Alberto del Rio Is Only Telling You Things You Already Knew

Baaaaaht... chu already knew that
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Hey, did any of those backstage segments with Alberto del Rio look familiar to you last night? Y'know, the ones where he was going up to Christian and Wade Barrett and Dolph Ziggler and trying to get them to do his dirty work against John Cena? If they didn't, let me introduce you to Sean O'Haire...





In case you missed it for that short time back in the early Aughts, O'Haire was telling people what they already knew, much like del Rio did last night. He was an Internet favorite who really didn't get the juice that other guys at the time were getting, and his character (and eventually job) was scrapped. Shame, because it could have been something. Then again, was he doomed to fail from start? He was saying things that would have made him very popular with crowds, but what was his endgame? He really wasn't programmed with anyone to start, and no one had a real reason to like or dislike him other than the stuff he was saying. Having interesting things to say is good in wrestling, but I think emotional attachment is needed, and in wrestling, conflict equals attachment.

That's where I thought WWE succeeded with del Rio. If you remember back to his debut vignettes, they had somewhat of a similar vibe to them. However, when he debuted, instead of just talking to people without really getting any kind of conflict going, bam, he attacked Rey Mysterio. Simple, to the point and right there, the crowds started to attach themselves to del Rio as someone they hated rather than some guy who was persuasive with no real conflict attached. Furthermore, when del Rio was going around playing the devil's advocate to Christian, Barrett and Ziggler, it wasn't just for jollies like when he convinced Dawn Marie to flash or Brian Kendrick to streak. It was to further his own agenda, to have minions of sorts to soften up John Cena for Night of Champions.

To that end, WWE finally got that character archetype right. While Sean O'Haire was telling people things that they already knew for no apparent reason other than hey, he found it amusing, del Rio is using that manipulation to further his rep as an evil genius. Conflict is key, and storyline progression, even if it's entertaining, is only going to be effective if there's an endgame. While it may have screwed over O'Haire back in 2003, at least another intriguing character type has now been proven effective and can provide some sort of variety to the cast of characters in a company that needs to have it to reach its full potential.

Truth, Heels and Gender Roles: Why Kelly Kelly Is the Real Diva Villain

The actions of an honorable woman?
Photo Credit: WWE.com

All Beth Phoenix wants is to be taken seriously. It's hard for her to do so when she's one of the few in a division who strive for that. When most of the Divas base their offense on how hot they are, or how well they can shake their asses, it can be hard for a legitimate female wrestler to ply her trade when all she wants to do is bust skulls. What was her repayment? She's painted as the villain, and furthermore, Kelly Kelly, the most egregious of the ass shakers and stink-facers, gave her the waylaying of a lifetime.

Coincidentally, K2 is considered the face of the Divas division.

While this may not seem "right", it has been the status quo in WWF/E for a long time to some degree. The heels were the ones who told the truth, often times uncomfortable, while the faces spun propaganda to some degree. This was no more evident than in the broadcast booth in the '80s and '90s, when Bobby Heenan and Jesse "The Body" Ventura would point out flaws in Hulk Hogan's or the Ultimate Warrior's games. Obviously, they were bad for a reason; they'd often ignore the misgivings of their bad guy counterparts, but this is nothing new for WWE.

However, the level at which this attacking of the truth, at least from an institutional level, seems to be a bit excessive from where I sit. Let's switch the narrative around a little bit. Instead of Beth wanting to turn the Divas away from looks, splits and booty-shaking, what if she came out and wanted to rid the Divas of politics and ass-kissing? She'd be CM Punk, right? CM Punk's a good guy, or at the very least, he's a fan favorite (which may still yet make him a bad guy if the fans are into that kind of thing), correct?

So, basically what the WWE is saying is that it's okay for the men to have real competition, but the ladies should be there to shake their asses. I'm no feminist, and believe me, I've gotten my fair share of erections looking at sexy photo shoots, but that's not kosher from where I sit, ESPECIALLY when the one company that does nearly everything WWE tries to do, only worse, gets it better than they do in this instance, even now when their women's division is at its worst. When Impact books women better than you, you have problems.

Even more troubling are the demographics for WWE. Apparently, 36% of the audience is female. That's not a trivial number, and it's one that needs to be catered to. That begs the question, what caters to women? Do you assume they're all vain and easily fooled by platitudes like being called "smart, sexy and powerful" without any evidence of that being the case, or do you assume they're real people who like real, three-dimensional characters, or at the very least, two-dimensional characters who can actually wrestle? The WWE thinks it's the former, but I'm going to make the not-so-wild assumption that 36% of their audience would like to see more of the latter.

So you can very much agree on why I feel like positioning Beth as a heel is a bad thing, right? Especially when the thing she's been fighting against was so expertly personified as a bad girl trait during LayCool's epic run on Smackdown. Strong women are good role models. Conversely, the woman with minimal wrestling skills maybe shouldn't be held as the paradigm. I mean, K2 uses the Stink Face, a move that was used by someone 300 lbs. her heavier. The girth was the efficacy, but now, it's reduced to lesbian homoerotica. While I'm not exactly going to argue that I dislike that kind of thing, I don't think it should be used in something that is being staged as legitimate competition. Then, in response, she Pearl Harbors Beth, partially out of retaliation for last week, but you could assume she was a bit miffed at the criticism. Then again, when did the good guy sneak attack someone? Oh yeah, that's right, it's SOP in WWE. No one fights with honor anymore. But I digress.

The point is, if the gender here was inverted, Beth Phoenix probably would be a folk hero. Instead, she's used as a monster to get over the paradigm that you need to be PRETTY PRETTY OH SO PRETTY to be a good girl in WWE (completely oblivious to the fact that there are people in the fandom, of which I'm a member, that think Beth is way hotter than Kelly). When you have a significant portion of women in the audience, especially impressionable youths, maybe it's time you start portraying the fairer sex as more than just pretty faces, fake tits and shrinking waistlines.

The Goofy Bad-ass: Reflecting on What Kurt Angle Was and What He Could Have Been

Pictured: Unrealized potential
Photo Credit: ImpactWrestling.com

Jason Mann and Joe Drilling were discussing the 2000 SummerSlam main event on last Wednesday's installment of the Wrestlespective Radio SummerSlam main event series. Towards the end, they got to talking about Kurt Angle, one of the participants in the match, and how his class clown character never really resonated with them until he eventually dropped the har-har part and got more serious, saying that it made him more of like a Honky Tonk Man quality to his first title reign in the fall of 2000, that he was always getting by by the skin of his teeth. While that was good for the Intercontinental Championship, they said it wasn't good for the World Title. I disagree with that to a point; I think a Honky Tonk World Champion would work, but it has limited shelf-life, if you smell what TH is cookin'.

But onto a greater point, I was then given a shoutout by Mann about how I was a fan of Angle's goofy badass character. Certainly, that iteration of Angle was my favorite, mainly because he made me laugh, but also because of the unique synergy that he had as being a wholly comedic character with the potential to tangle with the best of the lot due to his amazing wrestling ability and his legit amateur background. He hit both my wheelhouses, funny guys and great wrestlers. How could I not enjoy the hell out of him? I will admit to people not buying him until he stopped being funny and started using drugs in a super hardcore fashion to be ZOMG INTENZ!!!1

Honestly though, that's not a fault with Angle per se. You see, in WWF/E, people have roles, and those roles sometimes are so narrowly defined that if you put someone outside of the archetype just a little bit, Kevin Dunn's head may just explode and then Johnny Ace has to clean up the brain matter, or at least find Winston Wolf to do the job for him. And Vince hates when Johnny Ace has to clean up brain matter.

The funnier a wrestler you are, the more comically inept you are in the ring. Think about it. Santino Marella, despite having legit judo/wrestling chops, is relegated to the Superstars Zone despite being one of the most naturally talented guys at getting people to like him. Chris Jericho never fully broke through until he came back from hiatus and started calling the fans gelatinous tapeworms. The Rock made people laugh, but was there really anything comedic about his demeanor? The only exception here is Triple H, but at the same time, if all his attributes aren't maxed out to 99 at all times, he turns into a pumpkin. Or so I have read.

Honestly, that's why I feel like Angle was Honky Tonk Man, only basically impersonating himself circa 1996 rather than Elvis. WWE never felt comfortable taking the reins off him and letting him be a full on badass in the ring while being a jokester out of it. It would have made for a very interesting paradox in character, one that would have had so many different storytelling options without staying in the same stale boxes that WWF/E would keep guys in.

So basically, while Angle's credibility rose, at least my enjoyment of him declined as the years went on. It's to the point where yeah, the majority thinks he has great matches in Impact (For me, he's lost too much of his flair for psychology for me to say he always has good matches), but his character has been wholly drained of the panache that attracted me to him as a fan in the first place almost 12 years ago.

I get why pro wrestling, and sometimes, mainstream media on the whole, puts characters into archetypal boxes. For the most part, those archetypes are there because they're tried and true. However, Kurt Angle, the jokey ass-kicker, was a moldbreaker that had legs. It wasn't contrarian for the sake of being on the contrary. It was fresh and people latched onto it, whether it was the smarks like me who gravitated to him or the regular fans who wanted to see him get his ass kicked because of it. Sometimes you have to take a chance.

WWF/E could have taken a chance with Angle all those years ago, but instead, they didn't. You can argue over whether or not it was successful or not, and I'd say aside from the drug use that got him booted out of WWE, it was. But I can't help but wonder what could have been if Angle was allowed to develop as more than just an inept clown evolving into a more and more humorless legit wrestler.

TWIOT: Harry Potter and the Eight Movies of Quality

This picture doesn't really have anything to do with the article. But it's Emma Watson doing the troll face. C'mon, that's awesome

The Harry Potter film franchise is over. After eight films, legions of fans being minted, tantalized and now satisfied and a boatload of money produced, the epic series finally wrapped up when Deathly Hallows: Part 2 was released a couple of weeks ago. I didn't see the landmark movie until a week after it was released, but when I finally saw it with my wife, sister-in-law and her fiancé, it was worth the wait, both from the end of last fall's Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and the week between release and my viewing.

This isn't going to be a review of Part 2, rather than a retrospective on the series. It's very hard to keep a strong narrative going over three films/books, let alone eight films and seven books. The thing is, it could very easily have been 10+ movies, given that they were considering splitting Goblet of Fire in two and, according to my wife who read the books, had enough material in Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince to make each serial into two or even three movies apiece. Just ask George Lucas, who succeeded with his first Star Wars trilogy, but by many people's reckoning, absolutely failed with the second one. Or you could ask the Wachowski brothers, who followed up The Matrix with two underwhelming at best sequels. Or Sam Raimi, whose first two Spider-man movies were great, but who ultimately faltered with the third installment. That the Potter team, a collective of several different directors under the unchanging narrative written by JK Rowling, told an absolutely breathtaking story with very few moments of falter deserves praise.

Still, its greatest achievement is probably how it appeals to a broad spectrum of ages. Even the first two movies, which people will say are total kids' fare, have some very dark moments, and after it becomes "dark", it still has an appeal to kids, albeit ones that are older. The themes are more mature than what you'd find in your typical Dreamworks computer animated film. They deal with death, betrayal, orphaning, deception, war, murder, trust, politics, educational reform, and yet each film is cleverly set with wizards, mythical creatures and exaggerated characters who typify good and evil cleanly enough so that they can be digested by kids, who may not be ready for a full palate of grays on the canvas.

But while the characters retain a simple identity for the most part (with some exceptions, like Severus Snape, maybe the best character in the entire series – a good guy whose gruff exterior keeps you asking questions until the final exposition of his intents after he dies in DH Pt. 2), they're still fully developed and wonderfully acted, serving almost as archetypes in some cases. For example, Dolores Umbridge, the hawkish, almost fascist member of the Ministry of Magic, serves as the most evil character in any series. Her prissy, old-fashionedly feminine exterior belies her sinister intentions, toadying for the Minister's ignorance regarding the return of Voldemort and then using Draconian measures of punishment at Hogwarts on students whose only crime is satisfying their child-like curiosity. Her slow transformation of the school into a police state was the absolute best part of Order of the Phoenix, and one of the most effective displays of villainy short of portraying someone like Mobuto Sese Seko or Pol Pot in film.

Then there's Neville Longbottom, who throughout the series, is the prime example of all that is good in the world. From when we first see him in The Sorcerer's Stone until his final triumph in the last film, he is always fighting for what's right, even if he's not very good at executing his intentions at first. However, the way that he is portrayed, you can't help but root for the kid, making his triumph over Voldemort and his aiding of Harry in his final fight almost as satisfying – if not more so – than Harry's resolutions.

That's where Rowling and by proxy the filmmakers who were tasked with animating her fictional characters succeeded. From the ideation of the characters through casting to their final ends, whenever they may have been, each character was real, lifelike, even though they existed entirely in a fantasy world. From the bit players like Prof. Trelawny, through to the supporting characters like Bellatrix LeStrange and Sirius Black all the way to the main core, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Dumbledore, Snape, Voldemort and Hagrid, they all felt so real.

And that's why I can't begrudge the hardcore fans for being so sad that this is over. Having felt the same pangs over the end of LOST last year, I can empathize. Although the Potter series didn't strike the same chord of fanaticism in me that LOST or that pro wrestling still does, that doesn't mean I can't recognize it for how well-done and rewarding the entire series has been. I too feel like there's going to be a void in theaters now that Potter is finished. It's not like it's the only series that has legs, but it's definitely a series that I could wholeheartedly count on to deliver on a great film watching experience.

So with that, I bid a fond adieu to Harry Potter and his friends, enemies and acquaintances. It's been a great ride, and everyone involved should be proud of themselves.