Interesting article on the WWE

[JoeDirt 0]

Thoughts? Comments? Agree? Disagree?

 

Credit goes to OnlineOnslaught.com.

 

========================================================

 

"I mean, what nobody seems to understand about this business is that it has nothing to do with wrestling. It's entertainment. If you can wrestle, that's just icing on the cake. Well, I mean, you DO have to be able to wrestle... but what I'm saying is it's character driven -- NOT gimmick driven -- but character driven, and there's a major difference."

-- Raven, shortly before tearing your Humble

Webmaster a new asshole during an interview

 

 

Raven spoke those words back in 2000, back when I was still pretending to be on the fringes of the wrestling business and could land such interviews. And he was talking specifically about Brian Pillman when he spoke them. And yet, here in the Year of Our Lord 2004, I find myself flashing back to this snippet of conversation when I try to put a singular

 

explanation to exactly what it is that has happened to my beloved pro wrestling lately.

 

Because for all my free-form rambling about how this is all Randy Orton's fault and how pregnancy and weddings suck ass and how dumb it is to be killing Paul Bearer and crashing hearses, I've got this big ol' brain on me, and it likes to Get To The Bottom Of Things.

 

And although I've had an inkling that Raven's morsel of wisdom would be at the core of this column MONTHS ago (when I first contemplated the issue), it was really tonight's SD! that drove things home and inspired me to figure this out and put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) once and for all. For one, you had the major league debut of Carlito Cool (yet another of 2004's cookie-cutter, one-dimensional GIMMICKS, except in this case, displaying enough depth and charisma that he evolved into a CHARCTER). And for another, well, I'm a big enough asshole to take a jab at JBL and note that for as good a character as he's become, he's violating the Wisdom of Raven at a very base level (because goddammit, if what was happening in that boring-ass brawl with Bob Holly was "wrestling," then I have no idea how I ever became a fan)!

 

So with the evidence in front of me, and with some general ideas percolating in my Wrestling Brain for the better part of a month, it finally dawned on me how I could sum up the ills of wrestling in one, concise idea: that the calendar may say 2004, but WWE is trying to treat us like it's 1984.

 

Seriously. Think about it; it's a pervasive and all-encompassing aspect to the WWE product. No longer spurred by competition (sorry, TNA, you don't count until you can put out a product that appeals to the general wrestling populace and NOT just to some miniscule percentage of NASCAR-fed southerners), WWE doesn't seem to have any real motivation to be creative, original, or edgy. So they tend towards playing it safe, and easy, and dumb.

 

It's like they are trying to put the Attitude Genie back in its bottle.

 

And it manifests itself in a number of ways, too. I'm not NEARLY a big enough dick to complain as loudly as others have about the last two years of the Fed's push to implement the "WWE style" of safe in-ring work. But I'm a big enough dick to point out that, yes, it's noticeable that the company is getting away from anything resembling the 1997-2001 highspot-laden, 100 miles per hour type of matches that made the careers of guys like Mick Foley, HHH, Edge, Christian, and the Hardys. I'm glad that guys are working safer, and I'm plenty aware the good matches (AWESOME matches, ones that I saved on video and still enjoy to this day) existed before 1997, so it's not a huge deal. But this is also a case where things like Hell in the Cell and Ladder Matches are largely getting by past glories; because the gimmicks might still get busted out in the present day, but from past training, us fans go into them expecting one thing, and almost always getting another. And maybe it's only really the difference between a Match of the Year Video Keeper and something that's only a Really Good Match, but until such time as WWE gets us fully trained to forget the Attitude Era, it's one aspect in which the company's attempted roll-back to simpler times causes fans to feel a sense of disappointment.

 

Another area where I'm massively disappointed and think all manner of bitching, moaning, and complaining is justified is in WWE's push to eliminate anything even remotely smart or honest in their internet and publications business. There was a time, really not more than 18 months ago, when a fan might reasonably visit WWE.com to be enlightened and given something to think about. The Kevin Kelly Era of "Byte This" was generally a worthwhile show, the weekly Ross Report supplied fans with the web's only true First Generation Insider News, and articles were ALL written with a behind-the-scenes slant. Today, WWE has turned the website into Just Another Part of the Show; and while it's good and cool that they are using it as an outlet for more footage and clips and historical matches and stuff, it sucks that they didn't retain at least SOME area where fans looking for a bit of honesty might get their information straight from the horse's mouth.

 

I think you could reasonably declare WWE's issues with the internet to be a psychosis or a phobia; the company seems to fear and dread any kind of honest discussion, and compulsively hides behind the "if you're not in the business, you don't deserve to criticize us or even TALK about us so shut up and watch TV and quit trying to think, suckers" rationalization to eradicate the smart-fan mindset. They do this now because they can; during the late 90s, however, they realized the VALUE of being honest with fans (even had Vince McMahon cutting the "won't insult your intelligence" promo) and in an attempt to win the war with WCW, they opened up this can of worms themselves. Now that there is no competition, us worms who like to talk about wrestling in a slightly more-in-depth way than spouting off "Orton RULZ, dood" and high-fiving our body-spray wearing, frosted-hair douchebag of a friend are being told to kindly go fuck ourselves. And WWE can conduct its business as they please, I guess; but I can conduct mine as *I* please, too, and I think it's completely sac-less of them to be so scared of a bit of genuine discussion and honesty to the point that high level backstage discussions are spent telling workers how to avoid leaking news to the internet when they SHOULD be putting their energy into making sure the product doesn't blow. And as per a previous column/rant on this issue, mostly I just don't understand how WWE could mindlessly cut off a potential revenue stream (they COULD make money of smart fans, if only they had the balls and the creativity to do something like a company-funded and -sanctioned version of OO -- nobody, NObody, is suggesting that they let ignoramuses and stop-watch-using goons what populate most websites run the show, but there ARE smart AND responsible ways to do insider talk) just because they are afraid of a little criticism.

 

The same goes for the Fed's magazine business. Here, it started significantly longer ago than 18 months, but it was no less precipitous a dip when RAW Magazine went from being practically a must-read item every month (and not JUST because of the half-naked diva pictures, though those never hurt) to every bit as stultifyingly dumb a read as its counterpart, WWE Magazine. I mean, those things are great if you're a kid, maybe. I remember reading WWF Magazine when I was in grade school, and have probably a good 5 or 6 years worth of them in a box somewhere at my mom's to prove it. But even when I was a kid, something in me realized that the WWF Magazine was pretty freaking lame, and started buying the PWI magazines by the time I was 12 or so. And after flirting with pertinence (and after once again getting me back on subscriber lists for a couple years, even!), WWE's publications are right back where they started: appealing to nobody except the absolute dumbest or most naive.

 

And these aren't even the really CORE problems. I mean, like I said above, there were good matches in the 80s, and they didn't involve flying through tables. And the dumbening of WWE's internet and publications presence is horribly frustrating, but it also really only hits at a secondary level of fandom (you have to be a big enough fan that you don't just like wrestling, you like READING about wrestling, and when even WWE's own publications only circulate about 200,000 copies a month, as compared to weekly viewers on the magnitude of tens of millions, this really ISN'T a key market for them).

 

So I'll try to leave those minor quibbles behind, and get to the point... cuz what's important is this issue of Gimmick vs. Character, and how it manifests itself in the on-screen product. And specifically, it's a slide back to the 80s and early-90s mentality that "gimmick" is enough to get by that's hamstringing WWE creatively these days.

 

Nobody will deny that every good character needs a hook, but in 2004, it seems like WWE has forgotten that once that hook is exhausted, there was to be some depth for fans to much care about a performer. I can't remember the last year in which the list of debuting characters has been so one-dimensional. And instead of them being "archetypical," they're basically only stereotypical, too. Predictable, boring, dumb. Just like the 1980s.

 

Now, I don't want to shit too much on the era that made me a fan (and if you're roughly my contemporaries, that you probably remember fondly, too), but when you think back, you pretty much HAVE to grant that it's a good thing you were a kid in 1988, cuz otherwise you would NEVER have been watching that crap. For every Jake the Snake Roberts, you had a dozen Hillbilly Jims. For every relatively effective button-pushing gimmick like the Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff, you had embarrassing nonsense like "Saba Simba." For every attempt to spoonfeed fans a new character that worked, you STILL had massive revolts even from the weak-minded unwashed masses (what nobody remembers is that the Honkytonk Man made his debut on TV as a BABYFACE, and with the endorsement of HULK HOGAN, but was so roundly booed that they had to change gears and pretend like that never happened).

 

As you moved into the 90s, WWE's lust for cartoony gimmicks expanded into wrestling plumbers (TL Hopper), wrestling monks (Friar Ferguson), wrestling clowns (Doink), wrestling hockey players (forget his name, dammit), and even -- in the height of pure missingthepointery -- a WRESTLING WRESTLER ("the Pug," who did Kurt Angle's amateur wrestler GIMMICK year before Kurt himself showed up and used it to build his CHARACTER).

 

And then, wrestling grew up. The Monday Night Wars meant the WWF had to quit being so bloody-mindedly stubborn about THEIR vision for what was "good wrestling," and start producing something that would appeal to fans and get them to quit watching that other show. Attitude was born, clowns were killed, Steve Austin was allowed to ditch the "Ringmaster" GIMMICK and develop his "Stone Cold" CHARACTER, and we have spent the better part of the last 7 years enjoying performers who maybe didn't debut as really deep and complex characters but who quickly developed into them thanks to quality storytelling and better performances.

 

But it doesn't seem like this maturation has stuck. Because we sit here today with WWE ejaculating characters that we might have expected 10 or 20 years ago, but which I thought we were past here in 2004. This year's debuts? It's stuff like "Mordecai," whose lone personality trait was apparently that he like dipping his head in bleach, because other than that, he was nothing but a GIMMICK (he hated sinners). And like Simon Dean, whose vignettes are SO well-produced that they are just as predictable and fast-forward-able as a REAL commercial (his gimmick is he hates fat people). On the horizon, we've got Mohammed Hassan, who might get over in that Iron Sheik sort of "press the hot button" way, but who is also about as lazy and easy a gimmick (he's a Muslim!) as you can imagine. And do you know how close we came to having Hirohito's grandson (who I'm sure would have hated all WWII vets as his primary hook) as a gimmick, instead of Kenzo Suzuki?

 

Apparently, gone are the days of letting a guy come in and use some part of his own personality to get over with fans. In 2004, there have only been two cases of guys DITCHING lame gimmicks to be more "real" when debuting with WWE (Tyson Tomko and Luther Reigns). And while only one of them (Luther) has really shown the spark of becoming a CHARACTER, this still doesn't mean that I want the core of simple realism to become the exception rather than the rule.

 

And with the over-powering gimmickry taking over, it's ALSO worth noting that the only two gimmicks that I think will have a non-zero shelf-life are also the only two gimmicks that have been backed up with enough storytelling and have been performed with enough gusto that they are CHARACTERS.

 

One is obviously Eugene. What could have just been The Wrestling Retard gimmick (and which would probably have been shipped back to OVW even quicker than Mordecai was) was given real meat thanks to interactions with William Regal, and later with Triple H. And it also helps IMMENSELY that Nick Dinsmore is just damned fine at pretending to be retarded; it's one thing to go out and seem natural when you're portraying a character named "Carlito Cool," it's another entirely to create the seamless illusion that Dinsmore has with "Eugene." And without that, the character would have flopped months ago.

 

And as noted above, I think the other gimmick-cum-character is Carlito Cool, who frankly impressed the hell out of me last night. Yeah, he's doing Razor Ramon (right down to the apple spit replacing the toothpick toss), but he's doing it well enough that when you watch (or least, when I did) I wasn't thinking in terms of him "doing" anything. He was just coming off really naturally, not as an affected gimmick. I get the impression that maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but I say "Yay" for Carlito getting the US Title and for -- in one night -- showing more natural personality than Randy Orton has shown in three months.

 

Which brings me to my last point on the gimmick vs. character discussion... because this isn't JUST about debuting superstars and how they've taken a turn for the dumb in 2004 as part of WWE's Turn Back The Clock Campaign. Like I said at the outset, this is an all-pervasive aspect to the product, and it's a HUGE part of what's wrong at the main event level.

 

I'll just gloss over SD! and JBL (I made my joke; JBL has made me eat crow by becoming a tolerable TV personality, but when his Match Ceiling is "Average," I just don't see enough of a WRESTLER there to back up the character)... because if you've been reading along with the Rick for the last few months, you know it's RAW and Randy Orton that have been sanding my vagina with regularity. And it's because of this Character Issue.

 

Quick: in one sentence, who is Randy Orton?

 

Because no, Randy is not a "gimmick" in the sense that Eugene is (though both appear to have the same basic level of intelligence!), but he's also NOT anything resembling a character. His "legend killer" shtick sort of set the tone for Randall being a Disrespectful, Pompous Punk Kid... but there are only so many legends to be killed, and now that he's trying it as a fan favorite, that potential character element has to be toned down. What we're left with is just a beer-fruiting, line-fumbling, chin-locking shell of a dude.

 

If we leave our preset notion of what is a "wrestling gimmick," and just grant that the core issue Raven was getting at is the distinction between building up a mere facade (doing things on a surface level) and creating a real, complex persona, then WWE's treatment of Orton fits in perfect with this notion of gimmick vs. character. Week after week, they try to do glossy, surface-y things to build up Orton; and week after week, fans might give him the kneejerk reaction to those isolated moments (does Orton get cheered when he makes these appearances? Sure, but it's VERY telling that when he's NOT on-screen, fans will chant for somebody ELSE to come out to interrupt or make a save or whatever, and have never ONCE been caught begging for "Randy, Randy, Randy" when there are "HBK, HBK, HBK" and "Benoit, Benoit, Benoit" chants to be had). But I honestly don't think Orton's even one of RAW's top three babyfaces today even with the massive promotional effort.

 

Exactly ONCE has Orton been put in a spot where he was able to convince us that there's something going on inside that head of his besides an internal dialogue of "Look, me posing now". Of course, that was last week and the Flair promo. Over those 10 minutes, Orton was speaking with conviction, and seemed like he might be a real guy; he's a guy who was a Wrestling Dork when he was a kid, prancing around in his bathrobe pretending to be Ric Flair. Perfectly sensible for a kid from a wrestling family, but a really nice little touch of realism. Orton's emulation of Flair is something that probably struck a chord with a lot of fans. For that one week, we understood a LITTLE bit of what Randall was all about.

 

So of course, this week, we're back to square one. Orton has no personality of his own, so they send him out to do Stone Cold Steve Austin's shtick. Orton, who is ostensibly feuding with Ric Flair and who has designs beyond that of eventually getting his hands on HHH and the World Title, clears the ring of 15 b-teamers because SOMEbody thought, "Hey, fans will HAVE to believe Orton kicks ass if he can RKO the Coach!"... how fucking lazy is that?

 

But it also fits in with WWE's overall plan with Orton. Nothing the kid has done since July has built on the previous week, really. A randomly generated title shot here, getting kicked out of Evolution there, it's all just a stream of one-off moments, and although even *I* was enthusiastically contemplating the many cool possibilities of the Demise of Evolution, we got NONE of that. Nothing. No over-arching story, no real reason to give a shit about any of it.

 

It starts with not being given a reason to give a shit about Orton. This is also part of the reason why, in my mind, HHH should be the babyface in the equation (Orton leads Evolution against its master), because he IS a character, he HAS spent years convincing us of what he's about, and even if what he's about is being a singularly world-title-hungry asshole, that CAN be vaguely respectable. Give fans the chance, and they'd cheer for HHH without having to be goosed with fabricated "moments."

 

And I guess I can't escape this without also noting that there IS a Performance Aspect to all this. Flair promo and one or two glimmers of conviction during the Foley Feud aside, Orton really hasn't been the sharpest promo guy in the world. Mayhap it's telling that when he gets good material, that's when he delivers it well... but to really click with fans, you need to be "on" all the time, just like Eugene. Thrice a year doesn't cut the mustard if you're trying to craft a complete character for yourself.

 

But performance aside, this really is a problem of WWE's mindset... rather than paying attention to details and telling stories that matter and even listening to how fans are reacting, they are back to that Tunnel Vision of the pre-Nitro era. They don't have to take a Big Picture View of anything, cuz they are the only game in town, and the McMahons and their minions can sit there and tell themselves "We know how to run a wrestling company, so we'll just do this our way," and it'll all be a self-fulfilling prophecy as long as nobody minds declining ratings and box office numbers. Their solution to RAW's Randy Orton problem is NOT "Stop, think, and improve our storytelling to specifically suit Orton's -- and the brand's -- needs." It's "run Randall out there to do the lazy, surface-y babyface crap that has worked for us in the past, and fans will cheer for him because we're WWE dammit, and they'll do as we say."

 

It's wrong, I say it's part of this whole Character Issue, and I think it's one of the clearest signs that WWE's desire to dumb the product back down to 1980s levels DOES have negative effects on things besides where hardcore fans get their insider news.

 

I'm not advocating the return of crotch-chopping and gravy-bowl matches, necessarily... but there were good things that came out of the Attitude Era that have gone missing lately. The creativity, the putting personality ahead of gimmickry, the basic sense that this was a product for grown-ups, and not just some predictably one-dimensional Hogan-esque morality play... these things probably shouldn't have been dismissed so easily. Grown-up stories with subtlety and depth DO have a place in wrestling; if they didn't, then Paul London and Billy Kidman wouldn't have been able to rope in the fans and steal the show last weekend on PPV. Having that little TASTE of complex characters makes it all the more frustrating when WWE surrounds them with rank gimmickry.

 

Like Raven said, "It's ENTERTAINMENT." And I tend to think that there's a reason why we had a convergence of wrestling "growing up" and also becoming massively popular in the late 90's: because the product was damned entertaining once it ditched the crutches of the preceding decade. And now whether its the spirit-sappingly lazy gimmickry of debuting superstars (Mordecai, Mohammed Hassan, et al) or the soul-crushingly inept handling of world title contenders (just handing Orton superman shtick from the past and expecting that to suffice), WWE is starting to revert back to those crutches.

 

And that just ain't cool. And the Rick, he spits in the face of any wrestling company that doesn't want to be cool.

 

Imagine an apple-take, and we are through here, kids. Enjoy the weekend (play-off baseball and a bunch of HUGE college football games should make that an easy thing to achieve), and I'll be back here on Monday to play catch-up on some of the news I've missed today, and also to get you ready for RAW and the rest of the Wrestling Week...

[DrVenkman PhD 0]

Thumbs in the middle

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

Kinda long winded, and didn't really say very much.

 

He kinda contradicts himself in that he says he was hooked on wrestling in the 80s, but then blasts the WWE for trying to go back to that era. And then says they would be better off copying things from the late 90s. Well, btoh periods were successful, so how can you say going back one era is good and the other is bad?

[haVoc 0]

That's kind of the problem. They're trying to get a younger fan base with the 80's style gimmick characters, but then turn around and try to have an 90's edge with angles like Kane and Lita.

[Shanghai Kid 0]

Would you guys like ANY article? It seems like you guys s*** on everything.

[Guest Shoes Head]

Would you guys like ANY article? It seems like you guys s*** on everything.

Ever since someone advertised a TSM banner on scotsmanality this has been the case. Scotsman's army corrupts all.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

(because goddammit, if what was happening in that boring-ass brawl with Bob Holly was "wrestling," then I have no idea how I ever became a fan)!

 

I stopped here. When writing such a long column, it really helps if you use limited swearing, because you have to develop some fucking credibility in your first few paragraphs to convince people that reading the rest of it would be worth it. From this and complimenting CCC, the most I could do was randomly pick things out. And from what I picked out, he isn't really saying anything that hasn't been said here lots of times.

[Slayer 0]

I stopped reading Rudo's post when he said "fucking"

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Aroused you, no?

[Guest GreatOne]

It was over and done with when he said 'HHH should be the face"

 

We DO remember HHH's 'success' as a face right?

[Guest fanofcoils]

Why couldn't Evolution just stay together? They weren't getting stale, they seemed the same in the summer of 2004 as in any other time when all 4 group members were together. Evolution wasn't offensive and didn't set business on fire, now with this Orton-Evolution feud, things are just worse.

[jester 0]

I am pretty much in agreement with what he says, except the idea of HHH being a face. No rational human being could want that. Face HHH makes Hogan look generous in the job department.

[Guest Mr. Wrestling]

It was over and done with when he said 'HHH should be the face"

 

We DO remember HHH's 'success' as a face right?

Which run however?

 

HHH was successful as a face during D-Generation X and during his mini-run in mid 2000 where he made fun of Kurt Angle.

[Guest GreatOne]

That would be the one we all know and love, Jan-July 2002. Of course how and he and Shawn Michaels essentially switched roles would be a great sticking point for this article (gee Shawn brought back DX--nevermind THAT version of the group were heels--guess he must be a face now).

 

The other run was too short and wasn't really a face run other than the current Kane route.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

That was an awesome run. That "pose" he did, usually when right behind someone, was such a... awesome... pose.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

However... HHH AS a face in this certain angle against Orton made more sense. Orton had won the title that HHH has spent his summer (yep that's sure a long time) going after, and why would Evolution follow the loser when they had the World Champion right there in the same stable. It works either way though.

[Guest MikeSC]

I have a problem with the words "interesting article" and "Rick Scaia" being used in concert like this.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Yes, HHH bombed as a face before. But Orton is bombing worse now than HHH did from Jan-July 2002. It would be easier to turn HHH fac ethan turn Orton face. More than anything, the storyline happened far too soon.

[Guest GreatOne]

The reasoning of why Orton goes face should outweigh any reason HHH had.

 

Let's see:

 

Trips tries to use Eugene/Flair/Batista/whoever to do his dirty work for him against Benoit, and fails each time.

 

Orton wins a CLEAN match against Benoit (not to mention the two times he went over Foley clean).

 

With all that, why the hell am I--as the mark--supposed to cheer HHH?

 

I think the mistake here as it was is that they were counting on HHH being gone from September-January or whatever for filming, thus HHH would get the HHH/Big Show/wow you're back pop and it didn't happen.

[Guest Loss]

HHH is an established character and we "know" him better than we know Orton, because we've seen how HHH reacts to just about every situation. Call it familiarity or whatever, but the crowd *would have* been more likely to cheer HHH than Orton, whether it made sense or not. He was the more over of the two and Evolution already gets face pops anyway. HHH/Flair v Orton/Batista was the right way to go, with the young guns as heels.

 

I agree that HHH is a better fit as a heel, but so is Orton, and if the goal is to make him a star, it's *his* strengths that need to be put first in the booking.

[Guest Brian]

Orton would have been best served if he had been the guy to displace HHH in Evolution. When Orton ascended to world title status, it was him over-taking Triple H.

[The Tino Standard 0]

This is the first thing written by The Rick that I've read in months... While I agree with just about everything he said here, I think he hit a few fundamental stumbling blocks...

 

1. None of this is anything we haven't heard before. "WWE is giving us gimmicks instead of characters, and they don't care to do anything more because they're the only game in town." And in other news, the sky is blue!

 

2. He's preaching to the choir. Everything that he said is the stuff we've all been grumbling about for months.

 

3. While it's nice to see a well-thought-out piece, the sad truth is that it's a blatant waste of time. Does anybody honestly think this will diatribe will in any way affect what we see on our TVs? No.

 

The Rick makes a strong case here, but unfortunately, the jury and the prosecution are one in the same, and they don't give a shit about his OOpinion.

[Guest DVD Spree]

Ever since someone advertised a TSM banner on scotsmanality this has been the case. Scotsman's army corrupts all.

You're welcome.

[NoCalMike 0]

The article made a bunch of spot on points that we discuss here on a regular basis, but the writing was sloppy as hell.

[Promoter 0]

I think he made some good points, but I believe the wwe should combine the best of the 80's boom with the 90's attitude boom. I will try to write a better essay on what the core problem of the wwe is. It's just that they don't know how to implement the best of the 80's and 90's without dragging down the product. I will start off with what Raven said with his quote. I mean everyone knows this is entertainment. The problem is the differing views on what the entertainment should entail. I agree about things being character driven, but I also believe that it's really about the story-telling and the depth of the characters. On the same level of importance is the actual in-ring performance. You got to deliver in the ring or all the great storytelling and character development will not get the product far for too long. It has been proven since 1999.

 

I will start with the 1980's. I think many people always remember the latter 80's when the wwf got really cartoonish. Notice that the business started to fade with that direction in the early 90's. The true strength in the 80's was the realism and presentation that what we were seeing was a sporting event. I believe this should be implemented today. The atmosphere of events I say from 1985-1987 made wrestling unique. Let's look at the top storylines of the time period and the performances to back it up.

 

Exhibit A

The biggest match-up of the time period was Hulk Hogan vs. Andre "The Giant". What was the storyline for this match? That Hulk Hogan would defend the wwf heavyweight title against Andre the Giant in a battle of the undefeated. Hogan undefeated as champion against Andre who was undefeated for 15 years. Andre turned heel because it stated that Bobby Heenan got his suspension lifted and got in his ear about being undefeated and not getting a title shot against his "friend" Hulk Hogan.

 

Where did all this back story go down? On Piper's Pit. Roddy Piper who also just returned and won back his interview spot from Adrian Adonis. Piper who was a heel returned as a face because of the story with Adonis. Piper who was the main heel against Hogan was now befriending Hogan in his time of betrayal from Andre the Giant. Andre was so sure of a victory he had his own belt made and presented to him on Piper's Pit. The wwf continued the rivalry on SNME by having Hogan get thrown out by Andre in a battle royal making the encounter for WM 3 more anticipated. The two faced off and the match had a lot of heat. At the event the wwf even added more long term depth to the show by showing Hogan's championship victory celebration with Andre. Hogan ended up winning the match by slamming Andre the Giant. There was controversy in the match to set up a future rematch which we all know went down on prime time television a year later. This is awesome storytelling and the characters delivered in the ring in terms of aura and ring presence. The storyline was a simple story of betrayal between friends over a championship. Jealousy over success and somewhat of a mentor vs. student backdrop where Hogan said he always wanted to be like Andre the Giant. The fact that this all seemed realistic and based in reality sold the match as epic instead of telling us it's epic.

 

*If this was done today the wwe would pull it off like Hogan having destiny to defeat Andre the Giant to supplant the Hulkamania era. That it was a passing of the torch match. They would TELL us this instead of letting it happen and having fans decide that it was. When you shove it down people's throat in this manner it takes away what it truly could be. They would try to manufacture this match as the defining moment taking away the magic.

 

Exhibit B

The Intercontinental Title was revered as the "hot potato" title held by wrestling technicians. The title was defined just like the heavyweight title. The title was a tool unto itself regardless of the character/storyline. Randy Savage was a defending champion who was threatened by Steamboat as a challenger and tried to not only defeat him, but eliminate him from the sport. Steamboat gets injured where even the "Living Legend" Bruno Sammartino got sickened by his display and went on to challenge him. Steamboat returns in a title defense of Savage against George Steele which was also a well-defined feud where Steele loved his manager Elizabeth. Steele was his top challenger for a year before the Savage incident and Steamboat's backdrop was Steele in his corner. Steamboat won the match in a classic at WM 3 in front of a record crowd.

 

*If done today. Steamboat would get injured and return a month later to win the championship taking away the virtuous Steamboat's return from injury to help George Steele in his feud and get into it with Savage in his first "medically cleared" ppv title challenge.

 

Exhibit C

Randy Savage became WWF heavyweight champion by winning the only championship tournament in the history of the company. The build up to the tournament was excellent where Hogan the popular champion was robbed of the title on national television. Savage ended up winning the title against the man who orchestrated the robbery of the championship in Ted Dibase. He got help from Hogan whom he made a Mega-Power partnership a few months earlier on SNME when he came to help Elizabeth and Savage.

 

Savage's reign went on for a year, but the problem was Hogan was seen as the real champion. Savage the champion felt this, but did not say anything. He also felt Hogan was moving in on his manager. The whole thing built up to the mega-powers exploding on national television. Hogan regained the championship he did not get a fair rematch for at WM 5.

 

*I think the love triangle of Trips/Angle/Steph is proof of how this would go down today.

 

Exhibit D

Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Warrior battled in a popularity contest where both were the respective champions of their divisions. The wwf promoted it as the Ultimate Challenge where the two greatest stars in the galaxy clashed. Ultimate Warrior got the pinfall and somewhat of the upset in a classic. He became a dual champion.

 

Now, these are the top matches and draws of the respective 80's boom. No where is there nonsense like The Goon or Doink the Clown. There was a mature aspect to these storylines that were based on athletes having conflicts about championships. The championships were basically above the wrestlers. I think if the wwe of today can produce this kind of element it would help greatly in making the main events have mainstream appeal again.

 

*I think a good comparison on how this would be done today is the Katie Vick scenario where Kane and Trips champ vs. champ match took place. The stipulation wasn't even clear as it was not noted if the title would be gone or unified.

 

Now, I will take a stab at what were the best elements of the attitude era:

Exhibit A

The war between wcw and the wwf. In all of the cartoon crap that was spewing during that time this was the thing that got people interested in the product. Bischoff went to war with giving away results and whatnot. Soon, the wwf attacked wcw with the Billionaire Ted skits. The wwf proclaimed they were in a midst of a new generation. In all of this came a realistic storyline that they fell into. Bischoff signed Hall and Nash who were big in the promotion of the "new generation" campaign. Bischoff made it seem like they were invading. Even the court ruling to let the world know that they did not work for the wwf anymore was used to their advantage as it seemed like they were on a secret mission from Vince Mcmahon. When Hogan joined the group and made his heel turn it worked because it made complete sense that the man who made the wwf would turn on wcw. The storyline and characters were well developed and defined.

 

*Today I think the best example of a an attempt of an earthshattering heel turn was Steve Austin turning in Texas at WrestleMania. We know how well Austin's heel turn went the night after. The fans didn't really buy into it at all until a few weeks later. The reason being that Austin had already defeated Rock in the past and why would he join up with Vince Mcmahon to defeat him now(I would have used Austin's fused neck as an excuse).

 

Exhibit B

Austin vs. Mcmahon

We all know how well thought out this angle was. However, the basis for the storyline was really rooted in Bret Hart's return and his tussles with Austin and America's values. Vince Mcmahon came out as the real boss slowly in all of this. Mcmahon's heat with the audience and Austin's well defined character of being anti-establishment set the tone for the entire company's return to the promise land. The secret here is that it was manufactured, but it was basically true that Vince was the puppeteer and Austin refused to be the puppet by not being a corporate champion. The culmination of this was The Rock defending against Steve Austin at WM 15. The Rock fit the role of corporate champion because of his initial push of doom, but he was improving and placing him in the storyline of Survivor Series '98 made him a star.

 

*Today=Randy Orton and Eric Bischoff///Cena+Eddie and GM Kurt Angle

The above have no base in reality and the characters aren't defined.

 

The differences of the two eras imo are that in the 80's the stars made the matches and storylines deliver, while in the 90's the storylines made the stars because they did not have the star power of the previous generation. The trick with the 90's was placing the guys in storylines where it was believable that they belonged in it. Rock being a corporate champ made complete sense. Mankind being used as a tool by Vince Mcmahon also made sense. Austin the anti-hero from the days of winning over the crowd against Bret Hart going up against the corporate values of Vince Mcmahon also made complete sense. Now if the wwf could do the best of both worlds they would be a lot better off. The problem now is they don't make a whole lot of sense and rush things. We all know this, but I think Scaia comes down on the 80's a bit too much without realizing that a lot of the bad of the attitude era is in the current product of doing things "now now now" and putting guys who aren't ready in spots to fail.

 

The story with Randy Orton is actually a good one imo, but the execution has been bad. I also credit them for trying to make it different than what they did with Rock and The Nation. The problem is actually Orton is simply not ready to pull this angle off the way it should be. The Rock of 1998 pulled it off because he was ready for the position. I bet if Rock was given this angle it would work wonders and the creative team would not be getting crapped on. I still don't agree with HHH being a face in all of this as he says. HHH is a much stronger heel that fans would rally against. The problem is how Orton's performance and material have been played out. The biggest thing missing in today's product which was there in both the attitude and 80's boom is the lack of presenting these guys as competitors fighting for championships and the heels sucking up to the administration. Today, we have Triple H actually punking out Bischoff without any repercussions and the faces not having any heroic tendencies for titles or fighting for what the audience wants.

 

In the 80's, Hogan fought for his country, friends, for what was right and to keep the championship in his hands for the Hulkamaniacs. In the 90's, it was Austin in the form going up against the establishment, doing what he wanted when he wanted, screwing up the plans of the establishment by becoming champion and just not giving a **&^. In contrast, Hulk Hogan came out of the facade he made in the 80's by showing himself to be self-serving and an ego-mania as "Hollywood" Hulk Hogan. The characters gained depth and realism in real-time with the world. There was a buzz for when the nWo returned because of the storyline behind it being that they would destroy the wwf in the same fashion they did with wcw. There was a double etendre here. The wwe today lacks this aspect. That is what they implemented in the 90's that was missing in the 80's. The backstage stuff was thrown in with the on-screen stuff to blur things making it a "new work".

 

Can anyone honestly say the wwe has done anything even close to this since the night before WrestleMania 17 with the raw/nitro simulcast? Vince's character was on point that night and Shane was on point. However, the wwe destroyed all of this by becoming a bit too fantasy from then on. Brock got a very good storyline in 2002, but he was not ready for it about the time he won the title when he was catching on after beating Hogan on smackdown. I don't think it's so much reverting back to the 80's so much, but also using the worst aspects of the attitude era(action adventure direction in 1999).

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

What seems to get over the most is making a top face and just having him dominate people. Since Austin turned heel in 01, the WWE has become more like the NWA int he 80s where the stories are generally based on a dominant heel and they build up a new babyface to take the title, only to lose it back to the dominant heel and they do it all over again.

 

That concept never drew with WWE fans like the superman babyface concept did. But the problem lies in not only finding but cultivating that new strong babyface. In the WWE right now I just cant see a babyface getting over like Hogan or Austin did.

 

Take Eddie, they had something building with him probably starting last fall. I remember that show from El Paso where Eddie had the US title, and at that point he looked like a huge star ready to breakthrough. But what did the WWE do? Instead of protecting him, they had him get semi-squashed by Bog Show to lose the US title, and then he was doing JOBs for the Bashams as part of his program with Chavo. Now, he did wind up winning the title, but then, soon after, SD was crippled and the WWE gave up on Eddie before he had a chance to establish himself.

 

Going further back they had Lesnar as a babyface and he appeared to be getting some momentum off clean wins over Rock and Taker (in HIAC). But then what happened? He did a JOB for Big Show. Again, Lesnar also wound up winning the title, but much of his superman aura was destroyed in the match with Show. And then totally destroyed when they had him go 50-50 with everyone he defended the title against.

 

On RAW you've got the HHH problem, when faces are only built up so they can be fed to HHH (NWA booking). Goldberg was brought in and although he was booked poorly from the start (Rock's promos and the Goldust thing killed him for me), they did manage to get people to care about him with the Chamber match and Goldebrg's title win at the subsequent PPV in Sept. And as Goldberg remained champion, he seemed to be building steam. But the WWE, like with Lesnar and Eddie cut him off at the knees when he lost the title to HHH.

 

Same thing basically happened with Benoit. Benoit started off well with huge (clean) tap out wins over HBK and HHH at Mania and Backlash, and had a string of amazing singles and tag matches on RAW. But after Backlash HHH wanted the spotlight back, and Benoit was put on the backburner, and began losing steam. I cant predict what would have happened with Benoit, but it seems to me they didn't give him a real chance to run with the ball.

 

Most recently we've seen their attempts to make Randy Orton the next big superstar. But again we see some booking mistakes that even rookie bookers wouldn't make. Like turning a guy who had no reason to turn. Having the top baby run from fights, having him get beat down every second week, and worst yet having him do multiple JOBs on TV and PPV.

 

Think back to the builds of both Hogan and Austin, exactly how many times did they run from a fight? How many times did they get laid out for dead to end a show? And how many JOBs did they do?

 

I mean I guess you could point to Austin doing the two JOBs to Bret, but in those matches it was clear (and a lot of this was because of Bret) that Austin was the rising star in the match, even though he lost. With Orton-HHH, I haven't seen that.

 

So thats the main problem I see right now. Its like they "want" to create new stars, and they kinda try. But they dont get behind guys long term like they used to. Austin's push started in June of 96 and he didn't cause the WWE to create a TV victory until April 98. Thats basically 2 years! Who since has been given that type of a chance to run with the ball without having their legs cut from under them? And we all know what happens when fans see that no new stars get created, they dont get behind new talent because they know ultimately they will wind up in the middle of the card. And who really wants to get behind someone who is only average?

 

Of course there is always the chance that guys will fail. Nash and Luger were good examples of guys the WWE put a lot of effort into and ultimately they failed. So obviously just "trying" to make a new star doesn't guarantee another Hogan, Austin or Rock, but IMO they guarantee they'll never create a new top level superstar by using their current methods.

[Guest GreatOne]

Austin's push started in June of 96 and he didn't cause the WWE to create a TV victory until April 98. Thats basically 2 years! Who since has been given that type of a chance to run with the ball without having their legs cut from under them?

One thing, though, you should kinda move the date to September/October when he started calling out Bret (thus a reason that Vince signed Bret to the MEGA-CONTRACT OF DOOM!~). Between post-KOTR and Mind Games, the Austin 3:16s rivaled the Whats, but he still wasn't doing anything of note. Hell the most memorable part of that 'run' was Yoko (R.I.P) flying off the top rope.

[Promoter 0]

Tjhe CyNick, that is a good observation. There is no defining "face" of the wwe at the moment. The best chances were Goldberg and Lesnar. I know it's beating a dead horse, but isn't it ironic that since 2000(which was a profitable and critically acclaimed year) the wwe has not done traditional wwf booking? I always did see the argument that the chase for gold is better than having the gold which I disagree with. If strong contenders are made for the champion the champ would remain strong. The case used was Rock's title reign in 2000 compared to Triple H and people believing Rock's chase of the title was more interesting than being champion. Well, that may have been true, but the problem was HHH was still the main focus with his love triangle feud. Rock was basically in the same kind of position that Benoit was in this summer. I do believe Brock was mishandled and I think Brock should have won his first world title at WrestleMania 19. He should have won the I-C title first. Drop the IC title and win the Rumble. Again, it's in hindsight, but seeing Brock gaining steam and then losing it around Survivor Series '02 to Big Show.

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

I think you can get a lot of money out of the babyface making an initial chase for the title (WWE did this with Austin in 98) and maybe one or two subsequent chases. Austin had compelling chase stories in 99 (kinda the final act in the initial Vince-Austin program) and again in 01 (which was Austin's first run at the title after his injury.

 

However, when you constantly take the title off the face and back on the heel, the whole chase story loses momentum, because people have seen it over and over.

 

Austin also had a tremendous run in 98 after he won the title. I recall house show business, TV ratings and PPVs doing really well with Austin carrying the title for 6 months or so (minus the one day Kane title reign, which was just a TV ratings ploy). Ditto for Hogan in the 80s, who only seemed to pick up steam as his reign went on. I would contend Hogan started to go downhill as they started to take the title off him more and more (ie Warrior in 90 and then Taker in 91). Now granted Hogan was buring lured by Hollywood at that point, but still I think having him lose the title over and over made the chase stories that followed less and less intriguing.

 

But whats worse now is that we dont even have one strong face who carries the title most of the time. What we have are two world titles, that are not very strong, and on top of that, neither brand has had one strong babyface for more than 6 months or so. There's nobody for the fans to rally behind. Now the new faces seem to be Randy and Cena, but with the WWE being so trigger happy, how much money would you put down that either of these guys will get more than 6 months to turn business around before they get cut off just like everyone else?

[Slayer 0]

One problem I've had in the last couple of years is the audience interaction. It seems like a lot of the wrestlers and other characters don't interact with the crowd much anymore. The crowd used to be an interactive element that wrestlers would draw from, much like the crowd of a sporting event. Now, instead, the crowd has moved behind "the fourth wall" like a live studio audience for a sitcom that the wrestlers never acknowledge in their acting with each other (except to pause maybe for the occasional crowd response that does happen anymore.)