Is the WWE PG rating the problem?

I have been thinking about the Post on Cageside Seats about the WWE PG Era.  The way he is using the term PG Era, The Notorious Eddie Mac is blaming the PG rating for the problems in the WWE.  I disagree that ditching the PG rating would make the storytelling more compelling.

    1.    The storyline possibilities are limited. - You can tell good stories ans still be PG
    2.    Bad and confusing storylines are more glaring. - These same storylines would be bad or confusing with swearing, sexual exploitation, or hard core matches.  
    3.    There is very little development in the characters.  - See Above
    4.    There is very little development in the roster.  -  Number 2 again
    5.    The PG era has relied heavily on the past to prop it up. 
- With number 3 and number 4 being true, of course the past would get you better ratings with figures from the past. 
    6.    The ratings aren't as high as they used to be.  -
This is true with all televised drama.  The WWE has not been able to see itself as a sport like the NFL or MLB.  Every other class of drama has lower ratings. Soap Operas have all but gone away.  The WWE has better ratings than reality shows, but also bigger production budget. 
    7.    Matches and storylines have become mostly predictable. 
- This is related to 8 and 9. Since they are no longer in a Monday Night War, the televised shows are more like infomercials for PPVs and DVDs.  This makes the whole product less compelling. 
    8.    There is no competition out there to challenge WWE. -
I think this has nothing to do with the PG ratings.  I really think the real problem is one of talent development.  The WWE was always great at using talent that was developed in other companies.  The problem is the WWE is not the only place in wrestling you will perform in front of audiences of 15,000 people.  ROH, TNA and other companies do not give you the training of WCW, NWA, or AWA. 
    9.    With no competition, WWE got complacent. -
I think you have something here, but I am not sure complacent is the right word.  I think they are risk adverse.  The reason that characters like Stone Cold and Mankind get the title, is because the WWE had to take chances.  I am not sure that either of them would had the chance to be main eventers if the WWE was not trying to beat the WCW. 
    10.    Older fans are being driven away.
- I want to see the actual demographics before I write anything about this.

What can't you do with PG ratings?  You get rid of the T&A BS, the swearing, the hard core matches, and the blood.  I am not sure that any of these things make for better story telling in Pro-Wrestling.  To tell stories like HBO, FX or A&E, you have to change the structure of the story telling.  All of the great shows from the networks are limited. Only 8 to 12 episodes a season.  I am not sure how you do that in a WWE world. 


Popular Posts