SLAM! Wrestling Editorial: When the soap opera becomes too much
By ALEX RISTIC -- SLAM! Wrestling
For those that didn't see the most recent ECW PPV, Guilty As Charged,
outside of some stellar matches you probably also missed some disturbing
commentary that really has no place in wrestling, and are just items to
try and get people into tuning in. Commentary and promos are usually
the set-ups for feuds, giving a backdrop and a reason for in-ring
confrontations. Well, this time, in my opinion, the soap opera factor
went too far.
After threatening his family, Rhino took the ECW World title away from The Sandman at the Guilty As Charged PPV.
|
If you need some illustrations, here are a few, paraphrased to the best
of my abilities, as close to the particular person's comments as
possible.
Missy Hyatt to Francine backstage in-between matches:
"Would you f--- him already (motioning to Justin Credible)."
Missy Hyatt to Steve Corino and Jack Victory
"Did I f--- you?" (asked of Victory after he asked if Hyatt remembered
him).
Rhino to Sandman, after Sandman's title victory:
"People are dying in the ring for that title, so it's one I'll kill for.
If you won't die Sandman, your family's right over there, they'll die
instead." (Rhino was coercing Sandman into a title match right after his
win, which Rhino subsequently won).
Doesn't anybody else see anything wrong with this? How far can one
company go to further its fanbase and storylines? The line has to be
drawn somewhere.
Let's start with Rhino's comments. Besides insulting our intelligence
(as soon as the threat was uttered, and if was a true threat I'm sure
Sandman would have beat the living crap out of him or at the very least
called the cops -- uttering death threats is a serious offence in the
U.S.), were they really necessary? Hell no! In trying to elevate a star,
and perhaps a feud, ECW allowed its performers to not only cross a line
of good taste, but put the soap opera element at the forefront -- not
the four-star match that had just previously ended with Credible, Corino
and Sandman.
Fact is wrestling is violent, we know this, it's not a new, enlightening
factor. The very nature of the sport is one-upmanship through physical
altercations to prove who is the best wrestler (although we know
outcomes are based on popularity). But death threats?
There are two big problems with this. One is the ever important
believability factor, which we will look at now.
Look at the recent real backstage feud between Scott Steiner and Diamond
Dallas Page in WCW. Steiner made unflattering comments to Page and his
wife, which heated up DDP and a brawl ensued backstage. Apparently, only
light punishments were handed out, but they were punishments
nonetheless. Luna Vachon also had an altercation in the WWF with one of
the backstage personnel, for which she was released, and Buff Bagwell,
also of WCW, was in a similar situation and received a one-month
suspension.
So, in real life, these kinds of actions are punishable, the precedent
has been set. If Rhino made those comments backstage, ECW owner Paul
Heyman would have had to step in and quell or quash what would have
happened. Therefore, if you know it's not tolerated backstage, how can
you, the fan, believe it when it's presented in front of you in the
ring?
In an effort to make a match-up sizzle, ECW relied too much upon a
heat-of-the-moment situation (planned at least days in advance, so
therefore there's no heat in the actual moment), and ruined it. Fact is,
if someone threatened your family, whether you had just finished a match
or not, you're seeing red and you go after the persons responsible.
But you know what? That doesn't even bother me as much as the other
negative factor that has to do with this -- the angle was unfit for
public consumption. Yes, that's right, unfit for public consumption.
Yes, parents should monitor what their kids watch, but as we often know,
it's not enough. ECW should take some responsibility and realize that
maybe death threats are going too far. Let's be realistic -- wrestling is
hugely popular, whether the TV ratings always reflect that or not, and a
large portion of that audience, I would estimate as high as 35 per cent,
is under 16 years of age. ECW knows parents aren't doing their jobs. In
this case, lack of parental interference is just an excuse to hide
behind. Kids are going to see it, either taped from a friend later, or
when their parents go out to dinner or whatever. Are "death threats to
get your way" really the message you want to send?
And let's look at it from another point of view. Commercialism. As
extreme and underground as ECW is, it does want to garner a mainstream
following. Now, while the WWF and WCW wrestlers have said they'll
"retire" people or put them in hospitals, I can honestly say I've never
heard someone say in either fed that they'll kill someone. How do they
expect to be picked up by a network with comments like the one Rhino
made. I don't know about you, but after that I wouldn't touch them.
Now let's get to Hyatt's comments. What the hell did she say them for?
While I have no proof, it seems to me they were just for
sensationalistic reactions. She didn't make her presence known during
the matches on the evening, hadn't appeared on ECW TV or PPV in almost two
years (possibly more), and there's no indication that she'll be back
anytime soon.
For those that haven't seen Guilty As Charged, Credible exited the
bathroom in a mixed state of euphoria and sexual frustration, half-dressed.
Hyatt came out after him wrapped in only a towel. If it were
part of an angle, like say Hyatt trying to steal Credible away from
Francine, then it at least would be plausible, and make some sort of
sense. But it seems that ECW was only doing it for the T&A factor -- "Hey
watch us -- we have hot chicks that can disrobe at any second."
Puh-lease.
I am a fan of ECW wrestling, but if they think their product isn't good
enough for people to follow the matches and have to resort to women
spouting off sexually promiscuous commentary, then that says something.
How does that translate to the fans? To me, it says they're so worried
that people won't watch the wrestling, so they bring in the explicit
content. Hardly a ringing endorsement for your company Mr. Heyman.
And no, I won't only pick on ECW. The heads of the WWF and WCW need to
stop taking non-prescription drugs and see what they're doing as well.
From the WWF -- a divorce angle? With someone who doesn't even wrestle?
What's up with that? I guess Vince McMahon thinks he's more important
than the product he's pushing. This angle is pure soap opera with no
redeeming in-ring qualities whatsoever. If McMahon wasn't so lazy he
could have found a way for Trish Stratus to manage Kurt Angle without
having to have a faux affair with her. Now that's putting the soap opera
before wrestling.
Then there's WCW -- while nothing recently sticks out, there was the
Stacy Kiebler/Ms. Hancock pregnancy angle. Now let's see, David Flair
hasn't fully completed wrestling training yet. He's not good enough to
put in a high profile feud with the large stars, and because he doesn't
yet possess the talent, he's also not over with the crowd. Wow,
ingenious. Set him up with a pregnancy angle where's he's not the father
-- yeah, the ratings will sky rocket (insert dripping sarcasm here).
Let's get one thing straight. The soap opera development for storylines
are just that, factors to help develop the in-ring confrontations. Once
the ring wars take a back seat to the outside going-ons, then the
message you're sending is that your wrestling product isn't good enough.
The two need to go hand-in-hand, and while plot developments are
important, once they overshadow the ring confrontations, what you're
basically saying is that wrestling is not needed.
Well, I tune into wrestling to watch the actual matches. Yes, I enjoy
storylines, when done well, and you do need reasons to spark feuds. But
ultimately, the final story needs to be told in the ring.
