Against The Grain 2.28.09: Is “TV-PG” Good for The WWE?
Posted by Julian Bond on 02.28.2009
When WWE fans started seeing the once well-known “TV-14” magically morph into the dreaded “TV-PG” rating, the thought of the company “watering down” their content in an attempt to reach a bigger audience immediately came to everyone’s mind. So here I will express my case on why I think the opposite on why it may actually be a good thing.
"This Program is Rated TV-PG…for Wrestling Goodness"
With the TV-PG rating, is the WWE ironically becoming like their made-up censor group The Right To Censor?
The little ratings symbol in the upper left-hand corner of your TV. Sometimes people notice it. Sometimes people don't. But when the WWE watching community saw and heard that the little icon was transforming itself from the "more loosed-end and mature" TV-14 to the "more family friendly" TV-PG, everyone there took notice. The complaints I saw and heard ranged from "Great…now there won't be any hardcore matches" to "It's stupid that they now had to constantly ‘be careful' in what they say and do in fear of what the younger viewers are seeing". Then next, the complaints started doubling when people saw significant changes such as John Cena's finisher being changed from "The F-U" now to the "Attitude Adjuster" and the banning of future "Bra and Panties" matches. So this is what I have to say about this.
The new rating I believe not only will NOT truly affect the content the company puts on TV, but also in essence will make it better in the long run. First of all, can anyone out there who's a true-blue hardcore wrestling fan tell me that they'll truly miss any "Bra and Panties" match-ups? Sure they were occasionally awesome to the male (or female) eye to see scantily-clad women wrestlers go at it in effort to tear each other's clothes off, but overall they prove to be a blatant excuse for one to take a well-deserved bathroom break during long wrestling viewing. With the name changes like Cena's finisher and PPV name changes like the former "One Night Stand" to "A Night Of Extreme", I truly say "WHO CARES"! I know that the "idea" that the company had to change not-so harmless names around in order to get more mainstream attention may get under the skin of regular fans, but honestly if you think about it, it's an excellent business move. If one has attended a regular WWE event in the last couple of years, you may notice that they are more younger kids (ages 3 – 12) there than a bulk of us older fans (18 – 34). For example, I was recently at the Royal Rumble this year in Detroit and when I was yelling and cheering Edge winning the WWE Title, I saw like 3 or 4 little kids around me with Hardy green wristbands seriously bummed out than Jeff Hardy had lost. In turn, it made me a little bummed out for them! So in order for McMahon to reach more of this main age bracket, he smartly is adjusting the product a LITTLE bit in order to reach more of this now-prominent audience and not to get in trouble with parents complaining of their kids wanting to perform "F-U"s on each other. In our dire economic state right now, the WWE can't really take any risks with losing any more viewers.
Second, I truly believe that the product will benefit for the better with the new rating because of an increased focus towards a better wrestling in-ring product. God Bless the WWE in the "Attitude Era" because if it wasn't for it I (and many others) wouldn't have been so into wrestling today, but one has to admit that the matches out of that time weren't exactly the greatest of quality. The focus was on the "T&A", the foul language, and the most amount of crude, but mostly funny, content that they can get away with. So since that time, the company has surprisingly and thankfully put a much better emphasis on good wrestling and not just "potty jokes". With a TV-PG rating, I think that this will further push this point and will equal in more awesome matches and less distracting, unnecessary skits.
Overall, people shouldn't get so bend of shape about the rating. They shouldn't worry that Edge will become the "Rated PG Superstar" or the exclusion of bloody ladder and cage matches. These things I'm pretty sure will still be around because they are mainstays that have made huge impacts on WWE TV. It's all of the other minor items that are slowly tuning down or getting rid of altogether. If you have special bloody matches every other week, they become not so special anymore and if you have crazy "un-PC" moments happen on a frequent basis, then they don't become so "un-PC" anymore. Pure proof that should calm everyone down is with the insane act of Randy Orton RKO-ing Stephanie McMahon a couple of weeks ago…POST TV-PG. Again, if a definite "un-PC" act like this, which many fans were claiming would be banned due to the new rating, could occur and be a major part of the main storyline going into Wrestlemania, then I believe that everything will be OK.
Mr. Ken Kennedy. The man. The myth. The crazy voice. Despite the instant popularity that the man initially received on his arrival, the name of Kennedy is strangely now barely even mentioned by the casual wrestling fan whether he's on TV or not. So I will look into the unfortunate circumstances that have befallen onto the man with the golden mic in two weeks with "The Curious Case of Mr. Kennedy".
What's the point in making your product PG when your shows air after the watershed when preteens are in bed?
Posted By: Guest#2795 (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM
add wrestling value along to the list of advantages.
just watched this week's smackdown and well, night of upsets and good wrestling.
Maybe, just maybe...less R rated sports entertainment might equal more decent quality wrestling. I'll take a swank armbar over a chair shot, any day.
Posted By: christy (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 12:48 AM
I think the PG rating is another cyclical thing. In the 80's and early 90's the WWE and WCW were pretty much PG and hooked all the kiddies. In the mid 90's to mid 2000's the WWE got more edgy as the kids they hooked got older and wanted something more grown up. Now most of those people have stopped watching wrestling altogether or only watch the old "better" wrestling they watched as kids. Now WWE is trying to get kids again and start a brand new cycle.
Posted By: seaneb14 (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 01:06 AM
Vince is not stupid, he knows what he needs to do to stay on top.
"PG" is a safe way to go when any bad PR could bring the company down a few notches, and right now is not a good time for mis steps.
Posted By: Ant-LOX (Registered) on February 28, 2009 at 02:06 AM
WWE PG like anything wouldn't be bad if writing is good. The only thing that would suck is toned down language. I mean lets be honest here F-U is a much better name then Attitude Adjuster.
Targeting kids is a good idea unless parents were like mine and didn't buy me shit as a kid. Of course I can rant about how I feel American children are being treated but my parents said the same shit when I was little so no use there.
God what the hell was I typing about again...oh yeah, WWE in PG. Let us not forget the 80s and early 90s?
Seriously Hulk Hogan would say "eat your vitamins" you can't get more kid friendly then that and people LOVE that era
Posted By: Guest#2092 (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 02:07 AM
This article = complete fail
Julia Bond >>>>>>>>>> Julian Bond
Posted By: Pwnage (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 02:46 AM
You're missing the irony of the PG rating. The WWE is MARKETING VIOLENCE TO KIDS.
How is that good?? Why isn't the FCC stepping in and stopping this? They should brand the WWE as TV-14 because MARKETING VIOLENCE TO KIDS IS WRONG.
Posted By: Alcoholic (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 03:05 AM
i say it's bad. i say little kids shouldn't watch wrestling. doesn't matter if there's no blood or swearing. it's still revenge fantasies and more revenge fantasies. that's more damaging to young minds than anything. kids don't go off the deep end from seeing women in their underwear.
you should have lots of sexism and violence in wrestling. you should have something parents will NOTICE and be able to identify as bad, then they'll keep it away from their kids.
but Vince didn't do what he did for the kids. he did it for money and i have no problem with that.
Posted By: 6d6 (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 04:49 AM
its going to be fucking corney b/c now their will be less violent matches. i dont want to watch to wrestlers in hell in a cell match or a streetfight and see no color thats just fuckig stupid.
Posted By: p1ne (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 10:46 AM
its going to be fucking corney b/c now their will be less violent matches. i dont want to watch to wrestlers in hell in a cell match or a streetfight and see no color thats just fuckig stupid.
Posted By: p1ne (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM
What's the point in having the TV shows PG if the PPV's are always gonna be rated 15 or 18 (UK ratings)?
Posted By: Bubba (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 11:46 AM
You're missing the irony of the PG rating. The WWE is MARKETING VIOLENCE TO KIDS.
How is that good?? Why isn't the FCC stepping in and stopping this? They should brand the WWE as TV-14 because MARKETING VIOLENCE TO KIDS IS WRONG.
Posted By: Alcoholic (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 03:05 AM
-----
Not this argument again. If the parents do their job and monitor what their kids watch, and explain the fantasy aspect of it all, they kids will be fine. I grew up with wrestling, and Star Wars, and X-Men and have killed exactly zero people. In fact, I've injured zero people (my trampoline wrestling matches with my brother notwithstanding).
But this "marketing wrestling to kids = marketing violence to kids" is bullshit. Whether WWE is rated XXX or Happy Rainbows the core remains the same: wrestling. You know what the bread and butter of the program is when you tune in, and if a child's parent says it's okay for them to watch nobody has any right to bitch. My parents stepped in when things got to be too much (see Goldust) when my brother and I were younger because it was THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. Not Vince McMahon's...Mom and Dad's.
Posted By: neverAcquiesce (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Other than a few name changes and the end of bra and panties match (which could be considered a silver lining)I honestly haven't seen any big changes in the product.
If anything, because they can't use foul langugae or crass violence, I feel the storylines and product have become tighter and better as a result. Rnayd Orton and Chris jericho are still vicious dick heels. Matt is fighting with his brother Jeff. You can be edgy without going over-the-top.
As long as a Mickey Mouse character doesn't come in and challenge for the title, everything should be fine.
Posted By: Guest#3274 (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 12:52 PM
"What's the point in making your product PG when your shows air after the watershed when preteens are in bed?"
Two reasons:
One - TiVo.
Two - what "watershed"? I remember an episode of "Friends" that ran at 8:00 where two women argued over who would get the last condom.
Reruns of the old ECW on 24/7 now begin with a disclaimer that "this show is designed to be viewed as adults and therefore should not be viewed by children". That gives us some idea of what not to expect to see in the near future.
If Vince is trying to get young fans back by trying to bring back the Hogan era, expect very few, and very short, heel title runs for the top belts - probably just long enough for a transfer between a face Cena and a face HHH.
Posted By: ThatDonGuy (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 04:00 PM
You're missing the irony of the PG rating. The WWE is MARKETING VIOLENCE TO KIDS.
How is that good?? Why isn't the FCC stepping in and stopping this? They should brand the WWE as TV-14 because MARKETING VIOLENCE TO KIDS IS WRONG.
Posted By: Alcoholic (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 03:05 AM
-----
Not this argument again. If the parents do their job and monitor what their kids watch, and explain the fantasy aspect of it all, they kids will be fine. I grew up with wrestling, and Star Wars, and X-Men and have killed exactly zero people. In fact, I've injured zero people (my trampoline wrestling matches with my brother notwithstanding).
But this "marketing wrestling to kids = marketing violence to kids" is bullshit. Whether WWE is rated XXX or Happy Rainbows the core remains the same: wrestling. You know what the bread and butter of the program is when you tune in, and if a child's parent says it's okay for them to watch nobody has any right to bitch. My parents stepped in when things got to be too much (see Goldust) when my brother and I were younger because it was THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. Not Vince McMahon's...Mom and Dad's.
Posted By: neverAcquiesce (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 11:56 AM
That's all good, except the real world is nothing like how you want it to be and most parents DON'T monitor their children, and when the shit hits the fan they go to the first scapegoat.
Posted By: JJ (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 05:06 PM
You're missing the irony of the PG rating. The WWE is MARKETING VIOLENCE TO KIDS.
How is that good?? Why isn't the FCC stepping in and stopping this? They should brand the WWE as TV-14 because MARKETING VIOLENCE TO KIDS IS WRONG.
Posted By: Alcoholic (Guest) on February 28, 2009 at 03:05 AM
Lol you are a fucking idiot. another head case argueing a statement and too dumb to to look at both sides and just what "makes him sounds good" If you look at kids telivision today nothing WWE is doing based on your ideal of "violence" is anywhere in the ball park with what you see in disney movies, nickelodeon and cartoon network. look at old school cartoons power rangers, G.I. joe, spider man batman superman and so on. WWE presents itself as a SPORT and in a sport they wrestle - not kill. not commit true acts of VIOLENCE. Hey lets go after boxing too, and UFC and hell even football b/c by your standards any form of confrontation is violence. WWe is no different then your typical kids cartoon. good guys fighting bad guys - the thing that sets it apart is the CONTENT, the langauge the appearance. Hell look at the PG movies that come out some of em are way violent. In wwe people dont die, rape, kill which is why they had a TV-14 and now they are tonning down the vulgarity, the langauge and the appearance and thus making it PG13. WRESTLING is fine for any age, the way you market it is where the rating comes. sofar the pg rating has doesnt anything to the product and i dont have much a prob with it, we havent see bra and panties match in forever anyway, i really dont have a prob with fu name change, but i do think attitude ajustment is a really dumb name and dont really get how "One night stand" is a TV-PG unfriendly term unless you chose to take it out of context.
Posted By: rellik kram (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 12:43 AM
I will say this regarding Bra & Panties matches: they gave WWE a clever way to put on a match between two Divas who have no business actually wrestling. Without these WWE will just make them wrestle, which is not a good alternative. Will I miss the B&P match in and of itself? No, of course not. Will I cringe even more at the PG alternative? Yes.
Posted By: DXSSI (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 02:08 AM
The WWE has 3 brands right,well make the 1st of them PG for the kids,make the 2nd one TV-14 for the people who are 14 and older,and make the 3rd brand What ever..That way you have something for everyone...ALSO put little Disclamers before each show telling why they are that rating.
Posted By: Jason (Guest) on March 01, 2009 at 06:11 PM
What's odd is that WWF RAW in hour 1 in 1998 and 1999 was PG.
Posted By: Dakota (Guest) on March 02, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Smackdown always has had a PG rating.
Posted By: Guest#8161 (Guest) on March 03, 2009 at 02:14 PM
Smackdown always has had a PG rating.
Not always. In the first few months, it had a TV-14 rating, even a TV-MA rating a couple times around Thanksgiving 1999. It's not like the PG era worked before; I mean, look at Hulk Hogan. Give it about four or five years and it'll be edgy again. Until then, move RAW to 8-10:05 instead of 9-11:05.
Posted By: Eddie Mac (Guest) on March 05, 2009 at 10:07 PM
I have to agree with the "cycle" comment posted by seaneb14. I HOPE they will return to another "attitude" era in a few years.
I watch this for entertainment, most people do. I DO NOT watch it for wrestling "value". It's PART of it but if ALL they did was wrestle HOW THE HELL WOULD THAT BE ENTERTAINING (especially because it's fake)?
WWE is supposed to be a Soap Opera for MEN damnit!!
Posted By: GLoy (Guest) on March 06, 2009 at 01:22 AM
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
