Fifth Horseman
Creepy Little Bastard 
Posts 86
Registered 1-15-2006 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 8-28-2009 at 05:55 PM |
|
|
Correctable (?) WWE TV issues
To piggyback on DKB's fine topic, as it is similar to something I've thought about posting for a while. Watching a full episode of Raw
has been a struggle for a long time now; its flaws are also apparent on Smackdown and even ECW, to a degree. It requires a suspension of belief that
boggles my mind, and in my opinion, it requires a major overhaul that just won't happen.
In a blurry world where we all know Vince runs the show, we are made to believe that every Monday night, the production crew and a full roster of
wrestlers descend on a town, with thousands of waiting paying customers, ready to perform at precisely 7:00 Eastern... but the show hardly ever starts
with a MATCH? When an "unscheduled" monologue or skit starts the show, am I supposed to believe that the Raw director just said, "Turn on the
cameras?"
It's silly stuff like that that bothers me. The camera backstage that no one seems to notice - and again, the director supposedly thought
it'd be a good idea to waste time and resources away from the ring. The cued-up entrance music for guys that "appear out of nowhere" - no one
knew he was in the building except the sound guy? The timed-to-the-15th-minute segments that lack any spontaneity at all? Interview segments
mid-show that kill the flow of the actual wrestling?
Stuff like that. I know it's all scripted. I know they use the TV to create stories and sell PPVs. But I think it's due for an
overhaul. I would never attend Raw knowing that I'm a captive viewer for two hours.
I'll post again, with some suggestions, but do you guys have any? Or am I just making something out of nothing?
|
|
|
DKBroiler
SpeciASSl CUMedian
Posts 163
Registered 1-25-2008 Location Exit 5, New Jersey Member Is Offline Mood: meh...
|
| posted on 8-28-2009 at 06:35 PM |
|
|
You're totally right. Part of my topic touched on feuds that never intersect. If you want a perfect example of what your looking for you will
have to find tapes of the old ECW.
Back around 1998 ECW used to frequently open shows with a match, that transitioned into a promo, that transitioned to another match or promo and so on
for about the first 20 to 25 minutes of the show. Stuff was coming at you from every direction and kept you on the edge of your seat until the first
commercial break.
While anyone with a brain knows that the WWE is scripted it shouldn't feel like it's scripted. We have lost the "anything can happen"
vibe almost entirely.
"DKBroiler may kinda suck*, but not even one-tenth as bad as I've seen other people suck on other parts of the intarwebs..." -The Rick, August
2009
|
|
|
OORick
Hammer in Transition 
Posts 1257
Registered 12-27-2001 Location - The Birthplace of Aviation Member Is Offline Mood: Evil
|
| posted on 8-28-2009 at 07:08 PM |
|
|
I once did a whole column on this issue... a quick search, however, hasn't turned it up, so it might have been a column from my SportsLine
phase, in which case it may be lost for the ages.
But from my memory, my over-riding thesis was that WWE should present their shows as if they were "in our universe" (note: this was well before
"WWE Universe" was a marketing term). That is to say, present everything as if it were real, and never do anything that would require a seperate
reality from the space and time occupied by the fans.
From this one guideline, I then formulated a bunch of related mini-rules that sprang forth from the main rule... stuff about camera placement/usage,
about continuity (including a rule about how EVERY wrestler knows EVERY thing that happens on TV; no more "privileged" knowledge where a skit
happens in one reality, and airs on worldwide TV, but somehow in OUR reality, key performers don't know about it), about pacing/format of the
shows, about a whole bunch of stuff.
And it all flowed logically out of the idea that WWE shows needed to be presented in "our" reality, not some alternate, scripted dimension; that if
you couldn't do something on a TV broadcast of a live sporting event, that you SHOULDN'T do it as part of a wrestling event, basically.
I seem to remember this making a whole hell of a lot of sense to me at the time....
Rick
"He's from Mars, Officer; whiskey does not affect alien beings."
-- Venus Flytrap speaking on The Rick
|
|
|
blackdragon
The Great One 
Posts 3231
Registered 11-9-2003 Member Is Offline Mood: Awesome
|
| posted on 8-28-2009 at 07:46 PM |
|
|
I love how on at least one of Impact's live specials they started the show with a bloody Daniels getting Ole Kicked by Joe. It's like
Monday you just go through with a fifteen minute opening promo, then Thursday WHAM "what the fuck is going on?"
Not that every show needs to start that way, but I'd like a few more cold opens. And maybe I'm crazy, but wouldn't it be cool if
every now and then, we got some "one hour ago" footage prior to the show?
Didn't WWF do that once upon a time? I really liked when Biker Taker was showing either Orlando Jordan or big Australian guy some moves in an
empty arena prior to that night's show. It just seemed like something more people would do.
Like FH alluded to, it's nice to think the wrestlers don't magically appear at the arena at the exact moment the show should start.
A ho fucks everybody. A bitch fucks everybody but you.
|
|
|
southermagu
Rated R Superstar 
Posts 288
Registered 1-11-2006 Location Louisville Member Is Offline Mood: Engaged
|
| posted on 8-28-2009 at 08:11 PM |
|
|
I've always felt it very lazy that the writer's always felt the need to pretend the camera isn't there.
When two guys are conniving with one another, why the hell do they let the camera crew into their locker room?
Most of the time, these guys don't need the promo time. Why not just have them in the background of someone else's promo?
All wrestling shows would be much deeper if simple little things happened to break up the monotony.
Would it be too much to ask that Legacy beat the crap out of HHH backstage, eventually brawling to the entrance ramp? During, I don't know, Evan
Bourne's match? Giving him the tough decision of whether or not to help out HHH?
I've been a crappy, un-published writer for a long time now and that kind of stuff to me is "free" character development.
It would allow multiple characters to engage in actions that further their development in the eyes of the audience.
Hell, add Orton supervising the beatdown but not participating and you have a nice little scene.
In a normal television program, you are observing the characters in a way that the other characters can't. But in wrestling, anyone with
a monitor can observe everything we can.
And, as they have shown time and again, monitors are all over the fucking place!
And again, valuable TV Time could be saved by not showing us every little thing going on. I for one appreciate the old school "Tell you every little
detail of my evil plan" villain, but it doesn't really fit that well in what WWE is trying to present.
Unless Orton is on RAW next week wearing a metal mask and green cape or CM Punk starts hanging out with a group of like minded people he refers to as
the "Brotherhood of Evil" it will never work.
(I fully support both of these ideas, btw.)
It's so simple, but no one is willing to challenge the norm at all.
|
|
|
Fifth Horseman
Creepy Little Bastard
Posts 86
Registered 1-15-2006 Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 8-28-2009 at 09:54 PM |
|
|
Rick - the sad thing is, none of those suggestions from way back when had anything to do with a guest host.
Why would Vince hand over control to, say, Shaq for two hours knowing that he could schedule an ironman match featuring Chris Masters and Festus,
followed by a barbed wire match with the Divas, then a sit-down interview with Primo? How LUCKY is it that these guest GMs are following all the
storylines and making sure that "their" Raw is using the best talent possible?
Bah.
|
|
|
Biff_Manly
Rated R Superstar 
Posts 332
Registered 6-16-2006 Member Is Offline Mood: Old School
|
| posted on 8-29-2009 at 12:47 AM |
|
|
Ah, you have to remember, Vince didn't set up the guest host thing. It was Trump who set it up after he "purchased" RAW. I guess we could
explain the continuation by it being a clause in the contract when he sold it back to Vince.
The fact taht the guest hosts rarely schedule any matches that are outside the realm of WWE think is just a fortunate coincidence or maybe
reaffirmation that the WWE has it's finger on the pulse of pop culture.
"Walter: I can solve everything by making this gramophone have sex with time."
--SCSA's Fringe on Ice Holiday Spectacular.
|
|
|
knuckleballschwartz
Rated R Superstar
Posts 273
Registered 5-24-2006 Member Is Offline Mood: on strike
|
| posted on 8-29-2009 at 12:00 PM |
|
|
couldn't agree more. imagine the whole gtv storyline in modern wwe where everyone already does their plotting, adultery and/or illadvised
conversations about other wrestlers in front of a full wwe tv camera crew...its retarded. I think you can have some leeway within a single
week's show on the basis the other guy involved may be warming up or whatever and not in front of a tv but he should turn up next week fully up
to speed.
|
|
|
Brodoteau
And I am AWESOME 
Posts 142
Registered 4-27-2004 Location Under a heap of Canadian snow Member Is Offline Mood: Irrelevant
|
| posted on 8-30-2009 at 02:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by southermagu
I've always felt it very lazy that the writer's always felt the need to pretend the camera isn't there.
When two guys are conniving with one another, why the hell do they let the camera crew into their locker room?
But this assumes that WWE operates its show as a sports show. When it simply is not.
While I agree with the above situations -- I used to love when JJ Dillon or Bobby Heenan would claim they "paid the cameraman" to follow them
around or when something was happening in the back you would get those 30 seconds of the cameraman running to find the action -- they are not
necessary unless you view RAW like its Monday Night Football. But its not, it's a Reality Show.
So the conceit of Reality TV is that the cameras are always rolling and people are always being filmed -- like Big Brother or Survivor.
So using the Reality Show heuristic, then most of the above "problems" make perfect sense.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
|
|
|
Semaj B.
Rated R Superstar
Posts 261
Registered 11-5-2004 Member Is Offline Mood: Eh, not so much
|
| posted on 8-30-2009 at 11:30 PM |
|
|
Bro, the thing with Reality TV is that the interview/scheming segments are not done live, which in the case of Raw is part of the appeal, so other
contestants don't know about the plans their co-"stars" are making.
If you want to follow the "camera's are always rolling" concept then that would be actually cool, but then when schemes were being hatched,
you'd have the wrestlers kick the camera crew out with the associated hammering on doors and with announcers indignantly stating "they
can't do that!" The Rick's old post about wrestling universe consistency, had this in it too. It's ok for the camera to be
everywhere as long as the wrestlers act like they know it's there. If the camera is always invisible then keep it that way. Wrestlers should
never interact with the camera or production crew.
I say go with the cameras rolling constantly idea and I advocate WWE selling themselves as the first and most successful "Reality" TV show.
|
|
|
Brodoteau
And I am AWESOME
Posts 142
Registered 4-27-2004 Location Under a heap of Canadian snow Member Is Offline Mood: Irrelevant
|
| posted on 8-31-2009 at 12:28 AM |
|
|
Semaj, I agree with what you are saying, but surely those people on Reality Shows know that once the show airs everyone will see their confessions,
yet they still make them. Now I understand that these shows are not live and usually air months after they are taped, but the same reasoning you
state below would surely deter some people from saying some of the things they do?
Also I am simply finding it much easier to believe that the performers are so used to the "cameras always rolling" that they have forgotten they are
there -- I can live with that (especially in a universe that requires me to believe that if a wrestler gets whipped into the ropes, he will
immediately spring back.) Even if I don't like it and prefer the more realistic approach of the performers having access to the same
information that everyone else does (which I think is the most frustrating inconsistency).
And when was the last time an "evil plan" actually was captured on camera? Usually the performers turn away from the camera and whisper.
All that being said, I think the point is that RAW (and WWE) is probably closer to "Hell's Kitchen" and "America's Next Top Model"
then to Monday Night Football or any sports coverage and, as you mention, there is nothing wrong with that. It could, in fact, be a selling point.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
|
|
|
atothej
Totally Fucking Banned 
Posts 2121
Registered 12-21-2002 Location Philly Member Is Offline Mood: No Mood.
|
| posted on 8-31-2009 at 01:28 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brodoteau
Semaj, I agree with what you are saying, but surely those people on Reality Shows know that once the show airs everyone will see their confessions,
yet they still make them. Now I understand that these shows are not live and usually air months after they are taped, but the same reasoning you
state below would surely deter some people from saying some of the things they do?
I think that the distinction Semaj is drawing is a bit different. Because Raw is live, the potential victim of someone's evil plan could simply
watch the show and thwart the plan by being aware of it. With the reality shows, sure, someone could look like a bad person when their confessions
air, but they wouldn't be jeopardizing their plot by airing it live to their potential victims.
Your momma's so fat, Dave Meltzer gave her struggling to put her jeans on in the morning five stars. -- FF, destroying Jeb, his momma, and
Meltzer in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
LuckyLopez
Reeks of WCW 
Posts 10308
Registered 2-13-2003 Location Boarding the Titanic Member Is OnlineMood: Dying
|
| posted on 8-31-2009 at 01:54 AM |
|
|
Exactly. That's the clear problem with the reality TV comparison. Reality shows happen in the past. They stick 7 people in a house, fill it
with cameras, document their lives, take it to a production studio, edit it, and then run it. When the show is airing those 7 people are sitting
there watching it on their couches just like us. Which means confessing your secrets and lies poses no further threat then the basic confession
because the other 6 people won't hear about it for months. This is not the way RAW works. RAW is live and even the taped events are run out in
constant succession. The turn around on the most taped show is 3 or 4 weeks and that's in TNA, in WWE a show is rarely more than 3 days old, a
RAW is almost never taped, and PPVs are always live. The reality show excuse falls flat because all it takes to be as clued into RAW as we are is a
TV. That's it. If you decide somehow there's no closed circuit monitors or TVs set up they make little portable ones. You can stream it
online. When Evolution waits in the parking lot HHH's wife can text him to warn him. It takes a ridiculous amount of suspension of disbelief
for this stuff to work. And we're all agreeing to a basic level of it, way more than most people would about their shows... but WWE pushes it
as a rule. Because they don't believe they should have to do otherwise, they believe they exist in their own world by their own rules that
should not be questioned or referenced.
quote:
Originally posted by Biff_Manly
Ah, you have to remember, Vince didn't set up the guest host thing. It was Trump who set it up after he "purchased" RAW. I guess we could
explain the continuation by it being a clause in the contract when he sold it back to Vince.
The week after Vince bought the show back he very clearly said that he was making the decision to keep the guest host thing going. He came out and
said the "free RAW" thing wouldn't fly but he liked the guest host idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Fifth Horseman
The cued-up entrance music for guys that "appear out of nowhere" - no one knew he was in the building except the sound guy?
In fairness this one isn't actually terribly implausible. A skilled and quick witted production crew with good organization has a nice
collection of cues on a couple of discs that they can call up the right music or sound in a second or two. And media travels light so it really
doesn't cost anything to pack a disc of classic themes for Hall of Famers and... wait a second... its 2009. Some dude is sitting there with a
computer and the production equivalent of iTunes with every wrestler's theme from history. All it takes is a second to find it to play it.
I've done that stuff with far less advanced tech, mind you in nothing quite as chaotic as a live wrestling broadcast, but on live radio shows
and in production studios as a switcher jumping from camera to camera. Its actually the nature of production and its the reason there's actual
levels of skill. And I wasn't too great at it.
I basically agree with everything else everyone said, though. Its been one of my most constant complaints about wrestling and WWE in particular and
its the easiest way possible to turn me off to what you're doing.
|
|
|
knuckleballschwartz
Rated R Superstar
Posts 273
Registered 5-24-2006 Member Is Offline Mood: on strike
|
| posted on 8-31-2009 at 02:31 AM |
|
|
I do like the idea of the odd non-live show being given that reality tv post-action interview treatment though - it could be awesome to cut from the
end of a match to a gloating heel promo looking back fondly on his outrageous behaviour or a gutted face talking about how shocked he was at the
moment his tag team partner betrayed him.
|
|
|
theflammablemanimal
Showstopper
Posts 713
Registered 9-2-2008 Member Is Offline Mood: missing his ava
|
| posted on 8-31-2009 at 04:28 PM |
|
|
I feel like they did away with the "Anything can happen" vibe years ago when they started using video packages etc to announce the debut/return of
any wrestler. I much prefer just having the wrestler make a surprise return, like the undertaker just did.
Also, someone mentioned it's unrealistic for all the wrestler's to show up on time every week. I think it's more unrealistic that
we're always awaiting the arrival of "X" wrestler. In the construct of the show, this is their job, which only lasts 2 hours each week, and
they can't show up on time? And the GM/Mcmahon doesn't care?
|
|
|
Brodoteau
And I am AWESOME
Posts 142
Registered 4-27-2004 Location Under a heap of Canadian snow Member Is Offline Mood: Irrelevant
|
| posted on 8-31-2009 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
I understand what everyone is saying about the "live TV" aspect and I agree that the WWE is not consistent with their presentation. But the point I
was trying to make was that the above comparisons to RAW being a sports show are not valid. It's closer to being "The Hills" then ESPN.
Even if you factor in the Live TV aspect of the show, the concept the "cameras always rolling" still applies and is still a believable suspension of
disbelief on par with anything else we see during the show.
Fine, you want to explain it is unreasonable that the Triple H's wife didn't text him ahead of time that he is going to be jumped by heels
once he gets there because the cameras show it. OK, that's valid and reasonable -- but then shouldn't we also expect that Triple
H's wife would call the cops and have the heels arrested? Why are they even allowed to wait for Triple H in the first place? Why is security
sitting on its ass and not doing anything to prevent this future problem? And even if he did get beat up then why isn't Triple H charging the
villains with assault?
Why do we expect the wrestlers to act reasonably in one situation (not sharing their plans/feelings while on camera) and then don't care when
they don't act reasonably in another (assaulting people with deadly weapons).
Not trying to apologize for the WWE's lack of inconsistency, but while irritating, I don't think the "cameras always rolling" approach
to live TV makes it more outlandish.
What reasonable person is going to walk out before an audience and insult them before his match so that they purposely hate him? Why do we expect
that the same dick who believes himself so great that he can deride 20,000 people would then have the good sense not to talk about what he is going to
do while the cameras are on him? If he's a giant douchebag who acts unreasonably then it's not out of character for him.
Further, in the context of the wrestling universe, I don't find the idea that they are showing up late distressing when you consider the idea
that wrestlers are supposed to be like UFC fighters or boxers and are scheduled for matches (For which they then get paid more depending on the match
they are in. Even when you grant the idea that their are guaranteed contracts, theoretically the WWE Champ would have a bigger pay-day than some
jobber because he is wrestling in a championship match.) So the wrestler is only scheduled to fight at a certain time of the night in order to "earn
his pay". So if he is scheduled to wrestle at, say, 10:30, then wouldn't it be the wrestler's prerogative if he only wanted to show up
for his match 30 minutes before? (Assuming the GM doesn't have a standing policy that everyone must show up a certain time).
What's more troubling to me is that the entire roster shows up to RAW every week even if they aren't "scheduled" to wrestle. By the
same logic as above, if I am not scheduled to wrestle in a match that night, why am I there? Especially since I'm not going to get paid. Does
Randy Couture show up to every UFC PPV on the off-chance that he'll be booked in a last minute match? When's the last time Dana White
forced Brock Lesnar into a match that he hadn't trained for or been scheduled to fight? And wouldn't it be a huge waste of RAW's
resources to demand that every wrestler attend every RAW just on the off-chance that they might use them?
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
|
|
|
southermagu
Rated R Superstar
Posts 288
Registered 1-11-2006 Location Louisville Member Is Offline Mood: Engaged
|
| posted on 8-31-2009 at 08:46 PM |
|
|
Brodoteau,
I thought you're "Reality TV" comparison was good, if flawed. Those are the rules I think they want to play by. Sadly, they also
want to ignore those rules pretty much all the time.
That's about right for wrestling, I'd say.
On the topic of wrestlers showing up late, keep in mind that The Boss (whomever that might be) could decide that, tonight he's going to hold a
"#1 Contenders Fill in the blank".
It might behoove you to be there on time as no wrestling program (even PPV's) are presented as set in stone. Besides, in the example above you
are given the opportunity to earn a shot at "the title". That'd be akin to the Bengals playing the Patriots in preseason, only for the
Commissioner to declare beforehand that the winner is going to be in the Superbowl.
That's where the suspension of disbelief comes into play. We want to believe that anything can happen and that is what they choose to
present.
(And I'd be willing to bet that most top line UFC fighters are present at the PPV's. You never know who's going to pull a
Nash and tear their quad.)
What vexes some of us is the fact that they willingly disregard that as a concept in favor of simply punching us in the face with "plot".
The fact is, we'd hate Randy Orton a lot more if he didn't tell us he was going to jump the face because we wouldn't spend
the whole show or match waiting for it.
I mean, if HBK is in the ring entertaining us and all of a sudden Orton and Legacy come out and clobber him with a chair, we're going to be a
little upset at that. If he says that he's going to do it an hour beforehand, we're just kind of waiting for it.
That's why the show opens with a promo most of the time. You can't have that skit from last week with Vince and DX end with Legacy jumping
DX as a suprise if you have them cut a promo about it, and since they haven't yet started dueling, parallel promos they won't do anything
like that.
Again, this makes me ask the question: Why do they forget this during the show?
|
|
|
LuckyLopez
Reeks of WCW
Posts 10308
Registered 2-13-2003 Location Boarding the Titanic Member Is OnlineMood: Dying
|
| posted on 8-31-2009 at 10:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brodoteau
I understand what everyone is saying about the "live TV" aspect and I agree that the WWE is not consistent with their presentation. But the point I
was trying to make was that the above comparisons to RAW being a sports show are not valid. It's closer to being "The Hills" then ESPN.
Even if you factor in the Live TV aspect of the show, the concept the "cameras always rolling" still applies and is still a believable suspension of
disbelief on par with anything else we see during the show.
You know what? I'm just going to have to disagree entirely with your hypothesis. The "cameras are always rolling" is NOT an aspect of WWE
TV. In reality TV that applies to the idea that 24/7 the cameras are rolling. If these folks do something at 2 AM or if an interesting matter pops
up at 7 AM they'll have footage. There is no escape. This doesn't apply to WWE at ALL. In fact WWE TV often presents itself as if
nothing happens outside of the 2 hours of TV a week. During those 2 hours the cameras are rolling but (a) many things go unseen, and (b) this is no
different from a sporting event which broadcasts live and during that live broadcast catches everything it can get access to including interviews and
footage in the locker room and clubhouse.
WWE is scripted. That's about where I see the reality TV comparison or the "more reality TV than sports event" idea beginning and ending.
WWE isn't a sports event or reality television. Its Roller Derby. A staged sports event. WMAC Masters. To that end it mimics a sports event
while taking some dramatic liberties. It is NOT reality TV.
quote:
Fine, you want to explain it is unreasonable that the Triple H's wife didn't text him ahead of time that he is going to be jumped
by heels once he gets there because the cameras show it. OK, that's valid and reasonable -- but then shouldn't we also expect that Triple
H's wife would call the cops and have the heels arrested? Why are they even allowed to wait for Triple H in the first place? Why is security
sitting on its ass and not doing anything to prevent this future problem? And even if he did get beat up then why isn't Triple H charging the
villains with assault?
Why do we expect the wrestlers to act reasonably in one situation (not sharing their plans/feelings while on camera) and then don't care when
they don't act reasonably in another (assaulting people with deadly weapons).
1) Many of us don't differentiate one irrational aspect from another. Many of us find them all insulting and stupid.
2) SOME of them are just ingrained into the idea of wrestling because its the only way that wrestling works. Almost any debate about police or
security falls into that category. In this world wrestlers routinely do criminal things to each other which they then by some insane logic decide to
settle in a wrestling match. Its insane but its basically the basis for wrestling. That everything can be settled in the ring because that's
the most important thing. Its illogical but its one of those things we all basically agree to to make any of this work, just like when watching
sci-fi or horror you have to make a few exceptions to the world for this to make sense. The problem comes when the wrestling company introduces
police or security to the equation because that opens the door for inconsistency and questions.
quote:
What reasonable person is going to walk out before an audience and insult them before his match so that they purposely hate him?
Lots of stand up comics who made a career out of being rude and insulting? Many athletes who don't give a crap about fans and are generally
unlikable people? Damn near any rock star who ever partied too hard?
quote:
Why do we expect that the same dick who believes himself so great that he can deride 20,000 people would then have the good sense not to talk
about what he is going to do while the cameras are on him? If he's a giant douchebag who acts unreasonably then it's not out of character
for him.
I truly don't see the logical connection between "Giant Asshole" and "Total Moron." They seem like mutually exclusive ideas to me.
quote:
Further, in the context of the wrestling universe, I don't find the idea that they are showing up late distressing when you consider the
idea that wrestlers are supposed to be like UFC fighters or boxers and are scheduled for matches (For which they then get paid more depending on the
match they are in. Even when you grant the idea that their are guaranteed contracts, theoretically the WWE Champ would have a bigger pay-day than some
jobber because he is wrestling in a championship match.) So the wrestler is only scheduled to fight at a certain time of the night in order to "earn
his pay". So if he is scheduled to wrestle at, say, 10:30, then wouldn't it be the wrestler's prerogative if he only wanted to show up
for his match 30 minutes before? (Assuming the GM doesn't have a standing policy that everyone must show up a certain time).
I'm pretty sure that if you look at almost any sports promoter, owner, or coach you'd find it pretty consistent that they wished their
athletes to be in attendance much sooner than 30 minutes prior to their scheduled competition. Its something I've personally never gotten
hugely bothered by, especially since its USUALLY used for arrogant heels and thus them being casual with things and showing up on their own schedule
makes sense. But I think Dana White would be pretty pissed off if Brock Lesnar didn't show up until 30 minutes before his fight, casually
wandering in mid-PPV.
quote:
What's more troubling to me is that the entire roster shows up to RAW every week even if they aren't "scheduled" to wrestle. By
the same logic as above, if I am not scheduled to wrestle in a match that night, why am I there? Especially since I'm not going to get paid.
Does Randy Couture show up to every UFC PPV on the off-chance that he'll be booked in a last minute match? When's the last time Dana
White forced Brock Lesnar into a match that he hadn't trained for or been scheduled to fight? And wouldn't it be a huge waste of
RAW's resources to demand that every wrestler attend every RAW just on the off-chance that they might use them?
Plain and simple, you're WRONG to think of WWE as MMA/boxing. A WWE PPV might work by that logic but that's it. RAW, ECW, or SD are
different things. Its a contracted roster of competitors with few if any pre-scheduled bouts. By basic logic it IS a case where the entire RAW
roster is instructed to be there and if you're used, you're used. Again, the best comparison I can draw is WMAC Masters or maybe American
Gladiators where all "Masters/Gladiators" are in attendance but not all are used. Essentially everyone else is left on the bench like the 12th man
for the Bulls or like up to a dozen players will for any given baseball team.
PPVs have previously announced scheduled matches that are built to. THOSE are like boxing or MMA cards. But the episodic TV is entirely different
beast and while its not "reality TV" its definitely not "boxing/MMA" based.
|
|
|
Brodoteau
And I am AWESOME
Posts 142
Registered 4-27-2004 Location Under a heap of Canadian snow Member Is Offline Mood: Irrelevant
|
| posted on 9-1-2009 at 02:14 AM |
|
|
In general Lucky, I think we have to agree to disagree. I never said, however, that RAW was a Reality TV show, I said it was like one and using that
idea solves a lot of the complaints that were listed in previous posts. In a little greater detail:
1. Of course wrestling is its own animal (what would it be classified under if it ever was nominated for an Emmy? Variety programming?) but as
mentioned by southermangu, what does the WWE WANT itself to be compared to? I think the writers are more comfortable saying the show is closer to
"Girls Next Door" than to ESPN.
2. Yes the WWE violates their own rules. Yes they don't follow people, outside of Crash Holly's title reign, around 24/7 and yes the
cameras don't capture everything (though they don't in Reality TV either -- unless you've seen Gordan Ramsay have the cameras follow
him home on an episode of Kitchen Nightmares or you've seen someone take a shit on America's Next Top Model) but, my point was, it is a
more useful idea to believe that the cameras are always on (and follow some people more than others) than to suspect that they magically appear and
disappear. Lots of shows have this conceit. If you want to say that RAW is closer to "The Office" or "Trailer Park Boys" than Survivor, then
fine, but all of those are supposed to be "reality based".
Would it be nice if WWE showed more consistency. Absolutely. Would it be nice if the WWE went back to treating the cameras as outsiders that had to
"find stories"? Absolutely. I've already stated that I preferred this in a previous post. But the fact is, the WWE makes more sense when
you view it as a Reality Series.
3. You are really comparing wrestling heels to comedians, sports stars and rock stars? Really? Andrew Dice Clay might have been a misogynist pig on
stage but he didn't want everyone to hate him -- otherwise who would come to his show. When was the last time that T.O. (seen as unlikeable by
many) plotted to bury Donovan McNabb alive? Bill Laimbeer was hated by every team in the league but he never insulted the fans in Detroit.
4. Your memory is not very long if you don't think that WWE and Wrestling in General courted the boxing analogy for a very long time. Through
the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and into the 90s wrestling completely wanted to ape boxing and that kind of fighting. There is a reason why Ric Flair,
Gorgeous George, Paul Orndorff etc. all wore robes to the ring. And I still think they like this analogy to help tell storylines look at Kevin
Nash's "I'm in it for the money" character on TNA.
But fine, I can accept that the RAW is episodic and improvisational and that the roster is expected to be there and that they all are contracted to
show up a certain time. Even if that makes no sense, and in my mind actually would make for worse television. I'll even buy that the WWE is
like a sports team, and like Chelsea or Barcelona, they pay big money to have people sit the bench just so other teams can't use them.
But in my mind this opens up all sorts of other difficulties. In this fictional world, what would a WWE talent scout look for? A wrestler's
ability to win matches? What about that wrestler's ability to bring in crowds? What is the criteria? And then why hasn't a wrestler ever
gotten into a contract dispute? Maybe that should be a storyline.
Overall, my hypothesis might be flawed, but, in my mind, it is still better to look at using the "Reality TV" set of rules than that of a sports
event.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
|
|
|
atothej
Totally Fucking Banned
Posts 2121
Registered 12-21-2002 Location Philly Member Is Offline Mood: No Mood.
|
| posted on 9-1-2009 at 02:43 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brodoteau
But in my mind this opens up all sorts of other difficulties. In this fictional world, what would a WWE talent scout look for? A wrestler's
ability to win matches? What about that wrestler's ability to bring in crowds? What is the criteria? And then why hasn't a wrestler ever
gotten into a contract dispute? Maybe that should be a storyline.
There has, with MVP. In fact, they addressed almost all of these criteria explaining that he was a top-notch athlete and very charismatic, so he
demanded a huge contract that was in negotiations for weeks.
The problem with your reality TV analysis is that it ignores so many of the facets of WWE that are different from reality TV.
First, there is the universe being comparatively small. This stuff only exists during the 5 weeks it's on TV. Even on Hell's Kitchen or
Next Top Model, they are sequestered together for the duration of filming. Here, the wrestlers show up for an event and then go elsewhere, where we
rarely see or hear from them (with limited stupid exceptions, e.g. Jeff Hardy's car incident).
The other primary issue is the live, contemporaneous issue. All WWE's shows are treated as live, even the taped ones. Thus, when a wrestler
says he's going to attack another one, he says it in front of a camera that will broadcast it to everyone with a TV, including his declared
target. That is a big difference from the plotting on, say, Big Brother or Survivor.
Finally, you seem to (as Lucky noted) lump all suspension of disbelief together, whereas I think that no wrestling fan does that. The police thing
was addressed above, but it bears repeating that the lack of prosecution for jumping someone backstage is not on the same level as the frequent
attempted murders that have occurred on WWE TV. The former is just a requirement for the show to have storylines, the latter are mind-numbingly
stupid. I don't mind a wrestler "not pressing charges" on an opponent in favor of settling it in the ring, but I think it is retarded when a
wrestler sets another on fire, drives a truck into him, drops him from a huge forklift, or does anything beyond the standard jump-from-behind attack.
In sum, I think that your reality-TV analogy misses too much, while embracing things that are either anathema to professional wrestling, or are the
exact type of things that wrestling fans tend to dislike/hate to defend about it. This is not to say that Vince doesn't want to be a reality
show, it just means that it is the improper way to present the material.
Your momma's so fat, Dave Meltzer gave her struggling to put her jeans on in the morning five stars. -- FF, destroying Jeb, his momma, and
Meltzer in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
LuckyLopez
Reeks of WCW
Posts 10308
Registered 2-13-2003 Location Boarding the Titanic Member Is OnlineMood: Dying
|
| posted on 9-1-2009 at 02:54 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Brodoteau
1. Of course wrestling is its own animal (what would it be classified under if it ever was nominated for an Emmy? Variety programming?) but as
mentioned by southermangu, what does the WWE WANT itself to be compared to? I think the writers are more comfortable saying the show is closer to
"Girls Next Door" than to ESPN.
They could be more comfortable saying that but they'd have to make a real strong case as to why it made any sense. Because it doesn't to
me.
quote:
2. Yes the WWE violates their own rules. Yes they don't follow people, outside of Crash Holly's title reign, around 24/7 and yes
the cameras don't capture everything (though they don't in Reality TV either -- unless you've seen Gordan Ramsay have the cameras
follow him home on an episode of Kitchen Nightmares or you've seen someone take a shit on America's Next Top Model) but, my point was, it
is a more useful idea to believe that the cameras are always on (and follow some people more than others) than to suspect that they magically appear
and disappear.
It might be more useful if you're trying to justify it but its not in any way consistent with what we see nor logical. Its a BS excuse.
quote:
Lots of shows have this conceit. If you want to say that RAW is closer to "The Office" or "Trailer Park Boys" than Survivor, then fine,
but all of those are supposed to be "reality based".
The Office also is a very poor comparison because of its format. RAW is not happening in some undisclosed past time like the Office is. For our
purposes The Office is nothing more than a fictionalized reality show. And in that regard like Survivor or Real World it still has the distinct
difference from RAW that it happens, is filmed, is packaged, and THEN aired once it is all finished. Thus these issues we're raising
don't exist. They do however exist with shows that go live or no later than a few days after they happen. Which creates all sorts of basic
flaws with the reality show comparison.
quote:
Would it be nice if WWE showed more consistency. Absolutely. Would it be nice if the WWE went back to treating the cameras as outsiders that
had to "find stories"? Absolutely. I've already stated that I preferred this in a previous post. But the fact is, the WWE makes more sense
when you view it as a Reality Series.
I just don't see how your framework fits WWE at all. If I COULD view RAW as a reality show would it make more sense? Sure, maybe. But I
can't. That's not its nature. It doesn't fit the mold.
quote:
3. You are really comparing wrestling heels to comedians, sports stars and rock stars? Really? Andrew Dice Clay might have been a misogynist
pig on stage but he didn't want everyone to hate him -- otherwise who would come to his show. When was the last time that T.O. (seen as
unlikeable by many) plotted to bury Donovan McNabb alive? Bill Laimbeer was hated by every team in the league but he never insulted the fans in
Detroit.
Now you're just moving the goal posts. You asked whether any sane performer would intentionally antagonize his audience. Yes. Clay DID
intentionally antagonize people. Shock jocks like Stern and Imus intentionally antagonize their audiences. Athletes like Allen Iverson and Barry
Bonds have antagonized the fans. Have you never seen Brock Lesnar or Tito Ortiz in UFC? To further expect me to draw comparisons like "TO plotting
to bury McNabb alive" is just intellectually dishonest. That wasn't the question and it changes matters. Because then we're just back
to the fact that this is fiction and these are fiction characters doing things that wouldn't fly in the real world.
But if you don't think some performers are intentional assholes because it helps spur their entertainment level? Or because the situation
dictates a bad guy making sense? Of course its not the same situation as wrestling because wrestling is, as you said, its own animal. But if
you're telling me the presence of clearly antagonistic assholes makes WWE less real? I'm calling you naive.
quote:
4. Your memory is not very long if you don't think that WWE and Wrestling in General courted the boxing analogy for a very long time.
Through the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and into the 90s wrestling completely wanted to ape boxing and that kind of fighting. There is a reason why Ric Flair,
Gorgeous George, Paul Orndorff etc. all wore robes to the ring. And I still think they like this analogy to help tell storylines look at Kevin
Nash's "I'm in it for the money" character on TNA.
That's super. But that's not what weekly RAWs or Impacts are about. They ABANDONED that approach when they started going live with top
quality action weekly and 12+ PPVs a month. The old days of wrestling are dead and gone and never coming back.
quote:
But fine, I can accept that the RAW is episodic and improvisational and that the roster is expected to be there and that they all are
contracted to show up a certain time. Even if that makes no sense, and in my mind actually would make for worse television. I'll even buy that
the WWE is like a sports team, and like Chelsea or Barcelona, they pay big money to have people sit the bench just so other teams can't use
them.
You think the 12th man on an NBA team is signed so someone else doesn't get him? A baseball team has 25 players. 25 players don't play
every game. Some of them play daily. Some have specific situations they're called on for. Some are backups. They all have real purposes that
CAN come up any day, and thus all 25 show up. Of course when we apply this logic to RAW we're forced to ask questions like how valuable Festus
really is if he's never used. But this is no different than baseball fans questioning the purpose of a 7th reliever who is never used.
quote:
But in my mind this opens up all sorts of other difficulties. In this fictional world, what would a WWE talent scout look for? A
wrestler's ability to win matches? What about that wrestler's ability to bring in crowds? What is the criteria? And then why hasn't
a wrestler ever gotten into a contract dispute? Maybe that should be a storyline.
You mean like the stories they did routinely after the Brand Split, the way GM's trade wrestlers, the way sometimes a wrestler changes brands
saying he was underused elsewhere, the way the Main Event Mafia threaten to leave TNA with their titles, and the entire basis for MVP's
character?
quote:
Overall, my hypothesis might be flawed, but, in my mind, it is still better to look at using the "Reality TV" set of rules than that of a
sports event.
Look, I'm not trying to start a fight with you. I realize my writing style is often taken as harsh and rude and can often be seen as "piling
on." I'm simply in flat out disagreement with you here. It might be easier to see wrestling through the lens of "Reality TV" but it simply
doesn't fit in that view as far as I can tell. And with all due respect, I don't see the argument you're making that it does.
Viewing it as a "sports event" might not be ideal either, but it certainly seems a hell of a lot closer to me. In truth wrestling is in a category
with shows like Rollerjam and WMAC Masters. A very small genre of fictionalized sporting events. A small genre because its not easy to sell to the
audience. That's not reality TV and its not sports. And yes, at heart its a "variety show." But if they had to emulate one of those
non-fiction genres the clear answer seems to be the one they're already emulating. Sports.
|
|
|
Brodoteau
And I am AWESOME
Posts 142
Registered 4-27-2004 Location Under a heap of Canadian snow Member Is Offline Mood: Irrelevant
|
| posted on 9-1-2009 at 05:03 AM |
|
|
Look, in all honesty, I am not trying to be antagonistic or argue for the sake of arguing and I promise this is my last post on this, as I don't
want to be the Reality TV defender when I've admitted there are flaws in the model (just as you've admitted that there are flaws in the
sports event model) but I think you are misreading a few things including why I made the comparison in the first place:
1. In all honesty, Vince McMahon would probably be pleased to compare RAW to "Friday Night Lights" (maybe a bad comparison but the first that comes
to mind) or movies like "Hoosiers" or some other show that uses sports as the vehicle to fuel the soap opera elements. But it's not
completely that either because of the live dimension you mentioned and other considerations. Has this been the WWE's preferred way of viewing
their product? I'd say yes. But that doesn't change what it is.
But, also, it's not a sporting event. So I am left with the only thing that I see RAW trying to emulate. Why is it unreasonable to believe
that RAW tries to be a "reality sports competition" in the same way that one might say Iron Chef America is a "reality cooking competition" (and
I realize that the latter is not scripted). And while I'm sure you can pick apart my example with minutiae, you get my point.
2. I didn't move the goal posts and my intention was not to be intellectual dishonest. I think it is a bad comparison between a shock jock who
is trying to get ratings by pushing limits (and even Imus was forced to quit) to a wrestling heel whose "sports organization" lets him go out onto
TV and call the fans "fat, ugly losers" with no sanction. I know the Sean Averys of the world exist, but even they get fined for "inappropriate
comments" or are forced to apologize.
So maybe I am naive, but the fictionized point was exactly what I was trying to get at. Heels on wrestling shows act more like comic book
supervillains than normal people. And should be viewed as just that, rather than reasonable people.
Yes there are outlandish assholes in sports but they still act with the normal rules of society or face the consequences (like Michael Vick), while
heels do not.
Meaning that expecting supervillains to act reasonably is only the means to get yourself frustrated.
Again, should the heels act more reasonably and would that better the show? Yes. Of course. That's why Jericho or CM Punk are great heels
right now, because they are, in a sense, reasonable and understandable. They are caricatures of what a reasonable person might do if they were
"turned up to 11".
3. I wasn't suggesting that the 12th man on an NBA team was snatched up because some other team wanted them. But rather that some big teams
grab big name players and don't use them; seemingly how RAW would operate in what I assume would be a non-salary-cap-world -- why would you buy
duds when money is the only limitation? The Chelsea comparison should have clued you into that (my apologies if aren't familiar with
international soccer) as the guy that sits the bench on Chelsea would be a starter in the MLS.
4. I'm not suggesting that all suspension of belief is equal, but rather that we each have certain levels of disbelief that we are willing to
engage. Having Hornswaggle run through a wall: Stupid. Having the camera in the Guest Host's "office" at all times and always running:
somewhat more believable. The first is stupid because it violates natural laws and is completely fictional. The second is not as troubling in a world
where people don't get arrested for assault on a constant basis; even if it is a weak excuse that somewhat violates the perception that the show
is "real".
In my mind, the camera filming everything doesn't violate the concept that everything is "real" as badly as other things on the show BECAUSE
it can be explained away by using a Reality Show comparison? Does the Reality TV comparison solve every problem and every aspect of the show, I admit
it does not. But I still think it is useful model in a 'hybrid" show.
4. Finally, as stated above, the Reality TV comparison is flawed I admit. I've conceded that. Is this not what you want?
But the main reason I mentioned it was because it explains away many of the complaints that appeared in previous posts that were basing RAW on a
sports event model.
Does it apply to all aspects of the show? No. Because, as you mention, "Sports Entertainment" is a weird hybrid that satisfies no one
"model."
But, as far as I'm concerned, it does explain many of the backstage elements that, while distasteful and stupid, are the cause of much of
frustration with WWE TV. (And I still think it is better than RAW trying to sell itself as an "action-adventure show" as the WWE has publicly done
in the past). Would WWE be better if they readjusted back to the total "sports event" model. Yes. But that's not going to happen.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.
|
|
|
LuckyLopez
Reeks of WCW
Posts 10308
Registered 2-13-2003 Location Boarding the Titanic Member Is OnlineMood: Dying
|
| posted on 9-1-2009 at 05:38 AM |
|
|
It just doesn't seem to make sense to me. You can't just say wrestling is "Reality TV" and thus plays by their rules. That's
like just saying your dog is a horse to justify why you saddled him and rode him around the yard. You can call him a horse all you want, but
he's still an exhausted dog with a bad back and a weird owner.
Wrestling doesn't fit the Reality TV framework. For many reasons we've gone over in depth. Its scripted, its live or close to, the
participants are perfectly capable of watching the program live and DO frequently, it does NOT run all the time but rather runs for 2 hours a week. I
honestly don't know that I see ANY real direct comparison between the two. Even a competition like Iron Chef (which is more of a game show than
a "reality tv", but technically game shows get categorized as reality tv so we'll just skip that debate) doesn't seem to compare
favorably seeing as how that's an unscripted direct competition with minimal storytelling outside the competition.
I can appreciate that we all see that wrestling doesn't fit the "sports event" or "dramatic fiction" categories either and you're just
trying to find a right category for it. But "reality TV" isn't it. And it seems like you're trying to shove it in because you think it
HAS to go into one of these categories. It doesn't. Wrestling is its own thing and I think you'll find that most of us are perfectly
willing to judge it on its own with no preconceived expectations. Will we occasionally contrast and compare it to sports events or even reality TV?
Sure. But all in all if wrestling draws up its own world and rules that make sense, we're good.
Calling it reality TV just to justify it when it doesn't fit well into that category at all just makes no sense to me.
Plus, I really don't see how calling it reality TV excuses ANY of the complaints made in this thread but you really didn't address any
directly in your original post so I'll spare us all the deconstruction.
|
|
|
MayhemNX
rOOkie
Posts 21
Registered 11-18-2006 Location Web City Member Is Offline Mood:
|
| posted on 9-1-2009 at 04:19 PM |
|
|
Not to jump into the middle of it here, but I personally believe that WWE falls under one simple category, which is Soap Opera. Now, keep in mind
I'm snarking this definition from another site, but here is the basic format of a soap..
Most soaps follow the lives of a group of characters who live or work in a particular place. The storylines follow the day-to-day lives of these
characters, who seem similar to ordinary people on the street � except that soap opera characters are usually more handsome, beautiful, seductive, and
richer than the typical person watching the TV show. Soap operas take everyday, ordinary lives and exaggerate them to a degree where they are still
believable, yet they are more dramatic.
The most memorable soap opera characters, and the most compelling and popular storylines, have usually involved a romance between two characters, of
the sort often presented in paperback romance novels. Soap opera storylines weave intricate, convoluted, sometimes confusing tales of characters who
have affairs, meet mysterious strangers and fall in love, are swept off their feet by dashing (yet treacherous) lovers, sneak behind their
lovers' backs, and engage in other forms of adultery that keep their audiences returning to find out who is sleeping with whom, who has betrayed
whom, who is having a baby, who is related to each other, and so on.
Remarkable (sometimes unbelievable) coincidences are used to enhance the drama in most soap operas. For example, if a young woman in a soap secretly
has a single sexual encounter with her boyfriend back in high school, this forbidden affair will certainly come back to haunt her several years
later...usually at the very moment that it would cause the most harm (such as on the day of her wedding). Previously-unknown (and often evil) twins
regularly emerge, and unexpected calamities disrupt weddings with unusual frequency. Much like comic books�another popular form of linear
storytelling�a character's death is not guaranteed to be permanent without an on-camera corpse, and sometimes not even then.
Almost everything listed there has occured, or is occuring in WWE currently. A sort of half assed point by point...
1. Every day lives exagerrated - I freely admit my job kinda sucks, and I don't get along with my boss. He schedules me for poor hours sometimes
because of this. Exaggerated, the wwe guys not getting along with a guest host means they get put in a cage match, a handicap match, or apparently a
lumberjack match.
2. Replace Romance with Rivalry (though surely you could put in the strangely odd manlove of Cody Rhodes and Ted Dibiase as romance) and you've
got that. The most compelling story lines are the ones with the best rivalrys, and are often times the most convuluted ones.
3. Remarkable coincidences. This is a staple of WWE from 1 BC till doomsday. The whole "I found my previously unheard of brother whose also a pro
wrestler" story is all too familar. And the less said about Vinnie's death, the better.
Anyway, that's my view point on it.
It was like teabagging a bear cub in front of it's mother. The sheer audacity is the only thing that saved you.
|
|
|
Stu
Caledonian Crippler 
Posts 2342
Registered 5-17-2005 Location Glasgow, Scotland Member Is Offline Mood: Scottish
|
| posted on 9-1-2009 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
Another aspect of the cameras problem is when they actually ARE acknowledged as existing in backstage segments. We saw this this week on Raw where
Legacy were playing along with the idea that Randy and Cody would be having a match against each other, to the point that we see them in the locker
room talking about it like they really expect to be doing it. Why would they do that if they couldn't see the cameras?
Timing is also part of the suspension of disbelief. 99% of the time, matches end while the show is broadcasting, never during the break. Heel/Face
alignments are always shifting enough so there's a roughly 50-50 split at all times, Royal Rumble entrance orders often happen in ways that
service ongoing feuds at the time. And if wrestling is meant to be a legitimate sport within the show's universe, why do we rarely see the
matchups reflect that? Heels don't typically face other heels in matches, title shots seem to be predicated on personal feuds first, followed by
an obligatory qualifying match. And that's often easy to predict the outcome of based on the earlier acts. Even if one didn't know about
Jeff leaving WWE last week ahead of time, the fact Punk is a Heel and has already been attacked by the Face Undertaker pretty much guaranteed
he'd get to Breaking Point as Champion.
The TWO TIME bOOardie Award and Signed Bret Hart DVD Winner!
"Well, Jeff�s puddle throws up the Shocker, so I guess some things never change."
|
|
|
|
