The lazy, no-effort "Can I get your thoughts ..."- WWE-style "interview" needs to end

[Ambiguous Turd]

It's a combination of complete and utter laziness ... as well as new and misguided principles on the part of WWE Creative Head Vince McMahon.

You can put anyone backstage in this role. You can put in Todd Grisham. You can put in Josh Matthews. You can put in "Savanah" (Angela Fong). You can put in Lilian Garcia. They ALL SAY THE SAME DAMN THING!!

"Wrestler X, can I get your thoughts on tonight's match?"

I just don't understand the flagrant, repetitive "Can I get your thoughts for tonight's match?" line. Is this honestly the best WWE can come up with each and every week.

And then what's even better .... is the stupid look you capture for 5 seconds on the interviewer's face after .... EVERY SINGLE INTERVIEW. It is the same face. You know ... the "Wow. He's really angry" .... the "Deer in Headlights" look.

Ironically enough, I went on JR's blog site and someone apparently asked him about this. Here were his comments:

Why does the cameras shoot young, Josh Mathews with that far away look in his eye after each backstage interview that he does? Budding cinephotoghers chime in please.

Well, maybe budding producers should chime in. And this points to an even bigger problem in that the older folks, like Jim Ross, don't even see the bigger problem and are too stuck in their old ways. It's a problem, Ross, because you do it every single God damn week, several times a week, no matter who is interviewing who. If you produce the same "Oh, my God! Wrestler X is going to kill someone" "Deer in Headlights" look, it loses its muster and the effect it has on the audience.

I can just remember back to the days of Mean Gene Okerlund and Sean Mooney during the Hogan Era when interviewers used to ask the tough probing questions of wrestlers and put them on the spot. Nobody is put on the spot or asked tough questions anymore. Basically, whatever the wrestler says goes, and is not questioned or disputed.

The overall problem that I have with how the interviews have changed over the years, is that the roles have been reversed. In the interviews in the past, along with most interviews done today in media, the person doing the interviewing IS IN CONTROL of the interview. The intrigue comes in when you have a dominant personality being interviewed, however isn't the one asking the questions. Instead, he/she is subjected to the interviewer's questions ... as the interviewer determines the flow of the interview.

Today, the wrestler is in control of the interview. In essence, they mine as well just cut a promo without the interviewer being there, because the interviewer is essentially rendered useless. It does not produce interesting television, whatsoever, because you know that nobody is ever going to call out the wrestler on any comments he/she may make.

With that being said and in a tribute to WWE's stale "interview" format of today ... "Can I get each of your thoughts on the concept of today's WWE "Interview" format, and whether you agree or disagree with:

1) "Can I get your thoughts?" being acceptable as an "interview each and every time it's done on TV

and

2) The "Deer in Headlights" for 5 seconds look ALSO done for every single interview after the talent is done speaking."

 

[Super Crazy]

I hate the interviews of the current product. It truly is " Can I get your thoughts on tonight's match? " or variations of it. It is truly very boring, I remember watching interviews/promos from the early Hogan Era, and just as you said Sidious, they would ask them tons of questions, some of which would be questions that most people wouldn't want to ask.

Not too mention, what is with the look on their faces? Is there any need for the camera to even stay with the scene if the person being interviewed has walked away? My answer is no. Once the interview is done, there should be brief moment for a line like " Back to you " or something of the sorts maybe and that's it. As soon as something is said to send it back to ringside the camera should quickly go away and it should go back to ringside with the announcers.

I think WWE needs to start branching out more for their interviews. Maybe they should be told to ask more questions. And you know, this is why people on find Josh Mathews entertaining when he calls ECW. It's because he is doing more then just standing there holding a microphone and asking " What are your thoughts on tonight's match? "

I hope Vince isn't the one having them ask the one simple question, because he of all people should know that asking the tough questions and really putting the wrestlers on the spot can cause more intensity and emotion. It helps seeing the wrestler get angry, or get excited, or to get really riled up, because then you feel the same emotions as them and you get behind them even more.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I think Vince wants to take focus away from everything to focus on the wrestlers. Which means he doesn't want the commentators or interviewers to have a voice or opinion, and he doesn't even want to show the ring announcers in the ring. When I was younger I had that special feeling every time I saw Howard Finkel announce the match just as much as I did seeing Hulk Hogan or Ultimate Warrior coming down the aisle.

I felt the same about the commentators too. I hated Bobby the Brain Heenan not because he wasn't talented but because he played his heel role so well. I loved seeing him and Mean Gene or him and Gorilla Monsoon mix it up every week because they had personality. Yeah sometimes they did goofy things but it was funny seeing the Duo of Monsoon and The Brain or The Brain with Mean Gene get into shenanigans.

There are no interviewers or commentators in WWE with any personality. They are all robots. Even Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler have been stale. It's mainly Vince's fault for wanting a new product that focuses less on them and more on wrestlers. I just believe wrestling is the whole picture. You have to have everything and not just wrestlers. Especially since most wrestlers are as boring as the interviewers. You have to make the ring announcers, extinct managers, and the commentators a part of the show. WWE is doing that with on Smackdown with the referee but that's it.

It is the same thing as far as interviews and even promos go. "What are your thoughts on the match or you have a match against so and so" "Wrestler: Yeah I have a match against so and so but I'm the best there is and I will show you all tonight" then the interview ends with Josh Matthews staring at the camera like a deer in headlights for 5 seconds. One thing I will give WWE credit for now was during the Raw with Snoop Dogg when the screen said "Sorry we are having technical difficulties" and it shows a super imposed picture of Michael Cole putting his arm around Hornswoggle.

That was probably the funniest thing I've seen on Raw in months. I really like Jeremy Borash with TNA. He may be silly and goofy at times but at least he has a personality. I love to see him mix it up with Foley and Kevin Nash. Nash and Steiner cut a promo last night that made no sense but was hilarious. Even Wolfe and The Pope cut great promos too. WWE needs to give everyone on their shows a personality and let them express themselves instead of leaving it all to the celebrity guest hosts for one night.

Have John Cena call Josh Matthews a tranny or throw a pie or something.

 

[johnbragg]

First of all I am all in favor of improving the quality of anything about the show. If I ran a promotion on TV, I would have a Fox NFL Sunday/SportsCenter type set where recaps, interviews, pre-match chatter etc. would happen.

Specific point the first: Sidious, you talked about Hulkamania Era interviewers, and jumped to today's interviewers. You didn't mention the interim, which was the Attitude Era when "Anything could happen." If you asked Stone Cold or The Rock a probing question, he might just execute a move that could paralyze you in real life. JR asked KAne the wrong question and got his ass SET ON FIRE. I didn't watch much WCW, but I'd be surprised if the NWO never spray-painted an interviewer during their run.

So if I'm backstage interview guy, am I going to bother writing and asking Pulitzer-prize journalism questions? Screw that, I'm letting the psychos in spandex underwear say whatever the hell they want and cashing my check.

I just remembered the Bob Costas interview with Vince McMahon where Vince really looked like he wanted to kick Costas' ass.

(Previous paragraphs kayfabed for your protection)

Point the second: The deer in the headlights look is bad because it's overdone. It doesn't convey "That was unusual" it just conveys "the interview is over, but the light is still on--why is the light still on?"

Point the Third: The writing staff is weak. They can't afford to have someone asking logical questions, because they don't have logical answers. Interviewing can't fix that, and would only exacerbate it.

Solutions: 1) Get that Studio Show. Have say Joey Styles or Lance STorm or Al Snow play a former jock-turned-broadcaster. Have him ask logical questions from the safety of the studio, "thousands of miles" from the wrestler who is doing the interview by satellite.
2) This is the place, and IMO about the only place, for taser spots. Joey Styles asks Orton a question, Orton takes a swing at Styles, Orton gets tasered in the shorts by Styles.

 

[johnbragg]

WWE especially is leaving money on the table by not having interviewers/announcers with character. I thought of this when Kenny Powers was talking about Borash in TNA interacting with Nash and Foley. My first thought was, NAsh and Foley don't need that, Morgan and Hernandez need that boost. That boost is only available because Borash is an established character and not a generic faceless Interviewer #3.

Having an interviewer or commentator with an established character can help wrestlers get over. Having and showing a personality gets viewers to listen more.

Who has a bigger personality in WWE TV than Vince? No one. Result? Eric Escobar is still living off Vince's one-liner about Escobar as the future of WWE.

 

[TheViperKiller]

1.)
Yeah LOL i will have to agree with you on that i saw another thread on how josh matthews has absolutely NO charisma whenever he interviews people and i found that true although i didnt notice until that came to my attention. I started looking for it and you are right lmao that same face every single time. I think that they can come up with something better than "your thoughts on this match?" they can say anything.
2.) lol yeah i will have to agree with that. But then again what other faces can the interviewer make? I would have to say that they can do a better job of making that face. Josh Matthews has absolutely no charisma, and i dont even know where he came from honestly, he just randomly says hi im coming to ecw to commentate and then raw to interview??? I think that are probably only a handful of faces to make honestly but its mainly how good of an actor is up there, usually wwe is too cheap to have anyone up there that is good enough for interviewer, I like Tnas interviewer JB hes pretty good.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

1.)
Yeah LOL i will have to agree with you on that i saw another thread on how josh matthews has absolutely NO charisma whenever he interviews people and i found that true although i didnt notice until that came to my attention. I started looking for it and you are right lmao that same face every single time. I think that they can come up with something better than "your thoughts on this match?" they can say anything.
2.) lol yeah i will have to agree with that. But then again what other faces can the interviewer make? I would have to say that they can do a better job of making that face. Josh Matthews has absolutely no charisma, and i dont even know where he came from honestly, he just randomly says hi im coming to ecw to commentate and then raw to interview??? I think that are probably only a handful of faces to make honestly but its mainly how good of an actor is up there, usually wwe is too cheap to have anyone up there that is good enough for interviewer, I like Tnas interviewer JB hes pretty good.

You know what else they can do to end the interview segment with the interview, other than making the stupid "deer in headlights look" (Everyone watch for it tonight ... and specifically look for it ... we'll probably see it at least two times, minimum) ........ what they can do would be to do what they used to do and seguee back to the commentators:


Wrestler X: (finishes his interview and walks off)

Interviewer: "Obviously, Wrestler X in a very foul mood tonight .... Michael and Jerry, back to you guys."


or .....

Wrestler X: (finishes his interview and interviewer is not satisfied. Interviewer is seen chasing after Wrestler X for clarification on comments)

Camera cuts back to Michael and Jerry.



There are any variety of possibilities that could be done other than the idiotic "Deer in Headlights" look that is done for every single interview. Other possibilities, which would make the interview far more interesting and innovative, other than the routine crap we've all become accustomed to.

 

[Tastycles]

The problem I think is that the great interviewers of the past have all gone elsewhere. Everyone had a character before and all of them brought something different to the table. I'm not saying that every single one needs to be like Lord Alfred Hayes or something, just a bit geeky like Kevin Kelly, or a wimp like Cole or the guys in the 80s. The interviewers now don't really build a rapport with the stars, and I don't think that helps matters really.

The problem isn't so much in what they say, or even what they do, just what the look like. The interviewers now are pretty much all reasonably attractive people. The best ones from the past were fat and ugly or scrawny. What that did is made a real visual statement that the wrestler was fearsome, without the need for the doe eyed look after every interview. Making the interviewers ugly makes the talent look better. Josh Matthews just looks like a wrestler, which doesn't really have any visual impact.

 

[johnbragg]

The problem I think is that the great interviewers of the past have all gone elsewhere. Everyone had a character before and all of them brought something different to the table.

Why not go all ESPN and just use retired guys? Retired football players and coaches become commentators and interviewers all the time.

You want someone who can talk wrestling credibly without being over the top, and obviously it has to be someone WWE management respects/likes. Why not bring in Al Snow, Ivory, Bill DeMott? Since they were Tough Enough trainers, I assume that WWE management respects them, and I don't think they're especially employed. Please not Hardcore Holly. Why not Lance Storm?

JBL might be asking for more money then they want to pay an interviewer, and would maybe be a distraction as people would think he could come back and wrestle.

Using retired wrestlers would at least limit the kayfabe problem of heels responding to tough questions by attacking the interviewer.

 

[D-Man]

(I meant to post this a few days ago but I was a victim of the login problems...)

This is a very intriguing thread. It's something that I haven't really thought about. I mean, I watch the show religiously and I try not to be too picky with the mistakes/unentertaining-segments that are made on camera. However, this is a point that I probably never would have noticed unless someone pointed it out. Sidious, kudos to you and a very good observation.

I can't help but agree with everything that you said. You and I are both advocates of the "wrestling of old" and we feel that bringing back old ideas can bring out a lot more color in he product. Managers and more colorful interviews (such as what you've presently mentioned) are perfect examples of this. I believe that if these two elements were added to the current product, there would be a ton more depth added to storylines, angles, and (most importantly) a wrestler's gimmick/personality. Mean Gene Okerlund, Lord Alfred Hayes, and Sean Mooney were excellent at uncovering these characteristics back in the 80's and early 90's. Pre-match interviews used to serve as a reminder as to what brought the wrestlers to that moment, as well as where they plan on taking that moment when the match was finished. Details were given... unspoken facts were uncovered... wrestlers made realistic, emotional faces... everything was different because of such minor details making such a big difference. But, these days, it seems that the pre-match interviews have been overshadowed by the cinematic, heavily-edited, video montoges that precede each meaningful feud.

So, this brings us to my view as to why this interview style is currently "dead in the water"... I'm guessing that the WWE feels as if the pre-match video montages provide all of the depth that is required for viewers to be reminded as to why the wrestlers are entering their current matchup. Maybe it's because the WWE spends so much money on the videos... maybe it's just sheer laziness... maybe they feel their wrestlers are unreliable in terms of whether than can make the audience feel the emotion that should be triggered before each match in order to draw the audience in. Or maybe it goes back to the first instinct that I posted in this thread reply... they just didn't think about it.

Honestly, I think that it's as simple as the WWE feeling that those interviews lack the importance that we feel is essential. They know that the video montage is very telling about the current angle and they feel that an in-depth interview may be redundant. But, what if they didn't create the montage? What if the interview was the only way that viewers can take a look inside the wrestler's heads? Maybe instead of the scripted garbage that we watch constantly we could deviate from the norm and try to recreate some interview magic? Unless the WWE notices this, nothing will change.

But this proposes one last question... are these interviews really as important as you make them out to be? Honestly, if this thread was never created, would any of you have thought of this to be missing from the current product? I don't think so... and I feel that the WWE doesn't, either. Would I like to see colorful interviews make a comeback? HELL YES. But, until we can grab the WWE's attention and get them to notice something that probably goes unnoticeable, we're going to watch the same garbage day in and day out.

 

[johnbragg]

But this proposes one last question... are these interviews really as important as you make them out to be?

Backstage interviews, wrestler-to-wrestler confrontations, video vignettes, in-ring promos, and "fake talk shows" from Piper's Pit to the Abraham Washington Show are the standard ways for wrestlers to get their characters and not just their look or their movesets over.

If what WWE were doing worked, in our opinion, then no, it wouldn't be important. But since that job isn't getting done for a LOT of wrestlers, a way to get that job done is important.

Of course the Attitude Era was better, but really, I have a stronger idea of Steve Blackman's character and motivations ten years ago than I do of Kofi Kingston's or Dolph Zigglers' now.

So something is wrong.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

As far as interviews go, they're made to continue a story. The interview is basically acknowledging a story developing between wrestler being interviewed and the person he's feuding with. Watch any interview segments from Gene Okerlund and Sean Mooney, they knew how to ask the right questions and set up the wrestlers to tell their story.

It also doesn't help that most if not all of the wrestlers interviews are scripted and are too canned, sounding completely unreal and fake. When Flair and Rhodes were feuding, you thought they hated each other. Same goes for Hogan and Savage or even Stone Cold and HHH. The gift of gab is very important in the development of a wrestler, except for Goldberg, who didn't need to speak to get way over. But in a time where the deer in the headlights look from Todd Grisham and Josh Matthews doesn't do anything for anyone. Why not have them say, 'Looks like so and so's out for some retribution tonight in the main event, now back to ringside with Michael Cole and The King." That's not so tough. Matter of fact, the quality of interviews would be kicked up a notch.

It doesn't hurt to have a sense of realism. If the interviews are like a postgame interview from a sport like football and baseball, it's no good. They're not telling a story, they're just describing how they feel. NO ONE cares how they feel, we care about what they're going to do about what just happened. It's the simple things that are important and Vince just flat out doesn't do enough of the simple things to make his show successful.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

It's a common problem amongst everyone in WWE who regularly uses a microphone, that doesn't wrestle. None of them do or say anything that helps develop a storyline or fued.

A few years back, JR and the King would spend more time arguing about the morality of a certain superstar's actions, as well as calling the match. JR would get all flustered when people cheated and started branding them as the ultimate evil, and their opponents as honest people who didn't deserve to get screwed out of titles, or have their careers ended prematurely. Now something big and shocking happens, and the announce team fall deafly silent, and there's literally no talking on the headsets following the big spots. It really makes the announcers seem like they don't care about the talent in the ring, but just want to assess and critique their matches with no emotional input whatsoever.

Kelly Kelly and The Coach always used to ask for reactions to the stuff that happened outside the ring or even the previous week! Remember Rock's 'Great Balls of Fire' promo? Started wit Coach asking how he felt about being beat on by Shane and Booker, and NOT 'how'd you feel about your match tonight?', whereas Grisham and Matthews only ask about what will happen in the ring and if they decide to bring up the previous week's segement, it's done in a replay, and the interviewer doesn't say anything.

What i miss most is the talent fuckin' with the interview guys during promo's. We'd have had far fewer great SD moments if Rock hadn't been allowed to pick on Cole, Kelly and Coach all the time, and some of the stuff Edge and Christian used to do in interviews was golden as well. Why doesn't Orton smack Matthews around, or have MVP start ragging on Grisham for being so lame every now and then? It would add so much to such a short, basic segment of the programme.

 

[The Doctor]

I agree. Joining WZCW made me realize how interesting promos can be. We don't just have to have a backstage interview to hype a match; try having one giving a promo at a gym or while on the road. Interviews advance storylines, and the boring one does that, but who says it can't be immensely entertaining at the same time?