is WWE going back to wrestlers having distinctive gimmicks?

[bestthateverdidit]

It seemed like in the so called Ruthless Aggression era there were hardly any gimmicks beyond weak imitations of Attitude Era types. Things got worse in the PG Era. We end up with many generic wrestlers like Luther Reigns, Matt Morgan, that guy who was Benoit's apprentice, Chris Masters, generic foreigners (Sylvan, Kenzo, La Resistance), Rob Conway. These gave way to Mason Ryan, Alex Riley, Drew McIntyre,Kofi Kingston.

The gimmick wrestlers were usually a hilarious disaster - Snitsky, Heidenreich (who can forget his timeless pomes?), etc.

But now it seems like when they bring people in they actually have a gimmick:
- Fandango
- Wyatt Family
- Matadores
- Daniel Bryan
- Tensai
- Kharma
- The Shield
etc

Thankfully the rule that everyone wear Speedos has also been relaxed.

Will they continue this momentum? Is this the hand of HHH at work?

[Hit Girl]

It should continue. They'll have their hits and misses, but it's a positive way to go.

[Session Moth is over]

While the in ring performance is the most important thing to me I still need a reason to care about these people. Giving them interesting characters is a good way to go about it.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

I'm all for gimmicks, but I don't feel that everyone needs to have one. I think that both "distinctive gimmicks" and "generic guys in trunks" have a place on the roster.

A guy like Alex Riley has no gimmick, but has the pure charisma to stay over with the fans. With the proper presentation, Riley could be pushed as a Badass Normal, Straight Man, Only Sane Employee, etc. type.

I think guys like Dolph Ziggler, Zack Ryder, Miz, and The Prime Time Players are the ideal middle ground between both extremes. They may have generic looks, but they still have vibrant and colorful personalities.

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2013 16:57:35 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

It should continue. They'll have their hits and misses, but it's a positive way to go.

Sometimes gimmicks don't go over at all, but sometimes they catch on in a big way. It sure beats having everyone being stagnant.

The other advantage of the gimmick is the repackage--you get a mulligan or two if the wrestler doesn't work out. If all you have are "normal" characters you don't get that chance.

[britishbulldog]

One of the best parts about the 80's was everybody stood apart from each other. For that reason I am all for it. It is a way to be more marketable and get more types of people to pay attention.

[Deleted]

God, I hope so.

[therageofeeyore]

Aug 26, 2013 20:08:12 GMT -5 @wvguitar said:

God, I hope so.

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2013 17:49:22 GMT -5 CATCH_US IS the Conversation said:

I'm all for gimmicks, but I don't feel that everyone needs to have one. I think that both "distinctive gimmicks" and "generic guys in trunks" have a place on the roster.

Me too, but only when "generic guys in trunks" are guys like Punk and Bryan, who have magnetism and charisma in spades.

Technically, wrestlers like Flair and Savage were just "generic guys in trunks." There are some guys who have the "it" factor so much that their own persona becomes a gimmick.