The One Problem EVERYONE Gets Wrong About WWE's Bloodline Saga
WWE is telling a tremendous - but flawed - story between Sami Zayn and Roman Reigns.
[The following editorial contains criticism of the ongoing, otherwise tremendous Bloodline storyline].
The problem with the ongoing Bloodline saga isn't that Sami Zayn isn't going to dethrone Roman Reigns. It isn't 2015 anymore; WWE fans, demonstrably, enjoy cheering on two distinct babyfaces at the same time.
One, Cody Rhodes, is destined to win the big one; the other, Sami, manipulated into a fake, one-sided bond, is destined to find the acceptance of real friendship that has eluded him since December 11, 2014. Two very different characters, two very different arcs, two very different triumphs. The days of pinning naive hope on one fan-cast workrate underdog are over. WWE's narrative palette has more range now than it has had in decades.
The real problem isn't hugely significant in and of itself, or at least it wasn't. This problem however is so glaring to those with an exacting (or pedantic) eye for logic that the saga cannot be considered the masterpiece that a lot of people insist it to be. The Bloodline angle is tremendous, but it's not a masterpiece. Under its storytelling model, WWE is unable to produce something that warrants such high praise - even if it is excellent on its own, deeply flawed terms. If you truly care about the craft of storytelling, and don't rate it on the WWE curve, the whole thing falls apart if you pull at it only slightly.
The invisible camera device is simply too dumb to ignore.
WWE actually corrected this goatse of a plot hole with the Trial of Sami Zayn, during which both Paul Heyman and Jey Uso pored over archive footage of the televised saga to determine whether or not Sami was an ally of the Bloodline.
A case of better late than never, the Trial was phenomenal - although the events that led to it could have been accelerated already, had the characters actually watched SmackDown as it progressed.
CONT'D...(1 of 5)