| Jumpin said: OK, here's a question I have. I'm aware of the Attitude era, when they used the WWF Attitude logo, and afterward came the whole "Get the F Out" thing, and then the WWE era when they began using the WWE Entertainment logo. When did people start to collectively start calling this the "Ruthless Aggression era?" despite the fact that WWE didn't have any such brand?
Many people now extend the Attitude era back to 1996, but realistically it is only due to some scattered Attitude era-like moments that occurred in 1996 and 1997 rather than actual branding; but this doesn't make a great deal of sense since there's a lot of Attitude era-like stuff that continues on until at least Benoit's death; checking Wrestling history, the last Bra and Panties match occurred in 2007. While Vince announced the Attitude era in 1997, it really wasn't until around March 98 that the programming and storylines began to mostly match the new philosophy he said the Attitude era was going to be about, a little before Wrestlemania where Stone Cold defeated Shawn Michaels - phasing out the last major champion of the Pre-Attitude era generation (incidental, actually, due to injury); all this happened the same month as the actual introduction of "Attitude" to the logo. Anyway, I understand the Attitude era as being from 1997 to 2002; with the major angles being: Austin vs. McMahon, The Corporation, The Wedding, The McMahon Helmsley Regime/Faction, The Rock's era, Austin's return, The Invasion, and finally the NWO and return of Hogan. Incidentally, the WWE stopped using the Attitude logo in May 2002, the same month Austin and WWE had their dispute, ending with Austin temporarily leaving the company June 3rd. After the logo disappeared, many of the sorts of Attitude era style angles and match types began to disappear. To me, May 2002 is a very logical end to the Attitude era, but I see people now ending it over a year earlier in March 2001 due to a heel turn with Austin, despite the Attitude era style still going full steam.
One more random observation: there’s a lot of really hardcore fans who seem to rate matches, not on their own opinion, but based on what they think the most uneducated casual wrestling fans will think of it. It’s like their reviewing matches based on some fictional version of their own opinion! IMO this comes off as a dishonest opinion steeped in pseudo-objectivitism, when all anyone wants to know is “What did you think of the match?” I bring this up because I’ve been in a bunch of arguments now, and they all seem to be about this one thing: Me: “Wow! What a great match! That was a lot of fun.” Then, “Moment X sucked because it buries Wrestler A, and Wrestler B didn’t need that victory.” Me: “You honestly think that, you now no longer like Wrestler A because of this?” Them “No, but people will think that.” Me: “Which people are saying this?” Them “People are talking.” and then they proceed to show me a thread or article where the author is effectively doing the same thing - assessing the match not on their own opinion, but based on how they perceive some fictional group of idiot fans will think of it =P |
The term ruthless aggression comes from a phrase in 2002 used by Vince McMahon. John Cena also uttered "ruthless agression" in his debut against Kurt Angle. Anothery key point about that month being the start of a new era is the brand extension, that was a significant change to the WWE.
It's not just wrestling I've noticed people doing that, but also in movies and video games. Rather than just rating it by how much they enjoyed the action or story, they include other things such as camera angles, lightning, frames per second, graphics rather than how much fun they had. Wrestling fans are pretty bad though when it comes to complaining about people being buried.
Essay Pro