Was sports-entertainment meant to be PG-Rated?

CM Steel

A REAL American
From the title of the thread when I say "sports-entertainment" I mean the WWE. For the past few years now the WWE universe has been living in the PG-era now watching WWE. From the federation-era, to the epic attitude-era, and the ruthless aggression-era. The PG-era has been the most criticized in the history of the WWE.

From superstars & charactors like Santino Marella, Zack Ryder, Brodus Clay, and Hornswoggle. The current WWE is looking alot like the WWF back in the 1980's when chairman Vince McMahon's product was based off charactors that spun-off cartoon-like charactors from TV & comic books.

Looking at wrestling now in 2012, does it make you think that was pro wrestling ever meant to be rated as a PG-rated product in any era of wrestling? And when will we see a new or different era in the WWE?
 
The current era only feels like it's the most criticized because of the IWC. People find a way to complain about every superstar, diva, storyline, PPV, etc. The PG rating has been given a lot of crap for no reason too.

Santino, Brodus Clay, Zack Ryder and Hornswoggle might be cartoonish characters, but they are midcard at best and do not reflect the overall product. The last two PPV main events were Cena vs. Lesnar and Cena vs. Rock, which were anything but cartoonish. We also have the likes of CM Punk, Sheamus, Randy Orton, Chris Jericho and Daniel Bryan as main eventers.
 
Product is criticized because this is 2012 not 1980. People nowadays like to watch edgy and competitive things not cartoon characters from 1980 and Wrestling is not meant to be PG.

Brodus Clay, Santino Marella, Hornswoggle are perfect examples of cartoon charcters.
 
Product is criticized because this is 2012 not 1980. People nowadays like to watch edgy and competitive things not cartoon characters from 1980 and Wrestling is not meant to be PG.

The WWE is violent and competitive though. I didn't see anything cartoonish about Jericho breaking a whiskey bottle over Punk's head or Lesnar busting Cena open on two occasions.

Other than Kane, what major players in the WWE even remotely qualify as "cartoon characters"?
 
Product is criticized because this is 2012 not 1980. People nowadays like to watch edgy and competitive things not cartoon characters from 1980 and Wrestling is not meant to be PG.

You are just terrible.

Good stories aren't limited by ratings. Shrek is an awesome fucking movie, totally appropriate for kids. TNA is/was considered edgy (no idea if it still is) but the stories weren't executed any better than the shitty stories in the WWE.

Yeah I may come off as a WWE mark. Possibly because well, I am a WWE mark. Doesn't mean I won't acknowledge failed storylines. The Punk/Triple H/ Nash storyline had enormous potential. As did the Nexus story. Both went to shit due to incompetent writing.

If you have to loosen your restrictions to make your stories better, you're not good at writing stories.
 
Santino Marella - is extremely over with the crowd, got the US title as a result. So what if he is a comedy character?
Zack Ryder - He doesn't get tv appearances anymore (can't even get onto superstars anymore). People did love him at Santino levels of popularity until he was pushed off the card in favour of santino. Its actually a rather sad case for him, worked his way up the card then squashed because he made himself.
Brodus Clay - lighten up and try to have some fun for five minutes.
Hornswoggle - When does he get TV time? As a mascot for a few seconds leading up to large team matches? Danced with Brodus Clay for a couple of weeks? Seriously stop bringing him up as any kind of a problem, he has rarely gotten tv time since 2009.

We have moved on from the "PG" era, that lasted a year at most. All that shit from 2009 happened in 2009 and ended in 2009. We are clearly more in a social media era (you know mentioning twitter every 5 seconds, facebook, youtube etc). Wrestling has always had a mix of comedy whether it was good or bad (and there has been allot of bad through out the years even in your beloved attitude era). Get over it, if you aren't enjoying the current product at all stop watching it, why sit on forums bitching about it constantly if you do not enjoy it? Move on until something that might interest you happens.
 
From the title of the thread when I say "sports-entertainment" I mean the WWE. For the past few years now the WWE universe has been living in the PG-era now watching WWE. From the federation-era, to the epic attitude-era, and the ruthless aggression-era. The PG-era has been the most criticized in the history of the WWE.


What the fuck dude, seriously? No, seriously? The PG era, which is marketed towards kids and made friendlier for all audiences is the era that is panned because it doesn't involve over amounts of blood and edgy angles? The only thing you can say that the Attitude Era provided was a chance to have the WWE come back in the ratings during the Monday Night Wars. But other than that, the Attitude Era hurt the way the main-stream media looked at Professional Wrestling. Yardtards started to grow from the ground and you end up having 12-15 year old kids breaking their necks in the backyard because they wanted to replicate some garbage hardcore match they saw on RAW is War. You had no real role models when your figure head was a man who drank beer and made it his life's work beating up his boss every week.

The PG era may not be perfect, but by no means the Attitude Era the model of how promoters should book their programming.
 
Personally, I like my pro wrestling with an edge. I loved the way WWE pushed the envelope in the Attitude Era, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the company was skating near the edge in the 1970's and 80's, too.

The point is that WWE has so much going on that they can afford to experiment as they proceed. Some aspects are cartoonish while others make you wonder if the censors are going to step in at any moment. For that matter, we don't know how much content may never have hit the airwaves because the censors had it deleted before we knew it existed.

Many of us believed the first "PG' go-around coincided with Linda McMahon's run for the Senate two years ago. I detested the idea that the company would compromise what was being shown in order to accommodate a political candidate; albeit one in the McMahon family. We still don't know whether or not that's what they were really doing. But she's running again and I'd love to see WWE keep the racier stuff coming......and if it winds up exceeding the limits of PG taste, then so be it.
 
I'm not sure which type of show would appeal to the wider audience, so I can't honestly say whether PG is good for business or not.

However I can give my personal opinion. Now I'm old enough to watch a more edgy program with violence, bad language etc. but I don't think it needs it. Yea maybe it would be nice that instead of calling John Laurenitis a "toolbox", CM Punk had of layed into him using something a bit less childish, but at the end of the day it's not necessary, as I watch it for the wrestling and story lines. However I do believe the whole "aiming the product at kids" is extremely frustrating. I know that as a kid I loved watching Stone Cold drink beer and whip ass, and The Rock laying the smackdown, and Kurt Angle being a wrestling machine, and I probably would have detested John Cena's "never give up" and "Rise above hate" because its so sissy. I'm sure nowadays you can have a show that follows whatever rules or guidelines there are to be considered PG, (I don't really know what a PG show technically is or isn't allowed to do or say) but also produce a product that people don't find cringeworthy, eg. look at Brock Lesnar. I'm not the biggest fan because he bores the hell out of me when he talks and he clearly doesn't care about what he's doing, but the guy is a bad-ass no doubt, which adults and kids can enjoy.
 
No. It's wrestling...

Two guys who (should) absolutely hate eachother, involved in a bitter rivalry.

WWE doesn't seem to have those type of rivalries, it's all just lighthearted fun to them.

Wrestling shouldn't be PG. Ever.
 
there is nothing wrong with a pg rating, it is how it is handled. you can have adult storylines, you can have some language, you can have strong characters within a pg environment. simple comparison - would you rate the nfl, cfl, nhl R for violence? of course not. so why does wrestling need a higher rating? you just can`t simplify things to make sure you are not offending people. you need to push things a little and wwe doesn`t want to do that.
 
It;s fine as it is now.

WWE is trying produce for all ages. Santino, Funkasaurus, Hornswaggle etc for the kids, and Cena with the Make a Wish thing. Then you get more adult like content. Jericho breaking bottles over heads, Brock coming back and making people bleed and breaking thier arms.

I like the way they are delivering for everyone as they are at the moment. I like Cena especially for this as he is keeping the younger Audience happy but, can step up to the plate and put on a Voilent Bloody match with someone who definatly is not Cartoonish Brock Lesnar.
 
Most of the fans that have a problem with the PG rating, most but not all, are the ones that are so stupid to allow themselves to be so closed minded when it comes to what a PG rating can mean. For some strange reason, there are any number of wrestling fans that stupidly believe that something that's PG means it's specifically geared and aimed towards targeting children. These same fans seem to have it in their heads that R rated material is the only thing that can qualify as quality for some strange reason. If I were to list all the shitty R rated programming I've watched over the years, I'd be here all day naming them off and why they sucked.

As we've seen over the course of much of the past year, the WWE has injected a generally edgier feel into things without going over the line, including injecting some truly adult themes into the build to WrestleMania. We've seen more swearing in promos, more intensity in some of the promos, and that's been a good thing because WWE hasn't gone overboard with it. Back in the Attitude Era, some of it was a lot of fun and some of it was just flat out unnecessary. The edgy & controversial stuff got to the point where it was being done just for the sake of controversy rather than have an actual purpose to it. Now that I certainly don't miss because it led to some of the worst stuff we've ever seen on a pro wrestling television show. The WWE doesn't use blood often at all anymore, nor do the wrestlers curse every other word when they talk on the mic. But when they do, look at the response it gets. Look at how great the overall reception was for Cena vs. Lesnar. The women don't compete in bra & panty matches or pillow fight matches anymore, they're no longer portrayed as brazen ****s. While it'd be nice to see the Divas get more serious attention and be more relevant, at least lots of time isn't taken up with them. Those bikini contests and lingerie matches were nonsense and would go on forever. If I have to put up with nonsense, I prefer getting it over and done with as soon as possible. Portraying women in that light doesn't get it done anymore. All you have to do is look at TNA's attempt to start its own Attitude Era back in 2010. Women were treated as the Divas were treated, blood popped up in every other match, guys swearing constantly in their promos, etc. TNA went overboard with things and it turned off a lot of people. Edgy does not automatically equal good quality.

I think one thing that the OP has neglected to mention as it pertains to the PG Era being the most criticized in WWE history is that most of the criticizing comes from the IWC. MOST of the criticizing almost ALWAYS comes from the IWC for one reason or another. Even when WWE delivers a slam dunk by giving pushes to internet favorites, to giving them solid & lengthy title runs, to delivering interesting feuds & matches on television, to delivering great ppvs; the criticism never stops. Even when the collective IWC seems to get what it wants, someone seems to find some new angle in which to deliver the hate and many others jump on the bandwagon.

If it's not the PG rating, it's John Cena. If it's not John Cena, it's CM Punk. If it's not CM Punk, it's Daniel Bryan or Brock Lesnar or Triple H or Randy Orton. I can understand if someone's just not digging the product since you can't please everybody, but the PG bashing has really gotten incredibly stale. It's the same old arguments that've been discredited time and time again. Like most of the usual suspects when it comes to the subject of WWE hate, the PG rating is a convenient target.
 
Lets keep in mind "Sports Entertainment" is a VKM definition. Lets not group all of pro wrestling promotions past and present under this definition. WWF/WWE was scheduled to be always be PG. VKM will stick to concepts until he is losing lots of money. I have always said the best direction of a wrestling company is taking various production ideas from other promotions. Production value:WWE
Storylines:ECW
In-Ring wrestling:JCP
Booking:JCP
 
Pro wrestling is not, never was, and never will be family friendly because it's not meant to be. At it's very core it's all about two people who have issues with each other and aren't going to "talk it out" they're gonna fight. It's always been about them beating the holy shit out of each other and the loser coming back to get some revenge that would do Quentin Tarantino proud. Like when Nailz Pearl Harbored The Big Boss Man. The Bossman wasn't about to get in touch with his feelings, He was gonna get in touch with that nightstick and use it to paint several shades of pain on Nailz's ass. That's why we watch, because wrestlers can do the kind of stuff we can't.
 
Like when Nailz Pearl Harbored The Big Boss Man. The Bossman wasn't about to get in touch with his feelings, He was gonna get in touch with that nightstick and use it to paint several shades of pain on Nailz's ass. That's why we watch, because wrestlers can do the kind of stuff we can't.


Interesting that you mention this storyline because it took place during a time when the WWE was PG or the equivalent of it in 1992.

It was much more family friendly and PG back then than it is now.

Yes, wrestling can be violent sometimes, but it's cartoonish violence. It's the equivalent of Daffy Duck getting his beak smacked off.


Pro Wrestling with the exception of the Attitude Era and a few years afterward has always been seen as family entertainment.

During the early days, it was promoted like a legit sport, and families would gather around the TV to watch matches or go to shows.

Hell, why do you think shows like WWF Superstars, Wrestling Challenge, and whatnot used to air on Saturday Mornings right after cartoons?

It's so they could get kids to watch the show. There'd be commercials for video games, action figures, and ice cream bars.

It boggles my mind that people care so much about a silly little TV rating.

I'm guessing that a majority of people bitching about the WWE PG were just kids themselves when the Attitude Era was at its peak.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,847
Messages
3,300,827
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top