The (d)Evolution of Kane

[Guest notJames]

I know this guy is probably persona non grata to a lot of you, but Rick Scaia came up with a few nice points about how the writers are mutilating the mythology of Kane:

 

As stupid as this whole thing was from an aesthetic or intelligence-insulting perspective, there's a whole other reason it sucked that I've barely touched on, too. Namely, in one fell swoop, we all have a lot less reason to believe in whatever it was that Kane stood for or that made him worth cheering.

 

Before Monday: Kane is the freakishly-scarred younger brother of the Undertaker. His physical and mental wounds did not allow him to enter normal society until almost exactly five years ago, when Paul Bearer (who had cared for -- some say even FATHERED -- Kane) brings him out of seclusion to battle the Taker. After gaining fans' respect following years of hardfought matches, and after continuing to recover from his unfortunate past (including surgery to repair his vocal chords), he even begins to develop self-esteem and personality. He is still a "freak," but he can have fun and accept that. Plus, he seven feet tall, kicks ass, and rarely looks back.

 

After Monday: Kane is a lot like you and me. He was going to keggers 10 years ago, and did some things he's not very proud of. If he's going to parties and picking up chicks, I doubt he's the dark, troubled, freakishly-scarred figure who could only communicate with a voice box held to his throat that we've come to accept at all! He isn't being nurtured and sheltered by Paul Bearer, either, he's just a guy trying to break into wrestling on the indie circuit, with little concern for who his brother is, what his brother has done to him in the past, and what he hopes to do to his brother in return. And plus: even despite his seven feet worth of ass kicking, he now turns into a whiny pussy if anyone utters the words "Katie Vick" or "Manual Transmission" to him.

 

Which Kane do you like better?

 

That's what I thought... and it's got nothing to do with "reality" either, because I recognize that Kane #2 is actually the more "human" and more REAL character. But in this particular entertainment form, fans are suspending their reality in a particular way. And in our world Kane #1 is what we've accepted. When you diverge from that Kane, you've got him acting in a manner inconsistant with what we believe about him. The attempt at reality becomes the very definition of unrealistic. In other words: we liked our Kane just fine the way he was. You already sold us on his twisted past, you don't have to take it all back.

 

This apparent complete lack of understanding on the part of the creative team boggles my mind. It's the same thing that happened to Kurt Angle last year when they had him acting all macho with his heavy-duty vehicles and trying to throw Steve Austin off a bridge. Some vital chip in the creative machinery has got to be short circuiting to allow these heinous misjudgments to make it to air... it's one thing to want to tweak a character or nudge him in a new direction. But something like this? Frankly, it frustrates me to no end that it takes carting it out there and seeing the reaction before the creative team realizes what's going on. It's the sort of thing that they ALL should have seen coming, but nope, I'm betting they're all claiming surprise now that the angle died with the live crowd and has been pummeled to death by internet fans.

 

Even though I roll my eyes at about half of what the Gooney Bird usually writes, I think he's dead on with his assessments. And if it's so obvious to him, why is it NOT so obvious to the WW_?

 

(BTW, I loved the line about "manual transmission". It reminds of how Scaia used to write for his old News from Dayton site and the nWWWo.)

[Guest DJ Jeff]

The first gimmick Kane had was the one I liked better. Sure, this one is more human, but it just doesn't seem right to say that he's a monster anymore. I think the WWE should have just totally scratched the Kane gimmick, and given Glenn Jacobs a fresh new gimmick when he returned after his injury. I don't know how the WWE would have worked it, though, but that's what I think they should have done. The Kane gimmick is dead, and now we're just stuck with a regular superstar with the name Kane.

[Guest crandamaniac]

The problem I have with the De-evolution of Kane is not them just turning him human, but the fact that they're doing so with no thought to continuity. It makes no sense that a guy who couldn't even talk till a couple of years ago on his own, that was locked in a basement for X amount of years, supposedly burned beyond recognition, suddenly turn up that he would go out to keggers, party up the night, and suddenly has no scar tissue what so ever. Maybe it's the mark inside of me talking here, but they should have somewhat kept his original gimmick of just destroying people, being the big bad younger brother to the Undertaker, not some sad pathetic murdering necrophiliac

[Guest imajackoff?]

The original Kane character is one of my favorites of all time. The way Jacobs portrayed him with his body language made the character's pain palpable. Since he aced the original outfit with just the one arm showing(the one part of his body that supposedly wasnt scarred), things have gone downhill.