Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 23:52:41 GMT -5
To see that "heels should be boring and that doing fast paced modern stuff is bad heeling" isn't true, look at the Revival. A team so old school their whole deal is not being flippy dudes. A team so old school Jim Cornette, who believes Kenny Omega is killing wrestling, loves them and actually watches their matches. Now go and look at their f***ing awesome sagas against American Alpha and DIY, and find me any f***ing minute of those matches where the dudes are boring. That shit is a tag team heel clinic and they're incredible in everything they do, but at no point, even when they're slowing the match down to stifle the faces' momentum, are they ever boring. Amazing matches, great heels who can get effective heat out of the mega smark crowds you get for Takeovers these days, the very platonic ideal of what a heel should be. And they're not boring for a goddamn second. Yeah I think in 2017 heels are just gonna get cheered some or a lot of the time, and that's all there is to it. I think it just comes down to lining up the right heels against the right faces. Like Daniel Bryan against anyone would have the crowd in the palm of their hands. The Hardys vs. Cesaro/Sheamus was a good pairing because 9 audiences out of 10 are gonna go for the Hardys. You just need the right stories and the right people, you need a clear distinction of who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. I can appreciate a wrestler who dulls themselves down and actively tries to make himself less desirable than the faces, but these days it's better to entertain an audience than to bore them, because a bored audience can dismantle a show now.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Sept 21, 2017 23:57:38 GMT -5
Also to my last post, if you're intent on going ahead to try and tackle as heavy of an issue as this, for the love of Bob don't go at it in such a cheap ass way. Put some more thought into it than the old "boo me for my passport" or the lazy "here's some rapidfire racial stereotypes for you to get mad at". Those are weak, insulting, and just too cheap for the majority to get invested in. I see what they're trying to do with the Jinder story but the "you're hypocrites" part of it isn't getting the right response and it's turned into what seems like a lame excuse to throw more racism out there. You blew it and just annoyed people.
Again, f***ing Oakland said "that's too far". OAKLAND! As a NorCal resident I can't get over how funny that is.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Sept 22, 2017 0:01:24 GMT -5
To see that "heels should be boring and that doing fast paced modern stuff is bad heeling" isn't true, look at the Revival. A team so old school their whole deal is not being flippy dudes. A team so old school Jim Cornette, who believes Kenny Omega is killing wrestling, loves them and actually watches their matches. Now go and look at their f***ing awesome sagas against American Alpha and DIY, and find me any f***ing minute of those matches where the dudes are boring. That shit is a tag team heel clinic and they're incredible in everything they do, but at no point, even when they're slowing the match down to stifle the faces' momentum, are they ever boring. Amazing matches, great heels who can get effective heat out of the mega smark crowds you get for Takeovers these days, the very platonic ideal of what a heel should be. And they're not boring for a goddamn second. Yeah I think in 2017 heels are just gonna get cheered some or a lot of the time, and that's all there is to it. I think it just comes down to lining up the right heels against the right faces. Like Daniel Bryan against anyone would have the crowd in the palm of their hands. The Hardys vs. Cesaro/Sheamus was a good pairing because 9 audiences out of 10 are gonna go for the Hardys. You just need the right stories and the right people, you need a clear distinction of who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. I can appreciate a wrestler who dulls themselves down and actively tries to make himself less desirable than the faces, but these days it's better to entertain an audience than to bore them, because a bored audience can dismantle a show now. Really, it's nothing new. Popular heels have always gotten face reactions here and there. I've seen old 80s NWA shows on the Network where Flair would cut promos (making inside references about not jobbing) and he'd get cheered by the crowd and fans would have Four Horsemen signs. And some shows Dusty would be heckled with mixed reactions. Omega, Scurll, etc. are just part of the tradition. Some things in wrestling don't change.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Sept 22, 2017 0:28:33 GMT -5
Yeah I think in 2017 heels are just gonna get cheered some or a lot of the time, and that's all there is to it. I think it just comes down to lining up the right heels against the right faces. Like Daniel Bryan against anyone would have the crowd in the palm of their hands. The Hardys vs. Cesaro/Sheamus was a good pairing because 9 audiences out of 10 are gonna go for the Hardys. You just need the right stories and the right people, you need a clear distinction of who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. I can appreciate a wrestler who dulls themselves down and actively tries to make himself less desirable than the faces, but these days it's better to entertain an audience than to bore them, because a bored audience can dismantle a show now. Really, it's nothing new. Popular heels have always gotten face reactions here and there. I've seen old 80s NWA shows on the Network where Flair would cut promos (making inside references about not jobbing) and he'd get cheered by the crowd and fans would have Four Horsemen signs. And some shows Dusty would be heckled with mixed reactions. Omega, Scurll, etc. are just part of the tradition. Some things in wrestling don't change. But that ties to another problem- the fact that fans have seemed to forget the simple facts that to a heel wrestler, BOOS ARE THEIR CHEERS, if you really love a heel wrestler, you'll boo yourself hoarse for their matches- and if you cheer the heel for how much you love them, you're not helping them! You're actually making their job that much harder and only making them look like they are a terrible heel in the first place. This has to be mentioned because it is what leads to problems like Jinder Mahal in the first place, and inevitably leads to issues like promos like these to make sure the fans react the right way. The real problem is that if heels are just plain popular with a big subsection of fans, then the heels who can get booed for being inept at their job end up getting pushed to the moon because they can draw actual boos. This is also tied into events like this- because eventually when you get heels who can't get booed for being effective villains, but rather for being simply awful- then eventually heels will end up going to the cheapest of cheap heat to get the boos they need.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Sept 22, 2017 0:47:27 GMT -5
Really, it's nothing new. Popular heels have always gotten face reactions here and there. I've seen old 80s NWA shows on the Network where Flair would cut promos (making inside references about not jobbing) and he'd get cheered by the crowd and fans would have Four Horsemen signs. And some shows Dusty would be heckled with mixed reactions. Omega, Scurll, etc. are just part of the tradition. Some things in wrestling don't change. But that ties to another problem- the fact that fans have seemed to forget the simple facts that to a heel wrestler, BOOS ARE THEIR CHEERS, if you really love a heel wrestler, you'll boo yourself hoarse for their matches- and if you cheer the heel for how much you love them, you're not helping them! You're actually making their job that much harder and only making them look like they are a terrible heel in the first place. This has to be mentioned because it is what leads to problems like Jinder Mahal in the first place, and inevitably leads to issues like promos like these to make sure the fans react the right way. The real problem is that if heels are just plain popular with a big subsection of fans, then the heels who can get booed for being inept at their job end up getting pushed to the moon because they can draw actual boos. This is also tied into events like this- because eventually when you get heels who can't get booed for being effective villains, but rather for being simply awful- then eventually heels will end up going to the cheapest of cheap heat to get the boos they need. Nothing I said ties into that. If the crowd is hot, the heel's doing their job right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 1:09:08 GMT -5
Really, it's nothing new. Popular heels have always gotten face reactions here and there. I've seen old 80s NWA shows on the Network where Flair would cut promos (making inside references about not jobbing) and he'd get cheered by the crowd and fans would have Four Horsemen signs. And some shows Dusty would be heckled with mixed reactions. Omega, Scurll, etc. are just part of the tradition. Some things in wrestling don't change. But that ties to another problem- the fact that fans have seemed to forget the simple facts that to a heel wrestler, BOOS ARE THEIR CHEERS, if you really love a heel wrestler, you'll boo yourself hoarse for their matches- and if you cheer the heel for how much you love them, you're not helping them! You're actually making their job that much harder and only making them look like they are a terrible heel in the first place. This has to be mentioned because it is what leads to problems like Jinder Mahal in the first place, and inevitably leads to issues like promos like these to make sure the fans react the right way. The real problem is that if heels are just plain popular with a big subsection of fans, then the heels who can get booed for being inept at their job end up getting pushed to the moon because they can draw actual boos. This is also tied into events like this- because eventually when you get heels who can't get booed for being effective villains, but rather for being simply awful- then eventually heels will end up going to the cheapest of cheap heat to get the boos they need. Here's what's always bugged me about this whole thing. What, really, does it matter if the heels are being booed or not? It certainly can make some segments more effective, but it's not a story-breaking thing really. It takes me far more out of things to see a supposed beloved top face be booed out of the building than it does to see a vile heel being cheered for. And really it's just a basic bit of narrative logic. In, say, a movie, it's perfectly fine if the viewer has a blast with the villain and has a ton of fun with them. That doesn't hurt a movie at all. It's only when you have a completely unlikable hero that the story collapses in on itself. And it's not at all a one or the other thing, nearly every Batman story of the past 80 years has had the villains completely upstaging him and being the one you're really watching or reading for but at the end of the day people still like Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Sept 22, 2017 1:29:52 GMT -5
To see that "heels should be boring and that doing fast paced modern stuff is bad heeling" isn't true, look at the Revival. A team so old school their whole deal is not being flippy dudes. A team so old school Jim Cornette, who believes Kenny Omega is killing wrestling, loves them and actually watches their matches. Now go and look at their f***ing awesome sagas against American Alpha and DIY, and find me any f***ing minute of those matches where the dudes are boring. That shit is a tag team heel clinic and they're incredible in everything they do, but at no point, even when they're slowing the match down to stifle the faces' momentum, are they ever boring. Amazing matches, great heels who can get effective heat out of the mega smark crowds you get for Takeovers these days, the very platonic ideal of what a heel should be. And they're not boring for a goddamn second. Yeah I think in 2017 heels are just gonna get cheered some or a lot of the time, and that's all there is to it. I think it just comes down to lining up the right heels against the right faces. Like Daniel Bryan against anyone would have the crowd in the palm of their hands. The Hardys vs. Cesaro/Sheamus was a good pairing because 9 audiences out of 10 are gonna go for the Hardys. You just need the right stories and the right people, you need a clear distinction of who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. I can appreciate a wrestler who dulls themselves down and actively tries to make himself less desirable than the faces, but these days it's better to entertain an audience than to bore them, because a bored audience can dismantle a show now. The matters of good storylines and having faces who the fans love more than the heels is definitely an issue WWE has extreme problems with right now. There's certainly degrees to which a heel can dial things down, but it shouldn't be on a great performer to have to dumb themselves down and strip away everything just because some bad writing doesn't get the heels as hated or the faces as liked as they should be. In the case of the Revival, they're heels and hated for it because their characters act like heels and because they do heel things in matches against face teams that people love, and so the whole thing works out. The crowd will go crazy for their matches and rave about them, but they'll still ultimately get heel reactions and be seen as effective as what they do despite putting on some of the best matches in WWE this year and last. Cesaro and Sheamus worked well against the Hardys and do work well against Ambrose and Rollins because the two teams they're facing are over, and both Sheamus and Cesaro are comfortable working in their roles fine. Cesaro is still a mutant freak and the second he pulls out that springboard diving uppercut the place is going nuts, but people ultimately want the faces to win. In a way it's almost sort of a matter of how wrestling is evolving; you can't compare how old school crowds, seeing it as a genuine fight between a relatable good guy and a loathsome dickbag who were really who they said they were, reacted compared to modern crowds who understand it to be something entirely different and look at it for entirely different things. The performance aspect of wrestling is much more in focus and the desired emphasis is on a compelling story more than on working the audience, and with that should come some different sensibilities about what they're trying to prove and how they accomplish their roles.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Sept 22, 2017 2:40:08 GMT -5
Hi, actual former heel wrestler here. The job of a heel in ring isn't to be boring, it's to set the pace of the match. If someone tells you to go out and work 15 minutes, then you go out there and lead the match for about 12 of those minutes, plus false comebacks and the finish. Work a leg, be a tall person, flip off the crowd, pull sneaky shit or whatever, but Don't be boring. I'd be interested to know how you feel the "traditional" match structure holds upo today and if it is still used? IE: Shine, Cutoff, Hopespot, Comeback, Go Home (repeat if necessary) Is it still relevant or is it not a concept talked about? (this was talked about contantly at my school when I used to go) There's a lot more back and forth (My opinion is that the indies took Attitude Era style main event brawling back and forth to its logical conclusion, and then the British revolution pretty much just added back in the technical wizardry that had gotten lost along the way, leading to amazing things like Bate vs Dunne at Takeover) but the logic is still there. The face is still trying to hit his finisher the whole time, and the heel is looking to cause a disadvantage. I think a good example of that is one of the Will Ospreay vs Jimmy Havoc matches. Even in a match where someone moonsaulted off a balcony and other indy nonsense happened, Jimmy still won the match by undoing the top rope so Will couldn't hit a 630. For a WWE example of great classic heel work that's not boring, i'd recommend Revival vs Samoa Joe and Finn Balor in the Dusty Rhodes Classic.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,139
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Sept 22, 2017 2:44:47 GMT -5
I'd be interested to know how you feel the "traditional" match structure holds upo today and if it is still used? IE: Shine, Cutoff, Hopespot, Comeback, Go Home (repeat if necessary) Is it still relevant or is it not a concept talked about? (this was talked about contantly at my school when I used to go) There's a lot more back and forth (My opinion is that the indies took Attitude Era style main event brawling back and forth to its logical conclusion, and then the British revolution pretty much just added back in the technical wizardry that had gotten lost along the way, leading to amazing things like Bate vs Dunne at Takeover) but the logic is still there. The face is still trying to hit his finisher the whole time, and the heel is looking to cause a disadvantage. I think a good example of that is one of the Will Ospreay vs Jimmy Havoc matches. Even in a match where someone moonsaulted off a balcony and other indy nonsense happened, Jimmy still won the match by undoing the top rope so Will couldn't hit a 630. Where was this match? Because that ending is genius. Also, THAT's how a heel can wrestle: you cheat as much as you can in new and innovative ways. The Revival are great examples where they keep finding new ways to break up pins, deny the hot tag etc. they are massive heels, but they're exciting to watch because you don't know what they'll come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Sept 22, 2017 2:59:49 GMT -5
There's a lot more back and forth (My opinion is that the indies took Attitude Era style main event brawling back and forth to its logical conclusion, and then the British revolution pretty much just added back in the technical wizardry that had gotten lost along the way, leading to amazing things like Bate vs Dunne at Takeover) but the logic is still there. The face is still trying to hit his finisher the whole time, and the heel is looking to cause a disadvantage. I think a good example of that is one of the Will Ospreay vs Jimmy Havoc matches. Even in a match where someone moonsaulted off a balcony and other indy nonsense happened, Jimmy still won the match by undoing the top rope so Will couldn't hit a 630. Where was this match? Because that ending is genius. Also, THAT's how a heel can wrestle: you cheat as much as you can in new and innovative ways. The Revival are great examples where they keep finding new ways to break up pins, deny the hot tag etc. they are massive heels, but they're exciting to watch because you don't know what they'll come up with. Progress. Chapter 17, I think. Really I recommend watching all the shows from about Chapter 9 through to 20 because that storyline is amazing.
|
|
hassanchop
Grimlock
Who are you to doubt Belldandy?
Posts: 14,810
|
Post by hassanchop on Sept 22, 2017 5:13:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 22, 2017 5:49:09 GMT -5
But that ties to another problem- the fact that fans have seemed to forget the simple facts that to a heel wrestler, BOOS ARE THEIR CHEERS, if you really love a heel wrestler, you'll boo yourself hoarse for their matches- and if you cheer the heel for how much you love them, you're not helping them! You're actually making their job that much harder and only making them look like they are a terrible heel in the first place. This has to be mentioned because it is what leads to problems like Jinder Mahal in the first place, and inevitably leads to issues like promos like these to make sure the fans react the right way. The real problem is that if heels are just plain popular with a big subsection of fans, then the heels who can get booed for being inept at their job end up getting pushed to the moon because they can draw actual boos. This is also tied into events like this- because eventually when you get heels who can't get booed for being effective villains, but rather for being simply awful- then eventually heels will end up going to the cheapest of cheap heat to get the boos they need. Here's what's always bugged me about this whole thing. What, really, does it matter if the heels are being booed or not? It certainly can make some segments more effective, but it's not a story-breaking thing really. It takes me far more out of things to see a supposed beloved top face be booed out of the building than it does to see a vile heel being cheered for. And really it's just a basic bit of narrative logic. In, say, a movie, it's perfectly fine if the viewer has a blast with the villain and has a ton of fun with them. That doesn't hurt a movie at all. It's only when you have a completely unlikable hero that the story collapses in on itself. And it's not at all a one or the other thing, nearly every Batman story of the past 80 years has had the villains completely upstaging him and being the one you're really watching or reading for but at the end of the day people still like Batman. Yeah, that's probably a more direct way of getting to what I was trying to say on the last page: it's great to boo the heels, but the equation doesn't work well without the crowd feeling they have a babyface they legitimately want to cheer for against that heel, because the storyline has built in such a way that the crowd should desperately want to see the babyface succeed and the heel get what's coming to them. The WWE's booking doesn't play to that basic formula enough, as they so rarely actually have heels doing something to the faces that warrants a real emotional response and it muddies the waters for the audience a good deal. So yes, a crowd should boo the heel, but if they don't feel motivated by a babyface's motives to get back at that heel in the first place, gues what? In today's "kayfabe is thoroughly dead" world, that crowd is likely going to cheer the good heel work done by the bad guy, instead. I'll always point to Golden Age ROH feuds involving Jimmy Rave and Prince Nana as examples of heels who didn't act boring, who the crowd popped for when they first appeared at the entrance ramp, but who the crowd then quickly cheered against in large part because they were often up against babyfaces they had wronged and whom the crowd really liked. It can work, it has worked, it continues to work in other places and with other performers.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Sept 22, 2017 7:13:47 GMT -5
Yeah, that's probably a more direct way of getting to what I was trying to say on the last page: it's great to boo the heels, but the equation doesn't work well without the crowd feeling they have a babyface they legitimately want to cheer for against that heel, because the storyline has built in such a way that the crowd should desperately want to see the babyface succeed and the heel get what's coming to them. The WWE's booking doesn't play to that basic formula enough, as they so rarely actually have heels doing something to the faces that warrants a real emotional response and it muddies the waters for the audience a good deal. So yes, a crowd should boo the heel, but if they don't feel motivated by a babyface's motives to get back at that heel in the first place, gues what? In today's "kayfabe is thoroughly dead" world, that crowd is likely going to cheer the good heel work done by the bad guy, instead. I'll always point to Golden Age ROH feuds involving Jimmy Rave and Prince Nana as examples of heels who didn't act boring, who the crowd popped for when they first appeared at the entrance ramp, but who the crowd then quickly cheered against in large part because they were often up against babyfaces they had wronged and whom the crowd really liked. It can work, it has worked, it continues to work in other places and with other performers. The problem though is that right now, EVERY fan, no matter who you are and I include myself in the mix, have already decided who they're ride or die for as far as hero or villain, and it depends on who they already happen to like (the hero) or dislike (the villain). The babyface you legitimately want to cheer for is the person your own personal narrative decided was the babyface, the villain you legitimately want to boo is the person your own personal narrative decided was the heel- and nothing that is done on TV can change that. Even these "great heroes or villains" don't change it. Everyone's saying Cesaro and Sheamus are such great heels against the Hardy Boys as such great babyfaces because Cesaro ripped apart a beach ball...but if they were REALLY such great heroes or great villains, that beach ball never would have come out in the first place. There's too many extras to the narrative that have changed things- the "kayfabe is totally dead" crowd meaning there is almost no storyline that can make a crowd hate someone if they decided they WILL like them and you can't make them hate them...or vice versa, no storyline that could make them like someone they already decided to hate , social media stans who just won't be happy unless all glory goes to the object of their affections and any storyline that isn't "their favorite is WWE Champion and destroys everyone like Hogan in 1987 only moreso" is worthless, and the non-zero amount of fans who just plain are out to troll the WWE for the lulz and have no interest in playing along- all of which hurt the dynamic now.
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Sept 22, 2017 7:14:02 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 7:21:59 GMT -5
11 pages for THAT promo? Haha geez, Vince called Cena "my *n word*" before. This is nothing.
|
|
the2ndevil
Grimlock
Super Seducer Survivor
Where Is Your Santa, Now?
Posts: 13,632
|
Post by the2ndevil on Sept 22, 2017 7:36:37 GMT -5
I have no memory of that Nakamura and Styles bit mentioned. This was a really well done article.
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Sept 22, 2017 15:31:06 GMT -5
I wonder how many people are actually, really, truly offended, and how many are "mock offended" as in offended on behalf of others who they feel would be, might be or should be offended?
Political correctness is horrible. If someone came out and cut a truly racist promo (as opposed to this, which was Jinder playing the race card to accuse fans of being racist for laughing at his jokes or booing him because he's not a Caucasian American), I'm sure people would be offended.
But of those chanting, how many REALLY were TRULY offended?
Because they also chat "You Suck" at Kurt Angle. Sometimes some of them chant obscenities in an arena with a lot of children present.
So I don't see this as being a serious thing. It's click bait.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Sept 22, 2017 16:07:16 GMT -5
I wonder how many people are actually, really, truly offended, and how many are "mock offended" as in offended on behalf of others who they feel would be, might be or should be offended? Political correctness is horrible. If someone came out and cut a truly racist promo (as opposed to this, which was Jinder playing the race card to accuse fans of being racist for laughing at his jokes or booing him because he's not a Caucasian American), I'm sure people would be offended. But of those chanting, how many REALLY were TRULY offended? Because they also chat "You Suck" at Kurt Angle. Sometimes some of them chant obscenities in an arena with a lot of children present. So I don't see this as being a serious thing. It's click bait. But is there no middle ground where it's not "I am genuinely offended by this or pretending to be so people think I'm somethingorother", but "I just don't want to see racism and these sorts of themes in my wrestling show because the real world's got enough of that, this company isn't great at handling those things with decent sensibilities, and I'm mostly just looking to have some fun and escape life for a few hours watching dudes jump around and fight"? Because even ignoring for a second how you use the word 'offended' like eight times and in a way meant to dismiss everybody offhand and the entire sentiment like you're actually in anyone's heads, some people just don't wanna see that shit, and having things you do and don't want to see in media isn't political correctness gone wild.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 22, 2017 16:10:01 GMT -5
To me it sounded as if the fans objected more to the Karate Kid being mocked than the generally racist tone of the promo.
|
|
|
Post by Acrtress Flavor Saver on Sept 22, 2017 16:11:31 GMT -5
I wonder how many people are actually, really, truly offended, and how many are "mock offended" as in offended on behalf of others who they feel would be, might be or should be offended? AND THIS IS HIS OFFENDED FACE!!! Nah, but for real though, I'm offended by Jinder Mahal every day.
|
|