The PG Debate
Having looked at chair shots yesterday, it’s obvious by the scale of interest in this post that the whole WWE PG thing is a big issue for many wrestling fans at the moment. Consequently, I thought it wise to continue the theme by looking at the move to PG programming and its wider impact in more general terms. Blood, language, “adult situations” and moments of extreme violence are all seen as casualties of this move. What then, are the advantages of a move to PG? Why have WWE taken this measure? Will it work for them or will it backfire? All questions that I shall seek to answer today.
The fact that WWE’s move to PG came almost two years ago and is still one of the most talked about and controversial stories in wrestling says a great deal in itself. There are two main theories as to why this move came about. The company line is that the PG tag allows them to attract more and higher-paying advertisers and sponsors, keeps the TV networks happy and is more in keeping with the times (whatever that means). Many fans, however, have speculated that WWE have moved to PG specifically to aid Linda McMahon’s senate bid. While it certainly helps her cause that the company is toning down some of its more outrageous storylines, the fact is that the move to PG actually came about a year before Linda’s campaign even began. Which is not to say, of course, that the move was not still planned with her political ambitions in mind. One should also bear in mind that Vince has done this before. In the early to mid-nineties Vince banned blood from his show and attempted to shift the product into a “family friendly” category; only the threat of WCW forced him out of this and into the extreme Jerry Springer style shock television of the Attitude Era. So, perhaps fans should simply accept that this is where Vince’s natural inclinations lie.
It’s always dangerous to rely on Internet chatter as a guide to public opinion. Doing just that, however, a quick look around message boards, forums and so forth suggests that the PG move is seriously unpopular. There are certainly those wrestling fans, generally parents or grandparents of small children that appreciate the change but they seem to be far outnumbered by those who lament the change and want a bloodier, edgier product. That said, one has to question whether or not this is really a major issue? Surely, it should be possible to be PG and produce an entertaining wrestling show that keeps all, or at least, the vast majority of your fans happy.
Part of the problem here lies in the nature of TV censorship. The biggest problem that most fans seem to have with PG is the lack of blood in matches. Unfortunately, TV censors don’t actually censor violence; they censor effects. Movies like the Star Wars franchise and shows like the A-Team have proved over the years that you can keep a PG rating no matter how much violence you show, as long as there is no blood involved. Imagine the original Star Wars movies with real swords replacing the light-sabers and actual guns replacing the laser pistols then showing the results accordingly. That alone would make those movies a much higher certificate, despite the fact that nothing would have changed with the story. That clearly demonstrates the restriction that WWE has placed on themselves with regard to blood. If they wish to maintain a PG rating, blood is not an option.
Ok, so we might understand that blood on WWE television programming is a no-no. That doesn’t necessarily apply to pay per view, though. One of the most infuriating sights for fans since the PG era began has been the spectacle of pay per view matches being interrupted so that a wrestler’s wound can be treated. Critics argue that this utterly breaks up the flow of the match, and that blood can add drama to a match anyway. WWE have nevertheless opted to continue disallowing blood even in pay per view matches, which I suppose is necessary if they want to make all of their DVD releases PG in order to keep them in line with their TV, not to mention allowing them to show clips from the pay per views on Raw or Smackdown. Some have also pointed out the health risks associated with blood. On his Q&A JR has offered probably the most cogent and thought out defence of the anti-blood policy, which can largely be summed up thus: one, fans sitting at ringside do not want to be splattered with blood, two, in an era of AIDS and hepatitis and so on we must be more careful of blood than before and finally, do we really need blood to have enjoyable wrestling.
Responding to these points in order, I would respectfully point out that firstly, fans sitting at ringside might reasonably be assumed to know what they are in for and secondly, that relatively few fans actually get hit by blood even when both wrestlers are bleeding. Finally, a few fans do actually seem quite happy to be hit by a wrestler’s blood! As far as the health risks go, I think these are far less than in regard to chair shots. In order to spread HIV, which is generally the biggest worry where blood is concerned, an infected wrestler would have to lose blood onto an open wound of a fan. What are the odds of that happening? Slim to none, and slim left town. Obviously, spreading it between wrestlers where both are bleeding is far more likely but surely WWE could institute regular tests as part of its Wellness Policy. This would help minimize the risk.
On to the third point: do we need blood? By and large, no, we do not need blood to enjoy a wrestling match. The vast majority of matches are fine without it and I can think of a few where the wrestlers did bleed and this did nothing to enhance the match in question. Nevertheless, every once in a while, matches come along that do simply demand blood. Take Austin-Hart at Wrestlemania 13 as a perfect example. This is the match that famously accomplished the double turn of Austin and Hart. When Austin “passed out from the pain” rather than say “I quit” in Hart’s sharpshooter his status as a major league fan favourite was solidified. Doubtless you’ve all seen the iconic image, if not the match itself, of Austin in the sharpshooter, screaming in pain with blood pouring down his face. My point is this: how much less impressive would this image have been with Austin not bleeding? Sure, the crowd know that the pain of the sharpshooter supposedly targets the lower back and also the legs, but the blood on Austin’s face was a visible indication of the pain he was supposedly enduring. It’s that grit, that refusal to give in even in the face of the most agonizing pain that made Austin, and that would have been far harder to communicate without the blood. I’m not saying that the match would have failed otherwise, simply stating why I believe the use of blood was a significant enhancement.
So, at least on pay per view, I don’t see a problem with the occasional use of blood. If it makes it impossible to show clips on Raw the next night, why not use black and white stills? Most TV stations seem to find this acceptable and it gives fans another reason to buy the show if they want to see the sequence properly. Granted, it might push up the certification of the DVD of that pay per view but, seriously, how much difference does that make anyway? Parents will make the final call as to what they want their children to watch, regardless of what some board or other says, just as they always have. Moreover, in cage matches and similar, it seems almost wrong not to have blood. Sure, Bret and Owen proved in their Summerslam match that not all cage matches need to be bloody massacres – but most should be!
Staying with parents, as regards bad language and so on, one might argue that WWE almost has a duty to be PG. After all, wrestling has always appealed to children, so they’re always going to watch it. It’s therefore only sensible to leave out the gratuitous language. To be honest, I don’t really see how it enhances the product anyway. A lot of people complained that Steve Austin’s use of the word “ass” was bleeped out during his recent appearance on Raw but I think that actually helps. Not only does it keep the show PG, it actually emphasises the rebellious nature of Austin’s character. So, sure I think that where a character really needs to swear they should be able to, but it should certainly be bleeped. It might make the company look a little dorky in the eyes of some but that will surely be countered by the increase in coolness that the individual wrestler receives.
Some fans miss nudity and the raunchier elements of the Attitude Era; certainly, the days of cross promotion with Playboy are gone. I sympathise but, to me, this is hardly an important aspect of wrestling. To be honest, I would much rather the women in the company were valued for their wrestling ability than their physical appearance and sexiness although, lately, it seems that they are valued for neither! To quote Kevin Nash, “if I want to watch girls, I’ll watch girls – if I want to watch wrestling, I’ll watch wrestling”. If we never see another lingerie pillow fight I sincerely doubt that I’ll lose any sleep over it.
The flip side of all this is, of course, the opportunity it presents to TNA. Everything WWE stops doing they do more of. If these really are important issues to fans then we should see a shift in viewing patterns. Ideally, we’ll end up with a situation where two distinct groups of fans get exactly what they want from their respective federation, and everybody will be happy. It’s early days yet but so far, TNA do not seem to be making any inroads into WWE’s viewing figures. This may mean that PG is actually not that important an issue to the majority of fans but it could equally mean that brand loyalty is more important, that TNA still need to increase fan awareness of their product or even that TNA’s product is so poor that the fans who want blood and adult situations back in WWE still won’t watch it. Only time will tell on this one.
Some of Vince’s own comments are particularly telling on this issue, as well. More than once in the last year or so, he has attacked TNA for their content while insisting that they are not in competition with WWE. Vince recently told the Hersam Acorn Newspaper that TNA are “in the pro wrasslin’ business, we’re in the entertainment business”. Ignoring for the moment the ludicrous idea that a company called World Wrestling Entertainment are not in the wrestling business, the point is that Vince sees himself as being in competition with the likes of Disney. I pointed out in my piece “Vince McMahon and the Rise of the World Wrestling Federation” that that was how Vince was positioning his company even in the ‘80s. This is the key point for everyone to bear in mind. WWE will always, sooner or later, gravitate to the family friendly market because that is Vince’s dream. McDonald’s, Walmart, Disney, Baseball, WWE, that is what Vince really wants to achieve. The only hope for the fans that dream of a return to the Attitude Era is that TNA will achieve success through a more adult oriented show. Only that will force Vince to re-evaluate his position and move away from PG programming.
Marshall Law 