TPWW Forums

TPWW Forums (https://www.tpwwforums.com/index.php)
-   wrestling forum (https://www.tpwwforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Is it wrong for the WWE to be PG? (https://www.tpwwforums.com/showthread.php?t=108884)

Graveler 11-27-2010 07:10 PM

Is it wrong for the WWE to be PG?
 
And no, this is not another post about wanting the attidute era back (it was overrated and its time has long since past). I'm talking strictly about ethics. Is it wrong for the WWE to heavily targeted underage children? How old were you when you started watching wrestling?

SlickyTrickyDamon 11-27-2010 07:13 PM

Four years old.

Ruien 11-27-2010 07:14 PM

I hope you die in a fire tomorrow night.

Xero 11-27-2010 07:16 PM

It'd be wrong if they were the same product they were during the Attitude Era, or even 4 years ago.

But right now? It's fine. It's really no different than comics and super heroes in general.

SlickyTrickyDamon 11-27-2010 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruien (Post 3336734)
I hope you die in a fire tomorrow night.

Who me? Or original poster?

Graveler 11-27-2010 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruien (Post 3336734)
I hope you die in a fire tomorrow night.

wait he's mad cause I said the attitude era was overrated

Xero 11-27-2010 07:17 PM

And why tomorrow night? That seems awfully specific.

MoFo 11-27-2010 07:18 PM

No

VSG 11-27-2010 07:31 PM

78 posts and 30 threads.. Slow down, "bro"

http://www.tpww.net/misc/500error/ph...pport_page.jpg

itsmeJD 11-27-2010 07:38 PM

I started watching when I was probably 5, which would be around 87-88 during the "cartoon" era of characters. I don't think it's wrong of WWE to be PG. It brings in advertisers and markets to those wanting to buy and wear merchandise. It's not as if this is the first time they've ever gone "PG" so to speak. Not to mention I have a 5 year old myself and if it weren't I'd have to listen to my wife bitch about the language so at least he and I can watch in peace.

Kane Knight 11-27-2010 07:47 PM

No, it's not wrong. It's also not what people really hate about the WWE PG era. It's just what they fixate on, like John Cena and Linda's senate run.

SlickyTrickyDamon 11-27-2010 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geodude91 (Post 3336740)
wait he's mad cause I said the attitude era was overrated

Well then it's deserved.

TheAdamEvansFan 11-27-2010 08:56 PM

Nice thread.

I've seen the same thread every week for the past year.

Asshole.

Biggz 11-27-2010 08:56 PM

It's not wrong to be PG at all. The problem remains that they have tv writers making all the storylines. Shitty storylines equals shitty product. If they actually hired people who know about wrestling and grew up watching it, then people would stop complaining about PG because it wouldn't matter. The storylines would be good and would immerse you into the product, PG or not.

Aguakate 11-27-2010 09:01 PM

It's not wrong for WWE to be PG at all. It's where the money is at.

Plus, and I've said it before, they (WWE) are investing in their future in terms of going PG and having parents once again be comfortable about going to the live events with their kids, and having the kids watch the whole show without worrying about something "inappropiate" coming up. Those kids who are going to the shows with their parents TODAY, when they grow up, will still be fans, and chances are, THEIR kids will also become fans, and go to the shows, and buy merchandise, etc.

So WWE is being very smart.

Jimmy Cones 11-27-2010 09:47 PM

What prescriptive ethical theory are we talking about here Egoism, utilitarianism, or maybe something more deontological?

Graveler 11-27-2010 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Cones (Post 3336874)
What prescriptive ethical theory are we talking about here Egoism, utilitarianism, or maybe something more deontological?

I was thinking on the lines of normative ethics

bigslimjj 11-27-2010 10:59 PM

Vince is roping in new,young, domestic and international viewers.Viewers that won't remember the attitude era. Fans that didn't watch Benoit,Eddie,Pillman etc. Fans that don't get online and know every in and out of the wrestling buisness already. In a few years WWE will get rid of the PG and be more adult once the new fans start becoming adults. At least it seems like the plan. It's like the second version of 1988. A remake if you will.

DrCrawford 11-28-2010 01:15 AM

No its not wrong per se, but what is wrong is the inconsistency with upholding this PG rating.

like R-truth's get crunk theme, or having jerry springer or johnny knoxville guest host.

Dirk Ziggler 11-28-2010 04:25 AM

nice thread...fag

Attitude99 11-28-2010 05:32 AM

Screw The PG, Bring Back The Attitude. Easy As That Fags

Tommy Gunn 11-28-2010 06:56 AM

Good writing/booking trumps blood and chair shots.

Although, the HIAC PPV needs to go, because they can barely do anything in them now.

thedamndest 11-28-2010 11:26 AM

If this was the Attitude Era we would have seen Vickie Guerrero in a thong at some point during her relationship with Dolph. That completely justifies WWE PG.

Biggz 11-28-2010 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedamndest (Post 3337244)
If this was the Attitude Era we would have seen Vickie Guerrero in a thong at some point during her relationship with Dolph. That completely justifies WWE PG.

LOL :lol:

dhellova guy 11-28-2010 07:04 PM

Its only wrong if Vince is using it as a guise to get a young girlfriend.

Other then that, let it go.

Xero 11-28-2010 07:06 PM

Lawler must be happy...

XL 11-28-2010 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigslimjj (Post 3336945)
Vince is roping in new,young, domestic and international viewers.Viewers that won't remember the attitude era. Fans that didn't watch Benoit,Eddie,Pillman etc. Fans that don't get online and know every in and out of the wrestling buisness already. In a few years WWE will get rid of the PG and be more adult once the new fans start becoming adults. At least it seems like the plan. It's like the second version of 1988. A remake if you will.

Never understood that theory myself.

It's not like the number of children is finite. There will always be kids for WWE to target, the majority of which will continue to watch regardless (as we all do for the most part) and new kids wil JOIN the audience.

The way it's put across is as if WWE targets one generation at a time. Get em when they're 7 and we'll pander to their tastes as that group grow up?

bigslimjj 11-29-2010 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XL (Post 3337564)
Never understood that theory myself.

It's not like the number of children is finite. There will always be kids for WWE to target, the majority of which will continue to watch regardless (as we all do for the most part) and new kids wil JOIN the audience.

The way it's put across is as if WWE targets one generation at a time. Get em when they're 7 and we'll pander to their tastes as that group grow up?

Welcome to the world of corporate marketing.lol


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®