Some well thought out responses so far. Good to see stuff like this amongst the sea of shit that plugs up this section. There’s always that obligatory “duh” post, however…
Again another topic with a question that makes no sense. A face is likable which makes them a face.. smh
Think harder bub.
WWE does a fairly decent job of booking faces, but they portray those faces as heels (and have them lose too often). The characters WWE wants their fans to cheer are simply uninteresting and should be replaced by monster heels and truly evil heels that are easy to hate.
It's interesting to see this viewpoint and then compare it to someone else’s.
Originally Posted by Tyrion Lannister
That's what people want, they don't want Barney the dinosaur, this isn't the 1980's. Babyfaces need an edge to them, whether that edge be as a killer, or as a trash talker who doesn't take crap from anybody, they need to be catering to today's audience, and what today's audience wants is not a smiling, happy go lucky idiot. This isn't the crowd that leaves out milk and cookies for Santa anymore.
And then this.
Stop making the bad guys likeable or funny. They need to be despised, detested mother-fuckers, not people that get cheers. If a villain does something that gets a positive reaction, tell them to stop doing it. Your good guys are only as strong as your bad guys make them.
I know there’s plenty of talk about heels needing to be revamped, but surely it’s fair to say that their roles are a lot less ‘refined,’ shall we say, than what a top babyface sets out to do. A heel’s job in a nutshell is get people to dislike him/her and get more people behind the opposing babyface. This is oversimplifying things, of course, as I’m taking away a host of other variables that may come into play when the company sells something as a big commodity. One thing that’s looking ominous, though, is the fact that the company can no longer make a top face commodity likeable enough to appeal to a big-enough majority as a stand-alone commodity.
On one hand, many people think that these Mary Sue face characters lack an edge and are disgustingly opaque in how the company shoves them in the collective audience’s face. However, many also think that faces are too hypocritical and contradictory with their actions. Why is AJ such a conniving slut? Why was Teddy Long such an unmitigated son of a bitch with his favoritism? Then you have guys like Cena who fight cancer, have angelic choirs usher them into Wrestlemania and talk about respect, yet flip their lid on a MITB cash-in as if their house was burnt down in front of them.
There has been a lot of talk about characters like Cena abandoning their ‘sportsmanship’ and doing things either ridiculously (and infuriatingly) ‘clean’ in the context of pro wrestling, or utterly mean spirited at other times. I do this myself as I too find WWE’s attempts at PR
quite amusing. Regardless, I think that public image is a big problem with the current climate. In Vince McMahon’s awkward attempt at changing his company’s identity to a broader entertainment vehicle (rather than just being pro wrestling) he’s trying to appease everyone and everything with flawless ‘safe’ face characters without any real logic or consistency behind them. There are a couple of exceptions to this contradictory goody-two-shoes trend in Orton and Ryback, but even their acts are quite transparent to older audiences (poor writing in Orton’s case and probably talent in Ryback’s case).
I think the main focus should be simply playing up the likeability of the performers strengths, particularly with the up-and-coming faces. Take Sheamus for example. Right now he’s becoming a little more human-esque, thus tolerable, but not long before he was utterly intolerable as international Cena lite without the airtight confidence John possesses. I get why they made Sheamus into the jovial Irishman that possesses the invulnerability of superface characters (appropriate given his appearance). However, I feel the man behind Sheamus comes off as a little meek in projecting his character and isn’t nearly as captivating as the man behind John Cena is in spite of the importance WWE now place on him. His strengths aren’t John Cena’s, so I see no reason why management can’t take note of what roles their performers are naturally comfortable in and try and ‘manage’ those strengths appropriately.
It's hard to cheer someone who doesn't even act human. My advice is, pull the joystick plugs out of their asses and let them look/act humanoid from time to time.
Co-signed, alongside many of those in the thread that call for a more sympathetic dimension in top faces. It's interesting that people shit over Punk's face character when he was a good example of the hardened heroic soul with the air of vulnerability surrounding him (pretty similar to his beloved Batman in that regard). Perhaps it was the angles he was involved in that turned so many people off. Perhaps he was too vulnerable
and was made to look emasculated. I'd say it was a bit of both, but I maintain that face CM Punk was reasonably well done in humanizing a personality that so many claim they should do more of. I do think that they went a bit far in some of these less desirable qualities, however, such as showcasing weaknesses and being made to look penniless all too often.
A lot of other good points posted in here as well (good to see someone else seeing potential in a face Miz). Hopefully the thread survives so we can get some more insight on what other fans think would help make company babyfaces likeable.