Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 20:32:21 GMT -5
Yeah, we can't have a wrestler getting over now can we. The WWE is baffling at times. Cesaro was over because of the swing, why keep him heel? Turn him face. I think the problem is that pretty much any wrestler who is "good" gets cheered nowadays, and of they turned everyone face, they'd have no heels. It's like you have to legitimately suck as a performer (or for people to think that) to get heel heat nowadays. Wait. So you mean instead of having a company where some people are popular and some people aren't, we'd have a company where everyone is popular? THE HORROR!!!!!! ...but no, really, I don't think having a roster that is primarily "face" is a bad thing. Let some people be evil if that gets them over. Let some other people be good if that gets them over.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Jul 27, 2014 20:33:36 GMT -5
I think the problem is that pretty much any wrestler who is "good" gets cheered nowadays, and of they turned everyone face, they'd have no heels. It's like you have to legitimately suck as a performer (or for people to think that) to get heel heat nowadays. Wait. So you mean instead of having a company where some people are popular and some people aren't, we'd have a company where everyone is popular? THE HORROR!!!!!! ...but no, really, I don't think having a roster that is primarily "face" is a bad thing. Let some people be evil if that gets them over. Let some other people be good if that gets them over. that makes it real hard to write the stories
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 27, 2014 20:38:45 GMT -5
Wait. So you mean instead of having a company where some people are popular and some people aren't, we'd have a company where everyone is popular? THE HORROR!!!!!! ...but no, really, I don't think having a roster that is primarily "face" is a bad thing. Let some people be evil if that gets them over. Let some other people be good if that gets them over. that makes it real hard to write the stories How? By having heels and faces that have developed organically through connection with the crowd? That's how wrestling has always been booked It's Wrestling Storytelling 101
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Jul 27, 2014 20:40:17 GMT -5
Don't worry, I'm sure they will still feed him to Brock.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 27, 2014 20:47:00 GMT -5
I think the problem is that pretty much any wrestler who is "good" gets cheered nowadays, and of they turned everyone face, they'd have no heels. It's like you have to legitimately suck as a performer (or for people to think that) to get heel heat nowadays. Wait. So you mean instead of having a company where some people are popular and some people aren't, we'd have a company where everyone is popular? THE HORROR!!!!!! ...but no, really, I don't think having a roster that is primarily "face" is a bad thing. Let some people be evil if that gets them over. Let some other people be good if that gets them over. Everyone CAN'T be popular, because there still has to be this hierarchy because the WWE is run by greedy carnies, and so there will always be a sense of someone winning the Game Of Who Gets Pushed and someone else losing. And the audience is so insecure about seeming like those dumb marks who don't know wrestling is fake, they aren't willing to suspend disbelief. So they actually DO have to end up getting worked, and convincing people that someone sucks as a performer but is still unfairly getting pushed is an effective way to work smarts. The real problem is the whole "individuals getting over" model instead of, y'know, "a cast working together to put on a good show" model, but they'll never change that. It's New Kayfabe all the way.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Jul 27, 2014 20:57:12 GMT -5
The problem with this is that when the WWE does eventually pull the trigger and turn Cesaro face, the fans will have likely long since stopped caring about it, and Cesaro will be the one to take the blame for not being instantly over, which the WWE will in turn drop Cesaro even further down the card. Because WWE booking is never the one in the wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 21:57:01 GMT -5
Wait. So you mean instead of having a company where some people are popular and some people aren't, we'd have a company where everyone is popular? THE HORROR!!!!!! ...but no, really, I don't think having a roster that is primarily "face" is a bad thing. Let some people be evil if that gets them over. Let some other people be good if that gets them over. Everyone CAN'T be popular, because there still has to be this hierarchy because the WWE is run by greedy carnies, and so there will always be a sense of someone winning the Game Of Who Gets Pushed and someone else losing. And the audience is so insecure about seeming like those dumb marks who don't know wrestling is fake, they aren't willing to suspend disbelief. So they actually DO have to end up getting worked, and convincing people that someone sucks as a performer but is still unfairly getting pushed is an effective way to work smarts. The real problem is the whole "individuals getting over" model instead of, y'know, "a cast working together to put on a good show" model, but they'll never change that. It's New Kayfabe all the way. I'm speaking purely in hypotheticals. There's hundreds of things I'd change about WWE if I could, that's just me stating one of the things I think would be a change for the better.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,065
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Jul 27, 2014 21:58:25 GMT -5
Wait. So you mean instead of having a company where some people are popular and some people aren't, we'd have a company where everyone is popular? THE HORROR!!!!!! ...but no, really, I don't think having a roster that is primarily "face" is a bad thing. Let some people be evil if that gets them over. Let some other people be good if that gets them over. Everyone CAN'T be popular, because there still has to be this hierarchy because the WWE is run by greedy carnies, and so there will always be a sense of someone winning the Game Of Who Gets Pushed and someone else losing. And the audience is so insecure about seeming like those dumb marks who don't know wrestling is fake, they aren't willing to suspend disbelief. So they actually DO have to end up getting worked, and convincing people that someone sucks as a performer but is still unfairly getting pushed is an effective way to work smarts. The real problem is the whole "individuals getting over" model instead of, y'know, "a cast working together to put on a good show" model, but they'll never change that. It's New Kayfabe all the way. As true as this is, in an era of merch sales being important, who will be the one willing to take the hit to be a character that can't sell t-shirts, that can't sell action figures, just for the sake of putting on a better storyline?
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,246
|
Post by bob on Jul 27, 2014 22:14:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 27, 2014 22:21:24 GMT -5
Wait. So you mean instead of having a company where some people are popular and some people aren't, we'd have a company where everyone is popular? THE HORROR!!!!!! ...but no, really, I don't think having a roster that is primarily "face" is a bad thing. Let some people be evil if that gets them over. Let some other people be good if that gets them over. Everyone CAN'T be popular, because there still has to be this hierarchy because the WWE is run by greedy carnies, and so there will always be a sense of someone winning the Game Of Who Gets Pushed and someone else losing. And the audience is so insecure about seeming like those dumb marks who don't know wrestling is fake, they aren't willing to suspend disbelief. So they actually DO have to end up getting worked, and convincing people that someone sucks as a performer but is still unfairly getting pushed is an effective way to work smarts. The real problem is the whole "individuals getting over" model instead of, y'know, "a cast working together to put on a good show" model, but they'll never change that. It's New Kayfabe all the way. It's a very interesting issue. Hierarchies are very important in wrestling; you're supposed to know who "the man" is, or who the top guys are, who the mid level guys are, who the lower card guys are, etc. etc. etc. It's very important in setting up a believable environment and giving characters the crowd gets behind a goal to build toward, and also helps to construct the overall flow of a wrestling card; not every match can be a dramatic main event feud match, so sometimes you need those midcarders to go out there and be, well, good midcarders. However, I agree with you totally on the notion that this is supposed to be an "ensemble" process; everybody knowing their part, playing their role. Instead, WWE has cultivated the awful "you're not important if you're not main eventing" mentality, so why should anybody ever care about any midcard feuds? If this were, say, the late 80s, and Cesaro were doing this, they'd be taking steps to ensure he was in a feud with a hot babyface, that his not doing the swing was integrated into his character, etc. Instead, it's "don't get over now, wait until the writers are ready!", even though by the time the writers are ready the fans won't really care anymore.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 27, 2014 23:28:44 GMT -5
It's a very interesting issue. Hierarchies are very important in wrestling; you're supposed to know who "the man" is, or who the top guys are, who the mid level guys are, who the lower card guys are, etc. etc. etc. It's very important in setting up a believable environment and giving characters the crowd gets behind a goal to build toward, and also helps to construct the overall flow of a wrestling card; not every match can be a dramatic main event feud match, so sometimes you need those midcarders to go out there and be, well, good midcarders. I've actually never understood this. Wrestling... at least in the WWE... isn't card-based anymore. It's been a weekly TV show for decades. The point of building low, middle, and high level wrestlers just doesn't need to be a thing. The same storyline doesn't have to main-event every show, and in fact it's outright counterproductive to try to do that, given how compressed things are. Besides, one of the most irritating and dull things about the WWE is what foregone conclusions most of the matches are; you can tell who'll win just by comparing the relative tiers of the guys involved. Why do that to your audience? What doesn't make sense about a roster where any guy could believably beat any other guy? That's so obviously the most exciting and unpredictable way to have it, it's nuts they don't do it that way, Personally, I think being stuck in the carny mentality is most of the reason. Actually, no, being able to exploit and chisel your on-air talent is most of it. Actually, they probably tie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 8:12:22 GMT -5
It's a very interesting issue. Hierarchies are very important in wrestling; you're supposed to know who "the man" is, or who the top guys are, who the mid level guys are, who the lower card guys are, etc. etc. etc. It's very important in setting up a believable environment and giving characters the crowd gets behind a goal to build toward, and also helps to construct the overall flow of a wrestling card; not every match can be a dramatic main event feud match, so sometimes you need those midcarders to go out there and be, well, good midcarders. I've actually never understood this. Wrestling... at least in the WWE... isn't card-based anymore. It's been a weekly TV show for decades. The point of building low, middle, and high level wrestlers just doesn't need to be a thing. The same storyline doesn't have to main-event every show, and in fact it's outright counterproductive to try to do that, given how compressed things are. Besides, one of the most irritating and dull things about the WWE is what foregone conclusions most of the matches are; you can tell who'll win just by comparing the relative tiers of the guys involved. Why do that to your audience? What doesn't make sense about a roster where any guy could believably beat any other guy? That's so obviously the most exciting and unpredictable way to have it, it's nuts they don't do it that way, Personally, I think being stuck in the carny mentality is most of the reason. Actually, no, being able to exploit and chisel your on-air talent is most of it. Actually, they probably tie. Pro wrestling at its core, a simulated combat sport where they compete for titles, lends itself to having that hierarchy. You're going to have a handful of fighters that are the best and rarely lose, and a tier after them, and so on and so on. It could/should be done with more nuance, but the basic concept is here to stay unless they completely de-emphasize the competition aspect or ditch the championship aspect. The problem is that the top half of WWE's roster works so many televised matches that if they were going to book it like a sport, it would have to be modeled after basketball or baseball (or any other sport that has plays 60+ games a year). And in those sports, yeah, John Cena would lose to Jimmy Uso once in a while. He'd lose 20 times a year, it's the nature of the beast, you have that many fights you're going to get caught slipping at some point. But since it's a FIGHT, if he loses to someone lesser than him, he's a PUSSY and fans will stop believing in him. Over-exposure of the product has f***ed the booking and made it super-predictable 99% of the time, even in non-squash matches.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 28, 2014 9:29:31 GMT -5
*strolls into thread* So we are once again taking this as absolute fact? 'Kay! *strolls out of thread*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 9:37:32 GMT -5
Everyone CAN'T be popular, because there still has to be this hierarchy because the WWE is run by greedy carnies, and so there will always be a sense of someone winning the Game Of Who Gets Pushed and someone else losing. And the audience is so insecure about seeming like those dumb marks who don't know wrestling is fake, they aren't willing to suspend disbelief. So they actually DO have to end up getting worked, and convincing people that someone sucks as a performer but is still unfairly getting pushed is an effective way to work smarts. The real problem is the whole "individuals getting over" model instead of, y'know, "a cast working together to put on a good show" model, but they'll never change that. It's New Kayfabe all the way. As true as this is, in an era of merch sales being important, who will be the one willing to take the hit to be a character that can't sell t-shirts, that can't sell action figures, just for the sake of putting on a better storyline? Chris Jericho and R-Truth are two guys that refused to have any merch during their heel runs. Jericho did later but in the beginning of the SRS phase, no shirts or anything. And Truth just wanted to be pissed that ZACK RYDER GOT A T-SHIRT!?
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jul 28, 2014 9:39:56 GMT -5
They wanted the guy to be a heel and told him to stop doing a babyface move
Kudos to actually trying to get guys to act like actual heels nowadays
|
|
|
Post by Sponsored by Groose Wipes on Jul 28, 2014 9:46:52 GMT -5
I don't think WWE wants a case where they have a super big heel being cheered for no matter what (Example CM Punk). The problem is fans are going to cheer for who they want to cheer for, so people are still going to like and cheer for heels like Cesaro and Ambrose.
I kind of get it but at the same time it's really strange that they tell a heel not to do something that's getting over in a babyface way, yet someone like Sheamus does heel things as a face and nothing is said about it.
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Shamrocks on Jul 28, 2014 10:23:31 GMT -5
I really hope "Cesaro will turn face soon!" isn't the new "Sheamus will turn heel soon!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 11:11:50 GMT -5
I don't think WWE wants a case where they have a super big heel being cheered for no matter what (Example CM Punk). The problem is fans are going to cheer for who they want to cheer for, so people are still going to like and cheer for heels like Cesaro and Ambrose. I kind of get it but at the same time it's really strange that they tell a heel not to do something that's getting over in a babyface way, yet someone like Sheamus does heel things as a face and nothing is said about it. The sad state of Sheamus, not even people backstage care to pay attention to what he's doing.
|
|
Phil Parent
El Dandy
Your Favourite Teacher
Posts: 8,508
|
Post by Phil Parent on Jul 28, 2014 11:19:52 GMT -5
If true, they think he can start to swing people again when they need a top face and the pop will return.
The thing is, in wrestling, you can't have everybody be 100% over 100% of the time, because if they are, then there's no where to go, you can't follow it.
Now, they know Cesaro can get over, and they know how to get him over. So he's sort of on the waiting list for that top spot push.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jul 28, 2014 13:09:07 GMT -5
I've actually never understood this. Wrestling... at least in the WWE... isn't card-based anymore. It's been a weekly TV show for decades. The point of building low, middle, and high level wrestlers just doesn't need to be a thing. The same storyline doesn't have to main-event every show, and in fact it's outright counterproductive to try to do that, given how compressed things are. Besides, one of the most irritating and dull things about the WWE is what foregone conclusions most of the matches are; you can tell who'll win just by comparing the relative tiers of the guys involved. Why do that to your audience? What doesn't make sense about a roster where any guy could believably beat any other guy? That's so obviously the most exciting and unpredictable way to have it, it's nuts they don't do it that way, Personally, I think being stuck in the carny mentality is most of the reason. Actually, no, being able to exploit and chisel your on-air talent is most of it. Actually, they probably tie. Pro wrestling at its core, a simulated combat sport where they compete for titles, lends itself to having that hierarchy. You're going to have a handful of fighters that are the best and rarely lose, and a tier after them, and so on and so on. Not trying to be obtuse, but I honestly don't see the connection. Why does the competition aspect require that some people almost never lose and other almost always lose? What's the connection? You can easily have fake competition AND a balanced roster. The only downside I can REALLY see is that it'd screw up Undefeated Monster storylines, to which I say: good, those suck anyway.
|
|