"It's a shame really because it's competition that brought the best out of WWE back in the late 90s. "
Nail on the head. Part of what made it that good was the competition to take things to next level and the shock factor of a lot of the story lines too.
Not to mentioned stars like Triple H, The Rock, Austin, Kurt Angle, Jericho etc all in their prime during then made it great TV to watch.
I can't see it changing anytime soon; although it has been rumored. If they are continuing to make a good steady income without the threat on anyone overtaking them then there won't be change in the PG13 area anytime soon.
It was one of the main reasons that made me lose interest, and I've only really watched Wrestlemania to see guys like the Rock and re-live the glory days, but even then they are on the decline. The main event just gone there was pointless.
I think I'd only watch it very sparingly if it flick past Sky Sports and nothing else good is on, and probably next years Wrestlemania, but that's it.
Good article, the wrestling board needed something like this.
The title of the article is slightly misleading, don't think the PG rating or even the target demographic are the real issues with WWE as a whole, though they are an issue with specific characters. They just seem incapable, or more likely can't be bothered, to invest themselves in their own universe - it's that complacent attitude which leads them to callously brush their own history under the carpet for the sake of a momentary buzz.
The lack of competition is a serious problem, the pro-wrestling business could really do with a fanatical tycoon bankrolling his own wrestling organisation in the US right now. It's impact on football is debateable but it would catagorically be a solution to the status quo in wrestling.
All this being said however, they have had the air of the company the last few years that at least wants to improve, unlike TNA for example who are determined to prove a fruitless point no matter how much their appeal plummets. For me, the key to identifying WWE's mini resurgance (bit strong a word perhaps) is looking at the quality difference between WM27 and WM28. The former was absolute rock bottom, the systematic result of a chain of decisions leading to a product containing 4 genuine full time stars (one of which retired the following night) and 1 horrible imitation of a star. And even more tragic, the one angle the previous year that was supposedly the answer to this chasm of unfurfilled fresh blood jobbed to a cluster of has been's/never was's in less than 60 secs - rightfully too because the angle sucked. And in WM28 you had a show that not only had a card littered with believeable potential in the under/mid-card but two main events that amplified the WWE's willingness to become a spectacle again.
I like what i'm watching from WWE right now, they've made subtle improvements in the manner they're booking their feuds and characters. Some characters they've out and out bombed with, Punk & Ryback the two which automatically spring to mind, but the approach they've taken with both has at least been a mentality of trying to be to clever - which i'd take over the former mentality of utter obliviousness anyday. And storyline wise they're finally interlinking angles again, something which the Cena era appeared to have abolished completely. The most recent example was how the Kane/Bryan split off neatly turned into a Bryan/Orton feud without seeming forced.
For me, the key to identifying WWE's mini resurgance (bit strong a word perhaps) is looking at the quality difference between WM27 and WM28
......
Very interesting point.
I would also point to the recent PPV which had 2 MitB matches. The first was littered with potential stars and they stole the show. The seond was filled with 6 big time players and came up short.
Daniel Bryan for me is the biggest thing in WWE at the moment. Being over with the fans is essential but its also his pitbull like style that makes him stand out.
The fans love Ziggler, Bryan and even Cody Rhodes - the organisation needs to act on that.
honestly i don't think we can just put ratings down to pg or not.
I think there was a popularity that was pre other forms of entertainment so frankly these days the show is for kids up to a certain age and then they move onto other things. there is big competition for attention frankly.
Can the crearive teams be blamed ?
Look at Daniel Bryan - this guy was the star of 2012 and was getting huge pops from the crowd and what do WWE do... they bury him on the grandest stage in 18 seconds
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
From TV 14 to PG 13 - Back to TV 14 ?
Page 1 of 1
posted on 17/7/13
"It's a shame really because it's competition that brought the best out of WWE back in the late 90s. "
Nail on the head. Part of what made it that good was the competition to take things to next level and the shock factor of a lot of the story lines too.
Not to mentioned stars like Triple H, The Rock, Austin, Kurt Angle, Jericho etc all in their prime during then made it great TV to watch.
I can't see it changing anytime soon; although it has been rumored. If they are continuing to make a good steady income without the threat on anyone overtaking them then there won't be change in the PG13 area anytime soon.
It was one of the main reasons that made me lose interest, and I've only really watched Wrestlemania to see guys like the Rock and re-live the glory days, but even then they are on the decline. The main event just gone there was pointless.
I think I'd only watch it very sparingly if it flick past Sky Sports and nothing else good is on, and probably next years Wrestlemania, but that's it.
posted on 17/7/13
Good article, the wrestling board needed something like this.
The title of the article is slightly misleading, don't think the PG rating or even the target demographic are the real issues with WWE as a whole, though they are an issue with specific characters. They just seem incapable, or more likely can't be bothered, to invest themselves in their own universe - it's that complacent attitude which leads them to callously brush their own history under the carpet for the sake of a momentary buzz.
The lack of competition is a serious problem, the pro-wrestling business could really do with a fanatical tycoon bankrolling his own wrestling organisation in the US right now. It's impact on football is debateable but it would catagorically be a solution to the status quo in wrestling.
All this being said however, they have had the air of the company the last few years that at least wants to improve, unlike TNA for example who are determined to prove a fruitless point no matter how much their appeal plummets. For me, the key to identifying WWE's mini resurgance (bit strong a word perhaps) is looking at the quality difference between WM27 and WM28. The former was absolute rock bottom, the systematic result of a chain of decisions leading to a product containing 4 genuine full time stars (one of which retired the following night) and 1 horrible imitation of a star. And even more tragic, the one angle the previous year that was supposedly the answer to this chasm of unfurfilled fresh blood jobbed to a cluster of has been's/never was's in less than 60 secs - rightfully too because the angle sucked. And in WM28 you had a show that not only had a card littered with believeable potential in the under/mid-card but two main events that amplified the WWE's willingness to become a spectacle again.
I like what i'm watching from WWE right now, they've made subtle improvements in the manner they're booking their feuds and characters. Some characters they've out and out bombed with, Punk & Ryback the two which automatically spring to mind, but the approach they've taken with both has at least been a mentality of trying to be to clever - which i'd take over the former mentality of utter obliviousness anyday. And storyline wise they're finally interlinking angles again, something which the Cena era appeared to have abolished completely. The most recent example was how the Kane/Bryan split off neatly turned into a Bryan/Orton feud without seeming forced.
posted on 17/7/13
For me, the key to identifying WWE's mini resurgance (bit strong a word perhaps) is looking at the quality difference between WM27 and WM28
......
Very interesting point.
I would also point to the recent PPV which had 2 MitB matches. The first was littered with potential stars and they stole the show. The seond was filled with 6 big time players and came up short.
Daniel Bryan for me is the biggest thing in WWE at the moment. Being over with the fans is essential but its also his pitbull like style that makes him stand out.
The fans love Ziggler, Bryan and even Cody Rhodes - the organisation needs to act on that.
posted on 17/7/13
honestly i don't think we can just put ratings down to pg or not.
I think there was a popularity that was pre other forms of entertainment so frankly these days the show is for kids up to a certain age and then they move onto other things. there is big competition for attention frankly.
posted on 18/7/13
Can the crearive teams be blamed ?
Look at Daniel Bryan - this guy was the star of 2012 and was getting huge pops from the crowd and what do WWE do... they bury him on the grandest stage in 18 seconds
Page 1 of 1