I don’t know. I find I enjoy AEW quite a lot. It’s stuff like AEW, the old NXT, and the women’s revolution that kind of got me back into wrestling in more recent times while before all I really cared about was Japan (particularly women’s wrestling) and the Attitude era WWF - especially the latter half from late 99 to early 2002.

WARNING, Rant :)

I watched the Attitude era in full a few years ago on the WWE Network, minus Heat (which was a shame), and I found the first half (late 1997 to about late 1999) to be rough to get through. Don’t get me wrong, The Brood, Shane’s antics, Foley, Austin, and The Rock we’re all great, but it’s the other 85% of the content that I wasn’t into. Triple H became super entertaining in 1999, and the whole McMahon Helmsley regime was a giant shot of interesting stuff compared to the Corporation and Ministry - which I couldn’t get into “It was me Austin, It was me all along!” Is treated like this whole big decisive moment in WWE memories of the Attitude era, but when it originally happened it was a big anti-climactic “Uh, what?” - and going back to it in context, it’s about the same. Worse, nothing came of it. The storyline just ended cold stop.

Some of the disgusting Big Boss Man stuff, like feeding Al Snow his dog was actually a highlight, and so was the pee-pee choppy choppy. All that low brow stuff, I know people hated that stuff, but I found it entertaining; especially compared to most of the content. But the product became SO much more coherent between about Terri Runnels contract (E&C vs Hardyz) and Royal Rumble - IMO, the match with Foley vs Triple H was the best he did in WWE (at least). In 2000, especially by the later Spring, I was enjoying the whole show of any given RAW or Smackdown. Although, that period was a lot shorter in reality than it was in my memory. What was no more than a few months takes up something like the equivalent of 3-4 years in my memory (when compared to other periods of wrestling). The “Who ran down Austin?” story was massive, even if the conclusion left a little to be desired. As much as people hated Biker Taker in retrospect, I thought the character was substantially more interesting than Magical Ministry Undertaker - to each his own. And perhaps the Alliance storyline fell a little short given that it flipped so much on its head at once, but it was a lot of fun going back, and IMO this deranged heel Austin was way more fun than 98-99 Austin. While 2001 IMO wasn’t as good as 2000, it was still great (IMO). But after the whole “Get the F Out” I found the show declined in storytelling, even if the wrestling slept improving. IMO, NXT was on a whole different level, the women - who were a side show in the Attitude era, were putting on matches with better moves and better storytelling than they were in the Attitude era and subsequent years.

Why I like AEW? It’s not quite the Attitude era and it’s not quite classic NXT, but it’s the closest thing to a combination of the two I’ve ever seen.

I think the general concensus is that the reveal of McMahon was anticlimactic. I think what people liked is that McMahon is so great at hamming it up, but the story there wasn't great. It was a meme in the days before memes. The alliance storyline was terrible, but a lot of the fault in that is just the situation. Most of the big WCW stars had contracts that guaranteed their money, and they didn't have to work non-WCW events so they were just "welp I'll just sit home and take my check thank you very much". So, they wound up focussing the storyline on WWF's guys. Which, maybe they'd have done anyway, but without the NWO, Sting, and those guys, the whole thing was kind of pointless.

 I fell out of WWE for a large potion of the Cena era, which was more to do with the structure than anything else. I didn't watch regularly until the Network, because no way I was paying 50 bucks per ppv, and the sites that stream them were mega sketchy. Now I watch it, and more often than not it's a pleasant way to spend a Sunday afternoon or whatever. It's not like when I was 13 and it was like the most super important thing ever, but it's decent. It's comfort food.

I can see the comparison between the AEW and the Attitude Era, because in both cases, people were kind of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. In WWE I generally know what to expect, where in AEW there's definitely more of an "anything can happen" vibe which is sometimes good sometimes not. But, on the flip side, there's little to no consistency.

Ultimately, people watch TV shows for characters. In WWE I basically know who I'll see each week. I may not see every person every week, but pretty much every person will be someone I've seen before and have had a chance to make a connection with, and if it's not they'll take the time to establish who they are and why I should care. Or at least try, sometimes they fail. AEW it's a revolving door. Aside from some of the biggest names like Punk or MJF, it's anyone's guess who will appear from week to week. Most wrestlers, even people who are bigger names like Christian, Darby Allin, Sammy Guevara, or Thunder Rosa are on Dynamite once or twice a month. I'm not seeing people enough to care about them, and I can't really tune in for them cause who knows who will be there this week. Maybe Keith Lee will be on the show. Or maybe it will be some old man from Japan. Or maybe some random woman from Impact that I've never seen will be in the main event. When people are showing up once a monthish, you can't get invested, and that's why most of the people who are over are people who were over before they got to AEW.

It's booked like an indy with little consistency in the performers, or the types of segments they do. One minute people will be super serious about their tramautic childhood getting bullied, then the next someone is trying to curse someone with weird gestures or whatever. And some people like indy wrestling, so if that's your bag, fine. Some people like seeing new people each week, and just seeing them do crazy spots.  People can like what they like. People can post about what they like. And, if people want to post about the things they don't like, that should be ok too. And if they're wrong, people can explain why. But the "Oh you're just a fanboy/hater/hipster/contrarian/negative Nancy" reaction definitely rubs me the wrong way. Just stick to what the person is saying.

Hmm... Depends if the match was advertised before hand or not. People may have bought tickets to see that match. Was it not also the main event? 

I don't think you'd be able to sell tickets under false pretences like that.

Otherwise, yeah. I think it's a work too. 

I thought so too, but the more I hear about it and the more I Read about it the more I'm convinced it's legit. Either that or it's one of the best works we've seen this century. 

The wrestling industry has really never done a good job at keeping stuff like this a secret. So my inclination would be that it's likely real. If not, hats off to WWE.

Yup, the way it's developing and now having seen they were advertised well before the night... Not a work.

Interested in a few matches on Double or Nothing. Particularly Cole vs Samoa Joe and Punk vs Page. Possibly Hardys vs Young Bucks simply for the car crash aspect. Anyone know of a reliable site that streams it that would not give me a virus? Definitely not going to pay 50 dollars (I can't imagine ever doing that for a wrestling show) particularly as I won't have time to watch it all even if I was so inclined.

Don't have apple, but I do have a chromebook, so maybe I'll use that. 

Punk vs Bryan is the best match they could put on, so they should do that, homegrown talent be damned.

I think the idea is they don't want their roster to feel like they're going to be thrown aside for ex WWE stars. And, I sort of get that, but at the same time, Punk is 43, and Bryan is 41 with a history of injury. The window to have a really great program with those guys is closing. They're the two biggest names on the roster, so that should be the top program.

Lashley vs Lesnar was ok but should have been done way better. 

Dunno if Sting vs Taker would have worked. Sting was already at the point where he needed someone who could help him out to get to a good match. Taker was also past his prime. HHH was the better worker at that point in time. Sting vs Taker made more sense on paper, but I think it would have just been disappointing. Not that HHH vs Sting wasn't disappointing, but it didn't have the same expectations to it.