WWE Writer Doubts The Undertaker Could Get Over If He Were A Rookie Today

[the_hoff]

Former WWE writer Scott Keith has updated his blog at RSPWFAQ.net and answered an interesting question about whether today's current legends would be able to become top stars if they were just entering the business in 2013. As much as WWE has done to develop talent through the NXT and the new Performance Center, Keith's answer exposes the huge flaws that still exist in the process. He was asked:
Given today's environment in WWE's creative and corporate structure, do you think many of today's legends would even make it to the top if starting today? How many would be buried for trying to get themselves over or having more fan support than they should have? Do you think any would still get over regardless, such as The Rock?
Basically, how do you think many of wrestling's (or at least WWE's) legends would be treated today if they were just starting? I shudder to think of how, say, The Undertaker would handle starting today.

Keith replied:

"The ropewalk spot wouldn't be approved in developmental, he'd get shit for not having a good body, they'd make him do goofy promos because he couldn't talk without a manager and they'd want to rib him, and then he'd get saddled with a Rhinestone Cowboy gimmick because he's from Texas and acts like a tough guy. Think I'm close there?"

Bwahaha I'd love to see Taker with some kind of Rhinestone cowboy gimmick. Do you agree though, that he wouldn't be able to get over today as a rookie?

 

[Lockard 23]

Scott Keith was never a writer for WWE lol. He was a wrestling columnist who used to write reviews of all the shows and PPVs (which he called "Rants") and laced them with a huge dose of snarkiness and sarcasm. I love reading his opinions, though. He's almost like the prototype of the ultimate smark.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'd agree with him here. You have to keep in mind that the Taker gimmick was a 100% Vince McMahon idea, so if we keep that fact the same, then Undertaker would turn out just fine. There is still the question though of whether a gimmick like Taker's would get over with audiences today. I think it would because it would stand out as being completely different from what everyone else is doing. Plus, in the beginning, Taker wasn't even supposed to be a literal supernatural zombie but rather just a silent and mysterious mortician who was merely "zombie-like" in his ways of being impervious to pain. Keep it that way permanently and all would turn out fine.

 

[the_hoff]

Scott Keith was never a writer for WWE lol. He was a wrestling columnist who used to write reviews of all the shows and PPVs (which he called "Rants") and laced them with a huge dose of snarkiness and sarcasm. I love reading his opinions, though. He's almost like the prototype of the ultimate smark.

Anyway, I'm not sure I'd agree with him here. You have to keep in mind that the Taker gimmick was a 100% Vince McMahon idea, so if we keep that fact the same, then Undertaker would turn out just fine. There is still the question though of whether a gimmick like Taker's would get over with audiences today. I think it would because it would stand out as being completely different from what everyone else is doing. Plus, in the beginning, Taker wasn't even supposed to be a literal supernatural zombie but rather just a silent and mysterious mortician who was merely "zombie-like" in his ways of being impervious to pain. Keep it that way permanently and all would turn out fine.

I never said he was a writer. Just posting what the site said, brother.

 

[Lockard 23]

I know, I was simply referring to the article you posted.

Speaking of Scott Keith, I went over to his blog and loved what he wrote at the beginning of his review of Raw last night:

So my pre-show rant for the day: I feel like this company has fallen into living out The Bridge on the River Kwai with this Authority deal. They’re all about “telling stories”, but they have literally ONE (1) story they’re telling, which is “HHH and Stephanie are bad people and Vince returns to get revenge at Wrestlemania.” Except Vince was never betrayed or wronged by them on TV, he just kind of disappeared. And they don’t actually know what match is being built to. And they don’t know how they’re getting to that match. And they don’t know when Vince is coming back or why. But BY GOD, the storyline that people have craved for a year is FUCKING VINCE MCMAHON V. COO HHH and if fans chant for Daniel Bryan it just means we’re in “bizarroworld” or it’s a smark-heavy city or the football game was big competition or it’s a holiday show and we just don’t understand how important it is to have 5 (five) authority figures running RAW every week to build to the incredibly important, once-in-a-lifetime HHH v. Vince showdown that we already saw twice in 1999. And now that we’ve burned through all the possible World title contenders (Ziggler, Bryan, Big Show, Kane, Del Rio, Punk, Ryback, Henry) and there’s literally nothing left to fill time until YOU WILL GET HHH V. VINCE AND FUCKING LIKE IT, now we get a “title v. title” ladder match between Orton and Cena after four straight months of screwjob finishes in PPV main events, because there’s no one else left to main event. And even then they can’t call it a unification match, because they’re compelled to screwjob that up as well because it doesn’t matter until we get to HHH v. Vince, which you will FUCKING LIKE OR FUCK YOU, which is the most importantest thing in the history of sports entertainment. For some reason.

But maybe that’s just me.

 

[the_hoff]

I know, I was simply referring to the article you posted.

Speaking of Scott Keith, I went over to his blog and loved what he wrote at the beginning of his review of Raw last night:

Lol, Scott Keith's great.

 

[Dejuan]

hes Blue
#100

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

I doubt the Undertaker would ever be the Undertaker today. That gimmick was birthed in the early 90s when cartoon gimmicks were the norm. I don't think something so cheesy would have even been tried today, but it definitely wouldn't have taken off if thy did IMO.

That said, Mean Mark Callaway would still have been a success one way or another.

 

[Aids Johnson]

I know, I was simply referring to the article you posted.

Speaking of Scott Keith, I went over to his blog and loved what he wrote at the beginning of his review of Raw last night:

That article was spot on, at least as far as i'm concerned.