Rated PG Superstar?

[Darth Pipes 0]

Well, here's further proof that the Attitude Era is indeed dead and buried...

 

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111798933...yid=14&cs=1

 

Should have seen this coming. I've been noticing for the past few months, for instance, that Steve Austin's old footage has been edited to blur out his use of his middle fingers on DVD and (most infuriatingly) on 24/7. It probably won't be long now until the WWE starts advertising that they're family entertainment again.

 

Thanks a lot, John Cena!

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

Sooo..... WWE: The Pussy Is Back?

[Craig Th 0]

Well it's sort of smart. Grab them when they are young so they will stay around when they get older. Then they can flip the switch again when this generation gets to be over 16 or something.

 

My nephew loves wrestling and he is only 6. They are going for him right now and hope to hold onto him.

 

[claydude14 0]

Yea, this is a sound idea. If the book it in the way it's been booked, it should keep interests up with the older viewers such as us, but with the PG rating allow the younger generation to become fans. I was about in 3rd or 4th grade when Diesel's run on top captivated me enough to become a fan for life, and that transitioned perfectly to the Attitude era as it emerged while I got older. I think that kind of booking cycle over 5-10 years makes sense: establish a product young and mature it's content enough as the audience matures to keep them around.

[DarKnight 0]

I would say WWE since 2002 has been PG-13. Its like a watered down Attitude Era. They have similar angles and such, but its not as hard edged. I never think wrestling should try to appeal to kids. I mean when has wrestling drew anything when it tries to go for kids? You could say the 80's, but I think that tried to appeal to everybody.

[Diamonddust 0]

I would say WWE since 2002 has been PG-13. Its like a watered down Attitude Era. They have similar angles and such, but its not as hard edged. I never think wrestling should try to appeal to kids. I mean when has wrestling drew anything when it tries to go for kids? You could say the 80's, but I think that tried to appeal to everybody.

 

You could definitely say the 80's as the WWE drew boatloads. You're right that the WWE tried to appeal to everyone (McMahon saying he wanted to take the product out of the smoky arenas and bring it to a place where mom, dad, brother, sister, grandma, and grandpa could attend), but the key to that was hooking the child demographics. If you hook the children, they are going to get their parents to bring them to the events... thus creating more people that will follow your product.

[cabbageboy 0]

To be honest I have little desire to go back to some of the stuff that made the Attitude Era what it was. Do we really need a bunch of Russo sex based angles and miscarriages? Or Mae Young giving birth to a hand?

 

I think for a time the WWF had an idea on how to try and market to kids while also not insulting the intelligence of the wrestling fan. The 1992-94 era was somewhat like that, albeit with some goofy gimmicks tossed in. It didn't really draw too well, but it was a changing of the guard era and truth be told the economy wasn't so hot then either.

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

To be honest I have little desire to go back to some of the stuff that made the Attitude Era what it was. Do we really need a bunch of Russo sex based angles and miscarriages? Or Mae Young giving birth to a hand?

 

I think for a time the WWF had an idea on how to try and market to kids while also not insulting the intelligence of the wrestling fan. The 1992-94 era was somewhat like that, albeit with some goofy gimmicks tossed in. It didn't really draw too well, but it was a changing of the guard era and truth be told the economy wasn't so hot then either.

 

 

 

Yes.

[Chazz 0]

To be honest I have little desire to go back to some of the stuff that made the Attitude Era what it was. Do we really need a bunch of Russo sex based angles and miscarriages? Or Mae Young giving birth to a hand?

 

I think for a time the WWF had an idea on how to try and market to kids while also not insulting the intelligence of the wrestling fan. The 1992-94 era was somewhat like that, albeit with some goofy gimmicks tossed in. It didn't really draw too well, but it was a changing of the guard era and truth be told the economy wasn't so hot then either.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

Whatever makes and keeps the product entertaining. And I would take "some attitude era stuff" over Hornswoggle fucking around with water guns anyday.

[jackmcmanus21 0]

I'd rather good wrestling than the lame attitude era angles any day. Guys like Jericho, Kennedy, HBK and Cena can be great on the mic without making it lude and inappropriate

[Silence 0]

At first I thought this was going to be about Edge saying "BUTT" instead of "ass" last week on Smackdown.

[MrRant 0]

When they stunts, I don't know if that means the whacky angles or toning down violence in the ring.

[DarKnight 0]

I'd rather good wrestling than the lame attitude era angles any day. Guys like Jericho, Kennedy, HBK and Cena can be great on the mic without making it lude and inappropriate

 

I'm sorry, but Kennedy isn't good on the mic. The dude just screams his name twice, and whenever he tries cutting a 10 minute promo, he's boring as hell.

[Cartman 0]

I'd rather good wrestling than the lame attitude era angles any day. Guys like Jericho, Kennedy, HBK and Cena can be great on the mic without making it lude and inappropriate

I have said it in the past and I will say it again...

 

 

I highly doubt the MASS Majority of people who watch Wrestling watch it for the technical wrestling. The actual great wrestling matches just enhance the viewing experience but most people watch for the Storylines and the entertainment.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

When someone says they prefer to see good wrestling, why is that the assumption seems to be that it must mean they also want few, if any, storylines and angles? You can have good wrestling and plenty of good storylines and angles. It's been done before.

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

I love it a PG show about people beating each other up, but don't cuss or talk about sex because little Johnny needs to be protected...

[DarKnight 0]

When someone says they prefer to see good wrestling, why is that the assumption seems to be that it must mean they also want few, if any, storylines and angles? You can have good wrestling and plenty of good storylines and angles. It's been done before.

 

This is mostly just the internet that says this though. The mainstream could care less about the actual wrestling, and tune in for the storylines. Its when you have awful storylines that the mainstream stops watching. The Hummer angle is an example of this, and the promotion went under a couple of years later. TNA right now is heading down that path WCW did, having bad storylines and bad wrestling on their TV show.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

When someone says they prefer to see good wrestling, why is that the assumption seems to be that it must mean they also want few, if any, storylines and angles? You can have good wrestling and plenty of good storylines and angles. It's been done before.

 

This is mostly just the internet that says this though. The mainstream could care less about the actual wrestling, and tune in for the storylines. Its when you have awful storylines that the mainstream stops watching. The Hummer angle is an example of this, and the promotion went under a couple of years later. TNA right now is heading down that path WCW did, having bad storylines and bad wrestling on their TV show.

I didn't realize that the internet had the same collective opinion.

 

When someone says they want to see good wrestling, it rarely, if ever, means that they want to see wall-to-wall wrestling and nothing else. 'Good wrestling' is just a euphemism for a good product, which can, despite what some people seem to think, be a combination of good in-ring action and good storytelling.

[luke-o 0]

As long as Cena doesn't ever write "JBL is Poopy" on his car again we should all be fine.

[UZI Suicide 0]

I don't necessarily think a PG show is going to bring in anymore kids than the attitude era stuff. Sure, more parents will let their kids watch, but those new kids that watch will be canceled out by the kids who stop watching because they think it's gotten too corny and tame.

 

Most kids these days are playing games like Gears of War and Grand Theft Auto. They don't really need to be shielded from some racy stuff on a fake fighting show.

[Youth N Asia 0]

I flipped through a WWE magazine the other day and it looks like it's targeted at 7 year olds

[PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! 0]

I flipped through a WWE magazine the other day and it looks like it's targeted at 7 year olds

 

Are you sure it wasn't the WWE Children's Magazine?

[DarKnight 0]

didn't realize that the internet had the same collective opinion.

 

When someone says they want to see good wrestling, it rarely, if ever, means that they want to see wall-to-wall wrestling and nothing else. 'Good wrestling' is just a euphemism for a good product, which can, despite what some people seem to think, be a combination of good in-ring action and good storytelling.

 

Well, to the mainstream, good wrestling doesn't exist. They just want to see who wins. The mainstream could sit through a whole bunch of Great Khali matches and not realize how bad it is. No offense to Khali, since I'm one of his very few marks.

[garfieldsnose 0]

It's the business model. It's going to work, and keep making the company a lot of money. It's not about the wrestling, it's about the business.

[Mike wanna be 0]

Wrestling has the stigma of being nonsensical violence and being "too violent/racy for kids" as it stands; I don't see how changing the product will change this stigma enough to make it profitable. It isn't like WWF 1994 was taking in money hand over fist compared to the Attitude era; that's why the Attitude era started.

[Slickster 0]

It's a logical extension of launching WWE Kids Magazine and reaching more audiences via WWE Studios. I'm not sure the TV-PG change will mean any real significant changes in WWE storylines or characters, but it can help open the door for parents to allow kids to watch WWE product without concern. It's a psychological thing, a marketing tactic to further open the door for WWE to get more kids to watch.

 

I still maintain WWE needs to figure out how to get an AM Raw-type show on the air at a time when more kids will be watching. Saturday mornings don't have the same cachet they did 15 years ago, obviously, but they need to find something analogous to that. Heck, do a streaming weekly highlights show on WWE.com and make it available for download on iTunes and Xbox Live, then market it to young males (even ads on Nick & Cartoon Network).

[Slickster 0]

Wrestling has the stigma of being nonsensical violence and being "too violent/racy for kids" as it stands; I don't see how changing the product will change this stigma enough to make it profitable. It isn't like WWF 1994 was taking in money hand over fist compared to the Attitude era; that's why the Attitude era started.

 

Well, WWE already IS more profitable now than ever before; I doubt that opening up the product to more potential customers will cost them any profits.

[tekcop 0]

To everyone complaining about this change-over: What exactly is it you're going to miss from the TV14 rating? What does that add to the product at all?

 

"JBL is poopy" doesn't count, because it was very obviously supposed to be ironic and goofy.

[Mike wanna be 0]

To everyone complaining about this change-over: What exactly is it you're going to miss from the TV14 rating? What does that add to the product at all?

 

"JBL is poopy" doesn't count, because it was very obviously supposed to be ironic and goofy.

There's only so many violent things you can do to somebody while remaining in the "Parental Guidance" section of the ratings. Personally, I want storylines that are in-depth, complex, etc.; that isn't something that targets kids. Kids programming is a lot of the same stuff we saw with Warrior & Hogan in their days at the top; good guy does the right things, smites the bad guys, poses after the squash & everybody's happy.

 

All I'm saying is that many of the parents who think wrestling is too racy/on too late for their kids to be watching are still going to think that regardless of what programming changes the company actually makes, so catering to them is useless. It didn't work in the early 90s and they had Superstars on FOX on Saturday afternoons; how is it going to work when the earliest a kid they're actively targeting could watch wrestling is 8pm on Friday on MyNetworkTV, and if they can't find that channel/don't get it in their area (I had to fuck with the antenna every time I wanted to watch Smackdown on UPN in the old days, for example) then their options are cable/satellite shows at 9pm Monday and 10pm Tuesday?

 

You're targeting a group you're going to have trouble winning over based on irreversible stigmas and your own programming's station & timeslot, and forsaking the 18-35 male group that decided the Monday night war, ushered in the most profitable years from a in-the-ring standpoint (WWE has several other outside investments such as DVD sales and WWE Films to inflate their overall profits in the present day), and pretty much kept your company from going under in the mid-90s. That just doesn't seem like a good business decision.

 

If you can target everybody at once by all means do so, but to more or less turn your back on the group that's made you what you are today in favor of "targeting children", especially when targeting them is what you did at your lowest point in the last 20 years (as well as being a major reason you were in danger of going under in the first place)...

[Diablo_Dor 0]

To everyone complaining about this change-over: What exactly is it you're going to miss from the TV14 rating? What does that add to the product at all?

 

"JBL is poopy" doesn't count, because it was very obviously supposed to be ironic and goofy.

There's only so many violent things you can do to somebody while remaining in the "Parental Guidance" section of the ratings. Personally, I want storylines that are in-depth, complex, etc.; that isn't something that targets kids. Kids programming is a lot of the same stuff we saw with Warrior & Hogan in their days at the top; good guy does the right things, smites the bad guys, poses after the squash & everybody's happy.

 

All I'm saying is that many of the parents who think wrestling is too racy/on too late for their kids to be watching are still going to think that regardless of what programming changes the company actually makes, so catering to them is useless. It didn't work in the early 90s and they had Superstars on FOX on Saturday afternoons; how is it going to work when the earliest a kid they're actively targeting could watch wrestling is 8pm on Friday on MyNetworkTV, and if they can't find that channel/don't get it in their area (I had to fuck with the antenna every time I wanted to watch Smackdown on UPN in the old days, for example) then their options are cable/satellite shows at 9pm Monday and 10pm Tuesday?

 

You're targeting a group you're going to have trouble winning over based on irreversible stigmas and your own programming's station & timeslot, and forsaking the 18-35 male group that decided the Monday night war, ushered in the most profitable years from a in-the-ring standpoint (WWE has several other outside investments such as DVD sales and WWE Films to inflate their overall profits in the present day), and pretty much kept your company from going under in the mid-90s. That just doesn't seem like a good business decision.

 

If you can target everybody at once by all means do so, but to more or less turn your back on the group that's made you what you are today in favor of "targeting children", especially when targeting them is what you did at your lowest point in the last 20 years (as well as being a major reason you were in danger of going under in the first place)...

 

In a weird way I believe they are actuaully trying to target the 18-35 bracket that was so important during the Monday Night War

 

Hear me out:

I'm 30, I am a wrestling fan since Sky started showing it, around WM6 and had to hunt through late night ITV for sindicated WCW shows, I fell out of love around 93 but got back into it around 96-97 when I started realising it was being aimed towards my age bracket.

 

My wife sort-of enjoyed it when she was growing up but got into it when we started dating around 98, I remember we wouldn't go out on a friday night cos we watched Nitro on TNT, then taped Raw on the late repeat around 1am and watched it before going out on the Saturday night.

 

About 2002 she grew tired of the absolute shite that was being served up and I had to start watching it alone, she slags me off constantly cos I watch Raw in about 30mins on a tuesday Morning, getting up before 6am, but I shocked her by showing the Vickie wedding a couple of days ago.

 

Now this is a convaluted way of telling you I have a 4yr old daughter and a 8month old son, the WWE are trying to tell me it will be alright to allow my kids to watch the show, as by being PG they won't be shown anything inappropriate so they are trying to get the next generation of the fans who stayed after the Monday night Wars.

 

If I let my girl watch Dr Who, or even Kung Fu Panda, is a PG WWE really much different??

 

(Ps I don't believe I will let her watch it, but that is because of the writing not the rating)