|
Post by THE FVNKER on Mar 10, 2024 7:08:11 GMT -5
One thing I want to note is how important Austin's vibe and jargon were. Prior to Austin's vignettes leading up to his match against Bret at Survivor Series 96, heels were overly cheesy, Memphis style cartoons. Austin's use of language, combined with his tone just made him feel real. The 80's/early 90's is just hard to explain to younger people. The internet barely existed and TV was the main source of entertainment, and everything on TV was relatively lame and "safe". This wholesome culture being shoved down our throats is more or less the reason things like ECW, the Tom Green Show and Jackass became popular. Makes me wonder what the impetus was for the shift in culture in the 90s. I was born in ‘91 so I obviously wasn’t old enough to like, see it happen but there was clearly a change in ideals and values as far as entertainment and fashion went. I feel like the grunge movement and Nirvana’s rise can’t be left out of the conversation as that whole story lent itself to a sort of “rebellion” against the norm. The anti-authority optics of it leaked into mainstream culture. I would think that Howard Stern, Jerry Springer and Beavis and Butthead had a lot to do with it as well.
|
|
Renslayer
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
every time i come around your city...
Posts: 16,558
|
Post by Renslayer on Mar 10, 2024 9:53:27 GMT -5
One thing I want to note is how important Austin's vibe and jargon were. Prior to Austin's vignettes leading up to his match against Bret at Survivor Series 96, heels were overly cheesy, Memphis style cartoons. Austin's use of language, combined with his tone just made him feel real. The 80's/early 90's is just hard to explain to younger people. The internet barely existed and TV was the main source of entertainment, and everything on TV was relatively lame and "safe". This wholesome culture being shoved down our throats is more or less the reason things like ECW, the Tom Green Show and Jackass became popular. Was it Steve's idea to do the survivor series 96 promo with the "natural born killers" vibe? It was brilliant
|
|
|
Post by Muskrat on Mar 10, 2024 10:50:45 GMT -5
One thing I want to note is how important Austin's vibe and jargon were. Prior to Austin's vignettes leading up to his match against Bret at Survivor Series 96, heels were overly cheesy, Memphis style cartoons. Austin's use of language, combined with his tone just made him feel real. The 80's/early 90's is just hard to explain to younger people. The internet barely existed and TV was the main source of entertainment, and everything on TV was relatively lame and "safe". This wholesome culture being shoved down our throats is more or less the reason things like ECW, the Tom Green Show and Jackass became popular. Makes me wonder what the impetus was for the shift in culture in the 90s. I was born in ‘91 so I obviously wasn’t old enough to like, see it happen but there was clearly a change in ideals and values as far as entertainment and fashion went. I feel like the grunge movement and Nirvana’s rise can’t be left out of the conversation as that whole story lent itself to a sort of “rebellion” against the norm. The anti-authority optics of it leaked into mainstream culture. I would think that Howard Stern, Jerry Springer and Beavis and Butthead had a lot to do with it as well. Generation X happened. Kids of Baby Boomers, growing up during the Reagan 80's entered the 90's incredibly cynical. The culture shifted almost immediately after people realized there was this untapped market of young adults who were just burnt out of alot of aspects of the world they lived in. There's obviously more factors then that, but as soon as people saw money in marketing to that market is when it spread like wildfire.
|
|
|
Post by THE FVNKER on Mar 10, 2024 11:17:12 GMT -5
Makes me wonder what the impetus was for the shift in culture in the 90s. I was born in ‘91 so I obviously wasn’t old enough to like, see it happen but there was clearly a change in ideals and values as far as entertainment and fashion went. I feel like the grunge movement and Nirvana’s rise can’t be left out of the conversation as that whole story lent itself to a sort of “rebellion” against the norm. The anti-authority optics of it leaked into mainstream culture. I would think that Howard Stern, Jerry Springer and Beavis and Butthead had a lot to do with it as well. Generation X happened. Kids of Baby Boomers, growing up during the Reagan 80's entered the 90's incredibly cynical. The culture shifted almost immediately after people realized there was this untapped market of young adults who were just burnt out of alot of aspects of the world they lived in. There's obviously more factors then that, but as soon as people saw money in marketing to that market is when it spread like wildfire. Yeah I can get on board with that. I wonder what it was though that led to such “extreme” (for lack of a better word) content in media at the time though. The 90’s were full of things that couldn’t have been said/done in the previous decades and stuff that absolutely wouldn’t be tolerated going forward. Maybe it was just the culmination of people pushing and pushing until they realized what was acceptable and what wasn’t?
|
|
|
Post by "Evil Brood" Jackson Vanik on Mar 10, 2024 11:31:18 GMT -5
It was the summer of 1997 when they started booking him like a top guy. They thought he was a main event talent earlier than that but he still did jobs as needed.
|
|
|
Post by Jindrak Mark on Mar 10, 2024 13:09:22 GMT -5
I think the Bret feud was when they realized he was a top card talent but somewhere around summer 97, maybe when he stunned Vince in MSG, is when they realized he has to be the face of the company, not just any regular main eventer.
Wrestlemania 13 is considered a double turn but was he actually full face right away or still tweener for a bit? He faced Undertaker/HBK at the May/June PPVs who were both faces but I can’t recall if they were presented as face v face or if Austin was still supposed to be a bit of a heel. Off the top of my head when he won the tag titles with Foley and handed him the belt after rather than stun him is the first babyface act I recall from him other than just generally being a tough guy/refusing to quit at Mania, etc.
|
|
thecrusherwi
El Dandy
the Financially Responsible Man
Brawl For All
Posts: 7,654
|
Post by thecrusherwi on Mar 10, 2024 14:09:39 GMT -5
Makes me wonder what the impetus was for the shift in culture in the 90s. I was born in ‘91 so I obviously wasn’t old enough to like, see it happen but there was clearly a change in ideals and values as far as entertainment and fashion went. I feel like the grunge movement and Nirvana’s rise can’t be left out of the conversation as that whole story lent itself to a sort of “rebellion” against the norm. The anti-authority optics of it leaked into mainstream culture. I would think that Howard Stern, Jerry Springer and Beavis and Butthead had a lot to do with it as well. Generation X happened. Kids of Baby Boomers, growing up during the Reagan 80's entered the 90's incredibly cynical. The culture shifted almost immediately after people realized there was this untapped market of young adults who were just burnt out of alot of aspects of the world they lived in. There's obviously more factors then that, but as soon as people saw money in marketing to that market is when it spread like wildfire. Interesting enough, the widespread marketing and commodification of that 90s edginess is also what diluted it and took away some of its authenticity (similar to what many happened to much of 80s culture by the early 90s). I started High School in 2001 and much of the late 90s/early 2000s snark and edginess was alive and well. And it died almost overnight after 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Mar 10, 2024 16:40:10 GMT -5
Generation X happened. Kids of Baby Boomers, growing up during the Reagan 80's entered the 90's incredibly cynical. The culture shifted almost immediately after people realized there was this untapped market of young adults who were just burnt out of alot of aspects of the world they lived in. There's obviously more factors then that, but as soon as people saw money in marketing to that market is when it spread like wildfire. Interesting enough, the widespread marketing and commodification of that 90s edginess is also what diluted it and took away some of its authenticity (similar to what many happened to much of 80s culture by the early 90s). I started High School in 2001 and much of the late 90s/early 2000s snark and edginess was alive and well. And it died almost overnight after 9/11. 90s culture bled into the 2000s, even a little after 9/11 but the tone and snarkiness was a bit different. Kinda like Attitude Era to Ruthless Aggression. On the surface it seems like the same but there are a ton of differences when you look deeper. The light-hearted, "free ride" nature of the decade came to a screeching halt when 9/11 happened but for the first few years after you can see where they try to latch on to it while emphasizing the seriousness of terrorism, the Iraq War, and everything that would be the 2000s. Similar to the culture of the 2010s. There was a sense of wonder at the end of the last decade that came crashing into a wall in the midst of the pandemic and after effects of it all. One can argue the Iranian Hostage Situation ended the 70s as well. Really the culture of the world resets every 20 years it seems whether it be those events, Cuba Missile Crisis, or Pearl Harbor and the cultural shift afterwards is like night and day.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,933
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Mar 10, 2024 17:49:49 GMT -5
I think the Bret feud was when they realized he was a top card talent but somewhere around summer 97, maybe when he stunned Vince in MSG, is when they realized he has to be the face of the company, not just any regular main eventer. Wrestlemania 13 is considered a double turn but was he actually full face right away or still tweener for a bit? He faced Undertaker/HBK at the May/June PPVs who were both faces but I can’t recall if they were presented as face v face or if Austin was still supposed to be a bit of a heel. Off the top of my head when he won the tag titles with Foley and handed him the belt after rather than stun him is the first babyface act I recall from him other than just generally being a tough guy/refusing to quit at Mania, etc. I just find it fascinating to think how Austin would have transformed in front of Vince's eyes from "good mid card hand" to "saviour of our company and top three star ever" in such a short period. Very few people saw Stunning Steve in WCW becoming that
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Mar 12, 2024 7:56:24 GMT -5
I think the Bret feud was when they realized he was a top card talent but somewhere around summer 97, maybe when he stunned Vince in MSG, is when they realized he has to be the face of the company, not just any regular main eventer. Wrestlemania 13 is considered a double turn but was he actually full face right away or still tweener for a bit? He faced Undertaker/HBK at the May/June PPVs who were both faces but I can’t recall if they were presented as face v face or if Austin was still supposed to be a bit of a heel. Off the top of my head when he won the tag titles with Foley and handed him the belt after rather than stun him is the first babyface act I recall from him other than just generally being a tough guy/refusing to quit at Mania, etc. I just find it fascinating to think how Austin would have transformed in front of Vince's eyes from "good mid card hand" to "saviour of our company and top three star ever" in such a short period. Very few people saw Stunning Steve in WCW becoming that Idt it was ever "savior" until the merchandise sails started reflecting it. Austin if anything was going to be a Main Event Heel that would draw the ire of Bret, Shawn and Taker and make for a great opponent for all 3. He faced Taker and Shawn a few times in 1996 as a Heel before the Bret match. I think even the the Austin/Taker match at In Your House was intended to happen but Austin was supposed to be the Heel for that. Same with Shawn Michaels at King of the Ring, they just adjusted it so he was a Face too alongside both and it worked very well in building him up to beat them both in 1998.
|
|
|
Post by Jindrak Mark on Mar 12, 2024 13:02:21 GMT -5
I just find it fascinating to think how Austin would have transformed in front of Vince's eyes from "good mid card hand" to "saviour of our company and top three star ever" in such a short period. Very few people saw Stunning Steve in WCW becoming that Idt it was ever "savior" until the merchandise sails started reflecting it. Austin if anything was going to be a Main Event Heel that would draw the ire of Bret, Shawn and Taker and make for a great opponent for all 3. He faced Taker and Shawn a few times in 1996 as a Heel before the Bret match. I think even the the Austin/Taker match at In Your House was intended to happen but Austin was supposed to be the Heel for that. Same with Shawn Michaels at King of the Ring, they just adjusted it so he was a Face too alongside both and it worked very well in building him up to beat them both in 1998. That Austin/Taker PPV main event in 1997 is kinda weird in that it's rarely referenced and is in that weird spot after the Bret I quit but he was still kinda tweener and not full face like he would be by Summerslam. It's kinda like Cena/Brock happening for the world title at Backlash 2003 but not really being that big of a deal and they would go on to have way bigger matches against each other.
|
|
|
Post by Urn Anderson on Mar 12, 2024 22:43:38 GMT -5
The 80's/early 90's is just hard to explain to younger people. The internet barely existed and TV was the main source of entertainment, and everything on TV was relatively lame and "safe". This wholesome culture being shoved down our throats is more or less the reason things like ECW, the Tom Green Show and Jackass became popular. This is an excellent explanation of something I’ve always struggled to put into words, and I’m largely quoting it not just because it’s well-stated, but a very important point to understand for people who weren’t there. Tarantino films, Beavis & Butthead, and so many things became popular for this very reason. You can also see it in the major shifts in rock and rap music and the rise of the grunge aesthetic.
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Mar 13, 2024 7:36:40 GMT -5
Idt it was ever "savior" until the merchandise sails started reflecting it. Austin if anything was going to be a Main Event Heel that would draw the ire of Bret, Shawn and Taker and make for a great opponent for all 3. He faced Taker and Shawn a few times in 1996 as a Heel before the Bret match. I think even the the Austin/Taker match at In Your House was intended to happen but Austin was supposed to be the Heel for that. Same with Shawn Michaels at King of the Ring, they just adjusted it so he was a Face too alongside both and it worked very well in building him up to beat them both in 1998. That Austin/Taker PPV main event in 1997 is kinda weird in that it's rarely referenced and is in that weird spot after the Bret I quit but he was still kinda tweener and not full face like he would be by Summerslam. It's kinda like Cena/Brock happening for the world title at Backlash 2003 but not really being that big of a deal and they would go on to have way bigger matches against each other. I think a lot of that was it being a gap feud to allow Bret time to do the blow off match at Canadian Stampede. Cena/Brock 03 is a good comparison, as would be Bret/Shawn 92 at Survivor Series. As for the actual feud, it seems like they kept the writing the same as oppose to angling Austin as a pure babyface, but the seeds were planted at Mania and if you watch the Raws after, you see the dynamic shift with Bret as the Heel and Austin as the Face, especially leading up to the previous Pay Per View. I think with Taker because of UT being WWF Champion as the #1 babyface, they went shades of grey with Austin being a Heel for this feud but yet the Face for the Bret feud but doing it in a way that he wouldn't lose popularity or gain heat.
|
|