 |
| Were the zombies a bridge too far? Who cares. Photo Credit: WWE.com |
In order to parse what these complaints and counterarguments mean, one needs to examine what it actually means to promote or consume wrestling. If you've read this free, unprofessional publication for more than one post, you know my thoughts on it. If not,then I will lay them bare here. Pro wrestling is not a simulacrum of a real fight, and regardless of what any crank like Jim Cornette or Vince Russo has to say, it never, ever has been. Ever since pro wrestling became pro wrestling, and I'm not sure when that was but it was somewhere between the dawn of time and right now, its sole goal has been to present fantastical fights that were always supposed to deliver on some expectation, unlike a shoot fight like a boxing match where the main events could be duds because the two combatants were trying to win and get out, not accrue style points. Whether that show has been to simulate a fight between two mortals using moves and stamina expectations that were impossible in any other shoot fight or to recreate movie fights in real life without need for CGI, wrestling has always leaned on the fantastical. Whether you like it or not, the Undertaker and the Irish whip require similar levels of disbelief suspension to believe they are possible.
So that's a defense of zombies, right? Well, no, it isn't. I'm not going to defend nor attack the actual execution of these zombies infesting a WWE ring, because I would rather be caught dead with my dick inside a meat grinder than watch WWE programming at present time. However, one doesn't need to be able to watch something happening without parsing some truths about it. The biggest truism in pro wrestling is that nothing is a truism except for execution. You know something is good when you see it and feel it. A worked shoot promo might seem like something that sucks until you see CM Punk sitting cross-legged on the floor atop the RAW ramp to say hi to Colt Cabana and name-drop the IWGP Championship. You can think no-selling has no place in wrestling until you see Jon Moxley pop up after a German suplex just to lariat Kenny Omega to the canvas before crumpling like a heap himself.
Attacking zombies in a pro wrestling ring does not mean someone hates the Undertaker, because execution is the key. I don't know how many times people need to say this before it gets through people's skulls, but wrestling is not science. It is an art even if it's not art, if that makes sense. It's something that requires more of an execution than a formula, why not everyone can do the Steve Austin character even if the Steve Austin character is the most important one in company history. In order to parse whether or not zombies are okay, you need to ask yourself if it made sense in the Miz/Priest feud which to that point was mostly based off Bad Bunny, if the action came off authentically, and if you enjoyed it. Answer "no" to any of those questions for zombies where you may have answered "yes" watching Sullivan and whatever coterie of freaks, weirdos, and supernatural characters he had around him at any time, and you are justified saying the zombies were bad or that they were a bridge too far for you as a wrestling fan or whatever.
The more tangible thing why it was probably a bad thing is how it came about. Using a match between two wrestlers who have been feuding over something other than this movie starring one of your ex-wrestlers to sell that movie is transparently capitalist, and although it's par for the course for Vince McMahon in his sleazebag, ghettoizing history, is it something that you want in your entertainment? "Oh, but movies do product placement all the time," and most people fucking think product placement is cheap and tawdry. Why should you want it in your wrestling, unless it turns out good, of course? All Elite Wrestling was guilty of it using a Jurassic Express vs. Bear Country match to tie into Godzilla vs. Kong. It was a good, fun match. Again, I can't speak to how the zombies in this match played out because I would rather huff jenkem than watch WWE. Using matches as naked product placement will be bad no matter who does it or how they do it, but it can be forgiven to a certain degree if it's good.
That's what everything boils down to. Did whatever thing WWE do scratch the itch of their audience? You cannot answer that in bulk because of the two-three million people in America who watch wrestling, you will have up to two-three million different reactions. I think people would be a lot better off if they just ignored the people who reacted in unapproved ways unless they're willing to engage them in good faith, which means not asking them "why didn't you enjoy this thing WWE, a company which rarely puts out good things, put out?" People have forgotten how to interact online in a non-competitive or transactional way, and it makes the online experience suck tailpipe.
Wrestling is what you get out of it. I couldn't for the life of me imagine an existence as a wrestling fan where I had to prove constantly why I liked something using "facts" and "logic" because I have to use those things both at work and in subjects outside of work that require those things like speaking out against bigotry or imperialism. Well, I can imagine it because I used to live it. No surprise that it was that era of arguing on message boards whether WCW or WWE was better using scientific method caused a burnout somewhere around 2002-03 where I didn't watch regularly for five years. Life is too short to wonder why someone online doesn't like something that you did.
