hitch
Don Corleone
Hitch knot
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by hitch on Nov 18, 2012 9:38:19 GMT -5
Another issue is that fans, like me, who have been fans since the age of 5 right way through childhood, adolecence, teenage years, early adulthood, adulthood and 'starting to get nose hair' adulthood - sometimes struggle to accept the principle since the early 1980s - the product has been aimed at kids. Because we've been kids/youngsters throughout this period, we haven't really noticed this fact.
Let's not kid ourselves, the Atttidue era was too. It was a more teenage-focused product than it was before but it was still a young person's show.
People have to accept they may not be the target audience anymore. For the company and industry to grow it has to turn its attention to the younger fans. People from my generation are fortunate as WWE 'grew up' with us. When we became teens, Attitude era came around and it was 'cool' to be a 15 year old into wrestling. But the pace of change won't keep up forever and the time is long overdue for that, this (my) generation of fans to accept that we're not longer 'it'.
Doesn't mean we cannot still enjoy the product but our tastes will have to change in line with the next generation, same as the one previous to ours had to change theirs.
|
|
hitch
Don Corleone
Hitch knot
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by hitch on Nov 18, 2012 9:40:44 GMT -5
It's not elitist at all. It's true the Attitude era produced many fan that had no interest in wrestling. No interest even in 'sports entertainment'. Jackass was a television show but it's audience weren't folk who enjoyed carefully crafted drama, characters and storyline. It was folk who thought "OMG he stapled his nutsack to a table - that's totally ******* cool!" ...similar with a lot of guys WWF attracted during the attitude era. It wasn't so much the wresting - if at al - but the shock value stunts. In the end 'wrestling' suffered. Hence why it took years before anyone could apply a sleeper before being hounded by the crowd. Those people would watch ANY show with that content. It's nothing wrong with it, but it should be accepted for what it is, a short-term fad that wasn't sustainable over a long period of time. Worse still because boundaries were pushed so far, so fast and so quickly, the industry has, to an extent - shot its load. It'll be YEARS if not a decade or two more before the business can recover from it and get back to a situation where wrestler vs wrestler is an interest concept without having to set fire to someone along the way. Give the people what they want! Like I said previously, wresting is only a finite part of the business. A percentage of the IWC loves to sift through TV ratings and buy-rates to give storylines an additional level of analysis. Take a look at what they were pulling in weekly at the time. Then to imply they were wrong to do so? Just seems odd. Giving people what they want is a failed concept in television. Hence why the new series of Boardwalk Empire is shown over many weeks with the plot slowly developing into the big reveal/surprise in the final episode. If drama took the 'give people what they want' mantra - everything would happen in week one. Because people 'want' everything there then and now. It's human nature. But from a television perspective it's not smart to give it to them. Don't give people what they want - necessarily. Give them what they'll tune into see.
|
|
|
Post by angelofapocalypse on Nov 18, 2012 9:40:49 GMT -5
Being edgy was only a niche.
|
|
|
Post by Ser Davos on Nov 18, 2012 9:53:50 GMT -5
Give the people what they want! Like I said previously, wresting is only a finite part of the business. A percentage of the IWC loves to sift through TV ratings and buy-rates to give storylines an additional level of analysis. Take a look at what they were pulling in weekly at the time. Then to imply they were wrong to do so? Just seems odd. Giving people what they want is a failed concept in television. Hence why the new series of Boardwalk Empire is shown over many weeks with the plot slowly developing into the big reveal/surprise in the final episode. If drama took the 'give people what they want' mantra - everything would happen in week one. Because people 'want' everything there then and now. It's human nature. But from a television perspective it's not smart to give it to them. Don't give people what they want - necessarily. Give them what they'll tune into see. Whilst I agree that the episodic nature worked for Raw is War, I think the business models are quite different in your example. Raw was on a network 52 weeks a year and relied on advertising. Boardwalk Empire on HBO in effect has the money upfront, and have a guaranteed 12-episode block to plan over. As a result, the writing team simply had to burn through material at a quicker pace. Additionally, the expectations in ratings are different. Bare in mind also, Boardwalk Empire doesn't have another 1920's prohibition drama on "HBD" in the same time slot.
|
|
|
Post by angelofapocalypse on Nov 18, 2012 9:56:38 GMT -5
Attitude fans will die watching if a wrestler is being put in a sleeper hold.
|
|
JTH
Dennis Stamp
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 3MB
Posts: 4,467
|
Post by JTH on Nov 18, 2012 10:01:03 GMT -5
I always found it funny that I saw as many G rated signs back during the Attitude Era as I see now...
|
|
zeez
Patti Mayonnaise
Yeah. That's right.
Posts: 32,702
|
Post by zeez on Nov 18, 2012 10:51:54 GMT -5
Yes. I wouldn't mind some more weapons and risque storylines every now and then but if anyone thinks that that alone will make the show good then they never really knew what they were talking about to begin with.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 24,153
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Nov 18, 2012 11:15:38 GMT -5
Been annoying for a while now. WWE was PG in the 80s and most of the 90s and it was a quality product.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Miz on Nov 18, 2012 11:17:25 GMT -5
They've always been obnoxious to me. A lot of the people making Anti-PG rants are way more immature than the kids that they hate. And from what I've seen, most of the people who consider the PG rating to have ruined wrestling don't know about anything before the Attitude Era. I've even seen comments such as "R.I.P. real wrestling: 1997-2008."
|
|
|
Post by angelofapocalypse on Nov 18, 2012 11:34:10 GMT -5
They don't know jack$#*& about wrestling and they were never wrestling fans before the Attitude era came along. The crash style booking is what lured them to tune in.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,859
|
Post by agent817 on Nov 18, 2012 11:44:15 GMT -5
Even though I became a fan a few months shy of turning 12, I didn't become a fan because of Attitude. I started with WCW and then started checking out the WWF. It just happened to have been around that time. It had nothing to do with crash booking. Just that wrestling started drawing my interest. Even though my interest faded in some areas, my fandom never actually died, so it's not like I watched it because it was "cool."
|
|
8.2.11/SAVIOR_NEZ
Don Corleone
Michael Nesmith, inventor of all you hold dear!
Posts: 1,534
|
Post by 8.2.11/SAVIOR_NEZ on Nov 18, 2012 11:48:31 GMT -5
I always countered the whole PG debate with the fact that WCW during its heyday was PG, yet totally compelling. When I think of the "PG era" as it's being called, it's not the rating or lack of "edgy" stuff I dislike, it's the lack of chances the company takes on new talent or angles that could be compelling. The whole CM Punk thing last summer was done under the PG rating, yet it was interesting and kept people like me watching. Sadly, it ended up resulting in the same old same old.
For me, the Attitude Era was about talent like The Rock, Stone Cold, Undertaker, Triple H, the tag teams, and all the other guys. I didn't really like the "edgy" stuff they did, it was the main angles that kept me watching. They can still do that now, but instead we get the same guys in the same matches a million times. The product isn't setting the world on fire right now, and it's the writers' fault, not the rating.
|
|
|
Post by angelofapocalypse on Nov 18, 2012 11:49:29 GMT -5
Casual fans will only like something if it's popular. But wrestling isn't really about popularity contest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2012 11:50:58 GMT -5
Why are they still watching?
It was the reverse for me. The Attitude Era was fun for a bit, but it really showed it's flaws around 2000. So I just stopped watching and didn't pick up again until 07 or 08. That's how bad the tail end of that era was for me.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Nov 18, 2012 11:51:18 GMT -5
"getting"?
|
|
hitch
Don Corleone
Hitch knot
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by hitch on Nov 18, 2012 12:12:32 GMT -5
There's nothing wrong with violence, blood, weapons etc. If used sparingly so it means something. There's everything wrong with doing it as a casual part of the every day narrative.
The Attitude era, for me, also marked the time that fans began to become marks for themselves. It didn't impact WWE as much as elsewhere but you got the feeling many fans were completely ambivalent to the concept of wrestling at a wrestling show and just wanted to turn up and mark out at smarky chants they could come up with.
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,636
|
Post by PKO on Nov 18, 2012 12:16:16 GMT -5
I've found it a lazy argument pretty much from the get-go.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Nov 18, 2012 12:19:10 GMT -5
I just wish they didn't take away protected chair shots to the head. Its get annoying to see the same set up for every chair shot.
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Nov 18, 2012 12:24:32 GMT -5
I think most people who make the "PG sucks" rants weren't even watching in the Attitude era. At least that's the impression I get.
|
|
|
Post by angelofapocalypse on Nov 18, 2012 12:27:48 GMT -5
Maybe they are being fed lies from those who don't watch it anymore.
|
|