Lack of Depth in Characters - Page 4 - Wrestling Forum: WWE, AEW, New Japan, Indy Wrestling, Women of Wrestling Forums

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #31 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 01:00 AM
Winning World titles, Custom Made Clothes
 
dxbender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,833
Points: 339
                     
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

Undertaker probably has the most depth of any character in WWE history lol. There could probably be a biography on Undertakers life, because of how in depth it is lol.

Really don't get just how lazy it seems like WWE writers are. You have 7 days to write 2-3 shows, how is that hard? TV writers write 20-25 episodes a year and that's it,yet they have more character build/storylines than WWE does in 100+ shows(Raw/SD) combined.

dxbender is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 01:43 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: AccountKiller
Favourite(s): AccountKiller
Posts: 4,306
Points: 765
                     
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walk-In View Post
First off, I like the idea of the Intercontinental Champion receiving something for being said champion, but I think that reward being a shot at the Money in the Bank is not the solution. First off, I hate Money in the Bank. It's a match that makes the performers take unnecessary risks & all the briefcase has done over the years is devalue the top titles, champions & contenders. Much like your idea of the Royal Rumble spot, which I also dislike. The Royal Rumble is meant to be random, that's part of the appeal. When you start telling people who is coming out when, those parts of the match lose a lot of their charm. Not to mention, why would the Intercontinental Champion risk losing a match & being stuck with the first position, ensuring he has the least likely chance of getting a shot at a World Title? It logically would make more sense to just take your chances at getting a random number, even if a win would give you thirty. Besides, as the Intercontinental Champion, you should be a contender anyway, just like The Ultimate Warrior was.

I actually dislike all of your "rules." Just bringing back some sort of "winner's purse" or rankings would be infinitely better than any of those. The MitB needs to die a horrible death. There's too many belts as is. Tag teams should be teams & want to achieve team success, not care about individual merits. That's why they're a team.
While I don't like all of the rules he set in place, I think that the roster is too thin for tag teams to be focused solely on tag team competition. Only one team can go after the tag titles at a time, and usually the other teams are left spinning their wheels until it's their turn. A lot of singles wrestlers end up wrestling in tag matches every week. Tag Teams should be teams, but they should care about individual merits as well. They're two individual people seeking a common goal, but they should be treated as two people, not as a hive mind. Tag team wrestlers should have singles feuds every so often, as it freshens things up a little bit/

Instead of two random singles wrestlers like Rhodes Scholars or Team Hell No who have little in common together, try putting together two guys, and giving them a matching color scheme or something, while retaining all other aspects of their individual characters. That's what we're currently getting with Tyson Kidd & Justin Gabriel. They're a cohesive team, and they work well together, yet they still chase singles titles and wrestle in singles matches every week.

The Money in the Bank is actually a good idea, but poor execution. Instead of using it to hotshot the belt to a midcarder, or protect the face champion by taking the belt off of them in a fluke, it should be used to put said midcarder in an actual world title FEUD. Since John Cena failed his cash-in, they could even lose the match without having the stigma of being the first guy to fail over their heads
TempestH is offline  
post #33 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 05:59 AM
Trying to Impress Vince McMahon
 
Vin Ghostal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 6,280
Points: 16
                     
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

The characters don't even have to be that deep or complex, although that would be nice. They simply must be different.

Ted DiBiase, great performer though he was, simply played the standard "rich guy" character in WWE; however, he was completely different from someone like Dino Bravo or Earthquake or Rick Martel or Jake Roberts. Each one of those guys was unique.

Now (and this is no knock on the performers, mind), please tell me the difference between Dolph Ziggler, The Miz, and Cody Rhodes in 2012. Don't talk about what they were...talk about what they are right now.


God, this third hour of Raw really drags...
Vin Ghostal is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 06:28 AM
 
Interceptor88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Seville, Andalusia, Spain
Posts: 3,374
Points: 3,172
                     
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vin Ghostal View Post
Now (and this is no knock on the performers, mind), please tell me the difference between Dolph Ziggler, The Miz, and Cody Rhodes in 2012. Don't talk about what they were...talk about what they are right now.
I will try...
Cody Rhodes: cocky douche A.
The Miz: cocky douche B.
Dolph Ziggler: cocky douche C.

JobbyJobberson and A$AP are full right. Wrestlers should stand out begining with their names, and Wade Barrett character could have been way more special and unique. They think giving the guy a new finisher, a beard and bandages in the arms is a gimmick.
Interceptor88 is offline  
post #35 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 09:12 AM
Moron
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,658
Points: 0
                     
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walk-In View Post
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.

Last edited by truk83; 11-02-2012 at 09:14 AM.
truk83 is offline  
post #36 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 11:20 AM
Wheelman for James Ellsworth
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 560
Points: 0
           
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

Quote:
Originally Posted by truk83 View Post
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?
Just so you know, the titles never meant more than when there were just three. The World Title, the IC Title, and the Tag Titles. That's all you need right now and that's really all you've ever needed. Right now you have titles being defended on pre-shows.

Lol what's the point of being a champion if it signifies nothing at all? Champion of what? Why would a guy like Justin Gabriel care if he wins the U.S. Championship? And more importantly, why should WE care? Do you realize that the IC title matches of old felt more big and more monumental the world title matches of today? There's a reason for that.
JobbyJobberson is offline  
post #37 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 12:42 PM
Moron
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,658
Points: 0
                     
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

Quote:
Originally Posted by JobbyJobberson View Post
Just so you know, the titles never meant more than when there were just three. The World Title, the IC Title, and the Tag Titles. That's all you need right now and that's really all you've ever needed. Right now you have titles being defended on pre-shows.

Lol what's the point of being a champion if it signifies nothing at all? Champion of what? Why would a guy like Justin Gabriel care if he wins the U.S. Championship? And more importantly, why should WE care? Do you realize that the IC title matches of old felt more big and more monumental the world title matches of today? There's a reason for that.
What the fuck are you talking about?
truk83 is offline  
post #38 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 01:55 PM
AEW ALL OUT 8/31/19
 
A-C-P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: I Hail From Green Bay, WI
Posts: 24,456
Points: 43,934
                     
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

Quote:
Originally Posted by truk83 View Post
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.
Sorry but have to point out the judging by the reaction to Ryback people actually do want to see The Demolition Man come out

As to the rest of this paragraph I actually think the WWE does need guys like The Hurricane and The Funkasaurus, but only in small doses, they actually need a mix of what you want and what everybody else wants.

This is the boat alot of people are missing IMO. The WWE has to fill 6 hours of TV time per week now and need to attract a ver yWIDE audience of different people. Your not going to like everything they put out and the answer is not to change everything to be just like the stuff you (or i, or what any one individual) likes.

As for the original topic, I completely agree on the depth of characters lacking and i've said this before this is one of the biggest differences, if not the biggest difference, between today's "era" and the almighty Attitude era that everyone praises as the best ever.

Now character depth doesn't mean everyone has to have a wacky, oddball, whatever gimmick, although like I said small doses of those are neccessary. But they need to have a character even if that character is just an exceneration of thier own personality.

Biggest problem i see is that every heel and every face is EXACTLY the same character, with very subtle differences. In the past every heel and face were DIFFERENT characters with very subtle similarities, This is a HUGE problem.

Perfect example was given a few posts earlier:

The Miz, Cody Rhodes, Ziggler - what exactly makes them different than eachother, other than subtle things?

On the other hand, really look at the characters and what makes Cena, Sheamus, of KOfi any different from one anther from a base character standpoint other than the obvious Cena being a white american male, Sheamus having red hair and an irish accent, and Kofi being african-american with a jamaican accent?

A-C-P is offline  
post #39 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 02:34 PM Thread Starter
Moron
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: “We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell.”
Posts: 5,125
Points: 0
                     
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

How much is the lack of direction in the show & of the characters due to the same people writing all of the material for everyone?

Let's say Mark McJobber is a writer. Mark McJobber writes some stuff for John Cena. Then he writes some stuff for Kofi Kingston. Then he writes some stuff for Alberto Del Rio. How much difference can there be between the writing of Cena, Kofi & Rio if it's all written by Mark McJobber?

That's what WWE feels like to me. It feels like the same people writing the same stuff every week for everyone just to kill time. They have a basic layout for RAW then they have names & they just fill in the blank lines each week.

Opening Promo With (heel/face): ____
*If face* "I'm upset with (heel) ____
*If heel* "I'm upset with (face): ____
*Reason for being upset* *Call out that person*
1. That person comes out.
2. Someone from a different feud comes out.
1.a. "I don't like you neither!"
2.a. "I have a beef too!"

3. Tag team match.
Coffey is offline  
post #40 of 48 (permalink) Old 11-02-2012, 03:21 PM
Moron
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,658
Points: 0
                     
Re: Lack of Depth in Characters

What good is a character without a real story to follow? We have no background history with characters. We instead get bullshit like Cesaro was a former Rugby player, who was to tough for the sport. That's why he became a professional wrestler, because he is to tough for sports. It's a horrible pitch. The last real background story that we had was Kane. He is the brother of a Legend, and thus a great story was told between the two men. Their whole history is "fake", but it's all very creative, and interesting.

What good is Stone Cold Steve Austin without a CEO to fire back at? I agree that characters like Hurricane, and Funkasaurus are needed to support another demographic. However, that doesn't mean we need to go over the top just to have some quality entertainment. Take for example a boring star like Drew McIntyre. Prior to his current role he really hadn't carried a serious character since The Chosen One, which failed miserably. Why? Because he never proved why he was this so called "Chosen One", and Vince never came back in to sight with this angle. He just left him out to dry. The angle went nowhere meaning the "gimmick" goes nowhere.

Had the WWE set up Drew with a meaningful feud with perhaps one of Vince's rivals then maybe things would have turned out better. What if Drew ended up being Vince's affair having son? Granted that angle was awful, but Drew's career could be so much different now. Perhaps Drew works a story with Hot Rod Rowdy Roddy Piper, and makes a name for himself at Piper's expense? Ruins Piper for being a fake his whole career, and especially does it to make Vince happy to see Piper destroyed by a real Scottish Man. Once a childhood hero to Drew, and Piper now is a fake, rotten, piece of Canadian trash to "The Chosen One".

Like I said earlier The Undertaker is an exception, but also a great example of how to handle a character that goes beyond the ordinary. He even broke character, and went with The American Bad Ass, and sold it perfectly. No, they won't ever match The Undertaker again, but he is a great example of how a character works. First, give him a look no one else has. Next, match his theme with his character. Then, support his character with other details. For example The Urn provides mystery, and has a story of it's own. The gimmick matches also worked well for him, and his funeral parlor show was a great way to build feuds with his character.

The WWE certainly does still do these things. The Miz has his own show, and others like Y2J, or Edge have had theirs. However those shows really couldn't define their characters. Only HBK's show "The Heartbreak Hotel" made sense after The Funeral Parlor because it spoke volumes towards his character. Jericho's show, Christian's Peep show, Edge's thing, and even The Miz have nothing directly defining themselves through their shows. Does that make sense? They were all just copy cat shows. The Piper's Pit, The Brother Love Show, Heart Break Hotel, and The Undertakers Funeral Parlor went right with the characters portrayed. Recent years have proven the WWE just throws out these creative parts to practically anyone these days. That's the real problem.

I feel like some stars can even accomplish having matches drawn from their characters. That means a whole lot to because it's no different that The NFL creating The Mel Blount Rule. It's a compliment, saying you are so extraordinary we have to change how we play. In professional wrestling's case it's not the same, but in essence wrestlers today fight in The Hell In The Cell because Taker made it famous. Buried Alive matches, and Casket matches were something the Attitude Era thrived upon.

When I think of Ladder matches a number of names come to mind, but not one person sticks out more than HBK. When I think of Hardcore Matches I think of Cactus Jack. Very few wrestlers can impact a business like this in which a new match type is created due to their character involvement. This is something I feel the WWE doesn't do as much which is associate a person's character with a match type that they are pioneers of, or very successful at. There should be a character that has never pinned anyone in the WWE, but instead has tapped out his opponents always.

Granted we had stars like Benoit, or Angle who were tap out specialists. However, they have won matches in which they pinned, or performed a top rope finisher instead of tapping their opponents out. The WWE needs a character who never once pinned another star, but instead wins via tap out only. From here you build on that guy who has never won a match without tapping his foe out to eventually run in to another character. This character never loss a match via tap out, a pin yes, but never made to tap out. With these two characters you are able to tell a story in the ring. Will the tap out artists win his first match with by not tapping out his foe, or does he tap out the man who has never tapped out?

Having feuds start over the contrast of characters is something the WWE used to be good at I guess. Take for example Papa Shango vs The Undertaker. Now there was nothing epic about their feud, but you couldn't help to be interested in seeing Shango use "black magic" on The Deadman. Their characters were so similar, but very much their own at the same time. How about Narcissist Lex Luger vs Mr.Perfect? The WWE really missed out on Zeus vs Hercules. You can still create that atmosphere without having to go overboard with themes like Hercules, or The Narcissist.

One of the greatest feuds to never really take off due to tragedy was Austin vs Pillman. Had Brian stayed alive his feud with Austin would have really been the Attitude Era's feud. Many would say that it did just by the one famous scene of Austin breaking in to Pillman's home. However that is a prime example of two characters that weren't copied from mythology. You had two very similar characters in terms of "crazy", but they both knew how to play their own tune to it. Pillman was "The Loose Cannon", while Austin was this "Redneck from Hell".

The WWE isn't providing any solid stories to even come close to having characters with depth in them. Seriously, everything goes to the main event, and that's like 3 people at best. Wrestling is all about the past because without it there is no future. In the past 10 years I have only seen one star created, and that's John Cena. CM Punk is slowly making a name for himself, but he isn't staying around much longer. Randy Orton is easily the most ruined star of the last ten years. Other than that there isn't much left creatively other than to turn your biggest star heel, and give him "Depth in character" by turning him heel.
truk83 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome