Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion Characters / WWE

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
IndirectActiveTransport Since: Nov, 2010
Apr 15th 2014 at 6:22:57 AM •••

So rather than what it was called, "ruthless aggression era", we call it the brand extension era. Okay, it makes sense, since that is what happened. WWE Inc Era is also understandable but where did "reality era" come from?

To my knowledge, the company has not adopted the term nor had a noticeable change in operations, the fans still call this collective time period the "rated PG era", which is understandable even if it is inaccurate, reality era seems like something TV tropes just made up.

Hide / Show Replies
SonofMechaMummy Since: Jul, 2009
Apr 19th 2014 at 12:06:06 AM •••

Triple H has referred to the current era as "the Reality Era" multiple times in the last month. If anything, "WWE Inc. Era" is the one that doesn't make sense because it was never referred to as that and three years that aren't really drastically different from the preceding or the one that follows hardly constitutes a new era.

IndirectActiveTransport Since: Nov, 2010
Apr 19th 2014 at 6:06:11 AM •••

It makes sense in everything but name, perhaps. In function, the brands are no longer extended, hence we could not keep calling it the brand extension era.

Exactly how is this reality era different in function? Seems like a forced meme. So the ruthless aggression era was too, but we don't call it that. The "WWE Inc Era" may be in reference to corporate reorganization not visible onscreen but bottom line, there was a(coincidental) change on screen to accompany it.

Edited by 69.47.43.173
majohe (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
May 4th 2014 at 1:35:40 AM •••

To me the WWE Inc Era and Reality Era are similar in ways. So why not use WWE Inc Era?

IndirectActiveTransport Since: Nov, 2010
May 21st 2014 at 2:25:24 PM •••

That is what I'm arguing, to just keep calling this the WWE Inc Era until their is actually some noticeable difference in how the show is run.

Unless you're asking about the point I made against the WWE Inc Era? Well, that's just that the term was never used by the WWE itself (but neither was brand extension). I have no problem with its use (nor of brand extension, both are accurate)

majohe (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
thecarolinabull01 Since: Jun, 2014
May 26th 2016 at 7:13:56 PM •••

Sorry to dig up this discussion, but I felt this was the perfect time to do so.

I do believe the eras need to be reworked for quite a few reasons: 1. The Brand Extension is returning soon, so calling it the "Brand Extension Era" would be a bit odd. 2. The Ruthless Aggression and PG years should be separated, in my opinion. 3. Time apparently stopped or skipped forward between November 2001 and March 2002.

So here is my proposition: keep everything else the same (apart from extending the InVasion Era to March 2002) and separate the "Brand Extension into two separate eras:

  • The Ruthless Aggression Era: Goes from the WWE Draft of 2002 to WrestleMania 24 (I would have chosen The Great American Bash 2008 since it was the last WWE wrestling show to carry a TV-14 rating, but I realize it could cause some confusion for certain debuts.)

  • The WWE Universe Era: Goes from WrestleMania 24 to WWE abandoning the World Wrestling Entertainment name in 2011. (Universe Era is the "official" name of the PG years according to WWE 2K14 and sounds a lot cooler than The PG Era)

majohe (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Feb 6th 2013 at 10:34:54 AM •••

I was thinking of adding picture next to the wrestlers. Not all of them have a character page. Anyone against this idea?

Phrederic Since: Jun, 2009
Jan 22nd 2011 at 11:05:20 PM •••

I want to split up the Brand Separation pages into the Ruthless Aggression Eras and the New PG era, but I'll need some help combing through the debut times of each wrestler.

"Whoa" Keanu Reeves Hide / Show Replies
The_Reptile_ Since: Oct, 2010
Mar 29th 2011 at 5:44:32 PM •••

I think it'd be smarter to do it not by debuts, but by when they started getting notable, because the only noteworthy guys to come out during the PG era are Mcintyre, Rhodes, and the Nexus boys.

If you did it by notability, then you could add Morrison, Miz, maybe Punk, and other guys from WWECEW who didn't start getting recognition until recently.

Phrederic Since: Jun, 2009
Dec 1st 2010 at 4:13:20 PM •••

Hokay, it's locked cause it's too big...that's whatever but we gotta fix it. Maybe we could make a WWWF, WWF, and WWE page? And have a Smackdown and Raw character page too? Dunno what else to do...

"Whoa" Keanu Reeves
Krendall Since: Jun, 2009
Mar 30th 2010 at 11:15:35 AM •••

Be sure to use spoiler tags for recent events or match info. Someone mentioned the result of Undertaker vs. Michaels from Wrestlemania XXVI. As of this writing, that was two days ago! The rule should be that if it's a major event (title change, retirement, etc.) or directly references the winner of a match, the info should be kept in spoilers up until a month after the event. If that seems too long, than at least make it two weeks.

Hide / Show Replies
Larfleeze Since: May, 2009
Mar 30th 2010 at 11:18:18 AM •••

2 weeks seems like a good amount of time. A month is kind of long given how things can change in a month.

Do you know what people want the most? Something somebody else has.
BackLash Since: Jan, 2001
Nov 16th 2010 at 1:30:07 PM •••

This page is getting huge, should it be separated by Era?

Top