Exactly. Matches and storylines were set to such a great high that we were treated to great suspense, stories, and matches told by actual entertaining wrestlers in the ring. Nowadays (as you said), we don't see any of this anymore and we still expect some of these great matches. But on your first point, what how many good angles have we seen in the last 3 years that had a good beginning, good matches, good story, and good ending? Off the top of my head, I can remember HBK and Undertaker. That's it.
To respond to Jack Hammers second point about the PG era, here is my response. Alright, just because the demographics tell statistics, that still doesn't mean WWE isn't catering to little kids. 18 years will still watch both programs. Also the PG era bashing may be old, but it is a valid reason and problem with this business. In the years, we have seen huge changes that make WWE look like they are catering to children. For example, the use of strong and violent language has been reduced to pretty much 0%. The use of blood has been reduced as well (AIDS plays into this as well though). Hardcore matches are no longer hardcore. Childish gimmicks have overrun RAW in ridiculous fashion (you cannot say Hornswoggle has not been overdone). Those are a few examples. Now you may say WWE is cutting down hardcore matches and dangerous spots due to the safety of these individuals, well that leads into my point of WWE losing it's edge. You may call me now ignorant and inconsiderate for wanting these people to bleed and put their body at risk, well guess what, they chose to be in this business. It's their life choice and they should be prepared for these matches.
I really hate when people use the PG era as an arguement, because when you look at it the logic behind it is flawed. The reason they went PG is because they KNOW that they are losing their fanbase. We, as the old generation of wrestling fans, are starting to find other interests(MMA/Pro Sports/starting families/etc) and we stop ordering PPV as much, quit tuning in to their tv shows every week, and stop buying merchandise. But much as they did back in the 80's when most of us became hooked, and again in the 90's when the younger end of our generation was starting to get into wrestling, WWE had to change. They were PG when Hulk Hogan told us to say our prayers/eat our vitamins. They were PG when we watched Lex Luger slam Yokozuna on the Red, White and Blue tour. They were PG when Roddy Piper cracked Jimmy Snuka in the head with a coconut on Piper's Pit. They didn't start being rated TV 14 until DX/Austin/Ministry/Rock became popular. Why did they change? The older audience had left and they needed to adapt to their new audience. Hip Hop/Grunge/Rock had become the new thing and it was edgy. WWE had to match what was popular to keep their fanbase. When ECW started going Xtreme and WWE/WCW saw how popular people getting the shit kicked out of them was, they started doing hardcore matches/chair shots to the head/HIAC/etc.
Now, in the year 2010, our generation of wrestling fans is starting to become burnt out. I have been a constant fan since 1985 when I was a year old. I got burnt out around 1999-2000 and took a step back for about 6 months or so. I still watched occasionally, but if I missed a show it was no big deal. When I came back, I found my love for the business again and I haven't missed a WWE show since and since TNA went to Spike I haven't missed a show their either. I see the same exact problems in both companies, and none of them have anything to do with their rating for viewing. Both problems stem from a creative standpoint. TNA likes to jump around in their story arch. They will start a program, put it on hold for a week or 2, and then suddenly pick that program back up again without explanation. So for example a few weeks ago they had AJ/Pope doing their angle and if I was a new fan and saw this I might say I want to see where this goes, so I'll watch next week. But the next week they had Pope going against Desmond Wolfe and AJ fighting Jeff Hardy with no mention of the Pope/AJ story. If I wasn't into the AJ/Hardy program(which I wansn't because I can't stand Jeff Hardy when he is left to his own devices) I may decide it was a one off thing and change the channel. WWE doesn't have this issue. Problem is, sometimes they OVERDO a program. What I mean is you had Cena/Batista leading up to Mania. If you were a new fan, you might of liked the build the fued was getting(which if you actually watched it, Batista made you HATE him and made you WANT Cena to overcome the odds) and wanted to follow the fued. But if you watched the rest of Raw they mention it 3 more times, 2 on NXT, and 5 times on Smackdown. Rinse and repeat for the 3-4 weeks leading up to the PPV. By the time you get to the show, alot of people might be sick of the fued. That happens alot, but that is what happens when creative can't come up with enough stuff to fill a show with enough things that they don't HAVE to keep doing recaps all the time. Smackdown has recently gotten much better at this, and it shows in the quality of the show they put on. Both shows are rated PG, but Smackdown makes better use of their talent and the writers honestly seem like they care more. The announcers do a better job of putting over the talent, while still calling the mach. That doesn't happen on Raw, and alot of times doesn't happen in TNA. That is the difference between the promotions. Their production/writing/etc. NOT their rating.
ps, I do agree with you guys that a good, hot crowd can make an event. That is why Wrestlemania should only be allowed in New York, Chicago, Montreal, Toronto, Houston, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Miami, and Los Angeles...Those crowds show up and make the event 100X better in the process.
