PG Discussion Thread

[tjmidnight420]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight PG probably saved WWE. I doubt WWE would have tanked into bankruptcy any time in the recent past, but it would have taken a severe hit had they not tried something new. The adult fanbase wasn't sustaining them at their prior level. They were, however, selling to kids in good numbers. With a more family friendly focus, they got sponsors back. They got parents watching with kids, parents willing to buy the merch, etc. they got a decent amount of goodwill with investors, and so on. Sure, Cena got booed when he went child-friendly, but it was probably worth it from a business perspective. After all, very few people are naive enough to believe the fans in the arena are the sum total of the WWE "Universe." On a related note, I like safer wrestling to some degree. I like the thought we might not have a rash of wrestlers dying from wrestling-related injuries in their 30s and 40s. Some of the restrictions are silly, but I think less focus on garbage wrestling benefits fans of all ages.

Well said. Also worth noting that with the way it was going before the PG turn, most people were getting burned out on all the over the top shit they were pulling week after week. Seven chair shots to the head has less of an impact when you've seen the same guy take those same seven chair shots on every show for the last month. The whole chair to the ankle thing seems to be working for Mark Henry because it hasn't been overused as a spot in the last ten years.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Rock Bottom To be fair, Kane Knight, it isn't hard to find fuckwads anywhere, whether or not they bitch about things with their own interests in mind. But should we really call them fuckwads? FUCKWADS! FUCKWADS EVERYWHERE! I'm not allowed to call my Polish sister-in-law these things, so what gives me the right to be a bully!?

Originally Posted by tjmidnight420 Well said. Also worth noting that with the way it was going before the PG turn, most people were getting burned out on all the over the top shit they were pulling week after week. Seven chair shots to the head has less of an impact when you've seen the same guy take those same seven chair shots on every show for the last month. The whole chair to the ankle thing seems to be working for Mark Henry because it hasn't been overused as a spot in the last ten years.

I love how one guy's saying "well said, and the other's spazzing about bullying. TJ, why do you support bullying?

It's actually interesting, though. Even in the Attitude Era, there was a lot of discussion on here related to the fact that they couldn't keep pushing the limits like they were doing. I admit, I loved a lot of the Attitude Era's "holy shit" moment, but there was only so far they could push it. Some events were used relatively sparingly, but a lot of big spots were used so much, they lost all meaning.

Chair shots are certainly not the worst offender, but they were all over the place and kind of losing their meaning. Eventually, they were going to top out, and of course, that kind of shit took a toll.

One needs only look at Chris Benoit, whose brain was roughly the consistency of cream of wheat when he killed his family and himself. He's not the only one it took a toll on, either.

But that aside, the problem is that "extreme" only remains extreme as long as you don't use it so much it becomes commonplace. And they were, and so they needed to get more and more extreme, until it was kind of dumb.

Do I think it has no place in wrestling at all? Well, no. It's just that using it every five minutes made it...Boring. Or, at least, commonplace.

It was shocking when Foley went through the top of the Cell. Then, like, it happened sixteen times in a row. It became expected. It was still fun, but it wasn't special, or surpising. When you're having tables and ladders and chairs (Oh my!) Every week, albeit not necessarily all of them and not automatically in the same matches, they just don't mean much.

I think the big question is what ratio in which it should exist, and I think that's the point at which we most disagree. Kind of like the whole "wrestling" versus "performing" sort of deal.

[tjmidnight420]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight TJ, why do you support bullying?

Because that's pretty much the way it works around here. Was pretty ruthless to the trolls when I first started posting.

Originally Posted by Kane Knight I think the big question is what ratio in which it should exist, and I think that's the point at which we most disagree. Kind of like the whole "wrestling" versus "performing" sort of deal.

I don't necessarily think we're disagreeing. Henry Pillmanizing people is a big deal because it hasn't been done in so long. They killed off all notions of people using piledrivers so that once or twice a year when Taker busts out the tombstone it means something. Even guys like Evan Bourne benefit from the flippy highspots being scaled back. I guess my point is that going light on these things keeps the excitement up when they do break them out, so long as they don't overdo it. Hell that could be said about anything they try worth seeing, especially in a time when any moderately successful concept gets its own PPV. So as far as the big question: I wouldn't try to come up with an exact ratio because I'm no mathematician but it needs to be kept minimal to keep the excitement up and keep things fresh.