The Brain Buster 6.15.13: Finding Creativity in WWE Creative

I always thought the name “WWE Creative” represented an interesting struggle in the entertainment business. Any creative talent wishes to represent their opinion, their art, their struggle unfiltered and uncensored. I could never imagine Picasso pitching “Guernica” to a bunch of suits, or Gertrude Stein having to explain, “a rose is a rose is a rose” to an investor’s meeting. They didn’t have to because they lived in a time where they were allowed to be creative. So, the idea of the writers of the WWE being referred to as “Creative” brings up an interesting point – not because they are completely uncreative – but because they work in the confines of big business. WWE is the definition of a capitalistic success. They started out small – a spoke on a much larger wheel – and, in time, singe handedly put all of their competition out of business. They bankrupted people. They ruined Christmases. Vince McMahon is a regular Rockefeller. Because WWE exists in the aura of big business, the term “creative” is funny to me, because it is not in the interest of big business to allow total creativity. Giving someone a blank canvas is a risk, and big business – especially when it is already established – is not interested in risks. What a business like WWE is interested in is results: namely positive results – results that yield a high gross income.

It’s these results that makes the term creative so interesting to me, because any successful big business does the same thing when their back is on the wall and they need instant gratification and results: they go back to the well. They find the formula that made them successful in the first place and they try it again and again and again. WWE is no exception. Sure, it’s TV-PG, but how many Attitude stars are wheeled out on red carpets doing the same shtick? How many similar storylines are played out? How many times does WWE tell us “hey, remember this? We did this! Remember?” on a weekly basis? It gets to the point where WWE’s status as a big business is making it unable to be anything but short sighted. World Wrestling Entertainment is certainly in a transitional period for everything from leadership, to talent, to viewers, and they seem unsure on how to proceed correctly and accordingly. What is the best way to build this younger talent that is otherwise inexperienced in the business? How do we market these established independent talents? Who is our audience and how can make our characters relate to or repulse them? These are the big questions in many of the high officials minds; however, their tactics are proving, at times, futile.

What’s the problem then? Moreover who is the problem? Surely, it can’t just be one Vince McMahon or one Triple H that is single handedly clogging the well. I believe it’s a mentality of “right here right now.” WWE wants success immediately and they base success on a week-to-week basis. How many times do we read on the dirt sheets that the writers had to re-write the episode of RAW hours before it aired? Quite often, and it’s a result of short sightedness. They do not have the patience or the faith in their creative to make the type of television that defined the company. So they take it week by week.

I have to say, I feel sorry for the WWE Creative. No one likes a stingy editor. No one thrives with higher ups breathing down your neck. I doubt Picasso would have painted anything as brilliant if he had bosses who told him that his work won’t gel with their sponsors. It’s the tug of war every television show faces: where does art end and corporate interest begin? With WWE, it’s obvious to see that the corporate interests outweigh the need of creative freedom. Every time I see an article that speaks about how the writers were forced to rewrite the show, I think of this struggle. Surely, the “re-write as you go” isn’t a stranger to the business. We’ve heard such lovely stories about how WCW practiced this frequently.

OK, that might be unfair. It’s unfair because re-writing as you go is not always a bad thing historically. Take Shakespeare, for example. There are many theories about Shakespeare not writing his plays. What some of these rumors stem from is the fact that there is no original copy of Shakespeare’s work. There’s no original copy because Shakespeare too rewrote his play as he went. Rip out a page here. Cross this line out, put in this new one. The versions of his work today exist due to scholars writing down versions of his play’s practice some hundred years after he died.

Am I going to compare Shakespeare and professional wrestling? I’ll save it for a later post. The point is it’s not completely bad to rewrite a show as you go. Let’s take the last two weeks as an example. It came out that the show two weeks ago, which was running opposite Game 7 of the NBA Eastern Conference Playoff series, was completely rewritten. That episode yielded a great story featuring Daniel Bryan. In the first hour, we saw conflict arise with him, and throughout the entire show it was developed naturally. The audience saw his character transform in this very three hour block. How much of this was rewritten just before airtime? It’s hard to tell. The backstage of wrestling continues to have such a mysterious aura that even the Internet can’t fully crack it. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say this beautifully constructed story was rewritten the same time the McMahon – Helmsley issues were being rewritten.

Here we have a storyline that has been developed the last two weeks that, unlike the Bryan story, has been inconsistent and awkward. Within the same hour we had Stephanie McMahon proclaim that Axel was not in the same league as Triple H, only to have Vince warn the embattled cerebral assassin “this guy is good.” Of course this was all negated when Vince told HHH that Axel is not at his level only one week afterwards. It’s this type of storytelling that confuses the audience and does not help anyon. It does not help the McMahons, as no one could figure out if they were to be cheered or booed. It didn’t help HHH. It certainly did not help build Curtis Axel. So what was its purpose? Its purpose was to show the audience some familiar faces to keep them from watching LeBron James. It was a rewrite to cater towards the Attitude Era. They’re dusting off the red carpet once again.

Keep in mind that when I speak about rewriting as you go, I’m not referring to improvisation. Improv is an art and a skill and one that the likes of CM Punk’s “pipebombs” rely heavily upon. That is skill as a performer. I’m speaking of stories such as Mark Henry and Mae Young, or more recently Kaitlyn’s secret admirer. While I can’t be sure if the Daniel Bryan story was played by ear, it’s obvious that Kaitlyn’s story was.

They teased this angle for weeks, filling many comedic voids with the likes of the Great Khali. It concluded last week as a plot by her foil, AJ Lee; however, it clearly didn’t line up with the story presented. Weren’t the Bella twins shown several times snickering at her? Common story logic would tell the viewer that since the twins were out of sight, and made sure to not be head, that the most likely had something to do with it. But this was all lost in an ending that did help build the character of AJ, but did nothing for Kaitlyn, who is designed to be cheered and rallied for. I don’t know anything about Kaitlyn’s personality from it, other than maybe she’s lonely. It didn’t say anything about her values or why we should cheer for her.

WWE shortsightedness is clearly affecting the present product. There are hopes for the future, but until the head honchos change their perspective of success from week to week to something more long term, it will hinder the growth of young talent and put more strain on the individuals who are older and starting to slow down. There will never be full creative freedom in WWE. That’s what makes the Indies the Indies – that creative freedom. The solution lies in finding the balance between originality and a creative flow, and meeting all the corporate needs. Until that day comes, the product will always be transitional.