|
Post by ben:friendship frog on Oct 9, 2010 1:03:16 GMT -5
I was thinking earlier, and i've struggled to really narrow it down due to many people i've come across varying in their reasoning as to why 'PG SUCKS!'.
Thing is, I became a fan during the 'Attitude Era' and PG doesn't bother me in the slightest, the only thing that bothers me is that whenever something sucks you hear 200 people go 'PG RUINED WWE!'.
So yeah, basically, the reasons I could think of were..
A: No blood, swearing & naked women B: Some fans are bitter that they're are no longer the target demographic for WWE C: They have no idea and just want a scapegoat for bad storylines, etc.
A good example is the Justin Bieber singing at WrestleMania news, yeah I don't like him either but WWE's target majority does so what right do we have to complain?
I'm actually kinda glad that WWE is more kid friendly these days. When I was 11/12 I was embarassed if a family member caught me watching these 'bra and panties' matches or I had to turn down the volume so there wasn't endless profanity coming from my bedroom.
I guess this post is slightly moany but i'm not taking any shots at anyone, it just annoys me when people blame PG for everything..
|
|
xxx4lyfe
ALF
I think Sheamus speaks for all of us
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by xxx4lyfe on Oct 9, 2010 1:10:13 GMT -5
I don't find this post moany whatsoever.
I'm tired of hearing people blame PG for whatever reasons. If people are so needing of some blood, watch some ECW or some CZW or something else. That's disturbing that people really want blood.
Now if someone bleeds, do I want them to get dabbed up? f*** no. They don't need to do that.
PG isn't what is wrong with WWE, and people need to realize that and stop acting stanky.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Tornado on Oct 9, 2010 1:10:30 GMT -5
A lot of the time I honestly believe that it's C. I hear so much of "Well maybe if they stopped being PG the product would be interesting again". No. They've proven with the Nexus angle that they can be perfectly fine with PG programming. Sure, a lot might say that that's an exception, but I actually really like the WWE right now and wouldn't trade it for 'edgier' television. The mid 2000s were a period where I felt like the WWE had no identity whatsoever and tried to go that route and it just didn't work. I'd much rather never have to go back to that again than have a few complaints about the "PG" product. There may be rare cases where the WWE running on a safe ship may be bad, but overall a lot of the fanbase that complains about it can't just come to the realization that the writers themselves suck. You can have a family friendly product and have great television. A rating won't magically bring a stroke of genius to the 'great minds' at WWE creative. That's a fantasy world if I've ever heard of one.
|
|
Error
Trap-Jaw
error error does not compute
Posts: 442
|
Post by Error on Oct 9, 2010 1:11:49 GMT -5
I can so empathize with the whole being embarrassed to watch it as a kid deal. It was baaaad.
|
|
xxx4lyfe
ALF
I think Sheamus speaks for all of us
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by xxx4lyfe on Oct 9, 2010 1:13:27 GMT -5
To my knowledge, CHIKARA is PG and they are heard to be a pretty damn good company.
It is the writing, and the writers have taken a whole bunch of control on the wrestlers.
|
|
|
Post by ben:friendship frog on Oct 9, 2010 1:17:38 GMT -5
Whilst generally I agree with that quote I have to disagree on the neglecting adults part. The whole Kane/Undertaker/Bearer angle on Smackdown is for the longtime fans. Hell, the first two seasons of NXT was basically for the IWC.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Oct 9, 2010 1:19:35 GMT -5
Whilst generally I agree with that quote I have to disagree on the neglecting adults part. The whole Kane/Undertaker/Bearer angle on Smackdown is for the longtime fans. Hell, the first two seasons of NXT was basically for the IWC. To be fair, I'm pretty sure I said that almost a year ago.
|
|
|
Post by ben:friendship frog on Oct 9, 2010 1:21:39 GMT -5
Haha yes, I didn't see the date on the quote before, in that case you're forgiven
|
|
xxx4lyfe
ALF
I think Sheamus speaks for all of us
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by xxx4lyfe on Oct 9, 2010 1:21:48 GMT -5
Hey now... those Nitro girls. Lemme tell ya! That is some sexual shit!
|
|
|
Post by Skeptical Mind on Oct 9, 2010 1:22:59 GMT -5
To my knowledge, CHIKARA is PG and they are heard to be a pretty damn good company. It is the writing, and the writers have taken a whole bunch of control on the wrestlers. CHIKARA is really entertaining. I don't think anyone is saying that family-friendly wrestling can't be good. If you don't mark for Dragon Dragon you have no soul. The problem is specifically WWE's brand of family-friendly wrestling, which is bland and uninspired at best. It feels like something is missing from the show on a creative level, like they are still booking shows with an Attitude Era mindset and then just cutting away everything too racy for television. There's also a huge difference between appealing to a demographic and catering specifically to a demographic. Kids have always been a big part of the wrestling fanbase. Most people here probably watched as kids. Hiring a pseudo-celebrity that only 9 year-old girls care about to sing at your biggest show of the year is a whole different ballgame.
|
|
JMA
Hank Scorpio
Down With Capitalism!
Posts: 6,880
|
Post by JMA on Oct 9, 2010 1:23:46 GMT -5
Nah. You got it all wrong. PG is bad because it's condescending and compromises the integrity of a product. Basically, if you try to write down to your audience to gain ratings (which is failing), you sacrifice creativity. This reduces potentially good ideas to mass-produced, commercialized crap. And ultimately, people get fed up with that and move onto something new and different.
|
|
kuda
Trap-Jaw
Internet TOUGH GUY!
Posts: 301
|
Post by kuda on Oct 9, 2010 1:34:03 GMT -5
The biggest problem with WWE for me has nothing to do with the television rating. The biggest problem for me is that nothing is natural. Whenever a wrestler gets a push, as an example, it is not because they are getting the best reaction and WWE responds to the crowd. No, it is whomever they deem worthy and decide to strap a rocket to. Sheamus showed up and was pushed to the moon. All that did, at least in the on-line community, was make people think it happened because he was workout buddies with Triple H. Not because he earned it.
Everything is so scripted that nothing seems natural. Like buying a ticket and yelling or booing really has no impact on the show. As a fan, you are not connected to the show. You might as well not be there because the seat you're filling up is ignored completely. Other than to be a part of another generic WWE catchphrase in "WWE Universe." The matches, promos, pushes, etc. nothing is natural. Even the commentary is just monkeys being fed lines through an earpiece.
I'll never forget how over Viscera went out and got himself. Remember that? When he was singing to Lillian Garcia and going on dates with Trish Stratus and eating hot dogs from the fans in the front row. He was getting genuine babyface pops when he was coming out. VISCERA! Then WWE cut the legs out from him because apparently they weren't ready for him to get over. He went out and got over on his own (the thing WWE always tries to talk about, giving wrestlers a chance and them having to make the best of it) then they cut his legs off. Then he was repackaged as Big Daddy V and shipped to ECW.
Eugene was super over and got squashed by Triple H. The Rock put over The Hurricane huge and then they killed his heat. Kaientai with the "EVIL!" gimmick were over. The previously mentioned Viscera. Even Trevor Murdoch when he was doing the signing cowboy gimmick was starting to get over. Victoria coming out to Tatu with Stevie Richards playing the role of the woman... It's just like if WWE doesn't think the time is right, they just say "nope!" and you're back to being Superstars fodder. Meanwhile we still get John Cena coming out, saluting and wrestling in jorts.
|
|
|
Post by "Dashing" Dr.VonPhoenix on Oct 9, 2010 3:24:01 GMT -5
It's not just that the show is PG. It's that long terms feuds lack the intensity of those in the attitude era. You don't need blood, swearing, and naked women (though I will always be a proponent of ALL of these thing.) to make the show captivating... but you do need intensity. Ruthless aggression, if I may be so bold. WWE is showing that they can't do a whole lot of that right now. It's all in the approach. They're trying so hard to appeal to kids that they're scared of what actually goes in as far as raw human emotion for fear of public backlash. Ironically, that backlash would be against the very thing they need most. Long term captivating intensity within feuds. Long term and uninterrupted.
|
|
|
Post by Chris the Bambikiller on Oct 9, 2010 3:36:24 GMT -5
My opinion: PG means that WWE limits itself. If you're not going for PG, you can still do kid-friendly, fun stuff if you want. But you can also do a lot of different things.
Now with the limitation to PG, a lot of ideas have to be modified or shot down altogether because it doesn't fit in with the company policy. I'd rather have "no limits", it doesn't mean you have to test how far you can go all the time, it's just extra freedom for creative and wrestlers.
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Oct 9, 2010 6:42:38 GMT -5
It's simple. With PG you've given yourself a limitation on what you can do. Situations that would make a storyline more appealing and interesting are shot down in flames and canned for something more "kid-friendly". Forgive me, but I never understood when it was "kid friendly" to see two grown men/women laying into each other.
|
|
|
Post by AndyUK on Oct 9, 2010 6:52:46 GMT -5
Meh, I like WWE at the moment. RAW is a very good show to me and Smackdown is a solid show. I really don't think it limits them that much at all because they've already proven since going PG that you can create interesting, creative storylines in a PG environment.
I was much more embarassed about watching the product before the move to PG. I was always hoping nobody would walk in while something completely over the top and raunchy was going on that wasn't needed at all. The worst thing now is a stupid midget or silly comedy skits.
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Oct 9, 2010 7:09:58 GMT -5
Meh, I like WWE at the moment. RAW is a very good show to me and Smackdown is a solid show. I really don't think it limits them that much at all because they've already proven since going PG that you can create interesting, creative storylines in a PG environment. I was much more embarassed about watching the product before the move to PG. I was always hoping nobody would walk in while something completely over the top and raunchy was going on that wasn't needed at all. The worst thing now is a stupid midget or silly comedy skits. I agree that sometimes they went over the top because 'they could'. IMO they have created SOME interesting and creative storylines (CeNexus being the most recent). However they are few and far between at least in my eyes. Many storylines they create do have the potential to be creative and interesting. But in a situation where it would warrant a more violent setting/match, they are forced by their kid friendly mindset to tone it down. At this point your left with a dull storyline which plays out over and over again. Maybe this is more down to the guys/gals in creative not having proper imaginations or the willingness to try something else. Fresh ideas come at a premium in the WWE as far as I can see, and it hurts the overall product. It's ironic that it seems Vince is very focused on the entertainment side of pro wrestling...yet his company delivers actual entertainment very rarely.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Oct 9, 2010 9:00:24 GMT -5
The angles are less compelling. The wrestlers, some of them anyway, can come across as cookie cutter, but I think that has a lot to do with WWE's booking. It's not the naked women, because I'd be happy if I was to never see a lingere pillow fight again.
The blood is good because it can add to drama to an angle. Like, a Hell in a Cell looks kinda stupid without some sort of blood.
Jim Ross made a comment about PG. He said that he had no problem with wrestlers going out there and having great matches, or something along those lines. I completely screwed that up. I'm fine with PG, it's just the characters aren't as interesting anymore, there's not a lot of focus on guys as there used to be, and that's probably one of the problems as well.
Also, as someone who used to be a 10 year old boy, I will say this. I hated the backstreet boys and other boy bands that were around that time, because I thought they were stupid. Most 10 year old boys did. I don't think 10 year old boys are going to get excited about seeing Justin Bieber. That's not appealing towards the audience at all. John Cena is a tough guy, and a fighter. No matter how lame he can be, I can understand why kids would like him. If I was 10, I'd probably be a huge John Cena fan. But, I would hate Justin Bieber. And I don't really know the kid's music, but just with his gimmick, I know I would hate him. It's not a PG thing. It's WWE not knowing their audience.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Oct 9, 2010 9:06:06 GMT -5
I think its still leftover euphoria from the Attitude Era.
It doesn't matter what the rating is if you produce the same show. Some of the regularly top rated cable shows are TV-G. Adding blood, tits, and cursing is just a crutch if the writing is mediocre. WWE has been PG for most of its existence. It was just a PG then would be a TV-14 today due to the changes in the social and political climate.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Oct 9, 2010 9:35:32 GMT -5
The thing I dislike about the PGness is that it's just a total lack of unpredictability.
'Oh no, a hell in a cell match! Well no-one ever bleeds any more, so who gives a shit. NEXT.'
I know that WWE is PG and so certain things can't happen, and that means I don't care because I know only a certain level of intensity can be reached in a PG version of a medium that is by its nature, violent.
|
|