 |
| The storyline development that WWE fans needed, but not the one they wanted? Photo Credit: WWE.com |
That puts a range of true values for any given card, with the people creating that art strongly hinting at a theme. Trust me, it's not entirely different on more independent levels. Each promoter has a vision, whether it's one that balances artistic courage and desire to make money like Chikara and Mike Quackenbush, or a fully-fueled by profit one in Pro Wrestling Syndicate.
So, what happens when the vision that people ideally have for WrestleMania doesn't jibe with the one Vince and his underlings have? That's where I think most of the criticisms for the overall aura of WrestleMania came from. The show was meant to reap, while people wanted them to sow. It would be easy to dismiss those criticisms or fully embrace them if Mania did have a constant thematic strain linking them from year to year.
There are tropes that remain somewhat constant for varying lengths of time. The Royal Rumble winner challenges for a Championship. The Undertaker wrestles to try and maintain his WrestleMania win streak. For six years, someone banked a guaranteed title shot whenever they wanted it. However, those aren't really overarching themes. They set up singular matches.
In order to parse what Mania actually means, we have to examine the evidence as to what McMahon and his company seem to want it to mean. Mainly, is the show a harvest, or is it a planting? In less agricultural terms, is the show a place where long-term stories are resolved, or is it a place where things are started for the next year or so? Well, the answer to that is yes. There are plenty of examples where they've both planted seeds and reaped the fruit of long stories, and at least to my unfocused eye, there are equal amounts of both.
For example, last night, we saw the end of a few major stories, all of them in the three main event matches. John Cena redeemed himself, Triple H won back his family's honor, and Undertaker shut CM Punk's yap something fierce. However, they did enact some starts to stories, or at least planted new beginnings for them. Fandango's win was definitely a start of something pretty major, his career. There's no resolution in sight for either Henry/Ryback or del Rio/Swagger. However, I'd also say there wasn't that impactful, hit-the-ground-running moment ending either.
However, how many WrestleManias have had that kind of moment, where someone changed alignment in a way that it totally reset the landscape? I can think of only two, they both involved "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, and only one of them ended the show. Usually, the big moments seem to provide finality. Hulk Hogan bodyslamming Andre the Giant didn't end their feud, but it ended an era. Randy Savage and Miss Elizabeth reuniting was the cathartic resolution of seven years of slow-simmering character building and interaction that some of the best TV shows never come close to achieving. Hell, even the embrace at WrestleMania XX between Eddie Guerrero and He Who Shall Not Be Named felt like it was the culmination of two careers at that point, careers that at that point weren't trivial in length at all.
That begs the question, should WWE keep doing things just because that's the way they've always done them? Well, that's an awful reason to keep a status quo, but at the same time, there's an argument that there is a day when WWE shakes the tree a little harder than usual. That day happens to be the day AFTER WrestleMania. The first episode of RAW after Mania has the big developments that will end up shaping the next several months. Last year, it was the return of Brock Lesnar. Two years ago, it was Cena throwing down the challenge to The Rock for their first match.
While it's good to change up the formula every once in awhile, it stands to reason that WWE has a good thing going for Mania. End some stories, continue some others, and whenever they can, provide large doses of emotional catharsis. Those opportunities won't come around once a year, but when they do, they're worthy of their grandest stage. I can empathize with people who wanted there to be an earth-shattering kaboom that resulted from a John Cena heel turn, a Dolph Ziggler cash-in, or something else monumental. I want those things to happen too, but I think I'm okay with them taking place on RAW or on a "B" pay-per-view, shows that start or continue stories rather than end them.
Wrestling is the most free-form art that I can think of, but artistic freedom can sometimes grow too unwieldy without a structure to attach to. Sometimes, that means having a vision that can clash with the desires of some fans. As long as people can learn to discern what the meaning of something like WrestleMania is and reconcile it with their own desires, then maybe things won't be as jarring in the future.