Any good wrestling storyline should make people feel the way promoters want them to. After all, that's what WWE is all about, right? This is all about railroading the audience into supporting one viewpoint.
Listen to company spinsters, though, and you'd be inclined to believe WWE embraces different views. Those fans didn't hate that angle just because it sucked, they were supposed to question it. Yeah, right: WWE's product has never been open to fan interpretation no matter what the popular rhetoric of the time has been.
Stories and match results are meant to persuade people to feel a certain way, but there are those that could never hope to do anything but split fan opinion. Whether WWE like to admit it or not, the industry has changed (the fan base evolving with it) and pushing fans into feeling a certain way isn't quite as simple as it once was...
Those who defend WWE's decision to use Paul Bearer's real-life death as a tool furthering the CM Punk vs. Undertaker feud in 2013 point to Bearer's own old-school sensibilities. The manager would have enjoyed being part of angles even posthumously, it has been argued.
That isn't a sufficient excuse for those who believe WWE should have allowed The Undertaker to show respect for his fallen comrade in peace. When CM Punk was written to trod all over 'Taker's salute to Bearer, the heel was crassly seeking heat that would add believability to his quest of ending Undertaker's streak at WrestleMania 29.
Some enjoyed the controversy, but others felt it was just another example of disrespect from a company seemingly obsessed with flying in the face of common decency.
Whatever your viewpoint, Punk's sneering face and 'Taker's outrage only helped sell the ass-kicking coming the heel's way.