Email This Article - Contact Us - VIP Sign-Up - Back to Home Page

|

CALDWELL'S TUESDAY CHAT w/GREG PARKS: Discussion of Smackdown and Raw

James Caldwell: This is Torch assistant editor James Caldwell joined by Torch contributor and Smackdown TV reporter Greg Parks for a discussion on last week's Smackdown and last night's Raw. First off, though, we called it last week in this here chat. Reverend Al Sharpton is hosting Raw next week.

Greg Parks: I can't imagine a scenario in which that goes well.

JC: Should we expect a cameo from the rabbi and the farmer again?

GP: If WWE has any sense, then no. I'm sure they're licking their chops to come up with some good, original bits for Sharpton

JC: Good and original coming from WWE writers writing comedy bits for their guest hosts? Yeeaah, moving along. ... How about Smackdown last week? The return of Batista, Teddy Long, Smoke & Mirrors Limo, and more questions than answers on the C.M. Punk vs. Undertaker feud. What was you overall impression of the show following the Breaking Point PPV?

GP: The show didn't have that signature 15-minute ***+ match that we've come to expect from Smackdown the past few months. Instead, it had Teddy Long being abducted by The Undertaker in an angle that would've fit in with the mid-'90s WWF or WCW, for that matter. So, yeah, I wasn't as high on the show as I have been in previous weeks.

JC: When you add Undertaker and Batista and take away Rey Mysterio and Jeff Hardy, there's going to be a major shift in the structure of Smackdown. And it's not a good shift right now because Smackdown built a reputation the past four-to-six months as the wrestling show. Now, it's back to that mid-'90s WWF and mid-2000s magic show feel when The Undertaker was center of the show. It appeals to the kids, but it slowly chips away at the credibility of the program. What do you think are the two biggest concerns WWE needs to address with this Punk-Taker-Long ordeal - either in terms of on-air storylines or the direction and feel of the product?

GP: Well, first, figure out where/if Batista fits into the title picture; I can't imagine him coming over and not being a part of the main events. Secondly, clear up this whole Teddy Long thing. If it was Vince McMahon behind it, come out and say it, or fill in the logic holes that are abundant in this feud. The quicker they move on from the screwjob and the storyline dealing with it, the better.

JC: Even if they completely scrap the storyline and start over, it would work better than trying to figure a way out of this. And I know you have a long-form review of the holes in this feud in this week's Torch Newsletter that everyone needs to read. I want to touch on your Batista point. I just don't see where he fits right now. And I know you're just happy as a clam for another Batista vs. Big Show match this Friday. Do you eventually see Batista feuding against Punk for the World Title and Taker shifting back to a specialty feud?

GP: We could see that with Taker maybe feuding with Big Show or something; depends on how long they want to keep him and Jericho together as a tag team, but I don't see who you'd pair Batista with in a feud right now without getting him into the title picture. If Taker is truly going to be more of a special attraction or part-timer, than he's not a guy I'd build a long-term title feud around.

JC: It seems like Taker has been used just to elevate Punk in the short-term - give him the "Taker rub" of working a program - but not to create a feud that's going to carry to say, WrestleMania. There just isn't a natural issue between the two. I think any issue WWE comes up with would seem manufactured. I say finish up the program, get Taker into a secondary feud that could help bolster some PPV undercards, and plant the seeds for Taker vs. Jericho at WrestleMania 26 with Taker feuding against Big Show for the time being.

GP: Well, I'm sure WWE is hoping Edge comes back by then and they can do a Jericho vs. Edge feud for WM, but I get what you're saying

JC: True on Edge. Perhaps have two different ways they could go in case Edge isn't fully healed. They could shift Taker elsewhere if needed. So, good point. ... I want to ask you about C.M. Punk's promo on Smackdown. I've seen criticism from Torch readers that it's getting old and too heavy-handed. Do you agree or what did you think about Punk's promo on the show?

GP: I think there's a short life span for promos like that because at this point, he's coming out and saying the same things every week. I don't know about getting too heavy-handed, but it's definitely wearing thin on me and it has nothing to do with him or his delivery or his mic skills. The material has just been re-hashed so much.

JC: And that goes to the point of there not being a natural issue with Undertaker. There isn't anything to work with there, so he's simply repeating his same lines from the Jeff Hardy feud and continuing to antagonize the audience. Wearing thin is a good way of putting it. ... Did anything else jump out at you from Smackdown?

GP: Khali being written off the show for the time being was a positive, there seemed to be some dissension teased between Jericho and Big Show, and I thought Drew McIntyre walking out to R-Truth's theme music was kinda cool. That's about it

JC: What's your early evaluation of McIntyre? We haven't seen much of him in the ring, but what stands out to you about his character?

GP: He's very methodical on the mic and, despite the heavy accent, you understand what he's saying. Great body language and facial expressions too. He hasn't fought a match, so that's about all I can go on.

JC: I think WWE is doing the right thing slowly introducing him to the audience. They've apparently given up on vignettes and pre-intro video packages, so this works fine. ... Let's shift gears to Raw last night. There was so much to like or dislike about the show, I thought. What was your overall impression of the show?

GP: There really was a lot I liked - Rhodes vs. Hunter, Miz vs. Bourne, the Orton-Cena contract signing, Lilian's send-off. But again, the main problem seemed to be the guest host - or the writing of the guest hosts. The writers writing for the guest hosts has been like fitting a square peg into a round hole. They just seem unable to do it. They can't write that kind of stuff and hell, they're barely qualified to write for wrestling, which is their job.

JC: And that is a strong contributor to why wrestling is not taken seriously as a whole. There are the obvious elements of Chavo in a cow suit and all that silly stuff, but the bottom line is wrestling is plagued by bad writing. That, I believe, is one of the main factors why the entertainment industry does not take WWE seriously. It's evident every week on Raw. It's evident with the Abraham Washington show. It's evident with the severely lacking story arcs. It's just not quality TV writing and it's difficult for anyone outside of pro wrestling to take the product seriously.

GP: Most people outside wrestling would look at it like any other TV show and see that the storylines just don't match up to the quality of storylines elsewhere on TV. Ironically, that's what WWE has been trying to do by hiring these TV writers instead of those with a background in wrestling.

JC: There are so many different writers who are shuffled in and out of the writer's room and there are too many different agendas and too many different political alliances that the finished product is a mess. You need balance, definitely. Many of the "wrestling types" who are agents/producers have different philosophies on specific elements of wrestling compared to each other, but they need to be involved in the creative process to sit there and say, "Wait a second. We're opening the show with a rabbi, a farmer, and a comedian? People are turning the channel the instant they see that!"

GP: But WWE's trying to turn themselves into a variety show and not so heavily rely on wrestling, at least on raw. That's why they're trying so many comedy tricks that are failing miserably. I agree; I don't think it's working, because you end up alienating the wrestling fans and the fans they're trying to bring in still view it as "wrestling" and won't watch because of the connotation wrestling has in the mainstream.

JC: Right on. I agree with the logic of trying to cast a wide net to grab as many TV viewers as possible, but when the quality of the TV writing doesn't come close to a "24" or a "House" or any other TV show on Monday nights, you're not going to get those mainstream viewers. This has been an issue for over a decade, but WWE needs to improve the quality of their writing if they want to be taken seriously as an entertainment company.

JC: Okay, some of the other points on the wrestling aspect of the show. The opening segment with DX vs. Legacy. I thought the segment and the Hunter vs. Cody match was the best segment of the show. What did you like about the segment?

GP: The give-and-take in the match and just overall how well Legacy has been built up in this feud. It's been the opposite of what I figured given the previous history between the two teams. Legacy has looked really strong in this feud and they resisted the urge to put HBK or Triple H over clean the past two weeks.

JC: And I don't have a problem with the DQ finishes for Legacy to save face and not take those clean losses. I think WWE is effectively building up the heel aspects of their characters and making them seem like viable threats to DX while building toward a PPV match where the audience wants to see Legacy get theirs.

GP: I have time to talk about one more segment!

JC: Okay, Cena vs. Orton. I thought the contract signing was such a hit or miss with Cena going back and forth on being serious and doing the silly comedy. He seemed like a prick at times, then he had that "I'm so scared" face after the main event when he was faced with the gauntlet next week. It seemed like people had a chance to laugh at his plight after he came across like a prick to Orton in the contract signing. What are your thoughts on the Cena-Orton build-up?

GP: I really liked this segment, even the Cena promo. Hey, it's in line with his character to move from comedy to serious at times in his promos, so I didn't have a big problem with it. Orton aced the segment; he seems to know exactly what his character is all about at this point and hits all the right notes with it.

JC: Real quick, do you think Cena doing the "I'm sorry, I wasn't listening to you, Randy" bit hurts Orton's credibility as a heel where he's not taken seriously as a threat or is just something Cena would do and it's making the heel look silly, but no big deal?

GP: It's just the type of comedy to appeal to those in the demographic that love him, so I don't think it takes away from the credibility of Orton. It just makes his character even angrier.

JC: Good take. Well, that about does it for us on a Tuesday afternoon. Greg, thanks as always for the chat today!

GP: And thank you, sir!

[Art credit Grant Gould (c) PWTorch.com]

Send feedback on this article to pwtorch@gmail.com and we'll regularly publish reader feedback in the "Torch Feedback" category on the Main Listing.

For more BREAKING NEWS on WWE, TNA!
VISIT OUR AFFILIATE - PROWRESTLING.NET

For UFC & MMA NEWS & BLOGS:
VISIT OUR SISTER SITE - MMATORCH.COM

Upgrade to PWTORCH VIP: DETAILS & SIGN-UP INFO

(c) 1999-2009 TDH Communications Inc. - All rights reserved.