So...the entire Raw babyface roster are bullying jerks?
Sept 27, 2013 20:50:01 GMT -5
mrjl, Friday Night SmackOwn, and 1 more like this
Post by Red Impact on Sept 27, 2013 20:50:01 GMT -5
There are rules, but literary rules are made to be played with and even broken. That's how you get memorable stories. If these rules were all set in stone, then there'd be no point in telling stories, because every story would be the same. Sometimes, the villains are weaker and outnumbered but happen to be weaselly enough to avoid their ultimate comeuppance (in fact, that happens quite a bit in comic books). Sometimes, the narrator aren't reliable. Sometimes, the villain does lose because he pisses off way too many people and gets his comeuppance. We're not talking a medieval morality play, because even as short-sighted as WWE gets, it's still a longer-term story.
That said, while I do agree that a story's ending can be plied and manipulated, you will find that 99% of all hero stories are structured from the position of moral high ground. Human beings identify more with a hero (or heroes) overcoming odds themselves to win. When the roles are reversed it's not as satisfying. We're just wired to want to side with an underdog. And WWE's entire booking philosophy has always been written in that classic, as you put it, medieval morality play. Austin for example fought the Corporation by himself for the most part (although others did as well, it wasn't ever with Austin as part of the group.). Hulk Hogan didn't have a larger group of babyfaces to stamp out the Heenan Family. It was basically Sting, DDP and Luger against the whole nWo. We pulled for heroes to find a way to overcome these insurmountable odds, but they still maintained a set of core, heroic ethics in doing so -- even if no one would have blamed them for fighting dirty or returning the same brutality. That's what a hero is. He's not us. He's not the guy who fights fire with fire. He's better than us. He fights with a code that is more difficult to win with, but more satisfying when he finds a way to win.
And I enjoy your posts as well.
Thing is, the context for a villain's comeuppance (if there is one, because sometimes the villain does win) depends on the story. We already got the underdog beats them story, when it was Orton, Kane, and Bryan vs. the Shield and Bryan cleaned house that Smackdown (the weak link phase), and it was a very satisfying conclusion. We've seen them lose fair fights more than once, which was less satisfying.
This is a different story, this is a story of the corporation trying to keep the roster in their place and using this group to do so. To try to stop (another) proper uprising, he throws his enforcers to the wolves, but still tries to undermine the heroes. In this story, the roster pretty much has to have enough at some point and rise up against the villains to fight for their ability to advance, even if their target was set so the main villains could take pressure off of themselves. So it makes sense within the story. So the question at this point is "do we want the Shield to lose yet again, or do we want to see them get their asses kicked by people who won't take it anymore?" I think it's the latter, because we've already had the underdog and we've already had the fair fight, and it's time for the roster to stand up, rally behind the guy leading the charge, and send a message. They're still the underdogs because they're still fighting the bosses of the company, but they got their victory.
We also have to look at format. For a book or a movie, it's different. Each one is it's own narrative and, unless there are sequels, tells a full arc. Wrestling goes in with soap operas in that it's a long-term, open-ended story. So you can't have the exact same story progression all the time and keep the audience interested. This story has to be different from Austin vs. McMahon, which had one very strong wrestler and a weaselly boss who threw the best opponents money could buy at Austin, it has to be different than Punk vs. WWE, it has to be different from every single evil GM story we've had in the past 20 years or it's just not going to be an interesting angle. To their credit, I think it has been to this point.
Now, where they go forward will go a long way in determining how well it will be viewed but I think the progression meets the logic of the company and the storyline. The Shield isnt' dead, but it's been cracked and won't be as effective. If they return to pre-Raw status then it will just be bad writing. If this does stop the Shield being the attack dogs on the likes of Dusty Rhodes, then it's better storytelling.