Killing off characters

[NegativeFeedback]

I was thinking about this. Is killing off characters generally a good idea? We know that most TV shows rely on character's deaths to create an emotional response from the audience, but the WWE and wrestling in general, has avoided it.

WWE did try this out with Vince's limo explosion, but that backfired when Benoit went all Voldemort on his family. I wonder if Vince's death would have actually been an effective plot development had the plot been followed up to the end.

So my questions for you guys are:
1) Is killing off characters a good idea?

2) If the answer is no, then why not? Most people enjoy when characters are killed off on TV shows. Why should wrestling be any different?

3) What other famous instances are there of characters being killed off? All I can think of is Tim White, Paul Bearer and Vince, but all of them ended up being "reversed".

 

[pipebomber]

another example is Muhammad Hussan and the Undertaker many times.

As for killing off characters, Im not opposed to it in very VERY rare occasions. The problem with killing off a character is that it is only effective when the crowd has an emotional attachment to a character. If you killed off JTG, nobody would care. It would have to be somebody big, like John Cena, The Undertaker, HHH, Bryan, etc.

The problem with killing off somebody like that is you have to keep the character off TV for good. You can't repackage them, especially today with the internet. Everybody already knows who they are. If you bring them back as the character that you "killed off" it cheapens the reaction and waters down your product. It worked for the undertaker, but... he's the undertaker.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Sure. It helps build a character. I wouldn't care half as much about The Undertaker's relationship with Kane if not for the dead parents Disney angle. As awful as the Big Show's father's funeral bit was, it still got people to pay attention to him. If used sparingly, I feel it's quite effective. Only thing I recall about Torrie Wilson was her whole dad getting snoo-snoo'd by Dawn Marie, and that's all I remember about Dawn, too. It leaves an impression.

Sparingly used and not so over the top like Vince's was, that is. Don't need the media putting it on blast and label WWE some snuff industry. Other shows don't get that kind of bullshit, but then again other shows get away with far more than wrestling has been allowed to.

 

[FlairFan2003]

ABSOLUTELY BAD IDEA. Yes, I get that this is scripted entertainment, that in fact when wrestling is popular and doing well it is a soap opera every bit the same way "Days of Our Lives" or "Dallas", etc is. The difference here is that wrestling is presented as being a live action sport, the "soap opera" element comes from the competition that exists for positioning, money, power (often championships). Terrel Suggs doesn't actually Kill Ben Roathlisberger when Baltimore plays Pittsburgh for instance. You wont see Rafael Nadal murder Andy Murray at Wimbeldon.

Second, how do you re use the wrestlers after the on screen death ? Yes, it's a shock when a character dies on a TV show. I'm reminded of the episode of "Criminal Minds" where the lead character Hotch's wife was killed by his arch nemesis before they themselves had a fight to the death. Now neither of those two dead characters or the actors who played them can ever appear on that program again. There are however other TV and movie productions where they can find work playing other characters. If John Cena is killed by Bray Wyatt, Cena can never realistically appear in WWE again. Where does he go ?? Even if WCW was still around it would look ridiculous if Cena died on RAW and next month he was wrestling on Nitro ? And yes, I know some wrestlers have appeared as multiple characters but they were essentially lower card or jobber talent that no one noticed when they left and returned as a re packaged and different character. No one remembers are cares at all about Mean Mark Callous (Undertaker's character in WCW) or Isaac Yankem ( the ridiculously hokey evil dentist character Jerry Lawler sent after Brett Hart in their feud). However, most fans know who Roman Reigns & HHH are, and they would know those guys are the same people who just died now appearing as different characters, it would ruin that tenuous grip that wrestling and its fans have that joins the scripted drama with the allusion of real athletic competition, a balance that has existed in the industry for many decades , even before Vince Jr took over WWE, and is a big part of the show's popularity and allure.

Third, look at the fan base. Wrestling in general is geared to ages 6-12, maybe 6-15. Small kids in elementary school typically are not emotionally developed enough to handle things like death. Ever notice that no one ever dies on "Hannah Montana" or "Phineas & Pherb" ?? Likewise, not many 8 year olds are watching "Game of Thrones". Wrestling can get cut across demographics and age groups and maintains a limited popularity with older fans who were started watching when they were in grade school, but the core audience, the most loyal viewers who support the live shows, buy the PPVs, and buy most of the merchandise, are in the grade school-junior high age range.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Hmm. Interesting question.

Often, death on TV shows occur for two reasons. One, they kill off the character for shock value (or contract dispute with the actor), or the actual actor or actress dies, and the character is killed off as well, to explain them no longer being on the show (John Ritter, for example).

Now, WWE have killed off characters. Midget Goldust got squashed by 3 Minute Warning, Torrie Wilson's dad, and the Undertaker numerous times.

It would only work if you kill off the "gimmick" and repackage the superstar as a completely new character, or different look (e.g. ABA Undertaker was "Buried Alive", but came back as "Deadman" Undertaker). Taker is meant to be a zombie character, so he can come "back to life". The Undertaker is the only official "undead" wrestler in WWE history. Undertaker comes back from the dead more often than Stefano, (a character from "Days Of Our Lives". I watch too much of that show).

Also, take Goldust. Say he had used his short-lived character, Seven (that he used in WCW one night) in WWE. WWE could kill off Seven, and bring him back as Goldust who is "not dead". So you can kill a character, but not without another persona and radical overhaul of the character.

Now, real-life deaths are mentioned on air. Owen Hart and Eddie Guerrero were "written out" by their actual deaths, but was done with a tribute show. I don't think you could write it that they are killed by another wrestler, as it would be tacky.

If Vince wanted to be mischevious, he could have killed off Fake Diesel and Fake Razor Ramon, as a proverbial finger to Nash and Hall for leaving for WCW.

 

[brighamosity]

This is an interesting discussion. But the main reason it would not work is because professional wrestling takes itself too seriously. For example, when a character on "Game of Thrones" dies, that actor can give an interview, using his real name, the very next day and discuss it. Even in theatre, which wrestling is fairly similar to, the actors will stand arm-in-arm right after the show acknowledging that it's all a show. Wrestlers rarely break character. Even in interviews, they act as if the bad guys are actually evil and how they actually want to hurt each other.

Basically, by keeping kayfabe, wrestling hurts its credibility. I can suspend my disbelief for an actor in a broadway play dying because they are telling a story. But if someone "died" on Raw, they would try to play it off like it were real, and that would just make people roll their eyes at it. If they got rid of kayfabe, no one would feel the need to call them out if they repackaged the character, just like no one gets mad at the Game of Thrones character who died and then shows up next year on 24. With that said, if a WWE character died, WWE could say that the actor was returning to play a new character. But they'd never do that with kayfabe.

I'm not saying they should get rid of kayfabe. But you must acknowledge that kayfabe limits their options. I remember seeing a news interview where a guy called in and told Edge that something offended him, and Edge said that no one got offended when Luke Skywalker had his hand cut off by Darth Vader. In that brief instance, Edge admitted that wrestling was fake. But that is extremely rare. If WWE wanted to do angles like death, they're going to have to get rid of kayfabe to do it.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Doesn't Damien Sandow die each week and return as a new character? He is basically South Park's Kenny, with the exception that he talks well too coherently.

The death stuff can only go so far. I like the idea of a guy getting physically or mentally punished enough to the point of insanity or a need for a change. It actually makes more sense than some of these face and heel turns we get. But there is currently too much realism in pro wrestling to accept death and rebirth as a storyline. I didn't care for it with Paul Bearer or Vince and I don't think it works now.

But if they want to run s storyline where someone kills The Miz and he is never heard from again, I will fully support it.

 

[Catacomb]

first of all tim white and undertaker didnt DIE, tim whites gimmick was that he tried to commit suicide and failed, hence his constant returning.


killing off characters in wrestling is insanely stupid and i cant believe this is a real conversation. does anyone remember joe being abducted by the ninjas? the reason tv shows can kill characters is that tv shows have their own worlds, no one confuses gotham city with real life. wwe uses the real names of many wrestlers, uses real world politics for feuds. fans today are too stupid to know that the wrestlers wouldnt really be dead, remember the limo explosion? how many people called the hospital? hundreds. not just that, but the wwe stock dropped too

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I'm reminded of the episode of "Criminal Minds" where the lead character Hotch's wife was killed by his arch nemesis before they themselves had a fight to the death. Now neither of those two dead characters or the actors who played them can ever appear on that program again.

So, from the list of TV character deaths, Hotch's wife on Criminal Minds is the one that stands out to you? Haha...THAT is the example you used to explain what character deaths mean to TV shows? I guess you were born in 2003, Flair Fan. If so, I'll give you a pass. Only a child could find that moment relevant.

I think killing off characters is an innovative idea and, although anything creative is pissed on here, wouldn't surprise me if it's eventually used.

Then, and only then, will the mindless robots on this forum praise the move as bold. Any idea that requires imagination or thought is wasted here, sadly. It has to be spoonfed or drawn out for these dopes to see it.
A smart idea though. I hope it is considered.

Not as creative and clever as more approved ideas--like Sheamus vs. Mark Henry Part 42--but still good! I wish there was a forum for thinkers like you...where dopes like these couldn't bash what they don't understand. Ahh well. Back to real life. Enjoy your full day on a wrestling site, puppets!

 

[NegativeFeedback]

Hmm. Interesting question.

Often, death on TV shows occur for two reasons. One, they kill off the character for shock value (or contract dispute with the actor), or the actual actor or actress dies, and the character is killed off as well, to explain them no longer being on the show (John Ritter, for example).

I think more people die on TV shows for creative reasons than any of that backstage nonsense. HBO dramas are a great example. When people are killed off of True Blood, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, The Sopranos, Oz, etc, it's so those deaths can be used to further the story. Daenerys Targaryen can be the ultimate face in Game of Thrones, but if the story demands it, they can have someone kill her to create an ultimate heel.

WWE doesn't do that though. Instead, when they're done building up a top face, they shove him down to the midcard, and have him soil the good-will he drummed up during his top run. This might be a morbid example, but let's use Chris Benoit. He became World Champion. He defeated Triple H. He was on top of the world. But it's push was ending, there was nothing more to do with the character. Why not have T kill him off? It would have been huge. Benoit would go out while on top, it would create a top heel, and a new hero could be built up to fend him off.

Or better yet, let's talk about the bad guys. Once Cena is done with Umaga, what's the point of keeping him around? Everyone knows Umaga's undefeated streak was leading to Cena taking him down. There was little left for Umaga to accomplish in the company before he was released years later.

My point is, sometimes you should just get rid of guys because they are no longer required. In present day WWE, I don't see any point as to keeping Alberto Del Rio around. It would have made sense to me if some bigger bad guy would have killed him off to build up his notoriety (Brock Lesnar, Rusev, etc.). Alberto was a top-level performer and his character was had personality and clear goals in mind. By not killing him off, they just throw him in the midcard where he waits out until the day he is released.

They just fired Drew McIntyre and Jinder Mahal for budgetary reasons. Imagine if Rusev had killed them and Heath Slater was the sole survivor of the slaughter? It would have added dimensions to both those characters, and made Heath a sympathetic character to root for.

Of course, in PG-WWE, "killing off" might be out of the question. But WWE has done stretcher-jobs to symbolize getting killed off before (like Sheamus ending Jamie Noble's career). Everything I have mentioned can easily be substituted for having those people written off as careers ended.

If we had characters being written off regularly, WWE would be a much more suspenseful environment. Instead, guys who are written off are just guys who have contract disputes and retirements. It's never used as a creative tool.

It would only work if you kill off the "gimmick" and repackage the superstar as a completely new character, or different look (e.g. ABA Undertaker was "Buried Alive", but came back as "Deadman" Undertaker). Taker is meant to be a zombie character, so he can come "back to life". The Undertaker is the only official "undead" wrestler in WWE history. Undertaker comes back from the dead more often than Stefano, (a character from "Days Of Our Lives". I watch too much of that show).

Yeah that's why I mentioned Undertaker. He's always being buried alive, but everyone knows that he's coming back so they are okay with the apparent on-screen death. Paul Bearer being suffocated in cement was hardcore though.

Now, real-life deaths are mentioned on air. Owen Hart and Eddie Guerrero were "written out" by their actual deaths, but was done with a tribute show. I don't think you could write it that they are killed by another wrestler, as it would be tacky.

I'm a firm believer that you shouldn't kill off the character of someone who died in real life. I thought John Ritter's death on 8 Simple Rules was tacky. It felt like they were just trying to continue the show as a cash-grab, using his death as a marketing tool. Chris Nolan didn't acknowledge Joker's fate in The Dark Knight Rises due to the same principle and I applause him for it. WWE shouldn't kill off anyone who is killed in real life.

That being said, it's fine with acknowledging their real-life deaths and paying tribute, because they're pretty much breaking kayfabe at that point. It's like if Steve Buscemi passed away in real life, and HBO aired a tribute special with the cast in the middle of Boardwalk Empire's final season. No harm done.

If Vince wanted to be mischevious, he could have killed off Fake Diesel and Fake Razor Ramon, as a proverbial finger to Nash and Hall for leaving for WCW.

That's actually a great idea. He should have done it. Those characters never appeared on TV again (Diesel's 2011 appearance in the Royal Rumble notwithstanding- he came back as Kevin Nash shortly thereafter).

 

[Shark Boy]

1) Is killing off characters a good idea?

A. I would have to say that it isn't. Unless its pushed in an area where the universe is comfortable in making light of the situation. If WWE tried to make it "real" I dont think it would go over.. and in turn it would backfire. The age of the gullible mark (in most cases) died out long ago. Pun intended!

 

[JoeyJoeJoe]

No, it's a fucking stupid idea.

WWE may be more akin to a soap opera than anything else, but it puts on the guise of being a sport, hence the sports entertainment.

Until I see Richard Sherman blow up in a limo by a bomb placed there by Colin Kaepernick on Fox NFL Sunday, I somewhat expect the WWE to follow generally realistic sports storylines that ultimately are about beating the crap out of someone you don't like or winning a title...because, you know, competition and all that jazz.

 

[Slash-LN]

Given all the real deaths of professional wrestlers and the stigma around it I think companies would be wise to stay away from stuff like that.

Wrestling is held to a different standard than regular television shows. This would just open a door for all the idiot "journalists" to bash the company for doing it.

There's really no upside to it either. What do they gain from it?