Do you think more character gimmicks would work nowadays?

[Supreme Olajuwon]

WWE has pretty much done away with giving new guys full out character gimmicks to work with. There are still characters out there, but a lot of them have been grandfathered in from the Attitude Era or before (Taker, Kane, Goldust, R-Truth). Nowadays, guys are given a full name and besides a few personality tweaks, their gimmicks are just normal wrestlers trying to be successful.

So my question is do you think bringing back more character gimmicks would be a good thing? The more recent attempts have varied in success from terrible (Kung Fu Naki, Jimmy Wang Yang, the Spirit Squad, Hornswoggle), to mediocre (Festus), to pretty good (Cryme Tyme, Santino Marella, Umaga, and I guess Abyss in TNA), to great (CM Punk).

What do you think, fool?

[Favre4Ever]

Well they do still have the Undertaker, however, I think you're right for the most part. The noticeable difference between WWF 9-10 years ago and WWE today is the types of wrestlers. They are often presented to us today in the form of a real person instead of a character from out of a science fiction movie. Kane's de-masking was a huge step in this direction.

[Ruien]

If they are really trying to get all the kiddies to watch, then yes. Never cared when I was 10 about who was the best wrestler, the gimmicks made the storylines/drama for me. Sean Waltman will always have 1 person (Me) cheering for him, because of the 1-2-3 Kid gimmick.

[Schlomey]

I am glad we are basically gimmickless right now. The PG era is very similiar to the 94 New Generation Era where we saw some of the lamest characters in the history of the world. Glad we haven't seen more of that.

[Next Big Thing]

Taker has a gimmick that still resonates today because to a certain extent it taps into human emotion and plays off the fear/ curiosity of death. Not so much in this era, but some of the stuff in the mid to late 90's and even the mind games with Kane in the buildup to Wrestlemania was pretty special. Goldust was another gimmick that worked that way. The wig and his mannerisms gave him a feminine quality that tapped into those homophobic fears and the fact that he'd snatch it off and turn into this maniacal, ruthless 6'6 monster was great.

Gimmicks like that, which play with human emotion and force people to look at their fears/ prejudices work great, especially when the characters aren't presented in a cheesy or stereotypical way and get legitimate pushes. But the days of race car driving wrestlers, pig farmers, Asian Cowboys, trash men, Indians, pissed of IRS employees, whatever the fuck Diesel was meant to be, etc... are dead and gone.

[jerichoholicninja]

I would kill for gimmicks. I hate seeing "John Smith" in trunks and boots wrestling "Tom Johnson" who is also wearing trunks and boots. They don't need to be over the top (Kane, Undertaker) but give the guys more of a personality other than pissed off heel and happy face.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

the problem is, they have these "real" characters who are portrayed in such a phoney manner with no feeling. The larger than life characters seemed more real than these supposedly realistic characters.

[Kane Knight]

Taker has a gimmick that still resonates today because to a certain extent it taps into human emotion and plays off the fear/ curiosity of death.

I don't think it still resonates today except in a nostalgic sense. The same reason we can mark out for a 75 year old "Heartbreak Kid" with bad knees, no hair, and chaps. The same reason people still "WOOOOOOOO!" For Flair 90 years past his prime. The same reason we mark for any old-time favorite.

Undertaker's about as much about death as WWE is about what the fans want. It's kind of lip service to another age, little more. For the same reason, Goldust really doesn't resonate with people these days, because he never really became iconic. They're both trading on an image that is technically visceral, but the Phenom actually still resonates on some level while Goldy is a midcard jobber. It's the name and the wrestler more than the gimmick.

Though I'd throw in the production, because if anyone else got Taker's pagentry, they'd be far more memorable.

[St. Jimmy]

No.

[tjmidnight420]

No.

[Next Big Thing]

I don't think it still resonates today except in a nostalgic sense. The same reason we can mark out for a 75 year old "Heartbreak Kid" with bad knees, no hair, and chaps. The same reason people still "WOOOOOOOO!" For Flair 90 years past his prime. The same reason we mark for any old-time favorite.

Undertaker's about as much about death as WWE is about what the fans want. It's kind of lip service to another age, little more. For the same reason, Goldust really doesn't resonate with people these days, because he never really became iconic. They're both trading on an image that is technically visceral, but the Phenom actually still resonates on some level while Goldy is a midcard jobber. It's the name and the wrestler more than the gimmick.

.

True. All I'm saying is that for characters like Taker and HBK to get to the point where we mark despite the fact that Flair probably has a stench of bengay, icy hot, and drakkar noir; and HBK and Taker both lost their hairlines in their '97 Hell in a Cell match is because at one point they had characters that connected and hit a nerve with the fans. If that wasn't the case, a great wrestler like Glenn Jacobs is still playing a dentist.

Goldust isn't there because he wasn't given a run in his character as long as Taker. He was good from '95 to '96, then they pretty much turned him into a comedy character.

[dronepool]

I think that one of reasons the WWE feels a bit stale lately is because of generic names and lack of gimmicks. Gimmicks are enjoyable. They don't have to go all out with them, but they should create a decent hybrid of gimmicks and what they do these days.

For example Drew Mcintyre is a boring as fuck name. He sounds like he should be playing basketball or something.

[St. Jimmy]

No.

[TannerLittleton]

I would personally like to see more gimmick wrestlers as long as the gimmicks work. I think wrestling needs a good balance of gimmicks and realistic wrestlers.

[Anybody Thrilla]

I just want to say two things.

1) The Spirit Squad was not terrible.

2) I had mixed feelings on The Boogeyman. If he could actually wrestle, he could have been huge.

[.44 Magdalene]

I'm personally in favor of gimmicks, but that's probably the comic book geek in me. I like seeing guys with a distinct "flavor," a defining theme or character that makes them more immediately memorable and easily recognizable. I think solid, realistic writing could go a long way in creating larger than life characters without making them unbelievable, but good writing and professional wrestling rarely go hand in hand.

I think, given the tools at our present disposal, character gimmicks could not work like they used to. In an ideal world where the people in charge REALLY know what they want and can drive toward a central point with focus and passion, and where the writers can tell an involving story without fucking it up 80% of the time, and where professional wrestling can strike a powerful balance between the relatable and the ridiculous just enough to make our heroes seem superhuman... then maybe.

As it stands, though, making characters work--really work--would take more talent than WWE has shown to consistently possess. Expectations have changed--Adam West Batman doesn't sell anymore, and I don't think WWE could pull off Christian Bale.

[.44 Magdalene]

And I loved Jimmy Wang Yang, for the record.

[Rollermacka]

For some reason when I was reading this I thought TNA. One of the reasons I enjoy watching TNA is because there wrestlers are alittle more gimmick-ier than the WWE. I dont hate the "self absorbed speaking in third person" Matt Morgan is doing, I dont hate the Ink Inc. tag team (only thing was that I was disapointed they add people from that Extreme Dodgeball show from a few years back). I think that TNA has a good mix of gimmicks and wrestling, just remove the Dinos and they could be a great show

[Mr. Nerfect]

It depends on what sort of gimmick you mean. .44 Magdalene has got it pretty right, I think. We're not in an age where you put a costume on a guy, come up with some cartoony story for him, and he'll instantly work. But on the other hand, something that helps people stand out works well.

John Morrison and MVP were in my head when I was reading through this thread. In my opinion, they should get more in touch with their "gimmicks." Morrison is not just a guy who does athletic stuff (which is what he is fast becoming). Morrison is a rock star attitude. He's the centre of the universe, but a little off-centre himself. That is why he works. MVP is a guy who had a hard life, found something he was good at, and became very rich because of it. Now it's just like he's a guy in a jumpsuit who loves to have a good time. MVP should be all about winning so he can keep the life he left behind him.

Christian is another guy who I wish still had his "character" about him. It's probably good that he has evolved in some ways, that he now seems "mature" and a veteran that people can hopefully take seriously. But Christian's whiny, dorky, sweet jacket-wearing character should be part of who he is. That doesn't mean he can't lay it all out in the ring.

Something I like about The Miz is that he's sort of a character that is trying so hard not to be. He came from his reality star past, and no one took him seriously -- but he demands to be. What makes The Miz who he is, is that he genuinely wants to be a successful wrestler. He's not a "reality star who wrestles." The gimmick should never get in the way of the wrestler. They are in the WWE to win championships. But those things that define who they are can be so, so interesting.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Ted DiBiase is someone that I feel is becoming too much of a gimmick right now. They're not there the whole way yet, but I could definitely see him slipping into that dangerous zone where he is just a rich kid. I like the element that Ted has money. But money is not something that should really matter to DiBiase. What could drive him forward is that his father was absent for most of his life due to his career; so Ted wants to "get him back" by doing what he never did -- becoming WWE Champion. DiBiase coming out and saying "I'm rich" gets heat, but I don't know how strong the legs on it are. DiBiase coming out and saying "I might be rich, but..." is so much more interesting.

The Boogeyman is a perfect example of how a gimmick can either be good or bad based on the details behind it, in my opinion. When he debuted, The Boogeyman was an actor who got stuck in the role (perhaps after actually dabbling in voodoo and the like). Not very believable, but it lended a humanity to the character. He had a past and a real existence and all that. But then they sort of dropped that and moved into "he's the actual boogeyman" territory. That was not nearly as enjoyable to me (even if it did get over).

[wwe2222]

They at least need to start coming up with nicknames for some people. At least in the old days even without a real gimmick gimmcik you still had:

Bret "Hitman" Hart
Greg "Hammer" Valentine
British Bulldog Davey Boy Smith
Macho Man Savage

It seems like today none of the guys have much that really separates them from each other. Its all a big mush to me.

[Next Big Thing]

It seems like today none of the guys have much that really separates them from each other. Its all a big mush to me.

That's because WWE takes these guys, sends them to FCW where they get generic porn star names and spend their time developing a character which may or may not fit them. When you had the territories, guys were able to develop on their own and because you had major territories in Calgary, Portland, Texas, and Georgia, there was a mixture of styles because the audience each territory catered to responded to different character traits.

The best characters on tv now are ones that allow guys to be exaggerated versions of themselves or of a lifestyle familiar to them.

Examples:
Randy Orton (Cocky/ kind of an ass/ likes to shit in bags)
CM Punk (Straight edge)
Batista (Read his book... especially fucked up where he talks about boning all the divas)
Miz (Watch dudes old real world)
Jericho (Read his twitter updates)
Mae Young (Slut/ ring rat LOL!)
HHH (GOD)

[Damian Rey]

.44M hit it right on the button. If the WWE had writers talented enough, gimmicks would work in wrestling. Wrestling is an art of storytelling. What makes great storytelling are the characters used to drive the plot. This is what makes great films great. There's no reason why that idea shouldn't be applied to WWE.

You look at some of the best angles WWE has run over the past few years, and they told great stories about the characters both in the ring with match ups, and on the mic. Jericho/Shawn at the dawn of Jericho's current heel run was immense. Fuking amazing story behind that.

Same thing with (most) of Orton's heel run to Mania last year. Lots of history and personal ties made that arguably the best running angle of 2009. Yea, the match blew, but the build was amazing.

I personally am in favor of more centralized character gimmicks, if it can be done right. Like already mentioned, the writing team is far too inconsistent to likely pull it off, seeing as they are so quick to either pull the plug or go the safe route. But with a real dedicated team that has a true passion for storytelling, it could work.

I think Cena is the biggest waste of talent right now in WWE. Sure, he's at the top, making a ton of money for himself and the company, but this is guy who is dead pasisonate about what he does, and you know he's willing to do anything for that company. If there was a solid writing team behind his superman character, we may actually somewhat enjoy him. But he's so blan and one dimensional that it's hard to invest emotionally into him becuase there's nothing there to invest in.

/rant

[Kane Knight]

That's because WWE takes these guys, sends them to FCW where they get generic porn star names and spend their time developing a character which may or may not fit them. When you had the territories, guys were able to develop on their own and because you had major territories in Calgary, Portland, Texas, and Georgia, there was a mixture of styles because the audience each territory catered to responded to different character traits.

And WWE wants to keep up such a business model because it's "My way or the highway" this way. I think, however, most of the trouble comes from the way they don't bother with an actual character at all. Most of these guys are just "random dude #732."

The best characters on tv now are ones that allow guys to be exaggerated versions of themselves or of a lifestyle familiar to them.

Read: Guys who play assholes because they don't have the capacity to play anything else. I don't really buy it.

[Swiss Ultimate]

I think that the direction Vince is taking the WWE is going to be more friendly to character-gimmicks, especially after Taker retires.

My problem with this is, I hated every time they tried to tell the viewers that Taker had magic powers or that Kane could shoot lightning bolts from his hands followed by a traditional wrestling match which had nothing to do with fire or lightning.

[Next Big Thing]

Read: Guys who play assholes because they don't have the capacity to play anything else. I don't really buy it.[/QUOTE]

Right because Bret was a huge jackass. So is Cena.... and let's not forget Mick Foley, who made more money and became a fan fave not as Cactus Jack or even the maniacal version of Mankind, but as the children's author who wore flannel and sweat pants to the ring. Dusty... huge douche. Steamboat? More like steaming piece of shit. Yeah. I'm not buying either.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Cena became popular as a asshole white-rapper, Bret worked both as a heel and a face, Mick Foley was famous in each of his characters and made it big while still playing Mankind (face). It could be argued that Mick Foley was the least loved of all his characters.

Kane was just saying that too many guys in the WWE are playing heels because they can't get over as faces. He's right.

[Kane Knight]

Right because Bret was a huge jackass. So is Cena.... and let's not forget Mick Foley, who made more money and became a fan fave not as Cactus Jack or even the maniacal version of Mankind, but as the children's author who wore flannel and sweat pants to the ring. Dusty... huge douche. Steamboat? More like steaming piece of shit. Yeah. I'm not buying either.

Nice goalpost shift. To think, I was actually treating you as serious.

Or were you? Well, let's take a swing:

Foley: Not mentioned. Is he currently on TV even? Revisionism aside, that is.

Bret Hart: Not mentioned. On TV temporarily, playing a character he played in the 90s.

Ricky Steamboat: Is he current?

You were talking about the "best characters on TV now." I made a comment related to it, you bring up guys from three different generations, none of those generations are current, and only one of them is currently on TV in any capacity. not on TV, not current examples, not guys you mentioned, and not exactly the norm in any event.

[tjmidnight420]

Kane was just saying that too many guys in the WWE are playing heels because they can't get over as faces. He's right.

Pretty much this.

[Next Big Thing]

I'm pretty sure an angel is going to die for me saying this, but I'm going to have to admit you're right Kane Knight. I mistakenly thought you were referring to the business in general rather than this crop. I do agree that there are guys too limited in capacity today to get over naturally as faces.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Never get angry over a wrestling post.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Kane was just saying that too many guys in the WWE are playing heels because they can't get over as faces. He's right.

Yeah, I would concur with this. But, what's interesting is that there are so many faces on SmackDown! that seem to be on the rise, comparatively to heels. Do you think a connection can be made between good writing and good faces (not in every case, but you know what I mean)?