Can WWE write decent babyfaces anymore?

[Lupin the Third]

Jul 2, 2017 19:14:26 GMT -5 Pushed to the Moon said:

That is a pretty good rant. The obsession with getting heat and making the good guys look like idiots is pretty weird. Especially since their corporate buzzword slogan is "putting smiles on faces".

When they say that, they mean putting smiles on their own faces. They seem to not give a shit what puts smiles on the fans' faces.

Well, besides Braun destroying Roman on a weekly basis.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Jul 5, 2017 10:59:12 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

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.

Well, thinking about it, historically- faces acting in the wrong haven't been something that's driven down business for a company to the extent that faces not being proactive when necessary have. There's tons of examples throughout wrestling history of top babyfaces going over the line or even being flat out mean, but still getting a pop because they took control of the situation occurring.

The Rock's character was frequently the biggest douche walking the face of the earth at the time, and announcers didn't spend much- if any- time calling out him or Austin, but that's not necessarily why audiences were responding to him so much. They were popping for Rock's energy level, his charisma and the variety of emotions he brought to his performances.

A face that's too unlikable isn't good for business, no, but it's even worse for a babyface that's expected to draw big crowds to be perceived as weak. Wrestling fans react to visceral, kinetic energy, action being taken and big shit happening much more than they ponder in depth the morality of their favorite wrestlers.

There is an argument that a guy like Seth Rollins could be written as more likable, yes. That's fair. But only a minority of wrestling fans, namely diehards like you and I who come to boards like these, would bother seriously think that hard about whether or not Rollins's character is truly a good person. We'll do it all day, because we're wrestling nerds like that.

But as far as the casual audience is concerned, the kind of people who respond to Rollins on a more purely visceral level- his looks, him having cool moves, people just thinking he's exciting and cool and cause he wins often, etc- they're not THAT fixated on his morality. I think they're more into the "sport" narrative, like how strong he looks, whether or not they think he'll win the title, stuff along those lines. So that's what WWE should be concentrating on more.

[The Thread Barbi]

Jul 3, 2017 0:04:26 GMT -5 Germansuplex said:

Jul 2, 2017 21:20:05 GMT -5 Bang Bang Bart said:

WWE should look at how Marvel Studios writes their faces in the movies for an idea on how to build their own faces.

Let's give Vince another 20 years to catch up.

20 years from now - "Who's that Drax? Get him signed! We'll get him to be a heel in a WWE movie about wrestling. Then he walks into the ring to carry on his movie feud over top billing!"

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

They can hardly write decent anything, and hardly ever could.

[pegasuswarrior]

Jul 2, 2017 21:20:05 GMT -5 Bang Bang Bart said:

Jul 2, 2017 19:01:24 GMT -5 EoE: Workin On My Night Cheese said:

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.

WWE should look at how Marvel Studios writes their faces in the movies for an idea on how to build their own faces.

Or pay attention to NXT. It's right under their noses, but Vince and company don't watch the company's own product. Not that he would get it anyway.

But yeah, I get what you're saying. You're right about that.

[A Platypus Rave is Correct]

Jul 3, 2017 0:04:26 GMT -5 Germansuplex said:

Jul 2, 2017 21:20:05 GMT -5 Bang Bang Bart said:

WWE should look at how Marvel Studios writes their faces in the movies for an idea on how to build their own faces.

Let's give Vince another 20 years to catch up.

He may not be super into the mainstream stuff (and ignoring that one of his ex-wrestlers is in them) outside wrestling but he IS a grandfather.

If he hasn't seen the Marvel movies I wouldn't doubt that his grandkids have at least talked about it enough for him to at least get a passing knowledge of them.

and since Birchall stated that Vince is the one that mentioned Jack Sparrow by name he also isn't as completely out of the loop as some think.

[Ben Wyatt]

Jul 5, 2017 13:53:55 GMT -5 A Platypus Rave is Correct said:

Jul 3, 2017 0:04:26 GMT -5 Germansuplex said:

Let's give Vince another 20 years to catch up.

He may not be super into the mainstream stuff (and ignoring that one of his ex-wrestlers is in them) outside wrestling but he IS a grandfather.

If he hasn't seen the Marvel movies I wouldn't doubt that his grandkids have at least talked about it enough for him to at least get a passing knowledge of them.

and since Birchall stated that Vince is the one that mentioned Jack Sparrow by name he also isn't as completely out of the loop as some think.

The "Vince is comedically out of the loop" narrative is vastly overblown

[HMARK Center]

Jul 5, 2017 13:10:21 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Jul 5, 2017 10:59:12 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

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.

Well, thinking about it, historically- faces acting in the wrong haven't been something that's driven down business for a company to the extent that faces not being proactive when necessary have. There's tons of examples throughout wrestling history of top babyfaces going over the line or even being flat out mean, but still getting a pop because they took control of the situation occurring.

The Rock's character was frequently the biggest douche walking the face of the earth at the time, and announcers didn't spend much- if any- time calling out him or Austin, but that's not necessarily why audiences were responding to him so much. They were popping for Rock's energy level, his charisma and the variety of emotions he brought to his performances.

A face that's too unlikable isn't good for business, no, but it's even worse for a babyface that's expected to draw big crowds to be perceived as weak. Wrestling fans react to visceral, kinetic energy, action being taken and big shit happening much more than they ponder in depth the morality of their favorite wrestlers.

There is an argument that a guy like Seth Rollins could be written as more likable, yes. That's fair. But only a minority of wrestling fans, namely diehards like you and I who come to boards like these, would bother seriously think that hard about whether or not Rollins's character is truly a good person. We'll do it all day, because we're wrestling nerds like that.

But as far as the casual audience is concerned, the kind of people who respond to Rollins on a more purely visceral level- his looks, him having cool moves, people just thinking he's exciting and cool and cause he wins often, etc- they're not THAT fixated on his morality. I think they're more into the "sport" narrative, like how strong he looks, whether or not they think he'll win the title, stuff along those lines. So that's what WWE should be concentrating on more.

I mostly agree, but I probably could've phrased it better - I just don't think WWE faces should be in the situations they're in where they act like jerks so often. Yes, Austin was a sociopath and Rock was a narcissist, but it was also a different era and both guys were able to play off of the bigger evil within the promotion, Vince himself. Ironically, Rock acting like such a jerk so often was something that drove me away from the WWF circa late '99/early 2000, so I know I'm not the best gauge on the issue, but again, at least during their face runs there was a clearly defined "Bigger Bad".

The problem now is that it doesn't feel like there's a truly evil heel to be had, or if there is ala Stephanie it's someone who doesn't receive proper comeuppance, while other heels who are more annoying than evil receive over-the-top punishment for it and come off as more sympathetic than the faces. While I'd love more character nuance in mainstream pro wrestling I also understand that can be something hard to do for a broad audience, but to me the greater answer then is "just don't put your face in a situation where he/she will come off as a heel, unless you're going to follow up on it in a thought-out manner." Hulk Hogan sometimes did things that were not totally on the up-and-up, but hey, Andre broke his heart, Ted DiBiase did everything to undercut the message of Hulkamania by tossing money around, Macho Man falsely accused him of being an adulterer (oh, real life irony), Sgt. Slaughter threw a fireball in his face, etc. Just avoid this situation by having the heels be truly awful people doing truly awful thing (doesn't mean having to do overly controversial things for the sake of doing them), then you avoid having faces come off as unjustified jerks.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Jul 5, 2017 15:31:35 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Jul 5, 2017 13:10:21 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Well, thinking about it, historically- faces acting in the wrong haven't been something that's driven down business for a company to the extent that faces not being proactive when necessary have. There's tons of examples throughout wrestling history of top babyfaces going over the line or even being flat out mean, but still getting a pop because they took control of the situation occurring.

The Rock's character was frequently the biggest douche walking the face of the earth at the time, and announcers didn't spend much- if any- time calling out him or Austin, but that's not necessarily why audiences were responding to him so much. They were popping for Rock's energy level, his charisma and the variety of emotions he brought to his performances.

A face that's too unlikable isn't good for business, no, but it's even worse for a babyface that's expected to draw big crowds to be perceived as weak. Wrestling fans react to visceral, kinetic energy, action being taken and big shit happening much more than they ponder in depth the morality of their favorite wrestlers.

There is an argument that a guy like Seth Rollins could be written as more likable, yes. That's fair. But only a minority of wrestling fans, namely diehards like you and I who come to boards like these, would bother seriously think that hard about whether or not Rollins's character is truly a good person. We'll do it all day, because we're wrestling nerds like that.

But as far as the casual audience is concerned, the kind of people who respond to Rollins on a more purely visceral level- his looks, him having cool moves, people just thinking he's exciting and cool and cause he wins often, etc- they're not THAT fixated on his morality. I think they're more into the "sport" narrative, like how strong he looks, whether or not they think he'll win the title, stuff along those lines. So that's what WWE should be concentrating on more.

I mostly agree, but I probably could've phrased it better - I just don't think WWE faces should be in the situations they're in where they act like jerks so often. Yes, Austin was a sociopath and Rock was a narcissist, but it was also a different era and both guys were able to play off of the bigger evil within the promotion, Vince himself. Ironically, Rock acting like such a jerk so often was something that drove me away from the WWF circa late '99/early 2000, so I know I'm not the best gauge on the issue, but again, at least during their face runs there was a clearly defined "Bigger Bad".

The problem now is that it doesn't feel like there's a truly evil heel to be had, or if there is ala Stephanie it's someone who doesn't receive proper comeuppance, while other heels who are more annoying than evil receive over-the-top punishment for it and come off as more sympathetic than the faces. While I'd love more character nuance in mainstream pro wrestling I also understand that can be something hard to do for a broad audience, but to me the greater answer then is "just don't put your face in a situation where he/she will come off as a heel, unless you're going to follow up on it in a thought-out manner." Hulk Hogan sometimes did things that were not totally on the up-and-up, but hey, Andre broke his heart, Ted DiBiase did everything to undercut the message of Hulkamania by tossing money around, Macho Man falsely accused him of being an adulterer (oh, real life irony), Sgt. Slaughter threw a fireball in his face, etc. Just avoid this situation by having the heels be truly awful people doing truly awful thing (doesn't mean having to do overly controversial things for the sake of doing them), then you avoid having faces come off as unjustified jerks.

Ok, that I can agree with you on. There should be a strong heel presence- not another authority figure, ideally, because I think that's becoming passe- that is at least far worse than the company's most morally ambiguous face.

Basically, while I do think companies should avoid having their faces look like bad people, I still believe most fans are primarily thinking about their success level, and probably are more forgiving of their faults than we think.

[Feargus McReddit]

Jul 5, 2017 15:49:16 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Jul 5, 2017 15:31:35 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

I mostly agree, but I probably could've phrased it better - I just don't think WWE faces should be in the situations they're in where they act like jerks so often. Yes, Austin was a sociopath and Rock was a narcissist, but it was also a different era and both guys were able to play off of the bigger evil within the promotion, Vince himself. Ironically, Rock acting like such a jerk so often was something that drove me away from the WWF circa late '99/early 2000, so I know I'm not the best gauge on the issue, but again, at least during their face runs there was a clearly defined "Bigger Bad".

The problem now is that it doesn't feel like there's a truly evil heel to be had, or if there is ala Stephanie it's someone who doesn't receive proper comeuppance, while other heels who are more annoying than evil receive over-the-top punishment for it and come off as more sympathetic than the faces. While I'd love more character nuance in mainstream pro wrestling I also understand that can be something hard to do for a broad audience, but to me the greater answer then is "just don't put your face in a situation where he/she will come off as a heel, unless you're going to follow up on it in a thought-out manner." Hulk Hogan sometimes did things that were not totally on the up-and-up, but hey, Andre broke his heart, Ted DiBiase did everything to undercut the message of Hulkamania by tossing money around, Macho Man falsely accused him of being an adulterer (oh, real life irony), Sgt. Slaughter threw a fireball in his face, etc. Just avoid this situation by having the heels be truly awful people doing truly awful thing (doesn't mean having to do overly controversial things for the sake of doing them), then you avoid having faces come off as unjustified jerks.

Ok, that I can agree with you on. There should be a strong heel presence- not another authority figure, ideally, because I think that's becoming passe- that is at least far worse than the company's most morally ambiguous face.

Basically, while I do think companies should avoid having their faces look like bad people, I still believe most fans are primarily thinking about their success level, and probably are more forgiving of their faults than we think.

I can get that too. It just is about how you tell the story with the people you tell it with, just like with any other medium. There are differences, sure, but the fundamentals are there.

[Bruce Mother Wayne]

Jul 5, 2017 15:49:16 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Jul 5, 2017 15:31:35 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

I mostly agree, but I probably could've phrased it better - I just don't think WWE faces should be in the situations they're in where they act like jerks so often. Yes, Austin was a sociopath and Rock was a narcissist, but it was also a different era and both guys were able to play off of the bigger evil within the promotion, Vince himself. Ironically, Rock acting like such a jerk so often was something that drove me away from the WWF circa late '99/early 2000, so I know I'm not the best gauge on the issue, but again, at least during their face runs there was a clearly defined "Bigger Bad".

The problem now is that it doesn't feel like there's a truly evil heel to be had, or if there is ala Stephanie it's someone who doesn't receive proper comeuppance, while other heels who are more annoying than evil receive over-the-top punishment for it and come off as more sympathetic than the faces. While I'd love more character nuance in mainstream pro wrestling I also understand that can be something hard to do for a broad audience, but to me the greater answer then is "just don't put your face in a situation where he/she will come off as a heel, unless you're going to follow up on it in a thought-out manner." Hulk Hogan sometimes did things that were not totally on the up-and-up, but hey, Andre broke his heart, Ted DiBiase did everything to undercut the message of Hulkamania by tossing money around, Macho Man falsely accused him of being an adulterer (oh, real life irony), Sgt. Slaughter threw a fireball in his face, etc. Just avoid this situation by having the heels be truly awful people doing truly awful thing (doesn't mean having to do overly controversial things for the sake of doing them), then you avoid having faces come off as unjustified jerks.

Ok, that I can agree with you on. There should be a strong heel presence- not another authority figure, ideally, because I think that's becoming passe- that is at least far worse than the company's most morally ambiguous face.

Basically, while I do think companies should avoid having their faces look like bad people, I still believe most fans are primarily thinking about their success level, and probably are more forgiving of their faults than we think.

I just don't know if there's someone on the roster currently who can fill that role that someone like the Rock did in 2003, for example. At the time, the Rock was a part-timer who showed up whenever he wants, belittled the current WWE roster, had a bigger ego because he was doing more stuff in Hollywood, who came across as fake and disingenuous, who acted like a hypocrite when it comes to telling people to do as he says when he himself doesn't abide by his own edicts, and was incredibly overexposed because of the amount of time he had been on WWE TV.

The Rock was such a great heel in a short amount of time in 2003, but WWE just doesn't have anyone like that currently. If they did, then WWE would have a strong heel around whom to build their programming for the next year or so.

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2017 15:31:35 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Jul 5, 2017 13:10:21 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Well, thinking about it, historically- faces acting in the wrong haven't been something that's driven down business for a company to the extent that faces not being proactive when necessary have. There's tons of examples throughout wrestling history of top babyfaces going over the line or even being flat out mean, but still getting a pop because they took control of the situation occurring.

The Rock's character was frequently the biggest douche walking the face of the earth at the time, and announcers didn't spend much- if any- time calling out him or Austin, but that's not necessarily why audiences were responding to him so much. They were popping for Rock's energy level, his charisma and the variety of emotions he brought to his performances.

A face that's too unlikable isn't good for business, no, but it's even worse for a babyface that's expected to draw big crowds to be perceived as weak. Wrestling fans react to visceral, kinetic energy, action being taken and big shit happening much more than they ponder in depth the morality of their favorite wrestlers.

There is an argument that a guy like Seth Rollins could be written as more likable, yes. That's fair. But only a minority of wrestling fans, namely diehards like you and I who come to boards like these, would bother seriously think that hard about whether or not Rollins's character is truly a good person. We'll do it all day, because we're wrestling nerds like that.

But as far as the casual audience is concerned, the kind of people who respond to Rollins on a more purely visceral level- his looks, him having cool moves, people just thinking he's exciting and cool and cause he wins often, etc- they're not THAT fixated on his morality. I think they're more into the "sport" narrative, like how strong he looks, whether or not they think he'll win the title, stuff along those lines. So that's what WWE should be concentrating on more.

I mostly agree, but I probably could've phrased it better - I just don't think WWE faces should be in the situations they're in where they act like jerks so often. Yes, Austin was a sociopath and Rock was a narcissist, but it was also a different era and both guys were able to play off of the bigger evil within the promotion, Vince himself. Ironically, Rock acting like such a jerk so often was something that drove me away from the WWF circa late '99/early 2000, so I know I'm not the best gauge on the issue, but again, at least during their face runs there was a clearly defined "Bigger Bad".

The problem now is that it doesn't feel like there's a truly evil heel to be had, or if there is ala Stephanie it's someone who doesn't receive proper comeuppance, while other heels who are more annoying than evil receive over-the-top punishment for it and come off as more sympathetic than the faces. While I'd love more character nuance in mainstream pro wrestling I also understand that can be something hard to do for a broad audience, but to me the greater answer then is "just don't put your face in a situation where he/she will come off as a heel, unless you're going to follow up on it in a thought-out manner." Hulk Hogan sometimes did things that were not totally on the up-and-up, but hey, Andre broke his heart, Ted DiBiase did everything to undercut the message of Hulkamania by tossing money around, Macho Man falsely accused him of being an adulterer (oh, real life irony), Sgt. Slaughter threw a fireball in his face, etc. Just avoid this situation by having the heels be truly awful people doing truly awful thing (doesn't mean having to do overly controversial things for the sake of doing them), then you avoid having faces come off as unjustified jerks.

In a lot of things that WWE does it seems like they're constantly teetering on the line of good and bad stories, they often skew in the bad and it always feels like they're a soft edit away from making something decent. Like with Bayley's whole trajectory up until now, it's not so bad that WWE production can't clean up the week-by-week happenings into a nice music video montage at a PPV and make it look like a coherent story. On a surface level her stories have been okay, but when you watch everything flesh out in real time, it's bad. Bayley coming in as the hot commodity favorite from NXT, being humbled quickly as she's bullied into realizing that it's not the dream job she thought it would be, chasing Charlotte for the title just like old times, that stuff on paper is all fine, but there's just so many details along the way that gradually pepper at her character until she just looks like such a bonehead over time. Killing Charlotte's streak, good idea, needing help to do it? Bad idea, Stephanie telling Bayley to relinquish the belt, a good fix for a rushed title win that shouldn't have happened when it did, Bayley deciding even though she doesn't deserve it, she's gonna keep it anyways? Bad idea, it's just this constant teeter totter of good and bad ideas, that if they just had an editor with some good common sense whose word is god and people actually listen to (which is Vince in theory but it's not really working out right now) it would make a lot of difference.

You can play this game with almost any babyface in the WWE, there's a lot of characters whose arcs have a basic premise that is fine, but they fall apart when it comes to details, Seth Rollins' quest to burn the establishment, good, waiting 6 months to take his first step forward? Bad. Being the repentant babyface who has to make up for his past sins? Good. Using really weak, vague verbiage to explain his remorseful state? Bad. It's been like this for so long it makes me wonder if they've ever really had it good or if they just got lucky that it's worked out for them this long, because it's not anymore.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Jul 5, 2017 17:43:21 GMT -5 Bruce Mother Wayne said:

Jul 5, 2017 15:49:16 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Ok, that I can agree with you on. There should be a strong heel presence- not another authority figure, ideally, because I think that's becoming passe- that is at least far worse than the company's most morally ambiguous face.

Basically, while I do think companies should avoid having their faces look like bad people, I still believe most fans are primarily thinking about their success level, and probably are more forgiving of their faults than we think.

I just don't know if there's someone on the roster currently who can fill that role that someone like the Rock did in 2003, for example. At the time, the Rock was a part-timer who showed up whenever he wants, belittled the current WWE roster, had a bigger ego because he was doing more stuff in Hollywood, who came across as fake and disingenuous, who acted like a hypocrite when it comes to telling people to do as he says when he himself doesn't abide by his own edicts, and was incredibly overexposed because of the amount of time he had been on WWE TV.

The Rock was such a great heel in a short amount of time in 2003, but WWE just doesn't have anyone like that currently. If they did, then WWE would have a strong heel around whom to build their programming for the next year or so.

Yes, and preferably, that heel needs to be someone who hasn't won a world title yet.

I know there's lots of criticisms to be made regarding the Mahal push, but I still appreciate the fact he's a new face to that scene.

[Urethra Franklin]

Just a heads up: Alvarez is on the latest episode of Killing the Town with Lance Storm and Don Callis to talk about this very rant and expand on the topic. It's worth a listen.

[Bruce Mother Wayne]

Jul 5, 2017 19:15:21 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Jul 5, 2017 17:43:21 GMT -5 Bruce Mother Wayne said:

I just don't know if there's someone on the roster currently who can fill that role that someone like the Rock did in 2003, for example. At the time, the Rock was a part-timer who showed up whenever he wants, belittled the current WWE roster, had a bigger ego because he was doing more stuff in Hollywood, who came across as fake and disingenuous, who acted like a hypocrite when it comes to telling people to do as he says when he himself doesn't abide by his own edicts, and was incredibly overexposed because of the amount of time he had been on WWE TV.

The Rock was such a great heel in a short amount of time in 2003, but WWE just doesn't have anyone like that currently. If they did, then WWE would have a strong heel around whom to build their programming for the next year or so.

Yes, and preferably, that heel needs to be someone who hasn't won a world title yet.

I know there's lots of criticisms to be made regarding the Mahal push, but I still appreciate the fact he's a new face to that scene.

I disagree. The Rock was already a multi-time world champion by 2003. The heel turn freshened up his character, which was easy enough to do since there already was a significant amount of the fanbase who was already souring on the guy, if his reactions in 2002 were anything to go buy. Rock was fed Austin so that one month later he could smash Goldberg over while he was out the door. Which was necessary, since Goldberg was one of the top faces for the rest of the year.

I just don't see any new wrestler getting that kind of heat. It has to be a veteran, someone with the star power and the credibility with being a mainstay of TV, who can smash someone over like Rock did Goldberg (and the Hurricane, I might add), and there really aren't that many options at the moment. Maybe one, but I doubt it.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Jul 6, 2017 1:14:39 GMT -5 Bruce Mother Wayne said:

Jul 5, 2017 19:15:21 GMT -5 BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps said:

Yes, and preferably, that heel needs to be someone who hasn't won a world title yet.

I know there's lots of criticisms to be made regarding the Mahal push, but I still appreciate the fact he's a new face to that scene.

I disagree. The Rock was already a multi-time world champion by 2003. The heel turn freshened up his character, which was easy enough to do since there already was a significant amount of the fanbase who was already souring on the guy, if his reactions in 2002 were anything to go buy. Rock was fed Austin so that one month later he could smash Goldberg over while he was out the door. Which was necessary, since Goldberg was one of the top faces for the rest of the year.

I just don't see any new wrestler getting that kind of heat. It has to be a veteran, someone with the star power and the credibility with being a mainstay of TV, who can smash someone over like Rock did Goldberg (and the Hurricane, I might add), and there really aren't that many options at the moment. Maybe one, but I doubt it.

I'll pass on that, then.

[HMARK Center]

Jul 5, 2017 21:34:14 GMT -5 Urethra Franklin said:

Just a heads up: Alvarez is on the latest episode of Killing the Town with Lance Storm and Don Callis to talk about this very rant and expand on the topic. It's worth a listen.

Listened to it, and the points made are pretty interesting.

It's notable how the writers today really don't have a grasp of pro wrestling history, and only get a cursory, kind of vague idea of what worked and what didn't in the old days.

Like, yes, building heat isn't in and of itself a bad thing, but as Alvarez says, that worked well in the territory days because you could show your crowd something awful happening to your top babyface one week, then return to the same town the next week/month/whatever to allow the babyface to get some well-deserved revenge. Today we have wrestlers lose in their home towns to build heat in order to...uh...not do anything with it? How does that work?

The answer could be "well, it's not for the local audience, it's for the TV audience, so as long as the payoff happens for the TV audience it's fine"...yet even then there's not usually a pay off! That's not to say babyfaces don't win at big cards for WWE, but they've made such a habit of pushing guys who get "controversial" reactions that even a big win for Roman or Cena is often used to "build more heat". I know there are some who view a heel losing as the start of a burial (e.g. Rusev's losses to Cena, the fear of Roman going over Strowman, etc.), but that concern wouldn't be so prevalent if the overall presentation of the faces was done better across the board.

Thus, the problem becomes two-fold: the babyfaces aren't particularly likable/relatable/sympathetic for one reason or another in the first place, and then they go out and often get used to "build heat" for a heel, with no satisfying payoff to be had on multiple levels. People start asking "why should I keep watching this?", viewership falls. Shouldn't take much to remember the effect that constant Nitro-ending nWo beatdowns of babyfaces had on WCW's ratings over time, or just how great things went for TNA when they'd end a PPV or whatever with the latest "we're here to take over the company" heel stable standing tall.

[Nosnorb]

Watching this weeks episode of Smackdown, seeing Nakamura getting beat backstage by Corbin really reminded me of the "Get Heat on Heels" style of booking, and why it can be so damaging.

In the case of Swagsuke, here is a dude who has the upside of incredible offence and boundless charisma. So they book him in a Smackdown roster debut match at Backlash where Ziggler (a dude known for his selling) is on offense 70 percent of the match, in order to get heat on The Show-off. Which doesn't work because thanks to years of pulling the rug out from under his feet, nobody reacts to Ziggles anymore.

And at MitB, Shinsukes entrance (which is incredible and showcases his charisma), is cut short by Corbin, to get heat on him. And he hasn't had a match since then and fans haven't had something they f***ing love. Not only that, Shinsuke has looked like a midcarder thanks to having his weaknesses highlighted, he cannot get as much face heat as he would have done, and when a heel screws him over its going to mean the heel getting less over than they would if Shinsuke had been booked to get more over.

[Dukect]

This one interesting topic so Interesting I get into it on my little podcast and my feelings on the subject



The Time stamp for it is 7:29

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

I keep saying it. One of WWE's biggest issues is that too many of their faces are either comedy goofballs, idiots that are impossible to take serious or straight up losers that choke when the pressure is on.