Coming out of SummerSlam, the big discussion from the main event revolved around whether or not the finish in Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar made sense.
For those who missed it last night, Max Landis explained it in a post:
The ending of #summerslam confused some people, rightfully so. But it did ultimately make sense. Here’s a breakdown: pic.twitter.com/pYQl5boTwE
— Max Landis (@Uptomyknees) August 24, 2015
Landis is correct in that the finish made sense. Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar was an excellent match with a finish that, while a bit poorly executed, did make sense. But making sense isn’t the issue here. The issue is storytelling. It’s very, very bad storytelling.
Don’t take this as me trying to explain to Max Landis storytelling. I’m sure he sees this as well and was just late at night explaining to a fan that the finish made sense. But making sense doesn’t mean your story is good.
The major issue with the finish is that it does a disservice to who the storyline revolves around. This is a story about The Undertaker, Brock Lesnar and to a lesser extent Paul Heyman. Adding other players to this storyline means they need a story that compliments those involved and helps come to the eventual outcome. Sometimes those contributions can be small. For example, Debra’s involvement in Steve Austin versus The Rock always felt a bit hackneyed and silly because it made no sense for Debra to manage The Rock and nobody cared to see that as part of the conflict. But the real importance to it wasn’t Debra managing Rock, but who told Debra to manage The Rock: Vince McMahon. McMahon ensured that Austin would go after Rock on a personal level by involving his wife. It eventually allowed Vince to play to Austin’s emotions, his insecurities and his doubts, leading to McMahon interfering and Austin shaking his hand in the finale. Debra complimented in the end, but she was of a minor part for a bigger player: Vince.
The timekeeper ringing the bell early was not a minor part for a bigger player but merely a judgment call. It was a realistic reaction in an unrealistic world. To have Ric Flair’s own personal Charles Robinson and the timekeeper have an argument about the finish does not play into anything. This isn’t like the Montreal Screwjob where McMahon demanded an early bell ring to screw over Bret Hart. Heck, when I heard the early bell and saw Taker hit the low blow, I was expecting the camera to show it was Kane as timekeeper. That would have made a bit of sense, with Kane screwing over Lesnar as payback for breaking his leg and protecting his brother. But nope, it was Mark Yeaton’s replacement, a guy nobody knows, ringing the bell too early.
If this leads to a segment tonight with Charles Robinson and the timekeeper arguing, it’s going to only distract from the major players in the story. This should be about Undertaker, Brock Lesnar and Paul Heyman. Heyman speaks for Brock. Brock fights for both. Undertaker is the “lone gunslinger” with a questionable win. The finish only muddles the final product and makes it less about these two mythical beasts fighting for supremacy and more about a timekeeper and a referee arguing over a Dusty finish.
This kind of confusion can happen in real sports. There have been times in hockey when the red light went on but a goal wasn’t scored. There’s instant replay to ensure that referees make the right call. But in real sports, the story is different. The story is about the conflict of many, not the conflict of individuals. Making this finish about a missed call distracts from Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar. It was also a cop out.
If you want to protect Brock Lesnar and Undertaker, while not doing another run-in (Seth Rollins vs. John Cena got a run-in earlier with Jon Stewart), you didn’t have to change much. They were right in position with Brock having the Kimura and Robinson looking for a pinned shoulder. If Undertaker put his feet on the middle rope and pinned Brock, with everyone in the audience seeing that Undertaker couldn’t win a fair fight against The Beast, it would solidify himself as a heel and even the odds in an unfair way.
Instead, we have Paul Heyman announcing Brock Lesnar as the winner because he felt like he was the winner. Undertaker didn’t win because he’s a smart veteran who knows every trick in the book to steal a victory. He won because the timekeeper couldn’t wait for the referee signal to ring the bell. It’s an organic situation Undertaker never could have prepared for, instead of a strategic tactic he had in his arsenal. It doesn’t feel like we’re looking at a rubber match next. It feels like we’re looking at calling the main event of SummerSlam a mulligan and doing their match #2 over again down the road. That’s broken storytelling. Disappointing since the match was great up to that point.
