Contracts/Legal Stuff in Storylines

[klunderbunker]

Why do wrestling companies, namely Hogan/Bischoff led ones, insist on using these things as plot points? In WCW there were constant uses of contracts (as in physical pieces of paper, not something like MITB where they have an open contract that they just have. I mean holding up a physical contract) like here on Halloween Havoc 97 where Dillon makes the match he wants because he has a notarized contract.

First of all, how many fans there know what that means? Second, doesn't it seem weak that he gets what he wants because some legal team said it happened? Wrestling is decided in the ring or in a match, not in a court room. Same thing with Dixie and the contracts recently. I never liked that the whole thing was about legal disputes. I mean, why show us that Immortal has dominated TNA and that they have control when you can just tell us they have it?

Just something that's always annoyed me.

 

[MrHashasheen]

Personally it depends on how the contract is used.

Money in the Bank contracts are a pretty innovative take on it.

But things like you said? You're taking the fan out of the world you've created and into boring reality. And no one watches wrestling for boring reality. We watch for larger than life characters, storylines that shock and awe and want us to follow.

Look at Austin signing up for the match for Wrestlemania. It had the crowd feel played when they brought out JBL - completely against the expectations of everyone - and then played it straight with Austin beating up JBL and signing instead of him. You can argue that it was drawn out too long or not, but you can't argue people don't know what happened and why it happened: Austin signed the piece of paper identifying the guest referee, therefore he's it.

I'm always a fan of keeping things simple in a storyline, though, so that just might be me.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Using the legal power struggle shit in WCW was never something I really cared about, but it was new. I think the nWo, with Bischoff, did benefit from that type of storytelling. Well, until they beat it so far into the ground it could no longer breathe.

Today, it's stupid. It's just not working in TNA, and I think that has a lot to do with how played out in was in WCW. I'm sure some TNA fans, who didn't watch WCW, feel differently. When they start talking about the court date, the contracts, I usually fastforward. Played out, and useless.

 

[Con T.]

Using contracts adds a sense of legitimacy to the angle, or a perceived legitimacy. We may not know the contents of a wrestling contract, but we're well aware of what one is, and what they mean. Wrestling companies are still just that; companies. Thus, they must adhere to legal documentation, and why they continue to be used in storyline.

The question shouldn't be why contracts, it really should be why companies don't use contracts well.

 

[shattered dreams]

How is an actual contract so different than an authority figure calling the shots? In the real world legal decisions govern practically everything. Also, such things are naturally hated, so why not capitalize on that stigma?

 

[klunderbunker]

Because this isn't the real world. It's wrestling.

 

[Shocky]

It's the stupid fucking obsession with making the product more "real". Hogan and Bischoff have become obsessed with that line of thinking and making things more real. They spout it off routinely.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

It's the stupid fucking obsession with making the product more "real". Hogan and Bischoff have become obsessed with that line of thinking and making things more real. They spout it off routinely.

They do, and constantly take it too far. Realistic storylines are fine with me, actually. Hart/Austin, McMahon/Austin, HHH/Batista, Orton/HHH, etc.

There's a difference between realistic and breaking that fourth wall. Hogan and Bischoff are obsessed with the idea of letting fans in the back door, to see what happens behind the curtain. They use backstage wrestling terminology (mark, getting over, etc.) as if half the crowd knows what they're talking about. And those who do know, don't give a shit. We want to be fooled, or at least believe they're trying to do so.

Company takeovers, power grabs--just stop, no one gives a shit.

 

[Nate DaMac]

If you listen to WCW matches circa 1997- late 98, the announcers will drive you fucking nuts with their incessant babble about the "power struggle" between the NWO and WCW.

 

[klunderbunker]

They do, and constantly take it too far. Realistic storylines are fine with me, actually. Hart/Austin, McMahon/Austin, HHH/Batista, Orton/HHH, etc.

There's a difference between realistic and breaking that fourth wall. Hogan and Bischoff are obsessed with the idea of letting fans in the back door, to see what happens behind the curtain. They use backstage wrestling terminology (mark, getting over, etc.) as if half the crowd knows what they're talking about. And those who do know, don't give a shit. We want to be fooled, or at least believe they're trying to do so.

Company takeovers, power grabs--just stop, no one gives a shit.

Especially when you spend 5 months in a war for power that you can't actually use said power.

 

[klunderbunker]

If you listen to WCW matches circa 1997- late 98, the announcers will drive you fucking nuts with their incessant babble about the "power struggle" between the NWO and WCW.

That's what brought this on.

 

[Coco]

Risking a paper cut is pretty butch. A shame that the bar on badass faces has been raised so high.