Post by Boo! on Dec 20, 2014 2:39:56 GMT -5
I'm not saying bad writing and character direction doesn't play a huge part in the success or failure of a superstar - but it seems to me as if all the ills are now blamed on them and none on the wrestler themselves. Shoot interviews from ratchety old-timers with axes to grind can cover many things and they bitch about every subject under the sun but rarely do you ever hear the blame creative (or equivalent) there always seemed to be the acknowledgement that ultimately the success or failure of your character depended on you. Yes they blame being held back by Hogan, usually, and whatnot but it seems as if old-timers were less passive in taking responsibility for the success of the character.
One creative ill-fitting idea for one guy is the money-spinner for the next. Not all gimmicks fit all men but maybe some try harder than others to make theirs work. Even in the early 90s a zombie 'dead man' gimmick sounded hookie and could have gone one of two ways - either bombed completely and we'd all be looking back on it now holding our nose and laughing at the two disasters of Survivor Series 1990 (the other being that..THING that danced with Mean Gene), or been successful. Give that gimmick to someone else and it could be wrestlecrap fodder from that point forward.
It always annoys me when creative are blamed exclusively and I sympathise a bit Vince's comments - it seems as if superstars these days have a "nothing to do with me" attitude towards their characters as if they should all be complete, ready made, market-researched gimmicks but there's few gimmicks that ever start out as anything other as a gradual work in progress. There's never been a Steve Ausitn or Hulk Hogan pixie dust where you flick a switch and there's a brilliant character ready to go from the off. But to me at least, it seems as if that's what many of this generation want. There are exceptions of course but whilst creative shares responsibility this generation of superstars do feel the need to be spoonfed and if they don't get over it's never their fault and I think a lot have a half-arsed, arms-length involvement with their character that none of the top guys of the past had.
One creative ill-fitting idea for one guy is the money-spinner for the next. Not all gimmicks fit all men but maybe some try harder than others to make theirs work. Even in the early 90s a zombie 'dead man' gimmick sounded hookie and could have gone one of two ways - either bombed completely and we'd all be looking back on it now holding our nose and laughing at the two disasters of Survivor Series 1990 (the other being that..THING that danced with Mean Gene), or been successful. Give that gimmick to someone else and it could be wrestlecrap fodder from that point forward.
It always annoys me when creative are blamed exclusively and I sympathise a bit Vince's comments - it seems as if superstars these days have a "nothing to do with me" attitude towards their characters as if they should all be complete, ready made, market-researched gimmicks but there's few gimmicks that ever start out as anything other as a gradual work in progress. There's never been a Steve Ausitn or Hulk Hogan pixie dust where you flick a switch and there's a brilliant character ready to go from the off. But to me at least, it seems as if that's what many of this generation want. There are exceptions of course but whilst creative shares responsibility this generation of superstars do feel the need to be spoonfed and if they don't get over it's never their fault and I think a lot have a half-arsed, arms-length involvement with their character that none of the top guys of the past had.