View Single Post
Old 06-14-2009, 05:31 AM   #4 (permalink)
horrorfan_1986
Role Model

 
horrorfan_1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,670
vCash: 500
Rep Power: 317
horrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famerhorrorfan_1986 is a Hall Of Famer

Awards Showcase
WC's Worst Username WWE Poster of the Month Member of the Month 
Total Awards: 3

Re: Did The Attitude Era ruin Wrestling?

Perhaps I'm just bored, but I feel like defending the Attitude Era.

The Attitude Era didn't kill/ruin anything. Instead, it changed the entire landscape of American wrestling. One thing I surprisingly didn't see mentioned once was Eric Bischoff or WCW in the opening post. The Attitude Era was a direct response to Eric Bischoff changing things up on everyone. While that time period can be remembered for killing off the jobber match, you can go back to the early years of the Monday Night Wars. It was the WWE still putting on jobber matches while WCW was giving away shortened versions of their PPV's. Once the nWo came, the WWE was forced to change their product to keep from going under.

While I was always one of the bigger complainers of PPV's becoming meaningless, I finally realized that PPV's are no longer meant to be what they once were. The number 1 reason why this happened wasn't because PPV's were put on the air every month, but because of the death of the jobber days. How are you supposed to market wrestler A vs wrestler B as a big time PPV match when they've faced each other several times on free TV? These days, we're given 4 short PPV like shows every week. (Whether good or bad PPV's, it doesn't matter). Instead, PPV's are now chapter marks in a year. The 12-14 PPV's are more like episodes of a season of television. The free TV now acts as little prologues before the "Real" TV shows.

Going back to the real source of change, Eric Bischoff, if there's one person who killed kayfabe, it was Easy E. Think about how weird it was for a WWE fan to tune in to Nitro and see Hall and Nash together. These were two wrestlers who feuded all of place in the WWE. Even when they were both faces in 1995, I can't recall them ever having a moment together in 1995. Even with the MSG incident, unless you were an early smark or you were at that show, you didn't know about it. I would argue most fans learned about it on Raw in 1997 when DX showed it on the Titantron. All the fans know is that Scott Hall and Kevin Nash were enemies. Now in 1996, they were buddy buddy. That right there is a huge kayfabe killer. You could get away with that in the territory days where most viewers had no idea what was going on in other territories unless they read PWI. That's one thing Vince did fairly well. If he was bringing in a star from another company, he either kept the gimmick fairly similar or changed up their look enough so that people wouldn't know it was the same guy.

For the first time ever, the Attitude Era played towards the TV audiences. Instead of just having wrestling on the screen, it played out as if it was a normal TV show. Cliff hanger endings, SOAP Opera-like story lines and attention to everyone's character. Especially comparing to today's WWE, the Attitude Era spent a lot of time on everyone's character. It didn't matter how high or low on the WWE ladder you were, they gave you some time for your character.

The Attitude Era is one of those short time periods that is unable to change. Just as PPV's in the mid 80's changed wrestling, the Attitude Era did the same. To undo the "Damage" caused by the Attitude Era, we would have to bring back the days of jobber matches. Sadly, I doubt fans would be in favor of doing.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

horrorfan_1986 is online now   Reply With Quote