Kayfabe is well and truly dead,but does it matter or bother you whatsoever?

Rjd2

Longest thread title for a bit that:D

Haven't been following WWE as close as I normally do recently, real life crap and well the show been the pits.

So a couple of recent stories as we all know Rusev and Lana got married, Rusev jobbed to Ryback as punishment for it going mainstream. Their was a lot of criticism of Vince as heh we all knew they were together, but them making their engagement public did kill a PPV feud and **** up lots of plans. Summer was doing really well out of this feud, but is now back in limbo somewhat.

And last week Jericho posted this photo and deleted it a few days later.



Plenty of guys their who have feuded with each other and most notably Reigns and Wyatt who have a PPV match this weekend.

Its been dead for years has Kayfabe and of course social media hasn't helped but does it matter whatsoever to you?

Does it affect your enjoyment or do you just ignore it?

This rambling post was inspired by the below podcast which is an interesting take on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Pqe8M274M

Pentecost

It doesn't kill my enjoyment, if I wasn't able to suspend disbelief I wouldn't be watching in the first place! But...with WWE being the way it is and Vince being old school I'm actually not that surprised at the Rusev punishment. If they'd not done the whole media photos thing I doubt anything would have been said. It was a fairly public crap on the storyline, terrible and all as said storyline was.

Chip Whitley

Tbh the only reason I'd follow any of the wrestlers on Instagram/Twitter/etc is to see fun backstage pictures like that one.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that kayfabe is dead. I find reasonable, coherent storylines between two well-booked and able performers is enough to get me invested in a match regardless.

The top-notch hype vids that WWE run during PPVs are great though and can help pique my interest in a match that I mightn't have been excited about beforehand.

Lord TSC

When I see Daniel Craig and Christopher Waltz palling it up tonight on the Graham Norton show, I won't for a second think "well seeing these two be so friendly ruins any tension in the new Bond film".

My biggest annoyance with wrestling is the way it seems so difficult to seperate characters from the actors portraying them, in terms of WWE trying to pretend its real and the way when real stuff gets reported, there's reprecussions in show. Its why wrestling gets **** on by people with the "you do know its not real" stuff. So I'd happily see kayfabe brought behind the barn and shot.

Pentecost

Yeah for example the NXT four horsewomen closing scenes from Takeover a couple of months ago were prima facie kayfabe busting but I loved it and found myself getting emotional because they genuinely were.

CastorTroy

I would be happy if they just kept real life and tv separate as much as possible. Like we all knew about Rusev and Lana, but like I said in that Raw thread, WWE probably wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't for the fact that WWE was getting publicity. Nothing to do with who it was.

I mean they have Cena and Nikki on Total Divas, yet how often does that relationship get mentioned on Raw or Smackdown, outside of other superstars taking digs? So it's clear they can separate fact from fiction if they really want to.

But the main thing that annoys me is in interviews. If I'm reading or watching an interview with a wrestler, I'd prefer him to answer as him/herself instead of the character. I don't mind them going into character in a jokey way or a promo way when promoting an upcoming match, but for the rest of the interview, be themselves. I think it was Matt Fowler for IGN had this same opinion about how he dislikes interviewing wrestlers who stay in character

Scavenger XIII

Kayfabe being dead is fine by me, what I feel matters is being able to suspend your disbelief while watching the actual show.

When you watch a film you know it's not real and you've seen the real personalities behind the characters but it doesn't affect your enjoyment as long as the fictional aspect is presented consistently. That's where things fall down a bit with WWE I find.

Mr.Nice Guy

Lord TSC wrote: »

When I see Daniel Craig and Christopher Waltz palling it up tonight on the Graham Norton show, I won't for a second think "well seeing these two be so friendly ruins any tension in the new Bond film".

My biggest annoyance with wrestling is the way it seems so difficult to seperate characters from the actors portraying them, in terms of WWE trying to pretend its real and the way when real stuff gets reported, there's reprecussions in show. Its why wrestling gets **** on by people with the "you do know its not real" stuff. So I'd happily see kayfabe brought behind the barn and shot.

I profoundly disagree with this.

The analogy with Daniel Craig and Christopher Waltz doesn't wash because we know Bond is not real, that he is fictional, that Daniel Craig is an actor playing a role in a movie.

In contrast, the very essence of pro wrestling is that even though it's fake, it has to be presented as real. It just has to be. You seem to be suggesting this element doesn't matter? I'm pretty shocked to hear that.

Even though many wrestlers use character names, there ought to nevertheless be a feeling that there is a real legit beef underpinning everything. Case in point, consider for example when Undertaker had the staredown with Brock Lesnar during a UFC event. The internet went crazy about this. 'Did you see the staredown?' 'Did you see the way Taker eyeballed Lesnar?' 'Are these guys not on good terms?' etc. It made people desperate to see Lesnar get back to WWE and face Taker. Because it felt real.

Now if Taker and Lesnar had shaken hands, started cracking jokes, etc, no one would have cared a jot about those two having a match.

And to get back to the topic, yes it does bother me that the company hasn't often respected this principle. I've mentioned before how I hated those NXT pics you would see Sasha and Becky and Bayley posting on Twitter, Facebook etc. whilst at the same time trying to convince us, the audience, that they are rivals who hate one another and that we should invest in this emotionally. Why should I invest emotionally if you, the wrestlers, won't? It is a total release valve on what should be intense pressure within a feud.

Look at Michaels and Bret. The reason that feud was so hot even during a 'hokey' period was because fans knew that both on and off screen those guys hated each other. It made the rivalry seem real. Austin vs McMahon was so hot because it felt real, and when they turned Austin heel and had him hug Vince etc. the fans didn't want to see that and it hurt the business.

Look at Lawler and Kaufman. Even though it was a celebrity entering the pro wrestling world, the fans felt there was legit animosity between them which is why it proved successful.

Personally I think it's about time that the WWE are starting to crack down on this over-exposure of the business. If the men and women want to take photos of themselves, that's fine; just don't put it on the internet for the world to see. Keep it for private use.

I mean, imagine if UFC sanctioned McGregor and Aldo to take photos of themselves having a laugh and a joke backstage. It would kill the fight. I wouldn't be surprised if they are on at least cordial terms, but we as fans are not privy to this. And rightly so. The more serious, real presentation of UFC is why they have attracted many old-school wrestling fans. As Jim Cornette has said, UFC are the best pro wrestling organisation on the planet (by which he meant that they treat their fights as legit).

glenjamin

Agree with MNG. I remember back when the Nexus were together they hung around with each other outside of shows, wore the N armbands, and if I'm not mistaken were told to act like villains. And the olden days of heels travelling with other heels and faces with faces to give off the illusion that they hate each other.

I rarely watch wrestling now and one of the main reasons is the over exposure and behind the scenes stuff that the likes of Twitter have brought. When I watched Taker vs Lesnar I wanted to believe that they really hated each other just as much as Rock vs Cena gave off. It added to the drama like you see with McGregor and Aldo. It sells the match for me and makes me want to buy the PPV. When you see two guys all pally, pally it takes away the so-called animosity of their feud. When Rusev started off as some Russian super villain I wanted to hate him, but then you see photos of him all normal like at baseball games and taking selfies and you quickly are brought back to reality that kayfabe is dead.

Football has gone the same way. The days of Roy Keane staring straight out the tunnel not even giving his rivals a second glance added to the draw of the match. I don't think the United vs Arsenal games would have been quite the same without all the drama of Keane vs Vieria, and Ferguson vs Wenger. Just like El Classico wouldn't be the same without the visual rivalry between the two clubs and the late tackles, talking smack, and both clubs looking for bragging rights. Wrestling is no different.

Lord TSC

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I profoundly disagree with this.

Won't quote the post in full just for ease of reading sake.

I guess how I read your post is I am comparing it to other Tv shows and movies ("Entertainment") and you're comparing it to other legit events ("Sports").

In contrast, the very essence of pro wrestling is that even though it's fake, it has to be presented as real. It just has to be. You seem to be suggesting this element doesn't matter? I'm pretty shocked to hear that.

During the movie, Bond, as an example, presents itself as real just as much as wrestling does. More so, even; Bond won't have inside jokes about the actors, "Don't try this at home" montages where the superstars confess to it being "fake", etc. Pro wrestling, when presented as a show on TV, should present itself as real, just as every other fictional scripted show should. No show stops every few seconds to have the actors look at the screen and go "Remember kids, this isn't real". Suspension of disbelief isn't a trait only pro-wrestling relies on.

I think it's telling that your final example is to use McGreggor/Aldo. You seemingly want wrestling to be more realistic like a UFC fight, in terms of not wanting a line between characters and actors; to have it that the show itself isn't just a 3 hour Raw, and NXT, Smackdown and the PPV, but that the show is a 24/7 soap opera, that fans can follow as if its a legit sport. That legitimate beef exists between two wrestlers before a match. That, in this day and age, isn't achievable. Its not real, and presenting it as such to that degree in the modern era, where people have access to untold information, is impossible. Even if the wrestlers don't post pictures themselves, other people will, given everyone has a video camera in their pockets nowadays. Even apart from the social media aspect, there can't be a payoff to that; at no stage this weekend, regardless of a social media picture, will I ever believe that Windham Rotunda and Leati Joseph Anoaʻi are actually going to try and hurt each other. But I can believe that Bray Wyatt and Roman Reigns want to. At no stage can a legit feud, or one presented as such outside of the show, have a legit payoff in the world of pro-wrestling. But a scripted feud in a scripted show can.

For me, even though I enjoy when WWE can let me suspend my disbelief, I fully accept wrestling isn't real. Its scripted, its predetermined by a myriad of factors. And yet, when I watch another TV show or movie, I don't have any tension lost because I can differentiate between actors and characters. When I see the Bond cast discussing their characters, discussing behind the scenes stuff, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the stories they are presenting at all.

The problem seems to be you're using "realism" to make up for bad writing; if the writing of a scene is good, the relationship between actors behind the scenes should have zero impact on how I feel about the show I'm watching. You say...

Why should I invest emotionally if you, the wrestlers, won't? It is a total release valve on what should be intense pressure within a feud.

Because if characters are well written, if stories are presented as realistic and genuine, then what happens with the actors behind the curtain should not impact on it at all. I can invest emotionally into a wrestling story the exact same way I can invest into any other fictional story, regardless of seeing pictures of actors palling it up behind the scenes. I don't expect to see Bryan Cranston cooking up Meth on Twitter in a bid to get me to invest into Breaking Bad. I don't expect to see Downey Jr. flying round in a metal suit to get me invested into the next Avengers film. SO, as such, I really don't expect wrestlers to play their characters while on social media or in interviews either.

A Brad Maddox Guy

Wrestling relies more on the illusion of reality than regular TV & film though. Hell the entire thing was built on that illusion so I personally don't think it's a fair comparison either. Magicians maybe :pac:

Death of kayfabe annoys me but I've long accepted it & would consider it unavoidable in the modern age. I still wouldn't want to see feuding wrestlers having a laugh together in public or on twitter though.

DM_7

I find a lot of the kayfabe breaking unnecessary. At other times it doesn't bother me if it's promoting the product or providing something fans want to see.

Example, table for 3 on the network, breaks kayfabe but in an environment where it appeals to the viewer it makes sense. The NXT ladies in Brooklyn, made sense as it provided the paying fans with a special moment and can be viewed as showing Respect.

On the flip side, if kayfabe was already broken like Lana and Rusev as people know they are a couple the storyline was a struggle to sit through.

The photo posted by Jericho added nothing so was unnecessary.

Blue_Dabadee

I remember Serena Deeb got released because she was not living straight edge lifestyle on the road.

Mr.Nice Guy

Lord TSC wrote: »

During the movie, Bond, as an example, presents itself as real just as much as wrestling does. More so, even; Bond won't have inside jokes about the actors, "Don't try this at home" montages where the superstars confess to it being "fake", etc. Pro wrestling, when presented as a show on TV, should present itself as real, just as every other fictional scripted show should. No show stops every few seconds to have the actors look at the screen and go "Remember kids, this isn't real". Suspension of disbelief isn't a trait only pro-wrestling relies on.

But this is the very point. When you watch a Bond movie you don't get to see blooper moments where Craig for example would start laughing and joking with his villainous co-stars during the film. If that happened, it would take the audience right out of the moment.

When I watch the Terminator movies I don't get to see scenes where Arnie breaks character and starts laughing, and joking about his machine make-up etc. because it would take the audience out of the moment. Now of course I and others know Arnie is not really a machine - despite his wooden acting leaving some to have doubts :pac: - but you need to have that serious presentation or it all falls apart.

The point I'm stressing is that if you kill off kayfabe, as you seem to think should happen, then the business all goes to hell. You will have interactions with guys in the ring where nothing is treated as serious, and it just comes across as phony due to bad writing. (I actually think the bad writing is worse than the 'don't try this at home' stuff)

Lord TSC wrote:

I think it's telling that your final example is to use McGreggor/Aldo. You seemingly want wrestling to be more realistic like a UFC fight, in terms of not wanting a line between characters and actors; to have it that the show itself isn't just a 3 hour Raw, and NXT, Smackdown and the PPV, but that the show is a 24/7 soap opera, that fans can follow as if its a legit sport. That legitimate beef exists between two wrestlers before a match. That, in this day and age, isn't achievable. Its not real, and presenting it as such to that degree in the modern era, where people have access to untold information, is impossible.

I disagree. Consider all the great promos of modern times. If you look closely enough, you'll see that there is an undercurrent of truth to them. Consider the CM Punk pipe bomb promo. Why did that cause such a sensation? Because it felt real. How he mentioned that he liked Cena, but felt it was outrageous that he was being overlooked etc. These were sentiments that he had expressed before. Now it looked real, but it wasn't. He had gone over the promo with the company beforehand; he knew the precise moment to turn to the camera and wave to Colt Cabana; he knew the precise moment the mic would cut off. Didn't stop fans loving the whole thing though did it? Because it came across as serious.

Consider the Mick Foley 'Cane Dewey' promo. How he vented his rage that the ECW fans could suggest wanting to hurt his little boy. People were amazed by this promo because it felt real.

All of the great promos and feuds of the business work because there is an undercurrent of seriousness to them. To suggest that this element is an irrelevance does a disservice to how the business works.

Lord TSC wrote:

Even if the wrestlers don't post pictures themselves, other people will, given everyone has a video camera in their pockets nowadays. Even apart from the social media aspect, there can't be a payoff to that; at no stage this weekend, regardless of a social media picture, will I ever believe that Windham Rotunda and Leati Joseph Anoaʻi are actually going to try and hurt each other. But I can believe that Bray Wyatt and Roman Reigns want to. At no stage can a legit feud, or one presented as such outside of the show, have a legit payoff in the world of pro-wrestling. But a scripted feud in a scripted show can.

But see, their job is not convince you that they are going to try and hurt each other. Their job is to make you doubt, even just ever so slightly, as to whether there is legit beef and potential for violence.

And again I cite the examples I mentioned in the last post. Taker and Lesnar's face-off, Michaels and Bret, glenjamin mentioned Rock vs Cena which originated in the idea that the two had legit tension there.

The most interesting character currently imo is Brock Lesnar because in my view he is the only guy that exudes a legit sense of menace. When he is going crazy and screaming and throwing dudes around I can suspend my disbelief and believe that this man might well seriously mess up his opponent. He is also one of the few guys that is taken seriously, not disrespected by The Authority etc. He is a lone ember of hope in a kayfabe-killing era. Is it any surprise that he is their big draw?

Lord TSC wrote:

For me, even though I enjoy when WWE can let me suspend my disbelief, I fully accept wrestling isn't real. Its scripted, its predetermined by a myriad of factors. And yet, when I watch another TV show or movie, I don't have any tension lost because I can differentiate between actors and characters. When I see the Bond cast discussing their characters, discussing behind the scenes stuff, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the stories they are presenting at all.

And as I said above, how would you feel if in the movie, the Bond cast started getting away from the story at hand and began saying 'you know, that was a good scene. High five, guys' etc.

It would kill your enjoyment, I suspect. There has to be that element of seriousness underpinning everything or it just doesn't work. And that holds true for the wrestling business as well.

Lord TSC wrote:

The problem seems to be you're using "realism" to make up for bad writing; if the writing of a scene is good, the relationship between actors behind the scenes should have zero impact on how I feel about the show I'm watching.

Not at all. Bad writing kills the realism. I just watched Smackdown the other day where Dolph Ziggler says a line to Tyler Breeze along the lines of 'you're a lazy millennial'. I actually groaned. I shook my head upon hearing this. It bugged me for two reasons : firstly, it sounded like something Vince would say or his writers. But most importantly, NO ONE would say this line in a real fight. It was a story-killer for me. They may as well have started laughing and high-fiving in the ring. The desire for a realistic presentation requires good writing.

Lord TSC wrote:

Because if characters are well written, if stories are presented as realistic and genuine, then what happens with the actors behind the curtain should not impact on it at all. I can invest emotionally into a wrestling story the exact same way I can invest into any other fictional story, regardless of seeing pictures of actors palling it up behind the scenes. I don't expect to see Bryan Cranston cooking up Meth on Twitter in a bid to get me to invest into Breaking Bad. I don't expect to see Downey Jr. flying round in a metal suit to get me invested into the next Avengers film. SO, as such, I really don't expect wrestlers to play their characters while on social media or in interviews either.

Where we differ seems to be that while we both believe that stories ought to be well written, and presented as realistic and genuine, you do not seem to think the wrestlers ought to take responsibility for carrying that into in real life. You think it is an irrelevance.

I would say that the numbers of viewers and the rapid decline of wrestling fans, many of whom cite the silliness, and the unrealistic nature of the programming, coupled with UFC's rise on the back of treating their fights as legit, proves your thesis to be false.

Even on this very forum there have been dropping numbers of fans as people become exasperated at feuds that aren't taken seriously. Look at the amount of users here who say they only watch when Lesnar is around. It's not hard to see why. It's because he is one of the very few who is treated as a legit badass. If the WWE don't expect their own talent to take their own stuff seriously, why should anyone else?

I want to believe when I see two wrestlers face off, especially in a main event scenario, that they have legit heat with one another. I don't ask that I be 100 per cent convinced of this; just give me a little bit of realism to make me believe.

If you look at the big angles of recent times, all had a core element of realism.

Daniel Bryan's gratitude for the fans supporting him in the face of management who felt he wasn't up to main event status? We bought into it because it felt real.

CM Punk's pipebomb promo against management who he felt were holding him back? We bought into it because it felt real.

Even AJ Lee's promo against the Total Divas and the idea they only get pushed because of the show. We bought into it because it felt real.

The great moments of this business happen when the storylines, and by extension the viewers at home, are treated respectfully, seriously, and without anyone's intelligence being insulted.

Lord TSC

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

But this is the very point. When you watch a Bond movie you don't get to see blooper moments where Craig for example would start laughing and joking with his villainous co-stars during the film. If that happened, it would take the audience right out of the moment.

When I watch the Terminator movies I don't get to see scenes where Arnie breaks character and starts laughing, and joking about his machine make-up etc. because it would take the audience out of the moment. Now of course I and others know Arnie is not really a machine - despite his wooden acting leaving some to have doubts :pac: - but you need to have that serious presentation or it all falls apart.
The point I'm stressing is that if you kill off kayfabe, as you seem to think should happen, then the business all goes to hell. You will have interactions with guys in the ring where nothing is treated as serious, and it just comes across as phony due to bad writing. (I actually think the bad writing is worse than the 'don't try this at home' stuff)

Ah, maybe there's a miscommunication here. I'm not arguing that during a Raw, kayfabe should disappear. As I said, during the shows, pretend its real, just like every other TV show. I'm not arguing to get rid of kayfabe when it comes to the presentation of the product as it is on TV in a scripted environment. Simply that when the actors aren't in front of the cameras with a script, they shouldn't have to worry about staying in character.

Present the show as real for the duration of the show. Same as every other TV show. After that, let the actors be actors.

I disagree. Consider all the great promos of modern times. If you look closely enough, you'll see that there is an undercurrent of truth to them. Consider the CM Punk pipe bomb promo. Why did that cause such a sensation? Because it felt real. How he mentioned that he liked Cena, but felt it was outrageous that he was being overlooked etc. These were sentiments that he had expressed before. Now it looked real, but it wasn't. He had gone over the promo with the company beforehand; he knew the precise moment to turn to the camera and wave to Colt Cabana; he knew the precise moment the mic would cut off. Didn't stop fans loving the whole thing though did it? Because it came across as serious.

Consider the Mick Foley 'Cane Dewey' promo. How he vented his rage that the ECW fans could suggest wanting to hurt his little boy. People were amazed by this promo because it felt real.

All of the great promos and feuds of the business work because there is an undercurrent of seriousness to them. To suggest that this element is an irrelevance does a disservice to how the business works.

Fair point, and I fully accept that the "realism" of these moments add to the product immensely. However, the show shouldn't have to rely on them either. This again goes back to my above point; you can maintain an element of kayfabe when the show is on the air, and there'll always be a thirst amoung wrestling fans to see reality seep into the wrestling product. My concern is more when the product seeps into reality; when a wrestler has to give an interview in character, when people get annoyed that the actors aren't maintaining kayfabe 24/7.

Moments that make a viewer think "Omg, this is so realistic" works as a basis for every single show and movie out there.

But see, their job is not convince you that they are going to try and hurt each other. Their job is to make you doubt, even just ever so slightly, as to whether there is legit beef and potential for violence.

And again I cite the examples I mentioned in the last post. Taker and Lesnar's face-off, Michaels and Bret, glenjamin mentioned Rock vs Cena which originated in the idea that the two had legit tension there.

The most interesting character currently imo is Brock Lesnar because in my view he is the only guy that exudes a legit sense of menace. When he is going crazy and screaming and throwing dudes around I can suspend my disbelief and believe that this man might well seriously mess up his opponent. He is also one of the few guys that is taken seriously, not disrespected by The Authority etc. He is a lone ember of hope in a kayfabe-killing era. Is it any surprise that he is their big draw?

I utterly disagree that "Their job is to make you doubt, even just ever so slightly, as to whether there is legit beef and potential for violence.", at least in the context of kayfabe. For me, their job is to make you suspend disbelief and make you forget its not real, but thats not the same as making you think there might be real violence. In the same way, I can see (sticking with the example) the Bond movie next week, and I'll want to suspend my disbelief and forget James Bond doesn't actually exist, but I wouldn't expect to see Daniel Craig legitimately maim Christopher Waltz. I'd never expect to see a a real violence on screen.

At its most basic, it would be massively unprofessional to ever put two people in front of a camera on a scripted (family) show and risk having one person seriously hurt another.

I will never believe that if two people enter the ring, there's the potential for two to actually engage in a legit fight, at least in the modern era. I appreciate, for example, that HBK vs Bret had what appears to be a legit beef, but they still were professional enough to work together in a manner where they didn't actually hurt each other. In this modern era though, where the world fully knows its not real, I don't see how anyone could think WWE would let people into the ring who might actually cause each other actual bodily harm.

It would be suicidal for WWE on multiple fronts, from the fallout from other wrestlers, from how sponsors would view them, on how the TV networks would deal with them. As such, I don't believe WWE should be spending any time trying to convince you outside of their shows that there's legit beef. As with every other show, spend the show building how the characters want to hurt each other, but don't try and fool people outside the show that the beef is real. Imo, it comes across as being extremely condescending and insulting when they do.

And as I said above, how would you feel if in the movie, the Bond cast started getting away from the story at hand and began saying 'you know, that was a good scene. High five, guys' etc.

It would kill your enjoyment, I suspect. There has to be that element of seriousness underpinning everything or it just doesn't work. And that holds true for the wrestling business as well.

As above.

Not at all. Bad writing kills the realism. I just watched Smackdown the other day where Dolph Ziggler says a line to Tyler Breeze along the lines of 'you're a lazy millennial'. I actually groaned. I shook my head upon hearing this. It bugged me for two reasons : firstly, it sounded like something Vince would say or his writers. But most importantly, NO ONE would say this line in a real fight. It was a story-killer for me. They may as well have started laughing and high-fiving in the ring. The desire for a realistic presentation requires good writing.

Not going to disagree; the writing is atrocious.

Where we differ seems to be that while we both believe that stories ought to be well written, and presented as realistic and genuine, you do not seem to think the wrestlers ought to take responsibility for carrying that into in real life. You think it is an irrelevance.

I would say that the numbers of viewers and the rapid decline of wrestling fans, many of whom cite the silliness, and the unrealistic nature of the programming, coupled with UFC's rise on the back of treating their fights as legit, proves your thesis to be false.

Even on this very forum there have been dropping numbers of fans as people become exasperated at feuds that aren't taken seriously. Look at the amount of users here who say they only watch when Lesnar is around. It's not hard to see why. It's because he is one of the very few who is treated as a legit badass. If the WWE don't expect their own talent to take their own stuff seriously, why should anyone else?

Your example of Lesnar works because the actor playing the character happens to be very close, and Lesnar is actually a legit badass. He has that air, naturally, of a man who can kill someone.

But what about other wrestlers? Are we to believe, for example, that Los Matadors and Lucha Dragons go round wearing the masks all day? That Kane actually can summon fire from various locations at will? Is Cody Rhodes meant to stay painted up all day when going to the gym or the shop?

What you want works for some characters; people like Cena, Brock, Bryan et al. can all afford to maintain some elements of kayfabe cause the actor and character are very much the same. But if The Rock is to fight John Cena in a wrestling ring, its because the world famous movie star has made certain that Cena isn't going to actually attack him during a match. If Undertaker, at the age of 50, is stepping in the ring with a monster like Brock, its because he has full assurances from Brock himself that it isn't going to turn into a shoot wherein Taker would probably be crippled.

I want to believe when I see two wrestlers face off, especially in a main event scenario, that they have legit heat with one another. I don't ask that I be 100 per cent convinced of this; just give me a little bit of realism to make me believe.

If you look at the big angles of recent times, all had a core element of realism.

Daniel Bryan's gratitude for the fans supporting him in the face of management who felt he wasn't up to main event status? We bought into it because it felt real.

CM Punk's pipebomb promo against management who he felt were holding him back? We bought into it because it felt real.

Even AJ Lee's promo against the Total Divas and the idea they only get pushed because of the show. We bought into it because it felt real.

The great moments of this business happen when the storylines, and by extension the viewers at home, are treated respectfully, seriously, and without anyone's intelligence being insulted.

And I feel we're not that far off agreeing with the basic premise; that wrestling fans want a show thats realistic and respectful of the fans.

I just don't believe that a trying to convince fans that the likes of Bray Wyatt and Roman Reigns legit hate each other outside the ring is treating fans with respect. You can present a product on TV as realistic, as dark and gritty, or as humorous while still letting fans suspend their disbelief, without expecting fans to believe that characters and actors are one and the same. You can let the actors be real people outside your on-screen presentation without hurting the product.

Mr.Nice Guy

I do agree that we are not a million miles away in terms of what we want. I think our different perspectives are similar to the commonly asked question by Stone Cold, 'are you a pro wrestling fan or a sports entertainment fan?'

I feel like I am arguing for the former whereas you seem content with the latter.

Lord TSC wrote: »

Fair point, and I fully accept that the "realism" of these moments add to the product immensely. However, the show shouldn't have to rely on them either. This again goes back to my above point; you can maintain an element of kayfabe when the show is on the air, and there'll always be a thirst amoung wrestling fans to see reality seep into the wrestling product. My concern is more when the product seeps into reality; when a wrestler has to give an interview in character, when people get annoyed that the actors aren't maintaining kayfabe 24/7.

Would you therefore be against the WWE's longtime position of keeping Undertaker away from the Hall of Fame in order to protect the character? I believe Taker himself insists on not being there to protect the aura and mystique of the character, rather than expose it by showing him sat in an audience laughing and joking.

Of course nobody, I'm assuming, believes him to be quasi-mystical deadmna figure, but why beat people over the head with the fact he's not? What would that accomplish other than harm?

Lord TSC wrote:

I utterly disagree that "Their job is to make you doubt, even just ever so slightly, as to whether there is legit beef and potential for violence.", at least in the context of kayfabe. For me, their job is to make you suspend disbelief and make you forget its not real, but thats not the same as making you think there might be real violence. In the same way, I can see (sticking with the example) the Bond movie next week, and I'll want to suspend my disbelief and forget James Bond doesn't actually exist, but I wouldn't expect to see Daniel Craig legitimately maim Christopher Waltz. I'd never expect to see a a real violence on screen.

At its most basic, it would be massively unprofessional to ever put two people in front of a camera on a scripted (family) show and risk having one person seriously hurt another.

I will never believe that if two people enter the ring, there's the potential for two to actually engage in a legit fight, at least in the modern era. I appreciate, for example, that HBK vs Bret had what appears to be a legit beef, but they still were professional enough to work together in a manner where they didn't actually hurt each other. In this modern era though, where the world fully knows its not real, I don't see how anyone could think WWE would let people into the ring who might actually cause each other actual bodily harm.

You misunderstand me. I was not suggesting that there should be New Jack style scenarios where wrestlers engage in violence for real. Of course that would be unprofessional and disgraceful.

What I mean is that in pro wrestling, a business where you have fake fights presented as real fights, the most compelling moments occur when the line between reality and fiction is blurred. Lesnar is the daddy of this in the modern era. When he kept suplexing Cena in the Summerslam match, of course we all knew that it was a choreographed fight, but the violence and the constant toil on Cena's body made for a compelling contest and left people thinking, 'wow this is different'.

Lord TSC wrote:

Your example of Lesnar works because the actor playing the character happens to be very close, and Lesnar is actually a legit badass. He has that air, naturally, of a man who can kill someone.

But what about other wrestlers? Are we to believe, for example, that Los Matadors and Lucha Dragons go round wearing the masks all day? That Kane actually can summon fire from various locations at will? Is Cody Rhodes meant to stay painted up all day when going to the gym or the shop?

What you want works for some characters; people like Cena, Brock, Bryan et al. can all afford to maintain some elements of kayfabe cause the actor and character are very much the same.

I agree. I am not suggesting that there is no room in wrestling for these types of characters.

What I am saying is that the overloading of such characters, especially at main event level, and with no effort to convey real emotional issues that resonate on a human level, will lead to mass apathy amongst the fanbase. And that is what is happening right now judging by the numbers.

Lord TSC wrote:

But if The Rock is to fight John Cena in a wrestling ring, its because the world famous movie star has made certain that Cena isn't going to actually attack him during a match. If Undertaker, at the age of 50, is stepping in the ring with a monster like Brock, its because he has full assurances from Brock himself that it isn't going to turn into a shoot wherein Taker would probably be crippled.[/QUOTE[

Of course, that's quite correct. But in order for the fans to be emotionally invested in these battles and to be willing to part with their own cash, then you have to convey legit emotional stories that viewers find compelling; it can't simply be a fight based on Rock wanting to come back and do a Mania show because he can fit it into his schedule, or because Taker feels he can do another Mania before his body gives out. Those are the real reasons but they are not reasons on which to sell a show.

Lord TSC]And I feel we're not that far off agreeing with the basic premise; that wrestling fans want a show thats realistic and respectful of the fans.

I just don't believe that a trying to convince fans that the likes of Bray Wyatt and Roman Reigns legit hate each other outside the ring is treating fans with respect. You can present a product on TV as realistic, as dark and gritty, or as humorous while still letting fans suspend their disbelief, without expecting fans to believe that characters and actors are one and the same. You can let the actors be real people outside your on-screen presentation without hurting the product.

In a way what we have, I think, is a difference of philosophy. You seem to be content to view the wrestlers as characters. You earlier described them as actors:

Present the show as real for the duration of the show. Same as every other TV show. After that, let the actors be actors.

But I'm uncomfortable with this because wrestling is not a traditional form of entertainment in this way. For example, when the guy who plays Ian Beale goes on a chat show, he doesn't have to sell the storyline involving the Beale family for the audience, or try to portray it as authentic.

By contrast, when Lesnar, or Reigns, or Cena, appear on a chat show and are asked, 'tell us about your opponent this Sunday at the PPV', they have to sell the storyline. They have to emphasize a legit beef with the person they face. In this respect wrestling branches over very closely to boxing, MMA, etc.

In a way it's a curious hybrid of the sports and entertainment world, hence the term 'sports entertainment.' My problem though is that there has been too much of an emphasis on the entertainment aspect, at a cost to the 'sporting' aspect. And while we all know it will never be a legit sporting contest, it must nonetheless adhere to the tried and tested sporting principles of promotion and of personalities.

We're having a bit of a circular argument here but to finish up with an analogy, remember in the nineties when that guy came along, the masked magician, and proceeded to spill the beans on all the old magical secrets? To break kayfabe in magic terms, essentially.

This was a hammer blow to that business because it destroyed the illusion. Now, I don't think anyone really believed that this was magic, and that assistants were really being sawed in half etc., but it was important to keep the illusion.

By revealing to audiences things they did not previously know, it ruined the mystique and the sense of wonder.

Your argument on the idea that kayfabe in wrestling ought to be killed off seems to me similar to those who said that spilling the secrets wouln't matter. But of course it did, which is why so many magicians were upset. It killed the illusion.

And we as wrestling fans, whilst we know we follow a form of fake, choreographed fights, want to be absorbed in what is going on, want a suspension of disbelief, want to be carried away. Killing kayfabe destroys this because it hammers home to the audience that you are watching a fake fight, these guys don't really hate each other, and you're wasting time investing in this. And the numbers are dropping off.

As Jim Cornette has said, wrestling is the only form of popular entertainment in the modern era where the majority of people USED to be fans.

And when you say, 'You can let the actors be real people outside your on-screen presentation without hurting the product', the evidence suggests otherwise.

The Von Erichs were huge in Dallas by being portrayed as all-American good Christian kids. When the people found out what went on behind closed doors involving them, it killed their business. People did not want the reality. This is not an isolated case.

Photos of wrestlers posing and smiling with each other one day, and then trying to convince you to pay for a PPV as they pretend to hate each other another day, will not do anything to help the industry.

Promos where guys laugh and cracks jokes a day after losing a World Title match will not do anything to help the industry.

I maintain that the best moments in wrestling occur when the line between fact and fiction is blurred to such an extent that people become emotionally involved in the story.

A Primal Nut

Was watching Wrestling With Shadows there for the first time in years. It's unbelievable how seriously the fans took the Bret Hart good guy in Canada & bad guy in USA story. You have guys going crazy about how much they hate him and then you have another guy who is American but defending Bret Hart saying it's not right how the fans turned on him. When in reality everything Bret was saying he was told to say by Vince McMahon but these fans really believed it was all Bret. It's the three minutes period from 49:20 to 52:30:
:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJcFns1IMA


A few minutes before that you have Bret saying (out of character) how he couldn't believe the fans would turn on him and support Steve Austin (this was before the double heel turn). He really took the whole thing very seriously. It really was a whole different world back before the internet caught on.

Palo Alto

To be fair there's no bigger mark than Bret.