Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragile X
It can clearly be done without changing the PG rating as we have seen all year long. All it takes is creativity, things like R-Truth, C Punk, Orton stepping up, it doesn't have to be vulgar and offensive, that is more childish and normal PG show.
I don't want WWE to "try" to be cool, just be cool. And it can be a show for parents and children or anybody.
An example of a non PG Wrestling show is called Impact Wrestling, and I'm sure you know how that goes on a weekly basis.
|
I've never disputed that it can't be a good show with a PG rating. But, alot of fans, myself included, see that as a way of limiting the shows. It doesn't have to be offensive or vulgar, but it does have to be unique and creative. Both qualities that the current show lacks in alot of aspects. While some might see the Attitude era shows as childish or offensive, wrestling fans wanted to see that. Hence the reason the ratings reflect so negatively now. Do you think breakout stars like Austin or The Rock could've stepped up in a PG environment? I don't, and wrestling would have suffered b/c of it. Having the PG rating is like a double edged sword. Yeah, it cleans the image of WWE up and attracts more desirable sponsors. But it also manages to piss off alot of the fans wrestling gained when it was more cutting edge. To present wrestling as something it's never been before in it's history is laughable.
Having less creative and unique storylines is also to blame for disappointing ratings, but to claim the PG rating isn't connected to that is ignoring facts. Effectively, the 18-34 demographic doesn't like the PG direction, a thought also echoed even by wrestlers. Batista left WWE b/c of it. When you trash the formula that made wrestling successful to begin with, you can expect drastic results...