WWE isn't a traditional serial drama. It's a variety show. In format, it's closer to SNL mixed with a soap opera than to Breaking Bad no matter how much we might enjoy drama over more populist entertainment models. Just because we dedicate enough analysis to turn feuds into gritty and layered superhero stories, it should all be variations of the same journey: They all want the title. They all want to be champion. They all want to compete to be the best.

Things like that are a given because that's the genre. It's a constructed evolution of a basic desire, rooted in the storytelling that's passed on for generations into modernity. Just like horror is about survival or sanity or cautionary tales, just like romance is about finding identity in love, action is about something equally primal. Wrestling takes that to a cartoon extreme for a reason, because for the most part it connects and it works. You see a wrestling show and you immediately understand after a few minutes that "oh this guy hates that guy because etc." or "that guy is champion, the other guy wants to be champion."

The elements you've listed are clearly implicit in the bare minimum of character you're exposed to week by week, since your analysis isn't made up of fantasy, it's clear and concise and a reflection of the build up. It's just not as strong as it should be leading into the biggest event of the year. That's a fault of booking, but not of structure and format. They've been backtracking and are confined to the limitations of a performer, but as evident by every other year at Wrestlemania, there's nothing inherently wrong with the format.

And while I admire the shit out of Arndt's analysis of structure, it's better suited for film theory. It's something manageable in the confines of that medium - where there's a definitive end - less so in an ongoing format like WWE, where content is constant. They need to build MORE people on screen at once rather than focus on one or two guys at the expense of the rest of the roster.