Hi all and welcome to another offering of off the wall ramblings, this week looking at the art of storytelling on TV.
The WWE writing style that has become the new presentation format of wrestling over the last fifteen years has been the result of a continuous evolution towards a new hybrid form of entertainment. The requirement for a talent to be able to talk and even act as well as wrestle is now considered with few exceptions mandatory. We not only need to believe that there is a back story behind a rivalry, but we need to see that back story unfold before our eyes in the form of scripted backstage scenes and very public spats on the microphone in the middle of the ring (again scripted, of course). In turn, we as fans have come to demand a certain level of plausibility in the stories which we are presented. They do not necessarily have to be “realistic”, but if a story does not seem fathomable considering the characters involved, audience attention and support these days diminishes rapidly.
But this evolution I feel has come with some flaws. A while back I wrote a column about whether WWE should be considered a reality show or a soap opera. The trouble is it is known for taking elements of both and is therefore hard to classify. But what’s more, this is done in such a way that it causes serious contradictions. For example:
Why is it that some backstage scenes the characters acknowledge the cameras are there and the audience listen in and yet they don’t in others?
Why is it that the commentators (and us the audience) are allowed to be privy to information that is supposed to be from a “private” conversation?
Why is it then that the characters don’t realise that they could just watch a recording of the previous week’s show in order to find out when someone is making a fool out of them? Better yet, why not simply listen to the doubtless hundreds of fans that would tell them at their next autograph signing?
Why does practically every run in (physical or verbal) these days get preceded by their theme music? Where’s the surprise?
Finally, what’s with the in ring promos? Are they promos or are they scenes that could be backstage acted out in the ring just because they feel like it? If they want a character to come out and cut a promo, fine, but why for example go to the ring to demand a rematch when every sensible person would go to their General Manager or Vince McMahon? I don’t get it! Either cut a promo in the ring or have a scene with acting backstage! Make your minds up, people!
My point is that they should choose and then stick to a definite structure, because these holes not only remove a certain degree of credibility in their writing, but it actually makes the writer’s jobs harder too.
But don’t panic! I don’t just criticise an idea without a replacement one of my own. I have a novel idea for how they should solve it. Bubbles.
TV dramas, films, soaps and such like all occur in so called “Bubble” worlds. The term itself is quite poetic really, for a time what exists inside it is protected from outside forces, but people on either side can view what is going on looking in or out as appropriate. It is stable, secure in its boundaries and so not often subject to activities outside that might otherwise influence what happens inside it. However there comes a time when the fragility of the thin bubble membrane becomes critical and under the stresses of protecting its precious interior from the forces outside it, it totally and instantly dissipates into nothingness. The world it was previously protecting is engulfed by the forces outside and the two are merged together in such a way that the world it guarded is unrecognisable.
I want to see the WWE adopt this bubble world approach. I want the commentators to be telling us the story, but from the perspective of being inside the bubble and therefore not always able to enjoy the same information as us. In short I want some events to be a surprise for them, but not for us. I want to see backstage conversations, but I want the characters to be completely oblivious to the cameras at all times. Furthermore, I then want to rejoin the commentators who don’t then acknowledge the previous scene. Why? Because they are out there presenting the show so don’t know it happened! Sometimes, I want to see a twist in the story where we are shown a backstage scene that actually happened a few weeks ago, but that we were deprived from seeing originally, so that the emphasis is the other way and it is us being kept in the dark about a surprise at least some of the cast knew about all along. I want it written more like a drama with characters given depth and reasons for acting like they do. But most of all, I want the live audience to be treated like they are part of the bubble and only able to see what goes on in front of them in the ring.
Not only will this bring back some consistency in the story telling itself, but I think it actually makes the writer’s job more interesting and therefore the product we would watch more interesting. Take the following situation as an example:
A gang of four who regularly work together as a stable start to develop tension when their rising young star scores an upset victory to win the World Heavyweight Title. The egos become unable to work together and the other three decide to eject the young rising star from the group. The new champion has no idea he is to be kicked out.
I imagine many of you recognise this as the time Randy Orton won the World Heavyweight Title at Summerslam 2004. We all know that the next night Orton was held aloft on Batista’s shoulders, before Triple H gave him a “thumbs down” and he was promptly beaten by his fellow members of Evolution. But with the “Bubble” world theory, there are a number of ways in which the story of this betrayal can be told the night it happens.
Firstly, it can be told as it was, with scenes featuring all members of the stable supposedly celebrating together but with a hint that Triple H is expecting to still lead the group and regain the title, perhaps rather easily, from his protégé in order to maintain the current status quo within the group and re-establish himself as the dominant leader.
Alternatively, it can be told solely from the perspective of one of the characters. Could it be told from Randy’s point of view? He spends so long enjoying the night with members of the roster stopping to congratulate him, he completely misses when his colleagues disappear to discuss his impending fate?
Thirdly (and by no means lastly as there are no doubt other possibilities), could it be told from the perspective of Ric Flair and Batista? What if Triple H tells them he wants Orton out and the two then argue privately whether to do as he says or inform Randy and then consider kicking Triple H out before deciding to eventually comply?
As you can see it’s the same story told in different ways. This is a useful tool to have in the scriptwriter’s arsenal because it allows you to re-use stuff and things don’t look so blatantly like you are copying a previous effort. No doubt you could take a number of well known stories and turn them on their head by changing the perspective from which it is told.
It’s ironic that you hear so many old hands at WWE emphasising the need to “tell a story”, but the scriptwriting process is a part of that too and you can’t help but feel like this is often neglected or at least not used properly. Of course, I seriously doubt the WWE would ever take an idea like this and just go with it, but I would definitely love to see it happen! After all, doesn’t it provide something different? Isn’t that what we are looking for right now?
Just a thought…
How would you write for a wrestling promotion? Do you think another style could work? Drop me an e-mail at stuart_black@hotmail.com and I will be happy to hear from you! Next time, with writing now dealt with, a look at character creation and development.
Copyright © 2005; TheWrestlingVoice.com & Douglas Nunnally.
All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer & Privacy Statement
| What Did You Think About WWE Backlash 2008? |
|
|