Today's Commentary is evidently from the Department of Redundancy

[gd]

This was in the LD or something originally, so I can't take all the credit. How many times have heard Vance Archer referred to as "intense" or Kofi's "controlled frenzy" or the "demonic" Kane. For almost every wrestler, there are a few things that are guaranteed to be said in each match ; possibly multiple times.

Personally, I think this is one of the many big problems with WWE commentary. It's just another example of the WWE being repetitive, formulaic, and lazy. It makes the show sound so scripted all of the time and every match just seems like one you've already seen a thousand times. There's no excitement it in.


So, what are you thoughts? Do you agree, or is this not really a big deal?

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

LOL ...

"Vance Archer is so incredibly intense in the ring!"
"Is there anyone more intense than Vance Archer?"

"The Viper is slithering in the ring!"
"The Viper is setting up for the RKO!"

I can't say enough awful things about today's commentary in the WWE. It really makes you scratch your head what Dixie Carter was thinking in copying WWE's style of Play by Play / Analyst style of commentary ... but that was more of a powerplay against Jeff Jarrett more than anything, I think.

Maybe Hogan can straighten her out and put a Face/Heel team back together.

There is no excuse for the redundancy. None. It's like anything else related to the Creative department ... "Stale, boring, and out of touch".

And go figure, Vince McMahon manages the Creative Department ... and he is also on headset each and every week feeding lines to his commentators.

Seeing a pattern here?

I can understand some repetition, but not even JR went through his catchphrases every single week. He varied them sometimes on a bi-weekly basis, where as it seems we can't go one week without being told "how intense Vance Archer is".

 

[Undar8d]

I agree, but I also think it's not a big deal.

They have been using the same words too much to refer to a wrestler, but hearing something else every week can also seem a little annoying too for me.

Take for example, Striker on SmackDown! who will start talking about the wrestler, they do a huge move, and Striker goes off with a smart, over-the-top reference to explain the wrestler. Some of it is okay I guess, but he comes up with some crazy shit that make me feel stupid trying to get what he said.

Saying that though, It's not a huge deal for me at the moment, since they are a lot of bigger deals to be dealt with and I agree that they should stop repeating the word several times. ex. The "Animal" Batista I hear way too many times.

 

[Tastycles]

Another day, another commentary thread. As per usual, Sidious starts talking about heel and face teams, which it has absolutely nothing to do with. WWE commentary is very stale, but you know who was worse than Michael Cole? Gorilla Monsoon. Literally every single time Jimmy Hart would appear, he would say "get that little pipsqueak out of here", any time two big fellas hit each other it would be "the irresistable force meets the immovable object." If it's down to heel and face teams, then why was Monsoon so repetetive?

The reason they are so repetetive is pretty fucking simple. If you have an ounce of commentary talent, you are going to commentate on something better than wrestling. The ones that have a real passion for the business like Tony Schiavone and Jim Ross, who stay by choice, are the exceptions, the vast majority of the rest of them are shit. Seriously, I don't think I can think of another good play by play that has ever worked for the WWE.

I really can't be arsed to have the argument about heel and face teams, but to me, the answer is simple. The play by play guys are always going to be bad, and you probably can't fix that. Quality commentary has always come from good chemistry, and good co-commentators. They needn't necessarily be a heel. I hated, and I mean hated, latter day Jerry Lawler as a heel, but now I merely think he's quite crap. Ventura wasn't as much of a heel as people remember, he just supported people that his character might like legimately. The answer isn't in making people arbitarily heel and face, it is in giving them free reign to act however they want, which apparantly isn't happening. In some cases, that would be as a heel, but not in all. Mick Foley is a prime example of someone who could be a great face co-commentator, if left to his devices.

Jesus, what a tangent, I apologise. In short, my argument is this: you are unlikely to ever get much better quality in your play-by-play announcers. The solution to lame statements like "look how the Viper slitheres towards Kingston" etc, is to have colour commentators that a) can be bothered b) have charisma and c) are largely given free reign over their style.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Honestly, each time I hear Michael Cole say "Vintage" or any other line I've heard a million times before I'm wishing bad things to him and his family, outloud.

I absolutely agree with the post. To me commentary is just as important as the match itself because I AM watching the match but I also HAVE to LISTEN to people commentating it. Works in two ways. Hell, commentators are fine tuning the audience in a way. Then again, nobody seems to care..

 

[sordidboySavoy]

striker is an idiot. all the nick names and other pure embarassing shit he says makes me put the tv on mute. i am also sick of cole's '' you are watching the longest running weekly episodic show in cable history.'' he no lie says it like 10 or more times a Raw.seems like before and after every commercial that goofy fuck says that

 

[redcorleone]

All commentators have a certain word, or a name to describe someone. You get it in all sports or programmes that uses commentary. For example in football if it's a short, stocky, and aggressive guy, he'll usually be compared to a bulldog.

It has to be scripted to a certain degree. It's either that, or do you want them to start talking about the weather or how there own familys are doing?

It's not like what theyr'e saying is rubbish as well. They say Orton looks like a viper one week, would you like them to switch animals, and say he resembles a flustered panda the next week?

I'm also confused why everyone gets so angry with Cole saying 'vintage' to. Anyone would think that he's referring to what it's like between your Mothers legs with the amount of offense it seems to cause.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Good post Sidious. Commentary is VITAL to any wrestling match on tv. And you absolutely need a heel commentator and a face play-by-play. Monsoon and Ventura were amazing together. Those two guys could bullshit their way through the worst match you could ever think off, but it was still entertaining because of the banter between the two. The most important thing in pro wrestling commentary is BANTER. It makes for a much more entertaining discussion. If you don't believe, wait until Monday and listen to poor Jerry Lawler (who used to be funny) have to agree with everything that idiot Michael Cole has to say. Then go back and listen to Monsoon and Ventura, or Monsoon and Heenan. Heenan made Schiavone look good, and that was hard to do. A heel commentator is key.

And to Tastycyles, who said that Monsoon was worse than Cole....you are out of your mind. Monsoon was, next to J.R., the best play by play guy of the last 25 years. To bag on Gorilla Monsoon is a joke in itself. Michael Cole shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Gorilla Monsoon. Michael Cole has ZERO entertainment value, and anyone who listened to Monsoon constantly stick up for faces year after year and didn't think he was talented, wouldn't know talent unless it hit him in the face with a shovel.