Do you still consider WWE to be in the PG era?

[Crayo]

The PG era is the most complained about thing within the IWC, and has been since it began. However, after reading a few posts the other day, someone got me thinking. I can't remember who said it, but they said that they considered the PG era to be over in late 2010 I think they said it was, because WWE has changed again since then. I can sort of understand it because 2009 and 2010 were simply abysmal years (so much Orton/Cena/HHH, and the guest-host crap), and since then they have began to get a bit more edgy.

I guess the PG era will continue until the show ditches PG, but would you still say we still have the same childish product that we had a few years ago? Sure, it still caters to kids, but the later hours of the show definitely don't any more, because Punk pouring a recently-dead man's ashes over The Undertaker wouldn't have happened a few years ago. Punk mocking Jerry's heart attack wouldn't have happened. Hell, anyone saying the word "ass" was the biggest rarity in the world in 2009-2010 and now it's used in every other promo.

So, would you still consider RAW now to be the same product as it was a few years back, or has it changed again and moved away from the "PG Era"?

 

[Swift]

I consider it the borefest era ipebomb: !

 

[Mustafar Reginald]

You were probably thinking of Stopspot. I recall him mentioning it ended and that era's are defined by content, not the TV rating. Dubbing the current era the Reality era. He even got into a little debate about that with Dolph's if memory serves me correctly. I did bring up in the "Best PG era feuds" thread that I'm in the minority who considers the PG era to have ended quite a bit ago because the content in the WWE of 2013 is quite different from 2009. So yeah, with that it's pretty apparent where I stand here.

 

[Crayo]

I would like to know why you still stand with that. I'm on the fence regardless because the name of an era doesn't really bother me, but I'm curious as to whether people consider it the PG era because of its rating or something else because of the content. I mean, the attitude era was never called the TV-14 era. Both the AE and RA era reached out to the same demographic, and both of them are separated by different names too so maybe that cancels out the "They still appeal to the kids" logic people may use to define this current era as the PG era still.

 

[Snowman1]

Yeah I still consider it the same era that it was then. Outside of a few segments here and there we've still got the same restrictions, same kid-friendly product, and same handcuffed wrestling matches. (Again, PG isn't the issue, but still)

But instead of countless insufferable backstage segments with Hornswoggle running around and celebrities castrating wrestlers, we have no real backstage segments and just have random guys in trunks fighting.

 

[Mustafar Reginald]

I would like to know why you still stand with that. I'm on the fence regardless because the name of an era doesn't really bother me, but I'm curious as to whether people consider it the PG era because of its rating or something else because of the content. I mean, the attitude era was never called the TV-14 era. Both the AE and RA era reached out to the same demographic, and both of them are separated by different names too so maybe that cancels out the "They still appeal to the kids" logic people may use to define this current era as the PG era still.

Well, you mentioned several reasons in the OP but I guess I'll throw a few more out; the major rise of prominence in social media; the brand split basically ending (SuperShow and whatnot); Heels being booked stronger (compare The Shield to Nexus [one still undefeated, the other lost their first big match], Batista to Brock Lesnar [one only won the WWE title thanks to facing Cena after the Chamber then lost to him like three times in a row, the other destroyed Cena, only losing in BS Cena fashion [which is arguably better than Batista] and has broken Trips & Shawns arm, and beat Trips by submission], or even CM Punk (played hot potato with the World title with Jeff & Taker compared to holding the WWE title for 434 days [granted, this only accounts for about half the reign but still]); return to more gimmick characters/personalities and/or just building people up through promos prior to debut or squashes (Fandingoatemybabio, Damien Sandow, Kharma [though I'll admit I don't remember quite when she came around so arguable here], Ryback [arguable for most, but he definitely fits under squashes], Brodus Clay, etc.); and I could probably name a few more differences but I'll stop here as I think I've made it clear why I consider the PG era over.

To me there's a clear difference in content, enough so that I distinguish it as a different era.

Yeah I still consider it the same era that it was then. Outside of a few segments here and there we've still got the same restrictions, same kid-friendly product, and same handcuffed wrestling matches. (Again, PG isn't the issue, but still)

But instead of countless insufferable backstage segments with Hornswoggle running around and celebrities castrating wrestlers, we have no real backstage segments and just have random guys in trunks fighting.

Those are two very different complaints though. Era's can both suck without being attached to each-other. Just throwing that out there. I don't really mind whether someone considers the last few years as a continuation of the previous era or a new one.

 

[arianna]

Peoples Era :boss:

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

It is much easier to look back on a period of time and dub the 'eras' as opposed to trying to decipher when one era ended and another began as it happens.

They've taken some steps to try and show 'hey this isn't all geared towards kids' but I think all in all it still is garnered to children much more often than not. I will reserve judgement.

My thing was Stop was saying some dumb shit like the 'reality era' or something like that which made me crinkle up my nose and say

 

[Swift]

Peoples Era :boss:

 

[arianna]

Yup. :rock:

 

[Lockard 23]

I don't see the point in trying to distinguish every single year or period into it's own branded "era." I didn't even know that people called the 2002-2004 period the Ruthless Aggression Era until awhile ago. I always just looked at it as a transition period with no name between the last major period (Attitude Era) and the Cena Era that began in 2005 or whatever you want to call it.

Anyway, there's a few different ways to look at it. One is the viewpoint I tend to take, which is that it's still just the Cena Era. From 2005 to now. Another is that it's still the PG Era since the show's rating is still PG and the content is gonna still revolve around that rating, regardless of certain restrictions being loosened up here and there. Another is that we have perhaps ushered into a new period with the introduction and emphasis put more on social media than ever and what has pretty much been the "death" of the brand extension, at least on TV and PPV where it counts.

I don't pay attention to us being in a new era since it literally changes nothing about what you're seeing on television anyway. Two years that may be technically apart of the same period may still look quite different from one another since shit can change (usually) year to year. I mean, 2000 and 1998 were somewaht different from another in their own ways, but both belonged to the AE.

 

[seabs]

I never understood why it was the Ruthless Aggression era tbh, I think Vince and Cena cut a promo about it, am I missing something else? Why wasn't sure t the evolution era or the next big things era?

 

[Stopspot]

I never understood why it was the Ruthless Aggression era tbh, I think Vince and Cena cut a promo about it, am I missing something else? Why wasn't sure t the evolution era or the next big things era?

Aren't people calling it the Ruthless Aggression era since it was the first words Cena said in his debut other than his name? Thus naming it after the star who rose to the top during it and helped define it?

 

[seabs]

Aren't people calling it the Ruthless Aggression era since it was the first words Cena said in his debut other than his name? Thus naming it after the star who rose to the top during it and helped define it?

I mentioned that lol, it was Vince saying he wanted someone to show it then Cena came up with it the next week against Angle. Seems odd naming it for him then the next era being the Cena era too.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Here is the beginning of the ruthless aggression era.. basically the same reason the AE is dubbed what it was dubbed, just a Vince proclamation

[video=dailymotion]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xyfm8h_vince-mcmahon-introduces-the-ruthless-aggression-era_sport#.UV2PdpNJ49A[/video]