How much do plotholes bother you?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Snowman, Aug 28, 2013.

  1. Title says it all.

    WWE's storylines being more intricate now, so plenty of plotholes are popping up. For instance, why is Big Show afraid if he has an ironclad contract? Why is Orton teaming with Triple H after 2008? And the ever-present "If HHH controls everything, then how would faces be getting title shots?" that goes with all heel authority figures. How much do these bother you? Which ones bother you more than others?
     
  2. They don't tend to annoy me too much unless they're glaringly obvious. You're never gonna be able to enjoy WWE that much if plotholes bother you.

    I guess HHH turning heel and suddenly hating all faces would be arguably as bad as letting them get title shots at the moment (whoever can make any sense of what I just said there wins the Internet). Plus atm it seems unless it involves the WWE title or someone speaking out against him then he doesn't seem to be too fussed.

    The Big Show thing is stupid. That was a plothole that they didn't even need to create for themselves as well.
     
  3. #3 Coon, Aug 28, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2013
    I fell down a pothole once; hated them ever since.
     
    • Like Like x 9
  4. The Big Show thing, yeah, that's pretty stupid given that he mentioned in the recent WWE.com interview or whatever that he had an iron clad contract. Orton/HHH is just that old wrestling thing that when someone turns they're friends with everyone on that alignment ignoring their history. Yeah, it's kinda annoying but I normally don't really notice it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. The storyline is way too good for me to be mad at (Orton and HHH's alliance). I was hoping they would put Otunga in their group to be the lawyer to get rid of the Iron clad contract, it seems they are just going to pretend it doesn't exist though.
     
  6. True bout Bigshow but I imagine it to be like if he does stand up for Bryan he'd just be removed from TV or forced to job constantly thus breaking no terms of his contract but not something he'd want to do.
     
  7. The Big Show situation is easily explained, he loves "entertaining the fans" (entertaining is used very very verrrrrrryyyyyyyy loosely here) so doesn't want to be left on the sidelines until it expires. It's typical babyface shit.
     
  8. Yeah, for example they could just not have Big Show in storylines he has no business being in. :pipebomb:

    Totally agree with Seab, it's fairly easy to explain. Honestly I didn't even notice that one and wouldn't have if it wasn't for Twatter or that one guy on here who pointed it out, if someone who overanalyzes this shit on here won't notice most people won't either + surely most fans have repressed memories of forgotten that storyline. Plus they had the rare occasion of Miz shutting up that got my undivided attention.

    They don't bother me much either unless it's really, really big (MEM) or in a story that I don't like anyway haha.
     
  9. As others said, the Big Show thing is easily explained. If you wanna be absolutely technical, you can say he still has the iron clad contract, but he doesn't want HHH to make his life a living hell for the remaining duration of it (there's dozens of ways HHH can screw him over and punish him without outright firing him) so he's careful about crossing him from this point on.

    I'm usually willing to suspend disbelief on plot holes and story/character inconsistencies most of the time because on a certain level, you have to accept them sometimes. When you give thought to it, things in wrestling would be pretty limited if they didn't exist completely. For example, the recent HHH/Randy Orton pairing up. Many balk at this because of their history from 2009 but is it really that much of a deal to squabble about? They did at least go out of their way to mention putting past differences aside, so it's not like they're just pretending they've never hated each other period. Same with Orton mentioning in 2010/2011 when he teamed with Cena that he still couldn't care less about Cena or HHH and the McMahons. There's other examples of continuity of this sort that I really like.

    Another example is when someone changes from face to heel and vice versa. They change up their personality, becoming more cowardly and prone to using cheap tactics to win matches. And then if they turn back face, they go back to winning matches cleanly and such, like CM Punk now as compared to his heel run from August 2012-April 2013, when he needed help to win just about every match he wrestled. This is the kind of thing that annoys some people but the constant tweaking of an individual's personality depending on their current face/heel alignment is just a necessary evil.

    The main kind of plot hole that really irks me to the point of being unforgivable is when they do stupid shit like the Katie Vick angle from 2002 that literally contradicted everything about the established history and back story of Kane's character. This is just bad writing all around. If you don't want to acknowledge certain things, then don't. But there's a difference between not going out of your way to mention things (Austin referencing being run down but not specifically mentioning it was Rikishi who ran him down because they didn't want to shine a bad light on a fellow baby face) and constructing a story line that completely contradicts a character's history.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Well to me, in wrestling, there's different types of plot holes.

    There's the historical plot holes, that really just need to be accepted by fans in order for stories to move on. For example, in the Attitude Era, everyone remembers when Undertaker kidnapped Steph for days and tried to have some sort of gothic wedding. And then fast forward to the Ruthless Agression era, American Badass Undertaker saves Steph from being hurt and carries her up the ramp, and she's all acting like he's her hero. Being kidnapped IRL is a truly traumatic experience, it would NEVER be forgotten. But alas, in WWE, it's water under the bridge =P

    Then there's the poorly written plot holes. In the case of Rikishi running over Austin, it was ridiculous. Rikishi of all people? He said he did it for The Rock, but the on-camera relationship between Rock and Rikishi was non-existent prior to that storyline... There was even a moment where Foley revealed Rikishi as the perp, like it was supposed to be a revelation to everyone. plus, Rock was already over by that time, and had already won the WWE championship before.

    The latter bothers me a lot. But the former, not so much.
     
  11. The big show thing did annoy me he could of done the same interview and just said he thought triple h was a wanker and left it at that and never mentioned an iron clad contract anyone that just says "easily explained" is just being a mark when the reality is WWE is a multi million dollar company there is no need for it to have plot holes unless a complete moron wrote it.
     
  12. I prefer not to address specific plotholes, but talk about plot inconsistencies in general.

    :otunga:

    Plotholes are often deemed lazy, but the reality is that most writers don't think of every plot development in advance. No matter how much "pre-writing" you do, you're going to, at some point, write yourself into a corner and have to create a plothole to write yourself out. The other option is to scrap everything you've written back to a certain point and, if what you've been writing is good, that's problematic at best. I was recently discussing this with a friend of mine who is also a writer. We shared some stories about writig ourselves into corners with some friends of ours (who aren't writers) over a few cups of coffee.

    When it comes to wrestling, or, for that matter, any medium where part of the story is already out there and the public is aware of what is transpiring in the story, your plot inconsistencies have the possiility of becoming glaring plotholes (like the Big Show contract issue or Orton's and HHH's often troubled past). Then it comes down to making the inconsistency as palatable as possible (Orton teaming with HHH based purely o the fact that HHH can do a lot for him as the boss; Stephanie being happy Taker rescued her because he rescued her from a worse fate) or you rely on the audience filling in the blanks and justifying the inconsistency (our shared idea that Big Show's fear is that, while he still must be employed by WWE due to his ironclad contract, he doesn't have to be used on TV as an "entertainer", thus letting his fans down).

    So, my answer to Rain's OP is that I mind plotholes in inverse proportion to their palatability and my ability to see the sense of the reason for the plothole.

    :obama:

    wk
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. It depends on the plothole. Are we talking Joe being abducted by ninjas and showing up X months later with a dick tattoo and a machete?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. If a storyline is good, I don't really care much at all. I want to watch entertaining material. I don't care if it comes in the form of plot holes, as long as I enjoy it.

    If the storyline sucks, I will care a tad more, but, still, it wont bother me much, it will be more like a 2 second 'why the hell would they do this when such and such happened? How stupid', and then I move along.

    WWE just assumes people will forget things over time.