Mentioning The Past...

[drugfreeford]

I believe the WWE missed out on a lot of opportunities for mentioning the past.

Undertaker vs HHH 3-They could of mentioned their first Wrestlemania match. Their feud in the early 2000's could of been referenced. They could of mentioned the Elimination Chamber match they had in 2009. They also could of mentioned the Corporate Ministry in 1999 where they had an alliance but kept on bumping heads(feuding while in the same alliance).

Big Show vs Kane this past Monday- They could of mentioned that they were former tag team partners and tag team champions on two occasions.

CM Punk vs Daniel Bryan- They could of mentioned their ROH past in detail. Every now and then, they make CM Punk say he knew Daniel Bryan for a long time. They don't explain how.

Daniel Bryan vs Sheamus- They should of mentioned their previous Wrestlemania match.

CM Punk and David Otunga- CM Punk runs into David Otunga and John Laurinitis a lot. When CM Punk insults David Otunga, CM Punk should say to David Otunga "About a year ago, you were my bitch!! What's changed since then? I'm WWE champion and you're someone else's bitch!!".

If they mention the past, it will help build the current feud and it will be more interesting. It sort of explains the chapters of their rivalries too.

Does anyone agree with me?

Which feuds do you think they should of mentioned the past for?

 

[mrpops]

Id like to see someone make fun of dolph for being in the spirit squad. Could easily start a heated feud. Maybe cole can mention how far dolph has came since being in the spirit squad, then punk or someone can make fun of him.

They shouldve talked about Jerichos and randys history a bit more. They had a bunch of matches in the past.

 

[xavyer]

That's a good idea, like you said, id could help put some exitement into the story lines, for example, a good way to push Dolph Ziggler could be through Triple H, since DX and the spirit squad had a long feud, Trips can make fun of him and Dolph can retaliate, and say something like he's not that guy anymore, because there is so much history between some of the superstars, not neceseraly feuds, but something diferent, and they can work from there.....

 

[TLK]

I don't think mentioning Triple H/Taker I was necessary because it didn't fit into their current storyline, and it would've lessened the idea that Triple H could actually defeat Taker @ Mania.

As for Bryan/Punk, I agree. I think they should acknowledge the ROH history. They've briefly touched upon it here and there, but now that they're fueding over the title, I think it would bring a nice personal aspect to their fued. I'm thinking this can still be done if the feud extends another PPV or two.

It really boils down to the fact that the WWE likes to think its audience has the memory of a newborn, and expects us to just forget things when certain alliances (Punk and Cena becoming pals after their fued last summer) or feuds don't make sense.

 

[The Snake]

I don't think I really care all that much as someone who has seen pretty much the entire career of everyone on the roster. I talk to people I know who watch wrestling about those kinds of things in the adverts, I'd rather the focus be on new ideas and new mediums for two people to fight over than it to be constantly about historical events.

As long as they don't blatantly lie to me about something, which just annoys me no end (ie. FIRST TIME EVER, when it's happened before), I don't think we need the history. The people who will enjoy the reference already build it into their heads as part of the narrative, and those who didn't know about it stand to gain nothing other than a piece of trivia.

Triple H saying he lost to Taker at WM before would've made his sentiments of 'I need this' seem a lot weaker, not mentioning it suggests he has moved on. I obviously had built in that they had faced at WM before, but HHH not bringing it up actually helped to make the match feel more unique and special.

That's one example, but you can apply it most of the time. Of course, there are situations when they make stupid selective memory decisions, but I don't think it's commonplace.

 

[Syborgg]

First off, there is no way in hell that they would mention that Punk and D-Bryan know each other from ROH. As much as WWE contends that TNA and ROH are not their direct competition, they still do everything they can to avoid mentioning them on their T.V. broadcasts. The only way it happens is if WWE were to purchase ROH in the way that they bought wCw or ECW.

As for the other examples, WWE has always had a history of using the past when it adds to the storyline. One of the main reasons NOT to bring up the 1st WM meeting between HHH and Undertaker is that it was the "American Badass" Undertaker in that match. He was portraying a totally different character at the time and it was 11 years before WM 28 so they probably figured that most of their current audience wouldn't know about it anyways.

Point is, when it's something that they can use to add to the storyline, they may bring up past fueds or alliances between superstars, but otherwise they like to leave the past in the past.

 

[DrWizard]

I believe the WWE missed out on a lot of opportunities for mentioning the past.

Undertaker vs HHH 3-They could of mentioned their first Wrestlemania match. Their feud in the early 2000's could of been referenced. They could of mentioned the Elimination Chamber match they had in 2009. They also could of mentioned the Corporate Ministry in 1999 where they had an alliance but kept on bumping heads(feuding while in the same alliance).

Big Show vs Kane this past Monday- They could of mentioned that they were former tag team partners and tag team champions on two occasions.

CM Punk vs Daniel Bryan- They could of mentioned their ROH past in detail. Every now and then, they make CM Punk say he knew Daniel Bryan for a long time. They don't explain how.

Daniel Bryan vs Sheamus- They should of mentioned their previous Wrestlemania match.

CM Punk and David Otunga- CM Punk runs into David Otunga and John Laurinitis a lot. When CM Punk insults David Otunga, CM Punk should say to David Otunga "About a year ago, you were my bitch!! What's changed since then? I'm WWE champion and you're someone else's bitch!!".

If they mention the past, it will help build the current feud and it will be more interesting. It sort of explains the chapters of their rivalries too.

Does anyone agree with me?

Which feuds do you think they should of mentioned the past for?

I don't think the reasons are because they forget about referencing the past instances between the two, but moreso because they choose not to reference it.

1. Triple H vs Undertaker was 10 years prior to the current matches. Plus, it was a different Undertaker as a "character". ABA Taker had no real purpose to be referenced in that feud. When people think of the Undertaker, the first thought is not "American Bad Ass" or "Big Evil". They want the Phenom.

2. The Big Show/Kane match, in terms of the big picture, was served in order to further the John Laurinitis character. Nothing more. There is no reason to bring up the past between the opponents in that match because the focus was supposed to be on Laurinitis and his anger with Big Show.

3. Wrestlers comment how they have known someone for along time all the time. It goes back to Fley and Vader. The original plan was for Mankind to feud with him based on their WCW history. However, that was nixed due to the fact that there was no purpose to promote another company. If WWE were to reference their history tgether in the indies without directly referencing ROH I would be inclined to agree.

4. CM Punk and Otunga I agree with. It stays in context with the current characters, and is recent enough to keep its relevance. It could still happen. It could be used if they were to have a match on RAW in the near future. Hell, Punk could even say it and then the match is made. But there has t be a purpose for everything.

 

[asiatic7]

It really boils down to the fact that the WWE likes to think its audience has the memory of a newborn, and expects us to just forget things.

That is a dead on asessment! The "E" only wants us to remember what THEY want us to remember. I often wonder "why" too. Especially when mentioning the past can probably make certain storylines better. When Kane came back, he feuded with Cena and I made absolutley no sense! But when 'mania came around, Cena was busy with Rock, so they had to do something with Kane. Orton had nothing going on, so they meshed them together and the reason? Because last summer Orton made Kane human...That was the best they could do to create a rivalry? Then why didn't Kane attack Orton from the beginning when he came back? Why did they choose to remind us of this but not anything else, like HHH vs. Undertaker at WM17?

 

[boywithbluehanger]

That is a dead on asessment! The "E" only wants us to remember what THEY want us to remember. I often wonder "why" too. Especially when mentioning the past can probably make certain storylines better. When Kane came back, he feuded with Cena and I made absolutley no sense! But when 'mania came around, Cena was busy with Rock, so they had to do something with Kane. Orton had nothing going on, so they meshed them together and the reason? Because last summer Orton made Kane human...That was the best they could do to create a rivalry? Then why didn't Kane attack Orton from the beginning when he came back? Why did they choose to remind us of this but not anything else, like HHH vs. Undertaker at WM17?

This might not be a popular theory but sometimes I think the reason why the continuity seems to be a bit lacking is because

A) the people writing this mess either don't know of many of the important past events and character arcs or
B) they simply forget.

I wouldn't be surprised if sometimes Creative glosses over forums to see how well people are receiving their current storylines. Then when they read someone's post questioning why they didn't refer back to an older more important arc when trying to reestablish a feud, they slap their foreheads. And it's not because they're upset that they didn't come up with the idea but instead that they didn't even remember about that older story arc.

 

[DannyDirtz]

the "past" doesnt seem to exsist anymore in the wwe. theres been times ive heard the announcers refer to the "Punk V Johnny" period as the "biggest feud" in wwe history.... erm....Austin v Mcmahon anyone?

not to mention other things like the "anon general manager" , whatever did happen to that laptop lol

 

[TLK]

This might not be a popular theory but sometimes I think the reason why the continuity seems to be a bit lacking is because

A) the people writing this mess either don't know of many of the important past events and character arcs or
B) they simply forget.

I think another thing is that they change their minds so damn much it ends up as a jumbled mess on TV. That, and the fact that they just don't care about continuity. They know we're all still going to tune in, regardless of whether or not the plotlines make sense. Selective memory is key - if they disregard a past event, we should too.

 

[Canadian_SXE]

Yeah that is like the storyline with Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio where they were claiming that Eddie never defeated Rey ever in their entire careers. Let's think for a second. Eddie defeated a certain masked wrestler to win his 2nd WCW Cruiserweight championship and beat him again to retain the title at World War 3 ppv. Eddie also beat Rey to win his first WWE Tag Team championship with Chavo.