Should released wrestlers get written out?

[Tastycles]

One thing that is painfully obvious about wrestling is that, compared to other forms of drama, it is completely riddled with plot holes. Some of these are unavoidable - after all you have a smaller cast, and fewer potential storylines. However, one area in which wrestling frequently shoots itself in the foot is with sudden and unexplained disappearances of wrestlers.

Now, clearly if someone hasn't been on TV for a million years, then there is no need to do this, but if we take an example like Daniel Bryan, then I can illustrate my point quite well. Bryan was released, but would there have been any harm in letting the Nexus beat him up before he went? That way, his comeback would have been more of an event.

Bryan is something of a strange case, but if we look at other reasonably popular releases, the release could give some closure to the wrestler's character, but could also serve as a platform for someone else. Often main eventers are satisfactorily given this goodbye, but the benefit almost always goes to a big name - Cena has been responsible for the departure of Batista and Chris Jericho in recent years, for example. This is obviously fitting, but if we look at the release of someone like, say, Brian Kendrick, he could have been used to put over any number of up and comers from last year. There's a lot of scope that could lead to a disappearance, so it needn't be boring "loser leaves town" matches every time, though once upon a time they were a staple in the territories.

So, what do you reckon. Should released wrestlers get a storyline farewell, or should they just vanish off the face of the earth?

 

[TheSDQQKidJoe]

First you have to ask, When someone is released is it on short notice, or was it in the making? Then you can start working them out. You can really work someone out if they were released on short notice. YOu would just be throwing information at viewers and not making it into a storyline if that person is coming back. I'm still waiting for the story on why Matt Hardy was released.............

 

[Calderownz]

It will always depend on the circumstances and what wrestler it is. If it's a talented wrestler that you hope to work with again, you should write them off. If it's a wrestler that you don't see working with you at all, then you might want to bury them while letting someone else make something of a name off of them. Why not?

If it's really bad terms, just let it go.

But once again, it all depends on who is getting let go.

 

[Ferbian]

It depends really. On one hand sure there's a history of doing it pretty well when it comes to writing someone out of the company. Yet I also believe it should be done in a manner which it doesn't seem like they got their ass kicked to leave the company (Like lets say Triple H got fired after feuding with Sheamus, the injury thing you know).

The only way I see this working really should be in the way of promoting it in a way that allows them to return, and return soon if they do manage to get back into the company. Not something like a retirement or a long-time injury. No, something like "I Quit" or "You're Fired" ala Chris and Batista yeah.

Other than that, I just don't think it would, or should work.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I guess this happens because a lot of times because wrestlers do not give more than say a month's notice before packing up their bags. That makes it a bit difficult for the team to write the guy out of a storyline.

The thing is, in recent times, we have seen quite a few wrestlers go out with good enough storylines. Batista demanded another title shot like a whiner and got fired when he did not comply with what the GM had to say. Chris Jericho was taken out with an injury angle. They did make a reference to Bryan when he was fired from the company. It happenned all of a sudden but it was handled well IMO.

As for Brian Kendrick, its not like he waas doing much anyway. Kendrick went on to join TNA so if WWE had decided to use Kendrick a lot on his way out that would have actually meant promoting a guy on his way out. So I guess I can live with what WWE did.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It depends on the wrestler. If it's a jobber nobody, they should just get squashed in a match against some random heel then vanish forever. However if it's somebody more important then it's different. If the guy is absolutely 100% for sure NEVER coming back, then he should be written out if he was at the midcard or higher because he would deserve at least that much for the work he put in. If the wrestler plans to come back or says he might, then the door should be left open. They could be written out with the characters onscreen being unsure of if he's gone forever or not. That leaves the door wide open for an awesome return should the guy come back to the federation in real life.

 

[Notorious718]

I think it really depends on how important the wrestler in question was on the card. As mentioned earlier, if it was a jobber it probably wouldn't matter but if it was someone who was featured prominently on the show kinda like Matt Hardy (who granted was a jobber but was still relevant even in the weeks prior to his release), they probably should get SOME sort of sendoff. It wouldn't make much sense to feature them consistantly on the show and suddenly have them never come back.

An example of a wrestler being properly written off that comes to my mind off the top of my head is Christian's last appearance with TNA. I thought that was excellently handled. At the time, no one knew whether he was gonna re-sign with TNA or go to WWE. The beatdown was an excellent way end his run. If he was re-signing with TNA, he'd simply be put in a revenge angle. And if not, then he's written off as going down fighting. I thought that was good booking on TNA's part in that situation.

So to me, not all wrestlers should get send-offs but the ones that play major roles in progressing storylines or in the company in general should. Otherwise, most people will just be scratching their heads.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

I’m going to go with: it depends on how valuable the wrestler is.

As stated before, if the wrestler in question was usually no more than a jobber in the business, then he really doesn’t deserve some kind of storyline send off. The simple reason is because not many people would really care that he or she is gone. For example, I want to remind everyone of a recently released wrestler known as Rickie Ortiz. I’m not so sure if people even remember him, but it’s safe to say that he never really accomplished anything worth-while in the business. Sure, the guy enjoyed a 5-0 streak while in ECW, but when you look back at it, you would generally think “He had an undefeated streak?” In other words, no one cares enough to remember.

It’s these types of guys that are not worth some kind of storyline send-off because, quite frankly, no one would even bother to care about them. If anything, they will get annoyed for the fact that instead of show casing someone like Jericho, they show a story about someone who no one gives a fuck about.

On the other hand, you have those that are worthy of a storyline send-off. As mentioned in the OP, Daniel Bryan was one of those people. Even though that Daniel Bryan hadn’t accomplished much [in terms of quantity] in the WWE, it’s safe to say that he was (is) viewed highly by both management as well as the WWE Universe. Therefore, had they incorporated some kind of storyline send-off for Daniel Bryan (i.e. NEXUS beating him up), it would have been an interesting storyline that people WOULD care about.

Quality wrestlers---these are the types of wrestlers that should have some kind of storyline send-off before the end of theircareer. These are the guys that are worth something; the kind of wrestlers that people do care about and deserve a send-off.

 

[LSN80]

It depends on the wrestler's position in the company.

If the man is a jobber, that hasn't been on TV, what's the point? If there's no investment into the wrestler, a storyline writeout doesn't make sense. Luke Gallows, for example, was just released. He was relevant when he was part of the SES, but he lost all relevance when they disbanded. There was no need to write him out, because nothing had been done in terms of character development for him.

On the other hand, you have a Chris Jericho. Jericho is a big name player, having beeen World Champion earlier in the year. When he was leaving to go on tour, it would have made NO sense for them to not do a prior write-off, because he was involved in the main event picture the entire year. So they did a proper send-off by having Orton punt him in the head.

In short, it depends on the wrestler and his importance to the company. If he's relevant and part of a storyline, he should receive a proper write-off. Obvious exceptions are violations of policy and legitimate firings, where the wrestler screwed up, like a Matt Hardy. Even though he had a character that was over with the fans, his personal issues were overriding his value to the company. But his case was more of the abberation then the rule. For most relevant wrestlers, they have been given and deserve the proper send-off.

 

[GameOver]

I would say it depends on the circumstances.

If it's as a result of

1) a contract renewel or a serious injury they should write them out , so it would leave the possibility of extending that storyline should the talent re-sign with the company and also give someone else a push that could be involved

ie the Bret Hart screwjob angle, as much as people may disagree, WWE didn't "screw" him, there was a no contract, a disagreement on role in the company, someone believing they are better than the product and subsequently a no re-signing of there contract. But b4 he officially left they really helped his jump to WCW to be even bigger than it may have been if he just left on "good" terms.
While, yes they still didn't screw themselves over in the process. and ofcourse WCW screwed it up anyway and ruined what could have been another good run

2) a serious break of contract ie plain fired. then no, they should not get any promotion whatsoever. ie they intentionally injure someone etc.

3) if they run out of ideas for the character, thats a 50/50. no point giving a boost to something that may not come back

4) If the talent quits, no. no promoting it. might have been out of the blue anyway

5) a nobody doesn't need to be written out, they were nothing to start with

it all comes down to air time, and $. why promote something that will not extend the programming, buy rates or is only to be for a brief period then there's nothing to move on with after.
and why promote someone who is against you, or would be detrimental to the product.


haha i just noticed i'm a Diva's Champ now woohoo no more "Jobber For Life: AKA Santino"

 

[crymomma]

I think that the only way that a wrestler be written out of a storyline is when a wrestler injury is so bad that he/she will be gone for a very long time. I dislike a fake storyline written for a wrestler to come back later to have a new but old storyline with that wrestler that was to have cause that injury.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I think quite basically it depends on the scale of released wrestlers that there is going to be. Writing stories for the realeased wrestlers we've just had would be unfeasible because we just had about 6 people released and writing them all out from different corners of the WWE simultaneously would require pretty thick kids not to suss out something suspect was going on. I'd like to think that if it was one or even two people that they would muster the effort under the right circumstances but there very rarely are correct circumstances.

You see, all the guys getting released don't do anything for WWE and aren't currently involved in anything important unlike for instance daniel bryan was after the initial nexus attack. Luke Gallows was the most prominent guy in that he hung around with punk but when punk got drafted, it was pretty easy for people on raw to forget a guy who didn't really do much on smackdown except follow punk around.

Shad was in FCW or something else. Vance archer was just running matches on superstars, which nobody watches anyway and I can't even remember the last guy who left if that tells you anything at all. Tiffany was another kelly kelly, slowly going nowhere on smackdown with laycool dominating but for me the biggest suprise was jilian hall. OK she didn't have to wrestle often, but she was involved in a high amount of raw bagstage segments and I think people would remember her bad singing after she'd left, so for me it would have been wise to write her out. But at the end of the day, she wasn't so current it didn't matter.

Now you can really tell the differenc if you put this in contrast as to when mickie james got kicked last year, people were threatening riots and all sorts because of the huge injustice. She suffered as much an injustice as all other people but was a bigger star so it got bigger notice from fans when this woman who was one week competing for the woman's championship was next week in the unemployment line. I mean imagine if batista had just not turned up after his I quit match with cena, when stars are over a certain magnitude of stardom it becomes unfeasible for them not to be written out. But if they are small, and nobody is watching, why not brush em under the carpet and hope nobody looks. It saves valuable time you could be using to push the next tyler reks who is coming through in their place.

By the way, the manner in which batista left was one of the most embarrassing and degrading things I've done to a guy who was one of the two biggest stars in your company for years.