PG & Attitude Era Thread

[Mr. Artistic guy]

Well according to the wrestling observer newsletter(thanks to prowrestling.com for posting it), it seems that some of the wwe stars are becoming increasingly upset with the current product (ie. PG). This is and actual quote taken out from the wrestling observer newsletter (again thanks to prowrestling for posting it):

WWE Stars Reportedly Frustrated with Current Product

Date Added: October 18, 2010
Story By: Marc Middleton
source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

Several WWE stars have privately indicated in recent weeks that they are contemplating leaving the organization—and the wrestling business altogether—once their current contracts expire.

Edge, who's current deal with World Wrestling Entertainment expires in two years, has been telling people that he may retire from the wrestling industry once it concludes.

One company insider noted to Wrestling Observer editor Dave Meltzer that four other WWE stars have stated in recent weeks that they've completely lost their passion for wrestling, to such a degree that they vow to leave the business altogether once their contracts expire.

A fifth wrestler claims he will leave WWE once his current deal runs out, but will continue wrestling elsewhere.

To answer the question of this thread, based upon reports that are coming in from "trusted sources", it would seem to me that the wwe will become a few stars short if they don't do something about the current product. Also, if my memory serves right, didn't batista leave the wwe because he wasn't enjoying the way the product was going. This quote was taken from an interview conducted by ESPN when they interviewed batista:

Batista Speaks on Why He Left WWE and Returning

Date Added: October 18, 2010
Story By: Marc Middleton
- Batista recently spoke to ESPN and mentioned WWE and a possible return to wrestling, with highlights below:

Why He Left WWE: "I didn't agree with the direction the company was going in. It was geared more toward the PG rating. I fell in love with wrestling again in the late '90s with 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin and 'The Rock' Dwayne Johnson … It was edgy, and that was the kind of wrestling I knew and loved. It wasn't like that anymore, and my passion for it died a little bit."

Return to Wrestling: "I'm hoping the cycle will come around again, and it'll get a little edgy and it'll be my time to come back and shine a little bit. I love kids. I'm not anti-kids. I just don't think kids are going to relate to me the same way they're going to guys like John Cena, guys who are, to me, more bubblegum. There's nothing bubblegum about me."

True and I think batista also mentionned recently that a lot of the guys naming no names (<COUGH>,orton) weren't able to do any real life fighting which he personally thought was a shame. Barrett is an ex-bare knuckle boxer which is cool, but most guys probably can't really throw a punch and in that respect they come accross as more PG because they haven't been in a fight.

I would have expected that response from many wrestlers in this PG era. Why do people think so many people go to TNA, it isn't because of the execution, TNA is run by two guys who don't really have a grasp on what they are doing NOW, let alone the future. I think the descision to turn jeff hardy heel was made sumthing like 3 weeks before their biggest PPV of the year, astounding!! No, TNA obviously isnt as good a company, but it lets wrestlers have creativity in and out the ring, your not limited exactly to what vince tells you to say in case you offend somebody, you can actually address the crowd like your a human being with emotions and the abilty to express them. Being the TNA champ actually means more now because you defend your belt without the outcome being (quite) as predictable as what WWE throws at us. In comparison to WWE, TNA is like 1995 WWF, still progressing but unremarkable and yet it is far better to be in a proffessional reputable company for the fact that people like edge never grew up wanting to be a kiddies entertainer, they wanted to be wrestling icons just like their heroes and our heroes. they wanted to be recognized for being good at what they do, or used to do in this case, and now no-one knows if they truly are because nobody gets to see them do what they potentially can.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

One thing I've noticed in this section is that there are a lot of threads that pop up on a regular basis discussing the PG Era and the Attitude Era. The threads range from praising to criticizing to discussing how to improve things, how they want things to go back to how they were in the Attitude Era and so on and so forth. Basically, it's just the same stuff being discussed over and over again so let's just keep all the discussions on the PG/Attitude here so as to just stop cluttering up the forum with a near endless barrage of these threads.

 

[Optimist Prime]

A PG era isn't necessarily bad as the WWF made most of its initial success being a PG product in the 80's and early 90's.

The thing that I don't get is how they are trying to be a PG product with the same attitude twist. It creates confusion and causes a lack of substance since people were so used to the Attitude Era being all out, no holds barred - and then having the same characters, the same logos, the same music, and a similar "look" but without the same edge.

It's almost impossible to be as successful or improve your success when you're putting out a new version of the same thing people are used to but is significantly worse. That's like the Iphone next generation phone being put out without texting being available. Just a bad recipe.

Although, unlike the phone analogy, a PG environment could work a little better than it has been...if they did a make-over so-to-speak.

The fact that they haven't done a make-over and have still stuck to the PG thing...is just clear proof that Vince isn't going to stick with PG longterm and that it's merely only a campaign tactic while his wife is running for office.

 

[Kizzo]

PG isn't the problem.

As other have already stated. The WWE in the 80's was PG, and of course when WCW was kicking WWE's ass it was PG as well.

It's all in the storylines and characters. PG doesn't mean you have to be geared to kids, and the storylines and characters have to be corny and silly. Great content can be produced within a PG rating.

 

[AndyUK]

PG isn't the problem.

As other have already stated. The WWE in the 80's was PG, and of course when WCW was kicking WWE's ass it was PG as well.

It's all in the storylines and characters. PG doesn't mean you have to be geared to kids, and the storylines and characters have to be corny and silly. Great content can be produced within a PG rating.

The thing is though, audiences have changed. Those 80's characters would be laughed out of the building today. Also, come on, the characters in the eighties were a lot more corny and silly than they are today.

If any non wrestling fan listened to Hulk Hogan, Macho Man and The Ultimate Warrior cut a promo from the eighties, they'd laugh at how hammy and over the top they were. All they ever did with scream crap that didn't make a lick of sense. I loved that time period but those over the top characters would not work in 2010 and that is why the characters are a lot more toned down and generic today.

 

[Tommy Rage]

Hopefully, not for many more years.

I know I'm not going to win many friends here by saying this, but professional wrestling is for grownups (and teenagers). It is NOT meant for small children and should not be packaged that way. If WWE keeps with this whole "PG" crap, they might as well air Raw on the Disney Channel, Smackdown on Nickelodeon and they'll lose a lot of fans.

No it isn't.

I am guessing you got into wrestling during the Attitude Era? A lot of people who got into the product during that era seem to think that this is the first time wrestling has ever been "family friendly". The Attitude Era is just one very short period in the long history of wrestling, and specifically WWE. Before that era, the product was aimed at kids/families just as it is today. If anything, wrestling is predominantly for kids/families and always has been with the exception of that relatively short period we know as the Attitude Era. Things like blading been banned - we've seen it all before, in the mid 90s for example. If you prefer a product aimed at adults, that is your opinion, but don't try to pretend that this is the first time wrestling has been aimed at a young audience.

Personally, while I miss certain aspects of the Attitude Era, or at least the pre-2008 era before certain restrictions were put in place (most notably blood, which can be a valuable storytelling tool if used correctly/sparingly), I can't say I have too much of a problem with PG. If anything it encourages WWE to focus more on wrestling (we get a lot more wrestling and higher quality wrestling now compared to the late 90s) and not on silly BS like sex related angles, over-the-top and unrealistic violence, needless swearing just to try to be "cool" etc. I prefer the product of today to the Attitude Era, or at least to the pre-2000 period of the Attitude Era before they got the balance right between good wrestling and intriguing angles.

WWE being family friendly is not some travesty which goes against the history and tradition of the business - it is very much in keeping with it. Not to mention WWE does a lot of good things in the world nowadays, working with charities and helping disadvantaged children in various ways, among other things. I personally think it is a positive thing that wrestling can do some good in the world and hopefully start to get some positive headlines, and maybe one day the respect it deserves as a business.

I'd rather they targeted the next generation of fans rather than go after a fanbase which is no longer there, or at least not there in any significant numbers, as TNA are trying to do (with little success). Strangely enough, a product aimed at kids and their families seems a lot less patronising and insulting to the intelligence than one aimed at adults.