Thread: Does this mean no more PGWWE?
View Single Post
Old 11-12-2009, 12:15 AM   #37
Kane Knight
Ron Paul 4 EVA
 
Kane Knight's Avatar
 
Posts: 152,467
Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme Olajuwon View Post
People are putting way too much of the blame on the TV PG rating for the reason the current product isn't great. Changing the shows back to TV 14 isn't going to make the writers understand character development. And it's not going to eliminate stupid ideas. Instead of Hornswoggle you get Al Wilson, Mae Young's hand baby, and Katie Vick.

Good wrestling is good wrestling. You can't hide bad wrestling and bad ideas by saying "ass" on tv more.
I'm assuming you mean entertaining wrestling, because they managed to hide bad wrestling quite often in the Attitude Era.

While I agree just making things darker is not going to make it better, I did want to point out that a lot of what makes wrestling "bad" currently came to be as a direct result of PG-ifying it. Killing PG alone wouldn't really bring us back to good booking or storytelling, But the mindset that's behind the PG attitude certainly needs to go to make things better.

Note, they could still make good family friendly programming, they just don't.
Kane Knight is offline   Reply With Quote