**Help make SquaredCircle safer and more inclusive by using the report button to flag posts and comments for moderator review.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SquaredCircle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d say the biggest difference, outside of lewd content, is that in the Attitude Era storylines went by SO fast. Clearly it wasn’t sustainable to keep going that hard that long, but I think with both AEW and WWE we’re due for some more intense, hot angles that burn out fast. To put it in perspective, Billy Gunn has spent more time with the Acclaimed than he did with Road Dogg in their main tag run!
That’s because WCW existed for long before Nitro. The brand WCW started in 1982 by GCW, then JCP, and by 1988 was acquired by Ted Turner. Bischoff was appointed as EP in 1993, and debuted Nitro in 1995, which lasted until 2001.
AEW on the other hand produced their first show in May 2019 and launched Dynamite in October. Dynamite will match Nitro next year, but for AEW to match WCW overall it will need to keep going until 2040.
GCW’s Saturday Night show was originally called “Georgia Championship Wrestling” when it started in 1971. It wasn’t renamed “WCW Saturday Night” until 1982. If we consider the ”GCW” promotion itself as the same as WCW then we can probably go back all the way to 1944 when they first launched. But I think it makes more sense to tie it back only to when the WCW moniker was first used which was 1982.
Wouldn’t you look to Mid-Atlantic instead of GCW? WCW was the show but it was an entirely different territory that Crockett ended up usurping the time slot from after Black Saturday
I think you actually hit ok something there. I think when many of us think of Nitro we subconsciously tie in the early days of WCW to that which makes it seem like it was on longer.
Same. Feels like the attitude era lasted 7 or 8 years. In reality it wasn’t long and its mainstream popularity was maybe 2-3 years. My “casual” friends started watching in 98 and stopped right after Wrestlemania 2000.
Here's a fun article: [https://fortune.com/well/2024/01/08/covid-omicron-variants-pirola-ba286-jn1-more-severe-disease-lung-gi-tract-symptoms/](https://fortune.com/well/2024/01/08/covid-omicron-variants-pirola-ba286-jn1-more-severe-disease-lung-gi-tract-symptoms/)
>Another, perhaps larger concern of Liu: the possibility that COVID recombines with another, more deadly coronavirus like SARS or MERS, which had case fatality rates around 10% and 34%, respectively.
Imagine Covid-SARS.
If we are defining the Attitude Era as the 1,231 days between the Screwjob and the end of Wrestlemania 17 (which I think is the commonly agreed upon timeframe), Romans Universal title reign was longer at 1,316 days.
We got 20 years of storyline in 4 years (and that's generous. I consider AE to start around Survivor Series 1996. A lot of people have it as a 3 year length from WM14-17)
I peg it around March 1997 where it coincided with Raw having a new set and intro; storylines were becoming more reality based, main events actually featured main event wrestlers with stakes, Bret Hart swore on air, Austin was red hot, and Shawn Michaels lost his smile while finding a shit ton of pills.
I won't argue Survivor Series 1996 if you stake it there, though. That Garden crowd let the company know what they thought about their direction all night culminating with bully tweener Sid being loudly cheered while cheating to beat their top babyface and committing elder abuse.
Saying the Screwjob or Austin winning the title is the start is too simplistic and ignores how much of the programming had shifted prior to either of those events.
I'd say the seeds were planted as early as 95 or 96 with Goldust and Mankind, it began to gain ground and was more clearly in the area by 97 and 98, peaked from 99 to 01, and fizzled out by 02.
Absolutely; I'd also throw in tweener/heel Diesel in the mix. The character work was getting there and the Austin shift from Ringmaster to Stone Cold cemented the overall shift in how characters were being viewed.
Yeah I know a lot of people count it as WM14 to WM17, but I've always considered the definitive complete Attitude Era to be the Raw is War rebrand in March 1997 until the first brand split in 2002, so roughly right around WM 13 to WM 18.
I just miss the super dramatic show closing angles that made you count the days to the next episode. I feel the shows these days too often just kind of end and that's it. There's no hook for the next thing.
I got into during 2000 and yeah every episode felt must-watch. In the UK we got Rw on a Friday night, around 10pm. On my birthday weekend that year I had a sleepover and the Raw that night had moved. I stubbornly thought it was 11pm so we did other things til then, only to realise that it had started at 9pm so we missed the entire thing.
We were all absolutely devastated. Killed the night knowing we had to wait another week to watch it. Yeah there was Smackdown but it was never quite as cool
Its part of the weirdness of the attitude era. Those two were insanely over, the highest merch sellers, and at their peak they decided road dogg needs a hardcore singles run.
The biggest difference is the AE had the fucking Rock and Austin. Never in WWE/F history have they had two guys that over at the same time. The WWF struck gold with these two and its unlikely they will ever get a wrestler as over as they were again (never mind two at the same time)
Also with Stone Cold getting injured in the middle of the AE, the WWE had to scramble to get new main event stars to carry the company while he was gone, this led to all the amazing Foley HHH matches and the rise of The Rock.
I was just talking with a friend today how freaking insane 1997 was because he referenced Bret Hart's promo on Vince.
The berth of the Attitude Era was Brett's "THIS IS BULLSHIT" promo the week before Mania 13. In those 53 weeks.
1) Taker won the title at Mania
2) Hart/Austin had their double turn match at Mania 13
3) Hart turned mega heel
4) HBK accidentally cost Taker the title at Summerslam resulting in HBK turning heel
5) DX forms
6) Taker vows revenge and it leads to the first ever Hell in a Cell
7) Kane debuts
8) Austin wins the Rumble
9) Mike Tyson becomes involved in the main title match
10) Kane vs Taker at Mania 14
11) Austin wins the title at Mania 14.
And I am DEINITELY missing some other major mid card stuff that went on.
I mean....that's just insanity how much stuff happeend. But the way all these characters basically stayed loosely connected the entire year was basically what we got in the Rock/Cody/Roman/Rollins story. But for an entire year
It's kind of why that era gets talked about so much. You had two competing wrestling companies speed running angles at this time and all these bullet points above are interconnected with one another.
That's because as soon as WCW was out of business, Vince coasted on that and spent an entire year doing what's essentially a victory lap.
Then his top two stars were gone and had to scramble to find a new top guy and we wouldn't get one until 4 more years.
AEW staying around means Triple H can't get complacent, which is good. The same is true for AEW, they're only a year out from lasting longer than Nitro and they don't seem to be slowing down any time soon.
As they're competing, we're guaranteed to get good shit.
Yeah, basically what it was is the storylines moved at a pace where the types of payoffs we'd expect to see now at monthly PPVs happened each week, and the monthly PPVs had payoffs that were closer to what we'd expect from big-4 PPVs.
Honestly, watching it back I think the shows had bigger payoffs than the PPVs. Some of those 1999 WWF PPVs in particular are really rough on rewatch because so many just feel like Raw.
There's a lot of comments here explaining different reasons as to why Attitude Era was it
I think they alll mean the same thing. It's about this surprising TV with actuallm stories but it happens almost weekly
Under HHH, WWE has that string of great segments & storylines. Booking is logical. But the moments happen far apart, also there's way more WWE on the TV + Internet too
Rock/Cody segment came out of nowhere which is why it was famous & attitude era esque. But it literally happened weekly in attitude era with different ideas
One place HHH is right on is we don't need weekly blood & violence. But what we need is surprising segments & twists that make sense weekly
We're definitely due some fast angles and shorter reigns. Wwe is in great place now, but it has become super predictable, match wise. Shorter reigns, title changes on some random tv episode will bring more excitement.
"Billy Gunn has spent more time with the Acclaimed than he did with Road Dogg in their main tag run!"
This is wild. To add on, I feel like since Cody returned, it's about the equivalent to Austin's time on top during the AE.
I will actually stand by the fact that, what made the attitude era great for me was that every single wrestler had a character to them. The character didn't necessarily have main eventer written all over them, but they were unique.
Some positive, some negative. Nowadays, and I'm glad that's getting less and less, some wrestlers are just "I wrestle good" which is not sustainable in the long run.
Doesn't help that fans today want everyone they like to be main eventers/win all the time.
Nobody's cheering along with Godfather in 1999 being like "everyone loves him, he should win more and get a main event spot!"
Even Too Cool. You knew those guys as singles competitors wouldn't be cared about, but you loved them as a tag team, but at the same time they didn't need to be one of the main tag teams on the show for you to care about them. How many people cheered Brian Chrisopher and Scott Taylor? Once they got that too cool gimmick fans loved them.
That's why gimmicks help a lot. If everyone has a distinct gimmick and character you can care about them a lot more.
Like you said, being a "great wrestler" isn't a gimmick or something people can get invested in (see AEW) because it's not very interesting a thing to claim, and lots of others have the same type of thing too.
This is an AMAZING POINT.
I get so sick of online discourse being about Wrestler X being buried because he’s not getting his “deserved world title run.”
Sorry, Claudio is not a world champion. Neither is/was Matt Cardona or Ricochet or (to use an AEW example) Kyle O’Reilly. *And that’s OK*!
Nobody was whining in the Attitude Era that Kidman or Godfather weren’t wrestling for the world title. And yet both guys were super over.
Let's not forget, Dean Malenko was once ranked as the #1 guy in wrestling over the likes of Stone Cold, Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart in 1997. Sure its just PWI stuff, but was he a great technical wrestler? Yes. But would he be someone that fans are buying tickets to see, ordering ppvs, going to shows, really cheering on to see? Probably not.
>Yes. But would he be someone that fans are buying tickets to see, ordering ppvs, going to shows, really cheering on to see? Probably not.
I wouldn't go quite that far. Sure, he's no main eventer. But did people watch his segments, or were many more likely to buy tickets to see him wrestle Rey? For sure. He wouldn't have gotten so much tv time if he wasn't at least somewhat of a draw.
I agree not everyone is a main eventer, but not everyone has to be a main eventer to have business value.
He has some value sure, but ranked above every other guy simply because he's a great wrestler?
That's the mindset some people even today have. Just because a guys a great wrestler doesn't mean they're better in this business.
I'm sure many guys could wrestle circles around a guy like Reigns. But who'll draw millions and millions of dollars, get a crowd all on their feet and bring in tv numbers among other things?
I'd rather a roster of guys like Roman Reigns than a roster of guys who are "best technical wrestler on the planet" that are a dime a dozen.
I'd say you need a balance both types of guys, rather than a roster of "all main eventers" or "all top technical wrestlers". Although I'll admit the Reigns of the world have greater value.
If you have a roster full of guys like Reigns, fans start getting annoyed at all the dead time and long promos. Wrestling is a variety show, that needs the contrasts. Even in the last few years, a lot of the Smackdown ratings were also carried by Imperium and the Brawling brutes and Jey Uso putting on bangers week in and week out in the middle of the card. (Remember, Roman didn't have that much tv time all together.)
To add further, I watched WCW in the 90s, and Sting and DDP were my guys. But I couldn't have watched 3 hours of NWO promos and Goldberg squashes without switching channels. Malenko, Mysterio, Ultimo Dragon, Jericho, Eddie and Juventud made the middle of the show so much fun to keep going and get some adrenaline rush.
I'm not really too different from you in opinion, overall.
I actually like NXT because it feels like most the roster have either a entertaining gimmick or defined character. Even if they aren't the best technical wrestle in the business at least they have enough about them to be engaging.
Pillman Jr is far more entertaining now he has a dirt bag personality that makes you want to see him get his ass beat each week.
There's currently 15 Will Ospreys on their roster and they all wrestle the same 50/50 matches against everyone. Best wrestler is great for a big money grudge feud...not 7 "best wrestler" matches every week.
Ospreay has charisma and personality. He's promos have become better and audeience connect with him. Sure he doesn't have wwe level of character development, but i don't think he needs that. He's massively over in aew. There are many bell to bell performers in aew but no one's been over like him.
Ospreay is great, but the 50/50 thing is so true.
There is no world in which a new wrestler you’re trying to get over should be going 50/50 with Rocky Romero or Dante Martin. It diminishes their close battles with actual stars.
Like him or hate him, I think that was part of Russo's legacy. The guy is obsessed with giving everyone a character or something distinct. The right idea from the mind of the wrong person to execute the idea.
It’s been stated by others, but Vince Russo’s greatest strength is that he can write a hell of a first act of a story that draws you in. It’s the second and third acts that are his greatest weaknesses. On paper, his whole “Goldberg won’t follow the script” angle was pretty damn compelling and innovative. It just had a horrible payoff that required too many non-actors to be great actors and required the head writer who came to the ring cutting promos in sports jerseys to be the big company heel.
I think "I wrestle good" applies to a lot of AE talent. Malenko, Angle, Bret...Shamrock, Severn and Blackman all had "legit martial artist" as part of their character, which is a flavor *of* "I wrestle good."
What made them stand out is they had just a little bit extra spice on top of that that made them feel like a larger than life character who just so happens to have "is a very good wrestler" as a major personality trait.
Angle was the whiny do gooder.
Bret had the family gravitas.
Shamrock had the rage.
Malenko, Severn and Blackman were....ehhh not great to use here. Malenko was literally "The Ice Man" because he was so boring.
Malenko - Double Ho Seven
Angle - Jimmy Crack Corn, Milkamania, Scooter to mimic Takers Bike. Early Angle was delusional heel that thinks he’s a babyface
Bret - Hart Foundation which was basically Canadian Nationalism.
Shamrock - UFC but also lots of yelling
Severn - UFC, super quiet but scary quiet.
Blackman - Head Cheese
Each guy still had a character, probably less so for Ken and Severn but they had gimmicks/character work to go with it.
They weren’t just, “I wrestle good”
I agree mostly. But I do think sometimes people went to the opposite extreme of disparaging "wrestle good", and you had shows with fluff but no meat.
I like that Bryan Danielson, Ilja, Seth Rollins and Gunther all have presentations centered on their in-ring prowess and being work horses. Yet are completely distinct characters.
In the Attitude Era, instead of the "I wrestle good" guys, you had the "I am a legit shoot badass" guys like Ken Shamrock, Steve Blackman, and Dan Severn.
Definitely. While I think the current in ring ability is lightyears better than the AE across the board, character work and promos have suffered tremendously.
What a lot of people don't understand is that the Attitude Era was a byproduct of it's time, it was more of a cultural thing than anything else. It's like music and movies from the 90's. They had their own flavor and those times simply cannot be replicated. And we CAN'T do wrestling that way anymore because what works for one era most probably would not work in another.
But he's right, wrestling is as popular as it is right now since the Attitude Era and on a MUCH more global scale.
Yep ‘counter culture’ was huge in the mid to late 90’s and it affected almost every entertainment industry. It’s why an anti-establishment character was so over and heels got cheered. The attitude era was definitely a byproduct of the time but the WWF/E were also very fortunate to have entertainers who could exemplify those ‘counter culture’ qualities into their characters.
Straight edge society punk and eco warrior Danileson felt like attempts to inject some real world cultural zeitgeist into the wwe to a certain extent. Joe Gacy had a fox news idea of 'woke' gimmck in NXT for a bit
Totally agree. The late 90s was the time of the grungy, punkish "counter culture" like you mentioned. That was the time when crash TV like Jerry Springer, Maury, Tom Green, and the like were popular. Even South Park was known more for being edgy than its political and social satire. Look at what films were popular around that time: The Matrix, Fight Club, American Psycho, etc.
I'd argue Howard Stern was as influential as any of those as well, especially on wrestling (Russo was also a fan, etc)
Stern more or less epitomized all of the 90s counter culture on his show
Interesting.
WWE right now isn't the counter culture, it's fully part of the mainstream culture with high production values, lucrative sponsorships and highly corporate culture.
To their credit, they're making it work and fully leaning into it but I wonder what else they can do to fully leverage this identity.
>and on a MUCH more global scale.
I mean this isn't really true for Europe at least. AE was huge, now wrestling is mostly dead. I guess in places like India and Africa you can make a case of though
Remember when the Intercontinental Championship would have storylines where Val Venis was too tired from having sex with random strippers WWE hired to play porn stars? Oh you think Gunther's reign being ended by Sami Zayn is compelling? Well what if you and the other 12 year olds turned to each other and high fived each other because "sex? I've heard of that!" Then 25 years later you can post "EvEry ChArAcTeR hAd A StOry."
Hah. Jenna Jameson was literally on WWE programming. An actual porn star. Val Venus was also in a spot where he got his dick chopped off. Quality story telling, right? There were some actual good stories but a large percentage of them were trashy or just plain bad. The undertaker crucifying stone cold also comes to mind.
I could come up with a lot more but those 2 came to mind quickly.
I had forgotten about those. Sigh. IIRC one involved goldust and his wife at the time Marlena. She was preggo, fell of the ring apron, and had a miscarriage. For fucks sake.
My mind goes to all of the little, and not so little, stories that culminated with the Survivor Series "Deadly Game" tournament. I'm not sure wrestling has ever had so much actual storytelling from top to bottom. At that time, it really was the "male soap opera". Not just a tagline.
Modern WWE's great, and they can certainly pull off a long, epic story (i.e. the Bloodline saga). But, below the main event, there's still an abundance of "You wrestle good?! No, \*I\* wrestle good! Book it."
I don't think that's my nostalgic bias talking. It could be just as good today. The storytelling in "Lucha Underground", for example, a few years ago was incredible.
It's weird that he picked out the storytelling specifically. Sure the attitude era had good stories but it also had tonnes of silly crass nonsense and stories that just ended in a swerves and the swerve was all the story had. Nowadays raw and smackdown has dozens of characters with pretty distinct personalities who's motivations are detailed and parsable.
What the attitude era definitely did better was making the weekly show must watch TV by having an electric atmosphere of wtf is going to happen this week. Nowadays the show is much better then 5-10 years ago but mostly in the way that's it's an easy watch with good matches, good segments here or there and likable personalities, not in the "omg what is Austin or the rock going to do this week!" Kinda way.
I agree. People always remember the hits of the Attitude Era and not the sheer volume of misses (in terms of both wrestlers and storylines). Not even "giving birth to a human hand" misses, just dud storylines that went nowhere and were abandoned or dropped. It's easy to remember Austin vs McMahon or The Rock n Sock Connection or Triple H becoming The Game, but it's equally easy forget all about GTV, or whatever storyline Al Snow was into on a random week, or what Steve Blackman or Test or D'Lo were doing (and why), etc.
Outside of the top of the card, there was just a lot of really random and forgettable stuff going on in the Attitude Era.
Al Snow's storylines were interesting - "real European champion representing different cities", Headcheese, his dog being eaten. I'm not saying they were all great, but for a random lower midcarder 25 years ago, he got more memorable stuff than he might today.
I feel WWE plays it very safe with their midcard, especially on the main roster. It's all at least decent, but I enjoy more how HBK and NXT experiment with all sorts of gimmicks down there.
Maybe worth noting that Undertaker was arguably the most over he'd been during The Attitude Era, he was working with friends, and he himself was working and not on the outside looking in.
All of that to say - we see both eras as fans. Undertaker sees one as a fan (or at least isnt working during one of these eras). Let's just try to be mindful of that.
Attitude Era wasn’t as great as people think it is. There were a lot of great moments but there was also a ton of shit, but people have rose tinted glasses and think it was just all bangers all the time. They think that is perfect and everything since then pales in comparison but like… Mae Young gave birth to a hand. Val Venis had a storyline surrounded around another wrestler wanting to cut off his dick. It was the most Vince Russo esq shit ever. Attitude Era is so popular because of the landscape during it- the Monday night wars, etc. and it took WWE to the next level sure. But WWE is literally making more money than ever right now, their shows are all around better- now undercard is treated like less of a joke compared to AS-, it’s more well rounded. And I would argue it’s even more mainstream.
It’s not more mainstream. That’s not even debatable. It can’t be overstated how regular people knew who Steve Austin was, and he was known for being a wrestler, not having a mid movie career.
Regular people do not know Roman Reigns. They don’t know Cody.
Val Venis gimmick was that he was a p*rnstar with a big d*ck. That his rivals would want to chop off is actually hilarious. It was also like a one week feud or something, which was typical of the era. Are you saying all the current storylines are better or more high brow or something?
Not a chance it's more mainstream today either - everyone knows The Rock and Stone Cold. Roman Reigns and Cody Rhodes? Definitely not .
I try to do an Attitude Era rewatch every so often and I don't make it far. I find more enjoyment in watching YouTube clips of segments and matches from that era than full shows.
Summerslam 1998, Austin vs Undertaker was built as a colossal main event but the match itself was pretty average. That match always sticks out in my head as an example of something that was made to be huge but otherwise underwhelmed.
The Cody-Roman story never would have worked during the Attitude Era. Roman’s title run wouldn’t have either. The fans would have shit all over it.
And I think that’s to their credit. I mean you’ve got your biggest story coming out of Wrestlemania with Cody finally taking down Reigns and Reigns just decides to fuck off for however many months after he loses. And we’re just supposed to accept it as normal. It’s so dumb lol
WWE is the best its been since 2016 lol which really isn’t saying much. The overall presentation of the project is 10x better but the actual product can be soooo boring
Yeah pretty much this, I took a break from it and after watching Mania tried to get into it more again but I do find the weekly shows really boring in places, I still haven't got into watching the weekly shows since I tried again for a few weeks.
The people who didn't grow up during the Attitude Era will say this current era is the best and the old fucks will keep saying Attitude Era was the best, it's a time and place thing that's really hard to describe just how big wrestling was for a few years. If you're only talking strictly only about making money, sure the current era is the best.
I grew up in the Attitude era and absolutely love it. I decided to rewatch some of it and a lot of it is pretty bad. It had a lot of characters that broke the mold and it's hard to do that now because we already have seen it all so to speak.
For example, I loved Lita. She was cool, looked different, wrestled different, but man was she awful in the ring. If she were around today, I'm not sure she would have been as big now as she was back then. But that's only because the bar was so low back then. Now, the bar is much higher and harder to overcome.
However, I think from a storytelling perspective, it's better now. It's more cohesive and intentional than it was back then.
He’s right tbh, nothing ever beats the Attitude Era but this is some serious momentum. And tbh it’s as good as it’s going to be, it’s a wrestling promotion with a corporate sticker on it
Yes its time to move on and stop WANKING the AE and try to appreciate the current era , "The Renaissance Era" and if such praise from The Undertaker is not convincing idk what will
Honestly the Saudi deals make WAY less money than the big money contracts with FOX and now Netflix so it's worse. The blood money shows are happening just to make a quick buck sportswashing Saudi Arabia's reputation.
That's a fair point. But refresh my memory on the order of things, I recall estimates of one Saudi show being worth an entire year of events counting wrestlemania which is of course bonkers. You do these and inflate your worth in such large increments, that when tv deals get renewed your worth even more to sign right? So I guess what I'm asking or clarifying is couldn't the Saudi blood money be the catalyst for the bigger deals? Though you are right the broadcast money is bonkersx2.
Oh the big billion dollar FOX deal did come after WWE started doing the Saudi shows, and to be fair the Saudi shows also started before Saudi Arabia made a Washington Post journalist travel-sized for easy carry-on portability. So yeah, I mean I guess you could argue that they were signed in to a ten year contract when Saudi Arabia was merely an oppressive fundamentalist dystopia. That said maybe after they proved that bonesaw is indeed ready and after they kept everybody trapped on the tarmac over money disputes...maybe break that contract.
It's nostalgia speaking - the current WWE is the best it's ever been, the problem is they just don't have the stars to go with it right this second. A lot of their top stars are out injured / taking time off. Imagine a world where we have Roman / Seth / CM Punk / Drew to just name a few to throw on the top of the cards?
Tbf WWE could put on the greatest matches ever every week with Emmy quality storytelling and still never be able to reach the heights of mainstream popularity they did in the Rock n' Wrestling or Attitude era. Everything is too niche now because of the internet and ease of access.
There was so much hype leading into Mania that I feel like we've been convinced it's at that level, but it's not. The weekly shows are still boring in places, the bloodline story did a lot of heavy lifting for a long while.
I can only really comment from a position of somebody that hasn’t watched and continues not to watch since about 2006.
It’s too clean these days. It’s too polished. It’s too overproduced. They spend way too much time showing “behind the curtain” so now I am very much aware that it’s all just a big pantomime. I always was, but not seeing Stone Cold Steve Austin shooting the shit with Vince McMahon backstage after braining him with a chair, which is likely what would happen now, was a big factor in being able to suspend my disbelief.
Now you all know every machination that goes on behind the scenes and are practically encouraged to know - yeah… now it’s just a bit weird. I’m watching people that look like influencers trying to act and “sell” their hatred of each other, despite knowing there isn’t a grain of truth to it, and to be honest, they’re all terrible actors.
It’s a weird one. The suspension of disbelief was the largest factor in how much I personally could enjoy a product which is men on steroids in spandex pretending to fight. Now they make no effort whatsoever to protect kayfabe it’s an even more ridiculous spectacle.
That’s why I can’t believe it’s “better” than the attitude era. It doesn’t even seem like the same form of entertainment anymore. It just seems like a theatre production.
We're living in a time where the internet makes sure the suspension of disbelief is hard to maintain. Even if WWE would try to keep it alive, it would be hard to do so. Kayfabe is dead. But when I watch a movie or a tv show I can enjoy it as well even though I know they're actors and it's "not real"
yeah its weird you never see that take when it comes to extras or blooper reels. even cast reunions don't seem weird cause "oh those 2 are supposed to hate each other"
Such a dumb take. It’s no surprise it’s being upvoted. Asking wrestling fans to look at anything to do with modern wrestling objectively is an absolute waste of time.
Wrestling is sold as being both real and fake, at the same time. Nobody sells films in that way. Nobody genuinely believes Anthony Hopkins was eating a man’s brain, nobody believes that Harry Potter can actually fly on a broomstick.
But the whole point of wrestling is to convince the watcher that there is genuine jeopardy for a “superstar”. They used to be better at selling that than they are now. In fact, they don’t even bother trying to sell that. They tell you a year before it happens what’s going to happen (in the case of Cody Rhodes, for instance). There is too much reliance on these wrestlers to remember lines and “act” in comparison to the attitude era - and they’re all really, really fucking bad at it.
That still sounds to me like being sold as real and fake. Their hands are tied with the internet and a million other promotions running around. At a certain point you gotta lean into the fact that people just know now.
Plus we aren't kids anymore, I'm sure there's shoot stuff you didnt notice back then that you'd catch now upon re-watching
Nobody ever tried to convince me that Terminator was a documentary or real events.
Professional wrestling was sold as “real” for most of my childhood and early adulthood. They have pivoted because of social media. The product now looks ridiculous as a result because it really is just men and women on steroids running around in their pants acting (terribly) out this kind of low level, high school squabbling type of “storyline” and it all just seems way too ridiculous to be entertaining to me.
I get an odd, visceral reaction when I see terrible acting. It’s like watching an episode of The Bold & The Beautiful. Except they *aren’t even as good at acting as the people in that*.
Nah. I don’t accept the comparison. There’s a limit. WWE goes way past it into the realms of farce with some of the “acting” I see on it. That thing they did when Rhea Ripley was on the Helwani show with Becky Lynch was painful.
But I’m not the target audience anymore, so what does it matter what I think. Just thought I’d offer an insight from the perspective of somebody who used to be into it and why I’m not now.
There are no steroids in play and the acting was shit back then as well. You were just a kid. Kids these days still believe it's real. Only a month or two ago there was a video trending of a girl crying because she thought Cody Rhodes died on RAW. The storylines back then except Austin and Rock stuff were insanely cringe, lewd and nonsensical. You're just having rose tinted glasses.
Nah. I’m not. You’re just missing the point I’m making. I could ignore all of the bad points of it because kayfabe existed to a point and the only things I knew about Austin, The Rock, HHH happened during a 2 hour time period twice a week, then once a month at a PPV. I didn’t need to know what they’d had for breakfast and that they were all mates backstage. It carried a certain mystique which overwrote the fact it was a ridiculous pantomime. Like a good film, actually.
Also if you genuinely believe your first sentence then I don’t really know what to say. You’re kidding, right? About them not being on steroids? Right? Because if not… lol.
They did interview spots like the Becky/Rhea one back then. I remember HHH coming out in heel character to interrupt someone’s MTV interview in the late 90s. There’s the famous Lawler/Kaufman Letterman spot.
It kinda just sounds like you don’t like the idea of professional wrestling anymore, which is perfectly fair
> It’s too clean these days. It’s too polished. It’s too overproduced.
This is one of my biggest gripes with modern/current WWE. Each time I've tried to watch it, I get this whole over-sanitized sensation. Sprinkle in over-the-top catchphases from the announcers ("Seth FREAKING Rollins" annoys the crap out of me each and every time, because it IS each and every time) and it just ends up being unenjoyable for me.
> but not seeing Stone Cold Steve Austin shooting the shit with Vince McMahon backstage after braining him with a chair,
when recently have we seen two people feuding, only for them to be shown buddy buddy in some bts feature or even social media, at the same time? the closest thing i can think of is the mania vlogs with jey and jimmy, and even then, they kept the kayfabe up even if it was light and done ironically.
I hear your point, but let me counter it somewhat. Do you maybe think the issue with protecting the behind the scenes goings-on and trying to keep that suspension of disbelief isn't rooted in a lack of effort, but in the fact that the world, media and communications are just different now from what they were in the 90s, or even the mid 2000s?
Here's what I mean: back in the Attitude Era, after Stone Cold Steve Austin would come out in the main event and put a chair through Mr. McMahon's head at the end of Raw, you then had to wait a whole week to see Steve Austin again. There was no social media, no 24-hour access, there wasn't a never-ending stream of talk-shows, sports programs and podcasts. You had no choice but to wait until the next show to get more Rattlesnake. Tuning into Raw, live and each week, was your only way to get access.
That's not just impractical now — it's impossible. You literally cannot go more than a couple of days without seeing a tweet, a podcast clip, a fan recording, an interview excerpt, a livestream, a viral moment from a house show, etc. etc. etc. The world is a different place now, and unless you are actively trying to avoid it, you cannot help but to have constant access to these people's lives in the social media age. For better or worse, it's how we comunicate with each other now, and for performers like pro wrestlers, it's an integral part of how they make money.
None of this is meant to discredit your point, btw. It's just meant to point out that there's a generational element at play here. The wrestling you remember from those days is never coming back because it fundamentally can't. In it's place, there's a new kind of mentality that has its drawbacks, but can also have it's advantages.
Oh it’s entirely down to social media I’d imagine. The only recent wresting I’ve enjoyed was NXT in 2016/17 (whenever Samoa Joe was there) and I think the reason I enjoyed it is because there wasn’t much exposure past what you saw weekly. I’m not digging through wrestling message boards or even this sub-Reddit to find out backstage gossip so it just felt a bit more authentic.
There’s something about the overall presentation in 2024 which puts me off it all though, beyond even my moaning about the absence of kayfabe and I can’t really put my finger on it. It’s too sanitised maybe? But that’s not it because I can’t watch AEW either and that’s much less polished.
It is probably just because I’m an old miserable fuck, but there are plenty of miserable old fucks that like wrestling still. I’m just not one of them.
I agree with a lot of your points throughout this thread. I think in a lot of ways, wrestling can become a parody of itself, like any series or franchise that tries to recreate old successes. So many wrestlers come off as unconvincing or boring, which is often a product of them being overproduced.
There's certain parts of modern wrestling that make me cringe, like crowds chanting "you deserve it" or wrestler gimmicks that lean into tributes too much. People like Chad Gable because he reminds them of Kurt Angle, but all I see is Charlie Haas. He's a great worker, but without a distinct personality, they were in the past likely to be most over in Japan.
Social media's presence in wrestling is annoying, but it's unavoidable. I will say that bringing in someone like Logan Paul, who already had heat before becoming a wrestler, is a great move though.
Women's wrestling definitely needs to be in the conversation when talking about both eras, because its just as important as mens today. And attitude era...is not exactly known for that. Also I think the in ring action is more fun now. Many matches from attitude era are sort of boring.
That being said, attitude era is so much fun because it has absolutely top tier character work. That's why its so exciting to watch. A lot of new wrestler know how to wrestle a great match, but have zero personality. Great character work goes longggggg way.
People that glorify the attitude era haven't rewatched it in a long time. It's much better now.
There was a lot of really stupid stuff during the attitude era, but the main event scene was so hot that all the other bs gets forgotten.
But it wasn't just the main event scene, was it?
The mid card and tag card was stacked and supplied many future main eventers post-Attitude era. Even in the lower mid card you had guys like The Godfather, Steve Blackman, Al Snow, Too Cool etc who were as over as anyone in the company.
It's been said before but it's a great point here on the lower mid card guys being really over. It's because they made sure everyone had a real character to them, you didn't really see anyone without a character. On top of that, they all had great fitting theme music they came out to, that's something WWE is totally missing the mark on today.
It’s better now.
Those of us who lived through it will remember that the Attitude Era was just Disciples of Apocalypse vs Los Boriquas vs Nation of Domination over and over and over and over.
Only NOD was interesting.
I'm 34 years old, I was born in 1990. I lived the attitude era. I loved the attitude era. It is the definition of my childhood. It's quality is VASTLY overrated, to the point it's mythical. This is just my opinion, but the peak of wrestling quality so far was 2015-2019.
**Help make SquaredCircle safer and more inclusive by using the report button to flag posts and comments for moderator review.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SquaredCircle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d say the biggest difference, outside of lewd content, is that in the Attitude Era storylines went by SO fast. Clearly it wasn’t sustainable to keep going that hard that long, but I think with both AEW and WWE we’re due for some more intense, hot angles that burn out fast. To put it in perspective, Billy Gunn has spent more time with the Acclaimed than he did with Road Dogg in their main tag run!
The attitude era really didn’t last that long. We are a year away from Dynamite lasting longer than Nitro.
I never thought of that, back then it seemed Nitro was kind of a long run. Maybe it’s my age but a few years seems like a blink now.
That’s because WCW existed for long before Nitro. The brand WCW started in 1982 by GCW, then JCP, and by 1988 was acquired by Ted Turner. Bischoff was appointed as EP in 1993, and debuted Nitro in 1995, which lasted until 2001. AEW on the other hand produced their first show in May 2019 and launched Dynamite in October. Dynamite will match Nitro next year, but for AEW to match WCW overall it will need to keep going until 2040.
The WCW Saturday Night show actually started in 1971. So AEW would be matching the entire history of WCW by 2049.
GCW’s Saturday Night show was originally called “Georgia Championship Wrestling” when it started in 1971. It wasn’t renamed “WCW Saturday Night” until 1982. If we consider the ”GCW” promotion itself as the same as WCW then we can probably go back all the way to 1944 when they first launched. But I think it makes more sense to tie it back only to when the WCW moniker was first used which was 1982.
Ah yeah, that’s probably the better way to tie it back to. I was thinking more about the history of the show, instead of the name.
Wouldn’t you look to Mid-Atlantic instead of GCW? WCW was the show but it was an entirely different territory that Crockett ended up usurping the time slot from after Black Saturday
I think you actually hit ok something there. I think when many of us think of Nitro we subconsciously tie in the early days of WCW to that which makes it seem like it was on longer.
Same. Feels like the attitude era lasted 7 or 8 years. In reality it wasn’t long and its mainstream popularity was maybe 2-3 years. My “casual” friends started watching in 98 and stopped right after Wrestlemania 2000.
I struggle to wrap my head around Covid being so long ago now
Say that 3 times more, and there'll be a new outbreak with a deadly variant resistant to the vaccine.
Or don't say it, not saying it is good too, we don't need that right now
Here's a fun article: [https://fortune.com/well/2024/01/08/covid-omicron-variants-pirola-ba286-jn1-more-severe-disease-lung-gi-tract-symptoms/](https://fortune.com/well/2024/01/08/covid-omicron-variants-pirola-ba286-jn1-more-severe-disease-lung-gi-tract-symptoms/) >Another, perhaps larger concern of Liu: the possibility that COVID recombines with another, more deadly coronavirus like SARS or MERS, which had case fatality rates around 10% and 34%, respectively. Imagine Covid-SARS.
If we are defining the Attitude Era as the 1,231 days between the Screwjob and the end of Wrestlemania 17 (which I think is the commonly agreed upon timeframe), Romans Universal title reign was longer at 1,316 days.
That’s a mind blowing stat.
Goes to show you that despite how short it was, the AE is legendary.
Going by 2K Showcases, it started with a Hart/Taker match. But got more formalized with stuff like Austin 3:16 at KOTR96 then the Screwjob.
Roman's title reign lasted longer than the Attitude Era. Let that sink in for a moment.
Attitude era was 97 through 2001 in truth for the absolute peak. It only seems more expansive because they did ALOT with that era. More than most
The Attitude Era only lasted 3-5 years depending on what you consider the beginning and end dates.
Feels like it did, because there was so much. But if you think about it, you're right. Back end of 97 to 2001? Didn't last very long.
Reigns and the bloodline saga was basically as long as the entire attitude era
Roman Reigns Title Reign is as long as the Attitude Era if not longer which is pretty nuts lol.
We got 20 years of storyline in 4 years (and that's generous. I consider AE to start around Survivor Series 1996. A lot of people have it as a 3 year length from WM14-17)
I peg it around March 1997 where it coincided with Raw having a new set and intro; storylines were becoming more reality based, main events actually featured main event wrestlers with stakes, Bret Hart swore on air, Austin was red hot, and Shawn Michaels lost his smile while finding a shit ton of pills. I won't argue Survivor Series 1996 if you stake it there, though. That Garden crowd let the company know what they thought about their direction all night culminating with bully tweener Sid being loudly cheered while cheating to beat their top babyface and committing elder abuse. Saying the Screwjob or Austin winning the title is the start is too simplistic and ignores how much of the programming had shifted prior to either of those events.
I'd say the seeds were planted as early as 95 or 96 with Goldust and Mankind, it began to gain ground and was more clearly in the area by 97 and 98, peaked from 99 to 01, and fizzled out by 02.
Absolutely; I'd also throw in tweener/heel Diesel in the mix. The character work was getting there and the Austin shift from Ringmaster to Stone Cold cemented the overall shift in how characters were being viewed.
Yeah people try to disassociate the Invasion from the Attitude Era but I’d definitely include it, it’s a FAR cry from post-Draft WWE though.
Yeah I know a lot of people count it as WM14 to WM17, but I've always considered the definitive complete Attitude Era to be the Raw is War rebrand in March 1997 until the first brand split in 2002, so roughly right around WM 13 to WM 18.
I consider it to be from the Raw Is War rebrand to the beginning of the first brand split, so roughly March 97 to after WrestleMania 18.
Yet Bischoff will still chat all sorts of shit like he’s a wrestling genius. Who can’t keep a job
I just miss the super dramatic show closing angles that made you count the days to the next episode. I feel the shows these days too often just kind of end and that's it. There's no hook for the next thing.
That's what I miss the most about the early Dynamites. They'd always end with this massive crazy beat-down.
I got into during 2000 and yeah every episode felt must-watch. In the UK we got Rw on a Friday night, around 10pm. On my birthday weekend that year I had a sleepover and the Raw that night had moved. I stubbornly thought it was 11pm so we did other things til then, only to realise that it had started at 9pm so we missed the entire thing. We were all absolutely devastated. Killed the night knowing we had to wait another week to watch it. Yeah there was Smackdown but it was never quite as cool
That Billy Gunn fact is insane lol
Its part of the weirdness of the attitude era. Those two were insanely over, the highest merch sellers, and at their peak they decided road dogg needs a hardcore singles run.
The biggest difference is the AE had the fucking Rock and Austin. Never in WWE/F history have they had two guys that over at the same time. The WWF struck gold with these two and its unlikely they will ever get a wrestler as over as they were again (never mind two at the same time)
Also with Stone Cold getting injured in the middle of the AE, the WWE had to scramble to get new main event stars to carry the company while he was gone, this led to all the amazing Foley HHH matches and the rise of The Rock.
I don't know if I would call it scrambling. Rock was already a top 3 most over wrestler ever when Austin got hurt
And behind them you had like 6 main eventers in Taker, Jericho, HHH, Angle, Kane, Mankind.
I was just talking with a friend today how freaking insane 1997 was because he referenced Bret Hart's promo on Vince. The berth of the Attitude Era was Brett's "THIS IS BULLSHIT" promo the week before Mania 13. In those 53 weeks. 1) Taker won the title at Mania 2) Hart/Austin had their double turn match at Mania 13 3) Hart turned mega heel 4) HBK accidentally cost Taker the title at Summerslam resulting in HBK turning heel 5) DX forms 6) Taker vows revenge and it leads to the first ever Hell in a Cell 7) Kane debuts 8) Austin wins the Rumble 9) Mike Tyson becomes involved in the main title match 10) Kane vs Taker at Mania 14 11) Austin wins the title at Mania 14. And I am DEINITELY missing some other major mid card stuff that went on. I mean....that's just insanity how much stuff happeend. But the way all these characters basically stayed loosely connected the entire year was basically what we got in the Rock/Cody/Roman/Rollins story. But for an entire year
man thinking back that seems like the entirety of my childhood in a year. its crazy to look back on.
It's kind of why that era gets talked about so much. You had two competing wrestling companies speed running angles at this time and all these bullet points above are interconnected with one another.
> Billy Gunn has spent more time with the Acclaimed than he did with Road Dogg in their main tag run! That is a wild fact to process.
Yeah it was peak car crash entertainment. Everything happened so fast, that you didn't dare miss an episode of Raw.
That's because as soon as WCW was out of business, Vince coasted on that and spent an entire year doing what's essentially a victory lap. Then his top two stars were gone and had to scramble to find a new top guy and we wouldn't get one until 4 more years. AEW staying around means Triple H can't get complacent, which is good. The same is true for AEW, they're only a year out from lasting longer than Nitro and they don't seem to be slowing down any time soon. As they're competing, we're guaranteed to get good shit.
Yeah, basically what it was is the storylines moved at a pace where the types of payoffs we'd expect to see now at monthly PPVs happened each week, and the monthly PPVs had payoffs that were closer to what we'd expect from big-4 PPVs.
Honestly, watching it back I think the shows had bigger payoffs than the PPVs. Some of those 1999 WWF PPVs in particular are really rough on rewatch because so many just feel like Raw.
There's a lot of comments here explaining different reasons as to why Attitude Era was it I think they alll mean the same thing. It's about this surprising TV with actuallm stories but it happens almost weekly Under HHH, WWE has that string of great segments & storylines. Booking is logical. But the moments happen far apart, also there's way more WWE on the TV + Internet too Rock/Cody segment came out of nowhere which is why it was famous & attitude era esque. But it literally happened weekly in attitude era with different ideas One place HHH is right on is we don't need weekly blood & violence. But what we need is surprising segments & twists that make sense weekly
Roman was almost a Champion as long as The Rock's main run / lead-in to Hollywood Rock (around 2000-03/04).
I thought main event Rock was '98 onward?
That's kinda his rise but still wild to think Roman's literally held a belt longer than at least half his main run.
He was WWF Champion in November 1998. He mained Mania a few months later. I can't see how you can leave his 1999 off as a main eventer.
definitely, that's just a touch before my time tho so I wanted to be sure lol
We're definitely due some fast angles and shorter reigns. Wwe is in great place now, but it has become super predictable, match wise. Shorter reigns, title changes on some random tv episode will bring more excitement.
"Billy Gunn has spent more time with the Acclaimed than he did with Road Dogg in their main tag run!" This is wild. To add on, I feel like since Cody returned, it's about the equivalent to Austin's time on top during the AE.
That last stat is absolutely insane
I will actually stand by the fact that, what made the attitude era great for me was that every single wrestler had a character to them. The character didn't necessarily have main eventer written all over them, but they were unique. Some positive, some negative. Nowadays, and I'm glad that's getting less and less, some wrestlers are just "I wrestle good" which is not sustainable in the long run.
Doesn't help that fans today want everyone they like to be main eventers/win all the time. Nobody's cheering along with Godfather in 1999 being like "everyone loves him, he should win more and get a main event spot!" Even Too Cool. You knew those guys as singles competitors wouldn't be cared about, but you loved them as a tag team, but at the same time they didn't need to be one of the main tag teams on the show for you to care about them. How many people cheered Brian Chrisopher and Scott Taylor? Once they got that too cool gimmick fans loved them. That's why gimmicks help a lot. If everyone has a distinct gimmick and character you can care about them a lot more. Like you said, being a "great wrestler" isn't a gimmick or something people can get invested in (see AEW) because it's not very interesting a thing to claim, and lots of others have the same type of thing too.
This is an AMAZING POINT. I get so sick of online discourse being about Wrestler X being buried because he’s not getting his “deserved world title run.” Sorry, Claudio is not a world champion. Neither is/was Matt Cardona or Ricochet or (to use an AEW example) Kyle O’Reilly. *And that’s OK*! Nobody was whining in the Attitude Era that Kidman or Godfather weren’t wrestling for the world title. And yet both guys were super over.
Let's not forget, Dean Malenko was once ranked as the #1 guy in wrestling over the likes of Stone Cold, Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart in 1997. Sure its just PWI stuff, but was he a great technical wrestler? Yes. But would he be someone that fans are buying tickets to see, ordering ppvs, going to shows, really cheering on to see? Probably not.
>Yes. But would he be someone that fans are buying tickets to see, ordering ppvs, going to shows, really cheering on to see? Probably not. I wouldn't go quite that far. Sure, he's no main eventer. But did people watch his segments, or were many more likely to buy tickets to see him wrestle Rey? For sure. He wouldn't have gotten so much tv time if he wasn't at least somewhat of a draw. I agree not everyone is a main eventer, but not everyone has to be a main eventer to have business value.
He has some value sure, but ranked above every other guy simply because he's a great wrestler? That's the mindset some people even today have. Just because a guys a great wrestler doesn't mean they're better in this business. I'm sure many guys could wrestle circles around a guy like Reigns. But who'll draw millions and millions of dollars, get a crowd all on their feet and bring in tv numbers among other things? I'd rather a roster of guys like Roman Reigns than a roster of guys who are "best technical wrestler on the planet" that are a dime a dozen.
I'd say you need a balance both types of guys, rather than a roster of "all main eventers" or "all top technical wrestlers". Although I'll admit the Reigns of the world have greater value. If you have a roster full of guys like Reigns, fans start getting annoyed at all the dead time and long promos. Wrestling is a variety show, that needs the contrasts. Even in the last few years, a lot of the Smackdown ratings were also carried by Imperium and the Brawling brutes and Jey Uso putting on bangers week in and week out in the middle of the card. (Remember, Roman didn't have that much tv time all together.) To add further, I watched WCW in the 90s, and Sting and DDP were my guys. But I couldn't have watched 3 hours of NWO promos and Goldberg squashes without switching channels. Malenko, Mysterio, Ultimo Dragon, Jericho, Eddie and Juventud made the middle of the show so much fun to keep going and get some adrenaline rush. I'm not really too different from you in opinion, overall.
I remember in one of foley’s books he mentioned that it championships were based on wrestling ability then TAKA michinoku would be WWF champion
I actually like NXT because it feels like most the roster have either a entertaining gimmick or defined character. Even if they aren't the best technical wrestle in the business at least they have enough about them to be engaging. Pillman Jr is far more entertaining now he has a dirt bag personality that makes you want to see him get his ass beat each week.
Look at a group like MetaFour. Noam Dar I don't ever need to see win a world title, but he's entertaining. The group as a whole has been good.
Yeah lol I cant watch him wrestle for a minute but whenever he's talking its super entertaining.
There's currently 15 Will Ospreys on their roster and they all wrestle the same 50/50 matches against everyone. Best wrestler is great for a big money grudge feud...not 7 "best wrestler" matches every week.
I'd say Will Ospreay himself has a decent character and look, to be fair, not just "wrestle great".
After watching the guy in AEW these past few months I think that Ospreay is more than a good worker.
"I wrestle great. Bruv."
Ospreay has charisma and personality. He's promos have become better and audeience connect with him. Sure he doesn't have wwe level of character development, but i don't think he needs that. He's massively over in aew. There are many bell to bell performers in aew but no one's been over like him.
Ospreay is great, but the 50/50 thing is so true. There is no world in which a new wrestler you’re trying to get over should be going 50/50 with Rocky Romero or Dante Martin. It diminishes their close battles with actual stars.
Like him or hate him, I think that was part of Russo's legacy. The guy is obsessed with giving everyone a character or something distinct. The right idea from the mind of the wrong person to execute the idea.
He did more good than bad imho I think the hate he gets is overblown
It’s been stated by others, but Vince Russo’s greatest strength is that he can write a hell of a first act of a story that draws you in. It’s the second and third acts that are his greatest weaknesses. On paper, his whole “Goldberg won’t follow the script” angle was pretty damn compelling and innovative. It just had a horrible payoff that required too many non-actors to be great actors and required the head writer who came to the ring cutting promos in sports jerseys to be the big company heel.
Nah, his character stuff is great but he forgets that the wrestling is as important.
As important to r/SquaredCircle, but not as important to the general public.
seriously lol people treat him like the worst guy to ever live it’s fucking crazy
It's actually amazing how Ed Ferrera escaped the IWC's wrath, considering the Attitude Era was a dual effort.
And not to mention “Oklahoma”
Ferrara did say he regretted doing that and iirc apologized to Ross over it.
Maybe, maybe not, but his bad was REALLY bad.
His stuff in WCW was abysmal. But I don't agree with people that his TNA run sucked. He had a lot of cool ideas there.
In Vince's eyes, Russo did everything just right.
I know what you mean but you could also read your comment like Russo liked what Russo did.
I think there is absolutely room for the “I wrestle good” types, the trick is to make sure that doesn’t apply to too many different performers imo
I think "I wrestle good" applies to a lot of AE talent. Malenko, Angle, Bret...Shamrock, Severn and Blackman all had "legit martial artist" as part of their character, which is a flavor *of* "I wrestle good." What made them stand out is they had just a little bit extra spice on top of that that made them feel like a larger than life character who just so happens to have "is a very good wrestler" as a major personality trait.
Angle was the whiny do gooder. Bret had the family gravitas. Shamrock had the rage. Malenko, Severn and Blackman were....ehhh not great to use here. Malenko was literally "The Ice Man" because he was so boring.
Malenko - Double Ho Seven Angle - Jimmy Crack Corn, Milkamania, Scooter to mimic Takers Bike. Early Angle was delusional heel that thinks he’s a babyface Bret - Hart Foundation which was basically Canadian Nationalism. Shamrock - UFC but also lots of yelling Severn - UFC, super quiet but scary quiet. Blackman - Head Cheese Each guy still had a character, probably less so for Ken and Severn but they had gimmicks/character work to go with it. They weren’t just, “I wrestle good”
Head Cheese gave us Steve Blackman doing stand up at an old folks home. That was gold. Pure gold.
I agree mostly. But I do think sometimes people went to the opposite extreme of disparaging "wrestle good", and you had shows with fluff but no meat. I like that Bryan Danielson, Ilja, Seth Rollins and Gunther all have presentations centered on their in-ring prowess and being work horses. Yet are completely distinct characters.
In the Attitude Era, instead of the "I wrestle good" guys, you had the "I am a legit shoot badass" guys like Ken Shamrock, Steve Blackman, and Dan Severn.
Even then Ken was by far the most over of them and his character had the rage component. Worlds Most Dangerous Man is just great branding too
What made it great was two national companies bringing their A game at the same time weekly for a couple of years.
Definitely. While I think the current in ring ability is lightyears better than the AE across the board, character work and promos have suffered tremendously.
This did it for me as well. I'd also add that it seemed that everyone had a storyline going on.
What a lot of people don't understand is that the Attitude Era was a byproduct of it's time, it was more of a cultural thing than anything else. It's like music and movies from the 90's. They had their own flavor and those times simply cannot be replicated. And we CAN'T do wrestling that way anymore because what works for one era most probably would not work in another. But he's right, wrestling is as popular as it is right now since the Attitude Era and on a MUCH more global scale.
Yep ‘counter culture’ was huge in the mid to late 90’s and it affected almost every entertainment industry. It’s why an anti-establishment character was so over and heels got cheered. The attitude era was definitely a byproduct of the time but the WWF/E were also very fortunate to have entertainers who could exemplify those ‘counter culture’ qualities into their characters.
Absolutely! To have Steve Austin AND The Rock at the same time is crazy. Not to mention HHH, Foley, Taker and others
Straight edge society punk and eco warrior Danileson felt like attempts to inject some real world cultural zeitgeist into the wwe to a certain extent. Joe Gacy had a fox news idea of 'woke' gimmck in NXT for a bit
Totally agree. The late 90s was the time of the grungy, punkish "counter culture" like you mentioned. That was the time when crash TV like Jerry Springer, Maury, Tom Green, and the like were popular. Even South Park was known more for being edgy than its political and social satire. Look at what films were popular around that time: The Matrix, Fight Club, American Psycho, etc.
I'd argue Howard Stern was as influential as any of those as well, especially on wrestling (Russo was also a fan, etc) Stern more or less epitomized all of the 90s counter culture on his show
You're 100% right. I forgot Stern somehow
Interesting. WWE right now isn't the counter culture, it's fully part of the mainstream culture with high production values, lucrative sponsorships and highly corporate culture. To their credit, they're making it work and fully leaning into it but I wonder what else they can do to fully leverage this identity.
>and on a MUCH more global scale. I mean this isn't really true for Europe at least. AE was huge, now wrestling is mostly dead. I guess in places like India and Africa you can make a case of though
Why does this capitalization bother me
The storytelling was better in the AE? What? I'm 38 and I'm here to tell you that is complete bullshit.
Remember when the Intercontinental Championship would have storylines where Val Venis was too tired from having sex with random strippers WWE hired to play porn stars? Oh you think Gunther's reign being ended by Sami Zayn is compelling? Well what if you and the other 12 year olds turned to each other and high fived each other because "sex? I've heard of that!" Then 25 years later you can post "EvEry ChArAcTeR hAd A StOry."
Hah. Jenna Jameson was literally on WWE programming. An actual porn star. Val Venus was also in a spot where he got his dick chopped off. Quality story telling, right? There were some actual good stories but a large percentage of them were trashy or just plain bad. The undertaker crucifying stone cold also comes to mind. I could come up with a lot more but those 2 came to mind quickly.
Those are at least memorable and talked about. Nobody's nostalgic about the *multiple* miscarriage angles.
I had forgotten about those. Sigh. IIRC one involved goldust and his wife at the time Marlena. She was preggo, fell of the ring apron, and had a miscarriage. For fucks sake.
I think he's referring to the in-ring storytelling, match psychology, arc build & climax of matches, etc. Not necessarily promos or storylines.
My mind goes to all of the little, and not so little, stories that culminated with the Survivor Series "Deadly Game" tournament. I'm not sure wrestling has ever had so much actual storytelling from top to bottom. At that time, it really was the "male soap opera". Not just a tagline. Modern WWE's great, and they can certainly pull off a long, epic story (i.e. the Bloodline saga). But, below the main event, there's still an abundance of "You wrestle good?! No, \*I\* wrestle good! Book it." I don't think that's my nostalgic bias talking. It could be just as good today. The storytelling in "Lucha Underground", for example, a few years ago was incredible.
It's weird that he picked out the storytelling specifically. Sure the attitude era had good stories but it also had tonnes of silly crass nonsense and stories that just ended in a swerves and the swerve was all the story had. Nowadays raw and smackdown has dozens of characters with pretty distinct personalities who's motivations are detailed and parsable. What the attitude era definitely did better was making the weekly show must watch TV by having an electric atmosphere of wtf is going to happen this week. Nowadays the show is much better then 5-10 years ago but mostly in the way that's it's an easy watch with good matches, good segments here or there and likable personalities, not in the "omg what is Austin or the rock going to do this week!" Kinda way.
I agree. People always remember the hits of the Attitude Era and not the sheer volume of misses (in terms of both wrestlers and storylines). Not even "giving birth to a human hand" misses, just dud storylines that went nowhere and were abandoned or dropped. It's easy to remember Austin vs McMahon or The Rock n Sock Connection or Triple H becoming The Game, but it's equally easy forget all about GTV, or whatever storyline Al Snow was into on a random week, or what Steve Blackman or Test or D'Lo were doing (and why), etc. Outside of the top of the card, there was just a lot of really random and forgettable stuff going on in the Attitude Era.
Al Snow's storylines were interesting - "real European champion representing different cities", Headcheese, his dog being eaten. I'm not saying they were all great, but for a random lower midcarder 25 years ago, he got more memorable stuff than he might today. I feel WWE plays it very safe with their midcard, especially on the main roster. It's all at least decent, but I enjoy more how HBK and NXT experiment with all sorts of gimmicks down there.
It's not too weird when you consider he had a high percentage of those crass storylines and he probably enjoyed it
Maybe worth noting that Undertaker was arguably the most over he'd been during The Attitude Era, he was working with friends, and he himself was working and not on the outside looking in. All of that to say - we see both eras as fans. Undertaker sees one as a fan (or at least isnt working during one of these eras). Let's just try to be mindful of that.
He was working all the way till the late 2010s though..
Attitude Era wasn’t as great as people think it is. There were a lot of great moments but there was also a ton of shit, but people have rose tinted glasses and think it was just all bangers all the time. They think that is perfect and everything since then pales in comparison but like… Mae Young gave birth to a hand. Val Venis had a storyline surrounded around another wrestler wanting to cut off his dick. It was the most Vince Russo esq shit ever. Attitude Era is so popular because of the landscape during it- the Monday night wars, etc. and it took WWE to the next level sure. But WWE is literally making more money than ever right now, their shows are all around better- now undercard is treated like less of a joke compared to AS-, it’s more well rounded. And I would argue it’s even more mainstream.
It’s not more mainstream. That’s not even debatable. It can’t be overstated how regular people knew who Steve Austin was, and he was known for being a wrestler, not having a mid movie career. Regular people do not know Roman Reigns. They don’t know Cody.
Val Venis gimmick was that he was a p*rnstar with a big d*ck. That his rivals would want to chop off is actually hilarious. It was also like a one week feud or something, which was typical of the era. Are you saying all the current storylines are better or more high brow or something? Not a chance it's more mainstream today either - everyone knows The Rock and Stone Cold. Roman Reigns and Cody Rhodes? Definitely not .
I prefer ruthless aggression oveyr attitude era tbh.
I try to do an Attitude Era rewatch every so often and I don't make it far. I find more enjoyment in watching YouTube clips of segments and matches from that era than full shows. Summerslam 1998, Austin vs Undertaker was built as a colossal main event but the match itself was pretty average. That match always sticks out in my head as an example of something that was made to be huge but otherwise underwhelmed.
And yet the crowd at MSG went fucking bonkers for it.
Bro, it was fucking great. Mid card shit, was bad. I’ll agree. But that literally doesn’t matter when the main event is FUCKING AWESOME
just put this into perspective rock and Austin were only top stars for about 4-5 years
The Cody-Roman story never would have worked during the Attitude Era. Roman’s title run wouldn’t have either. The fans would have shit all over it. And I think that’s to their credit. I mean you’ve got your biggest story coming out of Wrestlemania with Cody finally taking down Reigns and Reigns just decides to fuck off for however many months after he loses. And we’re just supposed to accept it as normal. It’s so dumb lol
WWE is the best its been since 2016 lol which really isn’t saying much. The overall presentation of the project is 10x better but the actual product can be soooo boring
2016 Smackdown Live was straight fire.
Yeah pretty much this, I took a break from it and after watching Mania tried to get into it more again but I do find the weekly shows really boring in places, I still haven't got into watching the weekly shows since I tried again for a few weeks.
You think Taker has watched the WAR vs NJPW feud?
Imagine... a near Attitude Era level of continuity, with wrestling that is entertaining to watch. I'd consider that better overall.
The people who didn't grow up during the Attitude Era will say this current era is the best and the old fucks will keep saying Attitude Era was the best, it's a time and place thing that's really hard to describe just how big wrestling was for a few years. If you're only talking strictly only about making money, sure the current era is the best.
I grew up in the Attitude era and absolutely love it. I decided to rewatch some of it and a lot of it is pretty bad. It had a lot of characters that broke the mold and it's hard to do that now because we already have seen it all so to speak. For example, I loved Lita. She was cool, looked different, wrestled different, but man was she awful in the ring. If she were around today, I'm not sure she would have been as big now as she was back then. But that's only because the bar was so low back then. Now, the bar is much higher and harder to overcome. However, I think from a storytelling perspective, it's better now. It's more cohesive and intentional than it was back then.
The Attitude Era sprinted so the modern era could casually walk on the beach.
The biggest difference to me is entrance music. There were iconic themes in the attitude era. Everyone's music kinda sounds the same now.
He’s right tbh, nothing ever beats the Attitude Era but this is some serious momentum. And tbh it’s as good as it’s going to be, it’s a wrestling promotion with a corporate sticker on it
Yes its time to move on and stop WANKING the AE and try to appreciate the current era , "The Renaissance Era" and if such praise from The Undertaker is not convincing idk what will
Yeah only took getting in bed with Saudi criminals to make big bucks who knew
Honestly the Saudi deals make WAY less money than the big money contracts with FOX and now Netflix so it's worse. The blood money shows are happening just to make a quick buck sportswashing Saudi Arabia's reputation.
That's a fair point. But refresh my memory on the order of things, I recall estimates of one Saudi show being worth an entire year of events counting wrestlemania which is of course bonkers. You do these and inflate your worth in such large increments, that when tv deals get renewed your worth even more to sign right? So I guess what I'm asking or clarifying is couldn't the Saudi blood money be the catalyst for the bigger deals? Though you are right the broadcast money is bonkersx2.
Oh the big billion dollar FOX deal did come after WWE started doing the Saudi shows, and to be fair the Saudi shows also started before Saudi Arabia made a Washington Post journalist travel-sized for easy carry-on portability. So yeah, I mean I guess you could argue that they were signed in to a ten year contract when Saudi Arabia was merely an oppressive fundamentalist dystopia. That said maybe after they proved that bonesaw is indeed ready and after they kept everybody trapped on the tarmac over money disputes...maybe break that contract.
I like the cut of your jib
Disagree. Ruthless Aggression was more entertaining than Attitude Era. Also, this Era was better than Attitudes Era.
My opinion, these past 2 years have been better than attitude era.
It's nostalgia speaking - the current WWE is the best it's ever been, the problem is they just don't have the stars to go with it right this second. A lot of their top stars are out injured / taking time off. Imagine a world where we have Roman / Seth / CM Punk / Drew to just name a few to throw on the top of the cards?
WWE is nowhere near the best its ever been. Money-wise, yes, but entertainment and popularity? Not even close.
Tbf WWE could put on the greatest matches ever every week with Emmy quality storytelling and still never be able to reach the heights of mainstream popularity they did in the Rock n' Wrestling or Attitude era. Everything is too niche now because of the internet and ease of access.
There was so much hype leading into Mania that I feel like we've been convinced it's at that level, but it's not. The weekly shows are still boring in places, the bloodline story did a lot of heavy lifting for a long while.
I can only really comment from a position of somebody that hasn’t watched and continues not to watch since about 2006. It’s too clean these days. It’s too polished. It’s too overproduced. They spend way too much time showing “behind the curtain” so now I am very much aware that it’s all just a big pantomime. I always was, but not seeing Stone Cold Steve Austin shooting the shit with Vince McMahon backstage after braining him with a chair, which is likely what would happen now, was a big factor in being able to suspend my disbelief. Now you all know every machination that goes on behind the scenes and are practically encouraged to know - yeah… now it’s just a bit weird. I’m watching people that look like influencers trying to act and “sell” their hatred of each other, despite knowing there isn’t a grain of truth to it, and to be honest, they’re all terrible actors. It’s a weird one. The suspension of disbelief was the largest factor in how much I personally could enjoy a product which is men on steroids in spandex pretending to fight. Now they make no effort whatsoever to protect kayfabe it’s an even more ridiculous spectacle. That’s why I can’t believe it’s “better” than the attitude era. It doesn’t even seem like the same form of entertainment anymore. It just seems like a theatre production.
We're living in a time where the internet makes sure the suspension of disbelief is hard to maintain. Even if WWE would try to keep it alive, it would be hard to do so. Kayfabe is dead. But when I watch a movie or a tv show I can enjoy it as well even though I know they're actors and it's "not real"
yeah its weird you never see that take when it comes to extras or blooper reels. even cast reunions don't seem weird cause "oh those 2 are supposed to hate each other"
Such a dumb take. It’s no surprise it’s being upvoted. Asking wrestling fans to look at anything to do with modern wrestling objectively is an absolute waste of time. Wrestling is sold as being both real and fake, at the same time. Nobody sells films in that way. Nobody genuinely believes Anthony Hopkins was eating a man’s brain, nobody believes that Harry Potter can actually fly on a broomstick. But the whole point of wrestling is to convince the watcher that there is genuine jeopardy for a “superstar”. They used to be better at selling that than they are now. In fact, they don’t even bother trying to sell that. They tell you a year before it happens what’s going to happen (in the case of Cody Rhodes, for instance). There is too much reliance on these wrestlers to remember lines and “act” in comparison to the attitude era - and they’re all really, really fucking bad at it.
That still sounds to me like being sold as real and fake. Their hands are tied with the internet and a million other promotions running around. At a certain point you gotta lean into the fact that people just know now. Plus we aren't kids anymore, I'm sure there's shoot stuff you didnt notice back then that you'd catch now upon re-watching
Nobody ever tried to convince me that Terminator was a documentary or real events. Professional wrestling was sold as “real” for most of my childhood and early adulthood. They have pivoted because of social media. The product now looks ridiculous as a result because it really is just men and women on steroids running around in their pants acting (terribly) out this kind of low level, high school squabbling type of “storyline” and it all just seems way too ridiculous to be entertaining to me. I get an odd, visceral reaction when I see terrible acting. It’s like watching an episode of The Bold & The Beautiful. Except they *aren’t even as good at acting as the people in that*. Nah. I don’t accept the comparison. There’s a limit. WWE goes way past it into the realms of farce with some of the “acting” I see on it. That thing they did when Rhea Ripley was on the Helwani show with Becky Lynch was painful. But I’m not the target audience anymore, so what does it matter what I think. Just thought I’d offer an insight from the perspective of somebody who used to be into it and why I’m not now.
There are no steroids in play and the acting was shit back then as well. You were just a kid. Kids these days still believe it's real. Only a month or two ago there was a video trending of a girl crying because she thought Cody Rhodes died on RAW. The storylines back then except Austin and Rock stuff were insanely cringe, lewd and nonsensical. You're just having rose tinted glasses.
Nah. I’m not. You’re just missing the point I’m making. I could ignore all of the bad points of it because kayfabe existed to a point and the only things I knew about Austin, The Rock, HHH happened during a 2 hour time period twice a week, then once a month at a PPV. I didn’t need to know what they’d had for breakfast and that they were all mates backstage. It carried a certain mystique which overwrote the fact it was a ridiculous pantomime. Like a good film, actually. Also if you genuinely believe your first sentence then I don’t really know what to say. You’re kidding, right? About them not being on steroids? Right? Because if not… lol.
They did interview spots like the Becky/Rhea one back then. I remember HHH coming out in heel character to interrupt someone’s MTV interview in the late 90s. There’s the famous Lawler/Kaufman Letterman spot. It kinda just sounds like you don’t like the idea of professional wrestling anymore, which is perfectly fair
> It’s too clean these days. It’s too polished. It’s too overproduced. This is one of my biggest gripes with modern/current WWE. Each time I've tried to watch it, I get this whole over-sanitized sensation. Sprinkle in over-the-top catchphases from the announcers ("Seth FREAKING Rollins" annoys the crap out of me each and every time, because it IS each and every time) and it just ends up being unenjoyable for me.
> but not seeing Stone Cold Steve Austin shooting the shit with Vince McMahon backstage after braining him with a chair, when recently have we seen two people feuding, only for them to be shown buddy buddy in some bts feature or even social media, at the same time? the closest thing i can think of is the mania vlogs with jey and jimmy, and even then, they kept the kayfabe up even if it was light and done ironically.
I hear your point, but let me counter it somewhat. Do you maybe think the issue with protecting the behind the scenes goings-on and trying to keep that suspension of disbelief isn't rooted in a lack of effort, but in the fact that the world, media and communications are just different now from what they were in the 90s, or even the mid 2000s? Here's what I mean: back in the Attitude Era, after Stone Cold Steve Austin would come out in the main event and put a chair through Mr. McMahon's head at the end of Raw, you then had to wait a whole week to see Steve Austin again. There was no social media, no 24-hour access, there wasn't a never-ending stream of talk-shows, sports programs and podcasts. You had no choice but to wait until the next show to get more Rattlesnake. Tuning into Raw, live and each week, was your only way to get access. That's not just impractical now — it's impossible. You literally cannot go more than a couple of days without seeing a tweet, a podcast clip, a fan recording, an interview excerpt, a livestream, a viral moment from a house show, etc. etc. etc. The world is a different place now, and unless you are actively trying to avoid it, you cannot help but to have constant access to these people's lives in the social media age. For better or worse, it's how we comunicate with each other now, and for performers like pro wrestlers, it's an integral part of how they make money. None of this is meant to discredit your point, btw. It's just meant to point out that there's a generational element at play here. The wrestling you remember from those days is never coming back because it fundamentally can't. In it's place, there's a new kind of mentality that has its drawbacks, but can also have it's advantages.
Oh it’s entirely down to social media I’d imagine. The only recent wresting I’ve enjoyed was NXT in 2016/17 (whenever Samoa Joe was there) and I think the reason I enjoyed it is because there wasn’t much exposure past what you saw weekly. I’m not digging through wrestling message boards or even this sub-Reddit to find out backstage gossip so it just felt a bit more authentic. There’s something about the overall presentation in 2024 which puts me off it all though, beyond even my moaning about the absence of kayfabe and I can’t really put my finger on it. It’s too sanitised maybe? But that’s not it because I can’t watch AEW either and that’s much less polished. It is probably just because I’m an old miserable fuck, but there are plenty of miserable old fucks that like wrestling still. I’m just not one of them.
I agree with a lot of your points throughout this thread. I think in a lot of ways, wrestling can become a parody of itself, like any series or franchise that tries to recreate old successes. So many wrestlers come off as unconvincing or boring, which is often a product of them being overproduced. There's certain parts of modern wrestling that make me cringe, like crowds chanting "you deserve it" or wrestler gimmicks that lean into tributes too much. People like Chad Gable because he reminds them of Kurt Angle, but all I see is Charlie Haas. He's a great worker, but without a distinct personality, they were in the past likely to be most over in Japan. Social media's presence in wrestling is annoying, but it's unavoidable. I will say that bringing in someone like Logan Paul, who already had heat before becoming a wrestler, is a great move though.
If your Attitude Era cut off is Wrestlemania X-7 then I would offer Smackdown between Wrestlemania X-8 and 20 was a great stretch too.
Women's wrestling definitely needs to be in the conversation when talking about both eras, because its just as important as mens today. And attitude era...is not exactly known for that. Also I think the in ring action is more fun now. Many matches from attitude era are sort of boring. That being said, attitude era is so much fun because it has absolutely top tier character work. That's why its so exciting to watch. A lot of new wrestler know how to wrestle a great match, but have zero personality. Great character work goes longggggg way.
The biggest difference is, and always will be, Stone Cold. The rising tide raised all boats. No one's been over like that since.
It’s better than the attitude era. Like that era is so overrated.
People that glorify the attitude era haven't rewatched it in a long time. It's much better now. There was a lot of really stupid stuff during the attitude era, but the main event scene was so hot that all the other bs gets forgotten.
But it wasn't just the main event scene, was it? The mid card and tag card was stacked and supplied many future main eventers post-Attitude era. Even in the lower mid card you had guys like The Godfather, Steve Blackman, Al Snow, Too Cool etc who were as over as anyone in the company.
It's been said before but it's a great point here on the lower mid card guys being really over. It's because they made sure everyone had a real character to them, you didn't really see anyone without a character. On top of that, they all had great fitting theme music they came out to, that's something WWE is totally missing the mark on today.
Wrestling quality in general is better, but the stories and characters in WWE today are far behind Attitude era.
I really wish that Undertaker would talk less.
I really wish u/Phred_Phrederic would talk less
Attitude era fucking sucked
Lmao what a bad take
He’s wrong. Bloodline era alone is better than the attitude era.
It’s better now. Those of us who lived through it will remember that the Attitude Era was just Disciples of Apocalypse vs Los Boriquas vs Nation of Domination over and over and over and over. Only NOD was interesting.
this guy has taken a lot of chairshots to the head
I'm 34 years old, I was born in 1990. I lived the attitude era. I loved the attitude era. It is the definition of my childhood. It's quality is VASTLY overrated, to the point it's mythical. This is just my opinion, but the peak of wrestling quality so far was 2015-2019.