If you could change 1 thing about RAW...

[Mustafar Reginald]

King. The product is already not as good as it could be, we don't need Jerry to make things worse.

Great call. King's right up there on my list of things to change.

I wouldn't mind a three hour Raw if the product was better. I could go ahead and blame the writers, but instead I'm going to change it so that Raw has a TV-MA rating. Now a that would be something worth watching for three hours, since there would be very little limitation as to what could go on, so amazing.

I agree with you on three hour Raw's but disagree with your rating for similar reasons. There'd be nothing wrong with the current rating if the writers were good enough to write a better product with the limitations, which aren't really too much. B:TAS had plenty of stuff they wanted to do but weren't able to because of executive meddling, this lead to the writers creating better and more imaginative scenes to get the same effect across. The writers have even thanked network execs are commentary before due to them forcing them to create better material.

Outside of some perverted reasons, I don't really have interest in a rating change. I'm not sure if it would actually create better TV for reasons outside of it being edgier. Perfect example goes with hardcore matches for me. A good hardcore match is one that using the lack of rules as an extension of an already good match. Meaning you remove the hardcore elements and you still have a good match on your hand. A bad hardcore match is one that uses the lack of rules in place of a good match; i.e. you remove the hardcore elements and your left with nothing but crap.

It seems to me that it'd be used as a crutch for story-telling because they haven't really been able to construct a good story in this era, save from a few.

 

[Dat Kid1]

I agree with you on three hour Raw's but disagree with your rating for similar reasons. There'd be nothing wrong with the current rating if the writers were good enough to write a better product with the limitations, which aren't really too much. B:TAS had plenty of stuff they wanted to do but weren't able to because of executive meddling, this lead to the writers creating better and more imaginative scenes to get the same effect across. The writers have even thanked network execs are commentary before due to them forcing them to create better material.

Outside of some perverted reasons, I don't really have interest in a rating change. I'm not sure if it would actually create better TV for reasons outside of it being edgier. Perfect example goes with hardcore matches for me. A good hardcore match is one that using the lack of rules as an extension of an already good match. Meaning you remove the hardcore elements and you still have a good match on your hand. A bad hardcore match is one that uses the lack of rules in place of a good match; i.e. you remove the hardcore elements and your left with nothing but crap.

It seems to me that it'd be used as a crutch for story-telling because they haven't really been able to construct a good story in this era, save from a few.

A rating change would be a crutch that so oh so desperately need right now. The best storylines of this era were the average storylines of yesterdays era. I grew up directly in the attitude era, so I don't know much about the 80's and I'm not accustomed to it. What I am accustomed to is over the top storylines, hardcore matches, and consistent entertainment. This era has the talent to put on spectacular matches, and they have had a few, but wrestling is only half of the battle. WWE has failed to entertain me from a drama stand point in the last couple of years. I believe that is in direct correlation with the PG rating. Now we've seen what WWE can do with TV-14 and it was awesome. I would just be curious as to what would happen if WWE took the latter and went TV-MA. The writers I'm sure have thought of great storylines that got dulled down because of the rating, and all though the writers are saying they are creating "better material" from it, I still see crap.

Letting a low restriction rating would allow writers to come up with a plethora of good ideas because the limits would be virtually erased. Not only that, but superstars themselves would be able to work better on the stuff they say on the mic. It is a natural fact to know that when the cameras go off the superstars are not limited by a rating system. I feel as though if the same applied to television we would get to see a lot more investment in characters, more motivation, and therefore a better product. Yes it's true that some superstars have managed to entertain in spite of the current rating and that's good, but I'm sure they would be even better without it.

Of course this'll never happen, but it has always been a curiosity of mine.

 

[Mustafar Reginald]

A rating change would be a crutch that so oh so desperately need right now. The best storylines of this era were the average storylines of yesterdays era. I grew up directly in the attitude era, so I don't know much about the 80's and I'm not accustomed to it. What I am accustomed to is over the top storylines, hardcore matches, and consistent entertainment. This era has the talent to put on spectacular matches, and they have had a few, but wrestling is only half of the battle. WWE has failed to entertain me from a drama stand point in the last couple of years. I believe that is in direct correlation with the PG rating. Now we've seen what WWE can do with TV-14 and it was awesome. I would just be curious as to what would happen if WWE took the latter and went TV-MA. The writers I'm sure have thought of great storylines that got dulled down because of the rating, and all though the writers are saying they are creating "better material" from it, I still see crap.

I missed the Attitude Era, so no comment there. Several of my favorite stories have came from the PG era, granted I don't entirely place that on the writers as most of those are because of the wrestlers.

Since you quoted the better material, I'm assuming you're referring to what I posted in my previous post. I wasn't saying the WWE writers said that, I don't think they would. I was saying the writers of Batman: The Animated Series said that, as they were my example of what good writers can do.

I didn't bring this discussion up to talk about whether a rating change would be good or not but more because I'm debating that changing the writers would be more beneficial then switching the ratings. I'll get to my point next time . . .

Letting a low restriction rating would allow writers to come up with a plethora of good ideas because the limits would be virtually erased. Not only that, but superstars themselves would be able to work better on the stuff they say on the mic. It is a natural fact to know that when the cameras go off the superstars are not limited by a rating system. I feel as though if the same applied to television we would get to see a lot more investment in characters, more motivation, and therefore a better product. Yes it's true that some superstars have managed to entertain in spite of the current rating and that's good, but I'm sure they would be even better without it.

The best way to have superstars be able to work the mic better in my opinion would be to stop scripting promos and only give them bullet points. That has nothing to do with the rating though. Granted there is more risk with that when they have a rating system.

Honestly, I don't think the PG era is really restricting them all too much. At least not enough that they wouldn't be able to come up with a bunch more better stories than what they been churning out. Surely you'll be open the door for more better stories, but in the same way you'll also be opening the door to more crap. I'm not sure in the hand of current writing team, even if the biggest problem is Vince, that they be able to turn out more good than bad.

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue that it wouldn't be more entertaining or that the crap would at least be entertainingly bad instead of the downright boring bad we're getting now. Instead, I'm trying to debate that changing the writers to better writers would be a superior decision than switching ratings.

It's simple logic, if they get writers who are good enough to create good stories consistently with the current limitations, then obviously they're good enough to create much better stories with those limitations removed than the current writers who seem to be struggling to create good stories right now.

*Edit*

Not sure I made it clear, but I'm not against less restrictions. Just debating my side as I love debating.

 

[arianna]

What's wrong with the roster? WWE has all the talent in the world, they just don't know how to use the guys properly.

I mean, I would want to add to the roster not remove any of them.

 

[Catalanotto]

Take away the 3rd hour. They were already wasting 2 hours of time with fucking recaps, we don't want another hour of wasted time. Now, they have the challenge of filling up another hour, so they scramble with any bullshit they can dig up just to fill time.

OH NOES, WE ONLY HAVE 5 MINUTES OF WRESTLING, WE NEED TO HURRY AND FILL IN THE TIME WITH MORE RECAPS AND MORE UNNECESSARY STUPIDITY ~~~~

 

[BaraaKhalaf92]

Back to 2 hours, that's for sure.