|
Post by Orange on Jun 30, 2010 11:55:46 GMT -5
I don't like it personally, and it's the reason I hadn't watched Raw for a good 3 months up until this past Monday. The main thing that turned me off was it was too safe, with no blood and the no edgy stuff whatsoever. I'm not saying I need it to be Attitude Era cranked to eleven, but for God's sakes in wrestling you're not supposed to stop when somebody has a cut, it's just stupid.
Also as somebody else said, cutting down on the T&A and stupid angles I can agree with and support, but when in a fake sport blood isn't allowed, that just doesn't sit right with me. You can turn on a boxing match or an MMA match and see blood, kids know what blood is, so what's the big deal?
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Grimm on Jun 30, 2010 12:08:54 GMT -5
My biggest problem with the PG Era is how dumbed down everything is. Just because your target audience is children doesn't mean that you have to dumb all the storylines down for them.
I think that's why so many of us we surprised by the inital NXT attack. It was something different than what we'd seen for the last few years and it came completely out of nowhere. It was a major shaking of the status quo and wasn't being written down because it was on a PG show.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jun 30, 2010 12:10:22 GMT -5
I don't like it personally, and it's the reason I hadn't watched Raw for a good 3 months up until this past Monday. The main thing that turned me off was it was too safe, with no blood and the no edgy stuff whatsoever. I'm not saying I need it to be Attitude Era cranked to eleven, but for God's sakes in wrestling you're not supposed to stop when somebody has a cut, it's just stupid. Also as somebody else said, cutting down on the T&A and stupid angles I can agree with and support, but when in a fake sport blood isn't allowed, that just doesn't sit right with me. You can turn on a boxing match or an MMA match and see blood, kids know what blood is, so what's the big deal? Yeah but they do stoppages to clean cuts and see if it will harm the fighter. Same general idea here... execution could be better but still.
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Jun 30, 2010 12:10:58 GMT -5
PG doesn't suck. The fact is the writing isn't as good any more, and people just hang the fact that wrestling's not as good any more on the fact that it's now PG.
|
|
|
Post by Snake "The Jake" Roberts on Jun 30, 2010 12:50:15 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with pg, but the booking is just poor.
|
|
|
Post by buttersock on Jun 30, 2010 12:52:42 GMT -5
No, it doesn't suck.
My favorite eras were the PG eras (Hogan/Warrior, Edgy/Dark era from late '91-Early '92, Hitman/HBK, etc.) and I couldn't stand the Attitude Era (mostly from mid '98 to Late' 99, as soon as Russo left the product became better).
Not to mention, Chikara is one of THE top indy promotions in North America and guess what? Its' PG!!! Its selling out more ECW Arena shows than other indies nowadays...once again, THE ECW ARENA! Which is known for the most brutal and viscous fans in the country. WWE need to study Chikara to see how to do PG wrestling right (Even Bryan Danielson says that at the last Chikara show).
In conclusion, The TV rating doesn't suck, its all about writing and booking. However I notice no matter what the rating is, people will find something to complain about in terms of writing and thats in both the TV-14 days to the current PG format. I rather watch a harmless 3 minute Hornswoggle segment than Kiss My Ass Club segments and Necrophillia. Thats just me.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jun 30, 2010 13:02:59 GMT -5
It doesn't matter if WWE is PG, TV-14, or TV-MA. If the quality of the booking and wrestling action is mediocre, the overall product is mediocre. Changing the rating isn't going to suddenly improve the product. If Raw went TV-14 again, you are going to get the same show because you got the same writers churning it out. Cena will just say "crap" instead of "poopy".
|
|
|
Post by strykerdarksilence on Jun 30, 2010 13:06:30 GMT -5
I prefer vastly it to Attitude era, so not for me, no.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 30, 2010 13:11:29 GMT -5
Frankly, I think the biggest problem is that audiences are MUCH more demanding now than they were during Attitude. Attitude booking doesn't hold up that well for me (people's reactions to TNA kinda prove that). What WWE is trying to do is to actually admit that it doesn't work and go back to the 80s method so they can create "the new Hogan". However, THAT method doesn't work either because A) the zeitgeist doesn't really support another Rock 'n Wrestling Era and B) they've preserved too many outdated trapping of Attitude for a true 80s feel (too many interviews/video packages, overuse of GM figures, the 12 PPV format, etc).
I actually think the thing that cripples Creative most is the 12 PPV format. It must really suck to have to write all storylines for a set 3-4 week period. Plus we have to see constant trailers and promos all over WWE programming. That's far more annoying and inescapable than even Hornswoggle.
|
|
|
Post by machomuta on Jun 30, 2010 13:24:44 GMT -5
Normal PG doesnt suck. WWE´s version of PG sucks.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jun 30, 2010 13:57:55 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem TNA has doing Crash TV booking is the following: Crash TV was initially a smoke and mirrors con game first experimented with by Heyman in ECW to some degree and later under Russo's writing in WWF. What do these two promotions have in common? Crappy rosters. Actually wrestling wise ECW of the mid 90s may have had a BETTER roster than the WWF did, and thus Heyman had the common sense to let guys like Benoit, Eddie, and Malenko actually wrestle.
That's what people don't get about the Attitude Era. For most of 1997-99 the WWF had a terrible roster and the guys they did sign largely ended up buried (Big Show for much of 1999, Jericho during his initial run). Crazed, over the top Crash TV booking masked the fact that most of these guys kinda....sucked. Note that once the WWF's roster improved with the signings of Taz, the Dudleys, and then all the Radicals in early 200 the whole Crash TV thing died down and it became more about serious wrestling.
TNA has a roster of largely talented in ring workers. It's the same mistake Russo made when he went to WCW, trying to do a bunch of goofy skits and angles with guys who are better off being told "You and you, go out there for 15 minutes and so and so goes over clean."
|
|
|
Post by VeggieOverlord on Jun 30, 2010 14:03:34 GMT -5
I think they should crank up the violence when its appropriate. Like during the NXT beatdown of Cena, if they left him in a pool of his own blood it would've been much more effective. But like anything, it needs to be done in moderation for it to be effective. Wild brawls should happen every once in a blue moon therefore they become that much more special, for example.
|
|
Raul
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by Raul on Jun 30, 2010 14:05:49 GMT -5
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?!! 1997/98 was PG also.. Look at what happened then.
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Jun 30, 2010 14:10:02 GMT -5
Recently with the introduction of Nexus and a couple other things Raw has gotten better but the quality of Raw since 2002 has remained the same wither its PG or not PG it just hasn't been the same since the "Attitude" era. Wither its lack of competition (TNA not being a credible threat) or just a sign of the times I just haven't enjoyed WWE's product on Raw that much.
All in all it seems like its not PG it really is the booking.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Jun 30, 2010 14:10:58 GMT -5
The problem with today's PG is that it's more Y7 than anything else. Wait, scratch that. I've seen Y7 shows with more violence and harsher language than Raw.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 30, 2010 14:11:12 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem TNA has doing Crash TV booking is the following: Crash TV was initially a smoke and mirrors con game first experimented with by Heyman in ECW to some degree and later under Russo's writing in WWF. What do these two promotions have in common? Crappy rosters. Actually wrestling wise ECW of the mid 90s may have had a BETTER roster than the WWF did, and thus Heyman had the common sense to let guys like Benoit, Eddie, and Malenko actually wrestle. That's what people don't get about the Attitude Era. For most of 1997-99 the WWF had a terrible roster and the guys they did sign largely ended up buried (Big Show for much of 1999, Jericho during his initial run). Crazed, over the top Crash TV booking masked the fact that most of these guys kinda....sucked. Note that once the WWF's roster improved with the signings of Taz, the Dudleys, and then all the Radicals in early 200 the whole Crash TV thing died down and it became more about serious wrestling. TNA has a roster of largely talented in ring workers. It's the same mistake Russo made when he went to WCW, trying to do a bunch of goofy skits and angles with guys who are better off being told "You and you, go out there for 15 minutes and so and so goes over clean." Yeah, people have a tendency to act like the New Generation was a great time in wrestling history because of Shawn and Bret's matches, but most of their roster was horrid by today's standards. I'd take TNA's current ROSTER (not their booking team) over the WWF's from the beginning of New Generation to 1999 any day. Attitude was a gimmick. Quite possibly the most successful gimmick in wrestling history, but like all gimmicks it had a shelf life.
|
|
|
Post by Indiana Miz on Jun 30, 2010 14:16:00 GMT -5
The main thing I hate about it is the way it seems like they have to hold back sometimes. To me, the real problems are the stupid skits, hardly any time for people to really get over, and bad booking, but I don't think PG had anything to do with that.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Jun 30, 2010 14:40:07 GMT -5
It just sucks that I feel like I'm watching a kid's show rather than a wrestling show. Kid's have ALWAYS loved wrestling, why does it need to be PG?
|
|
|
Post by noleafclover1980 on Jun 30, 2010 14:43:00 GMT -5
It's the writers not knowing how to write good material to fit in it. They need to just let the wrestlers do their own thing more, they are the ones with their fingers on the pulse of the audience, not a bunch of hacks in a room.
|
|
|
Post by waluigi on Jun 30, 2010 14:49:32 GMT -5
It's not about PG programming. It's about what they think is PG programming.
Some genius thought it'd be a great idea to have a midget vs a little Mexican guy go on for 5 months. FIVE MONTHS.
By the end of it, nobody was cheering anymore. From the dumbest kid to the brightest teenager to the reclusive super-genius glamor model in row 50. And there was NO payoff. Even the Gooker had an beginning and an end.
How about this, Fatal Four Way. A PPV whose gimmick is that all the champ matches are between four people at once...there is no way anybody with a brain thought that up.
The reason we call it the PG era isn't b/c it's the rating/content that's the problem. It's the fact that these guys can't do anything with what they've got.
|
|