|
|
|
|
|
Submitted by Xan on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 7:47 PM EST
 "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."--George Orwell Everybody likes a good story. The ways of telling a story, however, differ. I like to read and am currently reading a fantastic book by Neil Gaiman called "Neverwhere," but unlike Gaiman's popular, award-winning comic series "The Sandman," once I get to the final pages of this book, the story of Richard Mayhew, who became a part of London Below because of his kindness in helping young Lady Door, will likely be over. Given Gaiman's imagination, there's some doubt to the truth of that statement, but I won't be surprised if I never meet Richard again. And, while I enjoy a good book as much as the next reader, that's why I prefer comic books to books and television shows to movies...for the most part. I'll grant that there are times that you can tell a character's entire arc in just a two hour movie or 400 pages of writing, but usually when a writer gets me to care about a character I want to know the next step in their lives--assuming they survive the current story. Of course, not all books and movies are one-shots and, indeed, it seems like just about every blockbuster movie gets a sequel whether it's warranted or not these days. Regardless, the nature of the beast is that you're telling a story with a beginning, middle, and an end. There are always exceptions, but in general that's how it works. That's why I love television so much. I have tons of movies at home that I haven't watched yet because instead I choose to watch television shows I missed the first time around. Once I get involved in watching or reading something, I start to care about the characters in that story; or I turn it off/shut the book. If I don't care, what's the point of wasting my time with the material? There isn't any, so I won't. But, if I do care? Well, then I'm going to try to watch every episode of the show I can. I love the fact that most newer shows come out on DVD just a couple months after their season is over, because I have neither the time nor the inclination to sit through these shows as they're airing. The commercials may allow these shows to be aired, but I still can't stand sitting through the damned things. I will make some exceptions to this, of course. Lost, Boston Legal, and House are shows that I watch on a regular basis either as they air or (more often) on DVD within a couple of days. I haven't purchased a digital video recorder yet, but I do have a couple of DVD recorders, and they have been a godsend since the VCR at work is such a piece of shit. New shows this year that I've gotten hooked on are Heroes and Studio 60. I gave The Nine a chance and was sorely disappointed, which surprised me. I like Tim Daly, Kim Raver, and Scott Wolf a lot from other roles, but their combined efforts couldn't get me to stick around for this one. When The Shield and Rescue Me are on, I watch them, as well, but aside from ESPN, The Deuce, and poker that's what I watch...along with professional wrestling, which to me has a lot more to do with the dramas I mentioned than the latter. "I'm interested in having good stories. That's all that matters to me."--Matthew Vaughn Professional wrestling has a lot of aspects of a sport, of course, and even though we call it "The Sport of Kings," we all know it really isn't one. What it boils down to in the end is a couple of guys pretending to fight. But, a couple of guys pretending to fight is not why we watch. We watch for the reason these guys are pretending to fight. We watch for the story, the drama, and because we care about the characters. That's why even though wrestling takes place in an arena, features winners and losers, champs and chumps, with crowds cheering on their every move, I don't view it as a sporting event even when I'm actually at said arena. I know a lot of wrestling fans get offended when they hear wrestling called a "soap opera for guys," but it is actually just that. Professional wrestling is a television show in which the actors are wrestlers selling moves, angles, injuries, and what have you. While I certainly believe it can transcend being merely that for the devout wrestling fan, that's basically what it is. What makes professional wrestling worth watching--during the times that I think it is worth watching, which are becoming less and less frequent--is the same thing that makes a good television show worth watching: Good stories, plot twists, and dynamic characters. The fact that there are also cool moves and people beating the shit out of each other is just a bonus. Like any good television drama, wrestling is dependent on consistency, and while it's true that wrestling writers can be some of the most inconsistent motherfuckers on the planet from storyline to storyline and have a habit of forgetting things that have come before, for the most part they do a decent enough job of maintaining the consistency of the plot and the characters within the storyline, which is why we care...when we do. When they step outside of the bounds of the story, when they put it on hold for any length of time at all, it becomes less relevant and our suspension of disbelief goes away. Not only that, but these days we are busy people with busy lives and we can't always be expected to remember weeks later where a storyline stopped. With network television programs, we have to sometimes, of course. I can remember watching the 3rd season of Angel and being absolutely shocked at the ending of "Sleep Tight," when it looks like one of the main characters has been killed...and then the dread I felt at having to wait 6 weeks to find out his fate. Professional wrestling rarely gets me to that point, and you're probably thinking, "well, of course not. There are no reruns of RAW or Smackdown; it's new every week and you get to see the next step in the storyline play out each week." For the most part, of course, this is a true statement, but the fact that it isn't always true brings me to the point of this column. I was asked, "Should the WWE visit more often other countries than Canada/US/England and go to completely new places?" In order to maintain consistency of character and plot, I maintain that they should not. "Put your heart, mind, intellect, and soul even to your smallest acts. This is the secret of success."--Swami Sivananda Now, I believe the question really meant to ask things from the perspective of the company; put plainly: I don't give a shit. All of us members of the IWC make suggestions all the time for things the WWF could do to become more profitable, but they don't seem interested in doing logical things and I can't be bothered to wonder whether or not the company would double their business by going to more international locations. What I can do, however, is recall how things have gone when they've gone to other countries and cringe both at the lack of consistency on the foreign shows and at the way weird crowd reactions at some shows have caused characters to go in ways that they shouldn't have; or that were opposite to their nature. The only time I can really think of a wrestler's direction being influenced directly by the reactions of one crowd would be Brock Lesnar's face turn following SummerSlam 2002, which was held in New York, however there are multiple examples of crowd reactions causing a dissonance with the viewing audience. The WWF even took advantage of that at one point with the brilliant angle in which Bret Hart was a heel on American soil, but a hero everywhere else. You don't see that kind of writing in the WWF anymore, and it's a shame, but it's also the exception that proves the rule. Shawn Michaels is loved in America and hated in Canada, which makes his status as a babyface questionable every time he goes there. La Resistance, on the other hand, were brutal heels that the Canadians cheered. Tajiri--despite his obvious world class talent--was largely ignored by the WWF, except when he wrestled in Japan. William Regal and Eugene, on the other hand, were hardly a world class tag team, but won the straps in front of a crowd in Great Britain. I'm sure if the Bushwhackers were around, they'd win the titles when the WWF goes to Australia, because whether it makes sense or not--I vote for not--that's the way WWF does business. Not always, of course, but often enough to be annoying. You don't win fans by giving their hometown hero an undue title shot or the title itself just because of where they're wrestling; or if you do, it isn't enough to matter. The way that you get and keep fans of your product is to provide consistency in direction, character, and storytelling. If you're jetting off to Afghanistan once or twice a year to interact with the troops, or going to England to play with whoever those tramps were for that newspaper last year, or going to Australia to play with the kangaroos, or to Montreal to once again do a skit based on the Michaels/Hart scandal, they aren't maintaining that consistency. They aren't giving us the suspension of disbelief that's crucial for their product to be successful; for their fans to keep giving a damn about what they're doing. I realize that this is a possibility no matter where they go, but it certainly seems that they try to "pull out all the stops" when going outside of the U.S., which usually results in them making the people there happy and me pissed, since "pulling out all the stops" for Vince and Co. usually means "doing illogical things for illogical reasons." I don't know if that same kind of disconnect happens for you readers or not, but it does to me pretty much whenever the WWF goes someplace outside of the country, and for that reason I wish they would just stay inside the United States and treat their product as if it were what it really is for all intents and purposes, which is just another television show. As a fan, for them to treat it as just about anything else is an insult to me. As far as fans in those countries go, I'm sure you'd like to be able to see the WWF live once in a while, but speaking as a fan who does get to, I'd be okay with them never coming to my area again if it meant a better, tighter product. Sure, other shows do special editions; hell, almost every drama there is has at one point or another done some kind of take on "It's a Wonderful Life," but the important thing is to do these special things in the context of the show. The WWF has shown a spectacular inability to do this, so rather than keep showing how inept they are at making these "special" shows fit in with their regular programming, they should just focus on the stories they are trying to tell. Or even better ones that could excite the world the way Hogan/Savage and Austin/McMahon did. The kind that make you excited to be a fan wherever you live. Long days, pleasant nights. Points of Light The ECW Tournament Match-ups The ones that are bolded are up and can be read by clicking on the link. You can vote for a columnist only after he and his competitor have posted their columns, and you can do so Here. These guys are writing awesome columns now. They have to if they want to advance, so do yourself a favor and read the stuff they're dishing out. You'll be glad you did; so will they. Big Brother vs. aisce Jules vs. Leviathan Xanman vs Bobino Eldandy vs. Degenerate Diplomat vs. RIPbossman Benbeeach vs. YourAyatollah Zuma vs. Cicero J-Man vs. Y2Xavier That will conclude today's voyage on The Northern Star. For feedback, please email me atXanManX@hotmail.com, with the words "Northern Star" or "feedback" in the subject line or click here to leave your thoughts in the LOPForums. The Northern Star will rise again.> Until then, Be well. *NEW GALLERY* Photos of BATISTA With His HOT NEW GIRLFRIEND!
|
|