Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:02:09 MST
From: Scott Keith 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.pro-wrestling.moderated
Subject:  Why Scott Steiner is a [lousy] interview --
	A quasi-essay

Okay, there seems to be a few people on here who don't seem to
understand why everyone constantly bitches about WCW's
interviews recently, so here's a Wrestling 101 course for you:
The Interview.

The purpose of the interview is to establish the character and
then (and more importantly) sell the match. WCW interviews have
tons of the former and noneof the latter.

Specifically, Jim Cornette once said that every interview can be
defined by three distinct parts:
	1)  Motivation
	2)  Intention
	3)  Hype.
Those are my words, not his. He tends to be more verbal about
it. :)

1) Motivation.
	Why is the person being interviewed doing the interview?
Well, in the case of Nitro, it's usually to waste time, but in
the more classic sense, they're generally upset at someone else.
Now, if you assume that for every show there's at least 10% of
the audience who haven't seen an episode before, then it becomes
important to summarize what the issue at hand is, IN NO MORE
THAN TWO SENTENCES. This is really important because anything
more than that and the interview will lose all coherence right
off the bat as the wrestler goes off onto multiple tangents. Some
like Arn Anderson, Ric Flair, and Steve Austin can go longer, but
most cannot.
	Okay, for example, Chris Jericho has cheated and screwed DDP
out of the US title at some point in the future. DDP is upset
about that, so he comes out and opens his interview by saying
"Chris 'Scumheart' Jericho, last week you stole my US title."
(This is very basic, yes, but bear with me.) Traditionally the
announcer (Mean Gene et al) have opened the interview by saying
something like "DDP, last week you were robbed by Chris Jericho!",
thus allowing the interviewee to go off however they want from
that. But it should be short and to the point and should clearly
establish that one person is Good and one person is Bad.

2) Intent.
	What does the person in question intend to do about the
injustice? This is where creativity tends to come into play, as
the interviewee is free to call his opponent all sorts of names
and let his imagination run wild. For now, we'll stay bare-bones
and go with the prime Steve Austin intent: "I'm gonna whoop your
ass."
	Doubt the effectiveness of the "intent" portion of the
interview? Ask any casual fan before a Steve Austin match what
Austin is going to do to his opponent and 99 times out of 100
he'll answer "Austin's gonna kick his ass!" Why? Because Austin
has clearly established his intent in countless interviews. You
know WHY he's [mad] and you know WHAT he'll do when he's [mad],
the only question remaining is WHEN ...

3) Hype.
	The most important. The best interview is meaningless if it
doesn't build to a match. A 10 minute soliloquy is wasted if it's
not finished by saying "I'll see you at the pay-per-view!" or
something similar. The entire point of wrestling is to sell
tickets, and that's where the interview comes in. The motivation
creates interest in the characters, the intent creates interest
in the resolution, and the hype tells the people where to buy the
tickets to see it.  

	And that is why Scott Steiner (and countless others today)
are such a lousy interview. Steiner spends 20 minutes on the
motivation (Big Poppa Pump is your hookup, nWo 4 life, etc) but
never declares intent or challenges an opponent. Chris Jericho
spends 10 minutes on intent (Goldberg 0, Jericho 4, etc.) but he
has no angles, and thus no motivation, and thus no reason for the
fans to care. As well, he is unable to actually challenge
Goldberg, so there's no hype and no payoff. Thus, Jericho
(post-TV title) is a pointless interview, sad but true.
	Ditto for the WWF: Val Venis is loads of motivation (I'm
screwing your wife, what are you gonna do about it?) but no
intent (we never really know WHY he'd bother fighting them) and
rarely does Venis challenge anyone himself ... he's a very
reactionary character.  
	On the other hand, there are currently some wrestlers who
employ the basic skills terrifically (most of them from the "old
school"):

	Goldust -- Motivation (You destroyed my family), Intent
	(You will never forget the name of Goldust), Hype (Meet me
	at Breakdown)

	Raven -- Motivation (I hate myself), Intent (I'm taking it
	out on you), Hype (If you can beat this Flock member...)

	DDP -- Motivation (Bret Hitscum Hart stole my US title),
	Intent (You will feel the BANG!), Hype (I'm jacked for
	World War III).

	This is not to say that the "bad" interviews listed above
are bad interviews in general, they just don't utilize the basic
interview form enough to be a well-rounded interview. And the
reverse holds for the "good" interviews listed above -- DDP
*only* uses the basic interview skills, for instance, which is
technically sound but gets tedious very quickly.  
	Anyway, just something to think about the next time an nWo
C-Team member gets 14 minutes to ramble on about whatever on
Nitro next week. You can make youself sound smart by saying
"Well, he hardly declared his intent at all, and the hype was all
wrong!"
	Well, maybe not.

Scott Keith, moderator rec.sport.pro-wrestling.moderated
   and all-knowing keeper of the Pro Wrestling FAQ.

    Source: geocities.com/area51/rampart/2060

               ( geocities.com/area51/rampart)                   ( geocities.com/area51)