Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums

Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/)
-   General WWE (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/)
-   -   Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft? (http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/643925-yeah-wwe-has-gone-soft-but-too-soft.html)

jonoaries 11-16-2012 11:15 PM

Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
I have plenty of casual friends and a lot of them have named this as one of the reasons they barely watch WWE (and wrestling period) anymore.

One of my homeboys and myself have been watching wrestling (wwe) since we were kids, and he checks it out from time to time but he's seriously turned off by HIAC matches with no blood (I have to agree there) and generally the product being incredibly sterile.

There's little risk (physical, psychological, booking wise) in the product now and that takes away from the excitement. On that topic we agree, however I still think good matches can happen without people being bashed in the head with chairs or buckets of blood, but I'll be a liar if I didn't say that it wouldn't hurt the product to have them either.

Its difficult to defend the level of sterility in the product because like I said we've been watching wrestling since the 80s. As kids we saw Randy Savage bitten by a snake, Ricky Steamboat dropped on his skull, and Jimmy Snuka jumping off a cage. All revolutionary for its time to us and the most hardcore word on TV might have been "damn" or "ass". There wasn't a lot of blood, chair shots to the head weren't as prevalent but the matches were exciting. Something as simple as a flying elbow drop would get pops from us.

Then as teenagers we see Mick Foley thrown off a cage, thumbtacks, fire, tables and either Shawn Michaels or Jeff Hardy killing himself every night for our entertainment and there's nothing even close today. Moonsaults, shooting star presses etc are introduced and high flying/fast-paced offense brings the excitement.

I understand "toning it down" but to eliminate it damn near totally has taken the fun factor out for me. I was actually into Cesaro/Cara on SD because Cara's offense was quick and exciting and I can tell the audience got into it as well, it just works to see cool shit.

Anyway, what say you IWC?

Is WWE too soft, or are we just two grumpy late twenty somethings stuck in the past?

Superior Quality 11-16-2012 11:50 PM

Re: Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
Seeing how this is a huge wall of text, I decided to seperate it into sections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonoaries (Post 12273644)
I have plenty of casual friends and a lot of them have named this as one of the reasons they barely watch WWE (and wrestling period) anymore.

One of my homeboys and myself have been watching wrestling (wwe) since we were kids, and he checks it out from time to time but he's seriously turned off by HIAC matches with no blood (I have to agree there) and generally the product being incredibly sterile.

There's little risk (physical, psychological, booking wise) in the product now and that takes away from the excitement. On that topic we agree, however I still think good matches can happen without people being bashed in the head with chairs or buckets of blood, but I'll be a liar if I didn't say that it wouldn't hurt the product to have them either.

I have to say I agree with the bolded statement here.

Quote:

Its difficult to defend the level of sterility in the product because like I said we've been watching wrestling since the 80s. As kids we saw Randy Savage bitten by a snake, Ricky Steamboat dropped on his skull, and Jimmy Snuka jumping off a cage. All revolutionary for its time to us and the most hardcore word on TV might have been "damn" or "ass". There wasn't a lot of blood, chair shots to the head weren't as prevalent but the matches were exciting. Something as simple as a flying elbow drop would get pops from us.
I actually find 80's wrestling boring because of the fact that the characters were bigger then life. But back then guys like the Hulkster and Randy Savage were my heros. Even back then the product had a little edge to it to the point that it was exciting.

Quote:

Then as teenagers we see Mick Foley thrown off a cage, thumbtacks, fire, tables and either Shawn Michaels or Jeff Hardy killing himself every night for our entertainment and there's nothing even close today. Moonsaults, shooting star presses etc are introduced and high flying/fast-paced offense brings the excitement.
Well yeah it was very exciting back then but of course it had to be exciting because they were competing with wcw. If they had the product back then that we have now, wwe would have faded away.

Quote:

I understand "toning it down" but to eliminate it damn near totally has taken the fun factor out for me. I was actually into Cesaro/Cara on SD because Cara's offense was quick and exciting and I can tell the audience got into it as well, it just works to see cool shit.

Anyway, what say you IWC?

Is WWE too soft, or are we just two grumpy late twenty somethings stuck in the past?
Right now wwe is as stale as old sourdough, so yes wwe is too soft.

ROGERTHAT21 11-17-2012 12:32 AM

Re: Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
They're complacent, have no competition, and have sponsors, soccer moms, and numerous protective agencies that breathe down their necks, I don't like it, but I don't blame them. They had to shift with the times, unfortunately the times suck.

Buckley 11-17-2012 01:25 AM

Re: Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
People will say WWE is "too" soft, but then when Jerry Lawler agrees to having Paul Heyman mock his heart attack people are up in arms saying it "went too far".

Tyrion Lannister 11-17-2012 01:29 AM

Re: Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
Yes, it's too fucking soft. For fucks sake, one of the most heated segments in a WORLD TITLE feud was Big Show punching a DOLL.

This isn't even fucking PG. The Office is PG, I never had to complain about its content being too soft, this is completely kid friendly to the point of being obknoxious. If you took away the matches it would be the same as Barney.

Now that Linda lost the election, all of a sudden they grew a set of testicles with the heart attack stunt, so hopefully they don't completely fall off again.

Superior Quality 11-17-2012 02:22 AM

Re: Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
What pisses me off the most is how wwe removed anything attitude era related on youtube. Granted, they own the contemt and they can do whay they want but for people who want to watch full shows of attitude era episodes it's a pain in the ass.

givexa 11-17-2012 05:27 AM

Re: Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
get rid of PG

Luis Magalhaes 11-17-2012 05:55 AM

Re: Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
Dont' care if it is soft or softer. I just want it to be good.

Gunner14 11-17-2012 05:58 AM

Re: Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
PG isnt the problem. never has been. The company hasnt wanted to do anything that could be deemed risky or potentially harmful to Linda's campaign. Hell they was news yesterday that WWE has been too scared to release crap wrestlers because one of Linda's promises was to help create jobs....

Pretty much all the Harry Potter films are PG and they deal with people getting their throats slit so there is no problem with the rating. Its just the content. They have the target market where the money will be spent and they cater a product for that audience. Only thing that matters to them at the moment is profit and they are still massively profitable. (even with attendances and PPV buys dropping) merchendise like title belts, action figures etc.. is massively profitable.

So untill this changes the writers just need to keep throwing out anything to keep the kids watching. Occasionally they'll give the IWC a bone by pushing someone they like just to keep the interest. But WWE is spot on to aim for the kids market. Give it a few years when the current set of pre teens turn into teens and the product will grow with them like it did with us.

When i was young and needed the super hero - i had the ultimate warrior and hulk hogan
as i got older they changed into someone who i could be - Bret Hart, Shawn Micheals
as i got more mature the product did too - attitude era. Now i wont spend my money on wrestling merchendise so they go back for the next set. makes perfect sense.

joeisgonnakillyou 11-17-2012 06:13 AM

Re: Yeah WWE has gone soft but is it TOO soft?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by givexa (Post 12274084)
get rid of PG

Right Now, "SpongeBob SquarePants" is a more mature tv show than WWE RAW, also with less poop jokes. So the problem isn't in the PG rating, it's in the stupid writers they have.

I may be wrong but RAW's main demographic is 25 years old + male watchers, so not even kids are buying into this crap... just former attitude era teens that still watch it wishing it was like in the good old days.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2