Discussion in 'General WWE' started by gingerjesus, Sep 4, 2015.

  1. WWE Forums is giving away a copy of WWE 2K18 for any platform! More info: WWE 2K18 Giveaway (PS4, Xbox One, Steam)
  1. Was thinking earlier, if wwe ever went back to TV14, would they lose money from all the children who watch the show and its other PG projects (Scooby Doo or whatever they do) or would It bring back enough older fans for it to be making similar money as they are making now. I don't think it would stop the majority of children watching it even if it wasn't PG, and I'm sure network subscribers and ratings would go back up to a high level. Or is the problem in WWE the writers, as I think they could make the show much better without having to switch back to TV14?
  2. Ratings don't mean squat. The problem lies in WWE's Creative department. They should be looking to improve their booking.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Ratings does mean squat. It allows more creative booking and more room for the creative department to do stuff that wouldn't usually be allowed under a TV-PG rating.
  4. Just had a thought, What if in the future all WWE programming is on the network do they still have to have a rating? In the UK it doesn't matter as we don't have TV ratings (only watershed which is a time where "adult content" can be shown on tv).

    But back to the question. The creative team can still push the boundaries without breaking tv ratings.

    For example this
  5. TV-14 doesn't quite guarantee better ratings/more drawing. You don't really have to be TV-14 to allow yourself more creative booking and write more compelling storylines.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. I guess so. But there's less restriction. The WWE refrains from any controversial content, on purpose, so they can keep the good rep. If they were TV-14 they have a larger box to play in. They don't have to worry about sponsor's not liking them, because the sponsors will be those tending to the 14+ audience. I guess WWE does bring these restrictions themselves.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Correct. This is pretty much the answer to why WWE won't go the TV-14 route any time soon.
  8. IMO it's down to creative. They could come up with PG storylines that were good, if only they tried. Upping the content to be TV-14 or above doesn't equal better quality.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Does that equal better tho? No. A more mature rating on TV does not equal better, contrary to what edgy wrestling fans think. Good writing and good boking equals good quality, not edginess.

    That TV MA equals better is the biggest misconception in wrestling. The quality of TV in the attitude era wasn't better, it was just as much garbage TV as it is now but it connected with society in another way because society was in another way back then.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. I agree that the rating doesn't immediately guarantee a better product. I've witnessed and enjoyed a ton of excellent storylines that have taken place under the PG banner, and I've also experienced more than just a few shitty ones that have happened under the TV-14 rating as well.

    I've also always pointed out to people that most of the angles you saw back when the show was TV-14 could have still happened if it had been PG. Even a lot of things from the Attitude Era could have flown in today's climate - the general attitude of The Rock's character, the epic Rock/HHH feud in 2000, Rikishi and Too Cool, Foley and his three different faces/personas as well as "Mr. Socko", the Undertaker/Kane feud, 95% of the stuff that happened in the undercard, etc. Smackdown back in the day was always rated PG.

    That said, I'd still prefer TV-14 because there's nothing that you can do on a PG show that you can't do on a TV-14 show, whereas there ARE things you can do on a TV-14 show that you couldn't (easily) get away with on a PG show. TV-14 doesn't automatically guarantee a better/more creative product, but it does allow less restrictions and more creative freedom.
  11. I bet this whole Ziggler/Lana/Summer thing would be more interesting in TV-14 land. :quimby:

    Do I think the ratings would be better? Can't say I would know I guess. I'd still watch. Hooked 4 life baby. :success:

    And I kind of wish they could utilize the network to get away with more stuff tbh. But I understand the deals with the tv networks and how much they mean. But RAW airs on USA (or whatever in the UK) and then they edit it down and put it on Hulu. Soooo, why couldn't they air the show "live" on the network first and then cut out the "TV-14" stuff for the network tv airing for the next day? That's just my opinion though. I have no idea how smart that would be business-wise.
  12. #12 Shadow, Sep 6, 2015
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2015
    The main problem is the fact that most of the executives within the WWE don't recognize it as a wrestling promotion, moreso an entertainment platform. Instead of mainly getting storylines revolving around wrestling we get contrived love affairs, a hit star from a superhero show coming in to help stop a super villain, and a dastardly duo that everyone wants to stop, but won't bring it up unless it pushes an arch forward. The diva's can't get any storylines without them bringing up their superstar boyfriends, or how one is so popular outside of the WWE.

    The reason why so many people deem NXT as the WWE's best product is because all of their major storylines revolve around wrestling. Bayley was built up over the past year to finally win the women's title, she earned it. She didn't win it because of mainstream success, or the fact that she just so happened to be dating a bonafide WWE superstar. NXT is good because of how Triple H has wrestling as its forefront. And guess what? It's PG.

    The same can be said about ROH, its weekly programming is PG, yet it's still good because it's focused on wrestling.

    What I want from a wrestling show is good wrestling, and stories revolving around what's going on within the ring. Oh, and only spending more than two hours watching wrestling for special events. A weekly three hour wrestling show is completely absurd.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  13. :cenanope:
  14. We'd get to see Rusev get a ton of heat for putting Lana down with a kick, so it certainly would. (Might even get to see a Bra and Panties match between Lana and Summer Rae too, and who wouldn't love that?) However, violence against women is so frowned upon that not even the men can get heat on themselves anymore for something as simple as violating a woman. Not that they haven't gotten away this under the PG banner a few times before - Undertaker tombstoning Vickie Guerrero (and Taker was a face when he did that and Vickie a heel!), CM Punk hitting the GTS on Beth Phoenix, Jericho punching Shawn Michaels' wife Rebecca, etc. - but it just brings too much bad publicity, so those days are done, unfortunately.

    Airing Raw live on the Network first would be a disastrous idea, though. USA would never allow WWE to do it and there's the strong chance you lose viewers on television (without really gaining many new subscribers on the Network to balance it out) since spoilers would be readily available on the internet after first airing.
  15. Yeah I was thinking more along the lines of the more racy stuff (i.e. bra and panties), but I see your point.

    And I dunno. It's just a pipe dream of mine really. I mean how much does the "live" aspect bring people in or really count anymore? There's a delay usually so they can bleep things if need be or whatever. So record the show in it's entirety before hand, showing a TV-14 version on the network (presumably the longer version) hours before or even at the same time it airs on USA.

    I'm no business man though. Just a fan.
  16. Except, knowing WWE's audience, who likes cheering the heel, it could just as well backfire and make them pop because "edgy".

    A factor in why there is not violence towards women in WWE is not just because it is wrong. But because WWE have conditioned their fanbase to react positively to it through their own doing. Which would send the wrong message.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. I'd cheer if someone kicked Summer, hopefully it'd fix her face.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. I've always questioned myself just how much the results being available really contributed to less viewers. It's always seemed more of an over-exaggeration to me than anything, since when the WWF's ratings improved in 1998, Raw was still a taped show (it didn't become live every week until mid-99), and when their ratings eventually plateaued and went down a couple million following the end of the AE, they were a live one.

    The biggest issue here though wouldn't be the Live vs Taped aspect, but rather the fact that people would have no reason to watch Raw on USA Network if it was aired on the Network. They keep a catalog of all their episodes of Raw and Smackdown on the Network, and thus if people wanted to re-watch anything, they could do so on there.

    They typically only cheer if either someone they love is assaulting a woman (because that person is perceived to be so cool that they can do almost no wrong), or if a female that happens to be a heel is getting their comeuppance in some way. It's hard for me to remember hardly any time that someone got a positive reaction for assaulting a woman that the audience cared about. Sable was so well liked that Mero got some quality heat for mistreating her without even needing to put his hands on her. Lana was the same when Rusev ordered her to go to the back during a few of his matches.
  19. Unless, of course, they didn't have the network. And if they don't want their kids to see the TV-14 stuff they wouldn't have to get it. I'm sure the kids would still want to watch. My kids LOVE Cena and they hardly ever watch wrestling. It's like magic I swear.

    And that catalog is so behind though. One of my big issues with the network is that the newest RAW and SD episodes aren't immediately available there after they air. I can watch them on Hulu the next day - so why not the network. It probably has to do with contracts and agreements and stuff but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
  20. From my limited knowledge on this kind of shit, they're tied into contracts where the TV networks have exclusivity and what not. The TV networks basically get to have the rights for like thirty days (I think Sky Sports have that deal) or whatever time limit they agreed upon (minus Hulu, but I don't think we even get that over here). It's only really now that on demand services (The Network, Netflix etc.) are massive business. I think when a lot of the contracts were done, on demand services weren't such a big thing and weren't factored into things.
    • Informative Informative x 1
Draft saved Draft deleted