Does the PG Era really suck? Really?

[dlg3000]

Or is it just the lack of creativity on the writer's part? The wrestling is good, and especially Smackdown, is good. There are good things about the PG era. The GM thing did nothing to help the ratings, but I myself can deal with the GMs and have not tired of them.

[American Dragon]

I don't really follow WWE that much anymore, I might catch Raw here and there, but other than that, I don't really tent to watch much of WWE. Although I do keep up with some of it, I usually read Smackdown results, and I'm actually quite surprised with what I've been seeing for the past few months. Raw has also been pretty good, while there are some drags such as the Guest-hosts, they usually try to squeeze in some entertaining bits throughout the shows.

Of course it's not the best it's ever been, but it's much better than what people make it out to be. I see a lot of bitching and complaining about the PG rating dragging down the shows, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the product. I wonder if those people who bitch about the PG rating watched Smackdown from 2002-2004, when WWE was pushing out some of the most entertaining stuff they ever have, all while remaining with the PG rating. I usually tend to ignore people who put blame on the PG rating, it has nothing to do with quality of the product. It just so happens WWE wants to have a family-friendly approach with a PG rating.

[twiggy101]

I don't like how tame it is. I know it's a fake show but it looks much faker when they go overboard with keeping things clean. I find it unrealistic that wrestlers would get angry or get hurt and not utter a single swear. Kinda makes it look like a play for children.

[Bubble Lead]

It's obviously uninspired and generic.

I haven't been this unenthusiastic about PW since the mid-nineties. This is like the mid-90s "holdover pattern" period, except with no competition, no random possibilities(I don't see Evan Bourne ever hitting a Shawn Michaels breakout period anytime soon), no fire.

Yes, the wrestling is better than in the past but WWE can't compete with indies, puro, etc. in wrestling quality for many reasons. Most of their featured wrestlers utilize the same cookie cutter, boring style. The ones who don't are typically restricted to make the chosen ones look good. It's an old argument, but nobody can tell me that the NXT Rookies could make one hopeful or excited for the future. Just another symptom, if you ask me.

The last thing in WWE I was interested in was Daniel Bryan. I didn't watch the main shows anymore due to the drudgery, but still watched NXT because of him. I wasn't really a big fan of him on the indies but his NXT story was fascinating and relevant to me because it felt more rooted in real emotion and was complex enough to go anywhere. We saw what happened there.

It's essentially WWE admitting they are not going to do anything interesting in the near future. If that's the case, I still won't be watching. That was the last time I got excited over any WWE happenings only to see things return to the status quo. It's happened constantly over the past six or so years, but that was simply 168 times too many for me.

[cabbageboy]

Here is the thing I don't understand: Why can't a PG product be an edgy one? At its peak wasn't WCW a PG product? That was a dark, edgy show during the NWO era. But there wasn't a ton of blood on the show and not a ton of profanity. Would anyone seriously try to claim WWE's wrestling is as strong as WCW's was from 1996-98?

Smackdown is considered WWE's strongest show wrestling wise, but just having more action doesn't mean it's GOOD action. SD has so many dull, draggy matches with no pacing. It's like everyone wants to wrestle a plodding big man style, even if they are small or midsized guys.

[Deleted]

For all I care, it could be TV-Y as long as the wrestling was good and the angles were compelling.

[kingoftheiwc]

To me its the fact that wrestling isnt that popular anymore and the guys try also it does kind of suck. To me it should be Smackdown TV PG back in the day with D L V but they turned back the clock to 1989 and thats how it is.

[Manute Bol]

There's nothing wrong with PG wrestling. The rating of the program should not, and I believe does not, impact the quality of wrestling or the quality of storylines. To be honest, some of the WORST wrestling angles took place when the product WASN'T rated PG.

That said I HATE the new blood policy. I understand if you want to cut down on the cursing, the T & A, and inappropriate angles in general (necrophilia, transexual prostitutes, crucifixions, etc), but stopping matches because a wrestler gets a cut is ridiculous.

[forgottensinpwf]

Jun 30, 2010 10:36:08 GMT -5 Manute Bol said:

There's nothing wrong with PG wrestling. The rating of the program should not, and I believe does not, impact the quality of wrestling or the quality of storylines. To be honest, some of the WORST wrestling angles took place when the product WASN'T rated PG.

That said I HATE the new blood policy. I understand if you want to cut down on the cursing, the T & A, and inappropriate angles in general (necrophilia, transexual prostitutes, crucifixions, etc), but stopping matches because a wrestler gets a cut is ridiculous.

My thoughts essentially.

[A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto)]

Jun 30, 2010 8:55:54 GMT -5 Bubble Lead said:

It's obviously uninspired and generic.

I haven't been this unenthusiastic about PW since the mid-nineties. This is like the mid-90s "holdover pattern" period, except with no competition, no random possibilities(I don't see Evan Bourne ever hitting a Shawn Michaels breakout period anytime soon), no fire.

Yes, the wrestling is better than in the past but WWE can't compete with indies, puro, etc. in wrestling quality for many reasons. Most of their featured wrestlers utilize the same cookie cutter, boring style. The ones who don't are typically restricted to make the chosen ones look good. It's an old argument, but nobody can tell me that the NXT Rookies could make one hopeful or excited for the future. Just another symptom, if you ask me.

The last thing in WWE I was interested in was Daniel Bryan. I didn't watch the main shows anymore due to the drudgery, but still watched NXT because of him. I wasn't really a big fan of him on the indies but his NXT story was fascinating and relevant to me because it felt more rooted in real emotion and was complex enough to go anywhere. We saw what happened there.

It's essentially WWE admitting they are not going to do anything interesting in the near future. If that's the case, I still won't be watching. That was the last time I got excited over any WWE happenings only to see things return to the status quo. It's happened constantly over the past six or so years, but that was simply 168 times too
many for me.

Thank you. And yes, this era does suck...heavily. It may not be directly because of WWE being TV-PG, but this period: "the pg era" is straight trash. I've been a fan of the sport for about 17 years of my 26 yr old life, and never before have I been so apathetic and pessimistic about the future of pro wrestling (especially WWE).

[Vice honcho room temperature]

Jun 30, 2010 8:30:19 GMT -5 twiggy101 said:

I don't like how tame it is. I know it's a fake show but it looks much faker when they go overboard with keeping things clean. I find it unrealistic that wrestlers would get angry or get hurt and not utter a single swear. Kinda makes it look like a play for children.

It is a play for children. Pro Wrestling for the longest time has been a play for children.

[Gummydavidson]

Jun 30, 2010 8:27:02 GMT -5 American Dragon said:

I don't really follow WWE that much anymore, I might catch Raw here and there, but other than that, I don't really tent to watch much of WWE. Although I do keep up with some of it, I usually read Smackdown results, and I'm actually quite surprised with what I've been seeing for the past few months. Raw has also been pretty good, while there are some drags such as the Guest-hosts, they usually try to squeeze in some entertaining bits throughout the shows.

Of course it's not the best it's ever been, but it's much better than what people make it out to be. I see a lot of bitching and complaining about the PG rating dragging down the shows, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the product. I wonder if those people who bitch about the PG rating watched Smackdown from 2002-2004, when WWE was pushing out some of the most entertaining stuff they ever have, all while remaining with the PG rating. I usually tend to ignore people who put blame on the PG rating, it has nothing to do with quality of the product. It just so happens WWE wants to have a family-friendly approach with a PG rating.

Smackdown from 2002-2004 was PG?!!

[seamonsters]

Jun 30, 2010 10:36:08 GMT -5 Manute Bol said:

There's nothing wrong with PG wrestling. The rating of the program should not, and I believe does not, impact the quality of wrestling or the quality of storylines. To be honest, some of the WORST wrestling angles took place when the product WASN'T rated PG.

That said I HATE the new blood policy. I understand if you want to cut down on the cursing, the T & A, and inappropriate angles in general (necrophilia, transexual prostitutes, crucifixions, etc), but stopping matches because a wrestler gets a cut is ridiculous.

A wrestler only gets cut now because something has gone wrong. If someone blades, you don't need to get checked out, because it's part of the show. If someone bleeds hardway, especially to the head, you need to check them out, because the match might need stopping for their safety, for their opponents safety.

When John Cena got cut in the Iron Man match, he had 45 minutes to go. You patch him up or let him legit pass out.

When Christian got cut in the Ladder match, it was on his eyelid - are you going to let a wrestler carry on in a match as dangerous as a ladder match when he's got no vision in his right eye?

When CM Punk was busted up by Rey at Over The Limit, he needed what after the match 12/14 stitches? If you cut yourself so badly you need a dozen or so stitches, do you carry on as normal for a bit, of head straight to ER/A&E? I know what I would do.

When Undertaker busted his nose/orbital socket by being out of place for Rey's 619, they didn't need to pause the match, because they knew it had 10 seconds left in it.

It's not 1996 where HHH gets thrown into a hogpen with full of mud and pigshit and who knows what else. (Oh look the swearfilters kicked in - why does no-one ever complain that the Wrestlecrap boards are PG?) It's not even 2005 when Bob Orton was blading knowing he had hepatitis.

Whenever something bad happens to a wrestler, People jump on the WWE and Vince McMahon, and look for someone to blame. When the WWE finally, after all these years actively does things to look after their wrestlers, people complain. If you want blood, go and watch TNA or CZW or promotions that don't give a crap about their wrestlers welfare.

[A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto)]

Jun 30, 2010 11:04:33 GMT -5 Gummydavidson said:

Jun 30, 2010 8:27:02 GMT -5 American Dragon said:

I don't really follow WWE that much anymore, I might catch Raw here and there, but other than that, I don't really tent to watch much of WWE. Although I do keep up with some of it, I usually read Smackdown results, and I'm actually quite surprised with what I've been seeing for the past few months. Raw has also been pretty good, while there are some drags such as the Guest-hosts, they usually try to squeeze in some entertaining bits throughout the shows.

Of course it's not the best it's ever been, but it's much better than what people make it out to be. I see a lot of bitching and complaining about the PG rating dragging down the shows, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the product. I wonder if those people who bitch about the PG rating watched Smackdown from 2002-2004, when WWE was pushing out some of the most entertaining stuff they ever have, all while remaining with the PG rating. I usually tend to ignore people who put blame on the PG rating, it has nothing to do with quality of the product. It just so happens WWE wants to have a family-friendly approach with a PG rating.

Smackdown from 2002-2004 was PG?!!

^ Right. Didn't they have Playboy pillow fight girls or something at Wrestlemania 19? That was in '03.

[jamielowndes {N}]

The PG era sucks for one reason.


The writers play it too safe. You're allowing a grown man to go out and use the phrase "Baloney Fudging Mustard" and refer to his opponent as a "Human jar of Mayonnaise", as well as spraypainting "JBL is poopy".

The fact that these are all Cena is not a criticism of Cena. It's the fact that the writers are writing G tv for a PG program. The nWo angle was under PG TV, and Sting was one of the coolest characters in pro wrestling history.

[Celgress]

YES

[Vice honcho room temperature]

Jun 30, 2010 11:30:45 GMT -5 jamielowndes {N} said:

The PG era sucks for one reason.


The writers play it too safe. You're allowing a grown man to go out and use the phrase "Baloney Fudging Mustard" and refer to his opponent as a "Human jar of Mayonnaise", as well as spraypainting "JBL is poopy".
.

I think 2/3 rd of those phrases were a shot at the internet because they hate Cena being like that.

[Society of the Spectacle]

I stand by the idea that a well written and thought out wrestling program is good entertainment, even if it is PG. I, like some others have mentioned was so psyched with some of the angles lately (the Bryan/Cole/Miz thing, Nexus) because they were so well done. The execution of some of the angles reminded me of stuff that like video of Jericho winning the title people post every now and then. If every show (Raw/Smackdown/NXT/Superstars) was written with the same care and creativity as the Bryan attacking Cole segment or the initial Nexus invasion, no one would be complaining at all, and if they were, they would just be an Attitude-era nostalgic. Some of the stuff from the "classic" Attitude era (across WWF, WCW, and ECW)-- the T and A, Katie Vick, "I'm hardcore, I'll take 'em both"-- were just so ridiculous and seem pretty embarrassing now.

As for no blood policy, I can't say it bothers me too much, but I do understand that sometimes a "blood" feud (a slippery slope mind you) could benefit from it. On the other hand, as the previous poster mentioned about the Bob Orton incident, I think that if some wrestlers try to hide drug habits, what's to stop them from trying to hide a disease like Hepatitis. I know if I was in the ring with a guy that had Hepatitis, I would probably want him cleaned up right away if he bled hardway.

[King Fox -1017 Bricksquad]

Yea it sucks.

[Trent Valentine]