|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Dec 18, 2017 3:30:04 GMT -5
I got to believe that Kevin & Sami won't be going face, but I think Shane will eventually be going heel, so it will be awkward when they eventually end up on the same side in a storyline.
|
|
King Devitt
Grimlock
It gets better the longer you stare at it
Posts: 13,753
Member is Online
|
Post by King Devitt on Dec 18, 2017 3:32:43 GMT -5
Shane is always the heel in my head. A million times this. |
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 18, 2017 4:11:54 GMT -5
[The counterpoint to this I guess is that WWE has an extreme, debilitating problem with having its faces be unlikable, unsympathetic, raging dickbags and thinking that's just what a face should be. Especially where the McMahon family is concern there is sometimes this weird myopic understanding of morality where Vince can come out and cut a face promo saying the legal system is made for rich people and he can ruin Kevin Owens's life, all to generate 'sympathy' for when Owens busts his f***ing head open. The quality of writing here is so bad that the idea of complete misunderstanding of their own story is just par for the goddamn course here. Like, you can say people are just not picking up the signs, but that is legitimately an argument that was made by people during the Roman/AJ story where no joke someone said that AJ was the only face in that whole situation and everyone else was shades of gray, and that it was definitely going to lead to a Roman heel turn. You can't discount WWE's confrontationally bad writing in matters like this. But that ties to the other side of the mix...face/heel dynamics are basically dead as it is. Right now, there is no face or heel- there's "Whoever I like is the hero, and I'll justify it if they're a heel", and "Whoever I dislike is the heel, and I'll justify why they're evil if they're a face." That alone is a problem- in addition to WWE's confrontationally bad writing, you EQUALLY have to blame the fact that fans just have their own personal ideas of who the heroes and villains are, and it has nothing to do with what they see on the TV screen. If anything, it actually IS more important than even the bad writing, because it wouldn't be fixed if WWE stopped writing poorly. Vince coming out and saying the legal system is for rich people and he can ruin Kevin Owens's life and that's a face promo- but at the same time, it's equally important that even if WWE wrote storylines as good as you'd see on prestige television...hell, even if WWE just settled for making Kevin Owens so cartoonishly evil there's no question that he's the bad guy- EVEN THEN, there'd still be a large portion of fans who'd decide "he's Kevin Steen so he's the good guy". No, they aren't. Faces and heels will never disappear from wrestling. It doesn't matter if the audience or the company is dictating who's in what role, that dynamic is always going to exist. The only real issue arises when the promotion and its fans are on different pages. |
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 18, 2017 6:09:34 GMT -5
But that ties to the other side of the mix...face/heel dynamics are basically dead as it is. Right now, there is no face or heel- there's "Whoever I like is the hero, and I'll justify it if they're a heel", and "Whoever I dislike is the heel, and I'll justify why they're evil if they're a face." That alone is a problem- in addition to WWE's confrontationally bad writing, you EQUALLY have to blame the fact that fans just have their own personal ideas of who the heroes and villains are, and it has nothing to do with what they see on the TV screen. If anything, it actually IS more important than even the bad writing, because it wouldn't be fixed if WWE stopped writing poorly. Vince coming out and saying the legal system is for rich people and he can ruin Kevin Owens's life and that's a face promo- but at the same time, it's equally important that even if WWE wrote storylines as good as you'd see on prestige television...hell, even if WWE just settled for making Kevin Owens so cartoonishly evil there's no question that he's the bad guy- EVEN THEN, there'd still be a large portion of fans who'd decide "he's Kevin Steen so he's the good guy". No, they aren't. Faces and heels will never disappear from wrestling. It doesn't matter if the audience or the company is dictating who's in what role, that dynamic is always going to exist. The only real issue arises when the promotion and its fans are on different pages. That’s the key thing here. I’ve seen plenty of promotions in 2017 that you can watch a match and go “That’s the face, that’s the heel, the heel’s getting the heat on the other guy so the crowd boos that guy” even if it’s someone like Speedball Mike Bailey who the fans can love at the start of a match but when he cheapshots a local talent and taunts the crowd, the crowd boos. It’s really not hard to get that into an audience, especially for casual fans. WWE just doesn’t know how this stuff works right now. Arguably, they haven’t known how this stuff works for the past 3-5 years for the most part and that’s what leads to some go tos of “I like this guy, I’m going to cheer him regardless” because nothing else has structure or matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 18, 2017 10:01:51 GMT -5
No, they aren't. Faces and heels will never disappear from wrestling. It doesn't matter if the audience or the company is dictating who's in what role, that dynamic is always going to exist. The only real issue arises when the promotion and its fans are on different pages. That’s the key thing here. I’ve seen plenty of promotions in 2017 that you can watch a match and go “That’s the face, that’s the heel, the heel’s getting the heat on the other guy so the crowd boos that guy” even if it’s someone like Speedball Mike Bailey who the fans can love at the start of a match but when he cheapshots a local talent and taunts the crowd, the crowd boos. It’s really not hard to get that into an audience, especially for casual fans. WWE just doesn’t know how this stuff works right now. Arguably, they haven’t known how this stuff works for the past 3-5 years for the most part and that’s what leads to some go tos of “I like this guy, I’m going to cheer him regardless” because nothing else has structure or matters. That, and this isn't a new phenomenon for wrestling. Vince thinks Shane can get over as a face in this feud, and it isn't working. It's not the first time Shane didn't come off believable enough in a feud (Orton, Kane, many other examples). But that doesn't mean "faces and heels are dead". It's just another angle that didn't quite work. It isn't the first. It won't be the last. If that's the case, you could go back to a bunch of classic shows, watch Flair get cheers and pops while he cut a promo and Dusty be heckled in the next segment, and assume from that the face/heel dynamic was in trouble as well. And yes, I know I sound like Meltzer when I say that. But it's true. |
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,109 
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Dec 18, 2017 10:05:48 GMT -5
That’s the key thing here. I’ve seen plenty of promotions in 2017 that you can watch a match and go “That’s the face, that’s the heel, the heel’s getting the heat on the other guy so the crowd boos that guy” even if it’s someone like Speedball Mike Bailey who the fans can love at the start of a match but when he cheapshots a local talent and taunts the crowd, the crowd boos. It’s really not hard to get that into an audience, especially for casual fans. WWE just doesn’t know how this stuff works right now. Arguably, they haven’t known how this stuff works for the past 3-5 years for the most part and that’s what leads to some go tos of “I like this guy, I’m going to cheer him regardless” because nothing else has structure or matters. That, and this isn't a new phenomenon for wrestling. Vince thinks Shane can get over as a face in this feud, and it isn't working. It's not the first time Shane didn't come off believable enough in a feud (Orton, Kane, many other examples). But that doesn't mean "faces and heels are dead". It's just another angle that didn't quite work. It won't be the first. It won't be the last. If that's the case, you could go back to a bunch of classic shows, watch Flair get cheers and pops while he cut a promo and Dusty be heckled in the next segment, and assume from that the face/heel dynamic was in trouble as well. And yes, I know I sound like Meltzer when I say that. But it's true. Not enough "Uhhhh"s, "Ummmm"s, and "Y'know"s to sound like Meltzer. |
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 18, 2017 10:20:07 GMT -5
That’s the key thing here. I’ve seen plenty of promotions in 2017 that you can watch a match and go “That’s the face, that’s the heel, the heel’s getting the heat on the other guy so the crowd boos that guy” even if it’s someone like Speedball Mike Bailey who the fans can love at the start of a match but when he cheapshots a local talent and taunts the crowd, the crowd boos. It’s really not hard to get that into an audience, especially for casual fans. WWE just doesn’t know how this stuff works right now. Arguably, they haven’t known how this stuff works for the past 3-5 years for the most part and that’s what leads to some go tos of “I like this guy, I’m going to cheer him regardless” because nothing else has structure or matters. That, and this isn't a new phenomenon for wrestling. Vince thinks Shane can get over as a face in this feud, and it isn't working. It's not the first time Shane didn't come off believable enough in a feud (Orton, Kane, many other examples). But that doesn't mean "faces and heels are dead". It's just another angle that didn't quite work. It won't be the first. It won't be the last. If that's the case, you could go back to a bunch of classic shows, watch Flair get cheers and pops while he cut a promo and Dusty be heckled in the next segment, and assume from that the face/heel dynamic was in trouble as well. And yes, I know I sound like Meltzer when I say that. But it's true. You didn't shift the conversation to Conor McGregor. Hardly a Meltzer. |
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Dec 18, 2017 10:33:09 GMT -5
[The counterpoint to this I guess is that WWE has an extreme, debilitating problem with having its faces be unlikable, unsympathetic, raging dickbags and thinking that's just what a face should be. Especially where the McMahon family is concern there is sometimes this weird myopic understanding of morality where Vince can come out and cut a face promo saying the legal system is made for rich people and he can ruin Kevin Owens's life, all to generate 'sympathy' for when Owens busts his f***ing head open. The quality of writing here is so bad that the idea of complete misunderstanding of their own story is just par for the goddamn course here. Like, you can say people are just not picking up the signs, but that is legitimately an argument that was made by people during the Roman/AJ story where no joke someone said that AJ was the only face in that whole situation and everyone else was shades of gray, and that it was definitely going to lead to a Roman heel turn. You can't discount WWE's confrontationally bad writing in matters like this. But that ties to the other side of the mix...face/heel dynamics are basically dead as it is. Right now, there is no face or heel- there's "Whoever I like is the hero, and I'll justify it if they're a heel", and "Whoever I dislike is the heel, and I'll justify why they're evil if they're a face." That alone is a problem- in addition to WWE's confrontationally bad writing, you EQUALLY have to blame the fact that fans just have their own personal ideas of who the heroes and villains are, and it has nothing to do with what they see on the TV screen. If anything, it actually IS more important than even the bad writing, because it wouldn't be fixed if WWE stopped writing poorly. Vince coming out and saying the legal system is for rich people and he can ruin Kevin Owens's life and that's a face promo- but at the same time, it's equally important that even if WWE wrote storylines as good as you'd see on prestige television...hell, even if WWE just settled for making Kevin Owens so cartoonishly evil there's no question that he's the bad guy- EVEN THEN, there'd still be a large portion of fans who'd decide "he's Kevin Steen so he's the good guy". I don't really buy that at all; there might be a narrow minority who let bias get weird, but for the most part there's a pretty open understanding of trhe terrible dynamics in play. It's why the only person trying to make the 'Roman gets booed so he's clearly the top heel" is Triple H in that one interview, why people are so convinced Jason Jordan is being built for a heel turn, and why Miz gets heralded for his character work while nobody really argues he's not a shitty person in-universe. Hell, Alexa Bliss has a rabid fanbase and I don't think I've seen any posts around here claiming she's a face. But even if that were the case, saying it's somehow equal or even more important is just horseshit. The audience aren't the ones whose job is to write the show every week, and things have been so backwasrds for so long that the blame rests on the people who can't write a straightforward story worth half a f***. When it's too much to ask to have a likable hero, a villain we want to hate, and motivations and consequences that are clear and which we can feel invested in, you can miss me with that "People are biased and shitty so they just don't deserve good storytelling" nonsense. |
|
Sicho100
Hank Scorpio
Easily Confused.
Posts: 5,964 
|
Post by Sicho100 on Dec 18, 2017 12:34:52 GMT -5
No, they aren't. Faces and heels will never disappear from wrestling. It doesn't matter if the audience or the company is dictating who's in what role, that dynamic is always going to exist. The only real issue arises when the promotion and its fans are on different pages. That’s the key thing here. I’ve seen plenty of promotions in 2017 that you can watch a match and go “That’s the face, that’s the heel, the heel’s getting the heat on the other guy so the crowd boos that guy” even if it’s someone like Speedball Mike Bailey who the fans can love at the start of a match but when he cheapshots a local talent and taunts the crowd, the crowd boos. It’s really not hard to get that into an audience, especially for casual fans. WWE just doesn’t know how this stuff works right now. Arguably, they haven’t known how this stuff works for the past 3-5 years for the most part and that’s what leads to some go tos of “I like this guy, I’m going to cheer him regardless” because nothing else has structure or matters. Yeah, the issue here is that WWE has no idea how to book faces and heels. Now, I have not been paying close attention the past couple of months (so it's certainly possible that I've missed some dastardly deeds), but what reason is there for a fan to truly hate Zayn and Owens? Owens beats up Vince, which, at first glance, would make him a heel. But the problem is, we've been told for twenty years that Vince is evil (he's one heel they actually booked well!) And, because he is so evil, we see his talent as being justified in fighting back. After all, if what Kevin Owens did to Vince was so bad, someone's going to need to explain to me why we are supposed to love Stone Cold. And Sami's big heel turn was saving his long-time frenemy from being crushed by a guy jumping onto him from 20 feet up. And then they attacked Shane in the Survivor Series match, which, again, is a nominally heel thing to do. But everyone did that in the weeks leading up to the show. Why should we be cool with the New Day, despite them interfering in the Shield's match (or really, all of Smackdown when they invaded Raw? Which Shane led!), if we are supposed to be outraged at Owens & Zayn? And they are two of the easier cases! What makes Cesaro and Sheamus heels? Honestly. What did they do that was so wrong that I'm supposed to hate them? Or Baron Corbin? Yeah, he's a smug douche, but if that's supposed to be what gets me to hate him, why am I supposed to like Roman Reigns? There needs to be a clear distinction between your heels and faces. Your face can even have characteristics that are normally associated with a heel (like Austin, or, say, Eddie Guerrero), but then you need to show that the other guy is much worse, and so the babyface is justified. WWE has done that for very few heels (The Authority and Jinder are the two that immediately come to mind.) And when you don't have actual heels, it's hard to fault the fans for deciding that they'll cheer the guys that are the best in-ring performers or that the fans have a previous connection to, such as through the indies. |
|
4real
Wade Wilson
Posts: 27,790
|
Post by 4real on Dec 18, 2017 14:05:28 GMT -5
It's so confusing.
At this point it's down to your interpretation. I don't like Shane in this feud so he's the heel for me. I get that in storyline Sami and Kevin have done horrible things to him but he hasn't exactly been the Goody face himself here especially since Survivor Series.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Dec 18, 2017 15:12:08 GMT -5
But even if that were the case, saying it's somehow equal or even more important is just horseshit. The audience aren't the ones whose job is to write the show every week, and things have been so backwasrds for so long that the blame rests on the people who can't write a straightforward story worth half a f***. When it's too much to ask to have a likable hero, a villain we want to hate, and motivations and consequences that are clear and which we can feel invested in, you can miss me with that "People are biased and shitty so they just don't deserve good storytelling" nonsense. On the contrary, it is ABSOLUTELY equal or more important. Yes, the audience isn't the one who's job is to write the show every week. Yes, things have been backwards for so long the blame rests on the people who can't write a straightforward story worth half a f***. Yes, Fans DO deserve good storytelling. But that's not the point. The point is that, EVEN IF all of those things are true, it won't change that pro wrestling is NO LONGER about what we see on the screen anymore. People have accepted that pro wrestling is a TV show, with TV actors playing roles...and as a result, the stuff we see onscreen is dead. It's no longer about "Who's the WWE Champion?", but rather "AJ Styles can be the WWE Champion, and it doesn't even matter anymore because the fans are perfectly aware: AJ Styles just has a belt. Roman Reigns is THE CHAMP, and he'd be the champ if he had Curt Hawkins's winless streak because the show sells him as THE MAN...and no title belt matters other than being in ROMAN'S SPOT. Same token with this. It's not about "it's too much to have a likable hero, a villain we want to hate, and motivations and consequences that are clear and which we can feel invested in." It's about- even if you make the most likable hero in the whole world, if that fan personally isn't feeling them as a wrestler, THEY WILL BOO THEM OUT OF THE BUILDING. Likewise, you can make a villain people want to hate- but if they're very good at being a villain people want to hate? PEOPLE WILL CHEER THEMSELVES HOARSE FOR THEM. This is the reason we get stuck with people like Jinder or Eva Marie- the only bankable heel in this day and age is not "a good villain", but rather "someone who's inept at their job and every fan knows it". So yes, it IS equal to the bad writing in wrestling as it stands. You may not like to hear it, but it doesn't change that it's the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Dec 18, 2017 15:40:31 GMT -5
But even if that were the case, saying it's somehow equal or even more important is just horseshit. The audience aren't the ones whose job is to write the show every week, and things have been so backwasrds for so long that the blame rests on the people who can't write a straightforward story worth half a f***. When it's too much to ask to have a likable hero, a villain we want to hate, and motivations and consequences that are clear and which we can feel invested in, you can miss me with that "People are biased and shitty so they just don't deserve good storytelling" nonsense. On the contrary, it is ABSOLUTELY equal or more important. Yes, the audience isn't the one who's job is to write the show every week. Yes, things have been backwards for so long the blame rests on the people who can't write a straightforward story worth half a f***. Yes, Fans DO deserve good storytelling. But that's not the point. The point is that, EVEN IF all of those things are true, it won't change that pro wrestling is NO LONGER about what we see on the screen anymore. People have accepted that pro wrestling is a TV show, with TV actors playing roles...and as a result, the stuff we see onscreen is dead. It's no longer about "Who's the WWE Champion?", but rather "AJ Styles can be the WWE Champion, and it doesn't even matter anymore because the fans are perfectly aware: AJ Styles just has a belt. Roman Reigns is THE CHAMP, and he'd be the champ if he had Curt Hawkins's winless streak because the show sells him as THE MAN...and no title belt matters other than being in ROMAN'S SPOT. Same token with this. It's not about "it's too much to have a likable hero, a villain we want to hate, and motivations and consequences that are clear and which we can feel invested in." It's about- even if you make the most likable hero in the whole world, if that fan personally isn't feeling them as a wrestler, THEY WILL BOO THEM OUT OF THE BUILDING. Likewise, you can make a villain people want to hate- but if they're very good at being a villain people want to hate? PEOPLE WILL CHEER THEMSELVES HOARSE FOR THEM. This is the reason we get stuck with people like Jinder or Eva Marie- the only bankable heel in this day and age is not "a good villain", but rather "someone who's inept at their job and every fan knows it". So yes, it IS equal to the bad writing in wrestling as it stands. You may not like to hear it, but it doesn't change that it's the truth. Nope, all of this is still totally not actually right at all. Yes, people now attach themselves to performers they like and are fans of them, but that doesn't mean people can't appreciate good heeling. How do you reconcile this idea with the examples I raised earlier of people like Miz and Alexa Bliss who get praised for their heel work by the people who like them? Or the oft-raised sentiment that Roman would be a much better heel because nobody is feeling him as a face? If the on-screen stuff were dead a shitty PPV full of bad storytelling wouldn't make this place feel so f***ing bleak and miserable. People wouldn't be complaining about how all the faces suck because they never win and don't have good stories behind them. People won't boo a villain they like? I'm sorry do you watch Raw? The Drifter can play a crowd like nobody's f***ing business and turn an arena of people popping for him into a hate mob. It's when he's faced with smashing a guitar over Jason Jordan people pop again, because he's an unlikable face who shitty writing has sapped everything out of even though there was a time people did like him in American Alpha. Elias doesn't have to suck for people to boo him and people can in fact love what he's doing and think it's great but still get caught in the thrill of booing him when he starts singing about how they suck, and that's wrestling. It's fun. It's the whole point of the show; the death of kayfabe doesn't make what happens on the screen 'dead', it just means people approach it differently. WWE still believes that shilling your narrative is key; that if you tell people something, they'll buy it. And you're ascribing the fact that doesn't work to mean the crowd failed. But that's just called bad storytelling, and it happens in things that aren't wrestling too. You need to tell a story good enough to pull people in; if you do that, people will get involved. That's not something you can argue with, because every time WWE actually f***ing musters the insane idiot luck needed to tell a story it makes people care. If you tell a good story and give people a reason to care, people will go for it. The story behind Seth and Dean making amends had people emotionally invested in what was going on. The problem is that a lot of the time they don't do that; they make too many of their faces look like idiots or make them come off as totally unlikeable. NXT doesn't have the same problem of people rejecting its narratives and shitting on all of its faces, and a lot of the time you're not even looking at the super indie elements of it. They succeed with things like American Alpha and later the slow burn of DIY up to the titles and then their inevitable breakup that had much more impact than the Enzo and Cass one because it told a much more concrete story and involved characters people wanted to see develop. Velveteen Dream vs. Aleister Black turned a lot of people around on Velveteen Dream, who up until recently had just been Struggle Prince, by telling a story that had the crowd losing their minds for it. And these are grown-ass adult smarks: the group considered least likely to just buy into the narrative at face value and who independently develop their own likes and dislikes. You can't just ignore the points I'm making, brush off the examples I listed,go "Nuh-uh, you're wrong" and cap off your post on something as condescending as "You may not like to hear it, but it doesn't change that it's the truth." The crowd will follow a story they're invested in, and it is 100% the job of the writer to make people care about the story. WWE's failure to write for its audience isn't a failing of the audience for not being willing to accept their shitty story. |
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 18, 2017 15:51:15 GMT -5
But even if that were the case, saying it's somehow equal or even more important is just horseshit. The audience aren't the ones whose job is to write the show every week, and things have been so backwasrds for so long that the blame rests on the people who can't write a straightforward story worth half a f***. When it's too much to ask to have a likable hero, a villain we want to hate, and motivations and consequences that are clear and which we can feel invested in, you can miss me with that "People are biased and shitty so they just don't deserve good storytelling" nonsense. On the contrary, it is ABSOLUTELY equal or more important. Yes, the audience isn't the one who's job is to write the show every week. Yes, things have been backwards for so long the blame rests on the people who can't write a straightforward story worth half a f***. Yes, Fans DO deserve good storytelling. But that's not the point. The point is that, EVEN IF all of those things are true, it won't change that pro wrestling is NO LONGER about what we see on the screen anymore. People have accepted that pro wrestling is a TV show, with TV actors playing roles...and as a result, the stuff we see onscreen is dead. It's no longer about "Who's the WWE Champion?", but rather "AJ Styles can be the WWE Champion, and it doesn't even matter anymore because the fans are perfectly aware: AJ Styles just has a belt. Roman Reigns is THE CHAMP, and he'd be the champ if he had Curt Hawkins's winless streak because the show sells him as THE MAN...and no title belt matters other than being in ROMAN'S SPOT. Same token with this. It's not about "it's too much to have a likable hero, a villain we want to hate, and motivations and consequences that are clear and which we can feel invested in." It's about- even if you make the most likable hero in the whole world, if that fan personally isn't feeling them as a wrestler, THEY WILL BOO THEM OUT OF THE BUILDING. Likewise, you can make a villain people want to hate- but if they're very good at being a villain people want to hate? PEOPLE WILL CHEER THEMSELVES HOARSE FOR THEM. This is the reason we get stuck with people like Jinder or Eva Marie- the only bankable heel in this day and age is not "a good villain", but rather "someone who's inept at their job and every fan knows it". So yes, it IS equal to the bad writing in wrestling as it stands. You may not like to hear it, but it doesn't change that it's the truth. Wrestling is a simulated sports show. People already know it's fictional. So if you don't write your characters ass-backwards and shitty, people will suspend their disbelief and get into the fake sports show. And some fans are just going to cheer for wrestlers they find entertaining, face or heel. That's how fans have always been. If fans don't find Jinder entertaining, then he's not a good heel. The psychology of good pro wrestling is way more simple than you make it out to be. |
|
|
|
Post by freeze Austin on Dec 18, 2017 16:22:14 GMT -5
That, and this isn't a new phenomenon for wrestling. Vince thinks Shane can get over as a face in this feud, and it isn't working. It's not the first time Shane didn't come off believable enough in a feud (Orton, Kane, many other examples). But that doesn't mean "faces and heels are dead". It's just another angle that didn't quite work. It won't be the first. It won't be the last. If that's the case, you could go back to a bunch of classic shows, watch Flair get cheers and pops while he cut a promo and Dusty be heckled in the next segment, and assume from that the face/heel dynamic was in trouble as well. And yes, I know I sound like Meltzer when I say that. But it's true. Not enough "Uhhhh"s, "Ummmm"s, and "Y'know"s to sound like Meltzer. Or minute-long bronchitis coughs and "excuse me's" into the mic. |
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Dec 18, 2017 16:33:53 GMT -5
On the contrary, it is ABSOLUTELY equal or more important. Yes, the audience isn't the one who's job is to write the show every week. Yes, things have been backwards for so long the blame rests on the people who can't write a straightforward story worth half a f***. Yes, Fans DO deserve good storytelling. But that's not the point. The point is that, EVEN IF all of those things are true, it won't change that pro wrestling is NO LONGER about what we see on the screen anymore. People have accepted that pro wrestling is a TV show, with TV actors playing roles...and as a result, the stuff we see onscreen is dead. It's no longer about "Who's the WWE Champion?", but rather "AJ Styles can be the WWE Champion, and it doesn't even matter anymore because the fans are perfectly aware: AJ Styles just has a belt. Roman Reigns is THE CHAMP, and he'd be the champ if he had Curt Hawkins's winless streak because the show sells him as THE MAN...and no title belt matters other than being in ROMAN'S SPOT. Same token with this. It's not about "it's too much to have a likable hero, a villain we want to hate, and motivations and consequences that are clear and which we can feel invested in." It's about- even if you make the most likable hero in the whole world, if that fan personally isn't feeling them as a wrestler, THEY WILL BOO THEM OUT OF THE BUILDING. Likewise, you can make a villain people want to hate- but if they're very good at being a villain people want to hate? PEOPLE WILL CHEER THEMSELVES HOARSE FOR THEM. This is the reason we get stuck with people like Jinder or Eva Marie- the only bankable heel in this day and age is not "a good villain", but rather "someone who's inept at their job and every fan knows it". So yes, it IS equal to the bad writing in wrestling as it stands. You may not like to hear it, but it doesn't change that it's the truth. Wrestling is a simulated sports show. People already know it's fictional. So if you don't write your characters ass-backwards and shitty, people will suspend their disbelief and get into the fake sports show. And some fans are just going to cheer for wrestlers they find entertaining, face or heel. That's how fans have always been. If fans don't find Jinder entertaining, then he's not a good heel.The psychology of good pro wrestling is way more simple than you make it out to be. More than that, I'd say the mark of a good heel ought to be to make the fans like them, and then to completely stomp all over their hearts. In a post-kayfabe world, that's how you handle the idea of wrestlers as performers rather than the illusion of real people. Minoru Suzuki can get people to sing along to the crescendo of his f***ing theme song, but then he'll do some horrible nightmare shit because he's one of the most evil characters in New Japan, and suddenly it doesn't matter too much anymore if he comes out to a f***ing banger or not because the face is going to get stretched. Naito is just the f***ing coolest guy, but his aloof nature doesn't seem so endearing when he's treating his title belts like shit and outright trying to break them. I single these examples out because you don't get more smark central for American wrestling audiences than people who follow New Japan, and yet the whole 'heels make their own fans boo them' thing works out so well over there. |
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Dec 18, 2017 16:42:08 GMT -5
Wrestling is a simulated sports show. People already know it's fictional. So if you don't write your characters ass-backwards and shitty, people will suspend their disbelief and get into the fake sports show. And some fans are just going to cheer for wrestlers they find entertaining, face or heel. That's how fans have always been. If fans don't find Jinder entertaining, then he's not a good heel.The psychology of good pro wrestling is way more simple than you make it out to be. More than that, I'd say the mark of a good heel ought to be to make the fans like them, and then to completely stomp all over their hearts. In a post-kayfabe world, that's how you handle the idea of wrestlers as performers rather than the illusion of real people. Minoru Suzuki can get people to sing along to the crescendo of his f***ing theme song, but then he'll do some horrible nightmare shit because he's one of the most evil characters in New Japan, and suddenly it doesn't matter too much anymore if he comes out to a f***ing banger or not because the face is going to get stretched. Naito is just the f***ing coolest guy, but his aloof nature doesn't seem so endearing when he's treating his title belts like shit and outright trying to break them. I single these examples out because you don't get more smark central for American wrestling audiences than people who follow New Japan, and yet the whole 'heels make their own fans boo them' thing works out so well over there. Or Marty Scurll. He's great in the ring, his entrance gets a pop and he's charismatic, but he cheats like a bastard during his matches and he sells for the faces to get them over. That's classic heeling he's doing, and it still works in 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 18, 2017 16:45:09 GMT -5
More than that, I'd say the mark of a good heel ought to be to make the fans like them, and then to completely stomp all over their hearts. In a post-kayfabe world, that's how you handle the idea of wrestlers as performers rather than the illusion of real people. Minoru Suzuki can get people to sing along to the crescendo of his f***ing theme song, but then he'll do some horrible nightmare shit because he's one of the most evil characters in New Japan, and suddenly it doesn't matter too much anymore if he comes out to a f***ing banger or not because the face is going to get stretched. Naito is just the f***ing coolest guy, but his aloof nature doesn't seem so endearing when he's treating his title belts like shit and outright trying to break them. I single these examples out because you don't get more smark central for American wrestling audiences than people who follow New Japan, and yet the whole 'heels make their own fans boo them' thing works out so well over there. Or Marty Scurll. He's great in the ring, his entrance gets a pop and he's charismatic, but he cheats like a bastard during his matches and he sells for the faces to get them over. That's classic heeling he's doing, and it still works in 2017. Or MJF. He gets so much about what makes a heel work, selling when he needs to and genuinely just acting like an egotistical dick to the crowds but he’s loved because, well, he’s so damn good at his job. The over sell of the toilet paper at the last WrestleCircus show put him over the top for me. Dude’s money. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 1:37:25 GMT -5
An update to this after SDL.
Is there any doubt still? I mean that segment with Bryan and Shane said everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 1:50:51 GMT -5
An update to this after SDL. Is there any doubt still? I mean that segment with Bryan and Shane said everything. Honestly I have no idea what to think coming out of SmackDown. Shane was certainly acting the more heelish of the two, but he still seemed to be pushing the idea that Bryan doesn't know what he's in for and the commentators seemed more on Shane's side of the argument. Really it came off less like either's heel and more like they're trying to make both sides have good points but with Bryan's side's being the only one that actually makes any sense. |
|
|
|
Post by vinnysimmo on Dec 20, 2017 5:48:32 GMT -5
I think the story being told is really interesting. You could convincingly argue that both Shane and KO/Sami anre in the right. So long as the crowd stay invested in the story, I don't mind the odd storyline here and there with no clear heel/face.
|
|
