Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Monday Night Fetus - a big hit
I haven't seen the ratings yet, but the rumor I heard was that WWE expects a sizable ratings bump for the payoff to the whole Lita/Kane baby angle. We'll see if that happens or not.
As for the angle itself...
I have yet to find one person who was attracted to watching pro wrestling because they want two-minute matches with cut-backs to a reporter standing outside a hospital room. I know, mentioning the word "baby" and "female" is a good way to cheaply latch into the parental and protective instincts of the audienc. But in past angles, it has been used as a side issue - no one has ever had to sit through watching it play out before. Yeah, Cornette hit Baby Doll with the tennis racket and she was no longer able to have kids - we didn't have to sit for two hours while David Crockett screamed live from the Charlotte Hospital and Dusty waited for the x-rays to get back. Actually showing all of that would have killed off all the emotion that storyline wrinkle created in the first place. Now I know why we never had to sit through it before with Crockett and Heyman - there wasn't a sane promoter worth his salt stupid enough to do it back then.
WWE has a way of making people agonize through the parts of a storyline nobody wants to actually watch. They do this because its just easier to do the same tricks and Jerry Springer-type garbage instead of working on building a new concept. It's easier to pull the same cheap, hot-shot angles than to use some creative thought in pushing something from week to week and keeping the audience involved and actually build a story that makes sense in the end. Seriously, is there anyone out there that thinks this will give any long-term ratings value to WWE? Does WWE believe, if they do this every week, it will mean a larger profit down the road? If someone could explain to me what they see in this type of storyline that could better the future of pro wrestling, please enlighten me.
As for the angle itself...
I have yet to find one person who was attracted to watching pro wrestling because they want two-minute matches with cut-backs to a reporter standing outside a hospital room. I know, mentioning the word "baby" and "female" is a good way to cheaply latch into the parental and protective instincts of the audienc. But in past angles, it has been used as a side issue - no one has ever had to sit through watching it play out before. Yeah, Cornette hit Baby Doll with the tennis racket and she was no longer able to have kids - we didn't have to sit for two hours while David Crockett screamed live from the Charlotte Hospital and Dusty waited for the x-rays to get back. Actually showing all of that would have killed off all the emotion that storyline wrinkle created in the first place. Now I know why we never had to sit through it before with Crockett and Heyman - there wasn't a sane promoter worth his salt stupid enough to do it back then.
WWE has a way of making people agonize through the parts of a storyline nobody wants to actually watch. They do this because its just easier to do the same tricks and Jerry Springer-type garbage instead of working on building a new concept. It's easier to pull the same cheap, hot-shot angles than to use some creative thought in pushing something from week to week and keeping the audience involved and actually build a story that makes sense in the end. Seriously, is there anyone out there that thinks this will give any long-term ratings value to WWE? Does WWE believe, if they do this every week, it will mean a larger profit down the road? If someone could explain to me what they see in this type of storyline that could better the future of pro wrestling, please enlighten me.
# posted by B.J. Bethel @ 3:34 PM 
