PDA

View Full Version : How much time does WWE have left with NBCUniversal?

Volare
05-31-2012, 12:16 PM
I was reading on the front page this paragraph in a statement posted by WWE.

"Since 2008, all WWE broadcast programming has been rated TV-PG and prior to that some of our programming had a rating of TV-14. WWE’s content ratings are set not by us, but by the network TV distributors (NBCUniversal) and their standards and practices departments."

So if WWE even wanted to go back to the attitude era style, does that mean then NBCUniversal has the final say, and if they said no they would have to find a new network?

Just pop'd in my head when I read it.
Keith
05-31-2012, 09:03 PM
I'm not sure what the process would be if WWE decided to "push the envelope". Back in 1997, I believe they took it upon themselves to do so. However, WWE hadn't gone public, and I don't believe USA was owned by NBC/Universal, so a lot has changed.
Pintint
05-31-2012, 10:02 PM
WWE has no interest in going away from the PG rating. They do good business with the kids these days and the angsty young guys who used to watch WWE in the attitude era have switched to MMA.
SlickyTrickyDamon
06-01-2012, 03:43 AM
TV Rating systems are pretty much useless. They are controlled by the distributor and not any agency like the MPAA for movies.
James Steele
06-01-2012, 08:03 AM
You can push "TV-PG" pretty far as we've seen with the increased cursing and weapons over the past year or so. The biggest difference is you can't have women wear nothing but handprint paint over their tits or have a literal pimp gimmick.
Nicky Fives
06-01-2012, 11:00 AM
You can push "TV-PG" pretty far as we've seen with the increased cursing and weapons over the past year or so. The biggest difference is you can't have women wear nothing but handprint paint over their tits or have a literal pimp gimmick.

or blood..... heaven forbid there's blood.....
James Steele
06-07-2012, 07:28 AM
or blood..... heaven forbid there's blood.....

There has been blood on WWE in the past year or so, and it means a whole hell of a lot more now that Triple H doesn't do a Ric Flair impression and bleed in every single match.
tjmidnight420
06-07-2012, 10:48 AM
There has been blood on WWE in the past year or so, and it means a whole hell of a lot more now that Triple H doesn't do a Ric Flair impression and bleed in every single match.

Spot on Mr. Steele.
Nicky Fives
06-07-2012, 12:23 PM
There has been blood on WWE in the past year or so, and it means a whole hell of a lot more now that Triple H doesn't do a Ric Flair impression and bleed in every single match.

hardway doesn't count..... and the plastic gloves the referees put on isn;t helping my opinion..... I don't want it every show, but every now and again on big PPV matches or to get over a strong new angle on Raw & Smackdown..... that's all I really want.....
James Steele
06-07-2012, 07:23 PM
hardway doesn't count..... and the plastic gloves the referees put on isn;t helping my opinion..... I don't want it every show, but every now and again on big PPV matches or to get over a strong new angle on Raw & Smackdown..... that's all I really want.....

Yes. How ridiculous that WWE actually tries to a) protect the refs and b) borrow from MMA to add some realism. Also, they quit stopping the match and all that stuff a long long time ago, which I agree was terrible.