Wrestling Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So i just went watching an era that I have never watched and noticed how amazing the Attitude Era is. I watched one from August 1997 and it was PG and it was pretty good but I watched one from 2000 that was TV-14 and the material and content it was allowed to do was better. Just to let you guys know, I began watching WWE in the Ruthless Aggression era in 2006.

So I am asking. Does anybody know when the first TV-14 Raw is War episode began?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,705 Posts
When looking at the rating, you have to know that 1998 was PG technically. But it wasn't toned down by any means.
Which is precisely why I loathe people bitching about the PG rating because it's obvious that the rating itself does fuck all to hurt WWE's product. It's what WWE choose to put out that does it. It's not toned down due to PG it's toned down due to WWE making the choice to tone it down.
 

·
I'll take you down the only road I've ever been do
Joined
·
52,537 Posts
I think the guidelines of what passed for PG back then is different from now. There's no way the stuff they were doing in late '97/early '98 should be passed off as PG. :lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
I think the guidelines of what passed for PG back then is different from now. There's no way the stuff they were doing in late '97/early '98 should be passed off as PG. :lol
Just watched a Raw from Oct 97 that featured Sable dressed like a dominatrix and Bret Hart calling HHH "Hunter Homo Helmsley" and claiming Trips bare-backed his way to the main event.

PG rated.

And let's not forget that when Pillman pulled a gun on Austin in 96, it was also PG.

Both the definition of "PG" and WWE's MO w/ regard to how their programming is perceived have changed drastically since then. You really can't compare across eras.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,729 Posts
I fairly certain the ratings are given to programming by a separate entity.... So WWF was TVPG for a while and likely got rubber stamped that way for much of the early attitude era. The content got more adult oriented and someone finally made the change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
Regardless of what passes off as PG then and now, it's still ultimately up to the WWE what type of product they want to put out. The Hulk Hogan days of the late 80's were just as family friendly as the current product but they had engaging larger than life characters and adult storylines that didn't treat every fan like they were a 5yr old.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
Now I used to be one of those people that used to bash others who often felt that the reason the WWE isnt what it used to be is because of there being a TV 14. My reponse to these people would be "bullshit, the WWE was great because of the storytelling" - to a degree this imo is correct but having analysed this further I have concluded that the Pg rating has restricted the WWE in terms of how complex or detailed their storytelling can be. Promos imo also lack the intensity or emotion or even "the realness" of what we saw in the AE and RAE due to the fact that superstar arent allowed to swear (now I'm not advocating the fact that profanity should be the norm, but superstars should be allowed to push boundaries once in a while). Whilst one can argue that the attitude era smackdown episodes were pg and scored high ratings, you would have to consider that society back then was a lot more lenient (which someone had earlier alluded to in this thread) and what we saw back then could easily be seen as TV 14 material nowadays.This modern era WWE is a lot more watered and dumbed down to make it more suited for children and this will hurt them as the majority of their viewers are those occupying the 18-30ish demographic.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,704 Posts
I think the guidelines of what passed for PG back then is different from now. There's no way the stuff they were doing in late '97/early '98 should be passed off as PG. :lol
It's not that the guidelines of what passed for PG back then is different from now. The problem is that WWE shows often G rated shows with a PG sign
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,833 Posts
It's not that the guidelines of what passed for PG back then is different from now. The problem is that WWE shows often G rated shows with a PG sign
The guideline is different, but WWE also does feature more G rated content than PG content. Vince McMahon flat out said in a shareholders meeting(I think it was in 2012 or 2011?) that the stuff WWE has been doing, has been closer to G rated than PG rated at times.



Shows that were PG in the 90s, if the episodes air in rerun today, get edited.

But at the same time, shows that air today that are PG, do have content that if it happened on Raw, people on this site would be going crazy and being like "14+ is coming back!"


And like someone else in this thread said, things have changed because the world is being much more PC than it ever has been before. People call WWE today the "PG Era"(which still makes no sense since WWE until around 98-99? was PG), but calling it something like the "PC ERA" would be much more fitting.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top