Jump to content
Fan Clubs (beta)

Open Club  ·  55 members  ·  Free

Wrestling

Is WWE's PG-era being phased out?


DC

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, it seems to me that they're trying to get a little edgier recently. There's been a little bit of swearing, they apparently got rid of the blood ban as I've seen a lill' bit of 'claret over the last month or two. Nothing like a crimson mask obviously, but a busted lip here and there, ect.

 

I know those little things seem petty, but it has me tuning in every week again. It definitely seems like they're "letting loose" a little bit and as far as I'm concerned, I'm all for it.

 

Of course this is coming from a die hard 90's ECW fan as yourself, Mr. Cage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jimmy Redman

I think Vince had enough sense to realise that when you're doing things like The Rock's spiel or a hardcore angle like Punk and Vince "shooting" on each other, you need to be able to say "ass" and sonuvabitch" and stuff to make it really work.

 

I dont think its a big philosophical change, and I dont think they're ditching the PG rating and I dont think you're going to see blood. I just think they're able now to push the envelope a little bit when the angle calls for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they are not phasing anything out, there will be no new attitude era. What they are doing is pushing pg as far as they can do. You can get away with some blood and mild swearing and still call it a pg show.

 

Also here is a quote from yesterdays Jim Ross blog.

 

Point is that PG means different things to different people. I thought Raw was definitely PG money night even though there was some 'edgy' language but not edgy enough to make one want to run the kids out of the room. I don't see a return to PG 14 for WWE and would advise against if if asked but the edgy, more strategic PG we've seen on Raw recently has entertained me.
Edited by The Icon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
No, it doesnt pay for them to not be PG due to Mattel, but this is Vince, he doesnt believe he has to stand by his contractual agreements remember. If he did, it would still be the WWF.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jamster26
As much as I'd like it to be, I don't think it is. It does make a nice change though, not that I'm condoning that type of language or anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ciaran The King
Every Era has it's day, in the 70/80's you had the serious all out wrestling from the NWA and regional promotions, you had the WWF's cartoon/PG era and then eventually the classic attitude era, which many still crave. The PG era has it's own place in history, in WWE eyes it has served a purpose. But eventually it's time will pass, the recent actions of Punk/Vince/Cena may only be the start of another change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
Every Era has it's day, in the 70/80's you had the serious all out wrestling from the NWA and regional promotions, you had the WWF's cartoon/PG era and then eventually the classic attitude era, which many still crave. The PG era has it's own place in history, in WWE eyes it has served a purpose. But eventually it's time will pass, the recent actions of Punk/Vince/Cena may only be the start of another change.
Aside from the Attitude Era, which wasnt very long, wrestling has always been PG. The NWA, WCW, WWF, AWA, WCCW etc. All of the big time promotions have always been PG, so its not strange for wrestling to be PG, the only people who find it strange are the ones who jumped on board during the Attitude Era. So its time isnt "going to pass", because PG is the norm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the Attitude Era, which wasnt very long, wrestling has always been PG. The NWA, WCW, WWF, AWA, WCCW etc. All of the big time promotions have always been PG, so its not strange for wrestling to be PG, the only people who find it strange are the ones who jumped on board during the Attitude Era. So its time isnt "going to pass", because PG is the norm.

 

Really? I'm not saying that US televised wrestling hasn't 'always been PG', but there are plenty of things that don't seem 'PG' that used to go on in all of those companies.

 

To use just one example, Abdullah the Butcher ran around stabbing people with a fork, in most televised companies other than WWF, and that doesn't really seem 'PG'.

 

Likewise, if you look at wrestling as a whole back then, it wasn't 'always PG' at all. Puerto Rico was doing deathmatch wrestling in the early-to-mid 1980's, before that, No-Rope Barbed Wire matches happened in some territories/promotions. I've seen a picture of Dusty Rhodes covered in blood from a Barbed Wire match that took place in 1975.

 

And if you look at it angle-wise, you had stuff like the Four Horseman "breaking" Dusty Rhodes leg. It may have been PG at the time, I don't know, but I doubt that PG WWE would run such an angle. (Or if they did, it wouldn't be as realistic).

 

I've sort of strayed from the point I was trying to make though, and that was that the blood-filled wrestling of the 1970's and 1980's doesn't seem like it would fit into WWE's definition of "PG".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
Really? I'm not saying that US televised wrestling hasn't 'always been PG', but there are plenty of things that don't seem 'PG' that used to go on in all of those companies.

 

To use just one example, Abdullah the Butcher ran around stabbing people with a fork, in most televised companies other than WWF, and that doesn't really seem 'PG'.

 

Likewise, if you look at wrestling as a whole back then, it wasn't 'always PG' at all. Puerto Rico was doing deathmatch wrestling in the early-to-mid 1980's, before that, No-Rope Barbed Wire matches happened in some territories/promotions. I've seen a picture of Dusty Rhodes covered in blood from a Barbed Wire match that took place in 1975.

 

And if you look at it angle-wise, you had stuff like the Four Horseman "breaking" Dusty Rhodes leg. It may have been PG at the time, I don't know, but I doubt that PG WWE would run such an angle. (Or if they did, it wouldn't be as realistic).

 

I've sort of strayed from the point I was trying to make though, and that was that the blood-filled wrestling of the 1970's and 1980's doesn't seem like it would fit into WWE's definition of "PG".

I wasnt talking about Puerto Rico or Japan, I listed the companies I was referring to and yes, even with Abdullah pulling his occasional stunts, wrestling was always seen as a PG product from the 70's onwards and especially into the 80's. The violence wasnt the issue, when did you ever hear swearing on wrestling shows, when did you ever see tits and ass? It never really happened.

 

The angles would be violent but like you mentioned, the Horseman and Rhodes, its not something that kids couldnt watch, its perfectly acceptable family viewing even if it was violent. Wrestling was never crude or perverted like it became at certain points in the Attitude Era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasnt talking about Puerto Rico or Japan, I listed the companies I was referring to and yes, even with Abdullah pulling his occasional stunts, wrestling was always seen as a PG product from the 70's onwards and especially into the 80's. The violence wasnt the issue, when did you ever hear swearing on wrestling shows, when did you ever see tits and ass? It never really happened.

 

The angles would be violent but like you mentioned, the Horseman and Rhodes, its not something that kids couldnt watch, its perfectly acceptable family viewing even if it was violent. Wrestling was never crude or perverted like it became at certain points in the Attitude Era.

 

I see what you mean now. I was mainly thinking about the violence aspect, but the swearing and sexual stuff of the Attitude Era certainly wasn't there.

 

Although, I have heard some wrestlers (Ric Flair, for example) swear while wrestling in the ring. But I guess that doesn't count. :P

 

But yeah, I get what you mean. Still, current PG WWE still has a lot less violence than they used to, and they seem to want to avoid it, even if it does fit into PG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster

I think that has a lot to do with the time aswell. What is classed as overly violent today wasnt seen as overly violent in the 70's and 80's. I'm afraid there are so many boundaries on what you can and cant get away with these days that its ridiculous, there seems to be rules against everything and people are so touchy. Basically, people today have become pussies! "Oh, we cant do that!" "Oh, we shouldnt do this!"

 

Lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ciaran The King
Didn't the PG era come into it's own just after the Chris Benoit incident, whith so many high profile deaths coming so quickly the WWE had to change course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Beltster
No, they started toning things down around 2003/04 and specifically changed to PG when they made a toy deal with Mattel. It has nothing to do with wrestling deaths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites




  • Join the Club!

    Become a member to participate in the forums and our Fan Clubs.

  • Latest Club Activity

×
×
  • Create New...