"Oohhh Yeeeesss" the only thing that's dead is the streak!!!!

I truly don't get this whole CM Punk/Undertaker storyline, as someone who's followed Wrestling for almost 25 years its a strange one, Wrestling is a different beast, when someone is slaughtered live on Air in Wrestling its seen as a respectful tilt of the hat, however I just don't feel that the WWE, CM Punk or the Undertaker himself have came out of using Paul Bearer's death as a plot line very well indeed, infact its came across as cheap and tacky and very classless.

Sometimes in Wrestling you don't understand everything that goes on, that for me is a good thing, while you want to know as much as possible you shouldn't know everything, things should still hopefully shock and surprise you, enough so that it feeds on your emotions, sometimes a story will play out that I don't fully understand but at the pay off I'll say "ahhh I get it now"...

The only way this whole CM Punk/Undertaker storyline would play out that would make me say "ahhh I get it now" would be if CM Punk beat The Undertaker at WrestleMania after Taker got startled by none other than Paul Bearer, Bearer being alive would be the only way I'd accept the way they've used his death in this storyline.

The timing of his death was extremely suspicious, I dare say it'd be devastating for his friends and family at any point of the year but for it to happen two days after Taker made his WWE return and for it then to be instantly used in the storyline is coincidental and opportunistic.

With the way the WWE have shied away recently from Wrestling deaths its a completely stark contrast.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Paul Bearer is alive and he'll help CM Punk end the streak, what I'm saying is that I feel the storyline has become so tedious that the only way it'd not be as distasteful would be if Bearer was actually alive and he and Punk were "in it together" to destroy the streak.

For what its worth I feel it'll be a pretty basic and ordinarily straight forward victory for Undertaker with the odd bit of theartre when Punk looks like he might get the win

Thats pretty much what I said - its very poor taste.

And if it is a work, its even worse taste!

This is what Adam said in another thread?

In mt thread I suggested the E has taken this so far, that Punk might just actually win

Punk won't win, he isn't even close to winning to be honest, I wish I could buy into it but its so obvious, there's no-way after 20 straight wins that Taker would bow out on such a crap storyline, unless of course its not a crap storyline and Bearer returns to screw him

AntLord wrote:This is what Adam said in another thread?

Diddy Aye

I agree, I think it would have been possible to build the match in a way that there was a nagging doubt about the result...but using Paul Bearer's death has prevented even that for me.

I was speaking to an 12 year old I sit near at the ice hockey who is a wrestling fan and he only realised last week that Paul Bearer was actually dead when his dad told him. He understands kayfabe (the thing not the OP!)and just assumed it was all part of the story.

It was reported in the National Enquiror but that's the American equilovent of the Sunday Sport, have we got photographic evidence that Bearer is genuinely dead?

TNA had a dedication to him at the start of the first Impact shown in the UK after his death...I know it doesn't prove anything but sure they would know if he wasn't dead.

I don't think he is alive, but out of interest how would people feel if he was revealed at WM as alive?

This might be a question for Crips

I stopped watching Wrestling in 2001 until 2007, infact the night I tuned in was the night RAW announced the death of Chris Beniot, the only reason I tuned in though was because I used to use the old old BBC fansforums were we and a few older posters (Hero) hijacked a section of it for Wrestling, that's where I found out McMahon had died, because I didn't use Wrestling forums or dirts at that time I have no idea how his death was portrayed although I do recall some news outlets reporting it

Can anyone remember how his death was percieved at the time of it happening? Was it seen as legit or was it pretty common knowledge it was a work?

Common sense would tell you since it happened on TV it should be a work

I can believe we are even discussing the fact that Bearer may not be dead!!

If he isnt then this is the most controversial storyline in wrestling history!!!

I think I'd lose it if he was really alive, I'd actually be transported back to being a kid again where anything in wrestling was possible and I truly believed that Stone Cold really hated Vince and that Kane was disfigured.

In short, I'd mark out.

Enforcer wrote:TNA had a dedication to him at the start of the first Impact shown in the UK after his death...I know it doesn't prove anything but sure they would know if he wasn't dead.

I don't think he is alive, but out of interest how would people feel if he was revealed at WM as alive?

If he wasn't dead and screwed the Undertaker then I think it'd be one of the most shocking angles in the history of Pro Wrestling but I'd absolutely love it, I've got no problem in a TV show staging a death as an arc to a story, its when they ride the hell out of an actual death that sits uncomfortably with me

If he is not dead, surely Vince and Hunter must be considering having him offed at the potential furor it would cause!

findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=106266093

This about as good a confirmation as I can get

This is more conclusive

http://www.newyorktimesonline.com/paul-bearer-buried-in-private-ceremony.html

Photos of his wake dont come much more conclusive than that!

As far as online wrestling fans' reaction, nobody bought that Vince was really dead. It was considered a desperate stunt.

I guess a few of the casual fans probably thought it was real though.

The bearer storyline has been done in such bad taste that it would actually be less bad if he turned out to be alive. That's saying a lot!

Shot 21 LCFC wrote: I can believe we are even discussing the fact that Bearer may not be dead!!

If he isnt then this is the most controversial storyline in wrestling history!!!

Its a ludicrous suggestion but i feel the storyline is so tasteless that the only way it could be justifiable would be if it was a work, I think its such a ludicrous notion that no-one really wants to say it because they don't want to look stupid

Also, I think Wrestling fans who use wrestling forums have it in their make up to be suspicious of everything and look at things from every possible angle, we've been brought up with the swerve

crippledtart wrote:As far as online wrestling fans' reaction, nobody bought that Vince was really dead. It was considered a desperate stunt.

I guess a few of the casual fans probably thought it was real though.

The bearer storyline has been done in such bad taste that it would actually be less bad if he turned out to be alive. That's saying a lot!

That's what I'm saying regarding Bearer, while I think we're all pretty sure he's dead, the only way this storyline has justification would be if he was alive

Rick rolled!

If Paul Bearer is not dead, this is hands down the greatest story line in wrestling history. Man, it'd be the first time I've been fooled by a wrestling angle since Who turned out to be Jim Neidhart! lol.

If I'm honest, I don't understand why a lot of people think it's in bad taste. It's no worse than many of the story lines from the Attitude Era, which most fans hark for a return to. And more importantly his family agreed to the exploitation of his death. As the old saying goes, "just because you're insulted, doesn't make you right"

youre all very smart, knowledgeable guys. i am quite suprised anyone is questioning this.

I think we all know he'd dead. For real dead. But if he isn't.. wow.

Kid Vicious wrote:"just because you're insulted, doesn't make you right"

This.

While I understand that this storyline will insult some people I've actually liked it, for the first time in a long time wrestling has shocked me and I miss that feeling.

main points.

..they used his real name when announcing his death
..if it is a work, why isnt kane involved?
..where does the storyline go after its revealed? it took taker a year to heal and he almost didnt make it to mania this year, so how is he going to carry on after sunday night?
..this last one is a little difficult to explain but, why would his real life family find themselves involved? a couple of sources have reported that his sons are not happy with the storyline. what happens when it comes to explaining who they are??? this is supposed to be kayfabe remember

He's definitely dead, but to the person who says this is like the Attitude Era...this is the bad part of the Attitude era, the part that tried to shock for shocking's sake. I haven't found any part of the Paul Bearer story entertaining or even believable. It comes across as rushed, weird and disrespectful.

The story has been made worse by the use of Bearer, it hasn't given it more emotion, it's cheapened it.

I completely agree with crimey. I don't think the success of the attitude era was down to showing a complete lack of sensitivity or respect to the dead.

I do think that wrestling fans tolerate things that would disgust most people because we're so desensitised. Take a step back and look at what they're doing. Imagine if you'd just lost your dad a matter of weeks ago, and had to witness a tacky wrestling storyline written around it. I think that is pretty bad taste.

crippledtart wrote:I completely agree with crimey. I don't think the success of the attitude era was down to showing a complete lack of sensitivity or respect to the dead.

I do think that wrestling fans tolerate things that would disgust most people because we're so desensitised. Take a step back and look at what they're doing. Imagine if you'd just lost your dad a matter of weeks ago, and had to witness a tacky wrestling storyline written around it. I think that is pretty bad taste.

I do agree with this 100% and wouldn't let my parents be used in any type of storyline but as stated the family were asked and approved it.

Ja, but their dads entire gimmick was based on some weird @$$ issues. I also think families in the E, wether by design or necessity are just different. How else do you explain the Vickie Guerrero "cougar/ho" angle. Or getting Rey Mysterio's family into his Eddie Guerrero feud? Imagine asking your 8 year old to pretend another man is his father!

I know the Bearer angle is messed, but lets not pretend it is a first

The storyline is certainly not in good taste nor is it that intriguing but as sure as night follows day Kay Fabe/gaffer/WF Original or whatever moniker he woke up with this morning has another swipe at the streak!

he is deff dead. i dont think it would get such widespread media attention if it was a work. WIKI confirms his death, and WIKI never lies!!

liverbnz wrote:The storyline is certainly not in good taste nor is it that intriguing but as sure as night follows day Kay Fabe/gaffer/WF Original or whatever moniker he woke up with this morning has another swipe at the streak!

Ehhh?

To be honest I think this storyline has summed up what I remember the attitude era for, all time great wrestlers working through hideously bad stories.

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:To be honest I think this storyline has summed up what I remember the attitude era for, all time great wrestlers working through hideously bad stories.

I don't think that's true of the entire attitude era, but there's definitely some truth to it. I remember in 1999 at the height of the boom period thinking that the writing was absolutely horrible. It was pretty good for a year or two either side though, for the most part.

crippledtart wrote:

Dr Gregory House MD wrote:To be honest I think this storyline has summed up what I remember the attitude era for, all time great wrestlers working through hideously bad stories.

I don't think that's true of the entire attitude era, but there's definitely some truth to it. I remember in 1999 at the height of the boom period thinking that the writing was absolutely horrible. It was pretty good for a year or two either side though, for the most part.

Just re-read what I wrote and I'd like to re-phrase what I meant, the attitude era is remembered very fondly but for me it's a lot to do with the Stone Cold's, Rock's and HHH's than the lewd, tasteless crap that permiated a lot of the writing (it would be unfair to say all of it).

I think the writing of the WWF product on the whole from WrestleMania 13 until WrestleMania 14 was some of the very best in Wrestling history

I think the whole Steve Austin babyface run from his turn at WM13 up until summerslam 98 was gold. It nosedived badly after that though, and didn't pick up again until the Cactus-Triple H feud.

I think this match could of been built so much better if the WWE weren't so obsessed with a Rock v Cena rematch.

Punk should of retained at the rumble after the shield attack kept the streak going then the headline match could of been Streak v Streak. Would of been so much bigger....I would still of had punk ending it too.

Yeah I completely agree with you, for around 18 months, from the 97 Rumble until SummerSlam 98 was ideal

VoiceOfTheVoiceless wrote:I think this match could of been built so much better if the WWE weren't so obsessed with a Rock v Cena rematch.

Punk should of retained at the rumble after the shield attack kept the streak going then the headline match could of been Streak v Streak. Would of been so much bigger....I would still of had punk ending it too.

I've really not got a problem with Rock/Cena II to be honest, its excellent business to be fair and while that's not our concern I don't think we can expect Vince to turn his back on the chance to do his best WrestleMania business ever, Rock/Cena will draw like mad, it happened last year and because they've not been overly familiar with one another they'll likely do business again

I do also believe they could have built this match so much better, my problem is that Punk held onto the title for so long that when they time came for him to drop the belt it'd be seen like he's on a massive losing streak by the time he and Taker get to lock horns.

The WWE Title vs The Streak would definitely have captured the imagination of the crowd, it'd also have given The Undertaker a reason to want to fight Punk too instead of someone just wanting a shot at Undertaker's streak but even without the Title involved I'd have been able to think of multiple ways to make this feud infinitely better than what they've done, Taker has phoned this one in big time so far, he's going through the motions which has been obvious and which is another reason why I feel Punk deserves better

Totally agree about streak v streak, I made a post about it a few weeks back and still feel it would be the better main event and a good reward for what Punk's done for the WWE over the last few years.

The problem is and always will be Undertaker, you've got to think that if he showed any desire to return to the WWE before the usual after Elimination Chamber timeslot then he would have, the fact he doesn't suggests that he's not interested

his body is f*cked though isnt it?

Having now seen the WHOLE spot, I have to say it was cringe-wothy. Just awful.

Anyway, while a Streak vs Streak match could have worked, it would have had a few problems.
1) How would the DeadMan have earned a title shot? Surely he would have had to come back, incompetitive action by Chamber, minimum for a number 1 contender.

2)When was this match gonna get promoted? Punk would still have had to defend the title at Chamber. I appreciate that Streak vs Streak is easier to promote, but the timeline remains the same

3) Lastly, Undertaker couldnt win Streak vs Streak, could he? I mean then he would have to perform at at least one more Raw, unless of course Ziggler cashes in after Taker wins, at WrestleMania. That would be crazy, though. No¿

And that's the reason I'd not have had the streak vs the WWE Title, it'd not be really possible to build a feud until after Elimination Chamber which is what happens now anyway, one of the very best storylines I've seen from WWE was Shawn Michaels vs Undertaker at WM26 which started in December at the Slammy's although it had links going back a year, they didn't do anything to crazy, just sound booking that wasn't rushed and everything that was done had a reason and a point

I think Taker gets a lot of flack that's probably undeserved. I don't go with the rumours about him possibly not being fit, I think WWE wanted Cena v Punk to set up Cena as on a roll. You couldn't put Punk in with Taker beforehand. The problem with the feud has been terrible focus on one aspect of how their feud could (and now has) played out. Possibly because I think it works on a crowd of lesser intelligence. I think Taker may be quite happy to have a similar level of appearance wrestling wise as the rock or HHH, but his selling point is now The Streak because of its billing so his worth is more to them in one show.

I do think they missed a trick not having him at the rumble. Put rock v punk on before the rumble then get punk to enter . Last 6 of Ryback, Orton, Sheamus, Jericho, Punk, Cena. Orton Sheamus Ryback eliminated as the lights go off (ie the shield) lights back on Punk is on top and lights go out then as commentators suggest its The Shield again for Punk you instead get Taker appearing and Punk taken out. Doesn't even have to be with the lights on, Punk can claim it was him whilst demanding his rematch from his loss to The Rock. Just teases Taker appearing later to feud with Punk.

To be honest, I think Undertaker would rather not be around at all these days, his performances over the past couple of weeks have been awful and I imagine he's probably enjoying not having to wrestle a lot. I think the shaving of his head was one sign that he's moving away from the wrestling part of his life. He's phoning it in.

or that the grey, thinning look isnt very good at all. look at shawn michaels for example!

Shawn Michaels has that hat, and that does enough to prevent him from shaving

When the story is as bad as many of us have said then what do you expect. I wouldn't say Punk has been good either (and I don't think he was great in the feud with The Rock) but he'll get excused cos he's Punk. And I'd agree with James, the hair is probably just a measure of stopping it from looking really crud as its clearly receding quite a lot