Is the problem PG-wrestling, or PG-anything?

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

The next-door neighbors are losing their minds again, so to distract myself I'll ask something I've always wondered:

For WWE fans that don't like the idea of a TV-PG product, are you also usually annoyed or bored with stuff rated PG (not down to the Dora level, but you know what I mean) in any other venue?

In otherwords, let's say you rolled your eyes at TMNT showing up at HIAC. Was the problem with the Turtles being at what was once a more risque show and would not have likely had costumed kid's characters appearing in the past, or was it just the Turtles themselves?

[wildojinx]

I dont know why PG means no blood. Thats the only thing i dont understand (remember, Jaws was rated PG and showed blood).

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Oct 23, 2009 14:52:27 GMT -5 wildojinx said:

I dont know why PG means no blood. Thats the only thing i dont understand (remember, Jaws was rated PG and showed blood).

Well, PG-13 wasn't created until 1984. Before that, you had movies like Jaws and The Spy Who Loved Me (which shows a lot of shooting deaths) rated PG.

[Ridley]

Oct 23, 2009 14:56:07 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Oct 23, 2009 14:52:27 GMT -5 wildojinx said:

I dont know why PG means no blood. Thats the only thing i dont understand (remember, Jaws was rated PG and showed blood).

Well, PG-13 wasn't created until 1984. Before that, you had movies like Jaws and The Spy Who Loved Me (which shows a lot of shooting deaths) rated PG.

There's context as well of course. Neither of those present themselves as a real, live sport.

[AriadosMan]

I'm not annoyed by PG-ness in and of itself. If anything, WWE booking a traditional wrestling product would be an easy PG.

Problem is, that's not what they are doing. What they are doing is pretending to be Attitude (long interviews, "World's Biggest Member" T-shirts, Divas stuff, guest hosts aimed at hipsters) but doing it a PG way (having a match called "Hell in a Cell" with no blood, pretending people are interested in the Divas as legit wrestlers, doing the Attitude-style PPV spread without the Attitude audience).

In short, instead of doing a truly PG product, what we're getting now is "Network Acceptable" version of an R-rated movie with all the "cool" scenes edited out.

[Red Impact]

PG isn't really the problem. PG can still be well written with good action.

[brettappedout (BLM)]

Oct 23, 2009 15:21:02 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

PG isn't really the problem. PG can still be well written with good action.

This. There shows on TV that are PG and are PG L,V,S,etc.. WWE chooses just to use PG V.

[AriadosMan]

Oct 23, 2009 15:21:02 GMT -5 Red Impact said:

PG isn't really the problem. PG can still be well written with good action.

Indeed it can. PG wrestling worked for years.
But back then, it wasn't ashamed of its PG-ness and didn't have the same pretentiousness the current WWE stuff has.

[The Verdict]

i just want blading back, The fact that all the stupid Katie Vick/HLA stuff is gone is good...

[johnnytightlips]

Oct 23, 2009 15:15:06 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

I'm not annoyed by PG-ness in and of itself. If anything, WWE booking a traditional wrestling product would be an easy PG.

Problem is, that's not what they are doing. What they are doing is pretending to be Attitude (long interviews, "World's Biggest Member" T-shirts, Divas stuff, guest hosts aimed at hipsters) but doing it a PG way (having a match called "Hell in a Cell" with no blood, pretending people are interested in the Divas as legit wrestlers, doing the Attitude-style PPV spread without the Attitude audience).

In short, instead of doing a truly PG product, what we're getting now is "Network Acceptable" version of an R-rated movie with all the "cool" scenes edited out.

I feel the same exact way
just because you want to make your product kid friendly doesn't mean that you have to cut back on the quality of matches (or matches in general)

[HMARK Center]

The WWF used to go too far in one direction: too much sex, too much swearing, too many swerves and over-the-top storylines, too much of just about everything. It lead to a collective sensory overload, and while it made the company a TON of money for a short while, it wasn't a booking style that could last, simply because they basically ran out of ideas to continue pushing the envelope.

Ever since, they've swung back in the opposite direction: taking no chances, everything moving at a glacial pace, repetitive shows and cards, doing everything "safe and sanitary". There's very little in the way of creative booking, and ANY surprise thrown in at this point, even one every 6+ months or so, is now hailed as "they're finally going to be exciting again!"...and then it's right back to normal.

I'll grant you, I only speak on this based on the marginal amount of it I've watched over the last decade, and going by the way people here and elsewhere react to the product, and the spoilers I've read.

[Dr. T is an alien]

PG is not the problem. Piss poor writing, resource mismanagement, and frequent indifference to customer interests are the problems. The first couple of years of the NWO on WCW was PG as well, so that should tell you that PG is not the problem.

[Ragnal]

I'm just under the belief that WWE's writers only think PG means kid-friendly, and go with that.

Truth is, I've seen cartoons with a 'G' rating, and they go pretty far with envelopin pushing as well (Deter's Laboratory's the one I'm thinking of), so WWE has no excuse to be ultra-non-violent.

[Bub (BLM)]

PG isn't the problem at all. Nitro was able to kick RAW's ass in the ratings for a year and a half with a PG product. The thing is, WCW did PG the right way. They didn't have bad language or excessive blood or sexual content, but they did have serious angles with interesting characters that were aimed at adults.

WWE's problem these days is that they're doing exactly what Vince always badmouthed ECW for, which is trying to only appeal to a portion of their fanbase rather than the entire fanbase. WWE is so concerned with little kids that they're neglecting the large adult section of fans. Again going back to Nitro, little kids and adults alike loved things like the NWO vs. Sting angle, just further proving that PG isn't the problem. Trying to be a kids show is the problem.

[Cyno]

WWE being TV-PG isn't the problem. It's WWE thinking that being TV-PG means you can be completely stale and uncreative and get away with it, that's the problem.

You can get away with a lot in TV-PG. But sometimes it feels like WWE wants a TV-G or Y7 rating instead.

[H-Fist]

Allow me to introduce the Dilbert Principle:

“Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow.”...The Dilbert Principle draws upon the idea that in certain situations, the upper echelons of an organization can have little relevance to the actual production and the majority of real, productive work in a company is done by people lower in the power ladder.

Here we are, 15 years after Scott Adams introduced the idea, in a world in which the internal promotion of idiots has expanded to their recruitment. The systemic infestation of idiots in corporate structures has resulted in their ability to make changes to policy based solely on their own imbecilic beliefs and observations, thus removing from the hierarchy of production those who have competency in the field.

That is the problem with WWE. I have been a vocal voice here supporting PG wrestling. They have taken a wholly corporate approach to a decidedly non-corporate industry. The goals have been safe decisions for profitability, leading to homogenized and uncreative wrestling programming.

Their best strides have been in their use of the internet, and I believe that much of their new media has been overseen by Shane McMahon, Michael Cole and Joey Styles. These are wrestling people, even Cole.

With Vince McMahon a decade ago, he knew he wanted to be a legitimate corporate business. But he was still surrounded by wrestling people at the highest levels. And he also used Ferrara and Russo to enter the entertainment sector. The Creative Team has one former worker in a prominent role (Michael Hayes), despite the fact that booking for some 70 years has been primarily an earned role, a promotion for a respected worker. So the introduction of writers and the changes in the semantics of sports entertainment has elicited a sea change in the mental approach to wrestling found throughout WWE.

That is the problem. There are plenty of non-nude strippers, violent fights, and foul language on basic cable. WWE has no need to focus on that.

[Ragnal]

Oct 23, 2009 17:14:58 GMT -5 H-Fist said:

Allow me to introduce the Dilbert Principle:

“Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow.”...The Dilbert Principle draws upon the idea that in certain situations, the upper echelons of an organization can have little relevance to the actual production and the majority of real, productive work in a company is done by people lower in the power ladder.

Here we are, 15 years after Scott Adams introduced the idea, in a world in which the internal promotion of idiots has expanded to their recruitment. The systemic infestation of idiots in corporate structures has resulted in their ability to make changes to policy based solely on their own imbecilic beliefs and observations, thus removing from the hierarchy of production those who have competency in the field.

In other words...everything we assumed about Vince and the booking team is right on the ball?

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Oct 23, 2009 17:18:24 GMT -5 Ragnal said:

Oct 23, 2009 17:14:58 GMT -5 H-Fist said:

Allow me to introduce the Dilbert Principle:


Here we are, 15 years after Scott Adams introduced the idea, in a world in which the internal promotion of idiots has expanded to their recruitment. The systemic infestation of idiots in corporate structures has resulted in their ability to make changes to policy based solely on their own imbecilic beliefs and observations, thus removing from the hierarchy of production those who have competency in the field.

In other words...everything we assumed about Vince and the booking team is right on the ball?

Either that, or the wrestlers deserve even more credit for getting something out of what the writers usually give them.

[AriadosMan]

Oct 23, 2009 17:18:24 GMT -5 Ragnal said:

Oct 23, 2009 17:14:58 GMT -5 H-Fist said:

Allow me to introduce the Dilbert Principle:


Here we are, 15 years after Scott Adams introduced the idea, in a world in which the internal promotion of idiots has expanded to their recruitment. The systemic infestation of idiots in corporate structures has resulted in their ability to make changes to policy based solely on their own imbecilic beliefs and observations, thus removing from the hierarchy of production those who have competency in the field.

In other words...everything we assumed about Vince and the booking team is right on the ball?

Esp since the imbeciles he's promoting are his own blood, in some cases ;D

[mrjl]

Oct 23, 2009 15:15:06 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

I'm not annoyed by PG-ness in and of itself. If anything, WWE booking a traditional wrestling product would be an easy PG.

Problem is, that's not what they are doing. What they are doing is pretending to be Attitude (long interviews, "World's Biggest Member" T-shirts, Divas stuff, guest hosts aimed at hipsters) but doing it a PG way (having a match called "Hell in a Cell" with no blood, pretending people are interested in the Divas as legit wrestlers, doing the Attitude-style PPV spread without the Attitude audience).

In short, instead of doing a truly PG product, what we're getting now is "Network Acceptable" version of an R-rated movie with all the "cool" scenes edited out.

I am interested in the divas as actual wrestlers. Considering there's absolutely nothing unique about me, I doubt I'm alone there.