Vamp Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) People might disagree with me on this but I'd say the Attitude era was more targeted specifically at a teenage male audience than the current era is aimed specifically at children. I can't help but feel that if it were aimed at children more the product would have a lot more personality than it does now. I'm not sure it'd interest me much if I was a kid now. Edit: Just saw the post above. They had a Hardcore title match in a kids ballpit once didn't they? Mankind talked to a rat and drew a face on a sock. The Rock said "roody poo candy ass" a lot. How is that not juvenile? It worked because the performers made it work. Pull that shit out now with the current stars and the reaction would be totally different. Edited February 3, 2019 by Vamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 3, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 3, 2019 All good stuff, David - got just enough time for a like, but have to pop out, so will reply a bit later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Vamp said: People might disagree with me on this but I'd say the Attitude era was more targeted specifically at a teenage male audience than the current era is aimed specifically at children. I can't help but feel that if it were aimed at children more the product would have a lot more personality than it does now. I'm not sure it'd interest me much if I was a kid now. Maybe part of the problem is that they don't really know who their audience is? Is the current product appealing to children? I don't know. Does it appeal to teenagers today? Maybe. All I know is that it doesn't appeal to me. Saying that, as I mentioned, the NXT stuff has drawn me in now & then, so maybe the answer is that they're doing shit correctly already? Spread it out over the different brands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members gmoney Posted February 3, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 3, 2019 5 minutes ago, David said: Maybe part of the problem is that they don't really know who their audience is? Is the current product appealing to children? I don't know. Does it appeal to teenagers today? Maybe. All I know is that it doesn't appeal to me. They could attempt to bring back some more of the cartoonish gimmicks, based around jobs, native Americans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, gmoney said: They could attempt to bring back some more of the cartoonish gimmicks, based around jobs, native Americans... Maybe a modern stable that consists of a team of bricklayers who claim to work on Trump's wall while they aren't wrestling? Kit them out like Regal during his "real man" gimmick to an extent? Hard hats that have an American flag sticker on one side, and a rip-off of the "official government" emblem on the other? Wearing torn shirts with white t-shirts underneath that have a Mexican flag that's partly obscured by a half-built cartoon wall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavemanLynn Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 It's not the trappings of the Attitude Era we need, which is a common misunderstanding of a lot of the loudest decriers; it's the talent and the creative input that are truly missed. The stars of the late 90s-2000s had years of finding out who they were as characters and workers, of learning how to tell stories between the ropes without resorting to a stunt or some shoehorned flash, through timing and selling and ring positioning. They had built their inner confidence and projected it through every promo and every movement, and could draw in an audience without turning from their opponent and begging for a reaction. It's a subtle difference but one I wonder if it is actually teachable. Most of the stars from that era were in their 30s with over a decade of experience before truly hitting their stride. Now, it feels like a race to WWE, so when the spotlight is thrust upon them, they're too in awe. Today's generation of workers are fans, and that's not doing them any favours. It's not swearing or blood or smut that's missed. It's talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Egg Shen Posted February 3, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 3, 2019 1 hour ago, David said: From the bits and bobs that I've been able to sit through of todays product it seems incredibly sanitised and over-produced to within an inch of its life. The "promos" are by the numbers and bollocks for the most part, the talent either don't have the charisma to get the job done or aren't being given the freedom that their predecessors were. Yeah, going to an MMA show with @Egg Shen isn't high on my list to be honest, you're right. Just kidding, Ebb. You know we all "f'n" love you 😁 i'm sure we'd have an f'n good night out Dave. Your top point is nail on the head for me though. I dont think PG is the issue, although personal preference is i'd like an edgier show. Its the overall presentation of their product thats the issue. WWE TV plays out like the real life version of the 2K video games, its basically career mode but with actual people. The micro-managed scripting and the complete lack of any sort of feeling that 'anything can happen' is what kills it. WWE TV used to be a bit of a rollercoaster ride, it was an exciting show that you had to tune in for. Now its just excruciatingly safe. Utter rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Butternut Squash Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 1 hour ago, CavemanLynn said: It's not the trappings of the Attitude Era we need, which is a common misunderstanding of a lot of the loudest decriers; it's the talent and the creative input that are truly missed. The stars of the late 90s-2000s had years of finding out who they were as characters and workers, of learning how to tell stories between the ropes without resorting to a stunt or some shoehorned flash, through timing and selling and ring positioning. They had built their inner confidence and projected it through every promo and every movement, and could draw in an audience without turning from their opponent and begging for a reaction. It's a subtle difference but one I wonder if it is actually teachable. Most of the stars from that era were in their 30s with over a decade of experience before truly hitting their stride. Now, it feels like a race to WWE, so when the spotlight is thrust upon them, they're too in awe. Today's generation of workers are fans, and that's not doing them any favours. It's not swearing or blood or smut that's missed. It's talent. I just wished that the indies (and AEW) would focus more on promo and character development, and that WWE would let there best guys roll with it. Being PG is a non issue for me. It's the stilted promos. I can't imagine anyone but avid WWE fans sitting through a typical Raw promo before switching over. They're fucking terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted February 3, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 3, 2019 The UKFF is so excited about this new promotion that we've all spent the last ten pages talking about the Attitude Era and PG WWE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 3, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 3, 2019 PG is great if it means no Joey Ryan. HAHAHA COCKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted February 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 4, 2019 31 minutes ago, air_raid said: PG is great if it means no Joey Ryan. HAHAHA COCKS I actually didn't mind Joey Ryan's sleazy gimmick in TNA, but go all Jim Cornette with that penis shite he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 4, 2019 20 hours ago, David said: It was an intangible part of his character though, in my opinion. It's hard to put into words, but he was portrayed as a loose cannon redneck from Texas, going up against the corporate machine in New York. The swearing and violence was required to make it believable. He was supposed to be unpredictable, a wild man who'd drink beer and brawl for fun. It was certainly a case of lightning in a bottle, but I honestly think that removing any of the characteristics that made the feud what it was, or from the Austin character would have harmed it greatly. We can disagree there though if you feel differently. It's all about opinions. Yeh, fair enough. Although bear in mind I'm not arguing that they get rid of the beer-drinking, brawling for fun, or unpredictability - I think those fit under most ratings. 20 hours ago, David said: Do you really think so though? Whenever I see people talking about the Attitude Era and how it was better then compared to now, they usually talk about Austin, the Hardcore title matches, Mankind, The Rock, The Dudley Boys etc. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that they wish for a return to non-PG product so we can relive the glory days of Val Venis or that time Big Boss Man gatecrashed Big Show's fathers funeral. In fact, it's usually those who are fighting the corner of the PG product who raise those skits, using them as a reason to not return to non-PG days. Nope. Honestly, I get the very strong impression that the people I've seen who have said they want the Attitude Era back usually place it in counter-point to the PG rating. Maybe they do want the actual good stuff of the Attitude Era, but they've gone and conflated it with the swearing and gratuitous blood. Maybe it's a wrong impression, but it's what they give. Again, though - guess that's more of an opinion, really. 20 hours ago, David said: I honestly don't know. There'll be those who are more up to speed with the numbers, but hasn't wrestling usually dipped when it chooses to ignore the influences of the real world? I mean, even the 80's era that most people bring up to back their case for wrestling not being "real life" actually was a reflection of real life back then in certain ways, wasn't it? Look at the movie stars, the "everything bigger than everything else" culture in that era. From the bits and bobs that I've been able to sit through of todays product it seems incredibly sanitised and over-produced to within an inch of its life. The "promos" are by the numbers and bollocks for the most part, the talent either don't have the charisma to get the job done or aren't being given the freedom that their predecessors were. The company don't seem to be listening to what the fans actually want. How many times have we seen Roman Reigns positioned as a main event guy? The fans don't buy it. I'm sure he's a great guy and hopefully he beats his health problems, but he has the charisma of a paper cup of tepid tea. 20 hours ago, David said: Again, I'm not so sure. I've watched a bit of NXT over the past year or two and I think that is the direction the product should be going in. Isn't it Triple H who's more hands-on when it comes to that brand? Maybe he can eventually shift the direction of the company altogether? I mean, we can't expect Vince to do it really. He's a 73 year old white billionaire from North Carolina who probably should have retired years ago. He's as out of touch with what's going on in the modern world as Donald Trump is. I guess we'll see what happens in the long-run, but it'll be interesting to see where this new company goes. But back on topic, what about the idea of weigh-ins? 😉 Influences from the real world, sure, but whenever they try to do anything wider, it usually ends up as pure cringe. Mind you, you make a good point about NXT: everything I've heard about from friends makes it sound like they might actually have the capability now to do storylines about topics that previously would've ended up completely cock-eyed. You just know that if they'd done something about, say, one wrestler bullying the other on social media, back in 1999 they'd have had the bully as a face. 20 hours ago, David said: Maybe a modern stable that consists of a team of bricklayers who claim to work on Trump's wall while they aren't wrestling? Kit them out like Regal during his "real man" gimmick to an extent? Hard hats that have an American flag sticker on one side, and a rip-off of the "official government" emblem on the other? Wearing torn shirts with white t-shirts underneath that have a Mexican flag that's partly obscured by a half-built cartoon wall? And they've also been training in Krav MAGA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 4, 2019 Austin swearing was completely part of it. Stuff like the "put the letter S in front of Hitman" that he said at Mind Games was so "Jesus, did they just let him say that?" that in combination with coming so close to his psychotic episode on Pillman's ankle on Superstars then the subsequent home invasion on Raw, marked him out as "this is the man you want to watch because you haven't got a clue what he's going to say or do" to a degree nobody else was getting away with, total disregard for how a "WWF Superstar" was supposed to behave. New York was already tuning into him by Survivor Series 96 and the crowd was slightly split on a night it was supposed to be about a hero coming home. The swearing was totally part of it because real recognizes real and Steve Austin talked like a real person. By the time Bret Hart said "This is bullshit" on the March 17th Raw the story there were trying to tell, I believe, that Bret was lowering himself to Austins level with profanity and punching Patterson, and it worked for the slow burn turn on Bret because he liked like a spoiled crybaby, but the wheels in motion for the double turn they'd figured out their audience wasn't going to be put off by bad language or indeed anything Steve had done as a heel, because they liked him. They related to him. He was real to them damn it. The swearing was completely part of it. JR used to use "S.O.B." on comms but in the Tyson confrontation when he used words to the effect of "You might be the baddest man on the planet but right now you've got your beady little eyes locked on the. Worlds. Toughest. Son of a BITCH" the live crowd went mad. Actually using the word while the company abbreviated it more often than not, to Tyson, in front of the boss. We know it's not real but you could suspend your disbelief. Real people swear, Steve Austin swore, people bought into Steve Austin because he came across as real - he was the first and for a time he was the only one that did. A product can be PG and still set the world on fire and a wrestler doesn't need to swear to captivate an audience and get over but for Stone Cold it was right time, right place, and to remove his freedom to curse in an environment where nobody else did would have diluted him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted February 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 4, 2019 Sorry, I'm not being clear here, my fault: I'm not saying they should've had Austin not swearing or doing anything he did, just that, given the essence of what his character was about, I think they could've removed it and, whilst it would've definitely made a difference, I don't think it would've been a massive barrier to him getting over because of many other more significant factors in play, such as the character's core of rebelliousness, refusal to take any crap, and general bad-assery, the sheer talent of Austin (and the people he feuded with), and how he was booked. Put it this way: personally, I consider the swearing to have been the icing on a very high-quality cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted February 4, 2019 Paid Members Share Posted February 4, 2019 46 minutes ago, Carbomb said: Sorry, I'm not being clear here, my fault: I'm not saying they should've had Austin not swearing or doing anything he did, just that, given the essence of what his character was about, I think they could've removed it and, whilst it would've definitely made a difference, I don't think it would've been a massive barrier to him getting over because of many other more significant factors in play, such as the character's core of rebelliousness, refusal to take any crap, and general bad-assery, the sheer talent of Austin (and the people he feuded with), and how he was booked. Put it this way: personally, I consider the swearing to have been the icing on a very high-quality cake. Does the snowball even start rolling if the King of the Ring speech is "kicked your butt" instead of "ass"? Was his vitriol enough on its own for the character to stand out? Just playing Devil's Advocate, not trying to be an arsehole. The company rhetoric that he exploded with that speech is obvious bollocks, he was still bubbling under until he started calling Bret out, but that undercurrent of "Oooooo" you hear from Milwaukee that night was definitely the start of something, and do the company launch the massive selling classic Austin 3:16 shirt without the Bible-antagonizing curse that gets the phrase traction to begin with? The growth in popularity magnified to the company by the sea of THAT SHIRT in the crowd - is that a factor as 96 rolls into 97 for the company to observe and go "Fuck, we need to run with Austin"? There's a really big tapestry effect to deal with in my eyes if you pull at the thread representing Steve Austin swearing. In my Wrestling Of Future Past mind, if Steve Austin doesn't swear, Nitro is still on the air today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts