PG Era Ending?

P

PlayTheGame

The Cerebral Assassin
Hey, haven't posted in a while but I was kind of inspired after seeing this as the title of (I think) a CSR episode (that I have no intention of watching).

Before I get into this, I just want to make it clear that it's not one of those "Duh PG Era Sucks, BRING BACK ATTITUDE" blah blah blah threads, more of one about using logic. If you agree or disagree with that logic, that's fine. But here we go.

Linda McMahon's political career is all but over (I hope). It's been made abundantly clear that she cannot and will not win an election. After blowing about $100 million, she lost again.

A big reason why WWE went PG was for Linda's political career, which now appears to be in floundering shape. You know what else is in bad shape? WWE's product, their ratings, and their income. Sure, they're still on top, but they've really digressed ever since Raw went to 3 hours. Just read a KB review for evidence of that. A change is needed. Maybe a TV-14 rating wouldn't make the product better, but, at least, it'd be a cheap get-out-of-jail card move that could allow them to go in different directions. Cuz they're going nowhere fast currently.

In conclusion, the PG era was launched for Linda's career AND to draw money. Disappointments have resulted in both areas. Maybe they decide to shake this up? I mean, they shake up just about everything else (firing writers, storyline directions, new GM's, etc.) all the time, so how much longer 'till they give this a try? Possibly soon in my opinion, especially if WWE keeps trending downward for the next year or two.
 
The PG era was not due to Linda. It was a reaction to Chris Benoit and a strategic move to appeal to more corporate sponsors who favour more family friendly content. After the Benoit incident and the usual violence in wrestling, I am sure many conservative countries ordered wrestling off the air or to be put in ridiculous timeslots, making them undesirable for international broadcasters. Being PG is a way for WWE to access these international markets where censors can be more restrictive than in America.
 
That's true. Maybe others can do the same. Just a shaken-up environment is what may be in order. The rating can do that.

Whether it will work or not, who knows. I just think they'd be more prone to trying it since nothing else seems to be working, and you know they wouldn't want to revert back to 2 hour raws. Yet something must be done, as Raw just had an historically low rating just a couple weeks ago. They seem to try to alter and change all sorts of other things about the product, I'm just wondering how much longer it will take them to shake up the rating again. Many believe that the rating is and always has been a "cyclical" thing... so maybe it's time to evolve? Maybe.
 
The rating actually has little to do with the content of the show. The content probably won't change a whole lot.

The show might get a little bit more "edge", because Punk and Cena can push the limits without being over the top. If the Rock is featured more in the coming year, as reports are saying, he can do that too. Orton is inherently violent without being too violent.

Other than that, I don't think we'll see more skin from the divas. I don't think we'll see much more blood than we do now (that's actually a good thing, because too much blood makes it mean less). I know we won't see head shots.

And characters like Sheamus and Kofi wouldn't fit in so much during a program filled with violence and sex and such, and they're some of the more over dudes they have right now. Does making some of your top guys irrelevant help anything? Nope.
 
JGlass said:
I thought we were in the reality era now?
Click to expand...

So Brodus Clay really does think hes a dancing dinosaur?

I don't think they'll end it. They have no competition, they have nothing and nobody to worry about, they came off the back of the highest grossing Wrestlemania in history, they've several big events in the coming months including several huge names (Brock Lesnar, The Rock, The Undertaker) and their ratings haven't drastically decreased. Its been stated so many times, this is the off-season in WWE, once the Royal Rumble hits everything will get exciting again and complaints will have little merit.

BaconBits said:
And characters like Sheamus and Kofi wouldn't fit in so much during a program filled with violence and sex and such, and they're some of the more over dudes they have right now. Does making some of your top guys irrelevant help anything? Nope.
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me you think the Irishman who they push as loving to fight, who can never quit and has had some of the most brutal beating on WWE television in the last few months wouldn't adapt to a more violent product? Surely you jest.
 
If it's true that DBD was released after sponsors (namely Mattel) were unhappy about his tie choke on Justin Roberts then they stand to lose sponsors if they move to a TV14 rating. The shows would leave more room for violence and vulgarity and some sponsors aren't going to want to be associated with that. Wrestling isn't a commodity like it used to be. Less sponsors are going to be willing to get involved with it.

WWE has no competition so it's not as if there is drastic need for them to change. As previously mentioned they just had the highest selling Wrestlemania in history. They still sell merchandise. Wrestlers are still seen on tv shows. They have "celebrities" who are willing to appear at Raw and some at pay per views. (Like Machine Gun Kelly at WM). There's nothing really pushing Vince to make changes. He's still making money and owns the number one "wrestling" company in the world.
 
I think anything in entertainment you max out of whatever rating you might have. The biggest reason WWE went to PG was to get more sponsor money to save their company when the recession hit alot of companies hard. I have been saying for quite some time if you would subtract the sponsor money from WWE's year ending bottom line the company is limping along to $500 mill. That sponsor money is infused into daily business with some on expenses and the rest on operating revenue which is different from actual revenue. I think the best thing to do is go to PG-13. Thats the best of both worlds where the product is balanced and is somewhat aggressive but not overly aggressive. One thought process that must be addressed is the issue concerning being family friendly. There is no more kids watching today than back during the Attitude Era. This idea that certain parental coalition political groups have eased their stance on WWE Programming is a flat out lie. The same political groups that didn't like WWE back in the 90's-00's still don't like WWE programming of today. WWE has always marketed towards children even when it was TV-14. In fact UFC is TV-14 and they market towards children and I don't see too many political groups aligning themselves against UFC. WWE will always make money and will always market towards children regardless of rating!
 
I am rooting for a story where Cena tries to bring the attitude era back. Not sure that it would be a good business decision but I would find much hilarity in watching smarks heads explode from trying to figure out how to react.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Linda McMahon senate primary win bad for wrestling fans
2 3
Replies
55
Views
8K
Slyfox696
S
A
Who named the PG Era of the WWE?
Replies
4
Views
1K
Ambiguous Turd
A
W
End of WHAT Era???
Replies
11
Views
15K
Davi323
D
A
Can you pinpoint an exact date or event when the PG era began?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Paul_J_L
P
G
Top 5 diva matches and fueds of the PG era so far
Replies
15
Views
3K
nightmare
N

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 150 (members: 0, guests: 150)

Forum statistics

Threads
174,840
Messages
3,300,777
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo

Share this page

Back
Top