WWE PG, Attitude & All Other "Eras" Thread

[BrandonTorrey]

If the WWE had as much "edgy" moments as they did in the Summer of 2011, then the product would be more enjoyable to everyone. Nobody was complaining to much then. PG is fine, it's the lackluster use of the edginess PG television is allowed.

 

[NotoriousMEAT]

So this is something I've noticed lately watching old RAW is WARS and Pay-Per-Views, but became very obvious after watching RAW 1000. People, typically adults who long for the attitude era, that bitch about today's WWE usually blame the PG rating or John Cena. I blame neither. We don't need the cursing, the blood, the tits, the edgy anti-hero's, or major plot swerves every week. They're cool.. but we don't NEED them. What we really need are MEN. Men who march to the ring, stare each other down, then beat the living hell out of each other as if their very lifes depended on it. Believeable, legitimate (kayfabe at least) BAD ASSES! The problem here is we've strayed from trying to convince the audience that this is real (which is the objective.. duh) and focused too hard on 'entertaining'. That's what I'm blaming.. the idea of ENTERTAINMENT.

This probaly doesn't sound like anything new. But I'm not whining about.. 'Oh gah another stupid comedy segment' or 'they talk too much' or any of WWE's actual ventures into entertainment (movies, shows, network, etc). I'm just talking about the matches. We've hit this weird cross between what feels like early 90's WWE where everyone has overly defined characters, and post Attitude Era trying to create new stars. I also feel that the majority of the roster is too concerned trying to put on the best technical performance, that their matches have no substance or true excitement behind it. We have entertainers performing a craft, not men fighting to atain ultimate success.

The moment's I popped hardest for tonight.. Brock Lesnar marching down to confront Triple H, the Undertaker's dominating presence, and The Rock hitting the ring to truly whoop some ass. Serious INTENSITY! CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are my two favorite superstars today.. but when they were in the ring with Rocky, he looked like a men among boys. The idea that CM Punk could defeat The Rock doesn't seem real to me. I don't believe he could beat Stone Cold either. Just like I don't buy Ziggler, or Rhodes, or Del Rio, or The Miz, or even Sheamus. So where's the selling point. Cena's the closest thing we have to an intense competitor.. and that only comes after flapping around the stage smiling and joking with the camera guy when he's shadow boxing in the ring. Orton gives off a pretty decent vibe.. but his matches are so slow and "methodical" to fit his viper crap that I'm bored with him come opening bell.


I don't want this to seem like a complaint post or some idea spewed for the millionth time. So I's bring questions.

1. Do you feel the same? If no, why not?
2. Has main stream(ish) Indy Wrestling effected what most fans expect from a match?
3. With UFC being "As real as it gets", is it best for WWE to try to match that with their own 'worked' realness, or be so far different with a brand of 'entertainment'?

WWE has been signing up indy names, and pushing other stars based on talent. But they don't look like the SUPERSTARS of yesterday.

4. Is that because looking for body builders to wrestle hasn't been as successful and finding already jacked wrestlers?
5. If so, could that be one negative to removing steroids?
5. What's more important to you? A match dominated by pefectly executed manuevers? Or more of a fight focused on victory?

I might have left out some points, and may have ranted a bit. But I'm just going off the top of my head here. Anyhow..
Answer. Disagree. Discuss.

 

[TeetsWenger]

So this is something I've noticed lately watching old RAW is WARS and Pay-Per-Views, but became very obvious after watching RAW 1000. People, typically adults who long for the attitude era, that bitch about today's WWE usually blame the PG rating or John Cena. I blame neither. We don't need the cursing, the blood, the tits, the edgy anti-hero's, or major plot swerves every week. They're cool.. but we don't NEED them. What we really need are MEN. Men who march to the ring, stare each other down, then beat the living hell out of each other as if their very lifes depended on it. Believeable, legitimate (kayfabe at least) BAD ASSES! The problem here is we've strayed from trying to convince the audience that this is real (which is the objective.. duh) and focused too hard on 'entertaining'. That's what I'm blaming.. the idea of ENTERTAINMENT.

This probaly doesn't sound like anything new. But I'm not whining about.. 'Oh gah another stupid comedy segment' or 'they talk too much' or any of WWE's actual ventures into entertainment (movies, shows, network, etc). I'm just talking about the matches. We've hit this weird cross between what feels like early 90's WWE where everyone has overly defined characters, and post Attitude Era trying to create new stars. I also feel that the majority of the roster is too concerned trying to put on the best technical performance, that their matches have no substance or true excitement behind it. We have entertainers performing a craft, not men fighting to atain ultimate success.

The moment's I popped hardest for tonight.. Brock Lesnar marching down to confront Triple H, the Undertaker's dominating presence, and The Rock hitting the ring to truly whoop some ass. Serious INTENSITY! CM Punk and Daniel Bryan are my two favorite superstars today.. but when they were in the ring with Rocky, he looked like a men among boys. The idea that CM Punk could defeat The Rock doesn't seem real to me. I don't believe he could beat Stone Cold either. Just like I don't buy Ziggler, or Rhodes, or Del Rio, or The Miz, or even Sheamus. So where's the selling point. Cena's the closest thing we have to an intense competitor.. and that only comes after flapping around the stage smiling and joking with the camera guy when he's shadow boxing in the ring. Orton gives off a pretty decent vibe.. but his matches are so slow and "methodical" to fit his viper crap that I'm bored with him come opening bell.


I don't want this to seem like a complaint post or some idea spewed for the millionth time. So I's bring questions.

1. Do you feel the same? If no, why not?
2. Has main stream(ish) Indy Wrestling effected what most fans expect from a match?
3. With UFC being "As real as it gets", is it best for WWE to try to match that with their own 'worked' realness, or be so far different with a brand of 'entertainment'?

WWE has been signing up indy names, and pushing other stars based on talent. But they don't look like the SUPERSTARS of yesterday.

4. Is that because looking for body builders to wrestle hasn't been as successful and finding already jacked wrestlers?
5. If so, could that be one negative to removing steroids?
5. What's more important to you? A match dominated by pefectly executed manuevers? Or more of a fight focused on victory?

I might have left out some points, and may have ranted a bit. But I'm just going off the top of my head here. Anyhow..
Answer. Disagree. Discuss.

well said, we all understand the kayfabe aspect of the biz, but the Rock would absolutely obliterate bryan or punk and probably at the same time.

as for the future, wwe should do what they've always done, wrestling shows with interesting, charismatic characters.

you won't ever eliminate steroids as the steroid makers/users are always a step ahead of the testing and the authorities. most athletes use steroids to some extent, maybe not the kind that make you all jacked up but definitely some recovery stuff (just my opinion)

to answer your last question, i think a fight that is more focused on victory is superior; take extreme rules 2012 for an example, Cena/Lesnar was one of the best matches I've seen all year. The moves weren't executed perfectly but there seemed to be immense desire from both guys to just beat the shit out of each other.

 

[thebowtiekiller]

i agree the intensity seems to be missing quite a lot these days i dont buy guys like miz ziggler ect either there pretty big guys but they dont give off that i could kick your ass if i wanted aura. Another problem i have when i watch them wrestle they just seem like there going through the motions almost trying too hard to make sure every move is done to perfection they dont actually look like there trying to beat each other up it looks really rehearsed somtimes i know it is but it shudnt look like it.

ufc is real fighting wwe is not but i dont just watch wwe for the matches i enjoy the whole show like the storylines the charecters the drama ect.A lot of the younger newer guys in wwe wudnt look out of place on the ufc roster though because there kinda generic athelete looking types with nothing very unique about them i think wwe is trying to be taken a bit more seriously now but i dont think it should it should focus more on the entertainment side of things when i comes to character building id like to see a few more gimmicks personally

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Totally agree. Too many tight stylish hair cuts and chiseled physiques. As an example, I thought Miz's new look was a huge improvement in getting himself over as a competent competitor. He looks a little bit more as a tough guy and less like a frat guy.

Maybe it is just nostalgia but up until the past 10 years, Superstars looked like guys who would regularly get in to bar room brawls and beat the ever living piss out anyone who got in their way. Lately too many guys just look like amazing althletes but not fighters.

Bring back the Moondogs!

 

[Ellye]

I seriously clicked this thread expecting it to be yet another rant about PG, John Cena and how we need more blood, tits and edgy anti-heroes.
So I was happy reading your first paragraph.

And yes, I agree. More intensity and fervor would do great for the WWE - we do get a few great feuds every now and then that have this kind of feeling, but they have been rare.

And no, I don't think it has much to do with body builders (or the lack of them). It's actually more a matter of Creative and perhaps of creative liberty for wrestlers.

 

[R.K.O]

I agree with what you are saying, I think the WWE knows they are lacking in this aspect too. They have tried to add some intensity in the past, but failed due to inconsistency. A more recent example would be Alberto Del Rio's new found aggression, he would beat down wrestlers before they are prepared, shown real aggression in matches, but like always they have failed to follow up on it. There was also Miz when he would use SCF on his past tag team partners on top of the ramp, then proceed to show a psychotic intense look. Then WWE decides to job him out just because Survivor Series didn't do well.

The last real intense feud/character I can think of is Randy Orton with his heel viper gimmick. Whenever he walked down that ramp it always felt like trouble was coming. His feud with Triple H was very personal and it legitimately felt like they were going to tear each other apart with the house breaking in and backstage brawls. Randy Orton's whole character was an unpredictable psychotic guy who will RKO people, take people out with punts just because they flipped his switch. I remember the scene where he repeatedly whipped John Cena with a Kendo stick during their I quit match and that was intense.

Currently too many of the current rosters are pretty boys (Dolph, Cody), indy or flashy wrestlers (CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Tyson Kidd) or cowardly heels (Miz, PTP). Even their monsters doesn't seem that unstoppable like Kane who had his momentum killed after losing to Cena and Big Show for repeatedly losses. I think fans expectation might have changed this too, as fans seem to appreciate technical wrestling more than brawlers, with examples such as CM Punk and Daniel Bryan being more appreciated than Sheamus. Technical wrestling is great but I think the roster right now lack fighters, wrestler who loves to fight and beat people up. It's intensity that improve feuds and make it seem real. The walkout angle last year was the perfect example that most of the current roster are perceived as soft *****es.

 

[whetherbye]

http://www.wrestlezone.com/editorials/258541-superstar-spotlight-wwe-superstar-cm-punk-return-of-the-straight-edge-savior

Great article. I really hope that's how it goes. I hope CM Punk is the leader of the 'free us from Cena' movement. Which will make CM Punk the same as when he dropped his pipebomb, and in addition, it will make Cena look bad even though Cena was cheated by Big Show.

Also, I don't think Cena can or should turn heel. He IS SuperCena. Comparing to the recent trend of super heroes, batman being a good example, Cena is a good guy no matter what people think. He will always do the right thing, which he has proved most of the time.

 

[RKOwner]

The whole intesity thing is a good point. Despite people blaming HHH for stopping Punks momentum their brawl at NoC was awesome and I'll even go as far as to say it made Punk look like a tougher champ in retrospect. Grudge matches like that can help make guys like Ziggler and Miz etc look legit and more over. People invest more when ideals clash, fists fly, and it isn't all about the straps.

 

[Parental Guidance Advised]

I really do think the way to get a stale product out of the gutter is to promote young talent in a way that gives them freedom to show exactly what makes them the best in the world. WWE's product has gotten significantly better in the past few months, but only because they're giving Daniel Bryan and CM Punk ***almost as much*** attention as they deserve.

Now, they need to get John Cena out of the main event. OH WAIT...

 

[Cereal Killer]

Luckily I read this before making a new thread. Realised that the IWC is really into the whole eras thing, thought that I may as well give my opinions on this.

1. First ever era (CWC era) 1952-1963 Face of the company/era: Buddy Rodgers

2. The actual Golden age 1963- mid 80's. Face: Bruno Sammartino>Pedro Morales>Billy Graham>Bob Backlund

3. Rock n Wrestling era mid 80's till early 90's. Face Hulk Hogan>Ultimate Warrior

4. New generation era early to late 90's. Face: Bret Hart>HBK.

5. ATTITUDE ERA: You know who the face of this era is! Late 90's

TRANSITION PERIOD

6.Ruthless Aggression era: HHH. 2002-2005

TRANSITION PERIOD

7. WWE Universe era: Face:John Cena 2008-2011

8. Reality era: 2011-Present Face: Unfortunately CM Punk.

 

[EchoesFayt242]

Hey there today I just wanted to write about my views on WWE's marketing strategy which involves marketing to kids which they claim to be roughly 20% of their demographic. Now I'm not going to make some illy informed rant about how WWE PG TV is total bull. While it may not be as good as the attitude era or the ruthless aggression era, it has still had it's fair share of memorable moments. I just think WWE forgets it's history and is really trying to repackage itself as this hip, cool and safe entertainment for kids.

This follows a report on WZ about how workers on WWE's new saturday morning show Saturday Morning Slam will not be allowed to do any moves to the neck and/or head I believe. Now this is understandable for a wrestling show aimed at kids but don't you feel WWE is really trying too hard to be family friendly and PG. Not allowing any moves to the neck creates a number of problems. First of all, it limits what talent you have on the show as a large number of wrestlers use these moves in they're move sets. You couldn't have Randy Orton due to the RKO and his trademark neckbreaker. Punk uses a neckbreaker as well as the obvious GTS. And then there's obvious choices like Big Show and Kane who grab their opponents neck with the chokeslam. Now it's unlikely these guys will be used for this new show but the point that I'm making is that most if not all wrestlers use moves aimed at the neck and head. If this rule comes through, I think it could seriously restrict the quality of the matches on this show with talent perhaps not being able to use even basic moves like a back suplex or even a BLOODY HEADLOCK one of the first moves a wrestler learns.

The overall vibe I get from this decision, is that WWE are really trying too hard to be PG. Now it's a good strategy marketing to kids as their parents will likely watch wrestling with them and in turn buy merchandise and tickets for their kids but will kids really want to watch wrestling with a restricted moveset and no sense of danger? I personally think not yet WWE are afraid to ditch the PG at the fear of losing their family audience. WWE already do enough to disclaim their programming with don't try this at home disclaimers etc. I don't get why they need to make this new show extra family friendly. The reason the attitude era was so popular was because it was edgy and cool. Kids liked it because at times it was something they seriously shouldn't have been watching and it they felt cool for watching it. Nowadays, teenagers and young adults don't watch wrestling because they know the storylines are dry and contrived and it generates next to no nostalgia from these individuals who may have been watching wrestling from when they were younger. Overall I think WWE should try to make an effort to be more edgy and risque with their programming. People don't want to see John Cena in a vanilla feud every few months, they want something interesting, intense and something outside the box.

So I have three questions for you.

Should WWE go through with this no moves to the neck rule?

Should WWE try to make an effort to be more edgy?

Should WWE continue to cater to families and children?

Thanks for reading and stay strong- Echoes

 

[Rayne]

Kids imitate the stuff they see on TV. I did it with my siblings back when the Ultimate Warrior was squaring against Hulk Hogan, my cousins did it with their siblings when Shawn Michaels and Psycho Sid were feuding, and kids certainly still do it today.

The ghost of the Lionel Tate case still hangs over the WWE. Considering how easy it is to get ten out of twelve random idiots to agree with you in a civil trial, every lawyer the WWE has must be terrified of the idea of hearing "but I saw people do this on TV, and they were OK". Common sense isn't something recognized within a courtroom.

This has nothing to do with "TV-PG". This is about marketing to children, and how you can influence them. (People without children can spare the "but parents should" crap, since that line doesn't fly in court either.)

On the note about advertising to children and families, yes. The WWE's advertisers have said time and time again that they are more interested in a product through which they can advertise to young adolescents then they are in a product they can market to late teenagers; there are more effective companies they can advertise to those groups with. (Hi, UFC!) The WWE isn't making art here, they're making money.

 

[das1234]

this is the worst possible example.
while pg tv shows how much it sucks in the characterization of heels, because they cant do anything really evil anymore, a saturday morning kids tv show probably should be even under pg because else it doesnt belong on kids tv (depending on the age of the kids who watch it).
while i think parents are to blame if they dont know what their kids are watching, and if you educate them right you they WILL tell you, you cant just put dangerous violence on kids tv and expect to get away with that.
Side note, because the saturday kids show probably aims to get children to watch RAW, i hope that the parents watch it with them at least.
if WWE changes their program to appeal to the children who switch over from saturday, they can go *** themselves in my book.

so my answers are
1) YES, but only to the saturday kids show
2) YES, but NOT to the saturday kids show
3) NO, its my personal preference and they will never do that

 

[Shotaro]

Should WWE go through with this no moves to the neck rule on their Saturday Morning show?

Yes. Short and sweet I know but all it would take is one kid, just one to do something dumb like RKO their friend. Most kids aren't strong enough to do a suplex, but a DDT requires no lifting at all and is far more dangerous. If you fuck up a cutter there is a good chance you will damage the windpipe and kill someone - it's kids TV, it's not worth the risk.

Should WWE try to make an effort to be more edgy?

Would I like them to? Yes, I don't mean in the sense of "BRING BACK THE ATTITUDE ERA" but I do mean cut the guys loose on their promos. It's no coincidence at all that the best guys on the mic are the guys that are trusted enough to go out their with a minimal script. When Punk and Rock and Cena cut loose their promos get more edgy, they're not idiots, they know where the line is and what they can and can't say. They get close to it and leave it at that.

With regards to blood? No. When Lesnar bust Cena open it meant something because we hadn't seen blood on TV in months if not years, it means something on PPV still because they don't do blading anymore.

Should WWE continue to cater to families and children?

Yes, it's far more profitable for the WWE to market to as wide an audience as possible. We are NOT their demographic anymore. I doubt we ever will be again.

 

[closet_fan]

Unfortunately, if it sells they will continue doing it. And while Vince isn't making as much during the Attitude Era, he is still making money regardless. This show will take off because young kids will watch. And like Rayne said, there were many incidents that resulted in kids getting severely injured or killed by doing wrestling moves. It happens. Life imitates art all the time. This WWE simply isn't tailor-made for people my age (37) anymore.

 

[sdelfin]

This has nothing to do with PG. Headlocks are PG. Chin locks are PG. This is about being at a point in our society where parents aren't doing their jobs, or are outraged over silly things(like headlocks) and Vince is afraid they can't watch. Wrestling in the 80s was PG and compelling at the same time.

It's also about WWE being a publicly traded company and letting shareholders and business partners(Mattel) dictate what the company is allowed to do instead of having an actual vision for a wrestling company. But we know Vince is not big on the wrestling as he is on the show aspect. And we see time after time that he will water down the product to reach as many young eyeballs as possible, including eliminating the most basic aspects of the wrestling. Obviously, I'm not a fan of this way of thinking, but if it works out for them, more power to Vince. And if I don't like it, I will walk away.

 

[Cena's #1 In My Heart]

WWE has lost its sanity. So yes it's gone to far. They forgot what their fucking purpose is.

I was watching TNA and how Austin Aries put the World Title on a pedostol. You must have THE CHAMPIONS as the FOCUS of your show... because THE CHAMPIONSHIP is supposed to be the MOST PRESTIGIOUS parts of your show. That's why the wrestlers are there... to win championships. Whether it be the World or even the damn United States Championship. Not to date Aj Lee, waddle around with Hornswoggle, or act stupid with Santion Marella.

And if your champion sucks... and doesn't get to be the focus of the show, or time period he is on the card. Then he shouldn't be the fucking champion in the first place.

PG isn't the problem, although it has gone a little too far. Their focus is the problem.

 

[TheLoneCharles]

Honestly, I don't understand the uproar over deciding to make the new Saturday Morning Show G rated. Some of you apparently don't remember the Todd Pettingill (sp?) days of Mania back in the mid 90s. So let's face it we weren't going to get a great show anyway.

Secondly, I remember as a kid always watching Saturday morning shows. But now as an adult I'm never around Saturday mornings to begin with since I don't have kids that watch WWE. It seems like empty complaining because many of you probably won't watch the show anyway, and the rest of the product is actually improving.

Try to think of it like this: the kids have to go to bed while Raw is on, especially if you live eastern or central time. Let the kids have their show and the rest have ours.

 

[whoopin' ass]

yes, yes and no.

the real problem is that wwe doesn't have a PG vision, they have a G vision. I know things vary a little between countries but think about this: here in Canada, the various Star Trek series as well as Batman Begins all have a PG rating. PG doesn't mean you have to dumb things down like wwe has been doing. they keep saying that it is a male soap opera and that the story is important but in order to be PG, they water it down to the point where there is no story. you can have the action, you can have the language and attitude and still be PG if you have the right direction and right people leading it. wwe's biggest problem is Vince doesn't get PG and he has a bunch of yes-men telling him he is right so he waters it down and when the fans complain, he counters that things must be doing well because the kids like it. they liked Barney the Dinosaur too. PG doesn't mean catering to kids - that's why it is parental guidance and not general. you can push the envelope without going back to the Attitude Era. Vince just doesn't know how and in his mind, it is one extreme or the other so wwe will never find a balance.

 

[Radical]

I'm kind of torn on this idea of if the WWE has gone too far on PG.

In terms of their plans for the Saturday Morning Slam show and the 'no moves involving the neck' rule I'm torn as well.

On one hand I go... I guess it is smart, the young kids watching the show won't see any moves aimed at the neck so they won't be able to even think about imitating it and potentially injuring themselves ...

But on the other hand I go ... what is the POINT of even having a wrestling show with wrestling matches for kids if your restrict moves to the neck (which is VERY common for so many set-ups and moves)? What are the matches going to be like? Just a bunch of posing, shuffling about and slaps to the face? They might as well just fight in sumo suits because it's hard to imagine a wrestling match with the strict rule of no moves that involve the neck.

Why don't they just invest and make the show into a cartoon wrestling show? That way they can show whatever they want and get away with it.

Kids who watch Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show don't go out and run off a cliff because they think they will not fall as long as they don't look down ... and if they do, sorry, but they have terrible instincts and/or parents. The same standard should be held for a wrestling show.

But in terms of the WWE's main shows (Raw, Smackdown and NXT, to an extent) I think they have lost focus. If you watch TNA they focus on WRESTLING matches, tournaments and matches related to contending for titles and to-the-point promos. Sure, they have some stupid storylines (AJ / Claire Lynch) but that is an exception while the Aces & Eights storyline is probably intriguing enough to make up for it.

WWE doesn't even want to use the word wrestling anymore. I think that is the problem.

Used to be World Wrestling Entertainment. Now, apprently it is JUST: WWE and WWE means nothing. Well... maybe that's why their product is nothing worth watching (a bit of an exaggeration) because they don't know what the hell their company is about.

Sometimes I wish WWE would just completely tank and TNA would take over as the top wrestling show on TV...

Oh wait, they ALREADY HAVE because WWE isn't a wrestling show anymore!

 

[Fansince1992]

Should WWE go through with this no moves to the neck rule?

I think Submission holds are the most dangerous. As kids we used to do submission holds on each other and really apply them. I remember my brother putting me in a Boston Crab, the pain and damage you could cause off that one move could severly injure someone especially a child. Also remember being put in a Sleeper Hold, afterwards felt dizzy and light headed for a few minutes. So Dangerous!

I would keep any type of Submission Holds off this new Saturday Show.

 

[WhatAboutRaven]

Should WWE go through with this no moves to the neck rule?

I'd say yeah. As kid's, most of us have probably imitated or favorite wrestlers when we were kids, right? (I know I was out there on my trampoline with my younger brother, pretending to be Raven or the Hurricane and we'd go at it) but wrestling is a dangerous thing, and the neck turns out to be a very important body part. Kid's copy moves they see on TV, and hurt and kill unintentionally( at least I hope so) those who they are wrestling with. Remember Lionel Tate?

Should WWE try to make an effort to be more edgy?

Honestly, I don't see any reason for the WWE to try and present itself as this "rough and edgy" company anymore like they were some odd years ago. Personally, and I may be the minority here but I don't have an issue with the PG rating of today. Sure, it can be a bit...cartooney at times and they can be hit and miss at times with their shows, but as a whole I still enjoy it today as I did eighteen, nineteen years ago, maybe more.

Should WWE continue to cater to families and children?

Oh sure they should, because it's smart business. You know that old saying, if it ain't broke don't fix it? This applies here with the WWE's business model. Kid's are the merchandise target these days, and when kid's get their parents to buy merchandise, and thereby make a company money, the company would be moronic to change it's ways and lose it's focus.

Do you guys think Wade Barret should do an Extreme Expose to bring back the Attitude Era?

No. Nononononononononono, hell no. Am I making a point yet?

It isn't 1996 anymore, it's 2012. The attitude era, which let's be honest was a skidmark on professional wrestling, is gone in the review mirror and hopefully it won't be coming back anytime soon. If your name wasn't Austin, or The Rock, or Michaels or even McMahon, you were pretty much up shit creek without a paddle, especially when it came towards storylines not involving the names above and the general mid-card scene as a whole. Not saying that today is leaps and bounds better, but let's be real here. Or maybe we need more "choppy-choppy your pee-pee" in today's market. I'm sure Val Venis is available.

But on the other hand I go ... what is the POINT of even having a wrestling show with wrestling matches for kids if your restrict moves to the neck (which is VERY common for so many set-ups and moves)?

the young kids watching the show won't see any moves aimed at the neck so they won't be able to even think about imitating it and potentially injuring themselves

Hey, you answered your own question! Mazel Tov.

 

[thedreffect]

Should WWE try to make an effort to be more edgy?

Honestly, I don't see any reason for the WWE to try and present itself as this "rough and edgy" company anymore like they were some odd years ago. Personally, and I may be the minority here but I don't have an issue with the PG rating of today. Sure, it can be a bit...cartooney at times and they can be hit and miss at times with their shows, but as a whole I still enjoy it today as I did eighteen, nineteen years ago, maybe more.

Should WWE continue to cater to families and children?

Oh sure they should, because it's smart business. You know that old saying, if it ain't broke don't fix it? This applies here with the WWE's business model. Kid's are the merchandise target these days, and when kid's get their parents to buy merchandise, and thereby make a company money, the company would be moronic to change it's ways and lose it's focus.

This is exactly the reason why more of the adults need watch the actual product. If there are enough of them, the WWE will be forced to listen and make themselves less PG. I'm not asking for blood and steel chair shots to the head but for a product that just doesnt look PG obvious

 

[Marv95]

Should WWE continue to cater to families and children?

Oh sure they should, because it's smart business. You know that old saying, if it ain't broke don't fix it? This applies here with the WWE's business model. Kid's are the merchandise target these days, and when kid's get their parents to buy merchandise, and thereby make a company money, the company would be moronic to change it's ways and lose it's focus.

Here's the problem with that logic: nearly 80% of the WWE's audience is 18 and older while the rest is just over 20%. It's on their corporate site. So what business do you know of caters to a small fraction, nearly 1/5 of their customer base while trying to disenfranchise and annoy the other 80%? If you're a business applying for a loan with that mindset you'll be laughed out of the bank. Shouldn't you be taking care of your primary base first and foremost? There's a reason why they've lost $500 million in 2 years and why Raw's ratings decrease into the 10PM hour.

As far as you saying they don't need to be edgy, yeah let's take away an element that helped made them successful. Not saying they should blade every single week, have partial nudity or swear just for the sake of it but in HIACs, Chambers, most cage matches, personal feuds, etc. there should be some blood/chairshots otherwise it doesn't feel realistic AT ALL. Is it too much to ask to have a serious yet entertaining, intense, cutting-edge product with controversy and wrestlers who aren't so damn vanilla and restricted? Yeah you're gonna say the Attitude Era but guess what? 2002-2006 WWE was NOT the Attitude Era and neither was WCW 1996-1999.