Wrestling Forum banner

WWE have it backwards. Why do they insist on using established Faces to build heels?

1296 Views 10 Replies 10 Participants Last post by  Vainebekonnes
Do you think they should instead use established heels in order to put over new faces?

I think it's much more entertaining to create new main event faces from having them take on established dominant heels.

Looks at the talent heel HHH and NWO Hogan created.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
Re: WWE have it backwards. Why do they insist on using established Faces to build hee

What about Sheamus putting Morrison over?

But I do agree all established wrestlers should put young talent over wether they're face or heel.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
935 Posts
Re: WWE have it backwards. Why do they insist on using established Faces to build hee

Personally I actually enjoy seeing a dominant heel for a change...People on this site have a problem understanding that the same old stuff with the Face always being the better wrestler is actually really lame and has chased away many fans.
 

· There is no duty we so much underrate as... being
Joined
·
19,895 Posts
Re: WWE have it backwards. Why do they insist on using established Faces to build hee

I think it's a case of establising the next wave of heels against the current wave of faces for the next wave of faces. If that makes any sense. One quick example being that Sheamus was established via Cena, then eleven months later is being charged with the task of helping to establish Morrison as a babyface threat.

That, and one of WWE's favorite M.O.'s is to push Heel X quite strongly to the point of making them popular and then when they've reached their ostensible peak as a heel, turning them face. Disparate cases demonstrate that this process can take anywhere between six months and six years, if not longer.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,391 Posts
Re: WWE have it backwards. Why do they insist on using established Faces to build hee

It can work both ways, it doesn't need to either one alone. It has worked both ways as well.

Triple H (heel) over Cactus Jack

or

Batista (face) over Triple H (heel)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
Re: WWE have it backwards. Why do they insist on using established Faces to build hee

I think, in general terms, its easier to get a heel over than it is to get a face over. Then, as mentioned above, once the heel is establihed he can be turned face, retaining his credibility.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
905 Posts
Re: WWE have it backwards. Why do they insist on using established Faces to build hee

You need to start somewhere. What established heels does the WWE have to build the new faces? They're using the established faces (which they do have) to establish heels, who will then elevate some faces. People also seem to conveniently forget that Cena and Orton are 33 and 30, respectively. Guys like Del Rio and Sheamus are considered part of the 'youth movement' at 33 and 30, so what's the problem?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
475 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Re: WWE have it backwards. Why do they insist on using established Faces to build hee

I agree, nothing puts a face over more than beating someone the fans hate
I think this sums it up perfectly to be honest. Maybe it's just me? But I've not really gotten into a feud where I cared about who actually won for almost a year (taker \ hbk). Feuds all seem pretty crappy at the moment. Just identikit face vs heel where I was totally indifferent to who won.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Re: WWE have it backwards. Why do they insist on using established Faces to build hee

The reason the WWE is using established faces to put over new heels is because they kind of got screwed by various events. The fans turned Orton face, they lost their two best heels Jericho and Batista through retirement. Undertaker, Rey Mysterio and HHH can't easily be turned heel at this point. Big Show's heel credibility had been hurt by ditching both Jericho and then Miz. All they were left with was Edge, who they turned face, then heel, then back face again. To top it off, they were looking to be losing most of what was left of their main event in the next few years. Only Orton and Cena are likely to still be around in 2 or 3 years, and they are both faces.

So not only do they have a lack of established heels to build faces, they have a desperate need for new main event heels right now, and they won't need new main event faces for another couple of years. Even then, they can get by longer without making new faces even when they need them than they could get by without making new heels now.

Now, there will probably be the person who is convinced that turning John Cena heel is the best way to fix this problem. The 4th quarter of 2010 has been one of the worst quarterly profit margins for the WWE since 1997. Cena makes money as a face. Why should the WWE choose one of the times that business isn't doing so well to cut off one of the few fantastic sources of profit they have?

I agree they need to make new faces. Personally, I would do it by having the new heels go over the established faces consistently, that includes Cena and HHH (they can take the loss without it causing in a loss in merchandise sales), to finally end the new heel's reign of terror with a new face. Two birds, one stone, only one type of established star needed.
 
1 - 11 of 11 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.
Top