Quote:
Originally Posted by Destor
Theres a time and place for both. I dont think either approach is inherently flawed
|
Maybe so, but I think the former is more of a slippery slope.
Brian Alvarez commented on the backlash to Charlotte beating Asuka for the belt by saying it's just a prop and it doesn't matter. I think I immediately lost some respect for him with those comments.
Yes, from a very literal standpoint the belt is a prop. The audience knows this. But like everything in wrestling, the fans want to be made to forget that, through great storytelling. However, if you're too transparent about using a plot device to further the story, it takes people out of the tale you're trying to tell. This is true of any story telling medium.
Yes people were upset that Asuka's (poorly booked outside of her win against Becky) reign ended to further the other title's feud, but they were also upset because they chose to use a prop at the last minute to artificially enhance the feud in lieu of just telling a good story. I don't know how Brian couldn't see that.
Further more, it does matter how you book the belt. I know for a fact it does. Because when Omega finally beat Okada for the title, I felt something I hadn't felt since Benoit won the title at WM 20 and celebrated in the ring with Eddie. Conversely, when Bray Wyatt, my favorite worker in WWE at the time won the WWE title, I didn't care. Because they had done everything in their power to get me to not care about him over the years, and now they were using the title to try and sell me on him.
One company used the title to enhance the story they were telling. The other used the belt to tell the story, and everyone saw right through it.
It's funny because every time you're too blatant about using a belt to get a person or storyline over, people lose a little respect for that title, in turn having the oppisite effect of the desired outcome. And that's why no one gives a shit about WWE titles. Because they do this shit all the time.