Poor Big Show. The man grows a conscience in his older years, and he's forced to sit on the sideline, tasked with choosing whether he wants to keep his job or help out a valiant challenger, a man who didn't need to give himself the moniker of People's Champion in order to earn it. So much talk of his iron clad contract when John Laurinaitis rehired him has populated the Twitters, and the fact that important piece of deus ex machina from a year ago has been left untouched is just a tad bothersome.
However, is that omission really worth throwing away this story? Yes, WWE's inattention to detail in this case when the storytellers have been diligent in other areas can be annoying, but how much of that frustration is borne out of concern to the details and how much of it is the impatience for some kind of gratification? Two weeks into the story, and the rumblings on Twitter already indicate that WWE needs to have Daniel Bryan stand tall or have people rush to his side OR ELSE. And lo and behold, WWE left them a thick cut of well-marbled red meat. Big Show's gotta attack because he can with IMPUNITY!
But constructs in wrestling, MacGuffins so to speak, are never as valuable as stories are. The continued ignorance of the iron clad contract is annoying, sure, but is it more annoying than Show's performance tonight was effective? I guess that answer depends on what you value. I, personally, have seen enough rushed angles meant to cram as many rematches on as many pay-per-views in a row since I returned to watching wrestling that I am starving, absolutely famished to see them build a story slow. The way televised wrestling works, going month to month, dictates that the main plot-advancing events have to be supplement them with character building and exposition.
Leaving Show out there to chew scenery was probably the best move. Yeah, the pouty-faced slink to the back under the duress of Triple H's barking orders may have been a bit melodramatic, but I've always enjoyed my wrestling with a bit of schmaltz. I'll take an entertaining holding pattern over rushed payoffs and cramming a build that will pay off at Survivor Series (I'm assuming) to hit jackpot in one month.
Even if that means sweeping the iron clad contract under the rug and never mentioning it again.
However, is that omission really worth throwing away this story? Yes, WWE's inattention to detail in this case when the storytellers have been diligent in other areas can be annoying, but how much of that frustration is borne out of concern to the details and how much of it is the impatience for some kind of gratification? Two weeks into the story, and the rumblings on Twitter already indicate that WWE needs to have Daniel Bryan stand tall or have people rush to his side OR ELSE. And lo and behold, WWE left them a thick cut of well-marbled red meat. Big Show's gotta attack because he can with IMPUNITY!
But constructs in wrestling, MacGuffins so to speak, are never as valuable as stories are. The continued ignorance of the iron clad contract is annoying, sure, but is it more annoying than Show's performance tonight was effective? I guess that answer depends on what you value. I, personally, have seen enough rushed angles meant to cram as many rematches on as many pay-per-views in a row since I returned to watching wrestling that I am starving, absolutely famished to see them build a story slow. The way televised wrestling works, going month to month, dictates that the main plot-advancing events have to be supplement them with character building and exposition.
Leaving Show out there to chew scenery was probably the best move. Yeah, the pouty-faced slink to the back under the duress of Triple H's barking orders may have been a bit melodramatic, but I've always enjoyed my wrestling with a bit of schmaltz. I'll take an entertaining holding pattern over rushed payoffs and cramming a build that will pay off at Survivor Series (I'm assuming) to hit jackpot in one month.
Even if that means sweeping the iron clad contract under the rug and never mentioning it again.
