391 replies to this topic

[Gary.]

December 16, 2012
Barclays Center
Brooklyn, New York




We pretty much already know that the Main Events will come down to Ryback and CM Punk, and Sheamus and The Big Show.

[Brass]

Alright, let's start this off with a bang:

For those who think the Attitude Era was better than today's product, as if those words had never been uttered before; we get it. Congratulations for being an internet wrestling fan. With that in mind, kindly off. Go buy the new Attitude Era DVD and leave this topic for those who actually watch today's product and don't instantly compare it to the Attitude Era. Your opinion is not new and there's plenty of other message boards and dirt sheets for you to bitch about out there. We're getting tired of it here.



I digress. On with the thread!

[TheOldRoman]

Eh. I am a fan of the current product and watch every week, but I think they have botched nearly every storyline with potential over the past several years and I still greatly preferred the Attitude Era. Also, I don't follow any wrestling-specific boards or websites. What does tht make me?

[Andy]

Does everyone else giggle when Michael Cole refers to Ambrose, Rollins, and Reigns as "youngsters?"

[DL Watt]

Heres a take on my TLC Card....

World Heavyweight Championship Match (Chairs Match)
Big Show © vs Sheamus

WWE Championship Match (Tables Match)
CM Punk © vs Ryback

WWE Tag Team Championship Fatal 4 Way (TLC Match)
Team Hell No © vs PTP vs Rhodes Scholars vs Rey Mysterio/ Sin Cara

Falls Count Anywhere
John Cena vs Dolph Ziggler

WWE Intercontinental Championship
Kofi Kingston © vs Wade Barrett

WWE US Championship (Ladder)
Antonio Cesaro © vs R-Truth

[NEW.ERA]

I would love to see a TLC match for the Tag Titles. Hopefully Cody is back by then, doubtful though.

[Gary.]

If no Rhodes Scholar, I can see Primo and Epico take their spot.

[NEW.ERA]

Also, hopefully this is the last TLC PPV. I can't get behind a Chairs Match.

[Ice_Cap]

The Attitude Era was so hit or miss anyway.

That being said, I don't think people should be discouraged from being critical of the current product.

[Nyk33]

 Brass, on November 21, 2012 - 10:14, said:

Alright, let's start this off with a bang:

For those who think the Attitude Era was better than today's product, as if those words had never been uttered before; we get it. Congratulations for being an internet wrestling fan. With that in mind, kindly off. Go buy the new Attitude Era DVD and leave this topic for those who actually watch today's product and don't instantly compare it to the Attitude Era. Your opinion is not new and there's plenty of other message boards and dirt sheets for you to bitch about out there. We're getting tired of it here.



I digress. On with the thread!

The Attitude Era is better than today's product.

Now with that out of the way I must say that I look forward to Dean Ambrose's first promo. Rollins (he was boring in ROH and is still boring.) and Reigns (do not know enough about but he seems like a good enforcer type) I am not that interested in.

As for the match card I pretty much agree with DL Watt

[jr79]

Why is Wade Barrett not using that Winds of Change sideslam as his finisher? I know its only a sideslam but he makes it look damned nasty when it hits.

[DG_Now]

I wonder how much of "the Attitude era was better" is more generally "I miss my childhood."

[Ice_Cap]

 DG_Now, on November 21, 2012 - 18:35, said:

I wonder how much of "the Attitude era was better" is more generally "I miss my childhood."

I think that's it to a certain extent. Stuff like the McMahon/Austin angle and Austin and The Rock both emerging were legitimately great, but at the same time a lot of the Attitude Era was just Crash TV (thanks Russo ). Throw a bunch of crap at a fan, and see how bad it can get while still getting people to tune in.

[habsfan1]

 DG_Now, on November 21, 2012 - 18:35, said:

I wonder how much of "the Attitude era was better" is more generally "I miss my childhood."

I disagree with this. I have watched a number of old PPV's and episodes of Raw from 1997-2000, this year, and I can clearly see why people praise this era. It's not just because of childhood memories. It's because the storylines were targeted to adults. If today's programming targeted adults in their own way (not nessacarely the Attitude Era way), the product may improve, possibly even without a TV-14 rating.

Today's era has some good talent too (Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, Dolph Ziggler). I believe that many of the Superstars are not benefiting from this kind of PG era, or in other words, these limitations are causing too many of them to be stale. I'm not saying that every storyline needs to be pure gold. There's always ups and downs. I'm just saying that certain guys could create more interest, if their hands weren't tied together.

[Ice_Cap]

 habsfan1, on November 21, 2012 - 18:52, said:

 DG_Now, on November 21, 2012 - 18:35, said:

I wonder how much of "the Attitude era was better" is more generally "I miss my childhood."

I disagree with this. I have watched a number of old PPV's and episodes of Raw from 1997-2000, this year, and I can clearly see why people praise this era. It's not just because of childhood memories. It's because the storylines were targeted to adults.

The Attitude Era was most definitely NOT adult oriented. It was aimed at teenage boys, and it showed.

[MBurmy]

Because TLC is in Brooklyn, here's hoping we see a couple of hometown heroes reunite even if only for that PPV. (Yo yo yo yo!)

[Cujo]

 Brass, on November 21, 2012 - 10:14, said:

Alright, let's start this off with a bang:

For those who think the Attitude Era was better than today's product, as if those words had never been uttered before; we get it. Congratulations for being an internet wrestling fan. With that in mind, kindly off. Go buy the new Attitude Era DVD and leave this topic for those who actually watch today's product and don't instantly compare it to the Attitude Era. Your opinion is not new and there's plenty of other message boards and dirt sheets for you to bitch about out there. We're getting tired of it here.

The reason you hear so much about the Attitude Era is because that was when the WWF actually gave the fans what they wanted. Fans wanted to see Steve Austin piss off the boss. Done. They wanted to see hardcore matches. Done. Divas wearing practically nothing. Yep. The WWF lived on the edge, and the fans swallowed it whole.

Today, WWE fans still want the same thing as they were given during the Attitude Era. But for whatever reason (Chris Benoit, Linda McMahon, no rival federation) the WWE has decided to dial it wayyyy back. Fans get a huge pile of "blah" now. I hear the fanboys yap about how amazing some of these "Cena Era" guys are, but I simply don't see it. Most guys are pretty boring on the mic. Outside of CM Punk, nobody is edgy. No one really captivates and electrifies in the ring. So what's the draw then? I would wager than most fans who continue to tune into Raw only do so hoping to catch a glimpse of the past. I know that's why I still lurk. But after so long, you just become immune to the disappointment.

[Mings]

You do realize its geared towards families again because they need to hook the next generation to survive, right? We were hooked in the 80s and 90s, and then came of age along with the Attitude era. Now, a lot people our age are starting to have families of their own. Would you let your little one watch what they put out in the Attitude era? No. Its a cycle. Give it 5-10 more years, when the current kids become teenagers/young adults it will get racy once again.

[Brass]

 Mings, on November 21, 2012 - 22:38, said:

You do realize its geared towards families again because they need to hook the next generation to survive, right? We were hooked in the 80s and 90s, and then came of age along with the Attitude era. Now, a lot people our age are starting to have families of their own. Would you let your little one watch what they put out in the Attitude era? No. Its a cycle. Give it 5-10 more years, when the current kids become teenagers/young adults it will get racy once again.

Thank you.

The roots of the Attitude Era trace back to the 80s. Those kids got hooked, got older, wanted something more edgy, and got it. Since that era died out, for the most part, the WWE was absolute crap from about 2003-2008. Thus, they're back to square one.

As long as the in-ring action is good, I could care less what happens outside of the ring. I'd say the crop of in-ring talent is better than it's ever been. Charisma-wise, probably not as much, but this year's PPV matches have been damn good.

[Cujo]

 Brass, on November 21, 2012 - 23:18, said:

 Mings, on November 21, 2012 - 22:38, said:

You do realize its geared towards families again because they need to hook the next generation to survive, right? We were hooked in the 80s and 90s, and then came of age along with the Attitude era. Now, a lot people our age are starting to have families of their own. Would you let your little one watch what they put out in the Attitude era? No. Its a cycle. Give it 5-10 more years, when the current kids become teenagers/young adults it will get racy once again.

Thank you.

The roots of the Attitude Era trace back to the 80s. Those kids got hooked, got older, wanted something more edgy, and got it.

No.

The WWF Attitude Era happened because of the direct competition fom WCW. For the first time, they were behind ratings, and Vince knew that getting as edgy and racy as possible would draw fans back. They pushed the envelope and it worked. But through the years, their main draws like Stone Cold, The Rock and Kurt Angle got older and left the company. At the same time, the WWE faced some huge PR-nightmares, like the Muhammad Hassan storyline and Chris Benoit murders. Pair that with the fact of Linda McMahon wanting to buy her way into the Senate. Basically, the WWE forced themselves to go soft. The WWE going soft had absolutey nothing to do with intentionally  "hooking young kids". You've got to be higher than Jake Roberts to buy into that bull$hit.