Is WWE the sole storytelling form where you must forget recent events?

I am speaking about wrestling in general, and it was kind of hard to fit this idea in under 80 characters. But it seems for wrestling to work as form of story telling which it is. You have to forget about stuff that just happened. And this isn't like a comic where it happens years ago , or some bratty kid punched a whole in reality to change the status quo.

Just out right forget the bad stuff the heel did when they switch over. Ironically for one of the few times. They are having Drew and Belair remember the bad stuff new faces did. But the main story line floats on the idea that we forget that Rollins try to take Cody out of the action for good . Compared to the Rock who asked for something and was given it . By Cody himself.

The first 20 Bond movies (Connery to Brosnan) are really loose with their continuity. Bond meets Blofeld in one movie, then in the next movie, Blofeld doesn't recognize him because he's doing a fake accent. Happens because they adapted the books out of order and didn't rewrite it. They also recast and reuse actors haphazardly.

And no, it's not a code name. It's just lazy writing.

PurpleOutsider posted...

The first 20 Bond movies (Connery to Brosnan) are really loose with their continuity. Bond meets Blofeld in one movie, then in the next movie, Blofeld doesn't recognize him because he's doing a fake accent. Happens because they adapted the books out of order and didn't rewrite it. They also recast and reuse actors haphazardly.

And no, it's not a code name. It's just lazy writing.

It reminds me of Quarrel Jr.

The only reason that he exists as a character is because Sr. got killed in the first movie. They adapted the books out of order, so they needed to create a son character to fill in for his late father.

I could give you other examples of this but I just cant remember right now.

Wrestling is always campy and ridiculous. One moment The Undertaker learns he has a brother that is alive in Kane (who is totally not really his brother) and they fight. The next they join forces to beat up another guy. The next they join forces and one of the other betrays the others. Then later they are best buds again. Then kinda not buds anymore but not going at it. etc on and on
But that is the charm. If you watch it to where you can laugh you enjoy it more.

Wrestling has always been like this and you are being worked super hard

WingsOfGood posted...

Wrestling is always campy and ridiculous. One moment The Undertaker learns he has a brother that is alive in Kane (who is totally not really his brother) and they fight. The next they join forces to beat up another guy. The next they join forces and one of the other betrays the others. Then later they are best buds again. Then kinda not buds anymore but not going at it. etc on and on
But that is the charm. If you watch it to where you can laugh you enjoy it more.

They sort of lost track of who started the fire that killed their parents. In the end, it was the Undertaker. They just stopped talking about it, but Undertaker was the one holding the guilt potato when they stopped passing it back and forth.

Paul Bearer was able to ad-lib parts of the backstory -- like how he lost his virginity at 19 to the Undertaker's mother and got her pregnant with Kane.

Dudebusters posted...

Wrestling has always been like this and you are being worked super hard

I've always appreciated long continuity or unspoken continuity. Mr. Perfect is going to be a jerk-ass jock whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. Rob Van Dam -- face, heel, or tweener -- will never actively cheat, but will never turn down outside interference on his behalf.

FortuneCookie posted...

I've always appreciated long continuity or unspoken continuity. Mr. Perfect is going to be a jerk-ass jock whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. Rob Van Dam -- face, heel, or tweener -- will never actively cheat, but will never turn down outside interference on his behalf.

That's the thing with wrestling. Very rarely are you supposed to "forget" what somebody did in the past. The point is that they are the face or heel right now based on the story and who they are facing, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're actually changed, it just means its in their current best interest to be X.

PurpleOutsider posted...

The first 20 Bond movies (Connery to Brosnan) are really loose with their continuity. Bond meets Blofeld in one movie, then in the next movie, Blofeld doesn't recognize him because he's doing a fake accent. Happens because they adapted the books out of order and didn't rewrite it. They also recast and reuse actors haphazardly.

And no, it's not a code name. It's just lazy writing.

Connery, Moore, Dalton, Lazenby, Brosnan, and Craig are all in separate timelines.

Yes some timelines share similarities like some Bonds were married to a Tracey Bond, fought against Blofeld, etc... Even Craig's Bond lived through Goldeneye in a form of a videogame.

RISEofCHRISTIAN posted...

Connery, Moore, Dalton, Lazenby, Brosnan, and Craig are all in separate timelines.

Yes some timelines share similarities like some Bonds were married to a Tracey Bond , fought against Blofeld, etc... Even Craig's Bond lived through Goldeneye in a form of a videogame.

The intro to For Your Eyes Only was done specifically to show that Connery, Lazenby, and Moore were the same Bond.

Most recent and common are the Marvel movies

Lol WWE