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

[Takerfan93]

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)

Like I said, it did improve, but not that much, and the more recent ratings are more because of Wrestlemania than the guest host concept, and now after WM they are back to 3.0s. And no, if a show gets a bigger rating it doesn't mean it is a better show, but Raw got higher ratings over the period of those 6 years or so, so obviously it was a better product then in a lot of peoples minds because ever since the viewing has dropped. I still liked it after Attitude but some people didn't. And yes, a lot of people are not sattisfied with it, but still continue to watch because we remain optimistic and do occassionally see brilliance in the product still. And you enjoy this era, but not everyone does.

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.

Well with or without cursing they are going to be calling the guys names. I just don't think "idiot" and things like that really sound good (its hard to explain but there you go). And I never said it is crap for not having cursing involved, I just said it's not as good when it is limited, i mean they can't even say "ass" anymore, which isn't even bad language anyway. And I'm sure you will admit it was better trash talk when they would say for example "get your ass out of my ring" or "i'll kick your ass" than now

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.

Actually some declared it was bullshit, some have also declared that they think it is good on numerous threads, that topic has been done to death. Personally I don't think matches need blood but it does add to the brutality of a match when used correctly. I named this example before; the Wrestlemania moment when Austin had blood streaming down his face while in the sharpshooter is so historic, that image that has lived on for years. It does add a certain intensity in extreme matches. No, you don't need it to have intensity, which is what you assumed I meant (I said it ADDS to intensity sometimes). Hell in a cell doesn't need blood, but it doesn't have to be toned down as much as it was at the HIAC pay per view

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.

I'm aware that they were not on the level they are now, but the feud has been done before nevertheless, even if it is much different now. Don't get me wrong, I am liking the feud, but it is not a new feud like you said. Shawn and Undertaker was a very rare situation, you don't get feuds like that very often so of course it is going to be fresh, we almost never get feuds of that magnitude. NXT is basically the same idea as Tough Enough, obviously it won't be exactly the same so theres no point picking at the details, but it is similar.

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.

I don't see the point of that question; I do not stream the shows because I have the option of watching them on TV; but the live version of Raw is on at 2am here because of the time difference, it is on at good times throughout the rest of the week but I prefer to record the live version as I have Sky+. So that basically is streaming, I fast forward through parts of the show.

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.

I have come off perfectly clear, you have just seemed to read words which I haven't typed.

And yes, that is exactly my point. The Rock and Triple H had a more significant rise to the top, stars don't quite have that same impact when they rise to the top these days.

But anyway, we can never seem to agree on things so I think we should just agree to disagree

 

[Ferbian]

Like I said, it did improve, but not that much, and the more recent ratings are more because of Wrestlemania than the guest host concept, and now after WM they are back to 3.0s. And no, if a show gets a bigger rating it doesn't mean it is a better show, but Raw got higher ratings over the period of those 6 years or so, so obviously it was a better product then in a lot of peoples minds because ever since the viewing has dropped. I still liked it after Attitude but some people didn't. And yes, a lot of people are not sattisfied with it, but still continue to watch because we remain optimistic and do occassionally see brilliance in the product still. And you enjoy this era, but not everyone does.

Yet you said it yourself, the fact that Chris Benoit did a double murder suicide killed some of the ratings, not the product, it's the same thing as back in the 90's with the steroids trail, the product wasn't getting worse, but the trail in itself killed the ratings slowly.

Just because the ratings are superior back then doesn't necessarily mean they're putting on the superior product at that point, ask some of the people on this forum what they would rather watch, the things put on in 2006-2008 or the things put on in 2009 - 2010, I'm pretty certain a handful of the regulars on here would agree with me.

Well with or without cursing they are going to be calling the guys names. I just don't think "idiot" and things like that really sound good (its hard to explain but there you go). And I never said it is crap for not having cursing involved, I just said it's not as good when it is limited, i mean they can't even say "ass" anymore, which isn't even bad language anyway. And I'm sure you will admit it was better trash talk when they would say for example "get your ass out of my ring" or "i'll kick your ass" than now

There's no reason to complain over the lack of ability to throw out names towards another wrestler, by the end of the day it's childish, calling another wrestler idiot, son of a bitch, ****** etc. it's childish, and doesn't improve the product that it's possible to call them that.

And certainly you could argue whether "Ass" should be considered bad language, I would say it could cause it's the closest connection to an upright offensive word "Asshole" which is something (as I've always said, kids are overratedly protected by censor) that while I believe they're too protecting of the kids sometimes, Asshole is definitely not the word that needs to be thrown around, or anything associated with it, for the sake of "intensifying" a promo, which is not needed anyway, the promos are doing just fine as of late, Chris Jericho, The Miz, CM Punk, you're saying they're promos would be better if CM Punk started calling them mindless drunk fuckers for example? it's offensive language, that's what you want isn't it?

Actually some declared it was bullshit, some have also declared that they think it is good on numerous threads, that topic has been done to death. Personally I don't think matches need blood but it does add to the brutality of a match when used correctly. I named this example before; the Wrestlemania moment when Austin had blood streaming down his face while in the sharpshooter is so historic, that image that has lived on for years. It does add a certain intensity in extreme matches. No, you don't need it to have intensity, which is what you assumed I meant (I said it ADDS to intensity sometimes). Hell in a cell doesn't need blood, but it doesn't have to be toned down as much as it was at the HIAC pay per view

Certainly, but I find it to be absolutely bullshit that someone needs to sink to such levels of selfishness because they want to be chanting "BLOOD.. BLOOD.. BLOOD" for the sake of enjoying a wrestling match, for the love of god have a heart and respect that it might as well be the wrestlers who have wanted the limitations of blood because it's an increasing health risk if they're exposed to too much bleeding, and hell I'm not gonna cry because a care-taker comes in and cleans up a wrestler, because I've said it before, I'll gladly say it again, I don't need blood to enjoy a wrestling match, and quite honestly, I won't hesitate to call the people that says they need blood, or want blood cause it intensifies feuds, for selfish people, that includes you Takerfan93, and it's not to be rude, but it's just my opinion.

I'm aware that they were not on the level they are now, but the feud has been done before nevertheless, even if it is much different now. Don't get me wrong, I am liking the feud, but it is not a new feud like you said. Shawn and Undertaker was a very rare situation, you don't get feuds like that very often so of course it is going to be fresh, we almost never get feuds of that magnitude. NXT is basically the same idea as Tough Enough, obviously it won't be exactly the same so theres no point picking at the details, but it is similar.

It's similar, yet not the same, therefore the variation of it automatically gives it somewhat of a freshness no matter the way you decide to twist and turn the paper, it's still gonna have the same words written on it, and the detailed description of the shows variate enough for them to be fresh new things if you ask me.
The same goes for Edge vs Randy Orton, this time it's not for a title, they have a past of being friends, they have everything to create a magnitude of a great feud, something they didn't have in 2003, it was simply for a championship back then, there weren't old hatred, old friendships, it was John Cena vs Edge 2005-6 / 2009 style, or Randy Orton vs Triple H 2004 / 2009 style, and I don't believe I've read anybody crying over Edge vs John Cena because it happened again, and nobody was crying over Triple H vs Randy Orton until it dragged itself too far.

I don't see the point of that question; I do not stream the shows because I have the option of watching them on TV; but the live version of Raw is on at 2am here because of the time difference, it is on at good times throughout the rest of the week but I prefer to record the live version as I have Sky+. So that basically is streaming, I fast forward through parts of the show.

I'm saying because of the availability of online streams of the show, why not use that instead, watch something else if the product bothers you so badly, streaming allows you to simply scroll through the "god awful" things until you spot promo segments, it's that simple, it's obviously not crappy enough for you to be watching if you still are watching it.

And yes, that is exactly my point. The Rock and Triple H had a more significant rise to the top, stars don't quite have that same impact when they rise to the top these days.

That's not true, CM Punk made quite a hell of an impact when he rose to the main event scene in the summer time of 2009, Jack Swagger could easily make quite an impact if booked properly, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the PG era, it has everything to do with the actual booking of matches, not the Attitude Era, not the PG Era, not any era.

 

[The_Extreme_Sub_Machine]

As long as the WWE makes good matches, things should be fine. Some of the greatest of all time weren't extreme just well executed like Macho Man/Steamboat and Bulldog/Bret. However, if a wrestler gets cut they shouldn't stop the match to patch it. These guys are professionals and are used to pain. Leave them be and let them do their job. Patch them up in the back. Some wrestlers I think even get annoyed by this. I remember Jack Swagger having a rather annoyed look on his face when they briefly stopped the match to patch his minor cut.

 

[TempestH]

I doubt that anyone under 13 even knows who most of the guest hosts are. And many of them are famous for projects that aren't even close to PG.

And removing foul language is wrong, not because I condone it, but because I hate how the entertainment industry in general pretends that children, even teenagers, don't use profanity or talk about sex.

Despite the product being directed to children, you have attractive women flaunting their sexuality, and male wrestlers like Evan Bourne, Cody Rhodes, Ted Dibiase, Tyson Kidd, and the Miz, who are borderline twinks.

 

[The Doctor]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the product being PG. As long as storylines don't degenerate into ridiculousness and the show is still fun to watch, I'm cool with the rating being whatever. Anyway, TV-PG doesn't mean PG as in movies. TV-PG is more comparable to PG-13. The Simpsons is TV-PG.

There are still great matches happening. Maybe even more great matches then there were during the Attitude Era. Blood is a good exclamation point to a match but certainly isn't needed everywhere. And as long as promos are full of passion and are interesting to listen to, they don't need swearing. Batista's promo just before Wrestlemania was awesome and fun, and he didn't need to say he was going to kick Cena's ass.

Honestly I think the whole "PG ERA SUX" thing is overblown and ridiculous. It's not becoming Barney, people.

 

[goodlay]

I understand the complaints of the PG Era, but you guys need to accept the product for what it currently is, or go watch something else. The PG Era is here to stay, and it makes perfect business sense. For one, you appeal to everyone, not just the adult male demographic that TNA does. Plus, the PG Era gets rid of the whole perception of "Wrestling is trash TV" that the Attitude Era gave off. I like how the WWE focuses on the actual in-ring action and less on ridiculous/shock angles.

In terms of promos/mic work and such, it makes the wrestler have to step up. You can't just throw around "Well your a dirty SOB" or whatever. I would say Miz, Jericho, and CM Punk promos are some of the best ones I have seen in years.

While I do understand and enjoy the PG era, there's one thing that annoys the hell out of me and that's cleaning up blood. WWE constantly goes with the whole "realism" thing and that's fine. But one of the most realistic things about a match/fight is blood. Look, I don't want TNA type blading where Ric Flair is busted open after two punches, but in stuff like the Iron Man Match with Cena/Orton or the Ladder Match with Benjamin/Christian, just let them go. Everytime someone bleeds on accident, the wrestler tries to push the ref off, and for good reason. Because they realize that blood can add to a match. I don't want blood in every other match, but in an intense feud like HHH/Sheamus or Cena/Batista, it would make sense.

Overall though, I still enjoy today's product as much as I always have enjoyed WWE. So to all the PG haters, I would say it's time to find something else to watch, because this type of WWE is here to stay.

 

[sg232]

As long as WWE are making money...PG will stay. They are making more than they ever have during the Attitude Era.

People praise the Attitude era like it was the best thing ever for the WWE, sure it had some good storylines and some very bad ones (Mae giving birth to a hand or Val Venis "choppy choppy pee pee" angle"). Matches were horrible followed the same formula every ppv with brawling in the crowd, entrance, breaking the announce table, bleeding like a stuck pig, etc.

Even 3 years ago when WWE was still TV 14, it wasn't any better, they had cursing, blood, hardcore brawling, divas in bikinis...yet people still complained. Hell! most of the PWB say the worst years for WWE was 2006 and 2007 which were were probably the most violent in terms of matches since the attitude era. Wrestlers bled like almost every ppv, cursed, had sex jokes, etc.

 

[the99superstar]

i think that wwe is going down hill , i understand that the face of the wwe is amied at 7+ (cena) but come on at least do something that doesnt inculed duck tape or a water gun. i think the guest host thing has to go because pretty soon we might have big bird as host, have some personal fueds haves something that doesnt end up with cena holding the title give to sheamus people may not like him but he good if not for raw put him on smackdown cos at the minute swagger and show will only last 1 month and smackdown dont have much left to do .

i also think making batista the way he is crap have him like orton and then feud them both, just imagin them trying to out do each other that would be awsome then have shemus or edge take the title off cena .

anyway thats my view on the pg era and just like to say well done to the only good superstars in the wwe

batista
the miz
big show
jack swagger
cm punk
and many others (expet cena )

 

[kurt_angle_no1fan]

I know Vince denies they are direct competition but I firmly believe they are. I am a big fan of both and despite one being an undetermined sport, and the other being a predetermined entertainment at the end of the day it is 2 men squaring off against each other for a captive audience. We dont know who is going to win and anything can happen.

Vince changed to PG to intrigue a new audience because he was losing fans to UFC. The older WWE fans watched their old product for the violence and the unpredicatability. UFC started to garner interest, became one of the worlds fastest growing sports and many fans (me included) thought hmmm, this is real violence, not choreographed! It seemed "cooler". UFC model their PPV's on WWE's formula, thats plain to see.

Anyway, its no coicidence that WWE changed to PG in 2008 - the same year Brock Lesnar joined UFC. Brock took ALOT of WWE fans across with him and I think Vince realised this would have a detrimental effect. (Theres only so many PPV's one can afford every month).

Vince made a smart move. I cant see him trying to compete with UFC on the violence and shock front. One is real, one isnt, no contest. I cant see WWE going back to the Attitude era in Vinces tenure again. I also see TNA following suite in order to garner more interest and introduce more fans to their product.

Discuss.

 

[blahher]

I believe them when they say they're not in direct competition with UFC. It's a completely different type of entertainment so I don't really see why they would even try to compete with them. Most of the people I know who watch Wrestling don't even watch the UFC, me also being one.

I'd say it's far more likely that they went PG because Linda McMahon is running for senator and doesn't want WWE to be used against her.

 

[TokiRKO]

It's a bit of both. Linda running for senate was a big reason, but UFC did take a lot of fans from WWE. It didn't have shit to do with Lesnar, it's just plain business. People who like violence will watch UFC, people who like storylines and actual bouts of skill, creativity, and stamina will watch....TNA lol. But neither of the wrestling shows are competing with UFC. UFC is the bastard child of martial arts and wrestling is wrestling. One is pure striking and submission and the other is more focused on wearing your opponent down.

WWE went PG to appeal to kids. UFC isn't for kids at all. So VKM saw an opportunity to get a new fanbase and he took it. Baseball isn't really a big thing for kids any more, and a few kids watch football or basketball. The only sport all most every kid watches is the Hornswaggle/Super Cena Show. The only thing that I have yet to understand is why keep the 9-11 timeslot? I have yet to see any one mention that. Most kids in Cena's age range are in bed around 9 or 10, so why not put the show on earlier? It would make more sense IMO

 

[LigerBomb]

I have no real contention with the PG era, outside of the poor sense it makes at times, but that is more an attack on booking than pandering to children. I'm fully cognoscente of the fact that it's in WWE's best interest to develop fans and make them "hooked" on the product. It's a cogent strategy that makes sense both common and business.
In truth I used to be somewhat embarrassed to watch certain parts of the WWF's old programing as their was no rhyme or reason to some aspects of it beyond the shock value and bawdy attempts at titillation. Beyond pandering to the lowest common denominator of their audience it re-enforced the stereotypes that Pro-Wrestling has been trying to run away from since it's desperate reclassification as Sports Entertainment.
My one and only qualm then --which may or may not be PG in origin-- is that currently WWE believes all its fans to be children, or of a child-like mind, and writes scenarios and storylines that make no logical progressive sense.
Instead they write with little regard for development and hope the action and spectacle of it all will distract long enough until the next show when they can do it all over again. While I know children aren't simply "little adults" Creative should at least try to write compelling stories that don't insult their younger audience's intelligence.
Yes stupid kids may buy whatever line you feed them but please don't forget that there are still adults in the crowd as well. If comic books and animated films can do it so can WWE.

 

[Andy 2 Randy]

I'm not a huge fan of the PG era, really I do have a big dislike for it! But some Superstars have found the way around it. Look at The Miz, he can cut amazing promo's on RAW (look at the one he did about being kicked out of the dressing room) without using the words Ass, Damn or Suck It.
However, Some of the roster are taking the PG a bit too far and ruining there own creation. Look at hornswoggle, started as a heel 'inforcer' for Finlay which worked. Then PG came and ruined Hornswoggle, making him into a kid favorite, using water pistols and tennis balls. Then the Hornswoggle/DX storyline came into light. The Biggest Tag Team of WWF/E history, known for there controversal style, watered down for little kiddies by adding a midget to the group.
Yes PG is a great way to bring the audience back in, but at the same time its driving the true fans away by not giving the Mature viewers what they want, instead give the kids Cena as champion and pointless less interesting match-ups (Dolph vs Hornswoggle, pretty downgrading for Ziggler)...I'm Just Sayin...

 

[Low_Ki]

I figured I'd try a topical discussion for a change.

So my first When Will They...question is when will the WWE go back to being PG13 or for those of us in the UK, a rated 15 or 18 program? Will they ever revert back to the storyline's and the days of the 'Attitude Era'? Has TNA stolen the adult nature of wrestling away from the WWE? Do you think a second 'Attitude Era' in the WWE would help spike ratings again, or has everything been done before, thus condemning the ratings to the same 3.0-4.0 that we have seen in the PG era?

My thoughts are that I think the WWE will probably ease up on the PG rating at some point within the next 5 maybe 10 years. I understand that advertisers are more inclined to enjoy sponsoring the WWE while it is squeaky clean, but the WWE made its money whether they were entertaining 10 year olds or having Steve Austin flipping off Mr McMahon.

I believe wrestling to be cyclical, and thus my hope is that one day the WWE will go back to the 'good ol' days and hopefully TNA won't have exhausted every adult storyline by that point. Here's hoping.

What are everyone's thoughts?

 

[Dibil]

I don' think they will for a while because ALOT (more than you think) of WWE's audiance is Children under 10.They probs won't go back to TV-14 untill ratings get desperate

 

[Dibil]

Pros: 1.WWE are taking more care of their wrestlers eg no chair shots to head
2.They don't get as much complaints from angry parents saying the program is too violent

Cons: 1.Almost all storylines are boring now
2.Raw is a mess,just watch one episode,you'll see what i mean (too much comedy stuff)


So is the pg era REALLY that bad?

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

Yes..with the above posters...it viewers fall..then WWE will want to bring it back up...another reason would be IF..(only IF)...TNA get better and are a real threat to them..e.g. thy suddenly attract bigger audience, get out of iMPACT Zone, go back to Monday Nights and get one over on WWE...then VKM will just screw the PG and bring in Attitude Era II...Which would be AWESOME!!!

 

[SpoodBeest]

From a business standpoint it's not going to happen, at least not for a long time that is. The WWE is making very great business from the demographic of younger kids and families. It may not be as booming as it was from the late 90s-early 00s but I would say their bringing in more cash flow then they did 5 years ago. Then the other demographic they get is us who have been watching forever, but they don't cater to us.

I see no problem with the way WWE is handling their content on television. If they were to stay "PG" and family friendly for the next 10 years I wouldn't care because even thought they have gone though many changes from when I started watching, I still enjoy the product i'm seeing. If something isn't broken don't fix it. WWE will not cater to the 15-20 demographic for a long time, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't ever try to get that fan base again because WWE is distancing itself away from the Attitude Era, which was pretty good for the most part but is highly over rated and don't think produced the same consistent match quality we see today.

So will WWE cater to the older audience once more? Meh maybe but the post-Attitude Era that you seem to be talking about was when the company was in a decline and not making nearly the money you see now that they are making off of the children and families that it is marketing too today. So then again maybe they wont market to an older audience because the money isn't there at this stage in time.

 

[TheAnimal]

They dont need to. WWE is very profitable, unlike TNA they are run well and can budget and adjust to the financial climate. Sure the boom period would be nice but WWE are coping very well at the moment.

I think these things are cyclical too, but it cant be forced and i dont think that the kind of edgy product will be what is necessary to create the next boom because at the same time the publics demand is different. I think for the next boom they need to look at something different. They can try to create the next Austin, Rock, whoever really, but whilst they would be great superstars and additions to the main event the WWE shouldn't look back, they should look at what is popular now and try to develop it. For example UFC is extremely popular, so they could try to market something/someone like that, with more competition etc. But at the same time the audiences are different, more importantly so is the target audience.

So to conclude, they won't because basically they dont need to, they arent the company with their backs against the wall (TNA are) so they dont need to desperately try and push the envelope (the way TNA are). But the thing TNA are doing wrong is going back to the past for what worked before, not going for what will work in the future. If you think that they are trying to eat into WWEs audience, then why dont they think that the PG rated audience is going to be mainly kids, so thats who we need to target, not the adult rated product wanting kids to tune in.

 

[Daniel]

I like the PG era. I'm a newcomer to watching WWE on a regular basis, but I can say I have been impressed with what i've seen.

I agree with your first pro. The wellness policy is a major element of the PG era and I think it's great that they have done it. Chair shots to the head are stupid and dangerous. And you don't need constant blading to enjoy a wrestling match. Although it does annoy when the match is stopped to tidy up the tiniest cut. Overall, the wellness policy is an excellent move on the part of VKM.
I don't think, however, that getting complaints from parents matters too much. The danger was previously that excessive complaints would result in a toned down show. Now the show is already toned down, the complaints don't have much power.

Cons: 1.Almost all storylines are boring now

I disagree with you on this one. While the storylines aren't edgy, some of them have absolutely captivated me. The Mysterio-Punk storyline was really exciting. While the original idea was a lot more edgy (have CM Punk turn Rey's children against him) I still loved the result. The matches at PPVs were a major talking point. Angles rely a lot on booking and the booking on WWE programmes has been superb recently so I see no problem with storylines
I think you're spot on with your final point. While comedy skits have their place in what is essentialy modern-day vauderville, the usage seems excessive to me. Seeing Santino in a backstage segment with a celebrity i've never heard of does make me cringe a bit. But Raw has always been more entertainment based, if you want something closer to a wrestling show, SmackDown is just the ticket.

Buisness wise, the PG era made sense. Vince saw that the demographic for WWE was getting younger. When you see a show, the number of children wearing Rey Mysterio masks is ridiculous. Stuff like that are real money-spinners.

 

[hfdsa_14]

The reason why WWE went PG was money and ratings.They went TV14 back in the Monday Night Wars because they were losing the Wars against WCW, so they had to go TV14, so the audience was more attracted to them, and they did the right thing.Now there is no REAL COMPETITION so they won't go TV14....TNA's blood abusemente is a clear sign of that, they want more adult audience, sadly there are more kids who watch WWE, than adults who watch TNA.
Until TNA becomes REAL COMPETITION...I don't think WWE is going TV14 AGAIN.

 

[streicher187]

When the Conn Elections are over and they can not use what the WWE does against linda mcmahon.. IF she win then Don't expect it anytime soon but if she gets blown out then they have no more reason to be PG..

 

[The Max Attack]

I dont even think whether Linda wins or loses they are going to stray away from the current PG product which is clearly geared towards kids anyway.

They dont need to change whats working right now, just because some "Attitude Era" fans want what the WWE once was. There is not that much money there in that demographic, compared to the kids demographic there is now. And the kids and the whole family atmosphere rule the WWE as it is now.

And they are getting more mainstream attention in this era than the attitude era. More of their superstars are being used for Movies, Television shows, and now more of the mainstream media are slowly starting to take the WWE seriously, because of the programming they are putting on televison now.

So if they never got back to the older demographic of fans I would be ok with it.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Hey, you. Yeah, you. Shh.

There is barely any discernible difference between "PG Era" WWE and the years that followed immediately before it and anyone who says there is is a liar. So when will it go back to being 'adult'? Well, it already is.

Basically, a wrestling journalist (read: semi-literate cunt) published an article saying, "Hey guys I'm-a here to bash the WWE and so, yeah, everything's gonna be PG from now on because of children, which I hate - because you have to not be a basement-dwelling virgin to have children. I think I just herped so much I derped" and then anything from that point on was criticised for being PG.

Rey Mysterio's getting a push. Oh, it's because it's PG. This Hornswoggle segment isn't very good - because it's so PG. I don't like the colour of those ring ropes. Typical "PG" colour, huh? Oh, they're beating the shit out of John Cena. I see they're not using steak knives to attack him they normally would - what a pain these PG guidelines are!

If there's a problem with the WWE people blame it on the "PG Era." It's getting tiresome.

Not to mention I imagine this thread will be merged soon. Typical PG Era WrestleZone.

 

[peep4life]

i dont think they will unless TNA or another company becomes a threat to them like WCW its been said that VINNIE MAC is in his comfort zone as a PG rated show so unless TNA picks up thier game big time WWE is staying PG. but they arent as PG as they once was RAW proved that the sex joke with DIBASE and MARYSE and CENA sayin HELL and other people saying ass. another reason would be ratings drop and less money but i think there ok in that deperment. so will WWE stay PG YES unless another company TNA or anyone else becaomes a threat the PG rating aint going nowhere and me personally dont mind it either