|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 26, 2008 15:06:13 GMT -5
Why can't they just be kid-friendly through good wrestling on the level of Jericho v Punk this week, instead of a fake rapper or an annoying midget? R-Truth is a real rapper, as far as I know. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on Dec 26, 2008 15:07:40 GMT -5
I have no problem with wrestling being marketed to children. I do, however, find it ridiculous that a show that airs at 9 to 11 pm on cable television censors itself to achieve a PG rating. You do realize that WWE must adhere to USA's standards and practices on that, don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 26, 2008 16:02:17 GMT -5
Just don't try to bring an incest angle and try to make that kid-friendly. They didn't I personally thought that meant that they shouldn't try and do another incest angle and make THAT kid friendly. But that's just me. |
|
SmarkyMark
Team Rocket
My Arachnasense is tingling! Wrestlecrap must be near!
Posts: 849
|
Post by SmarkyMark on Dec 26, 2008 16:43:34 GMT -5
I'm all for it... now that I have nieces and a nephew who's getting into wrestling. Having kids around really does change everything. My sister won't let them watch Family Guy or South Park and I agree with her on that so I'm glad the E are toning it down. [That doesn't mean I enjoying seeing John Cena kiss the crowd's ass every Monday night.]
|
|
|
|
Post by lockedontarget on Dec 26, 2008 17:35:43 GMT -5
I don't mind kid friendly, I just hate dumbing down for kids.
Kid friendly: less swearing, less pointless T&A and more women's wrestling, hard violence used sparingly
Dumbing down for kids: Hornswaggle running through walls with MAGIC MIDGET POWERS!!!1!11!
|
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 26, 2008 17:56:15 GMT -5
Ok, someone's going to have to explain to me as to why this is such a problem, because I think wrestling as a whole is something that naturally attracts kids. Don't believe me? Remember all of the action figures and children's merchandise during the Attitude Era (much to the chagrin of some concerned parents, though)? If the fact that 12-year-olds are enjoying this version of WWE is what's so embarrasing (there's a difference between being bored and being embarrased), shouldn't you have been embarrased ten years ago? Heck, when I was in middle school I knew a ton of kids who loved the original ECW- which, if you watch those old shows, is kind of like a live action cartoon. To me, any wrestling fan over the age of 21 has a part of them that hasn't fully grown up yet, and I think that's healthy. When a fan acts as if they're above all of the "childish nonsense" one would see in wrestling, it's like a kid on the playground refusing to play with the other kids, on the grounds that they would look immature. You and I are in the same boat as those kids buying Cena shirts and Rey masks, you know. Seconded... All the "WWE is too kid friendly" complaints are made by fans who still want to feel "legitimated" to watch wrestling without feeling silly, but tend to forget wrestling has always been kid-friendly, or at least, teen-friendly. The only difference was that in the Attitude Era, teens and kids in society and entertainment were trated in a different way. But wrestling never stopped being targeted at the 8-18 audience, not even for a second. In the 80s it was more "family entertainment", in the 90s more "teen action movie". Moaning about an alleged "kid-friendliness" of WWE is like complaining about oral sex in a porn movie... It may be much, it may be a little, but there's no wrestling without silly stuff, and no porn without BJs |
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Dec 26, 2008 20:47:07 GMT -5
Ok, someone's going to have to explain to me as to why this is such a problem, because I think wrestling as a whole is something that naturally attracts kids. Don't believe me? Remember all of the action figures and children's merchandise during the Attitude Era (much to the chagrin of some concerned parents, though)? If the fact that 12-year-olds are enjoying this version of WWE is what's so embarrasing (there's a difference between being bored and being embarrased), shouldn't you have been embarrased ten years ago? Heck, when I was in middle school I knew a ton of kids who loved the original ECW- which, if you watch those old shows, is kind of like a live action cartoon. To me, any wrestling fan over the age of 21 has a part of them that hasn't fully grown up yet, and I think that's healthy. When a fan acts as if they're above all of the "childish nonsense" one would see in wrestling, it's like a kid on the playground refusing to play with the other kids, on the grounds that they would look immature. You and I are in the same boat as those kids buying Cena shirts and Rey masks, you know. Seconded... All the "WWE is too kid friendly" complaints are made by fans who still want to feel "legitimated" to watch wrestling without feeling silly, but tend to forget wrestling has always been kid-friendly, or at least, teen-friendly. The only difference was that in the Attitude Era, teens and kids in society and entertainment were trated in a different way. But wrestling never stopped being targeted at the 8-18 audience, not even for a second. In the 80s it was more "family entertainment", in the 90s more "teen action movie". Moaning about an alleged "kid-friendliness" of WWE is like complaining about oral sex in a porn movie... It may be much, it may be a little, but there's no wrestling without silly stuff, and no porn without BJs Actually, sir, I HAVE seen porn without BJs. You just have to know which section of the adult shop to look in. Here's a hint: It's usually over there with all the OTHER girl-girl videos. *AHEM* Anyway....I can see both sides of this, and as a person who grew up with "Hulkamania" in the 80's, I enjoy the more old school, innocent feel of wrestling without profanity, copious amounts of blood, and damn near naked women running around while Jerry Lawler masturbates incessantly under his table. At the same time, I would like things to be a little more realistic. I mean, have blood when there SHOULD be blood (IE, a spot that has PROVEN to draw blood 98% of the time in the past, such as a ring bell shot, or an exposed turnbuckle) and profanity WHEN necessary. I'd also suggest changing the name of the show. As is, it's about as raw as a day care class with cooties. And drop the ECW name, as well. There is absolutely nothing "extreme" about the current product. And I say that NOT as a whining, complaining fanboy of the original ECW....just as someone with functioning powers of observation. |
|
|
|
Post by kitsunestar on Dec 26, 2008 21:01:55 GMT -5
Why can't they just be kid-friendly through good wrestling on the level of Jericho v Punk this week, instead of a fake rapper or an annoying midget? R-Truth is a real rapper, as far as I know. And Dean Malenko retired years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Dec 26, 2008 21:04:12 GMT -5
My biggest issue with the n ew "marketing to kids" strategy is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. When it comes to the male wrestlers, they seem to want to be the 1980's, yet when it comes to the women, it's "Parade o' Skanks" much of the time, with the annual "yay, we're cross-promoting with a magazine that many of our fans aren't old enough to buy!".
Either it's fine to be racey, or it's all about cut and dry stuff. Having it both ways seems blatantly hypocricical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2008 21:56:19 GMT -5
My biggest issue with the n ew "marketing to kids" strategy is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. When it comes to the male wrestlers, they seem to want to be the 1980's, yet when it comes to the women, it's "Parade o' Skanks" much of the time, with the annual "yay, we're cross-promoting with a magazine that many of our fans aren't old enough to buy!". Either it's fine to be racey, or it's all about cut and dry stuff. Having it both ways seems blatantly hypocricical. Make no mistake, their "kid friendly" thing is nothing but buzz words. Vince will put on whatever he feels makes the money at the time. If it means being hypocritical, and not letting people say poopie...then having divas come bend over in hot pants 10 minutes later, he's got no problem with it. The MILLISECOND that he thinks it'll make an extra few bucks overall having people throw around some f bombs, it'll be booked. Any combination of clean programming and racy programming he deems the most suitable for making the most money, that's what we'll get. |
|
greeby
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,088
|
Post by greeby on Dec 26, 2008 22:03:24 GMT -5
My biggest issue with the n ew "marketing to kids" strategy is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. When it comes to the male wrestlers, they seem to want to be the 1980's, yet when it comes to the women, it's "Parade o' Skanks" much of the time, with the annual "yay, we're cross-promoting with a magazine that many of our fans aren't old enough to buy!". Either it's fine to be racey, or it's all about cut and dry stuff. Having it both ways seems blatantly hypocricical. Umm, how do you figure? They've cut out all the bikini contests and gimmick matches. The only talk about Playboy has come from the internet, not the WWE. The four angles they have running now that involve divas are hardly racy. Besides, they've always flirted with sex a little bit. Anyone else remember some of Sherri's outfits during the original kid-friendly era? I mean damn! |
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Dec 26, 2008 23:37:24 GMT -5
First of all the WWE doesn't have to be completely child friendly to be sucessful. Look at Jim Crockett Promotions in the mid-late 70s/early-mid 80s. They were very sucessful and they main targeted young- old adults as their audience. Heck they probably would have never sold to Turner if it weren't for people like Ric Flair and Dusty Rhoades abusing the company account.
Second to say that the WWE needs John Cena as their top star is ridiculous. When was the last time the WWE had a top star that so many people booed? It is pretty obvious that the WWE is alienating a certain group of their audience by building the company around him. Also it is plain out sickening how much ass kissing he does to get cheered and how much the WWE does to get him cheered. If someone is popular they shouldn't have to do all of this. I think the WWE will be better off putting guys like CM Punk and Randy Orton on the top of their cards, although Punk has a little longer until he is ready.
As far as marketing to kids that is fine. Vince McMahon even in the attitude era has always marketed to the child's market. I also have no problem with the WWE having cleaner programming than the Attitude era, because even in my opinion they went too far sometimes. But even in the 80s at the height of Hulkamania and with a huge demographic under 16, they still occasional swore and there was blood in matches to help build storylines. I think the WWE needs to do what they did in the 80s, find a way to market heavily to children, not be too offensive, and at the same time don't alienate your adult fans.
|
|
Tehboobz wants Ewa Sonnett
Don Corleone
Keeps his subtlety and knockers separated.
She's busty...she's Polish...and she will be mine!
Posts: 1,533
|
Post by Tehboobz wants Ewa Sonnett on Dec 27, 2008 0:05:46 GMT -5
First of all the WWE doesn't have to be completely child friendly to be sucessful. Look at Jim Crockett Promotions in the mid-late 70s/early-mid 80s. They were very sucessful and they main targeted young- old adults as their audience. Heck they probably would have never sold to Turner if it weren't for people like Ric Flair and Dusty Rhoades abusing the company account. Second to say that the WWE needs John Cena as their top star is ridiculous. When was the last time the WWE had a top star that so many people booed? It is pretty obvious that the WWE is alienating a certain group of their audience by building the company around him. Also it is plain out sickening how much ass kissing he does to get cheered and how much the WWE does to get him cheered. If someone is popular they shouldn't have to do all of this. I think the WWE will be better off putting guys like CM Punk and Randy Orton on the top of their cards, although Punk has a little longer until he is ready. As far as marketing to kids that is fine. Vince McMahon even in the attitude era has always marketed to the child's market. I also have no problem with the WWE having cleaner programming than the Attitude era, because even in my opinion they went too far sometimes. But even in the 80s at the height of Hulkamania and with a huge demographic under 16, they still occasional swore and there was blood in matches to help build storylines. I think the WWE needs to do what they did in the 80s, find a way to market heavily to children, not be too offensive, and at the same time don't alienate your adult fans. People are probably going to take issue with some parts of this, and ignore the post as a whole, but reading all of that....I agree with you. I mean, in the 80's there WERE some bloody matches, and sometimes, swear words were auidble, and yes, the envelope was pushed at times (See Piper, Roddy). But yeah, I agree with your general point. |
|
|
|
Post by kitsunestar on Dec 27, 2008 0:07:31 GMT -5
First of all the WWE doesn't have to be completely child friendly to be sucessful. Look at Jim Crockett Promotions in the mid-late 70s/early-mid 80s. They were very sucessful and they main targeted young- old adults as their audience. Heck they probably would have never sold to Turner if it weren't for people like Ric Flair and Dusty Rhoades abusing the company account. Second to say that the WWE needs John Cena as their top star is ridiculous. When was the last time the WWE had a top star that so many people booed? It is pretty obvious that the WWE is alienating a certain group of their audience by building the company around him. Also it is plain out sickening how much ass kissing he does to get cheered and how much the WWE does to get him cheered. If someone is popular they shouldn't have to do all of this. I think the WWE will be better off putting guys like CM Punk and Randy Orton on the top of their cards, although Punk has a little longer until he is ready. As far as marketing to kids that is fine. Vince McMahon even in the attitude era has always marketed to the child's market. I also have no problem with the WWE having cleaner programming than the Attitude era, because even in my opinion they went too far sometimes. But even in the 80s at the height of Hulkamania and with a huge demographic under 16, they still occasional swore and there was blood in matches to help build storylines. I think the WWE needs to do what they did in the 80s, find a way to market heavily to children, not be too offensive, and at the same time don't alienate your adult fans. People are probably going to take issue with some parts of this, and ignore the post as a whole, but reading all of that....I agree with you. I mean, in the 80's there WERE some bloody matches, and sometimes, swear words were auidble, and yes, the envelope was pushed at times (See Piper, Roddy). But yeah, I agree with your general point. At the same time, there's a HUGE difference between Piper cracking a coconut over Snuka's head, and Pillman pulling a GUN on Austin, when talking about "pushing the envelope". |
|
Tehboobz wants Ewa Sonnett
Don Corleone
Keeps his subtlety and knockers separated.
She's busty...she's Polish...and she will be mine!
Posts: 1,533
|
Post by Tehboobz wants Ewa Sonnett on Dec 27, 2008 0:11:48 GMT -5
People are probably going to take issue with some parts of this, and ignore the post as a whole, but reading all of that....I agree with you. I mean, in the 80's there WERE some bloody matches, and sometimes, swear words were auidble, and yes, the envelope was pushed at times (See Piper, Roddy). But yeah, I agree with your general point. At the same time, there's a HUGE difference between Piper cracking a coconut over Snuka's head, and Pillman pulling a GUN on Austin, when talking about "pushing the envelope". What you say is true, but I was more thinking of the racially charged stuff like the Mr. T slave joke that Piper got away with, or calling Bruno Sammartino a "dirty wop" in MSG. |
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Dec 27, 2008 1:26:40 GMT -5
My biggest issue with the n ew "marketing to kids" strategy is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. When it comes to the male wrestlers, they seem to want to be the 1980's, yet when it comes to the women, it's "Parade o' Skanks" much of the time, with the annual "yay, we're cross-promoting with a magazine that many of our fans aren't old enough to buy!". Either it's fine to be racey, or it's all about cut and dry stuff. Having it both ways seems blatantly hypocricical. Umm, how do you figure? They've cut out all the bikini contests and gimmick matches. The only talk about Playboy has come from the internet, not the WWE. The four angles they have running now that involve divas are hardly racy. Besides, they've always flirted with sex a little bit. Anyone else remember some of Sherri's outfits during the original kid-friendly era? I mean damn! good point. Sunny came along in 96 which is when WWF was still pretty PG. |
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Dec 27, 2008 1:39:02 GMT -5
First of all the WWE doesn't have to be completely child friendly to be sucessful. Look at Jim Crockett Promotions in the mid-late 70s/early-mid 80s. They were very sucessful and they main targeted young- old adults as their audience. Heck they probably would have never sold to Turner if it weren't for people like Ric Flair and Dusty Rhoades abusing the company account. On the regional level sure JCP was a success in those regions, however when branched out in to LA, San Francisco, or New York, they wouldn't do the same business WWF did. Wrestling is for children, it's men fake fighting in their undies, you know like the power rangers. Plus you know WWF came up at the same time as Ninja turtles, thundercats, and GI: JOE. Except instead of cartoons for heroes, we had Hulk Hogan, and yeah Sgt. Slaughter I have no problem with kid friendly WWE, I have a problem with people who think wrestling should only be catered to them, when kids make WWE the most money. |
|
|
|
Post by TRUTH TELLER on Dec 27, 2008 2:36:53 GMT -5
I diagree. They add a significant amount of revenue to merchandise, true, but at the same time, PPVs and DVDs are a primarily adult-market. And there are as many adults at live events as kids in a lot of places. I know, because I'm one of them.
I believe the entire kid friendly direction is not because kids are their number one money maker--because they're not-- it's because they're grooming them to take our place, which is smart business, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Immoral One on Dec 27, 2008 3:39:44 GMT -5
Honestly I was pissed about the kid friendly approach at first but thus far it hasnt really been too noticeable. The only thing I recall loathing was the Hornswaggle crap, which was even insulting to children. WWE currently has some of the most deep complex heels they have ever had. Edge, Orton, and Jericho are amazing. The problem with WWE right now is that the faces are very bland and one dimensional, and aren't anywhere near as intriguing as the heels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2008 3:44:25 GMT -5
The in-ring product has been great this year, so it could be "G" rated for all I care. I'm still getting what I want.
|
|
