|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2019 11:23:52 GMT -5
Again, any "desire to hurt people" is just a work to maintain a character. Tom my knowledge, he has never deliberately hurt people in a WWE ring, nor has anyone refused to work with him. The Undertaker certainly wouldn't have agreed to let him end the streak if Brock had heat with the boys. Undertaker is the lockerroom leader and if he was willing to put his aging and weakening body into his hands, he is a safe worker.
The "not there to make friends" is probably a shoot, which is why I say above 60%. The pain stuff is the 40% work.
With Flair and Arn keeping kayfabe, you have to remember how they broke in, who trained them and the dues they had to pay. Flair broke in with Verne Gagne, Arn with Nightmare Ted Allen. These were old school workers. They learned to bump and paid their dues. Arn especially. Flair went from Minnesota to the Carolinas and was tapped for big things. Arn started out as a jobber in Georgia, then went to Knoxville, then Alabama, to work underneath. That led to Mid-South and a return to Georgia, where Matt Borne loused up their spot and Arn was let go. He went back to Alabama, then the Carolinas, where Dusty took a liking to him and pushed him, becoming a legend. He paid a lot of dues and was taught by some serious guys that you keep the secrets behind the curtain and you make it as real as possible, so that the people come back next week.
Arn kept it in his book, Flair to a lesser extent in his. Arn was working in wrestling, until recently, as an agent.
Both have done podcasts where they have been more relaxed about kayfabe. Since they are making money off the podcasts, it makes sense for them to keep the confessions for their own product. Arn's podcast is available, now, on Youtube and he talks pretty openly about things. The first episode features how he broke in and working his way up to Crockett. The second was about the behind the scenes stuff that led him to leave Crockett for the WWF. The third is about his neck injury and the surgery, discovering that he could no longer take bumps, his retirement speech and the NWO parody (just listened to it). The 4th is about wrestling Flair, at Fall Brawl. Arn tells it straight, more or less, talking about how Flair took him to the hospital when he was injured in a match, in Alabama and stayed with him until he regained consciousness (and Arn was an undercard guy, who had been driving Flair around). He talks about getting into a fight with Matt Borne, when he was wired on drugs. He talks about the NWO parody and what they should have done for an angle, but calls it out as burying him, since there was no purpose in it creating return business. he talks about his wife being upset by Nash's portrayal of him being a beer guzzling drunk (while Hall was an out of control alcoholic).
Jake Roberts is still working people, even though he has opened some curtains. There are still plenty of stories of him acting like a dick to people at events, just a sober dick. He still blames his father for everything, even though his father didn't force him to drink and use drugs.
Most shoot interviews I have seen still have them working, to a certain degree, especially older workers. terry Funk still does it, Backlund does, Muraco, Bruno, Zbysko, etc. Some are more straightforward than others, some still tell stories about crowds that are exaggerated or fights that weren't really fights, etc. Some work the story to their benefit. With wrestling, you always want to take anything with a grain of salt. You'd be amazed at how many wrestler claimed to have witnessed some incident and just cursory research proves they were somewhere else. The stories also change when you see them in different interviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 11:33:12 GMT -5
I accept your Brock Lesnar thing, Cody. Thanks. It was jarring, but I know what you mean. It's hard for me to watch kayfabe-protective interviews in 2019. About Brock, though, I like that he's trying to maintain a mystique and be convincing as a monster. In all reality, I don't want to see Brock tweet a picture of him eating Sunday dinner with an opponent.
Well, speaking of wrestlers being somewhere else, I was astonished at Hogan's mention of being at Wembley Stadium. He wasn't at SummerSlam 1992, nor was he backstage. Quite a major lie!
I will check out Arn's podcast.
I appreciate them being respective of kayfabe. Some are, some aren't. I did smile when I read an interview with Bubba Ray Dudley years ago (in a kayfabe-free publication), and he was adamant that D-Von was his brother. The interviewer even tried to steer him away from kayfabe, but it stuck.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2019 12:04:10 GMT -5
Coming from the kayfabe era, I kind of prefer things before even the announcers were just saying it's a show, during the match and using terms like "shoot." The storytelling was better when there was a mystery to things and there was a logic, while the workers made it look real. I can't watch modern matches, as there is no rhyme or reason to things and there is so much obvious cooperation. It was one thing to figure out that guys were jumping up into a bodyslam and posting themselves while being held over an opponents head and standing there waiting to catch someone doing a backflip off the top turnbuckle when they could easily step aside and not get hit. Tiger Mask and Dynamite Kid could do the same thing and never make it look like Dynamite is positioning himself to catch Tiger Mask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 12:20:02 GMT -5
Absolutely!
For the last 20 years, thanks to VHS, DVD and the WWE Network, I've seen so much classic stuff. It's like I said recently about commentators adding legitimacy. And showing conviction. I remember when Zeus began to choke Hogan at Survivor Series 1989. With complete conviction, Jesse Ventura shouted, "Hogan could be the first one eliminated!" Same with Royal Rumble events, the commentators, with conviction, talked about how this wrestler or that wrestler might win.
Rhyme and reason, like you say.
The non-wrestling aspects lack legitimacy, too. In 2005, Triple H got a limo driver to try and knock Evolution teammate Batista over (so JBL could be blamed). Batista later revealed his plan to Ric Flair - with cameramen present. And modern cameras are big, eh?! Did he think Batista would never find out?
Contrast that with the past: I remember a WCW Magazine article where a cameraman had luckily snapped Pillman and Austin in 1995, implying they were in cahoots for a Hollywood Blondes reunion. Little things like that matter. There was also a WWF Magazine article where Jack Tunney was caught on camera, seemingly taking a bribe from Ted DiBiase. (Tunney was exonerated, it was a set-up, DiBiase was paying a fine). Corny though it may seem to some now, "investigative reporters" for WWF Magazine had looked into the story. The point I am making is that heels should act deviously - and exposure should come via "investigative reporters".
Triple H revealing his plan to Flair in front of cameramen lacks any logic. And I like both Triple H and Flair.
Logic is the keyword, whether we're talking about face/heel turns, moves or angles. And it was better when there was mystery.
One can't pinpoint the exact moment mystery was lost - although the Montreal Screwjob certainly didn't help! - as so many things happened over time, didn't Vince acknowledge the WWF was predetermined in front of a Senate committee or something? I do think that things lost their mystique and magic over time, e.g. when WWF-licensed publications (and WCW-licensed ones) would openly talk about "storylines". And Russo's WCW tenure didn't help, I remember Buff Bagwell and someone else (can't recall who) openly discussing the finish of their match backstage with cameras present. While wrestling is unique, and can't necessarily be compared to movies, that would be like watching The Dark Knight and having characters revert to actors mid-scene every now and again. It was a bit of a slap in the face.
So much one could say about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2019 14:50:49 GMT -5
I'm listening to last week's Jim Cornette experience, where he is covering the AEW show and this point comes up. Co-host Brian Last shares many of Cornette's points about logic and visuals and intent vs actual end result; However, Brian has been more forgiving of some of the stuff and they throw out terms like "video game" and "cosplay" wrestling. Brian talks about liking the Young Bucks match, because he stopped caring and just accepted that this is modern wrestling; just not the type of wrestling he loves. He mentions unlimited power, flashy moves, and a finish. When he talks about it like a Mortal Kombat fight, it is really clear why this stuff is over with its fans. They have been weaned on video games and video game-style fights, not real fights. You can just hit reset and do moves until the life counter drops and you hit the finish. Same thing in the match. Guys just do their moves, their opponent does his moves, they do near falls and hit a finish and the crowd pops. None of it builds and often it is counter-intuitive. Still, the crowd enjoys it. They have been conditioned to it through video games and indie wrestling using the same format.
I grew up on fights that were worked to look as real as could be, without people getting hurt. There was a point to moves. Heels did dastardly things and got away with them and you would get mad. babyfaces would do cool stuff and pull of the win,. heels attacked the faces and you wanted to see the hero get his revenge, the heel get his comeuppance. Matches on tv served as advertising to get you to come out to the live matches, where you would see the stars fight one another. You rarely saw that on tv. PPV changed things a bit, but the tv made you want to but the PPV. The Monday Night Wars turned it into making you want to see next week, maybe the PPV. This is just a bunch of matches to give you matches and then the PPV will be more matches, for titles and such.
Corny brought up a criticism of the heels doing cool stuff and never drawing heat with the crowd, so why are they heels? They kick out of the babyfaces super moves and the babyfaces win on a fluke. That is their idea of getting the babyfaces over. However, when you think about it, their best offense failed and they got a fluke win. To someone like me, weaned on logical storytelling, that made them the Mulkey Brothers, beating the Gladiators because the guy fell over the downed Mulkey and the other brother lands on the Gladiator for the quick pin. Now, watching it, it was cool to see the Mulkeys get a win, period. However, you knew it was a fluke and they were back to getting their asses handed to them, every week. Now, you can take that and build upon it, as they did with Barry Horowitz, as Jack Hart, in Florida. he was a plucky babyface jobber who would get in some offense and lose. then, he got a win, as the announcers kept pushing the idea that he is in there fighting and improving. The, the crowd popped for his win. Then, he gets more wins and they continue to pop. Then, he turns heel, sides with Percy Pringle (Paul Bearer) and gets his first title. They did the same thing with Sean Waltman, as the 1-2-3 Kid (or rather, the Cannonball Kid and Lightning Kid, before they settled on the 1-2-3 name; he was the Lightning Kid in GWF and indies before the WWF).
I need the story and the logic. I pick apart plot holes in tv and movies and it drives my wife nuts. I can't help it; that's the way my brain works. I've never been a big gamer. I enjoy playing certain games, but it was usually a brief diversion. Video game wrestling just doesn't interest me. That is the problem with launching a new wrestling boom. If you are playing to an existing audience and don't have anything for people not already watching, you have nowhere to go. Same issue with modern comics, from DC and Marvel. If you aren't a superhero person, they have little or nothing for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 15:03:48 GMT -5
I need the story and logic, too.
Things like pulling tights, grabbing hair and managers sneaking a choke in while the referee is distracted all matter to me. There's no point in having a referee in the ring if all the illegal stuff is done in front of him. I'm really enjoying seeing pre-WWF stuff where Heenan is choking the likes of Hogan with a towel when the referee is distracted.
As for move logic, YES! I love how Jake Roberts used to go for the DDT early in the match (makes sense, you're there to win a match). I love the way some old-school wrestlers would target a body part; if, say, Davey Boy Smith's arm was hurting, an opponent would keep targeting that rather than thinking about the next big spot. Less was more. I liked the way someone such as Randy Savage would retreat to the outside if power moves were failing against a person like Hogan.
It all makes sense. You're there to win a match, so go for the DDT early; your opponent's knee is injured, so keep attacking it; your power moves are failing against Hogan, so retreat to the outside. Back off into the corner. Do what is logical.
And that's the way a real fight would be. In a bar fight, I'd rather knock out the bully than spend too much time fighting him. If the bully starts holding his knee, I'm gonna take it out. If my tactics are failing against an opponent in a bar fight, I'll retreat and find a pool cue. ;-)
I want logic in the sense that you adapt to an opponent. Don't try and bodyslam Earthquake 30 seconds into the match. Do it 10 minutes into the match. Weaken the opponent. I love that psychology. And it doesn't have to be a legal move. Hogan's tactics were failing against Zeus at Survivor Series 1989 - so he raked Zeus' eyes and bodyslammed him. This all makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2019 17:32:08 GMT -5
I just found this, which is hilarious. Jim Cornette reads excerpts form a proposed Vince McMahon movie, by Craig A Williams, screenwriter for the live action Underdog. It's Corny, so plenty of NSFW language, as well as an acapella rendering of the Underdog theme!
As Cornette says, it makes Russo sound like Hemingway!
Per imdb, this is actually in pre-production. That doesn't necessarily mean much. If they didn't change the script from what we hear, lawsuits will fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 19:16:53 GMT -5
This talk about Brock Lesnar got me thinking about King of the Ring, which, of course, he won in 2002.
The first four KOTR PPVs (1993-1997) were very prestigious for me. The tournament seemed to be the most important thing. True, the KOTR final wasn't the main event in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. But it did still feel like the KOTR tournament was the selling point. Certainly, 1993-1995, in my humble opinion, was about the tournament. I would argue that maybe Hogan/Yokozuna attracted as many PPV buys as the tournament in 1993, but I feel that the tournament attracted the most buys in 1994 and 1995. No evidence, of course, just an opinion. At the time, my schoolfriends and I were discussing the tournaments. We weren't discussing WWF Champion Diesel VS Bret Hart or Piper VS Lawler in 1994, nor were we discussing Diesel & Bam Bam Bigelow VS Psycho Sid & Tatanka in 1995. And while Shawn Michaels VS Davey Boy Smith was a big match, in 1996 we were discussing the tournament.
Okay, maybe 1997 was less about the tournament and more about the other matches.
What about 1998? I would say Stone Cold VS Kane and Undertaker VS Mankind were the ones that attracted PPV buys. Without looking it up, can any WWF/E fan even name any tournament matches from that PPV? The tournament did seem to play second fiddle, perhaps rightly so, to Austin/Kane and Undertaker/Mankind.
I can't even remember much about the tournaments in 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Then Brock Lesnar won the KOTR tournament in 2002. But did he need to? It hardly elevated him, he was on a roll already. I don't even think, if memory serves me right, that he put the crown on. King of the Ring 2002 needn't have been a KOTR PPV. It could have been called something else, I feel.
So, in my view, the importance of the KOTR tournament decreased year by year. I definitely feel that it was extremely prestigious in 1993 and 1994, but then the rot set in (I wish they'd let Shawn Michaels win it in 1995). Austin in 1996? Like Brock six years later, Austin didn't need it, I don't think it elevated him. Yes, we got that Austin 3:16 speech out of him, but he could have made that speech without the KOTR tournament being a necessity? 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 may as well have been non-KOTR events.
Just a thought or two. Feel free to disagree. I feel if WWE are gonna do a KOTR event ever, then the tournament needs to be the most important thing. I don't want to see it playing second fiddle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 19:32:31 GMT -5
I respectfully felt that WWE wasted time, money, and resources to do a KOTR tournament. I'm not a fan of that event that was done on an annual basis. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 17, 2019 22:29:18 GMT -5
For the most part, King of the Ring was meaningless until the Austin 3:16 promo. That's when it took on significance. Otherwise, it was another PPV, with a gimmick, like Survivor Series (which ripped off War Games) and Royal Rumble (which is just a battle royal, created to undercut Crockett's first PPV, much like Clash of Champions was to do the same).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 6:06:16 GMT -5
I respectfully felt that WWE wasted time, money, and resources to do a KOTR tournament. I'm not a fan of that event that was done on an annual basis. Sorry. I'm curious why you believe that.  I do feel the first KOTR was well-booked, with Bam Bam Bigelow getting a bye in the finals while Bret Hart had to fight tooth and nail to get the crown. It also helped Bret regain his momentum, and brought Hulkamania Chapter I (or is it II?) to an end, at least the WWF version. The 1994 KOTR told Owen's story well, gave him a stratospheric launch (after his great WM X bout against Bret) and led to his King of Harts era. I wanted Shawn to win the 1995 KOTR. I am not sure why they thought it was a good idea to go with King Mabel. The 1996 tournament was solid, but Austin didn't need it, I feel. He could just as easily have made that speech at any other PPV. And, as I stated, from 1997 onwards, the tournament was of lesser renown. I can't even remember the tournament brackets for, say, 1998 or 2001, it was KOTR in name only by then. 1993 and 1994 remain my favourite KOTR PPVs. Speaking of the end of Hulkamania, I wonder, if WCW had signed Yokozuna during the Monday Night Wars, would Hogan have wanted a win over the big guy to even the odds? He did it with Ultimate Warrior! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 7:56:08 GMT -5
I respectfully felt that WWE wasted time, money, and resources to do a KOTR tournament. I'm not a fan of that event that was done on an annual basis. Sorry. I'm curious why you believe that. I do feel the first KOTR was well-booked, with Bam Bam Bigelow getting a bye in the finals while Bret Hart had to fight tooth and nail to get the crown. It also helped Bret regain his momentum, and brought Hulkamania Chapter I (or is it II?) to an end, at least the WWF version. The 1994 KOTR told Owen's story well, gave him a stratospheric launch (after his great WM X bout against Bret) and led to his King of Harts era. I wanted Shawn to win the 1995 KOTR. I am not sure why they thought it was a good idea to go with King Mabel. The 1996 tournament was solid, but Austin didn't need it, I feel. He could just as easily have made that speech at any other PPV. And, as I stated, from 1997 onwards, the tournament was of lesser renown. I can't even remember the tournament brackets for, say, 1998 or 2001, it was KOTR in name only by then. 1993 and 1994 remain my favourite KOTR PPVs. Speaking of the end of Hulkamania, I wonder, if WCW had signed Yokozuna during the Monday Night Wars, would Hogan have wanted a win over the big guy to even the odds? He did it with Ultimate Warrior! I did not see the 1st KOTR back when Bam Bam Bigelow was in and I'm not a fan of him at all doesn't matter how the final outcome came about Sorry. 1994 KOTR was an exception because of Owen - that's the only one that I really liked. 1996 KOTR was mixed and somewhat solid and that's when I started to hate it and after that (believe me it is) that the KOTR was a fancy tournament with no redeeming qualities and that's why I feel that this PPV was a total waste of time and energy and many of my wrestling fans avoided this annual (somewhat) farce and I totally ignore it and not even careless about it. King Mabel won the KOTR in 1995 and this came to me a total surprise.  After he won that event and my mixed feelings in 1996 and total rejection of that annual event from 1997 ... I simply ignore this event and all my wrestling fans that I know of told me to avoid it and I trusted them implicitly and that's why people ignore it. I have a friend that worked in COMCAST and he told me that the KOTR PPV does not sell very well in my area and that's tells you why I don't bother finding out who wins because I did not care at all. After 1999 ... I totally ignore WWF/WWE and started watching IMPACT and ROH. Now, I don't watch IMPACT and occasionally watch ROH. This is not an easy question to answer ... I just feel that this tournament is not my cup of tea and seeing these wrestler wearing a crown on their head is a total joke and I totally feel that is the silliest thing that I ever seen in my life. Only two wrestlers wore Crowns ... and they are Jerry "The King" Lawler and King Harley Race and these two are OKAY in my book ... and a DOUBLE OKAY to King Harley Race. I hope this answer will be acceptable one to you! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 8:26:08 GMT -5
Hey, each to their own. Your answer does not have to be acceptable to me, only to yourself. I can't even remember if later winners even put the crown on. Austin and Lesnar certainly didn't, nor did I expect/want them to. The Austin 3:16 speech could have been made on a special episode of Raw or whatever. And although the Austin 3:16 was meaningful, the WWF didn't capitalise on it, anyway. Not immediately. He wrestled Marc Mero on an undercard match at the next PPV ( In Your House 9: International Incident). And then at SummerSlam 1996, he didn't even make the main card, instead wrestling Yokozuna on the Free-For-All pre-PPV segment. So did he really need to win KOTR? Interesting about your friend at Comcast. I think the event/concept peaked in 1993/94. It did give Owen Hart momentum and allowed him to go from being the Rocket to the King of Harts. But that poses an interesting question. Owen had momentum, anyway, going back to his WM X win. He was gonna feud with Bret over the world title regardless of a KOTR win. KOTR '95 served a storyline point in making Mabel an opponent of Diesel, but I didn't like that feud. The concept could/should have been retired after the 1995 event was over. Looking back, though, KOTR didn't add any value to a person's career. It was nice to see Bret win it, but he was always going to enter world title contention again, anyway (back then, I predicted, as did many, that Luger wouldn't become the new main eventer after his Yokozuna feud had ended). Owen was always going to soar high. Austin and Helmsley were always going to soar high regardless of a crown. So in some ways, it may have been a redundant thing. Personally, I feel that what they should have done is have made the KOTR winner the automatic no. 1 contender to the WWF Title. That may have made it more exciting. In retrospect, that would have changed booking plans, though. But it could possibly have been sold on the premise that the KOTR winner goes on to challenge the WWF Champion at SummerSlam. There is one thing I do like about the KOTR, though: the winner gets to keep that "title" for life. Not that it really is a title, but belts come and go. When a wrestler won KOTR, that crown was his for the rest of his life. No-one can take that away from them. As a quasi-title, it couldn't be lost like a belt. So I appreciated that aspect. The tournaments were predictable in some ways, though. I wish we'd got to see more face vs face and heel vs heel encounters. In 1994, I so wanted Bam Bam Bigelow to beat Razor in the first round, meaning we'd see Bigelow VS IRS in the semi-finals. It was rare to see heels fight each other back then. Or maybe a face vs face semi-final such as Razor Ramon VS Tatanka. In a way, the brackets progressed exactly as I expected them to. Except, of course, in 1995. No way did I expect Shawn Michaels to draw with Kama. That shocked me! |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 18, 2019 8:36:46 GMT -5
I think as a one time tourney it was pretty fun... once they sorta made being King like a title, it was weird. Not every guy can pull off that character, and we really didn't need it to be done by multiple people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 9:31:19 GMT -5
That's a good point. Bret's win led to the Jerry Lawler feud, which I liked. The Rocket is more of a face name, so for a heel, the King of Harts sounds better. Love his work or hate it, Mabel became King Mabel. I didn't like the Diesel/King Mabel feud, but Sir Mo and King Mabel did have a little bit of entertainment value as far as their characters were concerned.
After that, why bother?
|
|
