I'm sorry that your ideas are terrible so I don't agree with them, man. I want to see things improve, not continue to push the wet envelop. Those ideas are fucking terrible, just like the initial ideas that WWE came up with, like the fucking Money in the Bank bullshit spotfest match. That shit sucks. It sucked the first time, it sucks every time. It's just an excuse to pull of ridiculous high spots that pop the crowd. At the risk of injuring your performers. Performers that, by the vary nature of the fucking match, are supposed to be a big deal in the near future. The whole concept is stupid.
I agree with making the titles more important. You talk about the U.S. title but I didn't even mention it in my entire post, purposely, because it shouldn't fucking exist. They have too many titles to begin with & that belt is just a second rate IC title. So when you're a second rate second tier title, then what is the fucking point? It's a jobber belt for jobbers, which is the entire thing WWE should be getting away from. Make the IC belt matter. But everything you suggested in trying to make the IC title matter more would devalue the other things you suggested, like the Rumble or the World titles. That's my point.
The WWE has over 100 members of talent inked to deals on the main roster, and not on the main roster. You want to keep 4 titles? One world title, IC title, Tag Team title, and Diva title (assumed). That's just hilarious. There is still to much talent to get rid of a title right now. Your argument is awful, and actually you don't even have an argument on this issue. You just think "it shouldn't fucking exist". Does the existence of a title make you that angry?
Anyhow, you started this lack of depth in character thread, and you haven't given one example of how one can go about having "depth" in their character. Do you even realize that story lines are also a part of providing depth to a character? Sometimes it's the situations we are faced with that really draw out our "personalities", or "character". News flash, I could care less how in tune Beefcake was with his character. It was awful, and gimmicks like him made wrestling taboo. Gimmicks like Koko B. Ware, or Kamala were for kids, and I would prefer the WWE stay away from catering to kids.
Judging by your responses you seem to be exactly what the WWE is catering to, a child demographic. I guess you like Bob Holly "The Race Car" driver, or Duke "The Dumpster" Droese? Outside of that you have no real basis to your argument. Seems to me like you are an adult stuck in the past, and can't let go. Let it go. Steve Austin, HBK, Hall, Nash, Orton, and many other successful talents didn't need these obvious "characters", they were themselves for the most part, and that's what made them successful.
Orton said while he was a young heel during his early days with Evolution, he was just being himself. Nash has said the same thing once he went to WCW. He mentioned how in the WWF he was this gimmick, and it worked, but Vince didn't understand how he wanted to be portrayed. If you recall Nash was himself during his last days in the WWF, but just went by the name Diesel. What do you know, Nash becomes part of a solid "story line", and he becomes a hit in the WCW. Shawn Michaels said that many thought he was gay based on his image, but the character was him with a little bit added on for television, but he even admits that being yourself can actually work.
The problem with the WWE is the creative team hardly allows for many of their stars to come up with something catchy. Yes, some of these stars like Brodus Clay do get to entertain with their own ideas, but how many of his ideas were shot down until finally something as ridiculous as The Funkasaurus is ironically accepted. Remember these guys will pitch, and it's up to creative to say yes, or no. Solid ideas could be pitched on the behalf of stars like Kingston, or Swagger, but no one is buying it. Bischoff didn't buy in to the Stone Cold Steve Austin gimmick, and look at where that got him.
It's more than just a lack in depth of characters it's background stories, it personalities, it title prestige, and a sense of creative direction. Much of this is part of the WWE's problems, and ironically enough it's hard to have one without the other. As long as they're writing shit script, throwing titles around, catering to kids, and pretending that fans forget this product won't change. There are small moments where talent just can't be denied, and that's where my argument of "Haven't you watched NXT?" comes in.
Granted Wyatt is a nobody right now, but look at his character. The same can be said for Dean Ambrose. Kassius Ohno is about knocking people out, and that's exactly what his character has been about thus far. Look at Leo Kruger, and it's obvious he is working some sort of character whether it's entertaining is a matter of opinion. Damien Sandow is another version of The Genius, and The Ascension are easily one of the most creative teams around today. Someone had a post with a list of names criticizing it as if to say none of them were any good. Would love for that same person to rename all of those people, and see if they can do it better, and then in detail explain their characters with their new names.
Some of you are just flat out delusional. People don't want to see a guy named "The Demolition Man" come out, or a wrestler who is a part time Baseball Ball mascot, or a someone who claims to be Master Chef, but wrestles now. That's awful, and it's the 21st century, so get with the times. The Heart Break Kid is not the same as The Sultan, and Tugboat isn't the same as Intellectual Savior of the Masses. Those are nicknames which are ok, but Brutus The Barber Beefcake, or Nailz are exactly what the WWE doesn't need anymore. I felt the same way about Hurricane, and I feel the same way about The Funkasaurus.