Joined
·
60 Posts
The WWE will no longer have any "fantasy" characters.
1) Is that a problem?
2) Is it possible to give someone else a gimmick in that style?
It obviously helps that Kane and Taker are for the most part, excellent wrestlers. They would have been successful without the supernatural gimmicks (perhaps not to the quite same degree, but its hard to see a reality in which those guys wouldn't have had successful runs). But Kane remains relevant, in large part, because his character has relevance. He is a relic of a different era... and it can be played straight (like his remask and return) or for comedy (the anger management stuff) or anything along the spectrum.
Similarly, Taker's a great wrestler doesn't need the gimmick to be entertaining, but the gimmick adds an aura, a mystique of greatness about him.
Now to some degree these gimmicks are more pronounced because they are so different-- there is nothing left in WWE like them. And I don't think this is the kind of gimmick you want overrunning the roster. But its an element that adds SOMETHING to WWE. And fairly soon its going to be gone completely. The current Daniel Bryan angle couldn't work with anybody but Kane, and its because of Kane's gimmick, and the history that gimmick brings to the table.
So my answer to question 1 is yes... to the extent that some creative options are taken away. It won't kill the product or anything, but certain angles that are possible because of the "fantastical" or "supernatural" or hell, just the uniqueness of a Kane type character wont be available.
Sadly, I think the answer to question 2 is no. The reality based WWE makes introducing a Kane-esque character basically impossible. But I would love to hear suggestions of how WWE could try it... (maybe something like they tried to do with Kevin Thorne a couple years back?)
1) Is that a problem?
2) Is it possible to give someone else a gimmick in that style?
It obviously helps that Kane and Taker are for the most part, excellent wrestlers. They would have been successful without the supernatural gimmicks (perhaps not to the quite same degree, but its hard to see a reality in which those guys wouldn't have had successful runs). But Kane remains relevant, in large part, because his character has relevance. He is a relic of a different era... and it can be played straight (like his remask and return) or for comedy (the anger management stuff) or anything along the spectrum.
Similarly, Taker's a great wrestler doesn't need the gimmick to be entertaining, but the gimmick adds an aura, a mystique of greatness about him.
Now to some degree these gimmicks are more pronounced because they are so different-- there is nothing left in WWE like them. And I don't think this is the kind of gimmick you want overrunning the roster. But its an element that adds SOMETHING to WWE. And fairly soon its going to be gone completely. The current Daniel Bryan angle couldn't work with anybody but Kane, and its because of Kane's gimmick, and the history that gimmick brings to the table.
So my answer to question 1 is yes... to the extent that some creative options are taken away. It won't kill the product or anything, but certain angles that are possible because of the "fantastical" or "supernatural" or hell, just the uniqueness of a Kane type character wont be available.
Sadly, I think the answer to question 2 is no. The reality based WWE makes introducing a Kane-esque character basically impossible. But I would love to hear suggestions of how WWE could try it... (maybe something like they tried to do with Kevin Thorne a couple years back?)
