I'm trying not to be too negative about WWE at the moment, but they're making it hard for me. If I had to sum up how the promotion currently appears in one word, it would be 'panicky'. Just look at, for example, the farcical sacking of Emma following a minor shoplifting misdemeanour. After the announcement of her release, the IWC turned on the WWE's perceived double-standards (Cameron and Swagger remain on the roster despite their more serious arrests for DUI) and went on the attack. Seemingly, as a result, the WWE re-employed the Australian star a few hours later. This is not the action of a company that is in control of its strategy, but instead is reactive and not very good at understanding what the likely outcomes of its decisions are. Even more serious is how the failure of the Network to garner enough subscribers reflects on the company. This was obviously a flawed idea from the start, as the number of people who want to watch wall-to-wall wrestling are limited. Still, it's certainly good value and yet it still can't retain subscribers. As a result, Raw this week was a truly bizarre spectacle. It started with a lengthy speech from Triple H that was supposed to promote SummerSlam but ended up as a desperate-sounding plug for the Network. By the end of it, the audience were sarcastically joining with Trips' assertions that the Network costs just $9.99 a month. And throughout the show the commentators regularly returned to this theme with monotonous predictability. I might be imagining this, but I seem to recall at one point they told us that #9.99 is now trending worldwide on Twitter....
The problem is that desperation is not a good marketing tactic, and so this relentless plugging may even be counter-productive on a psychological level. From a viewer's perspective, it also means that Raw resembles some kind of charity telethon. The same tactic of needy relentlessness is being employed, after all ("For just $9.99, you too can make a difference to these Azerbaijani orphans....").
Another aspect of this panic-stricken attitude is that too many angles seem to be booked almost on a whim, with little planning. Few would disagree that The Shield was not just very entertaining and refreshing, but that it also was simply one of the best factions WWE had ever assembled. Each of the three members looked the part and contributed something a little different, be it the technical expertise of Seth Rollins, the action-packed brawling of Dean Ambrose or the sheer power of Roman Reigns. But, just as the Hounds Of Justice seemed to be at its peak following a surprise but effective babyface turn, Rollins turned on his colleagues and aligned with the Authority for reasons that were never properly explained. It was dispiriting booking that put an emphasis on short-term sensation rather than the long-term storytelling that previously had been in evidence with The Shield. It just felt like a waste.
However, it's done now and The Shield is history for the moment (though expect the trio to re-unite somewhere near the end of 2015). And from its ashes has emerged one genuine triumph, which I'm happy to acknowledge, not least because during The Shield's heel run I would never have foreseen it. But today, Dean Ambrose has become the hottest babyface star in the WWE. Week after week, he's getting huge pops whenever he emerges to foil Rollins' devious plans.
In one sense, the creation of an Ambrose/Rollins feud is pretty much a can't-miss prospect. Both are seasoned indie veterans who had already worked a strong series together in their FCW days. They were always likely to light a fire when put against each other on Raw. But WWE deserves credit for how it has staged the feud. Most notably, the pair has been deliberately been kept apart in terms of one-on-one matches, so that their match at SummerSlam will feel more special. And, even if the reasons for Rollins turning are obscure, Ambrose's psychological bitterness at his former friend's betrayal is very believable. Ambrose is a superb talker (his memorable 'case or face' promo at Money In The Bank drew deserved praise) and I can buy into the fact that his character genuinely hates Seth Rollins.
I was initially sceptical that this feud actually needed the prop of the MITB briefcase, as it felt it would work well without that distraction, but the case has been seamlessly integrated into the storyline. We quickly got a couple of examples of the standard booking where Rollins would be directly thwarted by Ambrose as he attempted to cash in the case. However, this week the stakes were raised further.
The scenario was this. A Beat-The-Clock challenge was arranged so that Ambrose and Rollins would face separate opponents, and the one who won in the shortest time would get the pick the stipulation for the SummerSlam match. In a tough match against a motivated Alberto Del Rio, Ambrose struggled in an attritional battle and eventually connected with his Dirty Deeds finisher after 15 minutes. After the Authority pulled strings so that super-jobber Heath Slater would be Rollins' opponent instead of the advertised Rob Van Dam, this didn't seem to be enough. However, as the second match started, Ambrose walked out to the ringside and stole the briefcase. He then proceeded to tear up the contract (his face was a picture at this point). Then having stolen a soda and some popcorn from ringside fans, he poured the sugary beverage into the briefcase and chucked some popcorn in for good measure. He then curiously stole JBL's hat and crumpled it up so it fitted the briefcase which he then closed. Rollins was increasingly distracted by Ambrose's mischief, and eventually paid so little attention to his opponent that Slater was able to roll him up for a shock win. After the match, Ambrose cleared off and Rollins dejectedly retrieved a soggy, hat-filled briefcase.
Now with slightly gimmicky storytelling like this you can find holes in the booking if you want. Firstly, were the Authority napping? It was obvious that Ambrose would attempt to derail the second match, so why were no security guards sent out at any stage to remove him? Secondly, isn't stealing people's snacks a heel move? Also, there's a risk that Rollins ends up looking weak, given that he suffered a loss to a wrestler with a terrible win/loss record. So long as you ignore the gaping first hole, the fact is that Ambrose was so entertaining that you didn't really worry about this. And the Slater victory can be reasoned away by the fact that Ambrose's mind games were so effective that Rollins completely lost the plot and, indeed, the match. Given that Slater has become something of a fan favourite in a seemingly thankless role, giving him a victory is also a pleasing touch.
These two matches together formed the backbone of an otherwise disappointing Raw, which shows what this pair is currently offering as singles performers. They've both contributed strongly to a well-worked storyline that is connecting with fans. And there's room for the storyline to develop; at some point, Ambrose could even face Rollins for a chance to win the briefcase from him.
Indeed, I think that now Dean Ambrose is taking advantage of Daniel Bryan's long-term absence to establish himself as the 'cool face', even if he's a different character. At the moment, he really feels like the most important character on the show, and the main reason to watch the show (which, incidentally, I can currently watch without paying $9.99 a month to WWE...).
No comments:
Post a Comment