OO Column: Crashing the Boards (Pro Wrestling News, Analysis, and Commentary... WWE, WWF, WCW, ECW, The Rock, Brock Lesnar, Triple H, Rob Van Dam, Hulk Hogan, Undertaker, Trish Stratus, Lita, Stacy Keibler, Divas, RAW, SmackDown, WrestleMania

CRASHING THE BOARDS
Spotlight: The Faces are Jerks;
and Some Notes from a Jerk
June 6, 2003

by YOU, The OO Readers
Compiled by Jeb Lund from the OO Message Boards

[Editor's Note: Since Señor Rick and I are trying to get this Friday ratings project going, Crashing the Boards is going to be trimmed down to the type of column it originally was intended to be: big essays, less cut-and-paste. Sadly, it will also be just as infrequent as it's come to be. But, hopefully, this ratings project we're trying to get going will more than satisfy your Friday-update jones. And great essays and comments on the board will still have an outlet. You just may have to badger me to make sure that outlet is represented. This week, however, no badgering was necessary. One-third of OO's resident female population, Lorraine, kabonged us all with a brilliant post — one that couldn't go unprinted on the main page. Then I tacked on something I had lying around the CtB files — ed.]

The Faces Are Jerks
The faces are jerks.

Recent WWE programming has featured instances of two (or more) faces beating up one heel. Since the often lamented weak heeling is in motion, the viewer isn't particularly worried that the heel is any kind of threat. Without jeopardy there is no justification. Without justification, an unfair fight is bullying.

It's hard to cheer for a bully.

When Austin smashed Rock's prized guitar, when Goldberg speared Rock simply because he didn't care for what Rock had to say, when Brock when given the opportunity to pick his opponent chose to fight middle-aged, non-wrestler Heyman rather than a skilled equal, when Val Venis made sexually harassing comments to the female companion of a competitor, I didn't want to cheer any of those people.

Just like I don't feel the need to cheer the actions of the face involved in the main event for the upcoming Badd Blood pay-per-view.

Compare audience reactions to Nash and H's friendship versus Booker T and Goldust's. We saw Booker and Goldust's loyalty. We saw Goldust feel shame because he felt he was holding Booker back. We saw the fun they had and the hijinks they raised. We cheered that friendship because we saw in them the very things we want in friendship. With Nash and H, we got nothing other than a few mentions of a Kliq.

Cliques usually don't have positive connotations. They bring to mind images of high schoolers pounding on some nerdy kid. Had the WWE spent 30 seconds of air time showing Nash as someone who values friendship and loyalty (maybe saying "Hi" to a couple of former WCWers, maybe calling an injured wrestler to see how he's doing, rather than hyping how much of a tough ass he is), the audience wouldn't need JR and The King constantly hollering about character justification. They'd already know Nash is someone who cares about those close to him and that H is wrong for betraying that. The audience would be rooting for Nash's victory because it would confirm things they've already decided make for a better world. They'd come to the arena or the television wanting to cheer.

So many of the current and recent past storylines get character sympathy totally backwards. Nearly every storyline is counterintuitive to usual storytelling morality. The faces behave maliciously, selfishly, cruelly, jerkishly. They pick on the weak. They react violently with little provocation. They gang up to call Molly Holly fat. These are not characters with their backs to the wall or left with no other options or with any of the thousands of justifiable reasons a face could behave less than facely and still retain face status.

To scrape the last meager spoonful out of the positivity bowl, this could be described as moral ambiguity. But WWE has done enough bottom-of-the-container scraping lately. There needs to be established and maintained rules for conduct and personal ethics before those rules can be tinkered with. All the majority of current storylines reflect is an utter lack of both empathy and storytelling skills.

The resulting moral black hole is sucking away enormous storyline potential.

In a typical tag team match, both heels and faces cheat. Counts are broken. Refs are distracted or shoved. Illegal men or women come and go out of the ring.

Let's say current face Kane decides to forego cheating. He will not break up a count. He will not step into the ring if he isn't the legal man. He ceases using chairs and ring bells as weapons. Those choices are going to define Kane. Since Kane is part of a tag team, reaction to those choices will define RVD. If he's cool with it, then basic dramatic tension comes from the outside. Oh, how will they beat the dastardly heels? Will honesty win the day? Is fighting the good fight worth it?

Or RVD can be uncool with it. Suddenly, they're a team sharing a goal — winning — but have different ideas on how to achieve that goal. Again, dramatic tension. How can they coexist? Will they split? Will this affect their performance in the ring? The extra dollop of tension comes from the idea that while neither is really wrong or bad (we can admire Kane's stance, and we can identify with RVD's pragmatism), we'll think one is a little more right than the other. We all have our little ideas on what makes the world run best. We can hope the side we choose wins because in a way it proves our thinking right.

We won't need the reasons they fight force-fed to us, because the side of the moral buffet we've lined up on has already been chosen during the 20 some-odd years we've been living as fellowship-starved human beings. Given the chance to play with ethical dilemmas, we're more than willing to momentarily put aside our own goals and worries in order to cheer someone who exemplifies our beliefs. We'll actively hope for the best, fear the worst and, most importantly, wonder about the outcome.

In short, feel jeopardy.

That jeopardy, despite being momentary quelled by resolution, is going to carry over into the next feud. It makes subsequent plot twists and character turns compelling. It builds history. History creates attachment. Think of how over the course of most television sitcoms, early episode heels become later-episode faces.

Instead of nurturing jeopardy, current booking/creative decisions have Kane break up the count. The match continues, then eventually ends. And none of the characters involved are more interesting because of it. WWE's creative staff is left scrambling for the next out-of-the-gate feud (hey, Rosey or Jamal could spill grape jelly on RVD's singlet) rather than having the luxury of picking a pair of suspects likely to want to take advantage of Kane's Achilles heel.

Current face character portrayals leave little for a viewer to attach to. Without attachment, there is no sympathy. Without sympathy, there is no jeopardy. Without jeopardy, feud outcomes seem unimportant. When a conflict's outcome fails to inspire emotion, the viewer's interest in the character, the storyline, and, ultimately, the product is gone.
— Lorraine

And Now: A Brief Example of One Man's Supple and Expansive Expostulations on the Dynamics of the Current Wrestling Product in His Own Whole Message Board Posts
• keep track of it
• sounds ok, but where does booker go after being phased out?
• i meant for storm to start wrestling in more singles matches, not go solo.
• my feedback thread, aries. not this one.
• let the guy be retired in peace, guys. just let go,
• i thought he was with tna, WTF?
• overall, the show was pretty much in the middle...i need to view it again to guage better.
• it wouldn't work, since refs get close enough that you could see the workers calling spots.
• well put, angstboy.
• Too bad they didn't go full circle with the superkick through the window.
• You mean that didn't happen?
• Push? Superkick? It's all the same after a decade or so.
• it was benoit, estra...but i think austin was at ringside doing commentary.
• juvy when he's high on x...that should be interesting.
• The Patriot Dell (sp?) Wilkes...he's been doing the friggin gimmick for years.
— Zinzi, the OOForums' Resident Sack of Duh
[Sadly, over 200 one-sentence (and even some two-sentence) posts like these were lost in the recent board crash. Veteran posters must truly weep for future generations, for they know not what has been lost to them forever. — ed.]

THIS WEEK'S STATS:
Poster of the Week: Lorraine.
Most Spammer-Like Poster: Me.
Most Over-Used Message Board Joke: anything to do with La Parka.
Things to Bet on: The Belmont Stakes.
Things not to Bet on: A punctual return of Crashing the Boards.
Something Matt Hocking Will Never Say: "Needs more goalie."

E-MAIL THE EDITOR
SEE MORE OF THE SAME IN THE OO FORUMS

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Bonding Exercises

RAW RECAP: The New Guy Blows It

PPV RECAP: WWE Night of Champions 2012

SMACKDOWN RECAP: 18 Seconds? NO! NO! NO!

RAW RECAP: The Show Must Go On

SMACKDOWN RECAP: The Boot Gets the Boot

RAW RECAP: Heyman Lands an Expansion Franchise

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Losing is the new Winning

RAW RECAP: Say My Name

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Deja Vu All Over Again

RAW RECAP: Dignity Before Gold?

PPV RECAP: SummerSlam 2012

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Backfired!

RAW RECAP: Bigger IS Better

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Hitting with Two Strikes

RAW RECAP: Heel, or Tweener?

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Destiny Do-Over

RAW RECAP: CM Punk is Not a Fan of Dwayne

SMACKDOWN RECAP: The Returnening

RAW RECAP: Countdown to 1000

PPV RECAP: WWE Money in the Bank 2012

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Friday Night ZackDown

RAW RECAP: Closure's a Bitch

SMACKDOWN RECAP: In-BRO-pendence Day

RAW RECAP: Crazy Gets What Crazy Wants

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Five Surprising MitB Deposits

RAW RECAP: Weeeellll, It's a Big MitB

SMACKDOWN RECAP: #striketwo

RAW RECAP: Johnny B. Gone

PPV RECAP: WWE No Way Out 2012

RAW RECAP: Crazy Go Nuts

SMACKDOWN RECAP: You're Welcome

RAW RECAP: Be a Star, My Ass

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Needs More Kane?

RAW RECAP: You Can't See Him

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Lady Power

RAW RECAP: Big Johnny Still in Charge

PPV RECAP: WWE Over the Limit 2012

SMACKDOWN RECAP: One Gullible Fella

RAW RECAP: Anvil, or Red Herring?

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Everybody Hates Berto

RAW RECAP: Look Who's Back

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Care to go Best of Five?

RAW RECAP: An Ace Up His Sleeve

PPV RECAP: WWE Extreme Rules 2012

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Sh-Sh-Sheamus and the nOObs

RAW RECAP: Edge, the Motivational Speaker?

SMACKDOWN RECAP: AJ is Angry, Jilted

RAW RECAP: Maybe Cena DOES Suck?

SMACKDOWN RECAP: No! No! No!

RAW RECAP: Brock's a Jerk

SMACKDOWN RECAP: Back with a Bang

RAW RECAP: Yes! Yes! Yes!

PPV RECAP: WWE WrestleMania 28