|
|
Post by adam3s on Oct 27, 2013 3:51:13 GMT -5
I never got why people like to see the invasion as not part of the attitude era. It was a big storyline but certainly the shows didn't have a whole now look and direction. To me, the Monday Night Wars and the Austin/McMahon feud were the main points of the Attitude Era. Both of those ended within a week of each other in 2001. You're right that the tone, the look and the feel of the shows didn't change much at all, but it's definitely difficult to classify it as the Attitude Era. Well maybe that's the difference between some people. I saw the invasion as a continuation of the MNW and I felt Austin and McMahon were interacting enough to feel like their feud was continuing also. Plus the year after brought the brand split, Lesnar, Rey, Bichoff, WHC and Rock/Austin no longer being the top faces. |
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
WWE Eras
Oct 27, 2013 4:32:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by TGM on Oct 27, 2013 4:32:41 GMT -5
The Attitude era didn't just stop when Wrestlemania 17 finished.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Oct 27, 2013 4:59:24 GMT -5
The Attitude era didn't just stop when Wrestlemania 17 finished. No, but it was the beginning of the end. The Invasion angle was the transition between the Attitude Era and the "WWE Era" which began with the name change and still continues IMO to this very day. I do not consider "Ruthless Aggression" or PG or the brand split to be seperate eras but part of the one that began in 2002 and that WWE are still in. |
|
|
|
Post by Instant Classic on Oct 27, 2013 5:00:57 GMT -5
Ruthless Aggression era was my favorite era. Smackdown was so amazing.
|
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
WWE Eras
Oct 27, 2013 5:09:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by TGM on Oct 27, 2013 5:09:05 GMT -5
The Attitude era didn't just stop when Wrestlemania 17 finished. No, but it was the beginning of the end. The Invasion angle was the transition between the Attitude Era and the "WWE Era" which began with the name change and still continues IMO to this very day. I do not consider "Ruthless Aggression" or PG or the brand split to be seperate eras but part of the one that began in 2002 and that WWE are still in. I disagree. We had many more years of Attitude era guys wrestling post WM17. Nothing much changed after this until the brand split. |
|
|
|
Post by DoubleDare on Oct 27, 2013 5:45:51 GMT -5
As I said, WM17 was the beginning of the end, and WM18 was the final nail.
Plus what else would you call the perion between Survivor Series to a few weeks after Wrestlemania X8 when the brand split happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Oct 27, 2013 5:48:51 GMT -5
No, but it was the beginning of the end. The Invasion angle was the transition between the Attitude Era and the "WWE Era" which began with the name change and still continues IMO to this very day. I do not consider "Ruthless Aggression" or PG or the brand split to be seperate eras but part of the one that began in 2002 and that WWE are still in. I disagree. We had many more years of Attitude era guys wrestling post WM17. Nothing much changed after this until the brand split. I define the Attitude Era as being the period where WWF shifted into a edgier style when they lost the ratings lead to Nitro, to the end of WCW, so Wrestlemania X-Seven with several ex-WCWers in the skybox watching, represented the end of it all. |
|
Tha Don
Bubba Ho-Tep
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 518 
|
Post by Tha Don on Oct 27, 2013 6:46:15 GMT -5
I'm personally partial to the idea that the Attitude Era ended at WrestleMania 18, since a significant part of the card is WWF vs. WCW guys and it was the last Mania before the name change. Or maybe around the time they changed up Raw with it's theme Across the Nation |
|
TGM
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,073
|
WWE Eras
Oct 27, 2013 8:14:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by TGM on Oct 27, 2013 8:14:07 GMT -5
I disagree. We had many more years of Attitude era guys wrestling post WM17. Nothing much changed after this until the brand split. I define the Attitude Era as being the period where WWF shifted into a edgier style when they lost the ratings lead to Nitro, to the end of WCW, so Wrestlemania X-Seven with several ex-WCWers in the skybox watching, represented the end of it all. I just can't see it. Most people say the Attitude Era ended with WM17 but we were still getting crass, edgey tv (Katie Vick, Snitsky and the baby) etc. I think it started to tail off in 2003 and was finally done by the time Cena and Batista reached their peaks. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Oct 27, 2013 9:24:11 GMT -5
I define the Attitude Era as being the period where WWF shifted into a edgier style when they lost the ratings lead to Nitro, to the end of WCW, so Wrestlemania X-Seven with several ex-WCWers in the skybox watching, represented the end of it all. I just can't see it. Most people say the Attitude Era ended with WM17 but we were still getting crass, edgey tv (Katie Vick, Snitsky and the baby) etc. I think it started to tail off in 2003 and was finally done by the time Cena and Batista reached their peaks. Some risque content took a while to fade away, but the defining elements of the era had already passed. |
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Oct 27, 2013 9:25:17 GMT -5
I define the Attitude Era as being the period where WWF shifted into a edgier style when they lost the ratings lead to Nitro, to the end of WCW, so Wrestlemania X-Seven with several ex-WCWers in the skybox watching, represented the end of it all. I just can't see it. Most people say the Attitude Era ended with WM17 but we were still getting crass, edgey tv (Katie Vick, Snitsky and the baby) etc. I think it started to tail off in 2003 and was finally done by the time Cena and Batista reached their peaks. I get what you're saying, but that stuff was more like the dying gasps of an older era. The difference was that in the Attitude Era stuff like that was working and in subsequent eras it simply wasn't. My opinion anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by DoubleDare on Oct 27, 2013 9:39:06 GMT -5
I'm personally partial to the idea that the Attitude Era ended at WrestleMania 18, since a significant part of the card is WWF vs. WCW guys and it was the last Mania before the name change. Or maybe around the time they changed up Raw with it's theme Across the Nation Well, both of those events are only 2 weeks 1 day apart (Wm18 March 17th, first brand split raw was April 1st) so same period really. I do agree its about when stuff wasn't being pulled off as good and didn't work. Its why I would say 1996 and even the first half of 1997 (rockabilly anyone?) cant be considered the attitude era either. Really after the invasion not working that great, then you got jericho vs hhh, the nwo, both which didn't really captivate people as the storylines were til that part and didn't work our well. Then the brand split just cemented it. |
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Oct 27, 2013 11:34:08 GMT -5
The Attitude era didn't just stop when Wrestlemania 17 finished. No, but it was the beginning of the end. The Invasion angle was the transition between the Attitude Era and the "WWE Era" which began with the name change and still continues IMO to this very day. I do not consider "Ruthless Aggression" or PG or the brand split to be seperate eras but part of the one that began in 2002 and that WWE are still in. I'm not sure how you can lump 2002-present in one large era. Watch a Raw from 2002 and then compare it to one from this year. They're two entirely different shows. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Oct 27, 2013 12:28:13 GMT -5
No, but it was the beginning of the end. The Invasion angle was the transition between the Attitude Era and the "WWE Era" which began with the name change and still continues IMO to this very day. I do not consider "Ruthless Aggression" or PG or the brand split to be seperate eras but part of the one that began in 2002 and that WWE are still in. I'm not sure how you can lump 2002-present in one large era. Watch a Raw from 2002 and then compare it to one from this year. They're two entirely different shows. 2002 was the last ebb of the Attitude Era so naturally the content would be different. But for the most part, the name change and the end of the Monday Night Wars represented a shift in the company, and major shifts are what define era changes IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Oct 27, 2013 15:11:51 GMT -5
Rock N Wrestling - Januray 1984 until WrestleMania 6 Post Rock N Wrestling - Wrestlemania 6 until Wreslemania 9 New Generation - Wrestlemania 9 until WrestleMania 13 It seems like a lot of people tend to lump everything from 1985-1993 into the "Rock n' Wrestling" category, but I completely agree that there needs to be another split in there sometime between 1989 and 1991. There is no way the era of Bob Orton, Don Muraco, Adrian Adonis, and Wendi Richter is the same as the era of the Barbarian, the Mountie, the Undertaker, and Razor Ramon. Even though there wasn't any sort of turning point (unless you count Warrior winning the title), the overall feel of the product was much different before and after that time span. ^AGREED. WWF in the early 90s was nothing like it was in the mid 80s. The style of programming had changed vastly from 89 onwards. |
|
Tha Don
Bubba Ho-Tep
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 518
|
Post by Tha Don on Oct 27, 2013 15:13:47 GMT -5
Or maybe around the time they changed up Raw with it's theme Across the Nation Well, both of those events are only 2 weeks 1 day apart (Wm18 March 17th, first brand split raw was April 1st) so same period really. I do agree its about when stuff wasn't being pulled off as good and didn't work. Its why I would say 1996 and even the first half of 1997 (rockabilly anyone?) cant be considered the attitude era either. Really after the invasion not working that great, then you got jericho vs hhh, the nwo, both which didn't really captivate people as the storylines were til that part and didn't work our well. Then the brand split just cemented it. The only reason people say 96 and also early 97, is mainly for - Steve Austin - 3:16, Austin vs. Bret. |
|
|
|
Post by DoubleDare on Oct 27, 2013 17:18:25 GMT -5
Well yes, and bret vs austin and the hart foundation did set the foundation for the attitude era you could say.
So I guess its what you consider a start of an era when one storyline is like what the company will become or when most of the company's direction is in it.
I think when todd pettingal left is clearly the best starting point lol once he was gone the attitude era could truley commence! lol
|
|
