You are here /wrestling
/guests
/T
Guest Columns

Mr. T

Main

BLAH

DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT!
Get the Hook, willya?
Grab your seatbelt, this one's gonna get ugly.

If you were watching last night's RAW, you may recognize the title as a JR-ism, regarding the "Have A Bad Day" 'comedy' segments. On that note, away we go, quotes a-blazing....

"The McMahon-Helmsley ERROR." -Mick Foley, Smackdown 12.23.99

Flashback time: Survivor Series '99 and beyond. Vince McMahon, faced with the huge loss of Steve Austin, and some major depth problems with the loss of Undertaker, his writers, and other key backstage figures, takes what many considered a huge risk: elevating a Triple H-Vince issue to marquee status, and coasting on the two underlying stories (Test/Steph wedding, Bossman and Big Show). Many of the fed insiders, with it being no small secret that there really were no compelling issues to build until AFTER the December PPV, Armaggedon, predicted the turnaround in the ratings would begin. Indeed, it appeared that the WWF was losing steam, as WCW picked up a full point and the WWF fell into the 5's in the ratings for two weeks in a row.

As Hannibal would say, "I love it when a plan comes together." If you didn't come out of this last segment reminded of just WHY you watch this show, I guess you'll just have to write me with accusations of bias - as far as I'm concerned, you'll be wrong, but hey - maybe you'll feel better." -CRZ, RAW Report 11.29.99, on the wedding swerve by Triple H

It didn't quite turn out that way, as a compelling swerve, and then a Stephanie heel turn at the PPV took the Wedding & Triple H storylines, tied them together, and took them in a new, fresh direction. Many of the Internet alumni wondered what was going to happen next: it captured the imagination of the fans.

"SO WHEN is Test going to get mic time to tell how badly Stephanie broke his heart? Where is the interview time that will GET HIM OVER?" -Chris Hyatte, a recent Raw Mop-Up

However imaginative the angle was, it was not without logical flaws. For one, for HHH to come to power, Vince had to be written out. So, he walked out, disgusted after the relevation of the relationship with Steph, and they "took over". Well, doesn't Vince walking away go against, oh, THREE YEARS of character development? Vince McMahon, be it Stone Cold, the Undertaker, Mankind, has never backed away from a confrontation, and has never been without a plan or scheme of some sort, face, heel, or crazy old man. Continuity is a bitch, sayeth T. On the other side, what did Linda McMahon (on TV, acknowledged as CEO just weeks, WEEKS before as part of the wedding angle) think of this? Taking the setup at face value, (and assuming that Vince, not being a complete moron, knows of the M-H Era), what has stopped Vince from sending Shane to run the show, seeing that past storyline has established that Shane WOULD be in charge in Vince's absence before Stephanie would? 
 
"Steph announces that Vince & Shane aren't here, which means another stellar night of bizarro-land booking. The boys are a little disgruntled by this, but HHH assures everybody that tonight'll be different than Monday, with everything being a little more fair and guys who have been held down getting a better shake. Okay, is this a Bischoff bash or a Russo/Ferrara bash, I can't make up my mind." -Jeff McGinnis, Rantsylvania Smackdown Recap for 12.16.99

So began the Era that we are now consumed in. The similarities to the awful "Powers That Be" mess are there - you make the call. One notable comparision: just as the PTB story dominated the WCW, the M-H Era has enveloped the WWF, leaving little if any stories running unaffected.
 
It was pretty clear that the Powers That Be angle was the promotion story, but what else was happened outside of that? An insipid fued between the Revolution and the Filthy Animals aside, and Goldberg chasing the "we're working the retirement angle" Outsiders, the angle swallowed the promotion nearly whole. If you hated the angle, or didn't care for the extras, such as T&A, that were brought in, there was very little else around the edges to appeal to the other fans. " -Me, Don't Quote Me on That column.

The sword cuts both ways: with HHH & Steph involved in most of the segments, and their "power" involving them by default in any matches they make, they ARE the show, and just like I said before, if for whatever reason you aren't on board with this top angle, there isn't a whole lot else there to appeal to you or keep you from switching to TNT until the Error Era is mercifully ended.

"WWF programming is treading dangerously close to that line of being simply too depressing to stand. It's almost impossible for all the faces who have been wronged to get just revenge at this point. I mean, the McMahon/Austin feud, when you really look at it, was pretty even, with both sides taking lumps and getting victories, before the face finally prevailed. Here, the heels are just laying waste, making the shows a true grind to watch, let alone report on." -Jeff McGinnis, 12/30 Smackdown
 
In any case, it's some hellacious heel booking. However, the heels are STILL winning, three weeks in?

"The face ALWAYS wins the blowoff match. You can have the heel win a match or two by screwjob, but eventually the good guy must prevail. It is the central concept of wrestling: good eventually truimphs over evil. Oh, and the longer you drag it out, and the more punishment the face takes, that is that much more that the face must beat them to get a sense of closure. This was the failing of the [original] nWo angle, was that WCW never WON: At Starrcade '97, Sting must DESTROY the entire nWo, put them out of wrestling, and take the title CLEANLY: nothing less would even BEGIN to make up for the beating WCW has taken for over a year from the nWo." -Scott Keith (paraphrased excerpts from the popular "Netcop Rants")

How much longer can the WWF get away with letting the bad guys go over? I know two 'marks' in all senses of the word, who are pissed at this direction, and have gotten in the habit of turning it off early. This angle (as in the somewhat-parallel Powers That Be situation, see Don't Quote Me on That) is obviously being executed to build up the return of the face group (the McMahons in the WWF: the 'traditional' wrestlers in the WCW) as a big thing, but there's an Achilles Heel here (not, not Triple H)...

How long do you dare drag out the huge "return" angle, given the early warning signs that your audience is not on board with the execution thereof?

If something drastic fails to happen by next week's RAW, and those "movie" clips of "Have A Bad Day" don't GET THE HOOK, the only quoting going on round these parts will be heavy cursing.
And as always, if you so wish,

you *can* quote me on that.

Take care, Mr. T
[slash] wrestling

Email the author

BLAH

Main

Design copyright (C) 1999 Christopher Robin Zimmerman & KZiM Communications
Guest column text copyright (C) 1999 by the individual author and used with permission