Guest Report post Posted May 31, 2002 Why do people assume WWF(E) attitude must suck? When I watch OLD wwf footage (like 97-98) the storylines were very addictive...Undertaker v.s. Kane, Stone Cold v.s. everyone, mcmahon/austin up until and including WM15... I agree over doing the "larger than life" cartoon character stuff kills the promotion...but just the right amount of fantasy does wonders for the promotion...for example Steve Austin has a gimmick...he isn't a cartoon however. That "Stone cold" not trusting anyone, being tougher than a frozen bagel persona makes him (or at least made him) interesting to watch. But it seems a large amount of smarts would have him coming into the WWF as "Steve Austin" and just getting over on good wrestling... I think there is definitely room (and sometimes a need) for characters...I like the Hurricane better than Hurricane Helms (well I liked Sugar Shane better than them both, but...), I like Billy and Chuck better than Billy Gunn and Chuck Palumbo--- and I liked Razor Ramon better than scott hall... and why is it that people think Attitude means Crash TV? I am all for edgier and more compelling storylines coming back to the WWE and I think that AND a combination of longer matches on television is an answer to the poor product. E.g. I LOVED the Booker V.s. Stone Cold in a supermarket.......until it ran for 15 minutes...it was crazy, spontaneous and something new. If it was just a tiny little snippet here and there instead of whole segment long sagas I think it wouldn't have been a ratings disaster. Opinions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest papacita Report post Posted May 31, 2002 Wrestling does have to have a certain amount of fantasy, but they have to be realistic to a certain extent. That Stone Cold supermarket beating you mentioned...it was new (and stupid, depending on who you ask), but seriously, what the hell was the camera doing in the supermarket anyway? Same with the church scene the next week. The church skits were funny as hell, but they've gotta start coming up with better reasons to have a camera in these weird places. As for Attitude...I think that relates more to shock value than anything (i.e., Goldust in a diaper, DX showing their asses on TV, porn star gimmicks...etc). This helped the WWF to a certain extent in 97-98, because people were tuning in to see what the WWF was gonna do next, and ended up getting hooked through good, solid storylines like the ones you mentioned. Shock loses its value after a while, good writing doesn't, which is really the problem with the WWE right now. Right now, WWE shouldn't be trying so hard to recreate the Attitude era and spend time building its future. With good, well thought out storylines and good wrestling to match, maybe the WWE would be doing better in the ratings than they are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted June 1, 2002 Why do people assume WWF(E) attitude must suck? When I watch OLD wwf footage (like 97-98) the storylines were very addictive...Undertaker v.s. Kane, Stone Cold v.s. everyone, mcmahon/austin up until and including WM15...>>> Umm UT v Kane was ADDICTIVE? Poorly-written, illogical, idiotic, and a waste of time I can go along with. But ADDICTIVE? -=Mike ...People say that a dozen chimps, working non-stop, could eventually churn out the collective works of Shakespeare. A sick llama with a migraine and a nasty hangover could churn out the work of Russo in 20 minutes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Risk Report post Posted June 1, 2002 I agree with Mike on the UT/Kane feud. That was(and still is)a horrible gimmick. Basically, anything supernatural, cartoonish, or unbelievable should be done away with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
