http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/community/blog.php?8463-Aaron0912 Wrestling News and Discussion - eWrestlingNews.com Community en Sat, 25 May 2013 17:04:55 GMT vBulletin 10 http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/community/images/misc/rss.jpg http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/community/blog.php?8463-Aaron0912 http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/community/entry.php?1700-Time-for-some-WWE-Stable-ity Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:19:38 GMT Stables. Factions. Gangs. Cliques. Crews. Whatever you want to call them, they are everywhere. Whether it be in the film industry with Adam... Stables. Factions. Gangs. Cliques. Crews.

Whatever you want to call them, they are everywhere. Whether it be in the film industry with Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller’s troupe of actors that appear with each of them respectively in virtually every movie they appear in, to the music industry with the whole G-Unit circle of rappers. With that said, why is it that, in the business of wrestling, where Stables have been an integral part of the most compelling and entertaining TV for decades, that we are without one in WWE today. Not since Evolution, who I will talk about later, have we had a decent Stable to love or hate in a way we have in the past; to succeed in grooming the future stars of the industry.

Now, I just want to make it clear that I’m not talking about great tag teams. I feel there is a great difference between a stable and a tag team. A tag team is made up of mainly two competitors and possibly a manager (think Kendrick / London and MNM from recent memory). A stable, on the other hand, generally consists of a leader (main eventer, mouthpiece), a mid-upper card wrestler (IC Title challenger possibly, or a bodyguard etc), a tag team (for the tag titles and for those handicap matches that are inevitable in a faction scenario) and possibly a woman. This covers all aspects of the business and allows a number of feuds to be developed based around one standard storyline - one gang doesn't like another gang, it's simple storytelling.

If, and this is a big if, the creative team has put time and effort into making two rival factions (think Corporation vs. Ministry and DX vs. NOD, the last ones I can remember from WWE. And no, I’m not counting the Spirit Squad vs DX as a genuine feud) then you have a classic series of matches that can span a whole year if booked correctly. The matches would be fresh and different yet also keep to the general feud that ties them all together. If you have 5 members in each team then you have 25 possible singles matches that instantly have a reason and some relevance to the storyline. Then you have the handicap and tag team matches that can also take place. Take for instance, the New Nexus (also not a faction due to the total burial and lack of feuds they had – since when is constant gang beatings a legitimate way to get new talent over??) vs. Ryder and Santino from Raw this week. If they were part of rival factions, facing off for gang superiority, then the audience would have had a much bigger interest in the outcome than say the lame response that they got, barring Ryder.

To me, a stables aim is to put over the next generation of superstars. Evolution did this so flawlessly that Batista was a genuine main eventer and Randy Orton is the golden boy of Smackdown while HHH will always be the main guy. The only flaw I could think of regarding Evolution was the lack of opposition that it had at the time. Just think if say, Goldberg, Steiner or Booker T had created their own stable to combat Evolution.

Now, I’ve never been a fan of “fantasy booking”. Everyone has their own ideas about what works and we will never truly know how each individual scenario would play out in a live environment.

However, if the WWE had taken the time to create this group, possibly named after something referencing WCW with wrestlers like Booker T, Gregory Helms, Chuck Palumbo and Shaun O'Haire with Bischoff as the mouth-piece, then just think about the many more superstars that would have been created and the state the business would be in now. There would be 3 or 4 more valid main eventers on the scene. Helms, Palumbo and O'Haire, barring backstage problems would be, in my opinion in the same situation as the Evolution members these days as I feel they all had the talent to be so much more than what they went on to (Billy and Chuck marriage ringing any bells?). And when the group eventually splits up, it creates even more match opportunities against each other i.e) Slater vs Gabriel from Smackdown a few weeks ago. These matches, while quickly thrown together with no fanfare, have an instant history and interest from a fan perspective.

An example of this potential was Chuck Palumbo. He was really starting to make a name for himself on Smackdown as the bike riding, no nonsense brawler in the same mould as the American Badass era Undertaker but was then unceremoniously “RAW-ED” (my own term for talents being wasted via draft to Raw – Drew McIntyre and Mark Henry from recent memory).

I know columns are meant to have a balanced viewpoint and so far it’s all been positive regarding a stables formation. Personally I can’t see any negative point for a stable or 2 to be in WWE at the moment, feuding and creating an engrossing storyline based on Booking 101.

WWE needs the next crop of talent to arise in the next year or so as there's only so far Cena, HHH, Orton, Christian and Undertaker can take you into the future of the business. Granted, guys like The Miz, Sheamus, Mark Henry, John Morrison and Dolph Ziggler are there or there abouts at all times but the point is to create icons of the business, not just transitional characters to fill a small time frame. ]]> Aaron0912 http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/community/entry.php?1700-Time-for-some-WWE-Stable-ity http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/community/entry.php?1654-Entertainments-simplest-narrative-device-–-the-Cliffhanger Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:51:47 GMT Having seen the (mostly) positive response to my first blog, I’ve decided to write another just to “test the waters” and see if I can actually keep... Having seen the (mostly) positive response to my first blog, I’ve decided to write another just to “test the waters” and see if I can actually keep this up. I intend on writing one blog a week but let’s be fair, even I know that won’t happen. The problem is that I don’t want to fall into the trap of writing about “safe” topics that are abundant within the IWC. Topics like “Cena / Hogan / Vince / Bischoff is bad” and “Who is underrated / overrated / under used / shoved down our throats” are everywhere. I’m not saying the writing is bad or the arguments aren’t valid though; all I’m saying is that everything has pretty much been discussed regarding these subjects. My aim is to create new discussions and thoughts because I’m sure people are bored of reading the same things over and over again.

Therefore, the aim of this blog is to discuss the simplest of narrative devices – the “Cliffhanger” ending to a show.

In my opinion, the “Cliffhanger” end to a show is possibly the easiest yet rarest form on televised media. It taps into the earliest of primal thoughts: What does the future hold? Everyone around the globe can relate to this sense of confusion yet we all seek the answer. We are all impatient. We want to know if we will ever get married, if we will get a promotion, if we will win the lottery. These are questions which get us out of bed in the morning. The same applies to the television industry.

When a TV show is very well written, it will inevitably create a loyal fan base. If a TV show is poorly written, this fan base will no longer watch the show. It’s a simple equation.

For example, one of my favourite shows ever is Prison Break. The first episode of this show wasn’t spectacular if I am being honest. However, the ending to that episode was a simple cliffhanger: what is in store next for these characters? That simple question made me come back the following week and watch. The following week, the characters were developed, put into interesting situations and yet another cliffhanger. From then, I was hooked. However, because the show only had a limited shelf life (how many times can you escape from prison??) it only survived 4 seasons.

And yes, I know this blog has been very scarce on the wrestling content but here it is. Wrestling cliffhangers, when executed correctly, makes wrestling a very viable, entertaining and profitable business.

A few weeks ago when CM Punk delivered his now infamous worked shoot (sorry, this is going to be rather Punk orientated from here) he basically created an environment to hook in new viewers. The mainstream media it generated should have caused an influx of new viewers. The ratings suggested otherwise. Although ratings dominance used to be the main prize each week during the Monday Night Wars, it is not so much about that anymore.

Even though the worked shoot climax to Raw didn’t necessarily bring in new viewers to the TV show, it is my firm belief that it brought back a number of disillusioned “hardcore” fans. At the MITB PPV, I could probably guarantee that at least half that crowd weren’t considering attending the PPV before the Punk angle. It was a very “Smarky” crowd (apologies for the reference to my previous column). When arguably the second biggest pop of the night belonged to the injured Miz, running down the aisle to climb the ladder, you know it was a very well informed crowd.

Not to mention the commercial success it has generated. All CM Punk’s shirts are currently out of stock on WWEShop.com and his “Best in the World” T-shirt has been selling for up to $600 on EBay. This shows how one simple storytelling device can have such a positive effect on the economical side to a company

And therein lies the success of a cliffhanger. The lead up to MITB and the resulting weeks after have been a master class in storytelling and captivating even the most Internet savvy fan. Punks worked shoot? Possibility of Cena quitting as WWE champion? Then the possibility of Cena being fired if he loses? Punk winning the title and walking out? WWE Title tournament? Vince being relieved of his duties? HHH the new CEO of WWE? CM Punk interrupting the new champion Cena with the real belt?

All these are monumental events within the wrestling industry. One of these per year would have sufficed and kept us coming back for more BUT alas, they have followed in sequence for the past month and a half. One a week for a month and a half.

WWE have really hit their stride and it is all due to the cliffhanger ending. We all want to know: what happens next?

Therein lies the “Prison Break conundrum” though. How many times can WWE top themselves, keep the audience intrigued enough to come back for more and do it in a way that keeps everyone guessing. The true greatness of this angle is that even the most well informed of people have no idea what is going to happen next. That’s why Smackdown doesn’t have the edge at the moment as it is taped and can’t generate or compete with the unpredictability of Raw.

Spoilers do just what they say, they spoil the surprise.

Dirt sheets do just what they say, dig up the dirt.

Cliffhangers do just what they say: leave you hanging on for more. And more often than not, you come back ]]> Aaron0912 http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/community/entry.php?1654-Entertainments-simplest-narrative-device-–-the-Cliffhanger http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/community/entry.php?1629-The-Eternal-Feud-That-is-Smarks-vs-Marks Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:40:50 GMT Hey everyone. This is my first ever attempt at writing one of these so apologies if it is hard to read or doesn't come across with fully coherent arguments. First and foremost, I would like to just say that I fully appreciate and respect people who find the time to write one of these columns pretty much every week. It truly is a testament to the wrestling business itself and the passionate fan base it has created over the years that us, the fans, will take time out of our schedules to express our opinions on one matter or another, whether we agree or disagree with the route it is going in.

***
The question I pose to everyone is: who decides and defines the boundaries of the Smark and Mark worlds? To me, the only thing that determines a Smark is that they have the ability to read a few web pages; read a few internal rumours and gossip about how they would change a business they supposedly love. People we deem marks could either choose to be that way for a number of reasons, which basically, all boils down to watching just to be entertained.

I consider myself a smart Smark. This is because I care enough about the business to want to know everything about it, but on the other hand, when I watch the shows, I try to forget about everything I've read prior. If I like something I'll like it no matter what, if I don't I'll still watch to see if it will improve. Take for instance WWE 2002-2004. They were 3 forgettable years with "stars" like Nathan Jones and the Billy Gunn/Rico episode, and don't forget the Triple H influence (burying everyone from Goldberg to Y2J to Booker T). However, I still watched as I enjoyed the escapism it provided for 4 hours a week. Events such as Raw Roulette always seemed to fleetingly reinvoke my interest in a dwindling show.

Don't slate me for this, but I've always enjoyed the Mr. McMahon character. Sure, off the screen, we all know of the things he does. CM Punk touched on a few in his now infamous worked shoot … Ego, Politics and needless Hirings/Firings are all characteristics we associate with Vincent Kennedy McMahon - the person. On screen however, because he can only be judged upon the character he portrays, I enjoy the villainy and interesting situations he is involved in.

I liken the backstage wrestling business to certain film theory's. By knowing the methods and roles each character plays, we know what each film will be about. If we know the backgrounds of each actor, our conceptions of that film involving him will automatically be swayed regardless of how good the film is. For instance, I don't care for Tom Cruise, for no particular reason. I know about his personal life, his love life etc, so if he's in a film, I won't go out of my way to see it. Much like a match involving Big Zeke or Great Khali.

One thing that I will like however is the surprise a show offers. A product can only be judged on the output. It's no fun to analyse and deconstruct every aspect of a show. Why it happened? Why that was used? The hidden meanings? Why isn’t Zack Ryder on TV? I fully acknowledge that if there is something we don't like we have the right to discuss it.

By the way, let me make this clear: This is not aimed at any particular person, I find each opinion as interesting as the next and fully accept all, whether it agrees with my perspective or not.

It's just my firm belief that it's much easier to be innocent and carefree to a show, be genuinely surprised and like whoever you want based on their appeal to you. It's an individual liking and each person has a different experience in life that draws them to a certain character. I personally like Jeff Hardy's work. People may say he's a spot monkey, unreliable backstage attitude et all, but based on his work in the ring (the only place I feel wrestlers can be judged), he is innovative and exciting. But on the other hand, I also enjoy the Bryans, the Punks, the Regals, the Angles, the Swaggers because they are different in that they can successfully draw us in based upon their work. They build an emotion and a following based solely on wrestling. I enjoy the eccentric characters such as Eric Young, Kane, Undertaker, Abyss as they give us a soap opera feel. It is all a way of being entertained.

I enjoy everything that takes place in a ring as those workers are there for our entertainment. They may or may not entertain us all the time, but one thing is for sure, no-one will ever be entertained if they decide they won't be entertained.

Would you go to the circus and hate the show before it began because you knew the methods they use? I know I wouldn't. I'd wait until after to hold an opinion. That's what we should try do. Enjoy the show then dissect the aspects. ]]> Aaron0912 http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/community/entry.php?1629-The-Eternal-Feud-That-is-Smarks-vs-Marks