Pillman/Austin gun incident (1997)

[The Nature Girl]

From the RAW DVD:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pwFrzEnDnM

[Dick Foley]

Walton, KY is no where near "suburban" Kevin Kelly!

It's much tamer than the media made it out to be back in 1996. Needless to say, this is the angle that but WWF back on the map.

["Hollywood" Cactus Matt]

That was such a bad-ass angle. Pillman was so cool.

[Crappler El 0 M]

I think there is a little revisionist history with this angle. I certainly wouldn't say it put the WWF "back on the map." WWE really was not that popular back then. Granted, it did get people's attention, but it was heavily panned and criticized by the smarts of the day. It was largely considered the worst angle of the year. Granted, I can look back on it now and appreciate it, but at the time it was considered desperate and inappropriate. I think the angle has been helped by the Pillman and Best of Raw DVDs. Looking back on it, you can appreciate the performances of Austin and Pillman and their passion and emotion, but if you actually watched wrestling back then (which I would guess many of today's fans and even many of the Attitude era fans didn't), then you don't actually remember the angle being something that helped WWE.

RD actually wrote a pretty scathing account of it when he inducted it into Wrestlecrap.

[tarheelfan]

grapplercrappler said:

I think there is a little revisionist history with this angle. I certainly wouldn't say it put the WWF "back on the map." WWE really was not that popular back then. Granted, it did get people's attention, but it was heavily panned and criticized by the smarts of the day. It was largely considered the worst angle of the year. Granted, I can look back on it now and appreciate it, but at the time it was considered a desperate and inappropriate. I think the angle has been helped by the Pillman and Best of Raw DVDs. Looking back on it, you can appreciate the performances of Austin and Pillman and their passion and emotion, but if you actually watched wrestling back then (which I would guess many of today's fans and even many of the Attitude era fans didn't), then you don't actually remember the angle being something that helped WWE.

Agreed. Up until Starcade 1997, WCW had total momentum in the wrestling world and was the top promotion in the United States.

[mattperiolat]

Boy, do I remember this. Certainly the most risky thing the E did to date. The "smart" people knew this was an angle, but was played real enough to scare some anyone who had just tuned in.

Anyone else besides me sorry that injury robbed us of a Pillman/Austin match in the E?

[darthpipes]

Great angle. I always enjoyed it. It didn't put the WWF back on the map (and certainly didn't pop the ratings any bit) but it was still very cool. Austin's fight with Pillman's "friends" was stiff and brutal.

[Dick Foley]

Thats what wrestling boards do. Any "sports" related board is usually filled with a bunch of guys complaining about the product of their sport or team. Wrestling just sorta falls into that since we have so many "newz" sites reporting the "newz"

[bob]

I remember that angle when I first saw in back when I was in grade school...I thought it was great back then now I tihnk it's fantastic and probably my favorite segement ever in the history of the business

[tarheelfan]

I guess it was one of those angles that made even a Nitro fan turn the channel for about fifteen minutes. But that was about it.

[Crappler El 0 M]

I was just merely pointing out that history has been kind to this angle. With the Brian Pillman and Best of Raw DVDs, you get the impression that this was a successful segment that helped WWE. Someone in this thread said it got WWE back on the map. I just wanted to state for historical purposes that this angle used to be considered one of the worst things WWE had done. RD inducted it into wrestlecrap. I could be wrong, but I think PWI or an Apter mag called it the worst angle of the year (of course this doesn't mean too much, just thought I'd mention it), and it didn't help WWE in the ratings. I acknowledged that now that I look back at the angle, I really appreciate the performances of Austin and Pillman and enjoy the segment. However, I just wanted to point out that I think there is some revisionist history going on in terms of the effects of this angle.

[BxB]

grapplercrappler said:

I was just merely pointing out that history has been kind to this angle. With the Brian Pillman and Best of Raw DVDs, you get the impression that this was a successful segment that helped WWE. Someone in this thread said it got WWE back on the map. I just wanted to state for historical purposes that this angle used to be considered one of the worst things WWE had done. RD inducted it into wrestlecrap. I could be wrong, but I think PWI or an Apter mag called it the worst angle of the year (of course this doesn't mean too much, just thought I'd mention it), and it didn't help WWE in the ratings. I acknowledged that now that I look back at the angle, I really appreciate the performances of Austin and Pillman and enjoy the segment. However, I just wanted to point out that I think there is some revisionist history going on in terms of the effects of this angle.

Scarface was also panned by the critics upon it's release, but that doesn't change the fact that it's one of my favorite movies of all-time. This angle, was just too close to realism for some of the "newz" reporters. I personally thought it was edgy and set the tone for Austin's character being an outlaw. I think this angle did play role in the formation of the attitude era.

[Jon The Joker]

I'm sorry but as someone who has been threatend with a gun that was in poor taste, but then again taste and WWE (especially during the attitude era) just doesn't go together.

[SWH - Shane Hero]

Okay.... and what does the Joker go waving about in peoples faces all the time Jon? What does he tend to shoot people with? Would that be the same GUNS that offend you when used on a wrestling show? Oh yeah!

I don't know the details of your gun threatening incident, but I would say the unless it occurred while you were breaking into Brian Pillman's house while Kevin Kelly was peeing himself in a nearby room, the circumstances would be vastly different from what occured in this angle. As such it is pretty hypocritical to say this offended you, yet you find a film like Batman to be good entertainment.

I never got why people were so upset by the fact it involved a gun. In actual fact the gun was less violent than the average wrestling match... which feature guys getting punched and kicked repeatedly. Considering that almost every other action movie or TV show features guns, most often being shown to SHOOT people quite graphically, it amazes me that to this day people apply a different set of rules to a scripted wrestling show, that makes the sight of a gun offensive.

I think it was a revolutionary angle, which copped a lot of flack at the time because it was so different. It got a reaction out of people, different to what they had from WWF programming until then. Yes, we do view it much differently now in hindsight, but that's the case with a lot of things, as we cannot appreciate their impact until much later. This happens with art, music, movies... everything.

This angle didn't spike the ratings or put WWE back on the map instantly, but it was an early precursor to the coming Attitude era that would do just that. In hindsight we can appreciate that more than we could at the time.

[Dolph Zalgo]

I don't find it THAT bad either. Pillman is American, isn't it normal for him to have a gun in his home, especially if he is physically threatened by an "enemy"? And wouldn't it fit the mad character he portrayed that he was ready to shoot and kill Austin?

Sure, normally this stuff does not belong in sports, but this is Pro Wrestling and it tends to be very over-the-top, cheesy and sometimes awfully tasteless. Hell, Vince wanted to do an incest angle, where it would be implied that he would have [new jack]motherf'n sex with his motherf'n b**** daughter[/new jack]. I think they did rape angles before and I think I'd rather get shot than buried alive...

[skillz]

grapplercrappler said:

I think there is a little revisionist history with this angle. I certainly wouldn't say it put the WWF "back on the map." WWE really was not that popular back then.

Agreed. Pillman's death and time have probably helped this angle age well to some here, but it didn't do anything to boost ratings and was likely mocked more than applauded by the audience (which is generally the case with over the top soap opera-ish storylines).

1996 was a very bad year for the WWF. Very bad. This angle showed the extreme desperation on the WWF's part to compete with WCW at the time.

[mattperiolat]

Well, to be fair, I'd call it a cross between Pillman's death and Austin becoming one of the biggest things in wrestling that have contributed to the revision. Plus, I think as much as people point to Montreal as the beginning of the Attitude Era, between this, Goldust, Mankind et al, WWE was slowly getting away from the circus atmosphere it had had for so long.

Now, all THAT being said, yes, I agree with those who have said this was rather extreme. I knew watching this "Man, the E is just BEGGING for some problems" since I knew kids still watched RAW.

History is a funny thing. Something that starts out as potentially bad has been varnished as something important some ten years on. Go figure.

[Hiroshi Hase]

skillz said:

grapplercrappler said:

I think there is a little revisionist history with this angle. I certainly wouldn't say it put the WWF "back on the map." WWE really was not that popular back then.

Agreed. Pillman's death and time have probably helped this angle age well to some here, but it didn't do anything to boost ratings and was likely mocked more than applauded by the audience (which is generally the case with over the top soap opera-ish storylines).

1996 was a very bad year for the WWF. Very bad. This angle showed the extreme desperation on the WWF's part to compete with WCW at the time.

I concur, it was decent, but it was hardly contributing to the success of the WWF at the time. That wouldn't come until way later in 1997.

Russo talks about another idea that WWE tried to do which failed miserably:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI7I6GFGgX4&feature=related

[WHATAMANOOOVER]

In hindsight, this was a blatant ploy from Vince to try and boost ratings...which it failed.

IRC, Pillman pulling the gun out was a suprise to Kevin Kelly (although Vince OBVIOUSLY knew about it).

[Big Daddy Bad Booking]

Loved the angle. Felt brutal, emotional, and downright badass. Sure it may have had its critical pannings, but it was a great angle noneoftheless.