Attitude Era 2.0?

[nisidhe]

The changes in WWE over the last year had me asking a simple question:



Seriously, from a period when the product was scrubbed for younger audiences, WWE seems to have moved back to chasing that male 18-49 demo, perhaps oblivious to the facts that a) these people are far less likely to have disposable income than the previous generation and b) are far less likely to respond positively to the kinds of stuff that WWE is presenting these days.

Sure, the in-ring product was far more entertaining back then, but the fact that both major titles are held by heels and are currently being challenged for by heels is not exactly conducive to the levels of interest expected by the company. This state of affairs, if allowed to continue long-term, will erode the company's fortunes until other promotions are seen as more cost-effective for the ratings drawn - and with a popular (and protected) babyface currently as its champion.

My argument is that WWE's recent changes are reminiscent of a reactionary move towards Attitude Era booking. The primary difference nowadays is that WWE is unable to commit itself entirely to the kinds of violence and sexual exploitation that brought it back to dominance, but likewise cannot commit itself to the kind of creative working that gave star turns to its top stars back then. It's hobbled by both the networks and its own "brand uber alles" philosophy - and it will cost them dearly in the end if it continues for long.

[Gravedigger's Biscuits]

Wait, so what's the similarity between today's WWE and the Attitude Era?

[dbrussel]

There is changes in the main roster? I dont see nothing different. The only changes are on NXT

[Deleted]

The Attitude Era would never work in today's day and age.

The world has gone too PC and woke for half of the stunts they pulled to fly these days.

[Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story]

I honestly don't think WWE's all that different from where it was in 2009/2010? I think that's honestly more of the issue, you can watch 99-2005 WWE and things feel genuinely different. If you put on WrestleMania 27 and tried to compare it to WrestleMania 37, the presentation isn't all that different.

I also think it's less an issue with heel champions and more an issue with weak top babyfaces. If you go back and look at the Attitude Era, Austin was on the chase after a heel champ way more than he was a champ. I still think the long-term with Roman is to either create a new babyface or just make him so dominant that people cheer him and he has another 2-3 years as a top babyface while they rebuild below him. I'm not sure.

[Perd]

I suppose self-satisfied indifference is an attitude. 

[Jaws the Shark]

The Attitude Era is never coming back. Ever.

[nisidhe]

Jan 18, 2022 13:13:01 GMT -5 Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story said:

I also think it's less an issue with heel champions and more an issue with weak top babyfaces. If you go back and look at the Attitude Era, Austin was on the chase after a heel champ way more than he was a champ. I still think the long-term with Roman is to either create a new babyface or just make him so dominant that people cheer him and he has another 2-3 years as a top babyface while they rebuild below him. I'm not sure.

I agree that there is a dearth of strong babyface characters, particularly of the whitemeat variety (those who have never or very briefly acted as heels). Austin was a heel before he became the Anti-Vince face. The Rock became a babyface on the strength of his charisma alone, without any moral compass underpinning his actions.

Vince has _never_ understood that babyfaces were a default in professional wrestling - those who followed the rules of pro wrestling and whose wins came as a result of superior technique (and a bit of luck.) Yes, heels have more "personality" and make more interesting "characters", but they also broke the rules and flouted it occasionally, drawing the famous jeers and boos from the crowd.

The issue nowadays is that there are no rules in wrestling sports entertainment, so character has become all. But, because the only characters that have historically existed in WWE have at leasted started out as heels of a sort, it has become nearly impossible to build up a "proper" babyface without either a) getting over in spite of creative's machinations or b) having them acting as a heel first.

[Feyrhausen]

Jan 18, 2022 14:29:35 GMT -5 nisidhe said:

Jan 18, 2022 13:13:01 GMT -5 Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story said:

I also think it's less an issue with heel champions and more an issue with weak top babyfaces. If you go back and look at the Attitude Era, Austin was on the chase after a heel champ way more than he was a champ. I still think the long-term with Roman is to either create a new babyface or just make him so dominant that people cheer him and he has another 2-3 years as a top babyface while they rebuild below him. I'm not sure.

I agree that there is a dearth of strong babyface characters, particularly of the whitemeat variety (those who have never or very briefly acted as heels). Austin was a heel before he became the Anti-Vince face. The Rock became a babyface on the strength of his charisma alone, without any moral compass underpinning his actions.

Vince has _never_ understood that babyfaces were a default in professional wrestling - those who followed the rules of pro wrestling and whose wins came as a result of superior technique (and a bit of luck.) Yes, heels have more "personality" and make more interesting "characters", but they also broke the rules and flouted it occasionally, drawing the famous jeers and boos from the crowd.

The issue nowadays is that there are no rules in wrestling sports entertainment, so character has become all. But, because the only characters that have historically existed in WWE have at leasted started out as heels of a sort, it has become nearly impossible to build up a "proper" babyface without either a) getting over in spite of creative's machinations or b) having them acting as a heel first.

Vince understands that babyfaces are the way to draw in pro wrestling. When he bought the company and was desperate to make money he put the title on the biggest babyface he could get and kept it there for years. Then when he was almost driven out of business he took the guy getting the biggest reactions and made him the babyface focus of the show, champ or not.

Now Vince has no need to draw. He makes money no matter what dumb decision he makes so he does what amuses him.

[cosmo]

Jan 18, 2022 12:59:42 GMT -5 @negan said:

The Attitude Era would never work in today's day and age.

The world has gone too PC and woke for half of the stunts they pulled to fly these days.

Oh yeah, stuff like HLA, Moolah and Mae Young getting beaten up on a seemingly regular basis, Goldust and Luna being BDSM-loving weirdos, and that one promo where Mark Henry confessed to being a sex addict and that he lost his virginity to his sister would raise an even bigger stink now than they might have 20+ years ago.

[Deleted]

I don't know, my perspective of WWE is that it's been in a completely stagnant holding pattern since around 2014 (make Roman a big deal, have Brock be the company's clear "big bad," who usually has the title but appears sparingly), with the only real difference being that now Roman is mean and Brock is nice, and the production team finally discovered PS2-era CGI.

[Tiffany Stratton's Daddy]

Jan 18, 2022 14:46:03 GMT -5 @mattyphatty said:

I don't know, my perspective of WWE is that it's been in a completely stagnant holding pattern since around 2014 (make Roman a big deal, have Brock be the company's clear "big bad," who usually has the title but appears sparingly), with the only real difference being that now Roman is mean and Brock is nice, and the production team finally discovered PS2-era CGI.

That's insane. 8 years has to be one of the longer periods.

You could say the Attitude Era was 97-01, Ruthless Aggression was 02-07. PG Era was 08-13. Now we're in this odd era with no name since 2014. And it's just bad.