It is a phrase we hear spoken very often, ‘The Attitude Era was much better than today’s WWE’. Certainly, the mainstream popularity of Professional Wrestling in the late 90s would attest that it had more of a following at the time. However, basing success on television ratings is becoming a very dated way of measuring the popularity of WWE programming, particularly given the amount of ways it is possible to watch the weekly shows in the modern day.
And judging by the amount of coverage Hollywood gossip website TMZ gives to WWE and Wrestling in general, there’s certainly an argument that the outreach of WWE is the same if not further than it was during the Attitude Era, just not perhaps to the same demographics.
The PG Era has certainly had its criticisms, both from fans and ex-Superstars. The quality of storylines and promos has often been negatively judged, with comparisons to the Attitude Era stories that fans would tune into week in, week out. At the time of the Attitude Era, Internet Wrestling News sites and forums were nowhere near as prevalent as they are today. Wrestling fans were in a transition period from phoning hotlines or subscribing to physical newsletters to discovering the Internet as a place to find out the latest Wrestling gossip and also voice their own views on WWF TV. With the ability to do so as instantly as we now can, are we as fans too quick to criticise the modern day WWE product?
In 2007, fans and critics were extremely critical of the storyline when Vince McMahon’s limousine blew up in the car park. Granted, as a suspension of disbelief, this was maybe a step too far even for the most open of fan. However, was this much different to the Undertaker kidnapping and possessing wrestlers in order to join the Ministry of Darkness in 1999?
If something happens on WWE programming now that is generally deemed silly or too much by the vocal WWE fans, there will be Tweets, Facebook Status Updates and Podcasts all lambasting it and shaping other fans opinions pretty quickly. During the Attitude Era, these thoughts were certainly not as a wide spread, although there is nothing to say certain segments during the time would have not been criticised in the same way were the forums available to do so.
As well as storylines, many have said that today’s gimmicks aren’t as good as they were during the Attitude Era. Fans and critics were very vocal in their thoughts towards the recent Lord Tensai character, however during the Attitude Era you had gimmicks like Gangrel and Puke, and there never seemed to be such a negative perception towards them.
We are currently seeking WWE contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a WWE contributor, click here.
13 Comments
So many things have changed since the AE. Aside from the storylines it’s also worth remembering the quality of the wrestlers and how good they all were on the mic. Austin, Rock, Triple H, Taker, Angle, Jericho, Benoit, Kane, Mankind and all were in their prime. The WWE also forget that many of their best faces were anti-heroes. Guys like Cena have been forced down the throats of the fans and when Punk became the most popular, they turned him heel. Imagine if they’d suddenly turned Austin heel in the middle of ’98?
totally agree with jamie. for the most part, im more of a ruthless aggression era mark myself. an era not really known for their “awe inspiring” characters, or their superb promo skills, (compared to the attitude era, of course). it was all based on ring performance. nostalgia had nothing to do with it. i don’t wish to relieve the moments of the ruthless aggression, i just want the wrestlers that im watching today to do better, and give me more of a reason to watch the wwe, (or any promotion for that matter), than i did when i was younger. you don’t need swearing, nudity and/or blood to have a good show, (most of what we seen during the attitude era). granted, it gives it a boost, but you don’t need it. smackdown in ’02 was pg, and do i really have to say much on that subject? great matches, no matter the gimmick or character, can take you a long way. eg: scotty 2 hotty vs dean malenko, backlash 2000. (hypocritical decision, but a perfect example).
The lack of blood, swearing and nudity isn’t an excuse. Look back at those classic Raw moments from the AE: the Zamboni, the Tyson confrontation, this is your life segment – there was no swearing, blood or nudity involved in any of those promos, it’s just that they were exciting and things like this were happening every week. This week’s Raw ended with CM Punk arguing with a referee for several minutes; it’s hardly compelling stuff.
totally agree with you, i thought the ending to raw last monday was very anti-climatic. but thats beside the point. what im getting at is why try to entertain us with “soap opera” speeches, or some other “crash tv”, (equalivant to a video game cutscene) exert. i understand building up a match with promos and what not, hell, some of which are enjoyable. but the attitude era, (and quite frankly, today’s wrestling in general), try to put off a 15-30 min promo as a main event, (yes, i said main event, because it’s the last thing i see before a show goes off). like i said, it’s justifiable IF it’s building up towards something huge, such as ppv. but when theirs no pay off, no resolution concluded in said story, then what the hell was the point? what ever happened to progressing a storyline with just wrestling? talk smack before, and talk smack after. but don’t base the vocal point of a match on something as idiotic as a worked shoot, especially when it’s obviously kayfabe. something that the attitude era, (and today, just more in kid friendly way), are known for doing.
Personally WWF’s peak was 2000 to March 2001. As mentioned earlier not only did you have some of the best wrestlers at their prime. You also had some of the best story lines, Pay Per View’s and matches.
After Wrestlemania X7 there was a noticeable drop in quality.
I put it down to the fact that they have not had any credible competition since WCW and ECW folded
This is a terrible article. Totally unfair comparisions, and a total lack of respect for the performers and well-written angles that put wrestling back into the mainstream in the late 90′s.
And no, I’m not referring performers like Gangrel and “Puke” (a gimmick that was short lived, as he went on to wrestle as Darren Drozdov, but let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story), because nobody gave a damn about stupid gimmicks like those. Just like nobody gave a damn about the ridiculous “Ministry of Darkness” angle when it happened.
Lee Heir seems to think that everyone watching WWE during the Attitude Era just marked out for every, single that was put on television. This could not be further from the truth. I was eleven years old in 1998, but I knew crappy television when I saw it, and for someone to insinuate that I didn’t, simply because of my age, is an insult to my intelligence.
I watched WWE in the late 90′s for performers like Mick Foley, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, The Rock, Undertaker, Kane, HHH (when he was still interesting) and the rest of D-Generation X, but mainly I watched it because the story between Steve Austin and Vince McMahon was a brilliant angle that featured two dynamic personalities and was very well put together and completely unpredictable. I had no interest in the garbage that Vince Russo wrote, because it was garbage, and even at the tender, young age of eleven, I knew it.
Today’s WWE is severely lacking in dynamic personalities and interesting angles. Mostly because they’ve shifted focus and are now targeting a younger demographic (mostly because Linda McMahon desperately wants to be a Republican Senator), and the reason that older fans aren’t interested is because it’s no longer a program for older fans, and that’s the bottom line.
is the wwe really lacking in storylines, or are we as 10+ year fans just complaining about the stuff that just don’t suit our image as adults? not speaking about myself, of course, but their are some people, (most likely newer fans, and/or kids below 10), who actually buy the kayfabe being sold by wwe, (kids specifically). they don’t think of the legitimate aspect of whats really going on, nor should they. their looking at this as no different from a super hero show. the good guy somehow always overcomes adversities. to them, theirs no such thing as “pushing a guy” or “squashes”. thats why the wwe aims for mostly kids and woman. they’re VERY easily persuaded, (not to mention constant allegations, and linda’s senate run, but thats another story). thats why guys like cena and sheamus will continue to bury opponents, because in the mind of an 8 year old, thats superman and batman. no matter what the storyline is, all the kid cares about is if their favorite wrestler, oh excuse me, “superstar” comes out on the winning end. i mean seriously, be reasonable. have you as a 7 year old, growing up watching the wwe ever say to yourself, “wow, i can’t watch this. theirs nothing to keep me interested in this story.”? if so, why are you a wrestling fan? (with all due respect).
and before you type something like, “hey dumbass, read the WHOLE comment. thats exactly what i said”, i know. im more or less just trying to understand your point of view a lot more clearer.
@Madman: I think it’s pretty clear that the writer is just playing devil’s advocate here. Also – and I know it’s an unpopular perspective – but I think it’s very unfair to dismiss Russo’s work in the WWF. As the head writer at the time, he was no doubt responsible for a lot of good. I definitely believe Russo and Ed Ferrara worked best as a team with Vince and the rest of the then-WWF inner circle there to guide them though. That’s not to defend Russo’s abysmal work in WCW though! Although it’s been documented that many of the bizzare choices there during his run were due to the awful political situation that had built up. Roddy Piper admits proudly that he refused to work with VR and EF from day one at WCW and confronted them about them “killing” Owen Hart. Doesn’t exactly sound like the most conducive work environment!
Conducive to success, that is!
I will concede that RAW has improved by leaps and bounds within the past few years, and that is largely due to the push of CM Punk (who is, without question, the best in the world) and his current feud with John Cena.
There are a handful of performers who are actually interesting to watch, namely Dolph Ziggler, Alberto Del Rio, and Sheamus, but the overall product is pretty stale, and the wrong guys are still being pushed. Ryback comes to mind…
And then there’s Randy Orton, who continues to be a main eventer, despite not having a decent match in nearly ten years. He only knows about five moves, and he does them in the exact same order in every single match. I might be willing to overlook that, if he had anything resembling a personality. He has no charisma. He’s stoic, and just plain boring.
And he must be aware of it, too, because he has conspired to hold down guys who have 100-times the talent and charisma he does. Kofi Kingston was on his way to a major push before he ran into Orton. Ken Anderson was too, and what happened to him was enough to make him leave the company.
Overall, while there are a select number of “Superstars” (God, I hate that term) who are still worth tuning in for, they’re either being misused or are involved in really ludicrous angles (Bryan Danielson, anyone?) that are far below their talents.
While The Attitude Era certainly had it’s fair share of trash, it was mostly short-lived, and didn’t have a lot of air-time dedicated to it. Which is more than I can say for the stupid angles that make it on TV, today.
On the subject of Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara, Vince Russo enjoys taking the credit for WWE’s success in the late 90′s, but for every good idea he had, he had about ten or more terrible ideas that should never have seen the light of day (Horny Mae Young, Sammy the Tranny, Val “John Wayne Bobbit” Venis, Beaver Cleavage, Pepper the Dog, Big Show’s Dead Father, Patterson/Brisco Evening Gown Match, I could go on forever).
And while he may have been responsible for the angles that made WWE a success in the late 90′s, he was only responsible for the ideas. Without “Superstars” like Steve Austin, Mick Foley, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, The Rock, and DX, those angles would have nothing to carry them. They wouldn’t work in the hands of different performers (and believe me, they’ve tried).
WCW found out what happens when Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara are given full creative control without Vince McMahon filtering their garbage. This is not to excuse McMahon, as his ideas aren’t much better, and after WCW died, WWE television became a total cess-pool.
I just love ‘Attitude Era Apologists’ because you are all a product of the garbage that you were fed in the 1990s. Fact , because of that era, wrestling fans who watched were desensitized to actual story lines, good wrestling, and quality entertainment. You all want cheap sugar coated garbage.
Just because you put the word “fact” in front of your opinion doesn’t qualify it as an actual fact.