What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by seabs, May 2, 2012.

  1. Or a change to the PG banner to another more mature rating?

    This quote made me think about this thread, would it bring back fans or have that target audience moved more into the UFC's sight rather then pro wrestling?

    So yeah pros and cons to a change from PG and would it bring back fans?
  2. It would bring back a good portion of the audience but it would also get rid of the moms/kids that watch. So it's not a big gain fan wise since they'd be losing and gaining fans. But it would make wrestling almost cool again, if they use TV-14 right.
  3. They don't need to be TV-14 to be a good wrestling company...

    I don't understand why they just don't curse & bleep it out like TNA does.

    All I wanna see is good wrestling & that's the thing, the PG kids in WWE don't give a rats ass about wrestling; they just care about John Cena.
  4. I'm tired of seeing people say "it'll bring back a lot of fans", no it wouldn't. People didn't watch WWE because it was TV-14. So that rating itself isn't a draw.

    The only benefit I see of going TV-14 is there is less of a restriction, so it's a lot easier to put on the wrestling that us passionate fans want. That's not saying that they can't do it now, but it's easier if it is TV-14. I personally don't think it needs to go back to TV-14, we've seen in recent months that PG doesn't restrict nearly as much as you think.

    I swear in the whole of 09/10 we didn't hear one star say "ass". Now it's every week, so they're definitely becoming "more edgy". The only thing I want is more wrestling, and better wrestling. Stop watering stars down, if they can do it in TNA/RoH, why not on the biggest stage? Wrestling believe it or not does get people over. Sin Cara at one point was stupidly over, just because of his move set. Imagine Bryan being able to do what he wants in the ring?

    Just give people more gimmicks and less limits and the PG era can be just as good.
  5. They don't need to be TV 14 at all. You can put on an edgy show under the PG rating; that's not why we get the watered down family oriented show that we get. It has 100% more to do with Linda's senate campaign than the rating that we get the BS that we get.

    So let's see..

    Pros: More scantily clad women, more sexual content, broader array of available curse words, and perhaps draw in fans who are too ignorant to understand the rating system and think PG = Disney channel
    Cons: less children viewers, mess up Linda's senate campaign as moms across America hate on the WWE, possibly less sponsorship opportunities (although I doubt it.. as you lose certain sponsors you gain more as well just changes the target demo)

    Honestly not much changes IMO
  6. Linda losing is a con?
  7. I suppose it is to her.
  8. For WWE/Vince/Her.

    She will just keep losing/running again anyway so to us I don't think it matters if she wins or lose, we are still stuck with her pipedream that results in fucking up the product.
  9. Fair enough.

    To be honest, I never see WWE going to TV-14 again.
  10. Wouldn't surprise me because they don't need to. They can easily put on a show with more cursing, blood, and tits/ass to appease older fans while still doing it under the PG rating to keep more kids watching because dumbass parents see 'PG' and think it must be okay.
  11. There are many fans who blame WWE being bad on the PG rating. It would draw back many fans who hear WWE went back to TV-14 and think it'll be Attitude Era 2.0. Now i said it would draw people back, i did not say it would keep them back, that all depends on WWE's booking in storylines.

    Pros: More bloody matches that need it (HIAC, Cage, etc.), Less restricted promos, Less restricted superstars and gimmicks, fits the current generations idea of entertainment, Less kids, Better audiences, Better commentary

    Cons: May rely too heavily on blood and cursing to cover up shitty feuds and storylines

    I really see no cons other than the one i said. TV-14 would up the entertainment value alot
  12. Re: RE: What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

    It didn't work for TNA so I doubt going back would draw in any new fans. Less restricted gimmicks? Is that a good thing, for any gem they created 6 duds were born in their last run as Tv14 not to mention too many things such as Katie Vick for the sake of being "edgy". Commentary and audiences wouldn't increase in quality just because the PG logo turned to a Tv14 one. Less kids is a bad thing from a business stand point, you're essentially cutting off one of your arms for a fight and you'd render the product with a smaller audience in the long term. The current generation doesn't want it, entertainment is a lot more PC then it was10 years ago because its what society wants. You get plenty of people talking about how good the AE was on YouTube and what not but they're far from the main target audience so why cater for them as your main ?

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
  13. Thats because TNA sucks. I addressed that in my cons. Raunchiness can't save a shitty storyline. Audiences would be better because it would consist mainly of adults and adults get more into the show than children. Commentary would be better because Jerry could say puppies and shit like that. Society is not PC, Jersey Shore is one of the most watched TV shows, people are attracted to cursing, sex, and violence. WWE's viewers are only 20% children i believe so why cater to them as your main?
  14. Re: RE: What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

    But you said it would draw in new people right? Tna didn't see any notable growth, so no new people came to even see the show which you said would happen. So Lawler saying puppies makes him a great commentator ? Jersey Shore may be very well watched but so is Britain's got talent, the x factor and stuff like that.
    http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/top10s/television.html see here Jersey Shore isn't a great draw tbh only drawing over Raw by a few points, hell Raw even had nearly the same viewership. See people prefer more wholesome entertainment that's why society is more PC shows like south park which specialized in this style of humour has even cut back and isn't as dark as it was 10 years ago. Your last statement made zero sense also wwe viewers are only 20%? I assume you mean kids yet you blame them for being the majority of a poor crowd in an earlier point.
    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
  15. If they do draw notably more than JS. WWE would get some extra points if they said "Last week Raw was more watched than Jersey shore."
  16. BECAUSE TNA SUCKS! nothing tna does will help because THEY SUCK!. Idk where you get the idea society is getting more wholesome, society is getting less moral every day. Most shows you find on TV glorify sex and drugs and you know thats true. My argument makes perfect sense, we're not living in the 50s anymore. People are drawn in by promiscuity. Nobody wants to see hokey Full House bullshit anymore. I never said children were the majority of the crowd
  17. Tbh WWE are sort of doing the right thing to "gain" viewers, by making it more social. People forget that WWE, well, wrestling in general is COMPLETELY different than it was 10 or so years ago. Wrestling then was cool to watch. People watched it more than real fighting. That won't happen now. The shoot, Jericho's return vignettes, all created social buzz. That brought in viewers. They need mainstream spotlight. If they were TV-14, I doubt TMZ and the like would actually cover some of their stories now. I doubt many media outlets like chatshows would even host their superstars.

    WWE just needs to completely reinvent itself. Bring back the edge, bring back the midcard, bring back the story-lines for all divisions. That needs to start with a major, major story-line, like an invasion angle or something. Or perhaps trial it. Have Johnny Ace completely "take over" the board of directors, he's in complete power of WWE. WWE goes "attitude" for 2 months, it's completely reinvented. If ratings improve, they find a way to make it permanent. If nothing changes or it gets worse, then they act from there. Doesn't have to be attitude, just something more edgy. Nothing wrong with testing.
  18. Re: RE: What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

    You did say people would come flocking back to a TV 14 rating however,so this proves the rating doesn't draw,correct? You said crowds would be better because Adults get "more into it"did you not? Well how come these adults aren't getting more into it now,the crowds aren't made of kids as you just said. So the crowd improving wont happen due to a TV 14 rating drawing in more people would it? If society is becoming less PC then why are the family shows dominating and a PG WWE product at least keeping pace with Jersey Shore in viewer ship? Some shows do but the majority of shows which draw don't as shown in the previous post. The WWE is a business and going TV 14 isn't a smart business move because it isn't going to draw,don't you think it would have happened if it dud indeed have this financial guarantee you claim ? Vince is known to be very money hungry,as any great business man should be. TNA sucks? You know why? Because a modern attitude era would, that's what TNA 2010 was so bad. The current product on a whole received much more praise as going backwards kills your product.

    Good debate old chap.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
  19. I hope my post wasn't completely lost here. :(
  20. Re: RE: What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

    This works and can be done under a PG banner, early WWECW recreated the AE to an extent and never really drew.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2