Rants

Undertaker Vs. Underfaker angle

By Scott Keith on January 4, 2018

Scott,

What do you think of the Undertaker vs. Underfaker angle as a concept?

If I was pitching it to you at a booking meeting would you think it might have legs to be interesting, or would you say “No, that’s just stupid” and kill it before it gets to air?

Just wondering. I think it was a pretty clever idea that (in theory) could have gone in some interesting directions.

I’m just saying that they could have turned that chicken shit into a halfway decent chicken salad with a little effort and continued the angle after SummerSlam in some way or another.



​I thought it was a halfway clever idea on the face of it, but the main issue was that there was no actual backstory or explanation behind it. It was just "Ted Dibiase shows up one guy with a new Undertaker, and they fight because reasons." The announcers never made clear whether or not it was supposed to be the real one, or what the motivations were behind him aligning with Dibiase, or where this guy came from and why he looked so much like the real one, or any of another dozen questions that a normal human being would ask. ​It was just weird and really lazy. Ditto for when they tried it again with the May 19th stuff with Kane years later. You know who at least DID fundamentally get the deal with twins? Vince Russo. He used that gag a few times as an effective payoff (HHH as Goldust, Undertaker as Kane, whereas Vince McMahon just seems to be about "Wouldn't it be weird if another Undertaker showed up?" and that's as far as it ever gets.

Comments are disable in preview.