"Flat Character Arcs" and Champions in Pro Wrestling

[HMARK Center]

There's a YouTuber called TotallyNotMark who does a lot of anime analyses, largely revolving around the Dragon Ball franchise. One of his analysis videos focuses on Goku, and goes over a common critique that many people have about his character:



Goku is often decried as being "flat" or one dimensional as a character. Fans are often more drawn to antiheroes and former villains like Piccolo or Vegeta, who had to undergo character arcs to change their alignments, often involving highly emotional situations that are hard to forget.

Yet Goku has always been, well, Goku. He doesn't really change.

But is that a bad thing?

The argument in the video goes back to academic writing on character development, and what seems to set Goku apart from characters like Piccolo and Vegeta is that while the latter undergo "Positive Character Arcs" (a "bad" character becoming "good" through a progression of situations and the reactions they have), Goku's arc is that of a "Flat Character". Here, "flat" doesn't mean uninteresting; instead, it means a character who is so firm in their identity, who they are, and what they represent, that instead of undergoing major character changes themselves, the very force of their character brings about changes in the people and the environments around them. Goku, as the show's main character and protagonist, drives a lot of the show's action just due to his very existence. For a villainous example from Dragon Ball, Frieza is a clear example of this: he's evil because damnit, he just is, and the universe around him bends toward that evil, thus making it drive the plot and the arcs of other characters.

Here's the catch, though: a flat character arc allows for a character who can drive the action for a long time. A positive arc, while fulfilling while it's happening, ultimately has an end point. Once Piccolo sacrifices himself for Gohan in DBZ, where does he really go? Once Vegeta makes peace with never being able to surpass Goku and learns to appreciate the people in his life, how much more can you do with him? Obviously one could argue "a lot more than Toriyama actually did!", but you get the gist, the flat arc character allows Goku to be a long-term protagonist, just like similar heroes such as Superman.

So, long story short, can we apply this to pro wrestling, too?

This argument instantly took me to the divide over how NJPW has booked Okada and Naito. Like Tanahashi before him, Okada, as the ace, is a "flat arc" character; he personally doesn't change much (minor exception for the summer of Coke-ada last year), but other characters and the direction of the promotion instead react to him. Naito, meanwhile, is more in that Vegeta role, a formerly flat arc character who underwent first a negative character arc when he became Ingobernable, only for it to turn positive as he's become more of a tweener/face over time. It's not surprising more people thus sympathize with Naito and want to see him on top, yet once Naito achieves his Destino...where do you go next? It's nice to say "I want Naito to win the belt and hold it for a long time", but will that actually serve Naito's character? Meanwhile Okada, the flat arc character, has the power of longevity, since the universe of NJPW reacts to his presence, rather than him reacting to the world around him most of the time. By the by, that's not an argument to say Naito shouldn't have won at WK 12, and I do want the guy to get his big moment, but I'm trying to keep this looking big picture.

Or hell, consider how things often go in WWE for characters who are seen as underdogs before they break through and win the gold: Benoit and Eddie in 2004, Bryan at WM 30, Kofi Kingston and Becky Lynch this year, etc. All too often WWE books people who are in dynamic character arcs (usually "underdog rises to claim the top prize") but then leaves the belt on them despite having no follow up in mind, no next step in the character's evolution. A lot of that is on WWE creative, but another part can be "where do you go from here?" once the underdog has risen. Meanwhile two of WWF's all time most successful champions since the 80s, Hulk Hogan and Steve Austin, were flat character arc guys most of the time, their very presences forcing changes in the world around them (e.g. people turning face or heel due to Hogan's success, Austin being the one to usher in the "attitude" presentation, etc.). They wanted Cena to be that, but probably pressed their luck too long, leading to the more negative crowd reactions.

I guess the thought just occurred to me as I watched and I was compelled to share, but it's worth thinking about; like, champions like Bruno Sammartino, Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Harley Race, Antonio Inoki, Hiroshi Tanahashi, Kazuchika Okada, ROH era Samoa Joe, etc., I see all of them as being "flat arc" guys 95% of the time, but I think it just made them more effective long term champions. What do you think?

[Spider2024]

Could this apply to John Cena? He stopped doing his funny rap promos right around the time that he finished his ascent to main eventer. I think that's at least one reason fans eventually turned on him: Cena wasn't doing the funny raps that helped him rise in the first place.

[HMARK Center]

Oct 12, 2019 21:01:56 GMT -5 Spider2024 said:

Could this apply to John Cena? He stopped doing his funny rap promos right around the time that he finished his ascent to main eventer. I think that's at least one reason fans eventually turned on him: Cena wasn't doing the funny raps that helped him rise in the first place.

Yeah, like I said, I think they badly wanted this for Cena, but it just didn't work for various reasons.

Maybe for one reason, yeah, Cena began more as that underdog type of character, the guy who used rap battles to make people pay attention to him and hide any insecurities he might have held, but as soon as he was WWE champion the dude was just invincible. I think the key issue with Cena was less that they wanted him to be a flat arc character, and more that they just never allowed him to show vulnerability, whereas even a character like Superman or Goku often undergoes a great deal of strife and hardship before they do their big hero acts.

[IgnahtaSempria]

Well, this is definitely an interesting take on the matter, and both you and the video make some compelling points. However, I feel there are some flaws in the argument.

First of all, the "flat character arc" as presented doesn't take into account a particular aspect of a character arc: motivation. A flat character can last for a long time if they have a long-lasting and achievable motivation. Naruto wanted to be the Hokage so that he could earn the respect of the village and not be an outcast. He ultimately succeeded in both aspects independently, and once he did, the focus shifted from him to his son Boruto, ending his character arc. Luffy wants to reach the end of the Grand Line, find the One Piece, and become Pirate King. Once he achieves that, the story's over. Goku's motivation is "I want to protect my friends and my newfound home", which is a much more nebulous and more reactionary goal, meaning that when he isn't faced with an active threat, he doesn't really serve a purpose to the story. Applying that to NJPW, what's Okada's motivation? "I want to hold the belt and make lots of money"? Not a particularly compelling character arc, is it? Not when you have other characters like Kota Ibushi, the long-time freelancer finally putting down roots in the company; Sanada, the young up-and-comer trying to break into the main event; or Will Ospreay, the junior heavyweight trying to prove he can hang outside his weight class. Heck, even Naito's storyline has more longevity than you give it credit for. His goal is to be shuyaku, the top star in the company. He wants to prove that he deserves the main event spot that he was denied. He beat Okada once for the title, but he needed assistance from LIJ, and then he immediately lost the title cleanly back to Okada. So the narrative is still that Okada is better than Naito. To disprove that, Naito needs to not only beat Okada clean for the belt, he needs to hold it for longer than one or two defenses, to prove that he deserves to be the top of the company. All of those are not only achievable, but they can provide more storytelling potential in the long run.

Speaking of potential, one of the primary complaints I've seen about the writing of Dragon Ball Z and Goku is that at the end of the Cell Saga, you have Goku dead and Gohan standing to take his place as protagonist, and yet once the Buu Saga gets underway, Goku is brought back from the dead and thrust once more into the spotlight, relegating Gohan back to supporting character and depriving us of potential plots he could have been involved in. That's a problem of certain characters staying the focus of a series for too long; it prevents other stories from being told by other characters. And particularly in wrestling, the longer you keep those potential stories on the shelf, the narrower the window to use them gets. And eventually, a good character or story gets wasted because a flat character overstayed their welcome. And a flat character can become unneeded and interchangeable. What did Goku do in the Buu Saga that Gohan couldn't have done? And what stories has Okada been involved in that required him specifically to be champion, instead of say, Tanahashi, or Suzuki, or even Satoshi Kojima?

It gets touched on in the video, but the longer a show goes, the more likely the audience is going to burn out on a particular character staying the exact same. That's kinda what happened to Goku, and we've seen it on the board here with Cena, Roman Reigns, Daniel Bryan, Brock Lesnar, and we're seeing it now with Becky Lynch and even Naito to an extent, since he's seen as "spinning his wheels" right now. Because his story is being blocked by Okada being on top (see above point). If you don't change a character at least a little bit over time, and they shrug off adversity as these characters often do, you start to detour into the "Boring Invincible Hero" trope. A hero who keeps winning over and over with no real threat to their safety isn't interesting.

Finally, a point that you brought up stood out to me. "Where does Naito's story arc go after he wins the belt"? And to me, that highlights an inherent difference between the two forms of media presented here; anime has an endgame. Wrestling doesn't. Naruto ended once he became Hokage. One Piece will likely end once Luffy becomes Pirate King. Every major arc in DBZ (Saiyan Saga, Frieza Saga, Cell Saga, Buu Saga) ended in a way where Toriyama could have conceivably ended the series with no loose ends, and most of the problems presented in the video came about because the story kept continuing past the established ending. Wrestling doesn't have that luxury. Once Wrestlemania is over, the writers have to plan what stories are happening the next night on RAW. After Wrestle Kingdom, the New Japan writers have to prepare for the New Beginnings show. So, once a story has run its course, what do you do? Do you try to write a new story arc for that character, incorporating everything that happened in the previous arc? Or do you just default back to the status quo, because that requires less work? Keeping Okada as champion is the latter, and it's already burnt some fans out.

Overall, a flat character can work in pro wrestling, but not necessarily in the situation provided, and not with the characters provided.

[carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army)]

It all depends on the villains, right? Flat characters provide a basic reason to fight evil (or whatever) which can be applied to lots of different situations, and that's fine. But now the energy of each specific story has to be driven by the bad guy. The protagonist won't ever be what's most interesting about what's going on, and it'll be up to everyone else to keep it from being the same story over and over.

I dunno Dragonball, but thinking serial anime, like... Kenshin. He's pretty well just himself by the time the series even starts, so his journey to fight Shishio isn't dynamic... but Shishio puts him into a new situation: Kenshin just legit isn't good enough to win face-to-face, and that's a place he hasn't been before. Or jeez, most superheros. It takes like two minutes to finish up all of Batman's psychology, but Batman vs. the Riddler is way way different from Batman vs. Penguin.

For wrestling, because your villains are carrying so much of the load, you have to make them all different and new... especially, they need to WANT different things. You can't have BOTH the hero AND the villain be flat, and unfortunately, that's what wrestling is most of the time.



Personally, I would love wrestling to restructure so it IS about positive character arcs, and where a story can end and the protagonist shifts over to be a side-character in someone else's story for a while. Chikara actually does this, even to this day, though their success rate demonstrates how hard it can be to pull off.

[Celgress]

Cena, Sting pre-NWO and Rock & Wrestling Era Hogan all spring to mind as examples of such a character arc.

[HMARK Center]

Oct 13, 2019 0:13:25 GMT -5 IgnahtaSempria said:

Well, this is definitely an interesting take on the matter, and both you and the video make some compelling points. However, I feel there are some flaws in the argument.

First of all, the "flat character arc" as presented doesn't take into account a particular aspect of a character arc: motivation. A flat character can last for a long time if they have a long-lasting and achievable motivation. Naruto wanted to be the Hokage so that he could earn the respect of the village and not be an outcast. He ultimately succeeded in both aspects independently, and once he did, the focus shifted from him to his son Boruto, ending his character arc. Luffy wants to reach the end of the Grand Line, find the One Piece, and become Pirate King. Once he achieves that, the story's over. Goku's motivation is "I want to protect my friends and my newfound home", which is a much more nebulous and more reactionary goal, meaning that when he isn't faced with an active threat, he doesn't really serve a purpose to the story. Applying that to NJPW, what's Okada's motivation? "I want to hold the belt and make lots of money"? Not a particularly compelling character arc, is it? Not when you have other characters like Kota Ibushi, the long-time freelancer finally putting down roots in the company; Sanada, the young up-and-comer trying to break into the main event; or Will Ospreay, the junior heavyweight trying to prove he can hang outside his weight class. Heck, even Naito's storyline has more longevity than you give it credit for. His goal is to be shuyaku, the top star in the company. He wants to prove that he deserves the main event spot that he was denied. He beat Okada once for the title, but he needed assistance from LIJ, and then he immediately lost the title cleanly back to Okada. So the narrative is still that Okada is better than Naito. To disprove that, Naito needs to not only beat Okada clean for the belt, he needs to hold it for longer than one or two defenses, to prove that he deserves to be the top of the company. All of those are not only achievable, but they can provide more storytelling potential in the long run.

Speaking of potential, one of the primary complaints I've seen about the writing of Dragon Ball Z and Goku is that at the end of the Cell Saga, you have Goku dead and Gohan standing to take his place as protagonist, and yet once the Buu Saga gets underway, Goku is brought back from the dead and thrust once more into the spotlight, relegating Gohan back to supporting character and depriving us of potential plots he could have been involved in. That's a problem of certain characters staying the focus of a series for too long; it prevents other stories from being told by other characters. And particularly in wrestling, the longer you keep those potential stories on the shelf, the narrower the window to use them gets. And eventually, a good character or story gets wasted because a flat character overstayed their welcome. And a flat character can become unneeded and interchangeable. What did Goku do in the Buu Saga that Gohan couldn't have done? And what stories has Okada been involved in that required him specifically to be champion, instead of say, Tanahashi, or Suzuki, or even Satoshi Kojima?

It gets touched on in the video, but the longer a show goes, the more likely the audience is going to burn out on a particular character staying the exact same. That's kinda what happened to Goku, and we've seen it on the board here with Cena, Roman Reigns, Daniel Bryan, Brock Lesnar, and we're seeing it now with Becky Lynch and even Naito to an extent, since he's seen as "spinning his wheels" right now. Because his story is being blocked by Okada being on top (see above point). If you don't change a character at least a little bit over time, and they shrug off adversity as these characters often do, you start to detour into the "Boring Invincible Hero" trope. A hero who keeps winning over and over with no real threat to their safety isn't interesting.

Finally, a point that you brought up stood out to me. "Where does Naito's story arc go after he wins the belt"? And to me, that highlights an inherent difference between the two forms of media presented here; anime has an endgame. Wrestling doesn't. Naruto ended once he became Hokage. One Piece will likely end once Luffy becomes Pirate King. Every major arc in DBZ (Saiyan Saga, Frieza Saga, Cell Saga, Buu Saga) ended in a way where Toriyama could have conceivably ended the series with no loose ends, and most of the problems presented in the video came about because the story kept continuing past the established ending. Wrestling doesn't have that luxury. Once Wrestlemania is over, the writers have to plan what stories are happening the next night on RAW. After Wrestle Kingdom, the New Japan writers have to prepare for the New Beginnings show. So, once a story has run its course, what do you do? Do you try to write a new story arc for that character, incorporating everything that happened in the previous arc? Or do you just default back to the status quo, because that requires less work? Keeping Okada as champion is the latter, and it's already burnt some fans out.

Overall, a flat character can work in pro wrestling, but not necessarily in the situation provided, and not with the characters provided.

I think you're underselling why Okada works as the "flat arc" guy a bit, but I do wholly agree that there's a lot of nuance at play here and that any character can outlive their welcome if the writers/bookers/whatever involved aren't careful, and that characters that have fulfilled their arc CAN find something new...it's just that it's difficult, and it's hard to recapture the initial magic of what triggers a positive character arc.

For Okada, I think what works for him is that his flat arc is, well, a bit like Goku's: "growth through adversity", you watch him take on the best and grow to meet each new challenge through hard work and talent. For Okada the goal is to "grow pro wrestling" and do it in "his style", terms that come up a lot in his promos, so as long as NJPW keeps growing with him at the helm it's like he's living out his flat arc in real life. All of it has served to make Okada into arguably the greatest "Final Boss" in modern professional wrestling, where defeating him cleanly is an honor reserved for an elite few, and where a lot of the world around him is shaped by his presence. His character has no clear end goal, simply "surpass any challenge that threatens my supremacy and grow New Japan", so rather than a clear arc we have the "flat' style that allows him to remain that steadfast presence, and has made him a draw for years now.

In fact, it could be said that Tanahashi and Okada, two "flat" guys, are at the heart of Naito's arc. Naito was meant to be a flat arc-er, the "new Tanahashi", but circumstances and his own early shortcomings conspired to deprive him of the status his talent warranted. Since then, his growth has largely revolved around burying his old ghosts, which meant toppling Tanahashi on the biggest stage, and the new challenge being to do the same to Okada...again, I'm sympathetic to arguments that should've happened at WK 12, but that animosity and resentment is still in large part what drives and defines who he is as a character today.

I'm of the mind that Naito's big moment might come this January. If/when it does I have no doubt that Naito, the man and performer, has all the gifts to make something good out of what follows. However, Naito the character's arc will be fulfilled if he finally does topple Okada for all the marbles in the Tokyo Dome: so much of what drives him and his pursuit of top star status is his anger and resentment over how he was treated and how Okada still managed to scale the top of the mountain. Again, the mere presence of a flat arc guy presents greater meaning to the characters around him/her.

All of that said, I know what you mean about hitting limits and having to think beyond the "season finale"; there's a reason a lot of Dragon Ball fans like the Buu saga the least out of all the DBZ arcs, and a big part, I think, is that Gohan was established as the new hero but then got shuffled back so they could stay in the Goku comfort zone. Gohan was another dynamic arc guy: he begins as an innocent child and never shows the desire to be a full-time warrior that his dad always had, yet by the end of the Cell saga he's accepted the old Spider-man "power=responsibility" wisdom and internalizes that he must use his gifts and powers to be the protector the world needs, even as he remains his own person with his own interests and feelings. Yet we get to the Buu arc and it's like the realization settled in that the writers had no idea where to go with him from there, leading to relying again on Goku as the ultimate hero to overcome the biggest threat. It results in an arc that's not the worst thing ever, but that never hits the same highs as what the series had achieved before.

My point isn't that pro wrestling bookers should get to the end of the story with a positive character arc guy and just get the belt off him/her as quickly as possible, just that they tend to either do that unintentionally (again, mostly WWE examples over the years), or they try to avoid it but have a difficult time keeping the magic going, because the magic that made the dynamic arc work in the first place is now done and needs to be refreshed since, as you say, there's no series finale to be had in pro wrestling.

So using Naito as the example, his arc is complete if he finally overcomes Okada, especially if it's at the Dome in the main event. It's on NJPW (and Naito, and whomever he feuds with, etc.) to make something good after that, and I think they're capable of it, but it's still a bigger challenge since Naito would need a new wrinkle to give his character a refreshed direction, whereas a flat arc guy like Okada can go back to what he's been doing all along. Again, that isn't impossible, but it does mean having to largely close the book on what came before and beginning a new chapter, which is inherently a tough (again, NOT impossible!) thing to do.

It's part of why I think it's been rough for, say, Becky Lynch to keep up the type of hype she had nearly a year ago: her whole current arc was driven by being overlooked and under-appreciated, but she went into WM, main evented, won both belts, beat an undefeated champion, and proved she's the top of her division...but then putting her into regular title feuds after that just feels like an utter anti-climax, since her arc is complete and she needs something new to drive her character forward.

So yeah, I want Naito to get his big moment, I'll mark like hell if/when it happens, but my point is just that then booking a follow-up Naito title reign of any considerable length is a whole different booking challenge that doesn't necessarily exist with Okada. That doesn't mean NJPW shouldn't do it, but it does mean it's going to be more difficult by its very nature.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Personally, no I don’t think that can be fully applied, because wrestling is too sports-like. Goku isn’t just fighting Cell to test himself, he’s also trying to protect the lives of his friends and the world. A top wrestling star is always gonna have more self-centered goals than a comic or manga hero, because they’re only trying to be the best in their field. The character motivation is too different.

IMO, it’s waaaay better to have a consistent, strong hero on top than the constant heat and “underdog book to the point fans are irritated with the heels or company” booking that’s been so prominent on RAW.

Those top faces like Hogan, Okada, Cena, Goldberg, etc. almost always draw big money once they’re separated from the pack. Fans (especially the diehards) like a come-from-behind story, but the casual fans and newcomers like winners. I love Austin and Daniel Bryan, but the “little guy vs. evil authority figures” trope is so played out in WWE and the western scene, so watching Okada and Tanahashi go on those runs and do so well was a breath of fresh air for me.

I don’t like branding those top face characters as “flat” by default, because they usually have to be played by some of the more charismatic people on a roster. I see them more as the quarterback of the “team” that the locker room represents.

So long as you can give them a steady diet of strong challengers and strong heels to keep doubts in the fans’ mind they can hold on to the belt, I think business wise the standard-bearer babyface is definitely the way to go.

[Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!!]

Oct 12, 2019 21:01:56 GMT -5 Spider2024 said:

Could this apply to John Cena? He stopped doing his funny rap promos right around the time that he finished his ascent to main eventer. I think that's at least one reason fans eventually turned on him: Cena wasn't doing the funny raps that helped him rise in the first place.

quite the opposite. he stopped doing them BECAUSE the fans were turning against them. people were willing to take his Vanilla Ice act fine when he was a heel and it was played for laughs, but when he ascended to being The Guy and a babyface it made it impossible for anyone to take him seriously.

[HMARK Center]

Oct 14, 2019 7:33:58 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Personally, no I don’t think that can be fully applied, because wrestling is too sports-like. Goku isn’t just fighting Cell to test himself, he’s also trying to protect the lives of his friends and the world. A top wrestling star is always gonna have more self-centered goals than a comic or manga hero, because they’re only trying to be the best in their field. The character motivation is too different.

IMO, it’s waaaay better to have a consistent, strong hero on top than the constant heat and “underdog book to the point fans are irritated with the heels or company” booking that’s been so prominent on RAW.

Those top faces like Hogan, Okada, Cena, Goldberg, etc. almost always draw big money once they’re separated from the pack. Fans (especially the diehards) like a come-from-behind story, but the casual fans and newcomers like winners. I love Austin and Daniel Bryan, but the “little guy vs. evil authority figures” trope is so played out in WWE and the western scene, so watching Okada and Tanahashi go on those runs and do so well was a breath of fresh air for me.

I don’t like branding those top face characters as “flat” by default, because they usually have to be played by some of the more charismatic people on a roster. I see them more as the quarterback of the “team” that the locker room represents.

So long as you can give them a steady diet of strong challengers and strong heels to keep doubts in the fans’ mind they can hold on to the belt, I think business wise the standard-bearer babyface is definitely the way to go.

Just to reiterate, it's not that, say, Austin or Hogan or whomever are themselves "flat"; they can be interesting, charismatic, magnetic, etc. It's just that they're so set in who they are and firm in their identities that they don't need to undergo a dynamic character arc that changes who they are or what their outlook on the world is in order to remain interesting.

Does't mean they can't, mind you: one could look at Austin's eventual turn at WM 17 as part of a negative arc, wherein he sells out his principles to hang on to glory. But his hey day circa 1997-2000 was more about Austin being such a force of nature that he basically caused the whole show to change around him, from the direct (Bret turning heel) to the indirect (the whole show's presentation changing to something that suited Austin's demeanor), which fits the "flat arc" style.

[ssdrivin]

The flatness of Cena was especially evident, I think, in not just the perpetual "Cena Wins LOL" but the complete lack of any serious threat. Even if there were a threat, they'd try to do this "he needs to reach his own personal best to validate his existence" or "it's a sign that his career is over if he loses this" stuff, or he'd be "fired", or whatever, and it would mean nothing. His character (for quite some years) didn't evolve because nothing stuck, every time something "bad" happened he'd just be back 2 weeks later like someone had hit the reset button and erased whatever his last catastophic threat was. You can't evolve a character, or even make them believable as a potential victim, if they never actually get set back by anything.

For comparison, I was a fan of Power Rangers way back when, and although most weeks there was a fairly average threat you knew would probably be swiftly dispatched somehow by the end of the episode, every now and then they'd crank the lever and pull out something that looked like it would destroy the Power Rangers forever, they had no chance, they threw everything they had at the Big Bad Guy, to no avail. So they had to get to near breaking point, then evolve. New powers, new Zords, new weapons, whatever, they evolved to face threats (albeit under duress). They didn't just shrug off the "main event PPV" type bosses, those events had lasting effects. Granted, that was probably purely so they could sell new designs of toys, but the point is that in the storyline those things had a reason for existing.

To return to Cena, well, that didn't happen. He just seemed to exist in some sort of suspended animation, never substantially changing in character, not often pulling out new moves, not changing his style to meet an evolving challenge, just... nothing. That was what annoyed me about his character, it gets super tiresome that basically anything with him in it is like some perpetual looping tape of the same sequence of events.

[HMARK Center]

Oct 15, 2019 11:49:18 GMT -5 ssdrivin said:

The flatness of Cena was especially evident, I think, in not just the perpetual "Cena Wins LOL" but the complete lack of any serious threat. Even if there were a threat, they'd try to do this "he needs to reach his own personal best to validate his existence" or "it's a sign that his career is over if he loses this" stuff, or he'd be "fired", or whatever, and it would mean nothing. His character (for quite some years) didn't evolve because nothing stuck, every time something "bad" happened he'd just be back 2 weeks later like someone had hit the reset button and erased whatever his last catastophic thread was. You can't evolve a character, or even make them believable as a potential victim, if they never actually get set back by anything.

For comparison, I was a fan of Power Rangers way back when, and although most weeks there was a fairly average threat you knew would probably be swiftly dispatched somehow by the end of the episode, every now and then they'd crank the lever and pull out something that looked like it would destroy the Power Rangers forever, they had no chance, they threw everything that had at the Big Bad Guy, to no avail. So they had to get to near breaking point, then evolve. New powers, new Zords, new weapons, whatever, they evolved to face threats (albeit under duress). They didn't just shrug off the "main event PPV" type bosses, those events had lasting effects. Granted, that was probably purely so they could sell new designs of toys, but the point is that in the storyline those things had a reason for existing.

To return to Cena, well, that didn't happen. He just seemed to exist in some sort of suspended animation, never substantially changing in character, not often pulling out new moves, not changing his style to meet an evolving challenge, just... nothing. That was what annoyed me about his character, it gets super tiresome that basically anything with him in it is like some perpetual looping tape of the same sequence of events.

I think that can be compared with someone like Hogan; Hogan was booked about as dominantly as a champion could be during his mid-80s through early 90s run, and his character never really evolved, per se, but he could still generate interest and even sympathy because there were times he was made to seem like he'd finally met his match. Bundy broke his ribs, Andre was the biggest obstacle there could be in kayfabe, Earthquake squashed him, Undertaker seemed like he broke Hogan's neck, etc.

Through it all Hogan remained the All American hero, he'd still talk up the pythons and the prayers, but it didn't take away from the struggle his character was shown going through, even if in the end it'd all probably end with a hulk up, boot, and leg drop, anyway - flat arc, but interesting stories nevertheless. They just took it all way too far with Cena, especially in the era of weekly major cards.

[ssdrivin]

Oct 15, 2019 13:58:10 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Oct 15, 2019 11:49:18 GMT -5 ssdrivin said:

The flatness of Cena was especially evident, I think, in not just the perpetual "Cena Wins LOL" but the complete lack of any serious threat. Even if there were a threat, they'd try to do this "he needs to reach his own personal best to validate his existence" or "it's a sign that his career is over if he loses this" stuff, or he'd be "fired", or whatever, and it would mean nothing. His character (for quite some years) didn't evolve because nothing stuck, every time something "bad" happened he'd just be back 2 weeks later like someone had hit the reset button and erased whatever his last catastophic thread was. You can't evolve a character, or even make them believable as a potential victim, if they never actually get set back by anything.

For comparison, I was a fan of Power Rangers way back when, and although most weeks there was a fairly average threat you knew would probably be swiftly dispatched somehow by the end of the episode, every now and then they'd crank the lever and pull out something that looked like it would destroy the Power Rangers forever, they had no chance, they threw everything that had at the Big Bad Guy, to no avail. So they had to get to near breaking point, then evolve. New powers, new Zords, new weapons, whatever, they evolved to face threats (albeit under duress). They didn't just shrug off the "main event PPV" type bosses, those events had lasting effects. Granted, that was probably purely so they could sell new designs of toys, but the point is that in the storyline those things had a reason for existing.

To return to Cena, well, that didn't happen. He just seemed to exist in some sort of suspended animation, never substantially changing in character, not often pulling out new moves, not changing his style to meet an evolving challenge, just... nothing. That was what annoyed me about his character, it gets super tiresome that basically anything with him in it is like some perpetual looping tape of the same sequence of events.

I think that can be compared with someone like Hogan; Hogan was booked about as dominantly as a champion could be during his mid-80s through early 90s run, and his character never really evolved, per se, but he could still generate interest and even sympathy because there were times he was made to seem like he'd finally met his match. Bundy broke his ribs, Andre was the biggest obstacle there could be in kayfabe, Earthquake squashed him, Undertaker seemed like he broke Hogan's neck, etc.

Through it all Hogan remained the All American hero, he'd still talk up the pythons and the prayers, but it didn't take away from the struggle his character was shown going through, even if in the end it'd all probably end with a hulk up, boot, and leg drop, anyway - flat arc, but interesting stories nevertheless. They just took it all way too far with Cena, especially in the era of weekly major cards.

Yeah, I guess they tried to take that same concept (hey, it worked last time, right?) and run with it to the extreme, but I think the audience and their expectations had changed by the mid/late-00s versus the 80s/early 90s, and as you say Cena was there week in, week out doing the same every time, not just at main events.

To some degree I suppose that's fine for kids, but how long until the kids get bored too? Even younger people are going to want a bit more flavour and complexity to storytelling eventually, and I'm not sure that ever really came in the way that it did for fans who grew up with Hogan when they were younger and wrestling kinda grew up with them for a while there.

[nickcave]

The problem with Goku is that he did all of his character development in the original Dragon Ball when he was a kid and Dragon Ball Z was a way to transition that development to Gohan with Goku being kind of a elder statesmen type character. Unfortunately fans just loved Goku too much so he ended up dominating all of the storylines which created a lot of the problems people have with him as a character now. He would have been fine as a flat character if he was used as he was originally intended to be.