 |
| The script for this story wasn't good, but their performances made it Photo Credit: WWE.com |
I've enjoyed WWE all year, more than I have in the previous four years since I've come back to wrestling fandom. In the past, WWE has been very weak at creating stories that engaged me on a macroscopic level, but I stayed on because I thought the wrestling matches were on point and the actual people on the show were interesting and executed their characters well even if the material they were given was lackluster. My knee-jerk reaction is to say the difference from this year and the last four is that they've improved on storytelling, that they've been finally starting to get the week-to-week and the long term story threads right.
In the past, when fans like myself would cry out at egregious losses like when Christian dropped the Big Gold Belt to Randy Orton five storyline days after he won the belt in the first place, wrestlers would snipe back in social media to be patient and that they were trying to tell a story. I remember indelibly how that particular feud went, and it involved WWE spamming them on television and pay-per-view with Orton winning every match except for one, at Money in the Bank where Christian only won on a disqualification stip. That kind of build doesn't lead to a worthwhile feud. Sure, the guys are wrestling a whole bunch, but not only were the outcomes usually the same, they presented a whole bunch of matches with very few really meaty storyline checkpoints to warrant those matches. I'd say Christian turning heel was the only thing that buoyed their rivalry, which felt like a placeholder until Mark Henry was ready to begin the Hall of Pain.
So, when I search my feelings and vet them against the facts, is WWE really doing any better at building angles this year? In some cases, sure they are. The two-month feud between The Shield and the Rhodes Boys has been one of the best of the year across any wrestling promotion in America. But further analysis reveals that WWE has fallen short on several major feuds. CM Punk has been a victim of this twice, first with his Undertaker feud that was hastily swerved after Paul Bearer died, and second with the Paul Heyman feud that started fine but turned into a comedy of errors with an ill-fitting laugh track.
The biggest victim of the poor storytelling has been Daniel Bryan. His Tag Team Championship run with Kane fell into the same ruts that most non-WWE Championship belts fell in with endlessly recursive feuds, non-title match losses to set up title bouts, and repetitive treading over story points. The team split did not lead to any sort of story meat after they went their separate ways (although to be fair, with Kane joining The Authority and Bryan as one of its enemies, their tensions could come to a head once more). Then, when Bryan won the WWE Championship from John Cena, he lost it in unceremonious manner to Orton, and I feel like I'll be repeating a lot of what I wrote above only inserting Bryan for where Christian was.
Still, with all the foibles that WWE has in telling stories, how have I enjoyed them more this year than in others? Well, from the first Smackdown of the year through last night on RAW, they seem to have put on at least one great match on free TV to supplement their normally solid pay-per-view game. These matches have featured a varied cross-section of WWE's deep roster, and more often than not, the top end guys like Bryan, Goldust, the Shield, Punk, and Antonio Cesaro, were putting on performances and given time that used to be reserved for big pay-per-view showcase matches.
Second, the characterization and performances by the actual talent has been a notch above even in years past. The reason why Team Hell No's narrative always drew praise from me despite its recursive tendencies was because both Bryan and Kane had fire (pun intended) behind their promo delivery and actually looked to grow as characters even with the story sending them in circles. The same could be said for Heyman and Punk during their feud, Orton, Triple H, and Stephanie McMahon as part of the Authority, and Cody Rhodes during his ascension.
But for as good a product that is being produced under the WWE banner, they deserve a shockingly small percentage of the credit for it. Their storyline execution is flawed at best, and their priorities seem to be in opposition for artistic growth. I get disappointed to see so much potential wasted, because WWE right now could be mentioned in the same breath from an artistic standpoint as Jerry Jarrett's Mid-South, World Class, early ECW, and Chikara between 2009 and 2011.
So, when I search my feelings and vet them against the facts, is WWE really doing any better at building angles this year? In some cases, sure they are. The two-month feud between The Shield and the Rhodes Boys has been one of the best of the year across any wrestling promotion in America. But further analysis reveals that WWE has fallen short on several major feuds. CM Punk has been a victim of this twice, first with his Undertaker feud that was hastily swerved after Paul Bearer died, and second with the Paul Heyman feud that started fine but turned into a comedy of errors with an ill-fitting laugh track.
The biggest victim of the poor storytelling has been Daniel Bryan. His Tag Team Championship run with Kane fell into the same ruts that most non-WWE Championship belts fell in with endlessly recursive feuds, non-title match losses to set up title bouts, and repetitive treading over story points. The team split did not lead to any sort of story meat after they went their separate ways (although to be fair, with Kane joining The Authority and Bryan as one of its enemies, their tensions could come to a head once more). Then, when Bryan won the WWE Championship from John Cena, he lost it in unceremonious manner to Orton, and I feel like I'll be repeating a lot of what I wrote above only inserting Bryan for where Christian was.
Still, with all the foibles that WWE has in telling stories, how have I enjoyed them more this year than in others? Well, from the first Smackdown of the year through last night on RAW, they seem to have put on at least one great match on free TV to supplement their normally solid pay-per-view game. These matches have featured a varied cross-section of WWE's deep roster, and more often than not, the top end guys like Bryan, Goldust, the Shield, Punk, and Antonio Cesaro, were putting on performances and given time that used to be reserved for big pay-per-view showcase matches.
Second, the characterization and performances by the actual talent has been a notch above even in years past. The reason why Team Hell No's narrative always drew praise from me despite its recursive tendencies was because both Bryan and Kane had fire (pun intended) behind their promo delivery and actually looked to grow as characters even with the story sending them in circles. The same could be said for Heyman and Punk during their feud, Orton, Triple H, and Stephanie McMahon as part of the Authority, and Cody Rhodes during his ascension.
But for as good a product that is being produced under the WWE banner, they deserve a shockingly small percentage of the credit for it. Their storyline execution is flawed at best, and their priorities seem to be in opposition for artistic growth. I get disappointed to see so much potential wasted, because WWE right now could be mentioned in the same breath from an artistic standpoint as Jerry Jarrett's Mid-South, World Class, early ECW, and Chikara between 2009 and 2011.
Written by TH of The Wrestling Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment