Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Indy Wrestling, Lucha Underground, Women of Wrestling Forums - View Single Post - Daniel Bryan's acting

View Single Post
post #48 of (permalink) Old 11-16-2012, 09:28 AM
In Jericho, we trust
-Skullbone-'s Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: G'day!
Posts: 2,675
Points: 0
Re: Daniel Bryan's acting

Originally Posted by KO Bossy View Post
I find him completely unbelievable, which makes him come across as extremely irritating and obnoxious. And of course, its a hilarious misuse of talent.
It's camp. Grandiosity and fantastical probably aren't the most applicable terms in this particular case with Bryan's tag team-based comedy role (even though there are elements of that you mentioned, of course, as that's the business by its very nature). Those words would better be utilised when talking about a main eventer or main even segment that is meant to have a more serious catch. This is more a case of goofy shenanigans and being generally light-hearted for the moment.

Also keep in mind that Bryan is still an abrasive, hot-headed, geekish weasel, although he's lost that entirely-heelish demeanour. He isn't very likeable for most casuals outside of poking the preverbal ants nest and watching him explode.

I have hated this tag team with Kane since its second day. They completely jumped the shark when they had Kane explain his life's story. After that, it was pretty evident they'd never top that. Didn't expect things to get THIS bad, though. My God, they've been fighting over who the SINGULAR TAG TEAM CHAMPIONS are for almost 2 months. At first it was like "ah, I get it. They never get along." The second time the joke began to wear extremely thing. Now, we're at about 8 weeks of this shit. It was never funny, and stopped being tolerable the second day they did it.
When you say they jumped the shark I'm guessing you think they undermined the integrity of the business by doing such. Perhaps they did momentarily do so by definition, but why is it a bad thing in this case of comedic value? It's just a character in a self-aware comedy role that's to the stylings of many things done in the past, like those Austin Power movies. A little sad I actually remember those movies, but whatevs).

This isn't a bad case of anything in particular (except perhaps comedy in many people's eyes), but things that were bad included those infamous Million Dollar Mania giveaways. That was a terrible instance of abandoning company values for profit. I'm sure you're aware that company has rarely been fixated with logic in the past and certainly won't do so in the future with things like Kane's character consistency.

But of course, Bryan marks refuse to see it for how bad it really is. If Santino were doing this, Wrestling Forum would have unanimously declared this the worst gimmick of the year weeks ago. Its only because Bryan is involved that they become willfully blind-if goat face is involved, it must be good! Wrong. Bad is bad.
Santino's schtick is widely panned because it's been done to death. Most people will turn on Bryan as well if he's going to run with this thing for three or four years (which may indeed happen judging by its current popularity).

Despite my willingness to remain impartial, it may come as a surprise when I say I don't care for Bryan's current character or this tag team, outside of the company revitalising another division for those that are interested. However, I don't know what you hope to achieve when you say something like "this is bad because it's bad." You can't be impartial on that stuff because that's indisputably playing up to many people's tastes such as yours. Why is it bad and based on what? What do you consider 'good' in today's WWE?

Last edited by -Skullbone-; 11-16-2012 at 09:30 AM.
-Skullbone- is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome