[OFFICIAL] PG era discussion *KEEP IT ALL IN HERE*

[Lee]

It comes up every thread, whether it's Cena, Marella, Hornswoggle, The Rated R SoooooperStar, stopping chair head shots, guests hosts and a lack of 'hardcore' it's discussed on the forum.

Personally I think far too many people go on about it...Simply put there's a lot less trash on WWE tv, I can watch with my nephew and not be concerned for him, I can enjoy the product for what it is without going "Oh he said ass, that's not PG." A TV shows parental rating doesn't affect quality overall, it's the rose tinted view of the attitude era that we have where we remember blood, guts and gore and forget the likes of sex with a dead person. Do people dislike the PG era because they think it's the cool thing to do to bash kids even though they started watching wrestling as kids or do they have a legit reason why it sucks?

What are your opinions on the PG era? Why do you hold this opinion?

 

[Ferbian]

I'm actually not seeing the hate for the current product that WWE is putting out.

Certainly you could agree that there was something more entertaining with watching wrestling back in 96-2000 because of guys like D-generation X, The Rock, and Stone Cold Steve Austin, but in the end, I'm enjoying the product almost as much right now, not because I find John Cena to be the ultimate entertainer, or because I consider Batista to be on a roll, but because in the end, the product has proved to stand strong whenever it's put forth, and I have to search for a very long time before I find any kind of production done by WWE that I did NOT enjoy to some degree (with the exception of NXT this week, that was god awful, but that wasn't for the sake of PG rated television, it was just awful either way)

I don't get why so many people seem to start crying because someone is cleaned up when he starts bleeding, for the sake of safety and guaranteeing that we won't be having a bloodbath in the middle of the ring, which (while I personally believe censoring is overrated to the extend that we're sheltering the kids too much) will probably ultimately prove more scaring for the kid (depending on the age) than entertainment, and certainly you could continue the endless rant "it's anti-climaxing" well, you'll survive won't you? Jack Swagger was cleaned up one week when wrestling John Morrison, and the match still proved to be an absolute killer (killer in the form of match of the week quality).

So when it all comes down to all, I'm not directly missing the Attitude Era, I won't deny it's return, but I won't discard the PG Era without a proper fight, and in the end, I think people should stop complaining about a product needing to be fixed, when it isn't broken by far, WWE is drawing rather decent ratings, as opposed to the so called "better product" that TNA is putting on, in an Attitude Era like show.

And no that is not a bash at TNA, it's a simple proving that WWE is doing just fine without the Attitude Era antics, and that it's the storylines that make the product, not the blood, not the cursing, and not the edgy production that was thrown at us every week.

 

[philbrooks]

Good idea for a sticky.

I really dont see why so many people have an issue with PG, blood and swearing doesnt make a product automatically good. It is all down to storytelling.

 

[Blade]

The current state of WWE is pretty good. I much prefer it to what I was seeing in 2003/2004, when Raw was the Triple H show. They're building a new group of guys to go into the main event scene, which they haven't done since 2005/2005 with the Cena/Batista/Orton/Edge group. Smackdown is pretty much the best wrestling programme on TV these days, NXT is usually quite entertaining, and Raw gets more criticism than it deserves.

There is nothing wrong with the programmes being PG. Firstly, eliminating chair shots to the head is a good thing. Smarks don't seem to care what damage the wrestlers put their bodies through, as long as the audience is entertaining. Shots to the head do damage, and if you really want chair shots to the head that much, you're a selfish dick.

Bleeding is also pretty unnecessary. I understand that occasionally blood can add to the match if you want to make it more personal or emotional. But 9 times out of 10, when a wrestler blades, it's not needed. In fact, it's pretty ironic that since they banned bleeding, so many wrestlers have started bleeding hardway. Batista against Kofi, Christian (or was it Shelton?) in the ladder match, Cena and Orton in the Ironman match, Undertakers arms getting messed up at Mania... It's pretty funny.

Really, I think it's a case of older generations resenting newer generations most of the time. With anything, music, film, even sport, older generations will bash the present because it's different, regardless of whether they give it a chance or not. It's stupid, and I'm glad I'm not one of those Attitude Era-loving smarks.

Now, the one major flaw that current era has is quite simple: Angles. While the attitude era is overrated to hell and back, with its fondly remembered matches that weren't that great and its mostly awful midcard, the one thing it did right was the angles. Undertaker and Kane, Austin and Rock, Austin and Triple H, Kurt Angle and Triple H, this was really good stuff. But now, we just don't see that any more. I don't if it's Vince not wanting angles or not, but it's annoying. The writers are there to write storylines, and it seems like they haven't been doing their jobs lately. I know with the current PG era makes potential storylines more limited, but they're not that limited. I mean the Orton vs Mcmahons angle was done pretty well (until after Mania) and that was done under PG I believe. In fact, the only wrestler who seems to have angles writter for him anymore is CM Punk. Everyone else is put in a feud where they fight a guy a few times then move on without anything particularly important going on.

So yeah, those are my thoughts on the PG Era.

 

[Judah's Lion]

if you couldn't tell by my name, i'm a christian.

that said, i have to admit that there were times when i'd watch WWE (then WWF) during the Attitude Era and be very convicted that what i was watching was very wrong due to the language and sex and violence. i know, it's wrestling. i should expect that, right?

but i gotta say that since WWE has gone PG, i've found the product even more enjoyable because i'm able to watch it and not fear that i'm gonna hear tons of cussing and see tons of unneccesary gore or tons of sex.

and it's not a slam on the Attitude Era. there were some things that i really enjoyed. the Rock, Mankind, Stone Cold, DX... they were all awesome. but that was then and i'm glad that it had it's time, but that time is up now. and there were tons of great feuds and sketches and matches that did not require lots of cussing, sex and violence. i'm thinking like the "this is your life, Rock" and "the beer bath" and "dx parody of the nation" etc. tons of great stuff that was great because the superstars were great and the story telling was great and the delivery was great. not because it was bloody, gruesome, sex-filled and laced with profanity.

i don't think Cena is the greatest entertainer to hit the ring ever in the history of wrestling, but i certainly don't think he's the worst. so this isn't just a Cena fan loving this era because my Superman gets to save the day in the end every week.

i like the product because the storylines are good and the rosters are awesome. some could be used better, but that'll happen in time and probably some "trial by error". but with Orton, Edge, Jericho, Punk, Taker, Kane, Show, Swagger, Cena, Batista, Rey, Miz, Kofi, Christian and others, how could the shows not be good? the ratings seem to indicate they are doing okay.

i like the PG Era thus far. maybe it gets a little too censored with stopping a match when somebody gets a legit bloody lip and has to be cleaned up. just let the guy bleed and clean him up afterwards. but we don't need to see blood baths every week either just for blood's sake. plus it takes away the art of story telling in the long run. if every one bleeds every week, why is it special? it's just the norm that way.

all i know to say is that i'm enjoying the PG Era this far and i'll continue to watch it. if only because i can do so with my wife and kids now.

also, just to add:

if there are less chair shots to the head and less dangerous spots just for the sake of doing a dangerous spot and not to seriously extend a story or an angle, then maybe, just maybe, the wrestlers will be able to do what they love and are so great at doing a little bit longer.

it's a shame that so many retire when they do and could go so much longer, but their bodies just won't allow because of the beating they've taken for no reason other than because they could and their match needed a high spot to be taken seriously.

i'm glad that matches now are revolving around good stories and not just good spots. keep these younger guys going for longer years so that we can enjoy the product for that much longer.

just an afterthought.

 

[Takerfan93]

I'm actually not seeing the hate for the current product that WWE is putting out.

Certainly you could agree that there was something more entertaining with watching wrestling back in 96-2000 because of guys like D-generation X, The Rock, and Stone Cold Steve Austin, but in the end, I'm enjoying the product almost as much right now, not because I find John Cena to be the ultimate entertainer, or because I consider Batista to be on a roll, but because in the end, the product has proved to stand strong whenever it's put forth, and I have to search for a very long time before I find any kind of production done by WWE that I did NOT enjoy to some degree (with the exception of NXT this week, that was god awful, but that wasn't for the sake of PG rated television, it was just awful either way)

I don't get why so many people seem to start crying because someone is cleaned up when he starts bleeding, for the sake of safety and guaranteeing that we won't be having a bloodbath in the middle of the ring, which (while I personally believe censoring is overrated to the extend that we're sheltering the kids too much) will probably ultimately prove more scaring for the kid (depending on the age) than entertainment, and certainly you could continue the endless rant "it's anti-climaxing" well, you'll survive won't you? Jack Swagger was cleaned up one week when wrestling John Morrison, and the match still proved to be an absolute killer (killer in the form of match of the week quality).

So when it all comes down to all, I'm not directly missing the Attitude Era, I won't deny it's return, but I won't discard the PG Era without a proper fight, and in the end, I think people should stop complaining about a product needing to be fixed, when it isn't broken by far, WWE is drawing rather decent ratings, as opposed to the so called "better product" that TNA is putting on, in an Attitude Era like show.

And no that is not a bash at TNA, it's a simple proving that WWE is doing just fine without the Attitude Era antics, and that it's the storylines that make the product, not the blood, not the cursing, and not the edgy production that was thrown at us every week.

Actually the ratings have declined significantly since the Attitude era. And I can honestly say, that yes I do believe the PG era sucks. It is bland, unexiting and nothing is different anymore. I hate hearing them trashtalk these days, its cringeworthy when they can't use half of their old vocabulary.
You saw what PG did to Hell in A Cell, the pay per view was no where near as good as previous ones. There is no exitement in the product anymore in my opinion. I miss the shock value, the hype and the big matches, we don't get that anymore. The attitude era wasn't good because it had blood, weapons and swearing - it was good because it had fresh new storylines, exiting television, fantastic new stars and most of all great wrestling. Same goes for post Attitude in fact, I really enjoyed WWE up until 2009, when the PG thing went overboard. In 2008, they were PG but they weren't overboard, an example was the Bash 2008, you couldn't tell. But since 2009 they have gone over the top with the PG thing

 

[Honkey_Kong]

I don't think being PG is necessarily a bad thing. I mean foul language, sexual innuendos, blading, etc aren't what makes a good wrestling product. I agree with the other posted the angles and promos have become lame, but you would figure they'd make up for it by giving us some great in ring action.

This is where the WWE dropped the ball. The WRESTLING is even more lame than their crappy promos. It comes down to the fact Vince thinks wrestling fans are idiots and just care about the look rather than the substance. He hires wrestlers that can't cut a good promo to save their lives nor can they wrestle a match because they have the "look" or the "it" factor or whatever nonsense he calls it.

Even during the Attitude era, WWE's wrestling was crap compared to the wcw under card or ECW, but it was fantastic compared to what it is today.

 

[Ferbian]

Actually the ratings have declined significantly since the Attitude era. And I can honestly say, that yes I do believe the PG era sucks. It is bland, unexiting and nothing is different anymore. I hate hearing them trashtalk these days, its cringeworthy when they can't use half of their old vocabulary.

Yet the ratings has improved significantly during 2010 and 2009 as opposed to the ratings WWE was drawing before that, mainly due to the RAW guest hosts yes, but in the end, it's showing that the PG rated shows are doing just fine.

And while I'm not gonna try to change your opinion, I don't see why you consider the PG era to be sucky, bland and unexciting, and the trash talking is just fine as well if I may say, because in the end, it's not about who can throw a long list of incredibly inappropriate words in the face of one, to be deemed superior to the other guy just because he got the last word, it's about furthering the storyline, and the current vocabulary is just decent for that to be done.

You saw what PG did to Hell in A Cell, the pay per view was no where near as good as previous ones. There is no exitement in the product anymore in my opinion. I miss the shock value, the hype and the big matches, we don't get that anymore.

I quite well enjoyed the Hell in a Cell Pay Per View, and I found it to be decently handled, again I'm guessing while you said yourself you don't need blood to enjoy the product, reading that, I would've thought you didn't find it brutal enough, brutality is closely associated with blood although, and therefore I'm guessing you wouldn't have minded blood involved in those pay per views?
Besides, the Pay Per View in it self was just decently brutal, it had some great spots.

it was good because it had fresh new storylines,

And what's so boring and non fresh about the current storylines? we're seeing a potentially great new feud between Randy Orton and Edge, former partners, we're seeing a great CM Punk storyline with his Straight Edge Society, and we're seeing a completely new show on SyFy that has proved to generate quite a storyline on the other shows as well, and while NXT can be boring at times, it's a new and fresh (in my eyes) storyline.

exiting television,

Again, your opinion, but I personally love the stuff WWE has been putting on, on RAW and Smackdown as of late, a lot to say the least, the very segment of Edge and Christian last week was exciting enough for me to mark out for it.

fantastic new stars

NXT is filled with potential fantastic new stars, Wade Barrett has an amazing future in front of him, we have Kofi Kingston, we have Jack Swagger, they're not fantastic? please specify fantastic showings then, cause I'm lost.

most of all great wrestling.

And again, Jack Swagger hasn't been putting on great wrestling matches? Wrestlemania didn't have an INCREDIBLE main event card (if you ask me it did)? Or am I wrong once more and need a specification? Please do give me one in case.

Same goes for post Attitude in fact, I really enjoyed WWE up until 2009, when the PG thing went overboard. In 2008, they were PG but they weren't overboard, an example was the Bash 2008, you couldn't tell. But since 2009 they have gone over the top with the PG thing

And 2009 was the exact year that their ratings improved firmly on RAW alongside the introduction of the Guest Hosts, people might not like them, but they sure as hell are drawing the ratings, it can prove boring, some can be entertaining, but ultimately.. it's good for business.

 

[AjStyles]

Good idea for a sticky.

I really dont see why so many people have an issue with PG, blood and swearing doesnt make a product automatically good. It is all down to storytelling.

Its not so much an issue, more like an interest, and what the hell do mean, storytelling, its called Creative Booking, and no, it not just "storytelling" that pro wrestling relies on to sell entertainment, its how the audience reacts to how the superstars are portrayed and perform, its what creative does to make the characters more interesting and beliveable, I think if WWE reignited the Attitude Era, WWE would blow TNA out of the waters completly

 

[DirtyJosé]

I recently visited my family for a few days, including a friday night. My father got me into wrestling back in the days of Dusty, Savage, and Piper. He hadn't seen any wrestling since 2001 or so. My little sisters had never seen wrestling before. If this was still the Attitude Era, I would have missed Smackdown that night, as I wouldn't expose my sisters (or any kid, mind you, regardless of gender) to that crap. However, I felt much better about sharing this with them knowing that it is now mostly harmless. And I'm glad for it; 3 generations of wrestling fans and there was something for everyone. My father was excited to see Jericho and Edge as the top guys because he remembered seeing them as noobs back in WWE/WCW. My sisters dutifully asked about each guy who came on, which ones were bad, which ones were good, and I had so much fun sharing that with them. I would hate to lose that connection with them so that people who need their fix of blood and guts are happy.

 

[joker217]

It's funny because the only person I happen to agree with on this forum is Takerfan93. Since when did WWE have great storylines lately because they have all been the fucking same to me except this storyline with Edge and Orton but we'll see, but these storylines don't really have any depth or excitement that keeps wanting to see them.

Also, have you guys checked the ratings lately. RAW has gotten 3.1's the last two weeks, I mean it's better than TNA's but it is certainly nothing to write home about. Plus with the trainer's patching up blood during matches, it stops the flow of matches to me and if the kiddies can't even handle a little bit of blood during a match then they shouldn't even be watching wrestling in the first place because it comes with the territory.

All in all, to me the only reason to watch WWE to me lately is Edge, Randy Orton, and CM Punk. You know why because they actually have depth and are also very edgy characters unlike Cena and Kofi Kingston who smile all the time and kiss the fans asses. I'm not saying bring back blood, sex, and violence all the time, but they can still use it sometimes because it brings excitement to the show. That is my opinion on the matter, and if you don't respect my opinion then go fuck off!

 

[NthDegree23]

My only real problem with the PG era is the lack of blood. Some people say that having blood doesn't exceed TV PG, but I'm sure Vince McMahon doesn't write the rating guidelines - he follows them. Still, it makes the show feel watered down. Extreme rules matches feel gimmicky, and hell in a cells/elimination chambers feel anti-climactic. I'm not a sadist for wanting to see blood (TNA needs to calm down and put their pants back on about the whole blood subject), I just believe it helps the intensity.

Other than that, they can go ahead and put the divas in turtlenecks and make the wrestlers put a quarter in the swear jar for saying the word "butt" if they think it'll keep it PG.

 

[nvsanctuary]

WWE stands for world WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT...quite frankly, they haven't been showing any REAL wrestling or any real entertainment lately because of the PG era (and don't say there is no such thing as real pro wrestling because i know that, i mean they haven't shown a good match since there was Edge v.s. Cena TLC match which was, what? a little over 4 years ago...maybe WWE should focus less on being PG and more on ACTUALLY ENTERTAINING THEIR FANS...

 

[DirtyJosé]

Blood: Seriously both sides need to settle down. Yes, blood shouldn't really be a planned part of the show, but if it comes up in a match just go with it, no need to stop things. But as for the "blood is needed for INTENSITY!" crowd, kindly fuck off. If you can't appreciate intensity without blood and guts go back to watching CZW. I certainly don't need to see people cut themselves; it's always so totally fucking obvious when one blades that it's a bit embarrassing to watch. Besides Hart v Austin, I really can't recall one time someone bled during the Attitude Era, and not because it didn't happen, but because it was nothing that helped or was memorable at all.

Attitude Era: Hey, I recall this era fondly, but I'm not nearly high enough to think it was perfect. Do you honestly remember it all clearly, because if so you'd remember some horrid shit. Val Venis losing his penis, Beaver Cleavage, ICP (Recognize Miracles!), Big Boss Man's last heel run (vs Big Show and Al Snow). And there are plenty more where that came from. This was a time that did produce some of the biggest stars, but we were all also forced to watch more than a lethal supply of X-Pac and D'Lo Brown matches. And Billy Gunn. Did I mention that Billy Gunn is fail? I'll take Santino Marella over most of that garbage anyday.

 

[codebreaker212p]

What I find funny, is there is a poll on WWE.com that asks what match people would prefer to see Cena/Batista in. And one of the choices is surprisingly a "first blood match." And guess what? That choice is way ahead in the poll. Now before all the PG supporters bash me for saying that. I dont have a problem with wrestlers not doing blade jobs anymore, what I do have a problem with is some pansie referee steping in and stopping a match dead in its tracks becuase of a damn scratch on someone's forhead. Wrestling in the 80's/early 90's was PG rated, yet we didnt see officals stop a match for blood. Now in TNA's case, they oversell blood way too much, to the point where its not enjoyable anymore. I dont like the PG era, but Ive learned to adapt to it for the most part, I just hope WWE officials really look at that poll on WWE.com and understand people hate when a match is stopped for a scratch

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Vince McMahon beats God in a wrestling match.
Mae Young gives birth to....a hand.
Triple H comes on to a mannequin kayfabe a corpse.

Just to name a few storylines I for one am glad I won't have to suffer through in this era. Honestly, I'm glad they toned down the disturbing angles they were going for in a pre-PG Era. I know nowadays I can let my baby sister watch along with me without worrying that Kat was gonna take her top off or Median was going to streak.



Now, with that said...

Say what you will, but it is only now that storyline is getting remotely interesting. Jericho & Miz seem to be having an alliance. To me, that is golden. Sheamus is looking credible in the same ring as people like Batista. Yet again, I like this. Edge is going for that "Rated R" angle that I've been waiting for him to do. I marked out. I love the differences they are doing now; it's not matches thrown together, and it's not weaaaaaaak storylines flowing. It all looks legit.

But I say again, only now has the PG system really worked for me. Say what you will for the people that bash this era and their lust for gore- what kept me from really getting into the PG Era was the poor quality in storylines. Now they seem to be picking up the pace, so I am not bitching. I hope PG gets better because I like the fact I can watch something that both entertains me and my little sister.

 

[Honkey_Kong]

What I find funny, is there is a poll on WWE.com that asks what match people would prefer to see Cena/Batista in. And one of the choices is surprisingly a "first blood match." And guess what? That choice is way ahead in the poll. Now before all the PG supporters bash me for saying that. I dont have a problem with wrestlers not doing blade jobs anymore, what I do have a problem with is some pansie referee steping in and stopping a match dead in its tracks becuase of a damn scratch on someone's forhead. Wrestling in the 80's/early 90's was PG rated, yet we didnt see officals stop a match for blood. Now in TNA's case, they oversell blood way too much, to the point where its not enjoyable anymore. I dont like the PG era, but Ive learned to adapt to it for the most part, I just hope WWE officials really look at that poll on WWE.com and understand people hate when a match is stopped for a scratch

You're right here. Really using blading as a selling point isn't necessary. It does have a role though. I don't mean they should be like "OHHH HE'S BUSTED OPEN" but if you crack somebody in the gut with a sledge, coughing up a little blood seems reasonable and will help sell the sledgehammer hit.

What I never quite GOT from this PG era bs is who cares? I've watched since I was a child as did most of my friends. Not one of our parents objected to watching wrestling because it was violent or sexually suggestive or bloody even. They just would be like "wrestling is stupid" and let us watch. In fact, I feel pity for any kid who has a butt-hole mom who wont let them watch wrestling because it's not "PG" (it would have to be a butt-hole mom because no father would be this much of a pussy).

And for the record, if violence isn't appropriate for kids, all pro-wrestling isnt appropriate. I'm just praying Linda McMahon will lose her stupid election already so we can watch wrestling again.

 

[philbrooks]

Its not so much an issue, more like an interest, and what the hell do mean, storytelling, its called Creative Booking, and no, it not just "storytelling" that pro wrestling relies on to sell entertainment, its how the audience reacts to how the superstars are portrayed and perform, its what creative does to make the characters more interesting and beliveable, I think if WWE reignited the Attitude Era, WWE would blow TNA out of the waters completly

I seriously dont know why you are annoyed at the term storytelling. That little rant was rather odd.

If WWE reignited the Attitude Era as you put it would lose tonnes of sponsers and damage their corporate image as the most likely case. Remember it would largely be the creative team we have now but the crutch of swearing and blood. Yippee!

WWE stands for world WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT...quite frankly, they haven't been showing any REAL wrestling or any real entertainment lately because of the PG era (and don't say there is no such thing as real pro wrestling because i know that, i mean they haven't shown a good match since there was Edge v.s. Cena TLC match which was, what? a little over 4 years ago...maybe WWE should focus less on being PG and more on ACTUALLY ENTERTAINING THEIR FANS...

There is a million things wrong with this statement. Looking at your avatar are you saying Rey hasnt had a good match in 4 years.

 

[Stone_Cold_Randy_Orton]

Apparently all you people forget the real reason PG sucks. You don't have to mind the non swearing, non blood, non bikinis. What PG really affects is the audience. And when you make it PG you switch the audience from one age group to another. And that really affects the product. Not everyone cheers or knows why to cheer. All the kids and girls scream for Cena and everyone else barley cheers. Guys make up roughly 40% of the audience interaction. That's why the WWE sucks. When the audience sucks, the entertainers aren't energetic and their acting, story telling and wrestling have to change. And it isn't on a show by show basis because even before PG the audience started dying out after they realized the WWE stopped caring about them by forcing Cena on them. That's when they stopped screaming. And by the PG Era they gave up altogether. So you PG lovers need to either wake up or accept the crappy product.

 

[El Rev sXe]

okay so normally I read all the thread even if it 7 pages, I read them...but now I only read the first one cause I cant believe how many people are saying so many positive things about the PG era!!

so lets do this slowly, first of all this is for you PG era lovers.If some of us doesnt like the PG it is not cause there is no blood or chair shots....is Cenas fault! lol seriously the problem with the PG era for me is the fact that they see the product ONLY for kids.
of course like in everything in the world you have exeptions like the Orton Mcmahon feud among others but generally is for kids. I mean of course its entertainement but dude Im sorry but not everything is for kids!!

so there is people who complains about the language, sex and all that kind of thing...Im not trying to be disrespectful but SO FUCKING WHAT!!!!I know that " 4 letter words" or "sex" are meant to be for kids but cmon seriously!REALLY??REALL??REAAAAAALLY??? okey so kids herad the "F" word and watch the Edges "live" sex celebration ant they will become serial killers???its not like they are watching porn or a homicide. However I have to be honest and all the blood can be traumatic for kids.

Of course its bad that wrestlers take chair shots and cut themselves. but dude this may be entertainement but the hazards are real (remember that?) and it goes way beyond chair shot or razor blades so they will have to forbid high flying maneuvers...

finally the problem is Supercena will come on top ALWAYS. the pg thing is not the MAIN problem, the main problem is the fact that only Cena can be a real champ while everybody else is transitional champs

oh and for those who thinks that ratings prove anything Im sorry guys but IT DOESNT MEAN SHIT! not because american pie had a lot of public it means that is a good movie! you know a lot films in Cannes are awesome but are not in everywhere just cause kids will baught it

BTW GUYS IM NOT TRYING TO OFFEND ANYONE! 100% TRUE

 

[Takerfan93]

Yet the ratings has improved significantly during 2010 and 2009 as opposed to the ratings WWE was drawing before that, mainly due to the RAW guest hosts yes, but in the end, it's showing that the PG rated shows are doing just fine.

They really have not improved significantly. They increased slightly from around 3.0 - 3.3s to around 3.4 - 3.7 (the 3.7s generally came from around January - April) . This was because of the new guest host concept and later on because of the Wrestlemania build as ratings are always higher at that time anyway. And yeah the ratings are doing fine, but half of what they did back in the late 90s to early 2000s. That is because they put on a better product then, I don't see how you could deny that (and before you say that I'm saying you are denying that, I'm not). Right now, after Wrestlemania, RAW is getting 3.0s generally, lower than the 2008 ratings. Ratings initially took a hit in 2007 after the Chris Benoit revelations, but before that Raw ratings were in the 4.0s. Smackdown has actually dropped significantly in ratings the past 3 years, when it moved to Fridays it was getting around 3.0, but since 2008 it has dropped to around 1.6 - 1.9s. And as you know, the audience demographics have changed in the past 2 years or so, kids and women now make up 40% of the audience and the 60% male fans just stick around because whether we like it or not the WWE is the best wrestling company to watch and even if we are not satisfied with the product we continue watching anyway because of our love for it.

And while I'm not gonna try to change your opinion, I don't see why you consider the PG era to be sucky, bland and unexciting, and the trash talking is just fine as well if I may say, because in the end, it's not about who can throw a long list of incredibly inappropriate words in the face of one, to be deemed superior to the other guy just because he got the last word, it's about furthering the storyline, and the current vocabulary is just decent for that to be done.

The trash talk really is not fine. For a recent example, watch the MVP, Straight Edge Society segment on the first Smackdown after the draft and see how awful it is. And no, the swearing etc does not make a segment, it does contribute to it. When you hear a guy come out and say "I'll shut your mouth up" instead of being able to say something like "I'll kick your ass" see the difference between the crowd reactions; it is obvious which sounds more intense. Whether you admit it or not, the language does partially contribute to a segment and it is much more limited than it has been in the past.

I quite well enjoyed the Hell in a Cell Pay Per View, and I found it to be decently handled, again I'm guessing while you said yourself you don't need blood to enjoy the product, reading that, I would've thought you didn't find it brutal enough, brutality is closely associated with blood although, and therefore I'm guessing you wouldn't have minded blood involved in those pay per views?
Besides, the Pay Per View in it self was just decently brutal, it had some great spots.

Of course I wouldn't have minded blood, I think it adds to the whole intensity of matches like Hell in a Cell. I remember back when they first decided on the whole "less blood" thing, it said they were going to use it rarely but instead they don't use it at all now. I don't think we need blood to make a match good, it certainly doesn't make it any better. But I do think at the least it is stupid to go interrupt a match to clear up any sight of it. The Cell matches on that night were among the worst HIAC matches in history, and having 3 on one night is stupid. HIAC matches are supposed to be used in occassional circumstances, when a feud reaches a huge intensity, but now that they are pencilled in for a specific time of the year, it takes away from the meaning of the match, I'm sure you can atleast see my point on that. The HIAC pay per view matches were too restricted, they could have easily made it as brutal as Undertaker-Batista from Survivor Series 2007 (minus the blood of course). That match was worthy of a Hell in a Cell, but it wasn't too brutal for a PG show. I believe they have taken the rating way too far.

And what's so boring and non fresh about the current storylines? we're seeing a potentially great new feud between Randy Orton and Edge, former partners, we're seeing a great CM Punk storyline with his Straight Edge Society, and we're seeing a completely new show on SyFy that has proved to generate quite a storyline on the other shows as well, and while NXT can be boring at times, it's a new and fresh (in my eyes) storyline.

Edge/Orton isn't a new feud, they had one over the intercontinental title back in 2003. Nevertheless, I like their current feud. The NXT type thing has been done before with Tough Enough and even the Diva Search to a point. And no matter how much you read into it, you surely will admit that the atmosphere in the Attitude era was that you were always seeing something new and exiting, a feeling which just isn' there as much today. I never said the PG era wasn't fresh and new did I? I just said the Attitude era was. But now that you bring it up, the PG era isn't new, it was there before the Attitude era for a long time.

Again, your opinion, but I personally love the stuff WWE has been putting on, on RAW and Smackdown as of late, a lot to say the least, the very segment of Edge and Christian last week was exciting enough for me to mark out for it.

Well that's you. I personally am so dissatisfied with the product at the moment it's unbearable. But I keep watching because sometimes it does feature fantastic segements and matches; the Christian/Edge segment from last weeks Smackdown as you said is a perfect example, that was amazing, I marked out for it as well! But the audience wasn't as loud for it as they would have been a few years ago, because a lot of them didn't actually know the history between them and how great it was to see that segment.

NXT is filled with potential fantastic new stars, Wade Barrett has an amazing future in front of him, we have Kofi Kingston, we have Jack Swagger, they're not fantastic? please specify fantastic showings then, cause I'm lost.

Again, you misread me, as you have done in many of my comments in other threads. I never said there are not fantasitc new stars today, I just said there were in the Attitude era. But I do know that it was a completely different feeling when stars like HHH and the Rock were up and coming in the Attitude era to now, it felt more like a big deal.

And again, Jack Swagger hasn't been putting on great wrestling matches? Wrestlemania didn't have an INCREDIBLE main event card (if you ask me it did)? Or am I wrong once more and need a specification? Please do give me one in case.

Yes Jack Swagger has been putting on great matches, but it is not about some people, it is in general. And in the Attitude era, they constantly had great matches, no not all of them were great but they were much more frequent on Raw than they are now. This was because they had no choice since they had competition but still. Wrestlemania did have a good main event card, but I just don't think the match build ups were made to feel as big as previous main events in Wrestlemanias from the late 90s - early 2000s, even though they could have been.

And 2009 was the exact year that their ratings improved firmly on RAW alongside the introduction of the Guest Hosts, people might not like them, but they sure as hell are drawing the ratings, it can prove boring, some can be entertaining, but ultimately.. it's good for business.

Yeah but business isn't what is important to the fans, it is the wrestling. I'm not saying they shouldn't do what is good for business, but they can find a balance, they used to have one up until recently I believe. The guest hosts don't draw the ratings anymore, the concept lost its spark and ratings have gradually fallen.

 

[kris8524]

OK,
This is the first time i have posted, so excuse me sincerely if mess up or do not make enough sense. When we were all kids,(the ones gripping about the PG era) The most famous wrestlers such as Hogan, Warrior, Brett Hart, Macho man to an extent, British Bulldog, Sting, Brutus the barber, and many more were all pg. So, as kids we loved them and are sad they are gone so some bash the new versions of them. Yeas the attitude era was good , but it was only because we grew up and there had to be something done to get the "WWF" to stay on top. I do enjoy the wrestling in TNA a lot, but we all know that the stories is why we watch wrestling. I am making an assumption and I may be wrong, but i bet at least 90% of the people who bash the WWE would say that Hogan was the best wrestler and revolutionized the wrestling world, where in truth he may have been but he didn't even have 5 moves (like they all gripe about Cena having), and all along he was always pg until his heel turn. So if it was pg when we became fans then why wouldn't the WWE do the same thing now and get the young kids to love the show like we did. We all are just upset over our favorites not being on top anymore. I have been watching since i was 3 and that is 24 years and always knew it was pg even in attitude era. My grandfather always hated hogan because he saw wrestling go from wrestling matches to sports entertainment, so nothing has changed just the people hogan couldn't do 5 moves in his prime cena does about that many as does orton and the kids love it. Thats the way it has been since hogan came in as a face.
Sorry if to long just letting some light on how it has been for ages Flair was never rated r he just cheated which made the kids hate him and he was good at it so pg is great and always has been if tna went pg then with their wrestling (which is far more superior right now) then they would succeed far better than WWE and I am a WWE fan. Thank all of you who inspired me to actually discuss wrestling with you and let me know what i did wrong in my reply

 

[Ferbian]

They really have not improved significantly. They increased slightly from around 3.0 - 3.3s to around 3.4 - 3.7 (the 3.7s generally came from around January - April) . This was because of the new guest host concept and later on because of the Wrestlemania build as ratings are always higher at that time anyway. And yeah the ratings are doing fine, but half of what they did back in the late 90s to early 2000s. That is because they put on a better product then, I don't see how you could deny that (and before you say that I'm saying you are denying that, I'm not). Right now, after Wrestlemania, RAW is getting 3.0s generally, lower than the 2008 ratings. Ratings initially took a hit in 2007 after the Chris Benoit revelations, but before that Raw ratings were in the 4.0s. Smackdown has actually dropped significantly in ratings the past 3 years, when it moved to Fridays it was getting around 3.0, but since 2008 it has dropped to around 1.6 - 1.9s. And as you know, the audience demographics have changed in the past 2 years or so, kids and women now make up 40% of the audience and the 60% male fans just stick around because whether we like it or not the WWE is the best wrestling company to watch and even if we are not satisfied with the product we continue watching anyway because of our love for it.

Yet it has been reported that their drawing ratings has improved ever since the introduction of the WWE guest host concept, and I'm not denying that the product back then drew more viewers, but that doesn't necessarily make it a better product (isn't that exactly the stuff some of the TNA fans are trying to spew out on the WWE fans on occasions?) and in this case, while I enjoyed the stuff WWE did in the 98-2000 years with Stone Cold, I purely believe that the thing is to lay on Stone Cold and The Rock to draw those ratings, not for the sake of the product, people loved Stone Cold, he was that eras Hulk Hogan, people love John Cena right now, and sure the viewers now make up of 40% of kids, but in the end a majority of WWE viewers are still adult males, and are you really gonna tell me that they're viewing it even if they're not satisfied with it? you know you can't POSSIBLY throw that nonsense on every single percentage of those WWE fans, I'm a part of those 60% (considering I stream I'm kinda not, but I'm still 18 years old, that's adult age last time I checked, and last time I looked, I enjoyed the product)

The trash talk really is not fine. For a recent example, watch the MVP, Straight Edge Society segment on the first Smackdown after the draft and see how awful it is. And no, the swearing etc does not make a segment, it does contribute to it. When you hear a guy come out and say "I'll shut your mouth up" instead of being able to say something like "I'll kick your ass" see the difference between the crowd reactions; it is obvious which sounds more intense. Whether you admit it or not, the language does partially contribute to a segment and it is much more limited than it has been in the past.

No it does not contribute to it, for the majority of times it can prove to actually degrade the seriousity of an segment because it's filled with cursings etc. and while I'm not saying "Oh hell no he didn't just curse, shoot the bastard" I'm not saying that it's crap for not having cursing involved, and Edge and Randy Orton proved exactly that on RAW this week for example, no cursing, PG segment, how is it any different from the stuff that MVP and the SES put forth? it's all about how it's scripted, not about the things that's said.
Oh and, while you might not have liked the segment with MVP, the crowd went nuts either way.

Of course I wouldn't have minded blood, I think it adds to the whole intensity of matches like Hell in a Cell. I remember back when they first decided on the whole "less blood" thing, it said they were going to use it rarely but instead they don't use it at all now. I don't think we need blood to make a match good, it certainly doesn't make it any better. But I do think at the least it is stupid to go interrupt a match to clear up any sight of it. The Cell matches on that night were among the worst HIAC matches in history, and having 3 on one night is stupid. HIAC matches are supposed to be used in occassional circumstances, when a feud reaches a huge intensity, but now that they are pencilled in for a specific time of the year, it takes away from the meaning of the match, I'm sure you can atleast see my point on that. The HIAC pay per view matches were too restricted, they could have easily made it as brutal as Undertaker-Batista from Survivor Series 2007 (minus the blood of course). That match was worthy of a Hell in a Cell, but it wasn't too brutal for a PG show. I believe they have taken the rating way too far.

I believe the whole "intensity and blood" has been covered, and was declared to be absolutely bullshit.
Goldberg is intense, we all know that, he remains intense, Batista remains intense, but would Goldberg be any less intense if he speared you in half, but oh no he's not bleeding, which was actually the case of a majority of Goldbergs progress matches in WCW as far as I remember, he didn't have them bleeding, but he was still declared incredibly intense.
And therefore, a Hell in a Cell can prove to be quite brutal, with, or without blood.

Edge/Orton isn't a new feud, they had one over the intercontinental title back in 2003. Nevertheless, I like their current feud. The NXT type thing has been done before with Tough Enough and even the Diva Search to a point. And no matter how much you read into it, you surely will admit that the atmosphere in the Attitude era was that you were always seeing something new and exiting, a feeling which just isn' there as much today. I never said the PG era wasn't fresh and new did I? I just said the Attitude era was. But now that you bring it up, the PG era isn't new, it was there before the Attitude era for a long time.

But Randy Orton and Edge wasn't at the level they are now.
Shawn Michaels and Undertaker feuded twice with "one" year in between, but did that really make it any less interesting and "fresh"? no it did not, because it was handled on different storyline backgrounds.
NXT is completely different from Tough Enough. Tough Enough wasn't scripted, Tough Enough properly served a backstage viewing, NXT is scripted for the majority of things, you don't get a backstage viewing etc.

Well that's you. I personally am so dissatisfied with the product at the moment it's unbearable. But I keep watching because sometimes it does feature fantastic segements and matches; the Christian/Edge segment from last weeks Smackdown as you said is a perfect example, that was amazing, I marked out for it as well! But the audience wasn't as loud for it as they would have been a few years ago, because a lot of them didn't actually know the history between them and how great it was to see that segment.

You said it yourself, you keep watching, and therefore while I'm not questioning whether you truly are on the verge of quitting the product as a whole because of it's unbearability, I am gonna question why in the world you're sticking around with the live product rather than watching a streamed version if it truly is so bad, I stream, because we got no other way of viewing WWE in Denmark, and I can scroll past matches etc. that I don't particularly care for (Divas) but that doesn't mean the product is bad, it just means I'm too lazy to sit through a diva match.

Again, you misread me, as you have done in many of my comments in other threads. I never said there are not fantasitc new stars today, I just said there were in the Attitude era. But I do know that it was a completely different feeling when stars like HHH and the Rock were up and coming in the Attitude era to now, it felt more like a big deal.

You need to come off more clear then Takerfan93, because you made it sound a lot like the Attitude Era provided exciting new stars, yet the current product wasn't.

And certainly I could agree that a guy like The Rock and Triple H are a bigger deal when it comes to following them through their careers, but that's cause they definitely had the bigger impact upon their rise to stardom, not because of the product, because a guy like Jack Swagger for example could be handled quite well in his rise as well, but he hasn't been put to make a proper impact for us to truly care for him in the amounts that we cared for Triple H and The Rock.

Yes Jack Swagger has been putting on great matches, but it is not about some people, it is in general. And in the Attitude era, they constantly had great matches, no not all of them were great but they were much more frequent on Raw than they are now. This was because they had no choice since they had competition but still. Wrestlemania did have a good main event card, but I just don't think the match build ups were made to feel as big as previous main events in Wrestlemanias from the late 90s - early 2000s, even though they could have been.[/QUOTE]



Yeah but business isn't what is important to the fans, it is the wrestling. I'm not saying they shouldn't do what is good for business, but they can find a balance, they used to have one up until recently I believe. The guest hosts don't draw the ratings anymore, the concept lost its spark and ratings have gradually fallen.[/QUOTE]

 

[DirtyJosé]

Apparently all you people forget the real reason PG sucks. You don't have to mind the non swearing, non blood, non bikinis. What PG really affects is the audience. And when you make it PG you switch the audience from one age group to another. And that really affects the product.

Wrong. The audience was never switched; children have always been a part of the WWE machine. Don't try to act like they've dumped you; they are just trying to keep things at a level acceptable for children.

Not everyone cheers or knows why to cheer. All the kids and girls scream for Cena and everyone else barley cheers. Guys make up roughly 40% of the audience interaction. That's why the WWE sucks. When the audience sucks, the entertainers aren't energetic and their acting, story telling and wrestling have to change.

Why do Cena haters stick to this notion that only kids and women cheer for Cena? "Real men don't cheer Cena!". Pssh, that's sooooooome bullshit right there, provably wrong for a long time now, and it's sad that they keep thinking that it's the truth. Those Cena haters front row at WrestleMania this year? All of 'em went home Cena marks on the inside, guaran-fuckin-tee it.

And it isn't on a show by show basis because even before PG the audience started dying out after they realized the WWE stopped caring about them by forcing Cena on them. That's when they stopped screaming. And by the PG Era they gave up altogether. So you PG lovers need to either wake up or accept the crappy product.

The audience started dying out back in 2002, way before the Cena push. The audience started dying out because WWE had spent the steam and momentum it had coming out of the death of WCW and ECW. Many of the old WCW faithful, and ECW diehards, couldn't accept the WWE product for whatever reasons. The majority of the mainstream buzz factor of the WWE, generated during the monday night wars and by superstars like Rock and Austin, was lost. Stop making yourself look silly by suggesting things that are provably untrue.

 

[Takerfan93]

Blood: Seriously both sides need to settle down. Yes, blood shouldn't really be a planned part of the show, but if it comes up in a match just go with it, no need to stop things. But as for the "blood is needed for INTENSITY!" crowd, kindly fuck off. If you can't appreciate intensity without blood and guts go back to watching CZW. I certainly don't need to see people cut themselves; it's always so totally fucking obvious when one blades that it's a bit embarrassing to watch. Besides Hart v Austin, I really can't recall one time someone bled during the Attitude Era, and not because it didn't happen, but because it was nothing that helped or was memorable at all.

How about no. Blood does change the feel of a match when it is in there. For example, you named Hart vs. Austin, that image of blood streaming down Austins face while in the Sharpshooter is historic and memorable. No, you do not NEED blood to make a match good, but I think it does play a part in making a match look brutal. It is certainly not something I think they should go to as much trouble to stop as they do.