roster is steadily going down. There are too many people on the roster that will never or should never be in major fueds or hold world championships.

EXACTLY. Katie freaking Vick.

Oh, watch Jim Cornette talk about how much of an asshole Johnny Ace is, this might explain things more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfOkmoiZpvc&feature=related

Could go on and on. Another thing I didn't bring up, WWE has so much talent they refuse to use, talent they should just release so they can get pushed in ROH or TNA like they should be.

 

[Indeed]

I'm sorry, but I'd like to know what talent you are talking about? Please enlighten me?

Curt Hawkins. Tyler Rex. Yoshi Tatsu. Plenty of guys in FCW. All I mean is that they have a lot of guys who are just sitting doing nothing, plenty of talented guys, or who may get TV-time but are not anywhere near the level they deserve or could be at. Ziggler jobbing to Clay. Miz jobbing to Clay, etc...

 

[TimeIsWasting]

I understand what you are saying, but honestly none of those guys are top tier talents. I wouldn't be upset if they unloaded half the roster. These guys are not going to put the WWE over at all. They are not going to make them money. If they want to be successful again I think the biggest thing they need to work on is character development. Guys or girls we can actually get behind. Not guys they force down our throats.

 

[TLK]

Wrestling just isn't accepted as "cool" or "hip" or "in" - or any other phrase you want to use - as it was in the late '90s. I don't think the PG rating has much to do with it. Blood, swearing and sex might appeal to some, but I think it would also deter a large portion of the younger demographic from watching it.

I just don't foresee pro wrestling ever reaching 4.0 consisntently in the near future. It might spike around Wrestlemania time, but that's about it.

 

[New Hot Fed]

If having an adult-oriented product guarantees high ratings and PPV buyrates, why did business steadily decline from 2001-2006? The WWE during that time period was filled with blood, swearing, sexualized divas and controversial characters, yet the excitement and popularity of the attitude era seemed to fade every year. Likewise, why does nobody seem to care when TNA has flaming tables, guys cussing every other word or lesbian knockouts?

That type of stuff isn't considered shocking anymore, and it's not cool anymore either.

Actually with the exception of Katie Vick the WWF/E had cleaned up their act by 2000. Long gone were the Vince Russo type crass vignettes, it was cleaner and the emphasis was more on wrestling.

 

[Chadmw]

So basically what I get from the OP is a very long winded way of saying WAH WAH WAH, I want the attitude era back.

While I was a huge fan of wrestling during the attitude era, it really was not as great as people seem to want to remember. It had terrible storylines (Val Venis getting is wiener chopped off, May young given birth to a hand), it had story lines that were very predicatable (Vince Mcmahon being the greater power), it had hot, but terrible diva's that wrestled (Sable). ANother complaint I read also is that there is too much talking and not enough wrestling on the shows, yet during the attitude era there was much more talking then wrestling

So, not a lot as really changed except we now have less swearing and less blood. And if you like that stuff go watch TNA (I am also a TNA fan as well as a WWE fan).

I think the 2 things that has changed the most from 1998 to 2012 is the Internet, and no WCW. Regarding the Internet people now read spoilers or even watch wrestling on there computers, And thanks to all these wrestling sites, there are no more surprises. And without WCW, or viable competition as unfortunately Impact is not there yet, there is nothing pushing the WWE, Also back then you always wondered who was going to jump ship from WWE/WCW and even ECW and go to another company, you don't have that today either.

 

[scomvp316]

To start off with HHH is a liar on the demo. It has and always will be dominated by males 18-34. I think the % now is around 75. Since 2001 and the end of the MNW as more info comes out people are learning how much VKM has pissed on the wrestling fan. Clearly WWE's form of wrestling is way different than what the fans are demanding. Some marks will say WWE is the pinnacle but alot of talent in the industry have elected to struggle financially than go to WWE. One reason is the backstage politics now is alot like what it was in WCW. Its simple unless you are a kiss ass of VKM,Steph, and or HHH you will struggle to get anything creative towards you. Every now and then VKM will try to make the hardcore fan happy but its for a very short while. Its comical when VKM talks about being an entertainment company and all the hollywood stars he brought in from 85-93 and generated very miniscule compared to the era of 98-01. That era had quality wrestling but now its become secondary. As far as ROH goes they are set up for a prosperious future if they stick to the current game plan. As Sinclair Broadcasting gains more revenue the production value for ROH will go up as well. rOH has a brighter future than TNA at this point. If the current ROH roster make those necessary sacrifices that they have been making and not wanting to be a "entertainer" but a quality wrestler ROH on a regional level can compete with WWE from time to time. If they try to compete with VKM on every major level VKM will have their library within 5-7 years!

 

[The Hardcore Kid]

So, so much wrong with your post, so little time. But I'll try to dissect this incredibly bombastic post that basically boils down to "I want the Attitude era back".

The well-written storylines, the creative and varied personalities, fantastic feud building and more adult-oriented material...

Yeah, Mark Henry and Mae Young's illegitimate love child being a rubber hand was a well-written storyline.

Most characters in the Attitude Era was some variant of a self-obsessed "badass". Even the iconic, do-no-wrong Undertaker's gimmick underwent a change to a generic badass during the Attitude Era. You're right, very varied.

And quick booking is an issue exclusive to WWE in 2012. It's never happened in the history of wrestling, and certainly not in the Attitude Era, where the belt was passed around like a hot potato, Vince McMahon won the Royal Rumble, GTV was never explained, face-heel turns were seemingly decided whenever a writer sneezed, and half the show was bikini contest and faux lesbian action.

Let's face it, if Wrestlezone was around back then, Josh Isenburg would probably be giving Raw an A every week, and the "What I Disliked" portions of his Title This! columns wouldn't exist.

WrestleZone did exist back then. And its editors have ALWAYS complained about the content. Because that's what beat writers do. Based on this comment I'm going to have to assume you weren't even watching wrestling during this era you laud and regard so highly, or at least weren't as big a fan as you seem to think everyone was back then.

The "WWE" (what I never understood is why they didn't change the name to something similar to federation. You almost can't say "the WWE" because you can't say "the world wrestling entertainment")

Well, that's because you're not supposed to say "The WWE". You're supposed to just say "WWE". You didn't say "The WCW" or "The ECW," did you?

is now adhering to a strictly PG product, disallowing chair-shots directly to the head of performers, blood on television, excessive cursing, excessive violence (violence bad in wrestling? Daniel Bryan lost his job over it once...) and very much less sexual content.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with concussions becoming the biggest epidemic in professional sports, and oh yeah a little guy named Chris Benoit; blood-borne illness; and increasing network scrutiny. What a lot of people don't realize is that shows are MUCH more heavily regulated now. The late 90s was home of Jerry Springer and trash TV; everything was a desperate attempt to get ratings. Performers don't have to act like that these days and frankly shouldn't have to.

Now, Paul Levesque has offered the explanation that the move to PG was done for two reasons:
- 1. To make moments where there IS excessive violence or blood that much more shocking.
- 2. And because the WWE demographic is apparently dominated by girls and children now.

Stop. Just stop. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Triple H (God, I hate it when smarks call everybody by their real name as if they're best friends with them or something) has definitely said those things, but never has he said that's WHY they moved to PG. They're just a pleasant after-effect. The move to PG is widely speculated to be thought of as a product of Linda McMahon's continual runs for senate combined with Mattel becoming the manufacturer of WWE's (see what I did there? WWE. Not "the WWE".) toys, and Mattel having a more kid-friendly image.

whereas in WWE matches just "happen" or as CM Punk showed us last night, are just booked on the fly by whoever wants to make them, contender systems, which the WWE almost entirely lacks, and so on)

I guess Ric Flair, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Vince McMahon, Stephanie McMahon, Paul Heyman, Vickie Guerrero, Teddy Long, Bret Hart, John Laurinaitis and every other authority figure in WWE post-Attitude Era has never made any matches or kayfabe controlled the show in any manner. Weird, I thought I saw them making matches.

The word "spot" in WWE only means a suicide dive through the ropes at this point.

I guess you haven't seen the last two Triple H vs. Undertaker WrestleMania matches. Or any Money in the Bank match. Or any TLC match in the past decade.

The word "jobber" now means former WWE Champions in WWE now. The word "mark" in WWE at this stage is ANYONE, absolutely ANYONE, oh god please ANYONE who buys into John Cena.

I don't really get your points here, but if you're saying WWE Champions are nothing but jobbers compared to the Attitude Era champions, I have to respectfully disagree. Triple H has held the title multiple times since the Attitude Era. John Cena (who you lambast for no reason) and Randy Orton are hardly 'jobbers'. Neither are Chris Jericho, Edge, or CM Punk.

Logic is severely lacking in WWE is the point I'm attempting to get across.

Again, you act like the Attitude Era was some bastion of logic and cohesion. An era where we saw a porn star's dick almost get chopped off by a Japanese Yazuka mob (only to be saved by 'shrinkage'). Where Linda McMahon was in a "catatonic" state yet still somehow showed up for every show. Where Triple H and Stephanie McMahon's drive-thru, chapel marriage where Stephanie wasn't even conscious due to a rufalin overdose was for some reason legally valid, despite HHH bragging about drugging (oh, and raping) her. Yep, high logic.

- 1998: Monday Night Raw is the highest rated cable television show on TV, regularly drawing up to six million weekly viewers and Nielson ratings of 5.0 and higher.

True, but RAW is still the highest rated program on cable television. You see, this wacky thing called the "internet" came into prevalence since then, gobbling up ratings with things like DVR, Torrenting, live streams, and other methods of obtaining television content. Comparing ratings of today to ratings of yesteryear is like comparing apples to oranges.

- 2012: The top stars in the company are John Cena (who regularly gets booed even though he's been touted as a face since his debut),

John Cena was heel for a few years, as his wildly popular "Thuganomics" character that people like you constantly clamor for a return to.

Instead of seeing the two most over guys in the whole company compete in the main-event, they're wrestling the mid-card

Because WWF Championship matches were never bumped out of the main event in lieu of Vince McMahon, Gerald Brisco, Shane McMahon, and other non-wrestlers taking the spotlight. Oh wait...

The commentary team is now Jerry Lawler doing an unmotivated face imitation and Michael Cole doing a horrific attempt at heel color.

False. Michael Cole is a heel play-by-play. Not a color.

1998: Wrestlers rarely turned from face to heel, feuds were built up over months, and logic was the most important factor in the entire product.

Where the HELL do you get that idea from?! Face and heel turns were so common in the Attitude Era it was nigh impossible to keep track. In fact, at WrestleMania XV, smack-dab in the middle of the Attitude Era, Triple H and Chyna turned from face to heel twice in the same night! This was not uncommon. Betrayals in DX, the Corporation, and other stables ran rampant. And the fact that you claim that logic was the most important factor in the Attitude Era is just plain laughable. The most important factor in the Attitude Era was shock appeal; its sudden "attitude". It's in the fucking name.

- 2012: Wrestlers commonly turn their stance, feuds are short and boring, and logic is non-existent.

The only sudden heel turn I can really even think of (Besides Daniel Bryan, but his was a slow burn, and Big Show who JUST happened) was Christian, and he went on to feud with Randy Orton for five months, producing one of the best programs of last summer. Next?

- 2012: WWE stock price this year dropped to historic lows, barely above $7.00 per share. Movement of shares is dismal and PPV buyrates are abysmal.

I don't know if you've been living under a rock for the past 5 years but the American economy has underwent what is called a "recession". It means that the stock market basically crashed into nothingness, and has been slowly rebuilding since then. The economy under Bill Clinton in the 90s was better than its ever been. Since then it has reached record lows.

So this is my question to WWE: If females and kids are your core demographic, why do you do best in ratings in the 18-35 male demographic?

Of course males 18-35 are the core demographic, it's WRESTLING. I already said it earlier, but they didn't go PG to please kids and females.[/QUOTE]

Sure, kids watch the product, but who buys those kids the shirts? Buys themselves the DVDs? Kids loved wrestling in 1998, too.

Their parents, who may or may not like wrestling, buy them the shirts. When I was 14 in the Attitude Era, my parents had absolutely zero interest in wrestling but bought me all the merchandise I asked for because they were my parents.

And of course kids loved wrestling in 1998, too. The difference is that we live in a much more "Politically Correct" world nowadays. Everything is taboo or can be misconstrued as to offend somebody. Gone are the days of flirting with angles involving guns, drugs and sex, and it's not just a choice of Vince McMahon. It's the world we live in; one where CM Punk has to formerly apologize for calling grown man heckling him, off camera at a house show, a "homo".

Is it because Vince McMahon, now pushing 70 years of age, doesn't care about his "experiment" anymore?

The XFL was an experiment. the WBF was an experiment. WWE is literally Vince McMahon's life work, and he created the industry as we know it today. To all WWE a mere "experiment" on Vince's part is just ignorant.

Is it because he's allowing his idiot daughter and his inexperienced son-in-law run the company?

One of the major complaints by smarks is that Vince controls the product with an iron fist, demanding rewrites and basically saying whatever he says, goes. So, no. Good try though!

Has the glory-days of this sport we've all come to love, professional wrestling, ended, never to return?

Quite possibly. The professional wrestling industry experienced a boom of popularity in the late 1990s. Grunge was big in the early 90s and Disco was big in the 70s. Fads happen. Wrestling as a mainstream form of entertainment was a fad. It's now back to what it's ALWAYS been except for one five-year period, a niche product. If you don't appreciate wrestling despite its lack of mainstream acceptance, I'd go so far to say you aren't actually a fan.

Does the wrestling business even stand a long-term chance if the WWE fails?

Certainly not, because McMahon bought all his competition. Not because he fails to bring back the Attitude Era.

Phew. That enough?

 

[Smokeydogg7]

of course it was better in 1998 rock austin hhh taker kane etc on top of that most of us were kids and u enjoy wrestling alot more when your a kid who cant tell if its real or not

 

[Indeed]

Okay, another two questions I have.

Wrestling fans around the world will almost unanimously agree that Jim Ross is the best color commentator of all time. Yet we have to suffer through Michael Cole's bullshit on a weekly basis, twice a week. Yet, in FCW and NXT, Regal and J.R. are calling the matches and doing an excellent job. It's almost like watching FCW is better than watching Raw or Smackdown at this point. It's actual, you know, wrestling. And you get to hear J.R. and Regal, which is a definite bonus as they always do well.

So why isn't it J.R. and Regal or Lawler on Raw, and Cole and Regal on Smackdown? Booker-T is five times, FIVE TIMES worse than Taz is at commentary. He's one of the main reasons I can't watch Smackdown anymore. And having to listen to him on PPV is just nauseating. Don't give me the "it's the schedule" excuse, because Jerry Lawler last time I checked is older than J.R. is...

Another thing, Howard Finkel, why doesn't he have a job? Justin Roberts is terrible...

Editing this post to respond to THK up there.

 

[whoopin' ass]

part of it is simply the logic the wwe uses. i said it in a different thread, look at the Big Show. according to RAW last night, he was rehired at 3 different times ranging from Saturday before the ppv to just before RAW. that is 3 times in a 2 hour show. wwe seems to have developed a "just go with it" mentality and that is now something you can do in wrestling. sure, we suspend disbelief a little since we know they don't really hate each other and it isn't "real" but you still have to have some logic and sense behind things. their approach seems to have gone from "we listen to what the fans want" to "we tell the fans what they want" and that is a sure way to lose your audience. and it is really sad too because a majority of the fans who left or currently don't like the product want one thing - WRESTLING!!!!! they have tried to replace those fans with kids but look at their stock and obviously it isn't working. but as long as wwe is successful and no one is a threat to them like wcw was, nothing is going to change. if wcw didn't kick wwe square in the ass, vince would have just kept going as he was.

 

[The Liar]

Actually with the exception of Katie Vick the WWF/E had cleaned up their act by 2000. Long gone were the Vince Russo type crass vignettes, it was cleaner and the emphasis was more on wrestling.

While there was definitely a bigger emphasis on wrestling and a lot less crass stuff post-Russo, I still think it was a very adult-oriented product for many years. Blood was common in big-time matches, cursing was standard in promos and the divas wore a whole hell of a lot less than they do now. Plus, you had stuff like DDP stalking Undertaker's wife (2001), Lesnar putting his hands on Undertaker's wife when she was pregnant (2002), Lita's miscarrage (2004), the Lita/Edge/Hardy love triangle (2005), Muhammad Hassan (2004-05), divas making out with each other (2004-06), etc, etc.

The WWE was rated TV-14 for a reason.

 

[kaneso14]

Wrestling fans around the world will almost unanimously agree that Jim Ross is the best color commentator of all time.

Jim Ross is, and always has been, a play by play announcer, not a color commentator.

Are you just going to come across as even more of an attitude era mark and ignore all the (good) points The Hardcore Kid made against your original post?

 

[H33LTurn]

I rarely ever read rants this long but I made an exception for you and I'm glad I did. I agree with your view wholeheartedly. I dont understand why supporters of a new attitude era get labeled as crybabies when they are only crying for something that was a proven success. TNA continues with a similar platform as that of the attitude era but they lack the exposure, talent, and fan base to make it into a success. Yet I have to say TNA feels like the last real wrestling company alive. WWE feels like an over hyped kids show. On one side you have Triple H/Lesnar/Heyman involved in the whole legal battle which fits into USA network's programming but has never gone over so well with the fans. On the other you have guys like CM Punk and Daniel Bryan on top of the company because the internet supports them and they got media coverage. While the media did praise CM Punk over his promo, the true icons that make a sport relevant are the ones who arent so loved by the public. Money Mayweather, LeBron James, and Tiger Woods are the butt of many jokes but they have carried their sport's success to the future generation. We need champions who appeal to the generation as a whole, not just one demographic. And the paranoia over too much violence has to stop. Its wrestling for pete's sake! Its supposed to be violent, people are supposed to get so passionate about it that they curse even though the camera is rolling. In today's society you have two types of companies, the ones that survive because they become politically correct, and the ones that thrive because they're not afraid to push the envelope. I'm not asking for a raunchy filthy episode of Monday Night RAW but maybe the superstars should start acting like men competing for something they desperately want, fighting people who they passionately despise, and not flip flopping on their personal views because the WWE Universe no longer cares about them. We dont need guys acting like high school pretty boys, children's show level violence, and constant heel/face turns. We need logical booking, believable presentation, and an attitude towards the standard format of wrestling that doesnt refer to it as an outdated idea but as the platform that made wrestling into the spectacle that it is today.

 

[Indeed]

So, so much wrong with your post, so little time. But I'll try to dissect this incredibly bombastic post that basically boils down to "I want the Attitude era back".

I don't want the attitude era back, never said I did in my post, now did I? Assuming a bit too much, aren't you? What I want is the stoppage of what I wrote about in the OP, i.e. the illogical booking and the lackluster feuds we've been given as of late. Despite the fact that the majority of your argument is likely to be calling me a "smark" or an IWC poster-child, I'll respond.

Yeah, Mark Henry and Mae Young's illegitimate love child being a rubber hand was a well-written storyline.

Good job taking the worst storyline out of an entire era's worth to use in an argument. For every Mae Young/Mark Henry hand storyline, there were multiple fantastic feuds including the best wrestling feud of all time, the reckless rebel Austin versus the evil boss McMahon. There were some of the best matches in the history of the company, including the TLC matches and Undertaker/Mankind, the greatest run in Smackdown history when Heyman was booking it, etc. The list could go on and on of the great moments and rivalries during the period of 1998-2001, so the fact you took one awful storyline to criticize three year's worth of incredible wrestling programming is not only a blatant logical fallacy, but a poor tactic in an argument with someone who isn't your typical "smark".

Most characters in the Attitude Era was some variant of a self-obsessed "badass". Even the iconic, do-no-wrong Undertaker's gimmick underwent a change to a generic badass during the Attitude Era. You're right, very varied.

Uhh, isn't that what most characters are now? Randy Orton's the "viper", the "aphex predator", Sheamus is the Irish brawler, Jericho is still the self obsessed badass...that's usually what a wrestler will be, even with a gimmick. By varied, I mean that you had the sophmore antics of D-X, the psychotic Mankind, the rattlesnake rebel Steve Austin, the evil boss McMahon, the Rock and his charisma and uncanny ability to cut a promo better than anyone in "WWE"'s locker room right now, the dead-man and his vicious brother Kane. You had tons of different CHARACTERS, all with their own unique little quirks. All of them top tier wrestlers and mic talents. People you could get behind. Nowadays, "people you can get behind" in "WWE" (I'm making sure I don't call it the WWE in fear you might blow a blood vessel) are few and far between.

And quick booking is an issue exclusive to WWE in 2012. It's never happened in the history of wrestling, and certainly not in the Attitude Era, where the belt was passed around like a hot potato, Vince McMahon won the Royal Rumble, GTV was never explained, face-heel turns were seemingly decided whenever a writer sneezed, and half the show was bikini contest and faux lesbian action.

Exclusive to WWE in 2012? Ha. Good one. And please point out when these sneeze-turns as I will call them occured. Christian just turned face after being heel the last time he was on WWE television. Big Show just turned heel, AGAIN. I'll give you that I was younger during the attitude era, but I can guarantee you the stance turns are MUCH more common now than they where then. You're taking outliers of the entire period of time and using those to counter my argument. Every era has it's stupid moments and bad segments. Every, era. The PG-era is chock full of them.

WrestleZone did exist back then. And its editors have ALWAYS complained about the content. Because that's what beat writers do. Based on this comment I'm going to have to assume you weren't even watching wrestling during this era you laud and regard so highly, or at least weren't as big a fan as you seem to think everyone was back then.

I never lauded or regarded the attitude era highly in my post based on opinion, except for when I talked about the crowds and the commentary. Most people will agree the matches themselves were much better then, and the data I posted clearly supports that more people were interested in the product, buying the PPVs, buying the merch, and obviously watching the product. And I didn't know Wrestlezone was 14 years old, I learn something every day. And not all beat-writers complain, Justin LaBar is a good example of that. He doesn't always agree with the product, but he doesn't bash it consistently like Isenburg.

Well, that's because you're not supposed to say "The WWE". You're supposed to just say "WWE". You didn't say "The WCW" or "The ECW," did you?

No I did not. But if your company is called THE World Wrestling Federation for 20 years, you'd think they'd keep it similar. This is a moot point, this was just a personal preference/opinion of mine so this really doesn't matter all that much.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with concussions becoming the biggest epidemic in professional sports, and oh yeah a little guy named Chris Benoit; blood-borne illness; and increasing network scrutiny. What a lot of people don't realize is that shows are MUCH more heavily regulated now. The late 90s was home of Jerry Springer and trash TV; everything was a desperate attempt to get ratings. Performers don't have to act like that these days and frankly shouldn't have to.

Desperate attempt to get ratings...hmm. Reminds me of the reality television we see on a daily basis in our society as well as the increasingly violent programming seen elsewhere as well as the fact people can say "shit" and "f*ck" on TV now without much backlash. Let's not forget shows like South Park, which are just as raunchy if not more as they were in the 90s. And since when do PROTECTED chair shots cause brain injuries? Show me ANY data on that. And Chris Benoit's CTE or whatever you wish to call it was more of a result of his FINISHER, a diving headbutt where he jumped halfway across the ring landing on his head thousands of times in his career. Not the occasional PROTECTED chair shot. As far as blood borne illness goes, whatever on that. Blood should be reserved for high-intensity spots and used infrequently only to make a match seem more rigid and of a battle. But I do not think it should be avoided completely.

Stop. Just stop. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Triple H (God, I hate it when smarks call everybody by their real name as if they're best friends with them or something) has definitely said those things, but never has he said that's WHY they moved to PG. They're just a pleasant after-effect. The move to PG is widely speculated to be thought of as a product of Linda McMahon's continual runs for senate combined with Mattel becoming the manufacturer of WWE's (see what I did there? WWE. Not "the WWE".) toys, and Mattel having a more kid-friendly image.

I'll let the frankly unsettling Monopoly reference go for this one, but don't try it again. Ugh. And we have our first instance of the word smark, cool. I called him Paul Levesque because he's a WWE executive and that's his real name, just as I'd call John Laurinitis, John Laurinitis. Yes, he's Triple-H, that's his in-ring name. We call Dustin Runnels, Dustin Runnels, despite the fact his in-ring name is Goldust. He's a road-agent now, not a wrestler. And since WHEN does the influence of a toy company change the entire product of a company? That's just ridiculous. Linda McMahon isn't even active in WWE anymore in any official capacity. The product in the process of being cleaned up as early as late 2007, before she ever announced a senate bid. "Widely speculated".

I guess Ric Flair, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Vince McMahon, Stephanie McMahon, Paul Heyman, Vickie Guerrero, Teddy Long, Bret Hart, John Laurinaitis and every other authority figure in WWE post-Attitude Era has never made any matches or kayfabe controlled the show in any manner. Weird, I thought I saw them making matches.

Ladies and gentlemen, he missed the point.

I guess you haven't seen the last two Triple H vs. Undertaker WrestleMania matches. Or any Money in the Bank match. Or any TLC match in the past decade.

The HHH-Taker matches? LOL. You mean the spot where Triple-H brings out the chairs and the sledgehammer like he always does (but he can't hit Taker in the head, or Taker might murder his family). That's not a spot. A spot in a Hell in a Cell match is when someone gets tossed into the cage, or off of it. Not when WWE uses the Hell in a Cell match type to sell tickets despite the fact they only used the cage for 4-5 minutes the entire match. I also like how you completely missed the mark with the TLC comment and furthered my point. The TLC matches, the original ones that are regarded as classic took place in the attitude era...

I don't really get your points here, but if you're saying WWE Champions are nothing but jobbers compared to the Attitude Era champions, I have to respectfully disagree. Triple H has held the title multiple times since the Attitude Era. John Cena (who you lambast for no reason) and Randy Orton are hardly 'jobbers'. Neither are Chris Jericho, Edge, or CM Punk.

Sigh. The whole jobber comment was a reference to the Miz, a former champion who now is employed to job to Brodus Clay. You took what I said far out of context and tied it in with my apparent obsession with the attitude era which you've mostly fabricated. And I lambast John Cena for being forced down my throat and put into poor storylines every month that are apparently more important than the company's highest prize because it's a mid-card title at this point. Not because of anything he does wrong because he's a decent performer and he can cut a promo, plus he has a natural sense of humor. Just poorly booked and I bet in his heart he knows that but would never admit it because he's a "company guy".

Again, you act like the Attitude Era was some bastion of logic and cohesion. An era where we saw a porn star's dick almost get chopped off by a Japanese Yazuka mob (only to be saved by 'shrinkage'). Where Linda McMahon was in a "catatonic" state yet still somehow showed up for every show. Where Triple H and Stephanie McMahon's drive-thru, chapel marriage where Stephanie wasn't even conscious due to a rufalin overdose was for some reason legally valid, despite HHH bragging about drugging (oh, and raping) her. Yep, high logic.

Yeah, all eras of wrestling have had logical fallacies, that happens in a 52-week-a-year improvised live product. But it's worse now than ever. And the period of 2002-2005 is what I consider to be "logical" in the vein of what I was talking about - there were number one contender matches, the brand extension, the GMs would actually be seen booking the matches instead of them just "occurring", as in seemingly random. How did CM Punk book Kane v. Bryan? Did John Laurinitis, the guy they've touted as the abusive GM, approve of that? I thought he supported the heels. Very logical.

True, but RAW is still the highest rated program on cable television. You see, this wacky thing called the "internet" came into prevalence since then, gobbling up ratings with things like DVR, Torrenting, live streams, and other methods of obtaining television content. Comparing ratings of today to ratings of yesteryear is like comparing apples to oranges.

Explain lower attendance, lower merch sales, etc. Can't attribute that to the internet.

John Cena was heel for a few years, as his wildly popular "Thuganomics" character that people like you constantly clamor for a return to.

For a few YEARS? When his Thuganomics character got over and fans cheered him despite him being a heel, WWE RUSHED to turn him face. He was a heel for a few months at most. This was a point made to me by another person on another forum. Look it up, it's true. And I hated the wigger gimmick, stop grouping me with "smarks", it does not make you look cool or better your argument. People like me. You don't even know me whatsoever and you're putting me in a group based off on one post wherein I never even commented on John Cena's thuganomics persona.

Because WWF Championship matches were never bumped out of the main event in lieu of Vince McMahon, Gerald Brisco, Shane McMahon, and other non-wrestlers taking the spotlight. Oh wait...

You forget those angles usually involved the WWF Championship. 85% of the time, the WWF Championship was the main-event match. What a bogus cop-out.

False. Michael Cole is a heel play-by-play. Not a color.

Oh geez, now we're getting picky about terms. Fine. Play-by-play. He's still terrible at being a heel.

Where the HELL do you get that idea from?! Face and heel turns were so common in the Attitude Era it was nigh impossible to keep track. In fact, at WrestleMania XV, smack-dab in the middle of the Attitude Era, Triple H and Chyna turned from face to heel twice in the same night! This was not uncommon. Betrayals in DX, the Corporation, and other stables ran rampant. And the fact that you claim that logic was the most important factor in the Attitude Era is just plain laughable. The most important factor in the Attitude Era was shock appeal; its sudden "attitude". It's in the fucking name.

Yeah, because faux-turns count as turns in themselves? I believe Austin briefly turned heel once only to attack McMahon in a fake-out. That does not count. And when I say logical, I mean in the BOOKING - the fact that there were contender matches and tournaments, as in, it functioned as a LOGICAL mock championship contest sport. The UFC is a REAL championship sport, and they have fights that determine who gets to face a champion. That's what WWE should have, but contenders are decided seemingly randomly at this point, as seen in Jericho suddenly changing to chasing the SD title and vice versa with Bryan. Angles, on the other hand, have and always will have times they lack logic.

The only sudden heel turn I can really even think of (Besides Daniel Bryan, but his was a slow burn, and Big Show who JUST happened) was Christian, and he went on to feud with Randy Orton for five months, producing one of the best programs of last summer. Next?

Didn't Zack Ryder randomly turn heel? Jericho randomly turned heel after being the silent face for a month? Triple-H's heel tenure versus the Undertaker? I could go on, so take that next and put it somewhere.

I don't know if you've been living under a rock for the past 5 years but the American economy has underwent what is called a "recession". It means that the stock market basically crashed into nothingness, and has been slowly rebuilding since then. The economy under Bill Clinton in the 90s was better than its ever been. Since then it has reached record lows.

Please shut up. The price jumped to $9.00 after Wrestlemania and could've been higher. That's such a stupid cop-out, because if you haven't noticed, the Dow alone right now is what, 12000? Which is stronger than it was doing under Bush. Money is always tight for most people.

Of course males 18-35 are the core demographic, it's WRESTLING. I already said it earlier, but they didn't go PG to please kids and females.

Then why is Cena pushed so hard towards kids? Why do they bring the kids into the ring when Brodus Clay dances? Why go PG at all when the UFC is kicking their asses in the male demo? UFC certainly isn't PG. So many questions, no real answers.

Their parents, who may or may not like wrestling, buy them the shirts. When I was 14 in the Attitude Era, my parents had absolutely zero interest in wrestling but bought me all the merchandise I asked for because they were my parents.

Is there like a title more severe than captain obvious?

And of course kids loved wrestling in 1998, too. The difference is that we live in a much more "Politically Correct" world nowadays. Everything is taboo or can be misconstrued as to offend somebody. Gone are the days of flirting with angles involving guns, drugs and sex, and it's not just a choice of Vince McMahon. It's the world we live in; one where CM Punk has to formerly apologize for calling grown man heckling him, off camera at a house show, a "homo".

Didn't South Park just have an episode about a "Jewpacabra"? I await an apology from Trey Parker and Matt Stone. You're pushing this excuse too far. WWE, like Paul Heyman said, is "too image concious" now.

The XFL was an experiment. the WBF was an experiment. WWE is literally Vince McMahon's life work, and he created the industry as we know it today. To all WWE a mere "experiment" on Vince's part is just ignorant.

It's well known that his attempt to take the WWF national was an experiment to see if he could. He could've easily been a successful promoter in the territory system and would still be a rather rich man today.

One of the major complaints by smarks is that Vince controls the product with an iron fist, demanding rewrites and basically saying whatever he says, goes. So, no. Good try though

I thought Stephanie was in charge of creative? And Paul Levesque was more and more in charge of the day-to-day operations of WWE? Yes, Vince still makes decisions. He still controls the product. But not as much as he ever did before.

Quite possibly. The professional wrestling industry experienced a boom of popularity in the late 1990s. Grunge was big in the early 90s and Disco was big in the 70s. Fads happen. Wrestling as a mainstream form of entertainment was a fad. It's now back to what it's ALWAYS been except for one five-year period, a niche product. If you don't appreciate wrestling despite its lack of mainstream acceptance, I'd go so far to say you aren't actually a fan.

Aren't actually a fan. Because I've just been watching it my entire life and posting on sites just like this one, buying the merch and dedicating thousands of hours of my life to it, spending money on shows and discussing it in great detail with you right now. And if it's such a niche product, despite the fact less people enjoy it now (but didn't you attribute the loss in ratings to the internet? Now I was right?) it's still the highest rated cable show on TV like you said. A niche product is tennis. Golf. Wrestling is as mainstream today as it was then, just not in as good of shape because of poor management and Vince McMahon's monopoly tactics.

Certainly not, because McMahon bought all his competition. Not because he fails to bring back the Attitude Era.

I think you've said "attitude era" more than I did in my OP.

Phew. That enough?

Your post was easily one of the poorest "dissections" I've ever seen. I've been owned countless times in the past by lesser posters on other forums. This was pretty easy. You also ignored several parts of my post, so you obviously had no rebuttal to those or you agreed, which meant my post wasn't as bad as you tried to make it seem. Couldn't edit my other post so here.

 

[Four20]

who's to say that they aren't making more money now than they were during the attitude era?

they might be losing money because they keep dumping it into those movies

but it's safe to assume that they're making more money, per person that watches the product, than they did back in the attitude era.

remember, there is a reason why entertainment(like movies and video games) will adhere to a family friendly label if possible. parents spend money on their kids.

they probably just have a goal in mind to get to the viewership/ratings that they had during the attitude era. . .but doing it while keeping the family friendly label and marketing the product to kids.

shoot, who knows. this might be what brings wrestling into the real mainstream in a generation or two. . .without being mocked or looked at funny. but we just can't see his vision right now

 

[Headman]

Right when the wrestling boom hit everyone with a brain in their head knew it was a fad. I knew that after a couple years it would cease to be popular and become "Uber uncool" to be caught watching, even more so than it was before the boom. Going back to putting on trashy programming where 80 year old women show their breasts on ppv or 6 foot men beating the snot out of women and having the crowd go wild cheering their actions is not going to make WWE "cool" again. That time has passed and thank God for that. I grew up on wrestling and was faced with the reality of not being able to take my child to a wrestling show because of the language and actions used for cheap heat. If the product isn't mature enough for you (Mature, that's a misused word.) then maybe it's time to let go and find something else that meets your tastes.

As for logical booking, the WWE has never had logical booking. Even during the attitude era storylines would arise and be scrapped without any sort of payoff. You've probably clarified your original post somewhere in all those replies, but I sort of zoned out when you started insulting people or saying they missed your point. If that many people are missing your point, you may need to be more clear.

In short, things get old. Things get boring. Things get played out. Wrestling isn't the first thing to become insanely popular then fall back into obscurity. Trying to figure out how to relive the wrestling boom is like trying to figure out how Limp Bizkit can write a hit album again. It's not going to happen.

 

[cult_of_icecream_bar]

Simple,wrestling is dead.It died after WCW got bought off.No matter what storylines,formulas,wrestlers are used,it will decline no matter what,no one cares about it anymore,its uncool to watch it.Its fact.80's-90's were the time of wrestling and they're long gone.

 

[The Liar]

Simple,wrestling is dead.It died after WCW got bought off.No matter what storylines,formulas,wrestlers are used,it will decline no matter what,no one cares about it anymore,its uncool to watch it.Its fact.80's-90's were the time of wrestling and they're long gone.

Just because it isn't the cool thing to watch like it was in 1999 doesn't mean that it's uncool now. I'm in college, and last month a lot of guys in my classes were talking about Lesnar and his feud with John Cena. They might not be huge fans of the product like I am, but they were aware of it and didn't see me as "uncool" for watching it.

 

[TLK]

I think Lesnar is an exception since he had just come from the UFC, which stole a ton of WWE's Attitude Era fanbase. That's the thing - Lesnar's return made WWE "cool" again, if only for a brief period. When he returns and feuds with Triple H, I think things will pick up again.

 

[TimeIsWasting]

My only thing about Lesnar making wwe cool again is that the ratings didn't show it. Ultimately I don't think they have to be extreme or anything, just get some better righting and pick your big spots to get guys over. Timing is everything.

 

[TLK]

Ratings never fluctuate much anymore, regardless of who is back. It's always 3.0-3.5. The Raw of his return was the 2nd-highest viewed Raw of the year. I realize it was the Raw after Mania but there was a ton of buzz about him making his return that night.