Wrestling Forum banner

The heel/face difference

481 Views 3 Replies 4 Participants Last post by  floyd2386
It seems to be a common consensus that the majority of us enjoy heels more than babyfaces, however I don't think it is to act 'cool' by liking 'the bad guy', I genuinely believe that heels almost always possess much more compelling characters than babyfaces - yes that may be stating the obvious, however the question I pose is is it really that difficult to produce a more compelling character for a babyface, or good guy? To me, the heels have a library full of ways to garner a negative reaction therefore allowing them to possess a lot more substance than the general babyface. Babyface seem to generally have two character 'settings' if you will; they either kick ass (Austin as a generic example) or kiss ass (John Cena, I suppose could represent this in some ways due to his catering to younger children and appearing like a do-gooder). Is this the reality?
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

· Registered
2,352 Posts
Babyfaces cane be more compelling characters if they are done right.

What made Austin so much fun was that he was so unpredictable, you didn't know what he was going to do next. The Rock technically is an "asshole" yet he got over as a face, babyfaces can be interesting when you give them an edge, if they so black/white like Cena then they are just boring to watch.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.