Why does it matter?

[Lee]

There's two things that keep coming up, almost as sly digs, in this forum and it's really pissing me off. The first is the point that WWE is now rated PG, the second is that Vince has demanded that the wrestlers are referred to as entertainers.

So I ask the question...does it really matter?

PG Rating;

No, of course it doesn't matter. One of the biggest demographics of wrestling fans are kids, I started as a fan when I was about three or four (so about twenty years) and back then the shows were rated PG. The early 90s PPV shows were rated PG, it's not until the late 90s does the rating go up.

People are worried that we're not going to see hardcore and that sort of crap (really not a hardcore fan), but just because raw, Smackdown and ECW is rated PG, does not mean that the PPV's will be rated PG.

The rating of a product doesn't mean that it'll be any better, otherwise every 18/R rated movie would be better than every PG one, and this clearly is not the case.

So why does it matter is a show is rated PG or Rated R? Does this really affect the product?

Entertainers

The other thing, is the terminology entertainer. If ever there was an overreaction to something it was this. Just because the terminology has changed to Entertainer, does not mean that Vince has gone on a power trip.

It was him that gave us the name Superstars instead of wrestlers, and if you care to actually look, there's not much use of the term Entertainer. Yeah commentators will mention it from time to time, but if you look on WWE.com they still use the term Superstar on that site.

What does it matter what they are called? As long as it's not poncy prats I couldn't care if they're called wrestlers, superstars or entertainers! After all it makes no difference to the product as a whole.

 

[The Undercover Man]

Some people see this PG rating as a "step down" from what the fans were use to from when the Attitude Era was upon us and think that WWE is getting worse because of this. People think we will never see any hardcore matches anymore, no more swearing and basically no more adult aimed shows like what we got before. I'm not particularly bothered because WWE is a show not a religion and i'm not going to watch a show if i don't like it. I'm personally not enjoying WWE programming at the moment like i use to, but there are some "loyalists" out there that treat wrestling as a religion and want to see all the stuff we had in the late 90's back again. I got into an arguement with a wrestling fan who thought this and he said your not a true fan if you bail, just because your not getting what you want on WWE programming. My reply was "WWE is not a religion, its a show and a business.

I suppose wrestling being rated PG does affect what goes on, i suppose we won't see anymore "Rated R" stuff, forr example Edge having a sex celebration with Lita. Or we won't be seeing anymore bloody or hardcore matches. I'm not saying wrestling is about seeing bloody and brutal matches but even though i am against seeing hardcore matches, week-in week-out i would'nt mind seeing one from time-to-time.

I don't care what the employees are called in the WWE, because their job is to entertain hence the names ; entertainers. As i was saying ealier about these people thattreat wrestling like a religion, these are the kind of people that go on about these things. They don't realise that its a business decision more then anything else. There were rumors that Vince done this because it saves him having to pay money out for each entertainer, he takes into a town or city for a show.

I agree the word entertainer does'nt make a difference to the product but it may mkae people see these guys in a different light. I don't but i know some people who would. As for the PG rating i do think it takes away from the wrestling, it takes away some of the adult features we enjoyed and replaces them with watered down things

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I thought the PG rating would make a difference, but we're still seeing Street Fights and Extreme Rules matches on normal tv (though not as often), so it obviously applies to the segments in between the wrestling. As Undercover said we're not likely to see any live sex celebrations on tv anymore. No more divas making out or 80 yr old women giving birth to hands or necrorape (thank god) and instead we'll just get segments full of talk and nothing else.

As for the whole referring to talent as entertainers instead of superstars, for me it just came off as another move for Vince to shift the focus away from the wrestling aspect of his wrestling corporation. He wants his company to have a more hollywood feel, and this is much more evident on Raw than anywhere else, because the majority of the matches on RAW are less than 5 minutes long and there's shed loads of talking and stupid segments like the dancing portion of the 800th episode which guys on this forum have voted the worst segment of the year, whereas on Smackdown, there are always at least 2 matches that go on for 15 minutes, and maybe 1 10 minute segment with nothing but talk, but usually that sgement leads on to something else relating to that episode, as opposed to Orton coming on tv, slagging off everyone, someone comes out to talk back, and then they just leave, and it becomes apparent that that was just a means to get Orton back on tv. Just like Mr. Kennedy's segment on Raw last week, what was the point of that?

I can't honestly say i care, it's just another element of the overall problem with modern WWE programming (well, i should say Raw and Raw only), to much time dedicated to fuckin' around and not enough time focused on wrestling

 

[mvk112]

I thought the whole referring to them as entertainers thing had to do with some state laws that require 'wrestlers' to be licensed of something? Or at least shows that include 'wrestlers' to have the license.

 

[OIL]

For the PG rating, it does matter and it doesn't. It does matter because it somewhat limits what the WWE can have on RAW, whether it be someone set on fire or just plain hardcore violence. That can have a negative effect on storylines, as to develop a fued, having shocking events (run someone over for example) would make the fans more interested in the storyline, and the product as a whole. It doesn't matter because at the end of the day, the basis of the product is going to be pretty much the same with only minimal changes, and it has been blown way out of proportion. It only limits the WWE with violence, and I guess the Divas with regards to how much they wear. Other than that it won't affect the WWE product much.

 

[michaelj817]

Some people see this PG rating as a "step down" from what the fans were use to from when the Attitude Era was upon us and think that WWE is getting worse because of this. People think we will never see any hardcore matches anymore, no more swearing and basically no more adult aimed shows like what we got before. I'm not particularly bothered because WWE is a show not a religion and i'm not going to watch a show if i don't like it. I'm personally not enjoying WWE programming at the moment like i use to, but there are some "loyalists" out there that treat wrestling as a religion and want to see all the stuff we had in the late 90's back again. I got into an arguement with a wrestling fan who thought this and he said your not a true fan if you bail, just because your not getting what you want on WWE programming. My reply was "WWE is not a religion, its a show and a business.

Great analogy. I am a die hard wrestling fan, and I too find myself either not caring to tune in or changing the channel very frequently. The product has fallen on hard times, and regardless of whether or not I am a die hard fan or not, I am not a little kid anymore, and I have a job and a life. In all honesty, how many TV shows to you take the time to watch that have only 10-15 minutes of quality programming in a 2 hour show?

As far as being PG, I think that is more to convince parents and advertisers that it is okay for kids to watch WWE and that it's current incarnation is not the "Attitude Era" WWF that non-wrestling fans still tend to associate with the WWE. In reality, it's not as PG as I thought it would be, and I was actually pretty offended that it is being marketed as PG to parents and kids, yet a month ago HHH felt free to make bad gay jokes about Miz and Morrison in a promo. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended by the jokes themselves. However, I was offended that they weren't funny, and that a program supposedly being marketed towards young kids is promoting gay bashing towards 2 performers...entertainers who aren't even gay. Not that it would make it right if Miz and Morrison were gay, and fyi I'm not either.

Also, people always say that wrestling is cyclical, and I agree with that to an extent as far as pop culture phenomenons go. However, I also believe that it is up to the bookers and promoters to put on a quality show regardless and stay in sync with pop culture trends in order to keep the product fresh. While I don't particularly care for the overall program at the moment, in a way Vince is creating his own wrestling cycle by marketing WWE as PG. By attempting to draw in a new generation of young fans with the help of John Cena, Vince can essentially redo the entire attitude era in another 5-10 years. Will it work? I don't know. Vince is the promotional genius, so only time will tell.

The "Entertainer" instead of "Wrestler" or "Superstar" reference kind of bothers me, but I'm sure I will get used to it. Just as Vince is conditioning the fans to adapt to a PG version of the WWE, he is conditioning them to see the wrestlers as entertainers. In a recent Sun Blog, Paul Heyman referenced Vince's rage when he Paul insisted to him that advertisers still see WWE as low brow and in a different category from traditional Hollywood entertainment. So whether it is for tax purposes or his alleged crusade to legitimize wrestling...sports entertainment(umm what are we calling these days?), in the eyes of non wrestling fans, it is something we as wrestling fans will have to live with regardless. But wait, so why are those guys out there pretend fighting...umm pretend entertaining for a gold belt then?

I am actually waiting for another name change to completely drop the Wrestling from World Wrestling Entertainment. We already lost the F, and it isn't wrestling or even Sports entertainment anymore, so why not just make it World Entertainment...or WE. Oh that's already taken by the tv network, Women's Entertainment.

 

[thepoo62]

To the posters above, I've not watched a live episode of Raw since the days of Triple H vs Scott Steiner. I love this business but the show is not what I appreciate anymore apparently. I can't explain it but I visit this site at least once a day but I haven't watched Raw and Smackdown or purchased a PPV in probably 4 years. What keeps me coming back? The real backstage drama. The fact that Carlito is held back due to his "personality issues" and because Lance Cade was "wished well in his future endevours". I like the business, not the product. Hornswoggle, Eugene and The Boogey Man don't fit in with what I call entertaining. But then again neither does HLA, Billy and Chuck, or Katie Vick. What I'm trying to say is bad writters are bad writters no matter what age restrictions they have on their content.

 

[grahambrown]

My biggest concern is that the PG rating will limit WWE's talent pool. Yes, i agree that not seeing cleavage or blood every RAW doesn't matter. But, when WWE limits wrestler's movesets or creates a company culture that good never accept really legitimate talent like Bryan Danielson or KENTA, they'll never be able to move into the next generation of wrestling. They'll be stuck with damn Undertaker till the end of eternity.

 

[Scott Barton]

I dont think a PG Rating limits movesets unless of course your trying to put someone through a flaming table or something then well its not however with the PG ratings comes a demographic that is watching wrestling however seems to send conflicted messages when Raw is still on at the same hour on a monday night least not a school night then aiming it at a more direct demographic surely they should change timeslots anyway as far as entertainers go, a bit insulting to the wrestlers trying to mark their craft and put on the best matches as possible tbh

 

[Lee]

So a few months have passed of the PG era and has there been a noticeable difference? Take away the renaming of Cena's finisher (which to be fair was a parody of Lesnars, so it makes sense even from a non PG viewpoint) and there not being a Playboy Diva this year. Does that matter? If I wanted to look at naked girls, the internet is a good place!

People were worried about lack of hardcore matches yet Shane v Orton provided a very busted open Orton.

So once again I reopen the debate...does the PG rating really matter? Have you seen a difference? Is a rated R show really better than a PG show?

 

[Hacksaw Highway]

I agree 100% on both statements. I've never been on the bandwagon for hating entertainers/superstars, like you said they do the same thing either way. Did anyone like the ECW guys more when they were called 'Extremists'? No, because it's just a name. And as for the PG rating, I haven't noticed a difference in content. I started watching wrestling on my dads lap as a baby, so I really benefitted from the more child-friendly WWF of the early 90s. I was about 8 when the Attitude Era was in full swing, and my mom wasnt a huge fan of me watching then. If it had been that adult-oriented when I was like 5, I might not be watching nowadays. I ogt off tangent, but bottom line, neither thing will hurt the product whatsoever.

 

[Crush1]

Lee I think people think about it too much because they can't accept changes in their ideal world of wrestling. People always want some superstar to go over the other and most don't agree with the things that the WWE gives us including me. But people will eventualy grow to liking the stuff that's going on. For example when the term PG came the old fans immediately blamed Cena. And they called it wrong and many would want to boycot it. But some people need to accept that they aren't the ONLY ones watching wrestling.

Every year or so new fans gather to join our universe. And what the WWE had been feeding us we may not like it but they will. We the wrestling fans are just impatient stupid self-centered pricks. We always want to let things go OUR way, if not the superstar/angle immediately ''sucks''. But I say if they would just wait out and see what were to happen they wouldn't hate it so much. I know that PG will not affect proffesional wrestling so it's not a big deal, and in time other fans will accept it as well.

 

[salomon1080s]

Personally I believe wrestling goes in cycles. The hogan era got all us hooked as kids and when we turned into teenagers that attitude era happened. wwe realized they need to restarting the cycle since most of the older fans are gone and are not coming back. the wwe needs a hoganesce era to get the attention of a younger audience again. Give it another 5 years when these young fans turn 16, 17, 18, I can see another era similar to the attitude era happening.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

No, neither of them matter, and you have to be a narrow minded moron to think otherwise.


Firstly, its ABOUT DAMN TIME they turned Wrestling away from being a glorified episode of Jerry Springer, and turned it back to being pro wrestling. If you all need trash TV, I would suggest channel surfing at 3 am. there is plenty of scum, women being degraded, and low brow humor to keep you entertained.

"entertainers" bothering anyone is stupid too. If your worried about something like that during what we saw last sunday, then you arent a very big fan, or are extremely nit picky.

No, neither of them matter one bit, and are even an improvement, if you are a TRUE wrestling fan