Matt D Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 So former WWE writer Kevin Eck posted the following on his Baltimore Sun blog (I think). The part in bold is what I'm wondering if people believe: I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the questionable booking. During my time on the WWE creative team, we actually were told that there really are no babyfaces or heels in the Divas division. It was strongly implied that the Divas are all just a bunch of catty chicks, most of whom are mentally unstable. A perfect example of that philosophy was the booking of the program between AJ and Paige last year. Instead of establishing a babyface and a heel, both characters acted heelish, Their "frenemies" angle was more confusing than compelling. Thus, the rivalry between one of the most "over" Divas of all time and a heralded newcomer to the main roster wasn't nearly as good as it should have been. The audience needs someone to root for. It's really not that complicated. If the idea now is to get fans to cheer the Bellas — and I'm honestly not sure if that's the case or not — don't have them just show up on Raw one week acting nicer and wrestling a babyface style. Tell me a story. What circumstance has sparked this change in their personalities? Speaking of the Bella twins, their reunion last year after Nikki had turned on Brie three months earlier is a textbook example of uninspired and illogical storytelling. Nikki told Brie that she wished her twin had died in the womb and went on to demean her sister for a month due to a stipulation that made Brie her personal assistant. Yet at Survivor Series, Brie helped Nikki retain her Divas Championship. Why did Brie do it? We were never given an explanation. That's not only lazy booking, it's also insulting to the audience. My guess is that either Vince himself or someone in creative threw out a cliche about blood being thicker than water, and that was that. Move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcmmnx Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 The booking speaks for itself of course it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Implied is much looser than an attempt to frame it as an outright quote, much less without attribution. Would believe almost any implication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supremebve Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Even if no one actually said those words, it can't be an accident that the divas slip from face to heel like they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Of course not. But speaking or documenting those words at a company are different from approaching creative with that mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luchaundead Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 I believe someone said that as a way to describe the situation more easily but, I don't believe that it was some type of official directive as some people seem to be framing it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOTNW Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 This is still how they book the women so yeah I'd say it's plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Yes, I do believe this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 I believe someone said that as a way to describe the situation more easily but, I don't believe that it was some type of official directive as some people seem to be framing it No it really is a directive. It's been said for years that the WWE sees women as overly illogical and hormone crazed or just plain catty/bitchy even as a babyface. They think it is an accurate representation of women to book them as people who are always looking for ways to backstab each other or to be jealous of each other. The fact they book Nikki Bella bears all that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luchaundead Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 No it really is a directive. It's been said for years that the WWE sees women as overly illogical and hormone crazed or just plain catty/bitchy even as a babyface. They think it is an accurate representation of women to book them as people who are always looking for ways to backstab each other or to be jealous of each other. The fact they book Nikki Bella bears all that out. That doesn't really go against what I'm saying, they book them this way because they put little thought into the divas so little that I suspect there is no directive at all let alone one that states "They are all catty chicks". Erratic and senseless booking comes with the territory when everything is left up to the last minute and not thought out long term. Look at the men they are at times just as jealous and conniving to each other with little in the way of back story or set up the women are just more so because Vince doesn't see them or didn't see them as an important part of his show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Skinner Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Not hard to believe based on the booking we've seen play out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted January 7, 2016 Report Share Posted January 7, 2016 Basically that. I couldn't count the number of times a random undercard woman like, say, Alicia Fox, has flitted between the face and heel sides on an almost weekly basis. Not because her character turned, but because they needed a woman to work a match on this show and they didn't even care enough to notice whether she was a face or heel. Anyone would do and they didn't even have to bother explaining it, because it's the women and no one cares. I think it's less "women are insane so let's deliberately book them like psychos!" and more that if someone stops to ask "Why are the Bellas acting like heels this week when they're supposed to be faces?" the answer is "Women amirite??" and that's the end of the thought put into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death From Above Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 Even in the few months I've been back watching WWE the women's booking has been quite confusing. Paige called out Charlotte's brother for being dead and Charlotte turns heel within 2 weeks and Paige was essentially the de facto babyface. Now the Charlotte/Becky Lynch angle. It's very strange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronos Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 Paige called out Charlotte's brother for being dead If I used signatures on this forum, I would steal this line for mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 It's not just a WWE problem either, a lot of American companies seem to suffer from this "bitches be crazy" booking. TNA went through several periods where the women were all portrayed as egomaniacal divas. Original ECW women were often portrayed as literal whores, with no personality beyond "she accompanies this guy to ringside, is fucking him in storyline, and occasionally the whole crowd will pop like crazy when she gets piledriven (regardless of whether she's face or heel) and will inevitably backstab her man at some point because all women are lying bitches" being the general story that was repeatedly told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Redman Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 TNA under Russo was hideous in its portrayal of women, even during the times when they were doing good stuff in the ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 No it really is a directive. It's been said for years that the WWE sees women as overly illogical and hormone crazed or just plain catty/bitchy even as a babyface. They think it is an accurate representation of women to book them as people who are always looking for ways to backstab each other or to be jealous of each other. The fact they book Nikki Bella bears all that out. That doesn't really go against what I'm saying, they book them this way because they put little thought into the divas so little that I suspect there is no directive at all let alone one that states "They are all catty chicks". Erratic and senseless booking comes with the territory when everything is left up to the last minute and not thought out long term. Look at the men they are at times just as jealous and conniving to each other with little in the way of back story or set up the women are just more so because Vince doesn't see them or didn't see them as an important part of his show. But that is what I am saying. It IS deliberate. Kevin Dunn doesn't like to have strong virtuous women characters because that isn't anybody he knows. He only knows what he is around in the WWE with them hiring models to boost morale in the men's locker room, he sees the competition of the women over the one or two plum spots on the roster reaching catty levels ridiculous (just look at how Eva Marie is being pushed). The ONLY woman in wrestling right now that has some handling with respect is Bayley and that is probably gonna be changed shortly after she gets called up. It is true that they spend less time thinking about women than they do men, but the time they do spend on the women, it's all deliberate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luchaundead Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 This company recently turn The Miz from face to heel back to face over a month because they forgot he had a WWE pictures movie coming out, it's really hard for me to believe they do anything deliberately if it's not the top tier guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chief Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 I really want somebody here to do a comprehensive list of Bella turns like the ones we occasionally do for Big Show and Kane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebrainfollower Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 I don't see how you can NOT believe this. There is conclusive evidence of this going back at least ten years. Trish and Lita were the last two faces even remotely booked as sane respectable women until Bayley. And oddly all 3 are and were over. Funny that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slasher Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 This company recently turn The Miz from face to heel back to face over a month because they forgot he had a WWE pictures movie coming out, it's really hard for me to believe they do anything deliberately if it's not the top tier guys There is a major difference between how they book their male midcarders and how they book women. Its one midcarder vs an entire division. They have rules for hoe they treat divisions. On an individual level yeah they don't know what to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parties Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 Some head writer like Lagana or Kapoor saying something to this effect while rolling his eyes after Vince drags them all into a particularly bad midnight Creative team meeting? Absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 I voted no. The reason isn't because I can't believe they would book the women like this, because I can, and they do. It's more because I've reached a point where my default answer to any "do you believe this backstage story" question is no. It's just a weariness on my part on this particular topic, particularly with the ex-writers, who are almost universally bitter and have axes to grind. So I fully believe the company is capable of treating their women in a misogynistic fashion. I just feel like this particular story is probably embellished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricR Posted January 9, 2016 Report Share Posted January 9, 2016 I hadn't thought too much about this until last week, when I started NXT from the beginning on the network. There was a long Paige/Emma match, and every time either one would go on offense, they started working like a heel. I wasn't sure if it was just both of them not being good workers, or both of them being trained to work a certain way while on offense, no matter what their character was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.