i don't think todays audience gets the whole bret/vince thing

Discussion in 'Smack Down!' started by Diasick, Mar 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    [youtube]AfTzgc8Yozo&start=130[/youtube]
    test
  2. E. Fate

    E. Fate aka Koffee Blakk

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 1999
    Messages:
    50,972
    1. I love how you look over the Cena/Hogan, Rey/Bret comparison,

    2. Does it matter who the fuck played the character at one point? I could give a fuck if Vince McMahon himself dawned the clown suit..the fact of the matter is characters that catered towards kids have existed long before the Attitude Era. Why change now because a bunch of smarks want to bitch about it? They're the same muhfuckas that want to hit up the free streams onlne, giving Vince even more reason to careless about your opinion.

    And Hornswoggle, serves the same purpose that Dink did..entertainment value and merchandising...did they do anything more with those characters? Not really. I'm done though...obviously this back and forth is pointless ...I walk away now.
    test
  3. Diasick

    Diasick this guy

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,624
    thats what this forum needs fate i don't dissagree with you i agree that wwe has always catered to the same people but they didn't promote the fact that there pg and still deliver a violent show.. if they want pg there can't be no wrestling period.. they would have to clean up more moves than they already have... these wrestlers that fall victim to the he cant peform no more comments should be pissed.. its not that the wrestler can't peform no more... but he is restricted to what he can actually do in the ring..wrestling doesn't need a rating level, only for legal purposes.. they don't need to cater to that rating... like i said basketball has a PG rating and they don't have clowns and midgets running around with baloons.. i know wrestling is fake but kids have a big imagination and watching a wrestling match is like watching a slasher film for them...
    test
  4. N A S T Y

    N A S T Y Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    1,412,446
    test
  5. Nam Dekan

    Nam Dekan i got a tip in my pocket

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 1998
    Messages:
    60,983
    Raw still gets a high rating among 18-49 year olds. Scoring a 2.0 or higher every week which is a lot higher then the competition on cable. The adult viewers are there still. It's not like every single one of them left.

    TV-PG though isn't children programing though. It's still parental guidance suggested. If it was geared at kids it would be TV-Y. As long as there is wrestling it will be PG. The only thing that is a little dumb is the no blood rule especially when you still got cage matches, ladder matches and all that.
    test
  6. Priceless

    Priceless Like I'm doin it for TV

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 1999
    Messages:
    20,065
    i'd love to see these posts thru ur eyes at least once gut. bc everything u just accuse me of being is precisely what i was saying about u.

    u are presenting this OPINION as FACT in the face of a forum full of ppl who disagree with u and continually post up EVIDENCE against it. u have not posted a shred of evidence SUPPORTING ur OPINION, u simply argue it as gospel truth.

    a tv rating of PG does NOT mean that the MAJORITY of the audience is underage.

    did u kno that, for the sake of box office returns, many slasher horror flicks will tone down their violence/sexuality to lower their R ratings to PG-13? by doing this, it allows a larger audience to watch their movie and, in return, generate more revenue.

    i'm sure u knew that.

    that applies to the wwe as well, it is a program that centers around a violent sport. violent sports can easily fall into the edgy category wwe did during the attitude era but, for the sake of a larger audience and a larger revenue, the violence and sexuality were toned down to give the show a PG rating.

    do u see what i'm saying?

    furthermore, i am always open to other ppl's opinions. as a matter of fact, memento made a valid point about the amount of wwe's new generation of adult fans. while you, on the other hand, presented an OPINION as FACT with no supporting evidence. i feel like i'm repeating myself here gut.

    ur argument against the slideshow i provided was simply that wwe generally puts hard-to if not un-believable information up in their "did you know..." commercial return segments.

    the thing about that information, is that the statistics they use to come up with those statements can be tweaked to make said statements TECHNICALLY true. i believe naked gave u a perfect example of that as well. a while back there was a thread discussing that the wwe is likely to count each page view of each visitor as opposed to each unique visitor to come up with their page view number being higher than that of the social networking sites.

    as long as the information is TECHNICALLY true, it's true enough for tv.

    that can work in a tv presentation slideshow as well, i'm sure, but there isn't a lot of demographic skewing u can do.

    naked, again, provided an example of the tv rating amongst 18-49 year olds that raw gets each week.

    assuming that u didn't read this novel, gut, the main point is this...

    i disagree with u, and i did my part to PROVE u wrong.

    how about u do the same?
    test
  7. E. Fate

    E. Fate aka Koffee Blakk

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 1999
    Messages:
    50,972
    You know WHY they're promoting the fact that they're PG now? It's not even promoted per say..but fuckers keep asking why its not like the Attitude Era...or why is WWE catering to kids...they bring up the PG to say WHY. People hate the fact that there was such a drastic change in the programming. That's the only reason we even hear the WWE acknowleding its PG rating.
    test
  8. Diasick

    Diasick this guy

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,624
    i'd love to see these posts thru ur eyes at least once gut. bc everything u just accuse me of being is precisely what i was saying about u.



    u are presenting this OPINION as FACT in the face of a forum full of ppl who disagree with u and continually post up EVIDENCE against it. u have not posted a shred of evidence SUPPORTING ur OPINION, u simply argue it as gospel truth.

    that's what internet discussions is for... to disagree/agree with someone then tell them why you disagree/agree.. i could careless if some forum guys who think they know the wrestling business disagrees with me..they disagree and provide opinions which is on the same thought i was on TBH your just twisting it into your own words


    a tv rating of PG does NOT mean that the MAJORITY of the audience is underage.

    so the majority of the people that watch spongebob are not under 15? and you clearly missed my point... wasn't even close.... you don't have to cater to a rating and thats what wwe is doing.. basketball doesn't have clowns and midgets dancing around just because theres kids there and they have a PGish rating.. and I like how you used the people.. making it sound like this forum is full of sheep's who love to go out of there way to disagree with me..
    them disagreeing with me does not make me wrong or them right.. welcome to the internet you dinosaur ass dude.





    did u kno that, for the sake of box office returns, many slasher horror flicks will tone down their violence/sexuality to lower their R ratings to PG-13? by doing this, it allows a larger audience to watch their movie and, in return, generate more revenue.

    they could put a clown dancing around in a suit and call it PG if they want but its still not suitable for young children.. I think that cheats the parents by telling them that its safe for children to watch...


    that applies to the wwe as well, it is a program that centers around a violent sport. violent sports can easily fall into the edgy category wwe did during the attitude era but, for the sake of a larger audience and a larger revenue, the violence and sexuality were toned down to give the show a PG rating.

    do u see what i'm saying?

    you can tone down violence but its still violence and children shouldn't be watching it anyway... i have noticed sense wwe has switched to PG they have stopped airing them don't try this at home commercials... do they think just because they changed the rating that's going to change the imagination of kids who like to perform these moves on there younger sibling? TNA thinks just the opposite... they think wrestling needs blood and edginess to be good


    furthermore, i am always open to other ppl's opinions. as a matter of fact, memento made a valid point about the amount of wwe's new generation of adult fans. while you, on the other hand, presented an OPINION as FACT with no supporting evidence. i feel like I'm repeating myself here gut.

    because its memento.. you people think these guys like memento and abs are fucking wwe superstars... there regular people like me and you and you are only kissing there ass when you prefer there "valid points" over mine.. there all opinions no matter how you write them.. the day you disagree with memento and abs is the day stacey keibler is in a hit movie..



    ur argument against the slideshow i provided was simply that wwe generally puts hard-to if not un-believable information up in their "did you know..." commercial return segments.

    when they had the wwe.com gets more hits than myspace up there.. it was pretty obvious that was a dam lie... if you know anything about SEO ratios you would know this.. first of all how would wwe be getting myspace traffic when they don't even rank in the 1 percentile of alexa? how are they getting more viewers than MNF when they do twice as much ratings, even considering that they go by hours.


    the thing about that information, is that the statistics they use to come up with those statements can be tweaked to make said statements TECHNICALLY true.

    most of the shit they have said on there isn't even technically true...


    i believe naked gave u a perfect example of that as well. a while back there was a thread discussing that the wwe is likely to count each page view of each visitor as opposed to each unique visitor to come up with their page view number being higher than that of the social networking sites.

    I make a living from promoting sites and SEO related stuff.. if you are doing the same viewing numbers as myspace you are going to have just about the same unique visitors, according to ratios wwe doesn't even rank in the 1 percentile.. just because nasty is a wrestling fan don't make him qualified to tell me how SEO works...




    as long as the information is TECHNICALLY true, it's true enough for tv.

    that can work in a tv presentation slideshow as well, i'm sure, but there isn't a lot of demographic skewing u can do.

    they put that up there because most of the fans aint qualified to tell them that they lied or are stretching the truth


    naked, again, provided an example of the tv rating amongst 18-49 year olds that raw gets each week.

    here you go mentioning naked again.... my argument was that even if they still have adult fans a majority of them are probably new fans.. most of the old fans has stopped watching and jumped on the UFC banwagon.. you know this man.. the new adult fans aint going to know about this bret/vince thing.. this hasn't even been touched on, only subliminally in the last 12 years.


    assuming that u didn't read this novel, gut, the main point is this...

    i disagree with u, and i did my part to PROVE u wrong.

    how about u do the same?


    I don't care if you disagree with me... that doesn't mean what you said makes me wrong.... I don't have a big enough ego to say what i say makes the other person wrong... obviously you do...you did nothing to prove me wrong except bringing up shit nasty and memento said...


    test
  9. Nam Dekan

    Nam Dekan i got a tip in my pocket

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 1998
    Messages:
    60,983
    TV-PG is Parental Guidance suggested. Actual programming geared towards kids is rated TV-Y usually or TV-G in some cases. In America violence is more accepted then sexuality and language for the most part. WWE can get away from a TV-14 by toning down language and sexuality and then get a PG. So they aren't saying "hey parents this programming is 100% safe for your kids." It's Parental Guidance suggested, so they aren't cheating parents as you put it, now if it was TV-Y then that would be different.


    About them claming Raw gets more viewers then MNF. It's all about the wording, if they are saying Raw gets more viewers the MNF and that's it. Then that is possible because Raw is worldwide. Raw is 2 separate programs as well. MNF averages what 14 million weekly and if it's a good game it could get upwards of 17. It's all about wording most of the times with those facts they throw up. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure they don't say AMERICAN viewers and just say more viewers or whatever.

    The Bret Hart/Vince feud caters to a different spectrum of their audience as does MITB and so does a Cena match or a Rey match. Plus the Bret/Vince angle was done so it could be accepted by all parties. It's about getting revenge essentially. Yeah sure it happened 13 years ago, but they played it up to make you hate Vince.
    test
  10. Diasick

    Diasick this guy

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,624
    Im not arguing about what the ratings mean.... they are catering to them ratings, they think just because it needs to be suitable for children that there has to be clowns and leprechauns running around.. wrestling doesn't need to cater to a rating.. its wrestling not a porn business....i know wwe is an entertainment business now.. but vince also wanted his wrestling to look more real a few years back and how is this doing that? I honestly think that wwe will do there own channel like rumoured... they turned to this PG stuff because they want there channel to be more like nick and disney... and create nick like shows revolving around the wrestlers like santino and hornswaggle... all to build up there credibility in the film industry..... if you think this is all about wanting younger ratings your wrong.. its about money and only money.. they think kids is where the money is at basically...kids will buy the merchandise from the crappy superstars they put out...
    test
  11. Nam Dekan

    Nam Dekan i got a tip in my pocket

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 1998
    Messages:
    60,983
    If they want credibility in the film industry they need to gear some programming away from wrestlers. They aren't getting no credibility in the film industry. Rock had to totally separate himself from the wrestling world to gain any sort of credibility. The television station will likely happen. I mean shit after seeing MavTV, getting a station just requires money. I think once they get a station they could gear some programming towards a more adult audience.

    The programming also that WWE has on Raw isn't totally up to them. Better believe USA or whomever has some say. If they are saying we want to see more blah blah blah then they will get that. USA says we want 3 hours of programing then they get it. They also have to cater to the network. I don't think they have the same deal with Smackdown, as it's a good mixture of entertainment and wrestling. However with Raw they are throwing all this stuff out there and needing to appeal to various audiences. It's like kids, older people, casual, people tuning into see the guest host. Like OH SHIT, Jewel I fucking love Jewel I better tune in! I don't think it's so much of oh lets appeal to kids but more of hey lets not offend people or do something to make a new fan.
    test
  12. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    A good percentage of the children watching WWE today know more about Bret Hart than many of the adults do. It's the nature of the business.
    test
  13. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    i believe that was me, but it was wwe themselves who said "hits" as opposed to unique visitors.

    that's all fine and dandy. first off the fact that it raises your ire so much that someone would explain something to you while not aware that you have - unconvincingly i might add - some experience in website statistics just offends me. but don't worry, for now on i'll remember to ask you by the whim what your experience is in a specific field before i try to explain something to you... and just for good measure, when you try to explain something to others i'll probably pop in and ask you what expertise you have that makes you qualified to explain those things.

    oh, and yeah... you should probably listen to nam when it comes to anything film/television related before you cling to your own opinion seeing as he's actually taken courses and either has worked or is working in the field.
    test
  14. Diasick

    Diasick this guy

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,624
    doesn't mean that he or i am wrong....

    even if they mean hits.. if there pulling the same amount of hits there UV ratio will be close to myspace's and according to alexa wwe.com isn't even in the 1 percentile of internet traffic....

    say i put up a site like rapmusic and got as much viewers as it did for so many months.. don't you think my unique visitor ratio would be close? i know unique visitor is per unique ip but if your pulling as many visitors as top dogs like myspace your UV's will be up in the 1 percentile....

    now if i started a small website... the visitors wouldn't even matter..because if you got like 25,000 visitors, there may be only 100 people actually on your site. if where talking millions of visitors thats a different story...

    and.... my grammar is more atrocious than usual in this post... its 450 am and my eyes feel like there going to cave through their sockets..
    test
  15. M-theory

    M-theory Saint Esprit

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2001
    Messages:
    38,468
    test
  16. Priceless

    Priceless Like I'm doin it for TV

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 1999
    Messages:
    20,065
    gut, i want u to understand that i have NOTHING against u and i don't value ur opinion on this subject any more or less than abz or naked or mem or nasty or mac or fate's.

    when i say "valid point" i mean they make a point and provide some kind of evidence to back it up. every argument i've made with u thus far u've been stating ur opinion as fact and not backing it up. if we were all simply posting opinions and i disagreed with u, i would simply leave it as we agree to disagree n move on.

    i'm not gonna argue with u on seo, what i was thinking was, take RM for example, a poster like u or i don't come to the smackdown forum only, we visit many different threads in different forums. if jeff could count each page view we made on this site as opposed to each of us individually, his numbers would go WAY up. each time i visit this site i'm sure i hit a good 20+ pages. if i'm in the majority and there are 1,000 other visitors just like me then 1,000 unique visitors quickly turns into 20,000 hits.

    i think it's possible that if u count the hits up on wwe.com that way they may be higher than the unique visitor count on myspace.com .

    again, i may be wrong. and u can expect me to argue seo with u as much as i'd expect me to argue rat extermination with me.

    and saying that ur wrong has nothing to do with ego, it's the basis of argument. i believe ur wrong. and if u want to remove every part of the argument i've made that came from a member of this board, i still posted a wwe tv presentation. information doesn't get more firsthand than that, gut. now u can chose to believe the wwe themselves or not.

    at this point, this argument's taken far too much time and energy, at least on my part.

    enjoy wrestlemania.
    test
  17. Diasick

    Diasick this guy

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,624
    I don't need to provide evidence on an opinion.. its an opinion not a fact... and going out and grabbing quotes from wikipedia.org is not evidence... we are wrestling fans we know the facts.. its our job to voice our opinion on them....

    page views by an individual person don't really mean shit... we could have a porno section and a prepubescent teen could be clicking on it 11,000 times. if thats what wwe is talking about then there not qualified to make that claim..no one cares about visitors...the visits per individual user is what counts.... some kid probably got exited with a hornswaggle picture and started clicking on it a bunch of times haha..

    i would agree with you if we was talking small forums, and sites with less than 20,000 visitors a month.. but this is myspace who gets nearly a billion visitors monthly. don't you think if wwe had more visitors than them... they would atleast rank in the 1 percentile of internet traffic...myspace's niche covers more dementions than wwe does..i think that was a bold claim on wwe's part TBH...im not sure if wwe.com opened there blog area to everyone or just wrestlers.. but i think they should look into doing that...i doubt anyone from wwe.com pays attention to the forums..sure our blogs won't get found but maybe if wwe implements a system like adwords where we can promote our blogs on the blog area's front page along with the superstars that have blogs on there...

    Im a wwe fan and will always be a wwe fan even if they cut out wrestling all together.. but even i have to admit that some of the shit they claim is untrue...
    test
  18. Nam Dekan

    Nam Dekan i got a tip in my pocket

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 1998
    Messages:
    60,983
    I wouldn't doubt that. Seems like if your a kid and get into something you want to see more and know more. That's how I was at least.
    test
  19. Sabbath

    Sabbath Regicidal

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,501
    The emotion and realness behind the whole thing was a little lost in translation a decade+ later. It's normal.

    What would've made it all huge is if Bret would made his big return in Canada, but it wasn't on the schedule. Canada has a way of setting the bar for future audience reactions. It's what made Hogan popular again in WWE.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)