Creative Interest

Just a little talk about analyzing the diva division in general this time. Before I go into that, the last time I talked about the diva division, I was bringing up the main issues that had been causing the division to look sloppy recently. I went on and on, so it might have gotten confusing what I meant. Just want to make it clear what I was doing. There are two problems. First, the WWE is not spreading interest around properly with various divas. Second, the WWE does not have a strong foundation with women with good wrestling credibility to at least help to keep things looking respectable. The first problem is comparable to putting all your eggs in one basket. The second is comparable to relying on a basket that isn't strong. Just in case the comparisons confused people, just know that my overall point is the lack of developing multiple diva angles properly and not having good wrestling credibility.

When I analyze the career a diva is getting to understand what the WWE is doing with them, the three things I look at are consistency, hype, and character/storyline development. If the WWE wants a diva over, they are going to develop them with focus in those three categories. I know I have brought up those three things before at least once somewhere. I just want to change a bit of the terminology. Character/storyline development? That is a little wordy and lengthy. I am going to start calling that creative interest or creative investment. If the WWE wants someone to be a major success, they are definitely going to unleash the writers to come up with ideas for that person.

What is the difference between hype and creative interest? The way I use it when I analyze, hype is more about putting over someone as great or certain qualities they have as great, while creative investment is more about making them look interesting and entertaining. Giving someone a title reign or win streak is a way to hype them up. Giving them a unique gimmick or an elaborate storyline that lasts for months is a way to make them look interesting. The WWE always hypes Mark Henry's strength and gives him segments to put over his strength. When you want to talk about creative interest for Mark Henry, his "Hall of Pain" gimmick and storyline against John Cena are the best work he has done in recent years. To put it another way, hype can sometimes help you look credible, while creative interest isn't really about that. When they are investing in you creatively, it is usually to make you stand out to entertain. I typically believe it is better to develop someone to be over through making them look entertaining rather than building their credibility with title reigns, wins over top stars, and other forms of hyping them up. Once they do get over, then hype them. They would have earned it and it would not be so forced.

Examples in the diva division? Look at Michelle McCool. Having her make history on multiple occasions was a means to hype her as something great. That didn't get her over. What they tried next was giving her a huge gimmick. That was a big creative investment in her. She never got the overness to match all they put into her.

As I frequently say, eye-candy periphery divas used to get over so easily. The WWE did not have to do much for them at all. Just put over how hot they are and put them in situations to show it. Their sexy looks and general characters just got them over. You didn't really need to invest too much in them creatively. Of course, that does not mean the WWE never did anything for them when it came to gimmicks and storylines. Stacy Keibler has had some interesting angles in the periphery, including her involvement between Scott Steiner and Test. She never won the Women's Championship, but that never mattered. It is not about hyping these women as great wrestlers, unless they are being pushed as the centerpiece. It is about putting over their looks and hotness.

Will there sometimes be some grey area between hype and creative interest? Sure, but there is no need to kill yourself over it. The point is to take both things into consideration, as well as consistency. Some fans seem to think that the WWE tossing a title on a diva means they love her. Not so fast. If they are not doing anything else with her to help her get over other than having her hold the title, then I wouldn't make too much of that title reign. A title reign is only one form of hype, and it isn't enough to draw the conclusion that the WWE is really high on someone. Credible jobbers get title reigns. They always have. That doesn't mean they are getting developed to be stars. You look at AJ Lee. With all the creative interest they put in her, she really never needed the title to connect with the fans or to make you know they want her to connect with the fans. In a lot of situations, it might be more important to pay attention to how they are investing in someone creatively than how many title reigns and wins they are actually getting. And of course, never forget to look at how they are being pushed over time and in relation to the other women in the division. When you take it all into account, you can figure out what the WWE is doing with these women.