How can any wrestling be PG?

[The Brain]

WWE is at it's worst right now and you really have to be a huge WWE sheap to ignore that and say '' Attitude era was a fad, pg is the norm ''

First of all saying WWE is at its worst right now is an opinion. It does not make someone a huge WWE sheep if they disagree with that opinion. Secondly, even if WWE is at its worst right now that has nothing to do with my statement that the attitude era was a fad and PG is the norm. The Hulkamania era was from 1984-1992. Many consider that to be a great era for WWE. That was PG. The New Generation was from 1993-1996. I think that era delivered the best matches. Also PG. Those eras targeted kids even more than today. You can think WWE is at its worst right now, but it's not because of PG and it doesn't change the fact that attitude was a fad.

 

[The Champ]

Didn't Cena do a STFU on the Big show at one night stand and used the rope to choke Show to win the match? and that was after the benoit chocking right ? WWE is at it's worst right now and you really have to be a huge WWE sheap to ignore that and say '' Attitude era was a fad, pg is the norm ''

The guidelines of what's acceptable on pay-per-view and what's acceptable on free television are probably a little bit different. As for your other point, no you don't have to be a huge WWE sheep to think that, because it's a pretty well supported opinion. The Attitude Era worked very well for around four or five years and then it never got that popular again after 2001. Before that, WWE always focused on family friendly programming dating back to the Hogan days. I don't know if PG is the norm, I would say moreso that the business is cyclical. But yes, the Attitude Era was a fad in some ways, and they wouldn't be able to recreate its success by simply trying to be as edgy as humanly possible. It doesn't work that day, and losing their younger audience is not worth it at this point in time.

 

[Workshop]

In my opinion, being a PG product has much more to do with parents and sponsors than kids. You could show a kid some old ECW footage, for instance, or some attitude era footage, and unless there's something wrong with him/her, they won't attempt to repeat anything they see.

Parents that try to be responsible in their own right try to shield their kids' eyes from extreme violence or sexual content, and whether it would negatively effect them or not, the fact of the matter is that most parents will still be like that.

Once the PG rating is established and marketed to sponsors, sponsors can begin to object and/or withdrawal from sponsorship if something they consider non-kid-friendly is shown on television.

On the interview/PR front, Vince McMahon seems to be prone to calling TNA's content "deplorable," whereas, when he approved similar content ten years ago, it was "taking the same licenses as Hollywood". Part of me says that he's being a hypocrite for the sake of his business, but another part of me says that he's right to some degree: the interview was conducted before the incidents I know of began happening, but TNA does have some 'deplorable' stuff, like implications of rape and symbolism of semen being poured over a male wrestler's body.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think The Brain made an excellent point on the first page of the thread. A lot of people, particularly net fans, became fans around the Attitude Era or were just becoming familiar with or watching wrestling about that time. The Attitude Era was about pushing the limits, often doing controversial things just for the sake of being controversial. Not to say that it wasn't entertaining a lot of the time, but it couldn't last forever.

Even prior to the start of the WWE going PG, there were plenty of raunchy and "edgy" things going on in the WWE, yet the WWE still didn't draw the ratings that they did at the height of the Attitude Era. The Attitude Era had a lot of factors working for it that made it work. It wasn't just the controversy or the swearing, it was the stars that the WWF had and the fact that they were in a legitimate wrestling ratings war against WCW. All this stuff couldn't last forever.

Prior to the Attitude Era, professional wrestling in general was very much PG oriented. If you look all back through the history of televised wrestling, the vast majority of it would be considered PG. Georgia Championship Wrestling, Championship Wrestling from Florida, World Class Championship Wrestling, American Wrestling Association, Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling, Central States Wrestling, Mid-South Wrestling Association, etc. were all companies that would have been rated PG in terms of overall content and were more "faimily oriented".

Too much is often made about the PG rating. Like a lot of things, it's a "problem" that far too many blow out of proportion. If the WWE went back to TV-14, I'd have no problem with it as long as I'm entertained. However, it takes more for a wrestling product to be considered quality, in my view, than a few four letter words and half naked bimbos running around.

 

[Judgeman03]

Thats the misconception: that you need to be TV 14 to have a well booked product. Thats not true. You can have drama that keeps fans wanting more, and still have it be clean. ITs not about T&A or blood. Its about having well written, realistic drama. Look at the UFC. They create real drama in their countdown shows before PPVs, and because of that, they outsell WWE PPVs regularly. If WWE just cut down on the over-the-top camp and kid-friendly characters and just booked their rivalries with real drama, they could have a good product that is tame by PG standards.

 

[El Rev sXe]

I just want to point out one thing about all this "wrestling has been PG even before the Attitude Era" thing. well it's actually pretty simple, for the case of the WWE, this company has been around for 30 to 40 years by now...so that means that wrestling was PG rated since 1960 or 1970 all the way through 1980 and late 1990's. what I'm trying to say is that we are today in 2010, the 21st century! TIMES HAVE CHANGED, from 1960 to even mid 1990's we were living in a conservative society, you know with all the "morality" familial values, religion, anti-homosexual, hate communist and so many, many other things. with the arrival of the 90's that changed! people become more liberal including the WWE and wrestling business itself. however since Linda Mcmahon runs for the senate as a republican candidate, well she is going with the more conservative party and proposals, something that is reflected on the WWE. and what better politic could do so that having a product that all the family can watch together? (NOTE:NOT SAYING IS A BAD THING!)

we live in a modern era, conservative values needs to be reflected even in a wrestling show??something THAT IS FAKE? in my book that is INDEED the tipical move made by a politic person...

oh and of course it has a lot to do the Benoit tragedy, but it isn't the only factor on the equation. this has changed the WWE image FOREVER. a wrestling is a muderer? not a great way to introduc the E!