 |
| Not a crime if we don't see this entrance every time Photo Credit: WWE.com |
That's why I get baffled when people complain about wrestlers getting "the jobber entrance," i.e., they're already in the ring when the show comes back from commercial break. The term emanates from the pre-RAW days, when Superstars/Wrestling Challenge/whatever would have a bunch of preliminary matches featuring their rostered, contracted superstars going up against "local talent" in squash matches. The local talent never got their entrances televised, which was one of the biggest signposts as to position on the totem pole. For longer time fans, it might be a reflexive response, like the Champion always coming out last (which I'm not sure ever was a codified, consistent thing across wrestling) or the existence of squash matches in general.
Still, reflexive or not, times change. Wrestling in 2013 isn't the same as it was in 1998, let alone 1988. With the advent of live, weekly, premium, first-run programming on cable TV, the model in which the product is disseminated to the masses has changed drastically. It had to. Evolve or die. Things don't mean the same today as they used to. When Antonio Cesaro or Dolph Ziggler are in the ring back from commercial, it's not because WWE hates them or is punishing them. It's because they want to move things along in the show to try and get what they need to get presented in the time they have set aside to them by USA Network/SyFy/Ion TV.
For the younger fans though, there's really no reason why they even need to concern themselves with that term. If you started watching during the Attitude Era, there's a good chance you have no idea what a preliminary match is outside of the ones they'd do for Ryback or another new talent the company wants to get over quickly. It's not a reflexive statement. It's an ignorant one.
Whether stubborn or unilluminated, the idea that respect is meted out through things like entrances seems to me the thoughts of people who in some way or another don't have their priorities straight in watching. Are you watching for the content to entertain you, or are you watching because you're trying to conduct a sociological experiment vis a vis an employer and his/her workers? If it's the latter, wrestling might still be a good subject, but you'd be going about it all the wrong way.
For the former though, I'd say we should take the truncated, televised entrance movement a bit further. Don't show any entrances on TV except for the main event. Let a televised entrance hammer home how important a certain match is, and for everything else, let the wrestlers/performers have as much time as possible. Obviously, putting more time in WWE's hands is like giving Bart Simpson $20 and directions to the local fireworks dispensary, only in this case, the fireworks would be analogous to "more time for recaps and movie trailers." Still, in theory, cutting out as much chaff from the program is a good thing. Instead of crying when you don't get to see all the entrances, take a different approach. Be happy that you, the TV viewer, is getting more bang for your buck. Wrestling is a dynamic thing, even in the hands of WWE. Don't apply yesterday's rules to today's product.