mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 12, 2013 21:27:17 GMT -5
My least favorite part is his finisher. Not only is it a full-nelson slam, "he calls it the 'You're Welcome'". NO, he doesn't, shut up Cole. The writers were having their daily boring-off and that name won. Does ANYONE call their own finisher anything? most guys name their finishing moves And it is a name so I don't understand why he wouldn't call it that? Grammar doesn't matter for naming
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Nov 12, 2013 21:27:45 GMT -5
They've ruined him, they've completely ruined him. What was a completely hilarious and obnoxious gimmick is gone, replaced with the all black "serious" Damien Sandow. Why? They took away everything that made him stand out, and now he's just like every other heel. If there's one major flaw with the WWE, it's the fact that when they push heels, they take away everything that's funny and entertaining about them. It happened with Del Rio, it happened with Cody Rhodes, and now it's happened to Damien Sandow. you're not supposed to be entertained by heels I disagree, plenty of great heels have had flamboyant, over-the-top personalities that were incredibly entertaining, and made you want to see them get beaten up even more.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Nov 12, 2013 21:39:11 GMT -5
They've ruined him, they've completely ruined him. What was a completely hilarious and obnoxious gimmick is gone, replaced with the all black "serious" Damien Sandow. Why? They took away everything that made him stand out, and now he's just like every other heel. If there's one major flaw with the WWE, it's the fact that when they push heels, they take away everything that's funny and entertaining about them. It happened with Del Rio, it happened with Cody Rhodes, and now it's happened to Damien Sandow. you're not supposed to be entertained by heels Um, yes you are. Everyone on the roster is supposed to be entertaining. That is quite literally their job in a nutshell. I'm not sure who would want to sit through any form of entertainment where the bad guys are dull.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 21:43:23 GMT -5
you're not supposed to be entertained by heels I disagree, plenty of great heels have had flamboyant, over-the-top personalities that were incredibly entertaining, and made you want to see them get beaten up even more. A small example of this that has always stuck out to me: Brock Lesnar is one of the few modern heels I can think of that would get FURIOUS at the crowd for booing him. He'd thrash around and make angry faces and pout, and guess what? It got him even more heat. That mentality needs to come back. Reward the fans for booing you, make them boo you more. Not this defeatist "just bore them to death" attitude they have with heels these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 21:46:17 GMT -5
I disagree, plenty of great heels have had flamboyant, over-the-top personalities that were incredibly entertaining, and made you want to see them get beaten up even more. A small example of this that has always stuck out to me: Brock Lesnar is one of the few modern heels I can think of that would get FURIOUS at the crowd for booing him. He'd thrash around and make angry faces and pout, and guess what? It got him even more heat. That mentality needs to come back. Reward the fans for booing you, make them boo you more. Not this defeatist "just bore them to death" attitude they have with heels these days. Or Vickie Guerrero. How does she harness an angry audience? One single, obnoxious "EXCUSE ME!!!!!! I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY~!"
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Nov 12, 2013 22:08:49 GMT -5
you're not supposed to be entertained by heels Um, yes you are. Everyone on the roster is supposed to be entertaining. That is quite literally their job in a nutshell. I'm not sure who would want to sit through any form of entertainment where the bad guys are dull. once they do something wrong I'm only paying attention to them to see their heads bashed in. course I consider a lot of the stuff heels do anyway boring. I mean listening to a heel talk about how great he is is supposed to be entertaining?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 22:53:20 GMT -5
What's especially bizarre about it is that its like the reverse of typical wrestlers where instead of evolving and developing so many guys start off with defined characters but then lose everything. You just summed up one of the biggest problems I have with WWE better than I ever could.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Nov 12, 2013 23:30:08 GMT -5
you're not supposed to be entertained by heels I always hate that argument. Sorry but you ARE meant to be entertained by them, not bored stiff. No other form of entertainment decides "hey, the bad guy is meant to be completely hated. Let's generic him up". Imagine if they decided to make Darth Vader a generic guy in a suit who did nothing entertaining whatsoever. It would suck. Just like zapping away everything entertaining that a heel has in a lame attempt to get them heat sucks. It's lazy writing. Heels should be entertaining, as should the faces. Nobody should be sat there bored shitless because the WWE creative team thinks genericcing up their heels is a good way to get heat or stop them getting a few cheers. In almost every form of entertainment, the heels have been memorable and entertaining yet you've wanted to see them get defeated either because of their actions OR, because the face has been relatable and more likeable. Yet WWE fails with that too by making most of it's faces to be dull as dishwater.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 0:01:00 GMT -5
Remember Default from WWF Attitude for N64? That's most of the roster nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Nov 13, 2013 0:50:20 GMT -5
Part of the problem is the way the wrestling has trained its fans to not enjoy hating someone, especially older fans. You're supposed to boo people because it's fun to get into the show. But the WWE always has this weird aura, like it's embarrassing to actually get into the show and hate the people you're "supposed to" hate. That problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is zero good reason to actually like any of the faces.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 13, 2013 1:10:14 GMT -5
They've ruined him, they've completely ruined him. What was a completely hilarious and obnoxious gimmick is gone, replaced with the all black "serious" Damien Sandow. Why? They took away everything that made him stand out, and now he's just like every other heel. If there's one major flaw with the WWE, it's the fact that when they push heels, they take away everything that's funny and entertaining about them. It happened with Del Rio, it happened with Cody Rhodes, and now it's happened to Damien Sandow. you're not supposed to be entertained by heels Except, with the exception of a few guys like Warrior and arguably Rey if you want to call him a top act, every top face in the last 30+ years in WWE got over as a heel so entertaining, the company had to turn them babyface. Hogan. Piper. Savage. Undertaker. Bret. HBK. Stone Cold. The Rock. Mick Foley. HHH. Angle. Lesnar. John Cena. Batista. Randy Orton. CM Punk. Daniel Bryan. Notice a theme? Heels are WWE mega face developmental pools. They have been for decades.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 13, 2013 1:14:10 GMT -5
you're not supposed to be entertained by heels Except, with the exception of a few guys like Warrior and arguably Rey if you want to call him a top act, every top face in the last 30+ years in WWE got over as a heel so entertaining, the company had to turn them babyface. Hogan. Piper. Savage. Undertaker. Bret. HBK. Stone Cold. The Rock. Mick Foley. HHH. Angle. Lesnar. John Cena. Batista. Randy Orton. CM Punk. Daniel Bryan. Notice a theme? Heels are WWE mega face developmental pools. They have been for decades. I hate this formula, because it seems like WWE puts zero effort into actually getting a face over. All the creative effort seems to go into heel acts. I think Ryback was the first guy in a long time to move up the ranks as a face, and they screwed that up.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 13, 2013 1:50:42 GMT -5
Except, with the exception of a few guys like Warrior and arguably Rey if you want to call him a top act, every top face in the last 30+ years in WWE got over as a heel so entertaining, the company had to turn them babyface. Hogan. Piper. Savage. Undertaker. Bret. HBK. Stone Cold. The Rock. Mick Foley. HHH. Angle. Lesnar. John Cena. Batista. Randy Orton. CM Punk. Daniel Bryan. Notice a theme? Heels are WWE mega face developmental pools. They have been for decades. I hate this formula, because it seems like WWE puts zero effort into actually getting a face over. All the creative effort seems to go into heel acts. I think Ryback was the first guy in a long time to move up the ranks as a face, and they screwed that up. I don't think it's deliberate. It just works out that way in hindsight. Villains are more fun to play. And a great villain with charisma often steals the show. Look at Ledger's Joker. He overshadowed everyone in Dark Knight. And there were others in that that gave good performances, but no one really remembers that. It's the same in WWE. Piper was so off the wall with Snuka and Mr. T --who had zero qualities to counter his entertaining mania-- that people started cheering Hot Rod. Same with Savage. Hell, Hulk Hogan was a heel in AWA until crowds just started loving him. And Cena only exists in today's ham-fisted platform because he got over initially as a rebel. Not a do-gooder. It's happened more times than not because it is theater. And there is a certain level of vicarious thrill-seeking through wrestlers who exhibit unacceptable levels of conceit and a disregard for certain societal conventions - to the point wherein these same scoundrels often become popular and antiheroes. Much the same way bank robbers and mobsters become more popular than the Feds and the government in the late 30', because the general public knew that the "good guys" were just as rotten and that they had taken from them; and here were guys sticking it to these false idols and thumbing their noises at them. In real life, normal people can't act out in outlandish and cartoony ways. But wrestlers can. And that's what wrestling is all about -- watching from a detached view as heroes and villains clash, and through their actions or reactions, you decide who you prefer. It's modern day gladiatorial games, worked for our enjoyment. The company may WANT someone to be popular, but they cannot manufacture it. Not completely. (Although they do manage to make some people buy into their propaganda. Luckily the majority has the ability to see through their machinations, though.). So, in closing: Villains are often more entertaining because they play larger than life roles with better lines, and more gusto, while the babyface often recites the same tired spiel and dog and pony show. Blame WWE and Vince especially. He writes his good guys these days like he's a 6 year old kid. "He's big and strong, so that means he's the best!"
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Nov 13, 2013 2:01:20 GMT -5
My least favorite part is his finisher. Not only is it a full-nelson slam, "he calls it the 'You're Welcome'". NO, he doesn't, shut up Cole. The writers were having their daily boring-off and that name won. I just really hope Cole just doesn't say that every match on top of the Kobito-Akiet call or however the f*** you spell it.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 13, 2013 2:13:33 GMT -5
I hate this formula, because it seems like WWE puts zero effort into actually getting a face over. All the creative effort seems to go into heel acts. I think Ryback was the first guy in a long time to move up the ranks as a face, and they screwed that up. I don't think it's deliberate. It just works out that way in hindsight. Villains are more fun to play. And a great villain with charisma often steals the show. Look at Ledger's Joker. He overshadowed everyone in Dark Knight. And there were others in that that gave good performances, but no one really remembers that. It's the same in WWE. Piper was so off the wall with Snuka and Mr. T --who had zero qualities to counter his entertaining mania-- that people started cheering Hot Rod. Same with Savage. Hell, Hulk Hogan was a heel in AWA until crowds just started loving him. And Cena only exists in today's ham-fisted platform because he got over initially as a rebel. Not a do-gooder. It's happened more times than not because it is theater. And there is a certain level of vicarious thrill-seeking through wrestlers who exhibit unacceptable levels of conceit and a disregard for certain societal conventions - to the point wherein these same scoundrels often become popular and antiheroes. Much the same way bank robbers and mobsters become more popular than the Feds and the government in the late 30', because the general public knew that the "good guys" were just as rotten and that they had taken from them; and here were guys sticking it to these false idols and thumbing their noises at them. In real life, normal people can't act out in outlandish and cartoony ways. But wrestlers can. And that's what wrestling is all about -- watching from a detached view as heroes and villains clash, and through their actions or reactions, you decide who you prefer. It's modern day gladiatorial games, worked for our enjoyment. The company may WANT someone to be popular, but they cannot manufacture it. Not completely. (Although they do manage to make some people buy into their propaganda. Luckily the majority has the ability to see through their machinations, though.). So, in closing: Villains are often more entertaining because they play larger than life roles with better lines, and more gusto, while the babyface often recites the same tired spiel and dog and pony show. Blame WWE and Vince especially. He writes his good guys these days like he's a 6 year old kid. "He's big and strong, so that means he's the best!" It does seem intentional to me. Yes, villains are more fun to play, but why doesn't WWE give someone a fun FACE gimmick to play (fun, but not necessarily Santino levels of over the top). A guy like Damien Sandow had all his little quirks and frills. But what does Kofi Kingston have? What does Evan Bourne have? What does Yoshi Tatsu have? Even guys who DID do the get over as a heel thing and then turn face like Cody Rhodes (He's a lot more entertaining on the JBL and Cole Show than he is on actual WWE TV), Dolph Ziggler (again, does better on the Internet), Justin Gabriel, Tyson Kidd (we've seen more of him on Total Divas than on WWE programming), Alex Riley (has lots of personality, but no true outlet to show it aside from shitting the bed on commentary), and Zack Ryder (has catchphrases, and what else?) have little to work with.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Nov 13, 2013 2:25:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I wonder who's behind this terrible gimmick transformation.
We should go ask "The Connecticut Blueblood" Hunter Hearst Helmsley. Maybe he'll know.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Nov 13, 2013 3:21:42 GMT -5
I'm really disappointed with his direction. I was sure he was going to cash in on Cena at the PPV, win and have a short main event run. A comedy heel can be a lot of fun in the main event, like King Booker. It would've gave Cena more time to heal with a feud waiting for him when he came back.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 13, 2013 3:24:50 GMT -5
I'm really disappointed with his direction. I was sure he was going to cash in on Cena at the PPV, win and have a short main event run. A comedy heel can be a lot of fun in the main event, like King Booker. It would've gave Cena more time to heal with a feud waiting for him when he came back. I kind of prefer it this way. I think winning the World Title, and then going on to feud with midcarders and being the 4th or 5th most important thing going on would've hurt him more. Cena is actually closing SmackDown as WHC. If Sandow were champ, the Authority angle would still be all over both shows.
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Nov 13, 2013 3:37:40 GMT -5
I'm really disappointed with his direction. I was sure he was going to cash in on Cena at the PPV, win and have a short main event run. A comedy heel can be a lot of fun in the main event, like King Booker. It would've gave Cena more time to heal with a feud waiting for him when he came back. I kind of prefer it this way. I think winning the World Title, and then going on to feud with midcarders and being the 4th or 5th most important thing going on would've hurt him more. Cena is actually closing SmackDown as WHC. If Sandow were champ, the Authority angle would still be all over both shows. If you read the spoilers he isn't. Besides you're using hypothetical worst case scenarios. I'm sure he would've been main eventing Smackdown with high profile matches on Raw. And there's plenty of faces to occupy him before Cena's return - Cody, Ziggler, Miz, Kofi. And who's to say they wouldn't have involved Sandow in the authority angle? He's already shown his support for them when they fired Cody. As it stands I have zero interest in Cena beating Del Rio again and I know I'm not the only one.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Nov 13, 2013 4:01:39 GMT -5
I kind of prefer it this way. I think winning the World Title, and then going on to feud with midcarders and being the 4th or 5th most important thing going on would've hurt him more. Cena is actually closing SmackDown as WHC. If Sandow were champ, the Authority angle would still be all over both shows. If you read the spoilers he isn't. Besides you're using hypothetical worst case scenarios. I'm sure he would've been main eventing Smackdown with high profile matches on Raw. And there's plenty of faces to occupy him before Cena's return - Cody, Ziggler, Miz, Kofi. And who's to say they wouldn't have involved Sandow in the authority angle? He's already shown his support for them when they fired Cody. As it stands I have zero interest in Cena beating Del Rio again and I know I'm not the only one. Because the World Heavyweight Title pretty much exists in a bubble. That's the reason Cena has it to begin with, because they're trying to wean him out of the spotlight while keeping him in a relatively high spot. And because the WHC is pretty much in another dimension, it would be a death sentence for Cody. It would be the new glass ceiling for him. Hell, Miz's burial is above the WHC. And both Miz and Ziggler need to either be pushed all the way, and into WWE title contention or just end their suffering, and pull the plug on any pretenses of them being main eventers. A WHC program would just be a slap in the face for Ziggler or Miz at this point. It would just feel like "sorry for burying you, have a World Title feud so we can pretend you're still important." Kofi is one of those guys I was talking about who will drag Sandow down and make the title look even more insignificant than it already is by feuding with him. No way is a Kofi/Sandow feud getting anywhere near top billing. It would be even worse if Cena is present and NOT chasing the WWE Title. It's better this way because the WHC is pretty much "unified" with "the John Cena Championship". They don't have to hastily put a title feud together because Cena's booking contains it. Sandow will be better off chasing Cena for the title than he would actually holding it and curtain jerking with it.
|
|