MrElijah
Crow T. Robot
Posts: 42,855
Member is Online
|
Post by MrElijah on Dec 20, 2019 12:28:05 GMT -5
Hot take: the lows of the 2000s were lower than the lows of the 2010s. Not that this will change anyone's opinion or should be the determining factor when deciding better, but let's keep in mind just how dreadful massive chunks of 2003, 2004 and 2009 were. No, that is facts. 2009 was a special type of horrible. Thank God for Summer of '09 Smackdown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 12:51:11 GMT -5
The few that voted for 2010s, speak up. We need a dialogue here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 13:03:49 GMT -5
Yeah there's no way that the 10s was winning this. 00 had arguably the best WM ever, a few of the top stars in wrestling history (Austin, Rock, Cena), amazing ringwork, memorable moments, money being at a high like nah, this isn't a contest.
How about we just rank the decades instead? Somebody start a new thread and rank each decade from the 80s to 10s. If not then each era because this is too easy.
|
|
|
Post by chronocross on Dec 20, 2019 13:07:05 GMT -5
2000's easily, I know a good chunk of that was the Reign of Terror on Raw by HHH, but Smackdown during 2002-2004 and 2008-09 evens it out, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Dec 20, 2019 13:11:00 GMT -5
Even the best year of the 2010s (probably 2011 or 2016) would only be like, the 7th best year of the 2000s.
That should tell you everything.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Dec 20, 2019 13:39:25 GMT -5
This comparison really vividly portrays how pointless a lot of the last decade of WWE programming ended up feeling.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,158
|
Post by agent817 on Dec 20, 2019 19:48:19 GMT -5
Funny thing is that I kind of enjoyed the Nexus angle from 2010. Although there were some problems with that. They had a lot of potential, but were often jobbed out to Cena.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 20:45:56 GMT -5
Take away 2009 and the 2000’s were actually amazing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 20:49:29 GMT -5
You never what really killed my interest with WWE in the 2010s? When they changed the format for live shows to look more like house shows.
Say what you want about RAW in the 2000s, but it had much more energy than any of the no pop crowds of today's RAW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2019 22:27:16 GMT -5
You know, I voted for the '00s here based on the product of the era, but I actually enjoyed WWE a lot more during the '10s thanks to the Network. Granted, that was mostly due to watching stuff from the '80s and '90s almost exclusively, but my experience with WWE is worlds better now than it was ten years ago.
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 20, 2019 22:36:14 GMT -5
In 29 years of watching this company, 2000-early 2001 is my favorite period in WWE history. In addition, 2002-03 had the Smackdown Six, and 08 featured the oft-touted Jericho/Michaels feud. I'm not saying there wasn't good stuff this decade, but they could never capitalize on it or sustain it in any meaningful way and it would always end up hitting the skids. So there's no comparison as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by David-Arquette was in WCW 2000 on Dec 21, 2019 21:56:47 GMT -5
2000s if only for 2000 itself. Holy shit, what a year!
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Dec 21, 2019 22:07:09 GMT -5
2000s, for damn sure. There are moments in the 2010s I like, but there has not been a year in the 2010s with a sustained period of quality.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Dec 27, 2019 21:37:55 GMT -5
Hot take: the lows of the 2000s were lower than the lows of the 2010s. Not that this will change anyone's opinion or should be the determining factor when deciding better, but let's keep in mind just how dreadful massive chunks of 2003, 2004 and 2009 were. You think so eh? What are you comparing? Katie Vick or WM XIX Book/HHH with......eh I'm trying to think of genuine comparisons against those strong examples...uh Hogans return to tv or I guess the whole Saudi thing? I don't know if the later examples created worse tv though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 21:59:31 GMT -5
I remember RVD bitching about going to Iraq in Christmas. There was always sort of foren affair bs.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Dec 28, 2019 1:12:59 GMT -5
Hot take: the lows of the 2000s were lower than the lows of the 2010s. Not that this will change anyone's opinion or should be the determining factor when deciding better, but let's keep in mind just how dreadful massive chunks of 2003, 2004 and 2009 were. You think so eh? What are you comparing? Katie Vick or WM XIX Book/HHH with......eh I'm trying to think of genuine comparisons against those strong examples...uh Hogans return to tv or I guess the whole Saudi thing? I don't know if the later examples created worse tv though. The Benoit situation, I’d assume. Arguably the lowest point in the history of the business. I’d say 2000s. Much higher highs even with the lowest low, while the 2010s were kind of a mid-lower level plateau for most of the decade.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Dec 28, 2019 1:51:33 GMT -5
Hot take: the lows of the 2000s were lower than the lows of the 2010s. Completely agreed... and yet that's the crux of the problem with WWE in the 2010s. This has been a decade of quiet stagnation, with the overall format and presentation of the product still largely unchanged since 1998. The concerns that the FCW+ generations of new wrestlers wouldn't be able to get over or become draws under WWE booking proved completely correct, and it's a problem WWE still hasn't solved or even really made a serious attempt to solve. The Attitude Era stars aged out of working full time... so they're still getting wheeled back in to prop up big events, with steadily diminishing returns. The last guys to break through were Punk and Bryan, indie stars who had the advantage of already having dedicated fanbases before entering the WWE meat grinder, and WWE's followed up by largely abandoning the last vestiges of their failed developmental system and turning it and the main shows' midcards into a platform for more indie and international talent... also to steadily diminishing returns, as every last one gets chewed up into the same stale, complacent format. The one and only attempt to really bring a fresh new face to prominence this decade has been Roman Reigns, a performer with pretty much the exact same strengths and weaknesses as management's choice for a new top star from the previous generation, Randy Orton. For all his kayfabe acomplishments, Orton never went anywhere except as a foil to more interesting performers, and Roman's career has largely been a look at how Orton would've played out without a Cena surpassing him and forcing him to find a more appropriate niche. That Roman's main event push has been an utter failure is less notable than that its utter failure has done nothing to stop WWE from repeating the same effort, again and again, without any serious efforts to rethink what's continually gone wrong over the past five years. They're out of ideas. They've been out of ideas for well over a decade, really, but there used to be some spasms of life left in that horse they're beating. At this point, all that's left is a gentle but steady decline until a major entertainment conglomerate decides there might be some value in buying the IP, or until Vince McMahon dies.
|
|