Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,627
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Jul 4, 2017 0:08:14 GMT -5
Well, the Enzo segment tonight was a step in the right direction "You're just a seven foot catchphrase.......that I wrote." That's going to be a line that sticks with you for a while. |
|
Ozman
Unicron
Chi-Town!!!
Posts: 2,821
|
Post by Ozman on Jul 4, 2017 1:15:41 GMT -5
Not sure when or why WWE started making "heels" the main focus of the show, but I posted this a few weeks ago in another thread. Looks like WWE is officially a "heel" territory. For decades, its traditionally been a "babyface" territory. Going all the way back to Bruno, Pedro, Backlund, Hogan, Bret, Shawn, Austin, Cena. I'm not sure when it happened, but WWE is now like the old NWA/JCP/WCW where "heels" had long title reigns, while "babyfaces" spent the majority of the time chasing. |
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323 
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Jul 4, 2017 1:48:34 GMT -5
Well, the Enzo segment tonight was a step in the right direction It was but in that same night we had a face in Ambrose who didn't help Slater during his match with Miz, but only came down after the match was over. I can remember ALL faces at one point, should they be doing commentary and they noticed a fellow good guy against a heel who had back up during a match, said face wrestler would throw down his headset and run down to the ring to help them. The Enzo promo was a step in the right direction, but let's not forget that Enzo and Cass were written as the victims when Rusev got pissed about another man standing naked in front of his wife. Because how dare any man get upset at the notion of another man being in the nude with his wife present. WWE needs less Hollywood writers and more bookers/writers who were/are fans of wrestling, who understand history, characters, and overall alignments. For everything that was right about the Enzo promo, him coming out acting goofy before his promo is what's wrong with the product. Enzo should've came to the ring with a serious and pissed off demeanor that helps sell the story. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 4, 2017 9:43:09 GMT -5
The most comical "Why the hell is he still a face???" moments were when John Cena gave those brutal unsolicited beatdowns to Jack Swagger. Those were my favourite ones of those, when the good guy would beat the ever loving crap out of someone because they're angry at another dude. Like...I can get they're a bad guy outside of their storyline but...they didn't do anything personal to you. Like, when John Cena beat the crap out of Michael Cole several months after his storyline ended. Dude hadn't even been a dick for ages, then suddenly he's got BBQ sauce all over him. God this was atrocious. And it main-evented that week's Raw, didn't it? |
|
AlexaBliss4Life
Unicron
Alexa Bliss is the Queen the wrestling world needs!
Posts: 2,610
|
Post by AlexaBliss4Life on Jul 4, 2017 9:50:22 GMT -5
Those were my favourite ones of those, when the good guy would beat the ever loving crap out of someone because they're angry at another dude. Like...I can get they're a bad guy outside of their storyline but...they didn't do anything personal to you. Like, when John Cena beat the crap out of Michael Cole several months after his storyline ended. Dude hadn't even been a dick for ages, then suddenly he's got BBQ sauce all over him. God this was atrocious. And it main-evented that week's Raw, didn't it? Yep but I quite enjoyed it. |
|
AlexaBliss4Life
Unicron
Alexa Bliss is the Queen the wrestling world needs!
Posts: 2,610
|
Post by AlexaBliss4Life on Jul 4, 2017 9:51:23 GMT -5
Well, the Enzo segment tonight was a step in the right direction It was but in that same night we had a face in Ambrose who didn't help Slater during his match with Miz, but only came down after the match was over. I can remember ALL faces at one point, should they be doing commentary and they noticed a fellow good guy against a heel who had back up during a match, said face wrestler would throw down his headset and run down to the ring to help them. The Enzo promo was a step in the right direction, but let's not forget that Enzo and Cass were written as the victims when Rusev got pissed about another man standing naked in front of his wife. Because how dare any man get upset at the notion of another man being in the nude with his wife present. WWE needs less Hollywood writers and more bookers/writers who were/are fans of wrestling, who understand history, characters, and overall alignments. For everything that was right about the Enzo promo, him coming out acting goofy before his promo is what's wrong with the product. Enzo should've came to the ring with a serious and pissed off demeanor that helps sell the story. I somewhat agree, but ya gotta play to the crowd just a little even if your character feels angry as a face. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 4, 2017 9:54:20 GMT -5
It was but in that same night we had a face in Ambrose who didn't help Slater during his match with Miz, but only came down after the match was over. I can remember ALL faces at one point, should they be doing commentary and they noticed a fellow good guy against a heel who had back up during a match, said face wrestler would throw down his headset and run down to the ring to help them. The Enzo promo was a step in the right direction, but let's not forget that Enzo and Cass were written as the victims when Rusev got pissed about another man standing naked in front of his wife. Because how dare any man get upset at the notion of another man being in the nude with his wife present. WWE needs less Hollywood writers and more bookers/writers who were/are fans of wrestling, who understand history, characters, and overall alignments. For everything that was right about the Enzo promo, him coming out acting goofy before his promo is what's wrong with the product. Enzo should've came to the ring with a serious and pissed off demeanor that helps sell the story. I somewhat agree, but ya gotta play to the crowd just a little even if your character feels angry as a face. That really isn't true. Playing to the crowd includes not doing your shtick because you're pissed off. |
|
AlexaBliss4Life
Unicron
Alexa Bliss is the Queen the wrestling world needs!
Posts: 2,610
|
Post by AlexaBliss4Life on Jul 4, 2017 10:14:01 GMT -5
I somewhat agree, but ya gotta play to the crowd just a little even if your character feels angry as a face. That really isn't true. Playing to the crowd includes not doing your shtick because you're pissed off. How does that make any sense? |
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Jul 4, 2017 10:33:41 GMT -5
That really isn't true. Playing to the crowd includes not doing your shtick because you're pissed off. How does that make any sense? Because in real life, if you are annoyed, you're not going to be the person you usually are. When a main character is annoyed, they're not going to be doing the same actions because they're focused on what their goal is. If you as a wrestler cut a passionate promo that gets people invested in what you're doing, you don't need catchphrases or actions to get the crowd into it because they're already into it. They know you are that invested so they get invested too. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jul 4, 2017 10:39:35 GMT -5
That really isn't true. Playing to the crowd includes not doing your shtick because you're pissed off. How does that make any sense? If I greet you at the office every day with a high-five and a smile, then that's a thing that we do. Then my wife cheats on me and leaves me. The next day, I do not go for a high-five, and I do not smile. You don't then immediately forget my name and face. You think 'something bad must have happened to this guy.' Wrestling is pantomime, and even kids are going to shit on it if a guy reels off a load of catchphrases, says how perturbed they are about the whole thing, and then changes nothing else about themselves. |
|
AlexaBliss4Life
Unicron
Alexa Bliss is the Queen the wrestling world needs!
Posts: 2,610
|
Post by AlexaBliss4Life on Jul 4, 2017 10:52:13 GMT -5
How does that make any sense? If I greet you at the office every day with a high-five and a smile, then that's a thing that we do. Then my wife cheats on me and leaves me. The next day, I do not go for a high-five, and I do not smile. You don't then immediately forget my name and face. You think 'something bad must have happened to this guy.' Wrestling is pantomime, and even kids are going to shit on it if a guy reels off a load of catchphrases, says how perturbed they are about the whole thing, and then changes nothing else about themselves. Ah okay, good point. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 4, 2017 17:34:17 GMT -5
On this overall topic, Alvarez is basically right; I don't think Vince really knows what makes a "good guy" at this stage, and it's not just because of shifting public sensibilities, it seems more because Vince is all caught up in "alpha male" toxic masculinity stuff where your heroes need to be the funniest, toughest, and smartest guys in the room at all times, or else they have to be sensitive losers who get beat up all the time in an attempt to build sympathy, rather than trying to find some sort of compromise that plays to the strengths of individual performers. In the former category, you get things like Cena insulting people over seemingly nothing, or beating up random people because he's angry at someone else, as if that's what a pure babyface does...look, SOME babyfaces can do that, but you need to book/write them in a way where it makes sense for them to do that, and where it's clearly presented as against the grain of what's expected. All too often I get a vibe from WWE babyfaces that if a heel so much as coughs near them and accidentally doesn't cover their mouth, the babyface will spend the next three months running in on the heel's matches and beating them down...which is what a heel would do. Then in the latter category you get people like Bryan or Zayn, and while having them fall short for awhile isn't in and of itself a bad strategy for some wrestlers, you eventually hit a point where they look like complete chumps, and people don't like cheering for chumps. You have to throw them, and by extension the audience, a bone once in awhile.
Add to that the seeming need to brand everything on the show, which makes it hard for real personalities to shine through; WWE needs to own or control seemingly everything about these wrestlers, so allowing more of themselves to shine through is difficult through all the scripted promos and step by step directions on how to act while on camera.
There's also the lack of stakes in most WWE matches and angles; we're not told that winners receive more money for winning, we're not led to believe that the titles are especially valuable, etc., so why should we care if "guy who plays to the crowd" can win or not against "guy who insults local sports teams"? Ultimately, if Roman beats Braun on Sunday...who cares? Dude's getting the title match at SummerSlam, anyway, and he won't do any long term selling from the match on the next few Raws, so who cares how much Braun throws him around for fifteen minutes, why be sympathetic toward him?
Put it one more way: the best Bugs Bunny cartoons often involve Bugs mercilessly torturing his antagonists, but with a caveat: he's only doing it to them because they've fundamentally threatened his very existence, AND usually after he's given them a chance to stop what they're doing. He'll bother Elmer Fudd because Elmer's trying to shoot him; he'll let Daffy get shot because Daffy's trying to get Elmer to kill him; he'll go after Yosemite Sam because Sam tried to, I dunno, build a railroad over his rabbit hole and kick him out of his home; he'll pester Marvin the Martian because Marvin wants to blow up the Earth; the list goes on.
If Vince was writing a Bugs Bunny cartoon, though, I feel like he'd have Elmer Fudd sitting on a rocking chair doing nothing, put a sign up for the audience that says "this guy seems kind of unlikeable, doesn't he, folks?", then have Bugs run in the frame and begin beating Elmer with a mallet and dropping anvils on his head despite Elmer never even having gotten up from his chair, then put up another sign that says "CHEER FOR THE BUNNY, DAMNIT." Not for nothing, but that essentially feels like the way they book Dean Ambrose, anvils nearly included.
One last part: on the topic of Izzy, I think Alvarez's point is that if Izzy was a true Bayley superfan, there'd be nobody in the world she'd hate right now more than Alexa Bliss. Yet, Bayley's been booked so poorly that even her biggest fan, who is still of an age where "good guys vs. bad guys" probably matters, is left thinking "this Alexa seems cool", even as Alexa tortures her favorite wrestler. I'm not saying she can't like both on some level, but something's off there.
|
|
AlexaBliss4Life
Unicron
Alexa Bliss is the Queen the wrestling world needs!
Posts: 2,610
|
Post by AlexaBliss4Life on Jul 4, 2017 21:32:24 GMT -5
On this overall topic, Alvarez is basically right; I don't think Vince really knows what makes a "good guy" at this stage, and it's not just because of shifting public sensibilities, it seems more because Vince is all caught up in "alpha male" toxic masculinity stuff where your heroes need to be the funniest, toughest, and smartest guys in the room at all times, or else they have to be sensitive losers who get beat up all the time in an attempt to build sympathy, rather than trying to find some sort of compromise that plays to the strengths of individual performers. In the former category, you get things like Cena insulting people over seemingly nothing, or beating up random people because he's angry at someone else, as if that's what a pure babyface does...look, SOME babyfaces can do that, but you need to book/write them in a way where it makes sense for them to do that, and where it's clearly presented as against the grain of what's expected. All too often I get a vibe from WWE babyfaces that if a heel so much as coughs near them and accidentally doesn't cover their mouth, the babyface will spend the next three months running in on the heel's matches and beating them down... which is what a heel would do. Then in the latter category you get people like Bryan or Zayn, and while having them fall short for awhile isn't in and of itself a bad strategy for some wrestlers, you eventually hit a point where they look like complete chumps, and people don't like cheering for chumps. You have to throw them, and by extension the audience, a bone once in awhile. Add to that the seeming need to brand everything on the show, which makes it hard for real personalities to shine through; WWE needs to own or control seemingly everything about these wrestlers, so allowing more of themselves to shine through is difficult through all the scripted promos and step by step directions on how to act while on camera. There's also the lack of stakes in most WWE matches and angles; we're not told that winners receive more money for winning, we're not led to believe that the titles are especially valuable, etc., so why should we care if "guy who plays to the crowd" can win or not against "guy who insults local sports teams"? Ultimately, if Roman beats Braun on Sunday...who cares? Dude's getting the title match at SummerSlam, anyway, and he won't do any long term selling from the match on the next few Raws, so who cares how much Braun throws him around for fifteen minutes, why be sympathetic toward him? Put it one more way: the best Bugs Bunny cartoons often involve Bugs mercilessly torturing his antagonists, but with a caveat: he's only doing it to them because they've fundamentally threatened his very existence, AND usually after he's given them a chance to stop what they're doing. He'll bother Elmer Fudd because Elmer's trying to shoot him; he'll let Daffy get shot because Daffy's trying to get Elmer to kill him; he'll go after Yosemite Sam because Sam tried to, I dunno, build a railroad over his rabbit hole and kick him out of his home; he'll pester Marvin the Martian because Marvin wants to blow up the Earth; the list goes on. If Vince was writing a Bugs Bunny cartoon, though, I feel like he'd have Elmer Fudd sitting on a rocking chair doing nothing, put a sign up for the audience that says "this guy seems kind of unlikeable, doesn't he, folks?", then have Bugs run in the frame and begin beating Elmer with a mallet and dropping anvils on his head despite Elmer never even having gotten up from his chair, then put up another sign that says "CHEER FOR THE BUNNY, DAMNIT." Not for nothing, but that essentially feels like the way they book Dean Ambrose, anvils nearly included. One last part: on the topic of Izzy, I think Alvarez's point is that if Izzy was a true Bayley superfan, there'd be nobody in the world she'd hate right now more than Alexa Bliss. Yet, Bayley's been booked so poorly that even her biggest fan, who is still of an age where "good guys vs. bad guys" probably matters, is left thinking "this Alexa seems cool", even as Alexa tortures her favorite wrestler. I'm not saying she can't like both on some level, but something's off there. Yeah but Izzy's a pure of heart kid and she knows how the business works I'd imagine, otherwise she would be upset when Bayley loses, but she isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Jul 5, 2017 9:29:05 GMT -5
I don't think faces "acting like dicks" is as big a problem for WWE as the faces not going over when it's time. That was the crux of Alvarez's rant, that the babyfaces aren't allowed to get the edge over heels and authority figures the way they should. Fans are going to be forgiving of a flawed babyface if the heel is obnoxious enough, so I don't get bent out of shape when they act like a jerk to the jerks. I agree that there are a lot of instances where faces could be written way better (looking at you, Bayley), but I think we as a fanbase need to be more specific in what we want from our babyface characters. If we want them to show a little rugged edge and backbone, then we can't then hold them to boy scout standards of behaviour when they become the proactive party in a feud and take a swing at the heel. If we want someone as a believable underdog, then they DO actually need to lose once in a while, otherwise they just aren't underdogs. And the top babyface in the company DOES have to usually win in the end, that's why he's the top babyface. It's how wrestling has worked for decades, including the two most profitable eras in the history of the business. By all means take issue with who they pick in that role, though. The storytelling has so little faith in it now, most of us just want our favourites to win now and win always, as that seems to be the only indication of whether they think you're any good or not. I feel that's overthinking the situation. There is a morality play aspect, but it's not the end-all-be-all with getting fans- who I don't think are that demanding, honestly- to cheer for a wrestler. You can't look at these people like regular television characters, they're more like hybrids of TV drama characters and sportsmen/sportswomen. A lot of times, fans will just cheer for people they find exciting, regardless of what their moral alignment is. Braun's recent pops were a good example, I'm sure fan frustration with Roman helped, but Braun's fighting him in fun and interesting ways. If you find a performer who's dynamic and exciting and you make them look strong without going to the point of invincibility, they WILL get over with fans. Goldberg was a perfect example of how less can be more when building a new ace. Reigns to me is a good case study of how second guessing and stop-starting a push can hurt someone's momentum. WWE should look at how Marvel Studios writes their faces in the movies for an idea on how to build their own faces. No, I disagree. I love the MCU, but a Marvel Studios approach can't really work with WWE. The structure of the show doesn't allow for the roster to be overly heroic or selfless. These characters aren't crimefighters, or public servants trying to save lives and protect the innocent. They're wrestlers- professional athletes that, in the WWE canon, are trying to win championships and make money. It's understandable that in the heat of competition, a babyface's temper would get the better of them or they develop an arrogant/aggressive side, because they want to be number one. People didn't tune into to see Tyson fights because they thought he was a noble and great hero, all ticket buyers cared about was seeing him knock out fools. Hell, I'll go as far to say that it's okay for a top babyface to be a little cocky and selfish. Hogan and Savage in their prime were neither absolute pricks or bastions of purity, they were just big personalities who both believed they were the best wrestlers in the world. That's the same happy medium Cena falls in. He's smug and cocky, he has a temper, he can be a jerk at times and he takes losses badly. Good, I say! It makes him more interesting. Plus he also has a strong code of ethics he follows, admirable drive, he's close with his fans and does great charity work. He's neither a Bob Backlund-ish boy scout nor a HHH-style scheming villain in disguise. Despite what fans and WWE marketing like to say, homeboy ain't actually a superhero....nor does he have to be one. Same with Okada, his character is a rich arrogant dick, but he also has that drive and toughness to him. These characters aren't hypocrites, they're fully realized personalities, and that's why they got over. TL, DR: WWE shouldn't worry about making their faces more "pure", they should focus on making them look like winners. And yes, the top men and women absolutely should be the "coolest people in the room". |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 5, 2017 10:59:12 GMT -5
I do agree that, since babyfaces aren't usually supposed to cheat, they should most often be depicted as "winners", or however you want to phrase it. Ultimately people usually want to cheer for whomever is the best, even in kayfabe.
My hang up is that too many WWE faces do act like dicks, though, but what's worse is that the announcers and presentation almost never point it out when it'd be justified to say "(whomever) has gone too far, here", which would be something that'd add drama or nuance to the storyline and situation. Like, Miz being annoying isn't really a reason to come out during one of his promos and start torturing him; Miz doing something unjustifiable and bad to the face is the time to strike at him, "let your temper flare", or whatever, and it'd be fair for the presentation to say that the face may not be in the right if they go too far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 5, 2017 11:03:19 GMT -5
Right, it's like when Cena was makin out with Eve during the Ryder thing THEN making her out to be a whore.
A face doesn't act that way. Not in betraying your friend, not in slut shaming the chick later given at that point she wasn't the manipulative heel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Jul 5, 2017 11:04:39 GMT -5
I do agree that, since babyfaces aren't usually supposed to cheat, they should most often be depicted as "winners", or however you want to phrase it. Ultimately people usually want to cheer for whomever is the best, even in kayfabe. My hang up is that too many WWE faces do act like dicks, though, but what's worse is that the announcers and presentation almost never point it out when it'd be justified to say "(whomever) has gone too far, here", which would be something that'd add drama or nuance to the storyline and situation. Like, Miz being annoying isn't really a reason to come out during one of his promos and start torturing him; Miz doing something unjustifiable and bad to the face is the time to strike at him, "let your temper flare", or whatever, and it'd be fair for the presentation to say that the face may not be in the right if they go too far. It feels like at times that they're only escalating things that way because they need a reason to continue the feud rather than figuring out a logical continuation to the story already established. |
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Jul 5, 2017 11:06:23 GMT -5
Right, it's like when Cena was makin out with Eve during the Ryder thing THEN making her out to be a whore. A face doesn't act that way. Not in betraying your friend, not in slut shaming the chick later given at that point she wasn't the manipulative heel. The worst thing about that was that Eve's "confession" was so ridiculously half hearted, it made the whole thing worse. Especially considering the video before it made Cena out to not looking very good. It felt like they realised what they did at midnight Sunday and had to come up with something during the ensuing panic attack to make Cena look good. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 5, 2017 11:17:08 GMT -5
I do agree that, since babyfaces aren't usually supposed to cheat, they should most often be depicted as "winners", or however you want to phrase it. Ultimately people usually want to cheer for whomever is the best, even in kayfabe. My hang up is that too many WWE faces do act like dicks, though, but what's worse is that the announcers and presentation almost never point it out when it'd be justified to say "(whomever) has gone too far, here", which would be something that'd add drama or nuance to the storyline and situation. Like, Miz being annoying isn't really a reason to come out during one of his promos and start torturing him; Miz doing something unjustifiable and bad to the face is the time to strike at him, "let your temper flare", or whatever, and it'd be fair for the presentation to say that the face may not be in the right if they go too far. It feels like at times that they're only escalating things that way because they need a reason to continue the feud rather than figuring out a logical continuation to the story already established. That, ultimately, is one of WWE's greatest flaws: since they just book so much on the fly for TV, there's just so often not any sort of point B to follow the beginning of a feud, or not even a point C conclusion. Hence, they just tell two guys "go out there and have the same match as last week", or "go out there and just bother each other, whatever", or at least that's what it often comes across as. |
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,867
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Jul 5, 2017 11:41:38 GMT -5
The other problem is their inability to change things on the fly. Outside of Bryan's big win (which was a result of the fans forcing the hand), when was the last time you saw them change course and get behind an organically driven babyface? Some of their best success stories came from letting the crowd tell you what they wanted....and then.....ACTUALLY GIVING IT TO THEM!!! Imagine if they ignored the huge swell of support for Foley in the latter half of 1998?
|
|
