|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 1, 2015 22:32:35 GMT -5
Every other form of scripted entertainment knows how to use heroes and villains, so why can't WWE? Most don't have a live audience trying to change the narrative weekly nevermind those who just do the opposite of WWE regardless. Yeah, and having a crowd attend WWE events is a relatively recent development, right?
|
|
|
Post by TOK Hehe'd Around & Found Out on Apr 1, 2015 22:42:14 GMT -5
The issue isn't face/heel dynamics, its the lac of motivation that nearly anyone has. There's nothing behind the vast majority of feuds because there's nothing behind most wrestlers. How many faces "love to have fun!"? How many heels "turned their back on the fans" after a turn? Only a select few actually are given substantial character traits that can be used for multiple feuds, so most of the time there's no heat built into the matchups.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Apr 2, 2015 4:07:25 GMT -5
This isn't heel and face needing to stop. This just means WWE needs better writing.
They're booing Sheamus? Turn him heel! They're cheering Bryan? Turn him face!
It really is just that simple, and the WWE are f***ing idiots at times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 5:36:24 GMT -5
Most don't have a live audience trying to change the narrative weekly nevermind those who just do the opposite of WWE regardless. Yeah, and having a crowd attend WWE events is a relatively recent development, right? THAT type of crowd is, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by joediego on Apr 2, 2015 7:36:42 GMT -5
I think you're confusing what has actually happened -
Lesnar has been booked as a heel all the way up to basically one week before Mania; he's now turned face. The only people he's garnered a majority of cheers against is Cena, Big Show and Reigns (who were/are all failed babyfaces) and Rollins (who is a heel). In his feuds with Punk, Triple H and The Undertaker he was booked as a heel and was booed by between 60 and 95% of the audience.
Cena sells T-Shirts so they're content to let his character completely fail. He hasn't transcended anything - the WWE would LOVE the crowd to be on his side, they just refuse to adapt to the fact that 75%+ aren't. They didn't want a mixed reaction between American hero John Cena and Russian army invading Rusev, they wanted 100% of the people to be on Cena's side.
The only thing that exists is either FAILED babyfaces and FAILED heels or SUCCESSFUL babyfaces and SUCCESSFUL heels.
Current roster grouped by those 4 categories:
SUCCESSFUL (to some degree, not necessarily 100%) BABYFACES:
Daniel Bryan Dolph Ziggler Brock Lesnar Mizdow Goldust Usos Ryback Jack Swagger R-Truth Mark Henry Randy Orton Zack Ryder Erick Rowan
FAILED BABYFACES:
John Cena Roman Reigns Matadores Kofi Kingston Big E Xavier Woods
SUCCESSFUL HEELS:
Seth Rollins Stardust BNB Adam Rose Bray Wyatt Bo Dallas Fandango Heath Slater Luke Harper Ascension Titus O'Neill Rusev The Miz
FAILED HEELS:
Cesaro Tyson Kidd
Now sometimes a successful heel like Rusev (who has been booed in most of his matches) will come up against a failed babyface like Cena and end up being cheered. This isn't Rusev's fault, it's Cena's.
So when a character has failed to garner the reaction the WWE is looking for, they can either turn them, tweak them or leave them as they are.
In the case of Cena (and possibly Reigns) the company will decide that even though their character is failing there is a bigger upside to keeping them as they are. Cena has a clear upside (even though I disagree with it) in that he still shifts merch to the kiddies. Reigns doesn't have this, so it's likely they're hoping they can weather the storm.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,589
|
Post by Bo Rida on Apr 2, 2015 8:29:10 GMT -5
A match should have a heel and a face but I think a wrestler as completely one alignment is outdated and should go. Yep I think if a character remains consistent and/or the writing is strong enough then a wrestler should be able to temporarily switch between heel and face depending on who they're fighting or the storyline without any long-term damage. Character consistencyBNB is ideal for this type of role as there's no reason he couldn't have played a face against let's say Rollins by taunting him over a failed cash-in before being a bit more tweenerish against Kidd by saying dogs are better than cats before more traditional heeling it up against Ambrose. I'm pretty sure the crowd would cheer for BNB taking the fight to Rollins be split on dogs vs cats and would support Ambrose against him. Temporary alignment switchesAdrian Neville's recent descent into dishonourable heeldom before re-discovering his honour against Owens is the sort of short term switch they should do more often. I could go on but one final example could have been Bray Wyatt turning more and more face like after he was gaining support against Cena before switching gears to a more "be careful what you wish for" type of situation.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 2, 2015 12:13:18 GMT -5
Yeah, and having a crowd attend WWE events is a relatively recent development, right? THAT type of crowd is, yeah. No, it isn't. The fans have always been vocal about their opinions. In 1992 they pissed all over the end of the Royal Rumble, which required WWE to pathetically edit the footage for home release. In 1993/4, they made it clear they didn't rate Lex Luger as the new chosen one. In 1996/7 they showed WWE what they thought about "Rocky Maivia". What's changed is that WWE have more frequently ignored the fans in recent years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 12:19:04 GMT -5
THAT type of crowd is, yeah. No, it isn't. The fans have always been vocal about their opinions. In 1992 they pissed all over the end of the Royal Rumble, which required WWE to pathetically edit the footage for home release. In 1993/4, they made it clear they didn't rate Lex Luger as the new chosen one. In 1996/7 they showed WWE what they thought about "Rocky Maivia". What's changed is that WWE have more frequently ignored the fans in recent years. I always thought it was hilarious/sad how WWE has the kind of instant viewer feedback at live shows that other TV sitcoms/drams end up paying tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars in market research for. Most test audiences are examined on a second by second basis. WWE has this for their live shows and people are PAYING them for it, but largely they seem to ignore it or blantantly go, "You told us you didn't like this, so here's MORE of it and we're going to basically call you stupid for not liking it."
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Apr 2, 2015 12:20:13 GMT -5
THAT type of crowd is, yeah. No, it isn't. The fans have always been vocal about their opinions. In 1992 they pissed all over the end of the Royal Rumble, which required WWE to pathetically edit the footage for home release. In 1993/4, they made it clear they didn't rate Lex Luger as the new chosen one. In 1996/7 they showed WWE what they thought about "Rocky Maivia". What's changed is that WWE have more frequently ignored the fans in recent years. Imagine if their mentality in recent years was prevalent in 1997? Rocky Maivia would still get forced on audiences, and he'd never ever get the chance of becoming The Rock at all since he'd be pretty much damaged goods.
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Apr 2, 2015 12:21:53 GMT -5
Most don't have a live audience trying to change the narrative weekly nevermind those who just do the opposite of WWE regardless. Yeah, and having a crowd attend WWE events is a relatively recent development, right? The crowds these days want to make themselves part of the show.
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Apr 2, 2015 12:29:56 GMT -5
THAT type of crowd is, yeah. No, it isn't. The fans have always been vocal about their opinions. In 1992 they pissed all over the end of the Royal Rumble, which required WWE to pathetically edit the footage for home release. In 1993/4, they made it clear they didn't rate Lex Luger as the new chosen one. In 1996/7 they showed WWE what they thought about "Rocky Maivia". What's changed is that WWE have more frequently ignored the fans in recent years. It's not even a thing exclusive to WWE. The original crowd hijacking would be the Great American Bash '91, where the crowd was so pissed about the Flair situation, combined with one of the worst PPV cards ever, that they bombarded the main event with We Want Flair chants. And Flair was a heel, no less.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 2, 2015 12:58:29 GMT -5
Yeah, and having a crowd attend WWE events is a relatively recent development, right? The crowds these days want to make themselves part of the show. Sure they do By cheering for who they like, apparently, and booing those they don't. The nerve!
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Apr 2, 2015 12:59:19 GMT -5
Yeah, and having a crowd attend WWE events is a relatively recent development, right? The crowds these days want to make themselves part of the show. ...and? Crowd participation has been a wrestling mainstay for many decades now.
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Apr 2, 2015 14:42:41 GMT -5
The crowds these days want to make themselves part of the show. Sure they do By cheering for who they like, apparently, and booing those they don't. The nerve! I'm talking about the "we are awesome" and the horrible chants being yelled at The Bella Twins. The ones who make it a point to go after guys that they don't care, because the precious internet says they're not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Apr 2, 2015 14:46:32 GMT -5
The crowds these days want to make themselves part of the show. ...and? Crowd participation has been a wrestling mainstay for many decades now. It has been and always should be. Now you have people going out of their way to make themselves part of the show. If you went to an NBA game and started yelling vulgar stuff at the cheerleaders, you'd be kicked out.
|
|
Jeff Mangum PI
Hank Scorpio
11 herbs and spices for the rest of eternity; Is Number Two. Number Two!
The 2nd Coming
Posts: 6,957
|
Post by Jeff Mangum PI on Apr 2, 2015 14:52:38 GMT -5
There is no such thing as being a heel anymore. If Fandango snapped one day and did.....i dunno, broke Darren Young's leg out of anger in a match on Main Event, the the audience wouldn't boo, they would just hum his theme or something.
The only way to actually get boos from a modern wrestling crowd is if the crowd just thinks you f***ing suck as a wrestler.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 2, 2015 15:11:53 GMT -5
Sure they do By cheering for who they like, apparently, and booing those they don't. The nerve! I'm talking about the "we are awesome" and the horrible chants being yelled at The Bella Twins. The ones who make it a point to go after guys that they don't care, because the precious internet says they're not good enough. The "we are awesome" chant happens about once a year. The way people are complaining about it, you'd think it was happening on a weekly basis. Fans have been chanting sexist shit at women since about 1997. It's nothing new. And again, fans have been booing guys they don't like since before the internet even existed.
|
|
|
Post by MC Blowfish on Apr 2, 2015 15:43:07 GMT -5
I'm talking about the "we are awesome" and the horrible chants being yelled at The Bella Twins. The ones who make it a point to go after guys that they don't care, because the precious internet says they're not good enough. The "we are awesome" chant happens about once a year. The way people are complaining about it, you'd think it was happening on a weekly basis. Fans have been chanting sexist shit at women since about 1997. It's nothing new. And again, fans have been booing guys they don't like since before the internet even existed. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I've been to shows in the 80s and the 90s. I've watched enough shows to know that before the Attitude era and ECW. The crowd didn't respond if they didn't care. You had faces that were cheered and heels that were booed. If you had guys coming out that no one cared, the audience barely made a noise. Just because people have been yelling sexist chants since 1997, that doesn't excuse it nor does it make it right.
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Apr 2, 2015 15:45:15 GMT -5
There is no such thing as being a heel anymore. If Fandango snapped one day and did.....i dunno, broke Darren Young's leg out of anger in a match on Main Event, the the audience wouldn't boo, they would just hum his theme or something. The only way to actually get boos from a modern wrestling crowd is if the crowd just thinks you f***ing suck as a wrestler. Or if you kick the asses of someone the crowd actually likes (i.e. Sheamus getting heel heat for attacking Bryan and Dolph on Raw).
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Apr 2, 2015 16:27:48 GMT -5
The "we are awesome" chant happens about once a year. The way people are complaining about it, you'd think it was happening on a weekly basis. Fans have been chanting sexist shit at women since about 1997. It's nothing new. And again, fans have been booing guys they don't like since before the internet even existed. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I've been to shows in the 80s and the 90s. I've watched enough shows to know that before the Attitude era and ECW. The crowd didn't respond if they didn't care. You had faces that were cheered and heels that were booed. If you had guys coming out that no one cared, the audience barely made a noise. Just because people have been yelling sexist chants since 1997, that doesn't excuse it nor does it make it right. No one has argued it is. As for the pre Attitude Era, heels and faces were more clearly defined back then. WWE has forgotten how to do that.
|
|