|
Post by rkmo: 9 Month Warning on Feb 19, 2020 15:35:29 GMT -5
I thought they covered it quite abit at the end of Episode 1? They implied that Vince decided WWF was in need of a change. They never said anything about the World Wildlife Fund lawsuit. So like the Attitude Era then lol
|
|
|
Post by FLUX '97 on Feb 19, 2020 15:58:09 GMT -5
One of the top two eras of professional wrestling history. Bless up. The 80s and attitude era say hello! Neither of those are correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 9:51:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 16:04:58 GMT -5
The 80s and attitude era say hello! Neither of those are correct. They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s.
|
|
|
Post by tylerbreezee on Feb 19, 2020 18:02:20 GMT -5
Neither of those are correct. They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s. What does having to be a kid in the early 2000’s mean? There have always been ways to watch wrestling from previous eras and the 80’s was not good. Just a bunch of huge steroid taking guys in speedos who couldn’t wrestle their way out of a paper bag compared to today’s talent. The Attitude Era was good when it came to “entertainment” value, which was their main goal. The wrestling was subpar but the storytelling however in the matches was better than most, if not all in the current age of wrestling.I think a lot of people consider the start of Raw (Which wasn’t good) to be the Attitude Era when it really didn’t start until the very end of the 90’s.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 9:51:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 18:38:48 GMT -5
They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s. What does having to be a kid in the early 2000’s mean? There have always been ways to watch wrestling from previous eras and the 80’s was not good. Just a bunch of huge steroid taking guys in speedos who couldn’t wrestle their way out of a paper bag compared to today’s talent. The Attitude Era was good when it came to “entertainment” value, which was their main goal. The wrestling was subpar but the storytelling however in the matches was better than most, if not all in the current age of wrestling.I think a lot of people consider the start of Raw (Which wasn’t good) to be the Attitude Era when it really didn’t start until the very end of the 90’s. Roddy Piper, Ricky Steamboat, Tully Blanchard, Bret Hart, Randy Savage, etc were huge steroid taking guys who couldn’t wrestle their way out of a paper bag???
|
|
|
Post by Triple S: POOR on Feb 19, 2020 19:03:26 GMT -5
Neither of those are correct. They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s. The Ruthless Aggression Era is far better than the Attitude Era and to degree, slightly better than the Golden Era... in terms of in-ring wrestling.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 9:51:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 20:37:48 GMT -5
They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s. The Ruthless Aggression Era is far better than the Attitude Era and to degree, slightly better than the Golden Era... in terms of in-ring wrestling. The golden era and the attitude era were the most popular and money making periods in the wwe. Better stories and characters too. Wrestling hasn’t had a boom period since WCW died. There was no boom period during the ruthless aggression era and ratings started going down.
|
|
|
Post by FLUX '97 on Feb 19, 2020 20:39:47 GMT -5
Neither of those are correct. They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s. Because I have eyes and taste.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 9:51:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2020 21:35:41 GMT -5
They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s. Because I have eyes and taste. And I see when you were born and you were a kid back then. You grew up on that. It’s fine I get it now.
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Feb 19, 2020 23:15:02 GMT -5
Can we not argue over this? Everyone has opinions regardless if you agree or not.
|
|
|
Post by A-Rob on Feb 20, 2020 3:12:01 GMT -5
Just watched the Cena episode and it was alright, really liked the OVW footage.
|
|
|
Post by RuthlessFigs on Feb 20, 2020 19:56:48 GMT -5
Neither of those are correct. They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s. Ruthless Aggression is better than both of those. Fact.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Feb 20, 2020 20:22:25 GMT -5
They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s. What does having to be a kid in the early 2000’s mean? There have always been ways to watch wrestling from previous eras and the 80’s was not good. Just a bunch of huge steroid taking guys in speedos who couldn’t wrestle their way out of a paper bag compared to today’s talent. The Attitude Era was good when it came to “entertainment” value, which was their main goal. The wrestling was subpar but the storytelling however in the matches was better than most, if not all in the current age of wrestling.I think a lot of people consider the start of Raw (Which wasn’t good) to be the Attitude Era when it really didn’t start until the very end of the 90’s. I get it if it’s not your cup of tea, but don’t get it twisted: the 80s featured some of the absolute BEST workers in all forms. in some ways they are far better than the wrestlers of the RA era or today. their ability at storytelling during a match, controlling the crowd’s emotions to each move, is unmatched today. just go back and watch how much more into the matches the crowd were. it’s unarguable. it wasn’t uncommon to see people crying. also I have never heard anyone say that the start of raw was the attitude era. most people point to 1997.
|
|
|
Post by LA Times on Feb 20, 2020 20:29:03 GMT -5
The ruthless aggression era was from 2002-2007/2008. Shouldn't this be in the classic-wrestling board?
|
|
|
Post by TheChamp420 on Feb 20, 2020 21:16:51 GMT -5
Watched the first two, not bad
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Feb 20, 2020 21:54:57 GMT -5
The ruthless aggression era was from 2002-2007/2008. Shouldn't this be in the classic-wrestling board? Agreed, I'm getting sick of all this RA 5hit. Everyone said how awful it was when it happened and now it's like the newest fad.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 9:51:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 7:05:03 GMT -5
The ruthless aggression era was from 2002-2007/2008. Shouldn't this be in the classic-wrestling board? Agreed, I'm getting sick of all this RA 5hit. Everyone said how awful it was when it happened and now it's like the newest fad. That Stephanie and Vince feud was riveting wasn’t it 😂
|
|
JP
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jun 24, 2019 13:46:50 GMT -5
Posts: 3,076
|
Post by JP on Feb 21, 2020 7:08:14 GMT -5
Look, every era has its good and bad. EVERY era - some people like one era more than others, and that's OK.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 27, 2024 9:51:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2020 17:49:56 GMT -5
They're better than the RA era. How could you not think that? You must have been a kid in the early 2000s. Ruthless Aggression is better than both of those. Fact.Nah, it's your opinion. This thread should be moved to the classic forum. That's the fact
|
|
|
Post by IRS on Feb 21, 2020 20:42:58 GMT -5
Was I the only one that noticed when they we’re talking about bad over the top storylines, they showed mostly ones that happened DURING the RA era? Also wonder how they’ll gloss over the Katie Vick storyline and the complete Scott Steiner vs Triple H feud. Cause those were the worst. I noticed it and thought it was ing hilarious. They're the talking about WWE's forced edginess wasn't working anymore... while showing a clip of the Torrie/Dawn feud, which took place firmly in the RA Era.
|
|