Tweeners or bad writing?

[MartialHorror]

This last Smackdown was kind of bizarre as it had Daniel Bryan playing the heel when they were facing the Uso's, whereas Reigns was more sympathetic. This was in contrast to RAW, where Reigns was more in line with being the bad guy (during his interactions with Bryan).

Then you have the Rhodes Brothers dynamic. They were concrete heels, but fought the Ascension, who were portrayed as the more villainous of the two. Then they take on Ziggler/Ryback and maybe the Uso's (I don't remember).

Fandango seemed to be playing the 'good guy' when fighting Adam Rose, which was kind of awkward as he had to play to the crowd in order to inform us of this. Is Fandango a face now? Or will he just play that part until this 'feud' ends? Then of course you have Brock Lesnar, who will beat the hell out of everyone regardless of whether they are John Cena or the Authority.

I remember Ryback being willing to sell out to the Authority when he returned, only to turn on them for something petty...which we're supposed to root for. The Shield were tweeners and Ambrose arguably still is. When Bad News Barrett returned, he challenged Cesaro- the heel- but used dirty tactics to secure the win before selling out to the Authority. While Kane is a bad guy, they made a point to show a rift between him and the Big Show- with Kane being shown as the lesser of two evils.

So is WWE embracing the tweener route or is creative just being inconsistent and sloppy? I'm not sure myself.

 

[steveh0481]

Great question.

To me it really seems like inconsistent/illogical booking as of late, perhaps due to the last minute changes to the script. I've noticed each of the issues you've noted above and have wondered if WWE thinks fans forget what happens from one week to the next.

One thing diehard wrestling fans do not do is forget. Remember when there was continuity in storylines? One of my favorite examples of this was between Bret Hart and Jerry "The King" Lawler. Having just engaged in a bitter feud from the 1993 KOTR up through the "Kiss my foot" match in the 1995 KOTR. When Bret turned heel there was acknowledgement by Jerry Lawler of their feud and saying how Bret had wisened up.

While this isn't the best example, it does show there was a time when WWE could provide explanations for things that fans could believe. Now it just seems like they honestly hope fans forget feuds and will accept shoddy booking.

To go back to your question, I would buy into the idea of tweeners if there were any true wrestlers fans got behind. Unless you're Daniel Bryan or Dolph Ziggler, I don't think it's going to be easy getting over as a face. Instead, we are left with characters that the WWE hasn't invested into, which leaves is not to invest into, so its ok if they are a heel one week or a face the next.

At least those are my two cents on it. I could be wrong and not be seeing the full picture of WWEs intentions with their talent.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

In all honesty, I liked the way the match was booked as the storyline was generally showing the tension & hostility between Bryan & Reigns that had to be put aside as they needed each other. The tension & hostility was still there, but a little bit of the mutual respect shined through. I also thought the little displays of trying to outdo one another with their different styles played well. Remember, Daniel Bryan did say that he was the better "wrestler" than Roman Reigns. From the standpoint of cardio conditioning, speed, agility and most definitely technical ability, Daniel Bryan is the better wrestler, which is why they ultimately showed Roman Reigns to be the big, explosive powerhouse because it would've been embarrassing to have him actually try to "outwrestle" Bryan.

Bryan's attitude during the match didn't strike me as strange at all because he's usually pretty aggressive in his matches. He always goes pretty balls to the wall, it's part of his style and it's one of the reasons why so many fans like watching his matches. Reigns got in the middle of things because The Usos happen to be his kin, which set up a conflict with Reigns in that while they were his opponents, they're also family who's asses Bryan was getting medieval on. Again, this also brought out the tension being played up between Bryan & Reigns as part of the build for their match at FastLane.

Daniel Bryan's a nice guy in real life & it's part of his persona. However, sometimes, I think Bryan does need to be a little edgier when the situation calls for it. For instance, take what's at stake in his match with Roman Reigns: the main event spot at WrestleMania XXXI for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. The Authority screwed Bryan for over for about 8 months before Bryan won the title last year, then his neck issues came to light and they used it as part of a storyline in which Kane was used as their lackey to take Bryan out. So, again, The Authority screwed him over and he sees an opportunity to avenge himself, so I think Bryan should be a little darker when it comes to what this match represents.

Personally, I think it's some of the better writing we've seen on the main roster in the past several months. A good example of bad writing is the Royal Rumble match in & of itself and Roman Reigns being manipulated into putting his spot on the line. Not only does it make Reigns' character look stupid but, if the reports are accurate, Vince has realized, something I'm sure he's had people telling him months in advance, that the only way to salvage his WrestleMania main event is to either shoehorn Bryan into the match so that it's a triple threat or take Roman Reigns out of the match entirely.

 

[Mustang Sally]

So is WWE embracing the tweener route or is creative just being inconsistent and sloppy?

It might be simpler than that. It could be there just aren't enough compelling tag teams in WWE to make solid and lasting heel vs. face rivalries, leading to instances in which teams like the Rhodes Brothers alternate between good & bad, depending on whom they're facing.

Besides, while we know the Usos' are purely good while Ascension is completely bad, it seems the rest of the teams can function as one or the other. Even guys like Cesaro and Kidd, while supposedly a heel team, are hard to hate, with Cesaro's crowd-pleasing maneuvers meshing with Kidd's technical excellence.....how do you boo them?

So, before attributing the 'tweener stuff to bad writing, we might consider whether the entire tag team "division" (the word in parentheses because it's kind of hard to tell whether there is actually a "division" for teams in WWE) has to be better stocked & better defined.

But hey, this is an old story in WWE, no?

 

[LBGetBack]

Great question.

To me it really seems like inconsistent/illogical booking as of late, perhaps due to the last minute changes to the script. I've noticed each of the issues you've noted above and have wondered if WWE thinks fans forget what happens from one week to the next.

One thing diehard wrestling fans do not do is forget. Remember when there was continuity in storylines? One of my favorite examples of this was between Bret Hart and Jerry "The King" Lawler. Having just engaged in a bitter feud from the 1993 KOTR up through the "Kiss my foot" match in the 1995 KOTR. When Bret turned heel there was acknowledgement by Jerry Lawler of their feud and saying how Bret had wisened up.

While this isn't the best example, it does show there was a time when WWE could provide explanations for things that fans could believe. Now it just seems like they honestly hope fans forget feuds and will accept shoddy booking.

To go back to your question, I would buy into the idea of tweeners if there were any true wrestlers fans got behind. Unless you're Daniel Bryan or Dolph Ziggler, I don't think it's going to be easy getting over as a face. Instead, we are left with characters that the WWE hasn't invested into, which leaves is not to invest into, so its ok if they are a heel one week or a face the next.

At least those are my two cents on it. I could be wrong and not be seeing the full picture of WWEs intentions with their talent.

Yeah, agreed. Another example was after Randy Savage turned face in 1991 after he lost his "retirement match" to the Ultimate Warrior at WM 7, and became a commentator. Even though he was face, he didn't go straight to kissing Ultimate Warrior and Hulk Hogan's butts, as they had been his primary foes in the previous 2-3 years. I remember when Undertaker stuffed Warrior in a casket, Savage said something like "I don't like the Warrior much either, but this is over the line".