Is The Attitude Era Of The WWE Overrated?
- Thread starter GlitchMarner
- Start date
PeterSidorkiewicz
HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Not at all IMO. The Monday night wars were must see TV week after week. Sure there was a lot of crap but at least they were trying creative storylines.
The main eventers of the Attitude were pretty much money too. Would it still hold up today? Maybe not but that doesn’t matter IMO. It was great in the time period that it was in.
The main eventers of the Attitude were pretty much money too. Would it still hold up today? Maybe not but that doesn’t matter IMO. It was great in the time period that it was in.
It hasn’t aged well. I’ll elaborate more on my laptop but it truly was a product of the times and has aged pretty poorly. Ring work wasn’t as good as now, but character work was through the roof and that’s what people love about it, which is a definite pro for that era, no doubt.
Kimi
Registered User
I think the character work and undercard story is absurdly overrated. It's was a massive negative to the shows, and re-watching it makes it's painfully clear.
The big problem with the 'everyone has a storyline and a feud' thing is that everyone indeed did have a storyline and a feud. And that makes for a terrible show.
You are constantly bombarded with stuff so nothing ever stands out. You can have ten different angles on a show, and all ten of them could be good, but you'll not remember any of them. All you remember is 'stuff happened', and it all just blends in. There's too much noise.
If they had slowed everything down and paced thing better, then you'd remember a load more great stories that were just lost among everything else. It would also help weed out a lot of the truly bad stuff that made up the majority of the shows.
It was a product of its time. And a great time to be a fan it was.
I think everyone having a character is great.
Everyone having a storyline and feud wasn't.
CHGoalie27
Don't blame the goalie!
First part absolutely, but what main eventers then wouldn't hold up today?
PeterSidorkiewicz
HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Not main eventers, just the attitude era in general I meant. The main eventers back then destroy the wwe main eventers today for the most part, IMO.
PeterSidorkiewicz
HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Being a fan of the 80s and Attitude Era is just so much better than now.
It did have quite a bit of stupid crap though. Such as:
- The Big Boss Man "cooking" Al Snow's dog
- The "Kennel From Hell" match
- Mae Young giving birth to a hand
- Vince being the "Higher Power"
- The Big Boss Man "cooking" Al Snow's dog
- The "Kennel From Hell" match
- Mae Young giving birth to a hand
- Vince being the "Higher Power"
Yep.
Plus in the Attitude Era even the "little fish in the pond" (the non megastars I mean) were fun to watch.
Gangrel and The Brood
Too Cool
The Godfather
Steve Blackman
Etc.
CHGoalie27
Don't blame the goalie!
Destroy is an understatement, really. CM Punk was the last guy on the mic that even compared to any of them...I mean the Miz is pretty much the only mic master the wwe has right now, no? No offense to him, but...
Bret The Hitman Hart was the best in ring worker of all the years and I'll argue that all day. He was not Hogan, he was not Austin, he was not the Rock. Hell, Bret was less marketable than the Warrior (who I think was far better in the ring than too many people made him out to be) though he was a far superior wrestler than my all time favorite.
Attitude Era is way overrated. We are talking about 97 to 99/2000 ish.
So much garbage. It was racist, homophobic, and misogynistic. The violence was over the top and all the head shots in hindsight were totally unnecssary and disgusting when you watch it today. The storylines were even more ridcolous with even worse payoffs. Workrate was nill and matches were all short or brawls basically.
It was essentially carried by Austin, Rock, Taker, Mankind and the freshness of Vince as an on air Heel.
So much garbage. It was racist, homophobic, and misogynistic. The violence was over the top and all the head shots in hindsight were totally unnecssary and disgusting when you watch it today. The storylines were even more ridcolous with even worse payoffs. Workrate was nill and matches were all short or brawls basically.
It was essentially carried by Austin, Rock, Taker, Mankind and the freshness of Vince as an on air Heel.
CHGoalie27
Don't blame the goalie!
PeterSidorkiewicz
HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,115
- 12,787
Depends on what sense a person means. In ring work? It wasn't exceptional, but I don't think that most people who watched at the time rate the era highly for that reason. There were some all time great in ring performers in Guerrero, Benoit, Angle, arguably Michaels and Hart depending on when a person defines the beginning and end of the period. The focus wasn't on great in ring work, not unlike WWE today, so there weren't frequent classics. There were admittedly plenty of plodding big guys who weren't particularly good in the ring, which drags things down. Promos were far better. Austin, Rock, Foley, even Vince McMahon were tremendous promo guys that no active wrestler touches other than attitude era stalwart Jericho. Some of that was practice, another part is that it was a more natural style without a crew of writers making every wrestler say similar generic things.
The biggest difference is presentation and that is the biggest positive in favour of the attitude era. The idea that it was somehow detrimental to have many different wrestlers with storylines is bizarre. There was actually a reason to be interested in a lot of wrestlers at the time. Some of the storylines were crap, some were good, but it's better to have some good storylines and bad ones that you can ignore than to have the menagerie of the mundane that we see today. A lot of WWE's current problems stem from the inability (or unwillingness) to give people a reason to care about most of the wrestlers. Another benefit was simply that the structure of WWE tv was so much better then. Two hour Raw is much easier to build, and in the attitude era you would often have given episodes with an overarching story that kept you interested throughout the show. Quite a novel idea. WWE also kept it far simpler in terms of filming things. Far fewer contrived camera shots, more focus on the actual matches and storylines as opposed to catchphrases and hashtags, better commentary. Far better crowds also helped. In terms of comparison to today, I would rather a product that was great at the time and seems a bit weaker in retrospect than a product that is weak at the time.
The biggest difference is presentation and that is the biggest positive in favour of the attitude era. The idea that it was somehow detrimental to have many different wrestlers with storylines is bizarre. There was actually a reason to be interested in a lot of wrestlers at the time. Some of the storylines were crap, some were good, but it's better to have some good storylines and bad ones that you can ignore than to have the menagerie of the mundane that we see today. A lot of WWE's current problems stem from the inability (or unwillingness) to give people a reason to care about most of the wrestlers. Another benefit was simply that the structure of WWE tv was so much better then. Two hour Raw is much easier to build, and in the attitude era you would often have given episodes with an overarching story that kept you interested throughout the show. Quite a novel idea. WWE also kept it far simpler in terms of filming things. Far fewer contrived camera shots, more focus on the actual matches and storylines as opposed to catchphrases and hashtags, better commentary. Far better crowds also helped. In terms of comparison to today, I would rather a product that was great at the time and seems a bit weaker in retrospect than a product that is weak at the time.
GlitchMarner
Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
This is true. Back then, risque entertainment really was trendy.
Things like South Park and Jerry Springer were huge.
The idea of rebeilling against the system or status quo was popular at the time as well. You have movies like Office Space and The Matrix from the same time period.
Plus back then it seems the wrestlers were given a hell of a lot more creative control over their characters back then.
Wasn't it more or less "take the ball and run with it" creatively speaking?? Or was that just with Austin, The Rock, etc.
Wasn't it more or less "take the ball and run with it" creatively speaking?? Or was that just with Austin, The Rock, etc.
The minute RAW went off during the Attitude Era the countdown began in anticipation of what would happen on the next RAW. I couldn't wait until the next Monday night to come. The cliffhanging storylines at the end of the show were consistently compelling. There was a thread on here about where you are at as a fan, and while I have always watched WWE since the early 80s and continue to do so, I'm not even close to being so engrossed to what is going on now like I was back then. My friends and I would have PPV viewing parties every month rotating who would host each event. It was an amazing time to be a fan of not only the Attitude Era in the WWE but as a wrestling fan in general with WCW and ECW as well. For me it wasn't overrated at all. I miss those times. Lots of terrific memories.
I think with Austin it was him he took the reigns and ran with it and exploded in popularity. No one seen that coming from ringmaster to stone cold was huge back in the day.
HandsomeHollywood
Brooke Shields ain't got nothin'
- Mar 20, 2017
- 1,531
- 1,219
It really depends on how you look at it, I guess. From an in-ring standpoint it seems so, with lower card guys in countless brawls yet prominent spots on the card. The writing and the level of engagement pretty much excused this issue though, at the time.
A good chunk hasn't aged well, no. The WWE roster was also nowhere near as deep and legendary as Vince would have you believe. Hot tag team division and prime main event stars were its main draws, in-ring (until The Radicalz and Jericho). Overarching storylines were the best part though. TV shows had meaning and were built around stories, both episodic and serial. Much better than today's extremely loose card that comes off largely (and poorly) improvised at times, yet strictly rehearsed, like some kind of twisted, lengthy Curb Your Enthusiasm.
It gets a proper amount of love seeing as it is the undisputed peak of WWE and wrestling's popularity, nationally.
The real question for me is; where do you determine its beginning and end? WWE has done it's best to rewrite and reimagine those aspects.
A good chunk hasn't aged well, no. The WWE roster was also nowhere near as deep and legendary as Vince would have you believe. Hot tag team division and prime main event stars were its main draws, in-ring (until The Radicalz and Jericho). Overarching storylines were the best part though. TV shows had meaning and were built around stories, both episodic and serial. Much better than today's extremely loose card that comes off largely (and poorly) improvised at times, yet strictly rehearsed, like some kind of twisted, lengthy Curb Your Enthusiasm.
It gets a proper amount of love seeing as it is the undisputed peak of WWE and wrestling's popularity, nationally.
The real question for me is; where do you determine its beginning and end? WWE has done it's best to rewrite and reimagine those aspects.
Last edited:
AtlantaWhaler
Thrash/Preds/Sabres
- Jul 3, 2009
- 19,713
- 2,935
By far the best in wrestling history. Every Monday was must see. Ratings reflected it for sure. WWE had true competition and it showed. I have always been a fan of extreme wrestling, so I'm bias to say the in-ring work was better.
And character as well as feud development was 1,000x better. The build ups were great. If you missed 1-2 episodes, you felt like you missed a lot.
Today, I can miss a month and have no problem with it.
And character as well as feud development was 1,000x better. The build ups were great. If you missed 1-2 episodes, you felt like you missed a lot.
Today, I can miss a month and have no problem with it.
UnrealMachine
Registered User
I'd agree with this. I would also argue that mid/late 80s WWF is way more palatable to rewatch in the present day. Of course, they weren't putting out a weekly show the calibre of Raw, so I'm more or less comparing SNME to the Raw episodes in terms of the overall wrestling culture of the times. I prefer over-the-top characters of the 80's to over-the-top violence & innuendoes of the late 90's. The latter may as well be burlesque for dudes, which loses its luster at a dramatic rate after the 100th iteration.
