|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Feb 16, 2016 17:03:05 GMT -5
A weird thing in modern WWE is how there are wrestlers whose gimmicks are predicated on wrestling being fake. Generally, that's two groups:
1) The "greatest wrestler in the world" types who always lose. This is the likes of Dolph Ziggler, Cesaro etc who give themselves (or are given by the company) gimmicks along the lines of being "a great wrestler" or "delivering in the ring" or "stealing the show"... Yet they don't win all their matches. And often lose them. These kind of guys are saying "I'm booked to lose but wrestling is fake lol, so just check out my moves!" They're trying to get over in a meta way, but it makes a joke of the business to say you're the best when you're not beating everyone. Although this kind of gimmick did lead to a stupid MyCareer achievement on WWE 2K16.
2) The "scary monsters" who almost always lose. This is Kane, Henry and Big Show. It always leads to those boring setups. "You have just annoyed an authority figure, so now look scared because you're facing THIS GUY... And let's just forget how he lost last week to New Day." It's even worse around Royal Rumble time, where WWE pretends that they're the favourites to win.
I'm not a fan of these kind of gimmicks. Are you?
|
|
|
|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on Feb 16, 2016 17:38:36 GMT -5
I agree with everything you said.
Guys like Ziggler, Cesaro, Breeze etc are fantastic wrestlers who should have a chance at atleast winning matches. But they all fall under a glorified Jobber category and whenever you see them wrestle it's guaranteed that they will lose. It makes the whole product look fake and staged.
As for monsters well the thing I hate is whenever they are heels they destroy everything in sight and are unstoppable. But once they turn face they become big cuddly teddy bears who can get defeated with ease. Take Strowman for example, unstoppable at the moment but if he turned face Heath Slater could probably squash him. |
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Feb 16, 2016 19:18:15 GMT -5
is that crappy 2k16 achievement the one where you're supposed to lose for a year straight?
i generally agree with you that these gimmicks are non dimensional and stale. i think it speaks largely on the lack of creativity with the wwe. i mean, the classic statement is that there are only so many stories that can be told. it's how you creatively design them that seperates it. today's wwe creative is simply not successful at creating new angles that freshen up a product that when boiled down, has always been the same thing repeating itself.
|
|
Sandman
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Jun 11, 2015 3:24:42 GMT -5
Posts: 309 
|
Post by Sandman on Feb 16, 2016 21:10:35 GMT -5
A weird thing in modern WWE is how there are wrestlers whose gimmicks are predicated on wrestling being fake. Generally, that's two groups: 1) The "greatest wrestler in the world" types who always lose. This is the likes of Dolph Ziggler, Cesaro etc who give themselves (or are given by the company) gimmicks along the lines of being "a great wrestler" or "delivering in the ring" or "stealing the show"... Yet they don't win all their matches. And often lose them. These kind of guys are saying "I'm booked to lose but wrestling is fake lol, so just check out my moves!" They're trying to get over in a meta way, but it makes a joke of the business to say you're the best when you're not beating everyone. Although this kind of gimmick did lead to a stupid MyCareer achievement on WWE 2K16. 2) The "scary monsters" who almost always lose. This is Kane, Henry and Big Show. It always leads to those boring setups. "You have just annoyed an authority figure, so now look scared because you're facing THIS GUY... And let's just forget how he lost last week to New Day." It's even worse around Royal Rumble time, where WWE pretends that they're the favourites to win. I'm not a fan of these kind of gimmicks. Are you?
My boy Teddy Long was the master of this gimmick back in the day on Smackdown as GM, only he wasn't the corrupt heel figure face of the company like the Authority instead he was the good lovable kind that the people could really get behind & would punish trouble makers & wrong doers on his show.. year in & year out he'd abuse his power & if any heel caused him any trouble even the slightest he'd always announce to the world..
"Tonight.. in that very ring.. you will go one on one.. with.. the 7ft2, 500 pound.. BIG SHOW!.. the big red machine.. KAAAAAANE!"
or better yet.. "The deadman.. the UNDERTAKER!"
much to the chagrin & dismay of the top heel on his show at the time, they'd probably want to run him over like in SD vs. Raw 2006 after hearing those jaw dropping names escape from his lips & wipe that stupid smug look off his face.. HOLLA HOLLA HOLLA PLAYA!.. WEST SIYEED & PEACE OUT YA'LL!
Funny thing is, it was always the same old predictable punishment that got old real fast..
Got to love them "big destroying/unstoppable monster" types like Big Show, Kane & Mark Henry after they've finished with their comedy hour stint of the month, I'm sure were all finding it harder & harder to take those guys seriously when it's that time of the year again to destroy all babyfaces in their wake. ;]
"Ya feel me?.." ;]
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Feb 16, 2016 22:39:39 GMT -5
The "fake scary monster" is basically the worst. But you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube with guys like Big Show, Kane, and Henry at this point.
I've always found the Ziggler "I steal the show" thing a bit hokey, cause yeah, it translates to "I like to enterain but don't care about winning." I wouldn't lump Cesaro in with that because he always seems to be trying to win. His impressive moments are all power moves or technical wrestling, whereas Ziggler's impressiveness is... selling?
But yeah, there is definitely a logic gap to these things. Unfortunately, you kinda gotta shut your brain off to enjoy WWE these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Feb 16, 2016 23:11:18 GMT -5
I don't mind them. I don't really watch for the characters anyways, I watch for the wrestling.
|
|
| NLS™ |
POSSIBLE BAD TRADER
Buy My Figures!
Joined on: Jun 7, 2012 3:24:41 GMT -5
Posts: 3,538
|
Post by | NLS™ | on Feb 16, 2016 23:21:49 GMT -5
Nope.
|
|
|
|
Post by 0,Y on Feb 17, 2016 7:33:39 GMT -5
It only bothers me in Royal Rumbles for example when a joke of a wrestler like Mark Henry or Great Khali enters the Royal Rumble at number 20+ and the commentators try to sell them as favorites to win the Rumble just because of their size and then they're eliminated within seconds when the next real star enters the match.
Or somebody like Fandango enters the ring and has his 10 seconds of kicking ass and the commentators are like "Can you imagine Fandango headlining WrestleMania?!" and all that bullcrap.
|
|
RV F'N D
Main Eventer
Joined on: Mar 13, 2012 21:34:37 GMT -5
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by RV F'N D on Feb 17, 2016 7:53:34 GMT -5
Well, what is Ziggler supposed to do? Come out and say "don't bother getting behind me, because I'm really nothing special and I will lose"?
As for the monsters, the most frustrating to me at the moment is Bray Wyatt. He gets to talk a big game, and does brilliant work, but there is no follow through. He doesn't get to really hurt people or win often enough that anybody should be afraid of him.
Another thing along these lines that bugs me is when somebody turns heel, and they are suddenly a coward and then can't ever win clean anymore, as if the change in attitude made them forget how to wrestle.
The booking is atrocious.
|
|
|
|
Post by theoutlaw1999 on Feb 17, 2016 13:30:05 GMT -5
Well, what is Ziggler supposed to do? Come out and say "don't bother getting behind me, because I'm really nothing special and I will lose"? As for the monsters, the most frustrating to me at the moment is Bray Wyatt. He gets to talk a big game, and does brilliant work, but there is no follow through. He doesn't get to really hurt people or win often enough that anybody should be afraid of him. Another thing along these lines that bugs me is when somebody turns heel, and they are suddenly a coward and then can't ever win clean anymore, as if the change in attitude made them forget how to wrestle.
The booking is atrocious. Punks 2012 heel turn is a perfect example of this. After the hugely successful Summer of Punk angle things were going high for him but once he had that stupid heel turn he became a wimpy coward who couldn't win a match without help or cheating. It ruined his title reign imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Feb 17, 2016 16:34:17 GMT -5
I don't have an issue with the gimmicks themselves so much as the way those types of gimmicks are booked, and, as a result, play out.
The "show stealer" gimmick can work if the person portraying the character is presented in a productive fashion - Shawn Michaels being the perfect example. Dolph Ziggler was at one time widely known as "Shawn Michaels Lite", and I always thought the "lite" had a lot less to do with Ziggler than what people pinned on him. Not to insinuate he could've ever been as big as Shawn Michaels, but Dolph's ceiling was undoubtedly higher at one time than it is now, and a lot of that has to do with the 50/50 era we're stuck in.
The same goes for the scary monster gimmick. I think, for starters, there's a few too many of them right now - to the point that it's virtually impossible to make them all credible, but a scary monster can be exactly that if they aren't constantly elevated and then subsequently demoted and/or flipped just to be used as a patch to some situation set up by bad booking.
The trend that gets me the most, especially lately, is WWE's constant insistence on defining down their own characters, seemingly for no reason other than their own amusement.
For example, what is there to gain by calling AJ Styles a "redneck rookie?" Short of the rural Georgia accent, nothing about AJ speaks to the stereotypical "redneck." I sincerely doubt it's anything that would even cross the average viewer's mind if WWE wasn't pounding it into their heads on a weekly basis. They make a very concerted effort to call out any potential flaws he may or may not have instead of accentuating the plethora of positives.
The same goes for Kevin Owens. WWE feels a need to tell the audience he's fat. It's counterproductive. They're putting these guys on an uphill climb before they can even get their feet set.
There is this nagging tendency to introduce characters with negative qualifiers, be it because they don't fit Vince McMahon's mold of a prototypical wrestler, or because they want to punish them for not being raised in the WWE system. It's like they fail to realize that now that they're in WWE, they're officially a WWE commodity, and consistently pointing out the company's preconceived notions about what constitutes a character flaw serves no purpose other than to undermine their ability to get over and draw money.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Feb 18, 2016 13:07:32 GMT -5
A weird thing in modern WWE is how there are wrestlers whose gimmicks are predicated on wrestling being fake. Generally, that's two groups: 1) The "greatest wrestler in the world" types who always lose. This is the likes of Dolph Ziggler, Cesaro etc who give themselves (or are given by the company) gimmicks along the lines of being "a great wrestler" or "delivering in the ring" or "stealing the show"... Yet they don't win all their matches. And often lose them. These kind of guys are saying "I'm booked to lose but wrestling is fake lol, so just check out my moves!" They're trying to get over in a meta way, but it makes a joke of the business to say you're the best when you're not beating everyone. Although this kind of gimmick did lead to a stupid MyCareer achievement on WWE 2K16. 2) The "scary monsters" who almost always lose. This is Kane, Henry and Big Show. It always leads to those boring setups. "You have just annoyed an authority figure, so now look scared because you're facing THIS GUY... And let's just forget how he lost last week to New Day." It's even worse around Royal Rumble time, where WWE pretends that they're the favourites to win. I'm not a fan of these kind of gimmicks. Are you?
My boy Teddy Long was the master of this gimmick back in the day on Smackdown as GM, only he wasn't the corrupt heel figure face of the company like the Authority instead he was the good lovable kind that the people could really get behind & would punish trouble makers & wrong doers on his show.. year in & year out he'd abuse his power & if any heel caused him any trouble even the slightest he'd always announce to the world..
"Tonight.. in that very ring.. you will go one on one.. with.. the 7ft2, 500 pound.. BIG SHOW!.. the big red machine.. KAAAAAANE!"
or better yet.. "The deadman.. the UNDERTAKER!"
much to the chagrin & dismay of the top heel on his show at the time, they'd probably want to run him over like in SD vs. Raw 2006 after hearing those jaw dropping names escape from his lips & wipe that stupid smug look off his face.. HOLLA HOLLA HOLLA PLAYA!.. WEST SIYEED & PEACE OUT YA'LL!
Funny thing is, it was always the same old predictable punishment that got old real fast..
oh boy thats a nostalgia rush. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 5, 2024 2:45:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 16:15:45 GMT -5
I simply cannot stand Dolph Ziggler. I've been completely through with him for years. That being said I feel the "workhorse" type gimmick is a great way to get someone over as long as it isn't overexposed. It's one of the basic fundamentals of in ring storytelling: a baby face who comes so close, but only gets so far.
With that being said, losing big competitive matches worked wonders for Cesaro prior to his injury. It's playing on fan frustration that this guy is a total package yet he's not given the avenue to develop any further up the card. Some of the legit pops and investment Cesaro commands from a live audience in a losing effort is the type of genuine reaction that WWE crave, but happily ignore if they feel it's misplaced on the wrong guy.
The reaction Ziggler got when he beat Cena for MITB, and pinned ADR on RAW months later to win the gold, that was the climax of years of slow building with Ziggler. To steal someone's phrase, "the toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube", and a poorly timed injury followed by a poorly received face turn shot him right back down the card. 18 months later he very nearly reached that peak again in 2014, but by early 2015, it was pretty evident that WWE were rich with talented development workers... Most of which Ziggler could never dream of getting over like they have, without even being on the Main Roster.
Now, I am sick to death of Ziggler. The reason: he's still being booked in that rinse-and-repeated "workhorse" role, and we already know there is no eventual goal. And even if there was, it would be poorly received just like the last few times they tried with him. It's about time Cesaro took that torch and ran with it, because he has genuine ability and charisma to truly succeed in the end if he is booked similarly. Blaming WWEs booking of Ziggler is simply making excuses for his glaring shortcomings and the lack of motivation he's shown for the past 12 months.
The comparison is simple, Cesaro gained popularity and momentum in losing efforts on RAW whilst fully investing the crowd into believing he would win. Ziggler doesn't command that from a crowd anymore. You can practically hear a collective groan from viewers at home whenever his "HERE2SHODAWURLD" crap hits, because if you happen to already be invested in the show, you're likely not to be anymore.
So, do I like those type gimmicks? Sometimes.
|
|
