WWE: Unreal Discussion

[DavidB6937]

It's very much an individual's choice as to how they want to consume wrestling as a whole. Whether a regular or casual viewer, do you take it on the surface and just watch it for the shows and the matches and the storylines? Or are you more interested in how the business works? Or more interested in the social media and the people behind the wrestlers etc.

There's actually quite a lot of different angles you can take on it, so a show like this definitely isn't for everyone.

For me personally, there's no difference between movies and wrestling. If I've watched a Tom Cruise movie and then I watch the behind the scenes on how his stunts were created, I find it really interesting but it doesn't ruin the movie if I watch it again. Same as if I watch out of character interviews with people. If they're good performers, I'll easily forget about them as a person.

So does it bother me that WWE put on a show involving storylines and feuds etc, and then show how it was done and have people talk about it? Absolutely not.

I realise that's not everyone though, but that's okay too. The great thing about having so many different things to consume in various different ways is that on the whole you get to choose what type of viewer you are. If you want to avoid all the other additional shit then you mostly can.

[air_raid]

^^^ This is me. Although Wrestling With Shadows was marginally better for it, because it had Pat Patterson going “… motherfucker…” when describing Owen’s schoolboy on Austin.

[Snitsky's back acne]

On 8/1/2025 at 9:44 AM, tiger_rick said:

Being an old man about it, there's a difference between wrestling being more open and a company actively putting out a show on Monday with all these people hating and fighting each other and then putting on another show about what nonsense it all is and how they're all lovely people and mates.

It really is Russo bullshit 25 years on. That's not to say it's harmful. We know their business is bombproof. Wouldn't judge anyone who doesn't want to see all these people in this way.

To your point, if there'd been a show when we kids showing that Warrior was a raging homophobe, Hogan was a racist and they were shooting up together with Vince, the business wouldn't exist. Who is this for and who really wants to see it?

Beyond the Mat was 1997. Wrestling with Shadows was 1998.

It's not a new phenomenon. It's just another way to put out a narrative they want.

"Reality" TV is as worked and as kayfabe as anything else. There will always be a market for it. How seriously people want to take it as "real", however, is another story.

[SuperBacon]

7 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Beyond the Mat was 1997. Wrestling with Shadows was 1998.

Neither of those were controlled by WWE though.

 

[air_raid]

5 hours ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Beyond the Mat was 1997.

Beyond The Mat was 1999. Hence all the footage from the 99 Royal Rumble.

[Chili]

Beyond the Mat to be pedantic is 1997, 1998 and 1999.

[d-d-d-dAz]

On 8/1/2025 at 10:47 AM, DavidB6937 said:

It's very much an individual's choice as to how they want to consume wrestling as a whole. Whether a regular or casual viewer, do you take it on the surface and just watch it for the shows and the matches and the storylines? Or are you more interested in how the business works? Or more interested in the social media and the people behind the wrestlers etc.

There's actually quite a lot of different angles you can take on it, so a show like this definitely isn't for everyone.

For me personally, there's no difference between movies and wrestling. If I've watched a Tom Cruise movie and then I watch the behind the scenes on how his stunts were created, I find it really interesting but it doesn't ruin the movie if I watch it again. Same as if I watch out of character interviews with people. If they're good performers, I'll easily forget about them as a person.

So does it bother me that WWE put on a show involving storylines and feuds etc, and then show how it was done and have people talk about it? Absolutely not.

I realise that's not everyone though, but that's okay too. The great thing about having so many different things to consume in various different ways is that on the whole you get to choose what type of viewer you are. If you want to avoid all the other additional shit then you mostly can.

I agree with this.

I do however draw the line at them promoting the behind-the-scenes documentary during the shows, though. I've found that quite jarring.

[d-d-d-dAz]

I put this on for half an hour this morning.

When Triple H said 'people think it's just guys pretending to fight... I believe people don't realise how complex and layered what we do is', I had this wave of realisation; "Oh, you're just Vince."

It always felt like Vince was constantly motivated by a feeling that he was being looked down on by the mainstream entertainment industry, and was trying to show he was actually the best at entertainment; Triple H is exactly the same, only he wants everyone to acknowledge how smart he is.

I don't think I'll get through this. The Cody, Cena and Rhea Ripley talking head interviews all felt mostly gimmicked. Cena, in particular, didn't seem hugely comfortable and turned up dressed in a way you know he doesn't dress outside of his character.

[wandshogun09]

They’re obsessed with wanting accolades beyond wrestling. Seen Heyman’s utterly grotesque self was on Ariel Helwani’s show the other day and ever since then I’ve been seeing accounts clipping up snippets of him banging on about Roman Reigns deserving an Emmy and all that bollocks again. They really hate that they’re ‘just’ a wrestling company. Even as big as they are, they seem to resent that it’s just wrestling. Pathetic really. 

[RedTwoster]

22 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

When Triple H said 'people think it's just guys pretending to fight... I believe people don't realise how complex and layered what we do is'

To be fair, I think that’s true. A lot of thought and nuance goes into actual wrestling matches; but there’s still a section of society that dismisses it as ‘fake play-fighting’ without realising there’s a bit more to it. He may well have meant it from a Vince-like or Vince-lite perspective (ie. ‘We’re in the movie making business!’) but what he said is probably correct from a wrestling match-specific perspective. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

1 minute ago, RedTwoster said:

To be fair, I think that’s true. A lot of thought and nuance goes into actual wrestling matches; but there’s still a section of society that dismisses it as ‘fake play-fighting’ without realising there’s a bit more to it. He may well have meant it from a Vince-like or Vince-lite perspective (ie. ‘We’re in the movie making business!’) but what he said is probably correct from a wrestling match-specific perspective. 

Sure, but everyone desperate to be appreciated is often right in their own intelligence.

The key is having a sense of inner security that you just need to keep being good at what you do, and you'll be appreciated by all the right people.

Triple H plastering himself over everything, and constantly trying to show the seams so people celebrate the sewing, hasn't made a single person who didn't like wrestling before suddenly decide its actually a perfectly serious, complex artwork.

It's wrestling. A lot of people will always think it's silly. It's fine.

[RedTwoster]

1 minute ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Sure, but everyone desperate to be appreciated is often right in their own intelligence.

The key is having a sense of inner security that you just need to keep being good at what you do, and you'll be appreciated by all the right people.

Triple H plastering himself over everything, and constantly trying to show the seams so people celebrate the sewing, hasn't made a single person who didn't like wrestling before suddenly decide its actually a perfectly serious, complex artwork.

It's wrestling. A lot of people will always think it's silly. It's fine.

Sure, but it’s a throwaway line that was probably the answer to a leading question from the interviewer. I don’t think he was trying to persuade anyone in the context of this show - there would be a whiff of desperation to it if he said something like that during - for example - his Saturday Kitchen, but on a show that’s essentially a ‘making of’ you’re going to want a line like that, it’s perfect trailer fodder. 

They probably would like Unreal to be their Drive to Survive, but I’d be very surprised if the show did that - it’s packed with insider terms and assumed knowledge. I enjoyed it, but you’re right in suggesting it’s unlikely to persuade anyone to watch WWE. It’s interesting if you’re already a wrestling fan, potentially difficult to follow if you’re not, I imagine.

[SuperBacon]

8 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Triple H plastering himself over everything, and constantly trying to show the seams so people celebrate the sewing,

Maybe they're just trying to move the needle

I enjoyed the show. I wasnt expecting much, and it delivered what I wanted. 

Still can't stand Prichard though.

 

[d-d-d-dAz]

10 minutes ago, RedTwoster said:

Sure, but it’s a throwaway line that was probably the answer to a leading question from the interviewer. I don’t think he was trying to persuade anyone in the context of this show - there would be a whiff of desperation to it if he said something like that during - for example - his Saturday Kitchen, but on a show that’s essentially a ‘making of’ you’re going to want a line like that, it’s perfect trailer fodder. 

I disagree with this. It's often in the throwaway lines you see what motivates people, and I think it does explain a lot about Triple H's style.

He plasters himself on everything. The cold open to the second biggest show of the year was basically an explainer of their entire booking philosophy. And they've done a documentary to show how it all works, at which he puts himself at the very top of that process.

It's not necessarily a huge criticism, everyone's got a driver, it's just for him I think it's pretty clear it's a desire to be recognised as the smartest bloke in any room.

I'm sure a psychologist will be able to work out that's because athletes are often looked down on throughout their careers so feel the need to show the world their true intelligence at some point, but I just find it a touch annoying.

@SuperBacon completely agree on Pritchard. Just got to the bit where Abyss is basically in tears worrying about having upset Pritchard during the main event of the Netflix debut, and Pritchard was just a bit of a cunt about it and so Abyss had to ask Regal 'is he mad at me?'. I mean, fucking hell. Abyss didn't come across great, but I'm sure Pritchard could have mustered something more than 'the match over ran, it was over produced... but it was a good show overall.'

Prick. I cannot imagine working for WWE.

Edited August 10, 2025 by d-d-d-dAz

[wandshogun09]

I saw that Abyss and Prichard clip doing the rounds. Sorry if this is a stupid question but why did it matter that the match overran? It’s on Netflix, not USA Network or TNN. Streaming. There’s no show coming on after where it’s caused a schedule fuck up. Have I missed something obvious here? I don’t get why he was so arsey about it.