I can't watch anything other than highlights on modern WWE programming.

Too long! Too long!

No-one is asking the important question: how much entertainment do WWE fans want to consume every week?

Back in my day, there were a few syndicated shows. You didn't even need to watch them all as there were many reruns of matches (for instance, WWF Action Zone, while having an exclusive main event match, repeated what we'd seen on WWF Challenge). Raw was one hour. Then two. Now three. There are rumours that SmackDown will go to 3 hours.

Even the most ardent WWE fan must have a limit. We have lives: work, family, friends, socialising, other hobbies, etc. Years ago, I had a clerical job. I would finish at 6pm. I had to record Raw because I couldn't stay up from 2am to 4am. So I'd watch it, spoiler-free, on Tuesday nights. By the time I got home from work, it was 7pm. Shower and food, it was 8pm. By the time I got to watch Raw, it was 8:30pm. Finished at 10:30pm. And then off to bed. A whole evening pretty much devoted to Raw. And the same on Friday nights with SmackDown.

There will be hardcore fans out there who have nothing else in their lives. Same with ardent video gamers. They would probably watch four hours of Raw. But although I like wrestling, I do not want to devote so much time to it. I also want to read, listen to music, meet family, go hiking, etc. I have NO DESIRE to watch 3 hours of Raw.

I understand that WWE will never willingly lose money - and cut out that third hour. But they should never have added that third hour. When are people who run wrestling promotions going to accept the adage that LESS IS MORE?! WHEN?!!!!

I was never a fan of WWF and WCW switching to monthly PPVs. It made the "Big Four" less special. And what was the point of the Royal Rumble winner getting a WrestleMania shot when the February PPV might see them putting that shot on the line - or losing it? What is it about wrestling people that they think people want more and more content?

I see a parallel with comics, back when Marvel thought we needed and wanted 3 Punisher books a month, several X-Men books, a Superman title on the shelves every week, etc. And some did! And they made money. But I am so glad that Supes only has 2 books on the shelves now. Less really is more.

A leaner Raw would be preferable, but I get that WWE isn't going to lose money by chopping that third hour. However, here's a profound question: is the revenue that a third hour brings worth it when you may one day lose LOTS of viewers? When DC scrapped the other Super-books, they no doubt had cash on their mind when it happened, but if it can result in a leaner Superman arc, with just two books, isn't that better? Putting aside money, because I think WWE will still be profitable, could WWE think LONG-TERM and realise that Raw should scrap the third hour and maybe even think about fewer PPVs?

Probably won't happen. But a 3-hour Raw is no good to fans if, down the road, it loses viewers. A 3-hour Raw with fewer viewers is no good to anyone.

Again, I get the financial argument. JBL and Heyman shot down a poor fan who tried to talk about that. They talked about balance sheets, revenue, etc. We get that. But long-term, guys, long-term! Think about it, JBL and Heyman. What WWE might lose in revenue by scrapping that third hour could - surely? - be made up in other areas long-term. I'm no business expert, but surely a 2-hour Raw with, say, 2 million viewers is better than a 3-hour Raw with 1 million viewers?

Since I have no cable or satellite, Smackdown on Fox over the air is my only wrestling fix. Having watched the 1st and 2nd episodes I recognize I haven't been missing anything. Same old lame/boring/repetitive/weak stories and lots of sideline talks amount to nothing and matches which are truly not worth viewing. An occasional match proves interesting but for the most part NONE of the matches are very entertaining or creative these days. I will record Smackdown from here on in and fast forward through it all in 20 minutes over the weekend if I have nothing else going on. 

So glad I have many DVD's of the "classic" 70's through 80's of when there was fun and entertainment from WWE/WCW to enjoy.

I watched the documentary Here Comes The Pain (DVD) over the last few days.

Is Brock Lesnar really intense or is he playing a character? Is it kayfabe?

These are some of the things he said during the interview parts of the documentary:

I am not here to make friends.
I don't care what anyone thinks of me.
I am here solely to cause pain.
I don't feel pain at all. I just feel adrenaline.

How much of that is kayfabe? 100%? 50%?

In the pre-Attitude era, wrestlers spoke a certain way, e.g. the Warlord and Earthquake. Earthquake would talk about his desire to cripple opponents. Wrestlers like the Warlord would talk about causing pain. Deep down, we know that was character talk. Earthquake, as civilian John Tenta, would have had no desire to cripple a person. The Warlord, real name Terry Szopinski, would have had no desire to really cause pain.

But I can't tell with Brock Lesnar. Is he in character all of the time? Is he being kayfabe in a kayfabe-free era? Or does he *really* believe those things?

I honestly cannot tell, from that interview, if he's just remaining in character and preserving kayfabe - or whether he truly believes in pain, hurting others, etc, etc.

If he means it, fine. If it's all part of the act, he deserves an Oscar. We are living in the era where there is a line between character and civilian. You could watch Kane kicking ass but then one day you might see him tweeting about taking his dog to the vet and then having a family meal.

With Lesnar, I really can't work out if all that tough talk is kayfabe. You expect it during a wrestling promo. But when the WWE produces DVDs, wrestlers drop the character act. Bret Hart may have been intense during promos. Same with Triple H. But during documentaries, they drop the characters and talk real life. I've never seen Brock do that. So either he really believes in what he says or he's playing a character 100%.

It's odd.

Some, like Ric Flair and Arn Anderson, kept up the kayfabe on documentaries. Others, such as Hulk Hogan, dropped the act to talk real-life business.

But I can't figure out if Brock Lesnar really hates people/enjoys inflicting pain of if he's just living the character 100%. 

I read Brock's book and he came across like a dumb jock @#ick. In that environment, I am not aware of anyone who has issues with him (jealousy of his schedule and money, maybe). I am also not aware that he is buddy/buddy with anyone. He's married to Sable, who is 10 years his senior and ex-wife of Marc Mero. So, given the heat she had with people, I don't think he is worried about making friends.

So, yeah, there is probably an element of truth in that.

I do know that Jim Cornette threatened to shoot him, in OVW. His wife Stacy (then girlfriend) was working as the manager, Sinn, while Brock and Shelton Benjamin were the Minnesota Stretching Crew ( a play on the Andersons' nickname The Minnesota Wrecking Crew, and the fact that Benjamin and Lesnar were NCAA champions). Stacy had had some piercings put in, in a sensitive area, and warned Lesnar to be careful where he lifted her, for a spot where she would get paperback for interference in the match. he ignored her warning and picked her up in the sensitive area and she screamed in pain (or yelled, or whatever; point is, it hurt). She gave him an earful backstage and Cornette threatened to get his gun and shoot him if he ever deliberately did something like that again. Lesnar ever did anything like that again and Cornette sings his praises, so I don't think there is any lingering heat.

Lesnar seems to be a bit of a loner and not big on the spotlight; but, that quote sounds pretty much like what he had in the book. Most things like that have a certain level of truth, though the whole pain thing is just for the angle.

Most stars essentially play themselves; maybe amped up, but still a central part of themselves. Flair is a party guy who spends freely, Arn Anderson was a straight shooter with a sharp tongue, Tully Blanchard was an obnoxious brat, Hulk Hogan had a massive ego, Abdullah the Butcher is a con man who bladed himself into oblivion, Jerry Lawler really believes he inherited the legacy of Elvis Presley, in Memphis, Steve Austin is a crazy SOB who likes to talk, the Rock is a big personality. Still, they take that truth and turn it up to 11 for the show. Arn Anderson describes Flair as wearing his heart on his sleeve (which is probably why he had issues with herd and Bischoff).

So, to answer the question; I'd say that was probably above 60% the real Brock Lesnar.

Yeah, thanks a lot, Cody.

It was very jarring. It was a bit jarring when Flair and Anderson would be a bit too kayfabe-heavy during recent documentaries.

Imagine if the late John Tenta was alive today - and on a documentary. Imagine if he was discussing his desire to cripple opponents and maim people, as he did in character in the early 90s. It wouldn't work. What would work would be John Tenta candidly discussing his career.

Brock expressed a desire to hurt people - and cause pain. And said he didn't feel pain. And that he didn't care about anyone. No wrestler, I'm sure, wants to actually cause pain so either Lesnar was just sticking to kayfabe - or he feels that way.

I will say this, I have NO issues with any wrestler who isn't a mark and is in it for the money. Each to their own. Some have a passion for the business. Some would no doubt wrestle at the age of 100 and blade because they are marks. That is fine, too. But the likes of Ultimate Warrior, Kevin Nash and Brock Lesnar seem to have not been marks. And it seems some resented that (I recall Nash saying he'd work for McDonalds if it offered him more money). Warrior wasn't a mark - and while he had some fond memories of his time in wrestling, I don't think he needed wrestling.

Some, such as Flair, seem to need it. It's all fine. But those who aren't marks should never be criticised, in my view.