It’s the Final Day of #KaneWeek, a celebration of all things Big Red Monster and the ninth installment in our patent-pending Juice Make Sugar Wrestler of the Week series. We started with A Wrestler You Should Probably Know Better. We’ve given you the finer points of the Dr. Isaac Yankem oeuvre with some Essential Viewing before marching through Hump Day with a GIF parade. Yesterday, we made our “Amazon.com on steroids” dreams come true with “Juice Make Sugar Recommends…“ and gave you that Buzzfeedy-goodness with a 10 Best List. Today we finish everything off with a Difference of Opinion (where JMS HQ erupts in a Hellfire-and-brimstone-fueled civil war.)
Andy: Let’s agree to disagree.
Nick: I was expecting this shit to make a noise, so sorry for the delay.
Andy: All good. Though I was starting to wonder if I was once again failing to Google.
Andy: So I saw. I think the scariest part of that list was Abdullah’s man-boobs
Nick: Real Talk. That picture is just brutal. On Google, they have a gallery which is just closeups of his disgusting forehead. Or, whatever he calls that space on his head with all the FORK marks. Forkhead seems a little on the nose, but he is Abdullah The Butcher. He reminds me a lot of what would happen if CZW met Chikara.
Andy: CZW meeting Chikara would be like the Imaginationland episode of South Park. A bunch of lovable cartoon characters meeting their gruesome, gruesome death. Kind of like introducing Kane to Saturday Morning Slam.
Nick: But, knowing Kane, he’d make that shit work. Instead of fire coming out of the ring posts, it’d be like rainbows or something.
Andy: I’d be totally OK with him chokeslamming Heath Slater on a giant pile of unused guitar picks. Especially if Slater sells it like it was a pile of flaming thumbtacks
Nick: Kane never had enough matches with flaming thumbtacks.
Andy: Not yet, at least. And continuity was never WWE Creative’s finest point when it came to the Big Red Machine.
Nick: At least they don’t mention he was Dr. Isaac Yankem. You know, ever. But, given how well he did after Katie Vick, you think he could have worked that if they gave him a chance to really explore the character?
Andy: As long as Lawler doesn’t make too many jokes comparing Slater to “pulling teeth,” he’d be alright.
Nick: He always seem to be alright, but has he ever been great? Or even “very good”?
Andy: It’s hard to look at a big guy, with a “big guy style” and think “very good.” But if there’s any non-Undertaker big guy who deserves it, it’s Kane.
Nick: Speaking of the Undertaker, has a gimmick relationship ever worked out better than this for anyone?
Andy: Not even close. Any other guy, and this could have ruined two careers. It definitely helped both of these guys in an amazing way.
Nick: I don’t know if he has ever been able to transcend it, though. I don’t know if we will ever stop thinking about Kane in the context of him being the Undertaker’s brother. We think about Taker as a lot of things: one of the main cogs of the Attitude Era, one of the first guys who made you realize how shite Hogan was, one of two “MR. WrestleManias”. Somewhere around fifth on that list is “Kane’s brother”.
Andy: I think it’s pretty unfair to assume either man will be remembered for this fake relationship. Undertaker is definitely the undead King of Wrestlemania. Kane may not have the classic matches under his belt, but he definitely has some classic feuds and memorable moments that are just as, or more important to his character than the Taker relationship.
Nick: I suppose if nothing else, he did make Daniel Bryan into a main event.
Andy: He also solidified Edge as a main event heel. He took that guy who wrestled RVD for the IC title every few weeks, and helped make him the Rated R Superstar. The success of their feud is forgotten, because people think about Matt Hardy’s return and the worst promo ever. But before it was Edge-Hardy, it was Edge-Kane. And it was GOOD.
Nick: Does being on the Mt. Rushmore of enhancement talent make you a Hall of Famer, though?
Andy: When you stay over, regardless of your place in the feud, yes.
Nick: Are you saying Kane is oddly beloved?
Andy: Kane is definitely loved, and oddly legitimate.
Nick: I say oddly, because he’s pretty much — face or heel — a sadistic monster.
Andy: Shane McMahon’s testicles agree. But for all the demented stuff we’ve seen him do over the last two decades, we’ve also seen a lot of lighter moments of relative humanity, that make him something of a “relatable monster.”
Nick: Is that a good thing, though?
Andy: Yes! It doesn’t matter if it’s weird babyface moments like therapy with Daniel Bryan or trying to learn how to do the Last Ride with The Underaker, or demented heel moments like setting a man on fire because he feels like a freak. Everything with this unreal character is, somehow, someway, rooted in relative reality. And when people relate, people invest.
Nick: So, that’s ultimately the secret of Kane? That underneath all the brutality, he’s just a big, lovable libertarian?
Andy: I misread that as “lovable librarian.” Now THAT would be a gimmick change. I don’t know that I’ve ever loved a libertarian. But at the end of the day, Kane is a larger than life character, that helps fans escape from their sad, sad realities in a spectacular way… while still being someone they can either love and relate to.
Nick: Kane: He gives us something to believe in.