Get rid of Heels / Faces, you don't need them! Agreed?

[shitsngiggles]

Potential wall of text, if you don't wish to read all, please pop in your thoughts on scrapping the heel/face dynamic, if you think it could(n't) work etc. I want to know what others think

I've been pondering this for a long time, this whole heel / face BS is really the main thing I find wrong with the WWE as a whole these days.

Why do you have to have heels/faces all the time?
Why do you need heel turns/face turns?
What is the point of it all?

I don't know if it is because I am now older or what, but this whole dynamic looks increasingly pathetic to me.

In order to get The Shield "over" as "heels" they had them attack all the "faces" and it just looks plain and simply forced.

I don't think they needed to do it for people to get interested in them at all, they should have attacked everyone and everything they wanted to.

The Rock Vs John Cena II wasn't a great match in my eyes, but it just proved you didn't have to turn Cena heel for him to get a reaction.

Same as HBK Vs Undertaker, Undertaker Vs HHH, didn't need a heel/face dynamic.

Ziggler was over huge Monday, didn't look like a "heel" win to me either. It was someone doing what they wanted to (and could) do, to win the championship.

In other aspects of the show. JBL does a great job as an alternative commentator, he isn't excactly a heel, he just says counter points to other views and has fun doing it, he isn't being annoying or trying to wind people up and he is the best commentator sitting at that table these days.

I wasn't at all interested in the Cole Vs Lawler crap of not too long ago, it was absolute rubbish. Cole being annoying doesn't make me tune into a show to see if he gets beaten, it makes me turn over.

Same as Vickie, Heel GM, why? I hate her, I mute or change the channel when she comes out. Does a GM really need to behave either good or bad? Heel or Face GMs? A waste of time, stupid and sometimes a reason to not watch at all.

I could reel off more examples, Orton when he was with Legacy Vs HHH and Family, wasn't excactly Heel Vs Face, the revenge storyline made it a good storyline, it didn't need heel/face garbage it could have just been natural.

Let's face it, we don't need heels/face we just need good storylines.

I wouldn't call Mark Henry's current character Heel either, he's just a big strong guy who wants to win things and beat people, he doesn't do any pathetic to get himself "over as a heel" he's just a mean guy doing what he does and it works.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

There have to be heels and faces. It's part of the story-telling and the entertainment aspect of the whole thing. I do think however, they should move more towards having the main eventers as "tweeners." Heels that sometimes act like faces and faces that sometimes act like heels.

There has to be a distinction though or the actual characters won't be believable. Take CM Punk's current character. If he was feuding with John Cena one week but then runs down to the ring to help ADR fight Swagger, then next week beats up Sheamus, what kind of story does that tell? What kind of character would that be?

By having a heel/face distinction, you can build up a character and a feud and it also forces guys to actually learn how to act, not just wrestle. If it was a free for all, it wouldn't really require acting, only fighting.

As I said, moving the main eventers towards being tweeners, is kinda like getting rid of the distinction all together BUT some aspects are still there. Look at Stone cold. He wasn't a "baby face" per se but he wasn't an all out heel. He was right in between, which is where the "tweener" term comes from.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Fuck you talking about? No heels and faces. You people ...

Just because WWE can't build proper heels and faces doesn't mean they should be obsolete. Heels and faces work great. Watch you some TNA this Thursday, check out Bully Ray, check out Roode and Aries and tell me we don't need heels and faces.

While we're at it, why not erase all bad guys from every movie. Fuck Lex Luthor, fuck The Joker.

Stop trying to simplify the business by over complicating it.

 

[shitsngiggles]

There has to be a distinction though or the actual characters won't be believable. Take CM Punk's current character. If he was feuding with John Cena one week but then runs down to the ring to help ADR fight Swagger, then next week beats up Sheamus, what kind of story does that tell? What kind of character would that be?

Just quoting this part, because I wanted to make a point on it. That wouldn't be story telling, which is part of what I'm saying. But I'm going to try and use that and build a story around it, so here it goes, I'm going to try use those guys in their current storylines:

1. feuding with John Cena one week, I'd guess he would be wanting to get his title back still, pretty easy to set-up. He doesn't have to try and annoy the crowd he just needs to start cutting promos with Cena. He doesn't like Cena, doesn't mean he has to be a face or heel. He hates Cena and wants his title back.

2. but then runs down to the ring to help ADR fight Swagger, Ok so he's feuding with Cena, he isn't on Smackdown generally, but with some good storytelling, i'd say he attacks Swagger to send a message to the smackdown roster that he wants a title shot, and he is going to get one if he has to beat down all the contenders for the World Heavyweight Championship. So he takes out Swagger to set-up a no1 contender fight for ADR to take on Ziggler.

3. then next week beats up Sheamus Sheamus also wants a shot at the WHC naturally, Punk sees him as a threat and takes him out. Or perhaps Sheamus has interfered with the #1 contender match because he doesn't think Punk deserves one for the WHC, so then Punk gets revenge on him.

There are many possible ways to do that storyline and make it natural without having to have heels/faces.

I know excactly where you're coming from though, you do need something, but I think these heel/face turns are screwing the product up, if you had good storylines these would change naturally.

In real life, people don't see you as a face or heel, they may like you, love you, hate you, be jelous of you, whatever. That isn't like "Oh I hate joe bloggs, he's such a heel" is it?

The Shield is one that really gets my goat, using "justice" as a term for a "heel" group? Doesn't really make sense to me in the slightest, and sending them out to just attack "faces" is pretty stupid in my eyes.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

Just quoting this part, because I wanted to make a point on it. That wouldn't be story telling, which is part of what I'm saying. But I'm going to try and use that and build a story around it, so here it goes, I'm going to try use those guys in their current storylines:

1. feuding with John Cena one week, I'd guess he would be wanting to get his title back still, pretty easy to set-up. He doesn't have to try and annoy the crowd he just needs to start cutting promos with Cena. He doesn't like Cena, doesn't mean he has to be a face or heel. He hates Cena and wants his title back.

2. but then runs down to the ring to help ADR fight Swagger, Ok so he's feuding with Cena, he isn't on Smackdown generally, but with some good storytelling, i'd say he attacks Swagger to send a message to the smackdown roster that he wants a title shot, and he is going to get one if he has to beat down all the contenders for the World Heavyweight Championship. So he takes out Swagger to set-up a no1 contender fight for ADR to take on Ziggler.

3. then next week beats up Sheamus Sheamus also wants a shot at the WHC naturally, Punk sees him as a threat and takes him out. Or perhaps Sheamus has interfered with the #1 contender match because he doesn't think Punk deserves one for the WHC, so then Punk gets revenge on him.

There are many possible ways to do that storyline and make it natural without having to have heels/faces.

I know excactly where you're coming from though, you do need something, but I think these heel/face turns are screwing the product up, if you had good storylines these would change naturally.

In real life, people don't see you as a face or heel, they may like you, love you, hate you, be jelous of you, whatever. That isn't like "Oh I hate joe bloggs, he's such a heel" is it?

The Shield is one that really gets my goat, using "justice" as a term for a "heel" group? Doesn't really make sense to me in the slightest, and sending them out to just attack "faces" is pretty stupid in my eyes.

Good breakdown of my points with the current storyline. I don't completely agree that heel/face distinction needs to go BUT I do think they need to get rid of the "turns" for no apparent reason. This happens with midcarders all the time. A guy is a heel for a long time then the next week on RAW, he's suddenly a face, for no reason at all other than just "for the hell of it." THAT is what I think has to be eliminated, the turns for no reason.

Keep the heel/face distinction but if a guy is going to turn, have a reason and show us why.

I think you'd be fine with the heel/face distinction if WWE creative did a better job of writing storylines.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It doesn't work. It's been tried and it simply doesn't work. The simple age old concept of good vs. bad is and always will be a key element in pro wrestling. Without some distinct conflict between the characters, and without different personalities to said characters, it all gets stale. The smark fans who cheer for the heels and boo the babyfaces, thankfully, don't represent the majority of wrestling audiences.

Back in the Attitude Era, the concept of good guys & bad guys was pretty much done away with. As a result, pretty much every character on the roster became a morally ambiguous tweener. As a result, you had a very lackluster roster packed with characters who didn't have their own distinct identities. You can't have an entire roster full of, for all intents & purposes, anti-heroes. Whether it be movies or television, hell even comic books, every character can't be someone who walks in a world of gray. That's why there were far more traditional heroes in Westerns back in the day rather than Clint Eastwood's morally ambiguous "Man with No Name" character.

Heels are supposed to be morally questionable people who often twist aspects of reality to suit their own personal philosophy. For instance, is The Shield truly delivering "justice" to WWE? Of course not. But their insistence that's what they're doing by viciously attacking people who haven't committed any injustices towards them or anything else naturally makes them look like hypocrites. Nobody likes a hypocrite, especially if said hypocrite is attacking someone "innocent" in the name of justice. That gives fans a reason to boo against them and rally behind whomever they happen to be feuding with.

Simply going around and having wrestlers seemingly attack one another at random without any sense of moral compass to their characters is chaotic. Vince Russo tried doing this and it led to some of the worst content to ever make it onto a wrestling television program.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I disagree the Attitude Era roster didn't have their own identities... their identities were clearly unique but it was their motivations that were not clear... The Godfather was always distinguishable from Goldust either face or heel... but when there are no faces and heels the only thing you can have it about is titles and titles are now worthless. Explaining motivations takes time and they were not going to give The Godfather 10 minutes on the mic to explain his.

It wasn't as important as they were shooting for older audiences, mainly adults... those fans could deal with the duality, they got that Darth Vader was also Annakin Skywalker and Bruce Wayne was as screwed up as the Joker both in and out the Batsuit... Media portrayed anti-heroes a lot more than they do today, and when they do now it's always for mature audiences...which is exactly what WWE is not aiming for.

So kids respond to good vs evil and WWE will continue to give it to them a) cos it keeps the parents groups off their backs if they can say "the bad guys get their comeuppance" b) it keeps things simple for writing purposes and c) it offers 2 bites of the cherry on each character... they can have a face and heel persona over a period of time, maybe swap every few years like Big Show. If someone's a tweener, where do they go? How do you freshen them up without them coming across as a born again or becoming a sociopath? The closest you have today to tweener is Punk, but he is not an anti-hero or tweener as such, where he gets away with it is that Phil Brooks is clearly as out of place in the WWE as Punk is, so for him to "choose a side" is silly.

Someone like Show who flip flops constantly is a perfect advert for doing away with face and heel divides, but he's probably the only guy who can get away with doing it so often because he's in essence a giant... sometimes they are friendly but if you upset them, they're gonna stomp you, something that runs through much of kid's literature...

 

[crippler]

The Shield is one that really gets my goat, using "justice" as a term for a "heel" group? Doesn't really make sense to me in the slightest, and sending them out to just attack "faces" is pretty stupid in my eyes.

This is why your not a writer or booker in WWE The Shield is doing great stuff right now they are heels this is why they attack the faces it creates heat for them this is what you want for a heel. that is what made the nWo so good cuz they were the ultimate heel group that attacked all the fan favorites. Basically you want every WWE star to be Stone Cold cuz he would give a stunner to anyone in the ring face or heel but if everyone was like that it would be boring. No heels or faces would give pro wrestling its worst ratings ever since it became popular.

 

[Dysturbed]

In real life, people don't see you as a face or heel, they may like you, love you, hate you, be jelous of you, whatever. That isn't like "Oh I hate joe bloggs, he's such a heel" is it?

I see the similarity that you are making but the difference speaks volumes. In real life we don't walk around with theme music blaring for everyone to hear or expect everyone around us to react loudly to when they first hear it, react loudly to the things that we say, or react loudly and with joy when we randomly attack people who we will have fights/matches with, as millions watch, while wearing merchandise that bears our names. In real life there are people with different personalities and opinions, but those things are not expressed with a specific purpose of "sports entertainment" and getting certain levels of reactions. Reactions from wrestling fans can come even without the face/heel dynamic, but in modern times would probably also come with a lot of confusion. It is one thing for fans to know how they are "supposed to" react and then react however they want to regardless and another for them to be more torn between how to react to someone who they think is just morally grey and not trying to be more of a defined face or heel. Yes there are faces who have heelish tendencies and vice versa, but at least we know what they are attempting to mostly achieve. That is probably very helpful for children, who are just as, if not more relevant than us adults when it comes to the product, even though the adults are the ones providing the company with money.

The Shield is one that really gets my goat, using "justice" as a term for a "heel" group? Doesn't really make sense to me in the slightest, and sending them out to just attack "faces" is pretty stupid in my eyes.

I am basically rehashing what Jack-Hammer said but one of the most basic and commonly used concepts with a lot of heels is their deluded mentalities that allow for them to justify their asinine acttions as being ok or as having a bigger impact than they do (like Randy Orton claiming that he "killed" the careers of some legends that he simply attacked). In a sense all wrestlers have that kind of mentality since even faces are capable of interrupting matches, sneak attacks, etc, but they don't tend to brag about their actions in as much of a hypocritical way. The fact that they don't is because there is a reason why, even if fans don't react as they are expected to, they are positioned to have a certain kind of role (face or heel) because there are benefits to having those kinds of attempted distinctions.

I didn't write any of that with the assumption that you aren't aware of those things, cause you are clearly an intelligent person. With that in mind though, what doesn't make sense about The Shield doing one of the most basic things that heels do, justify what they are doing through deluded and hypocritical means...in this case "justice"

The Rock Vs John Cena II wasn't a great match in my eyes, but it just proved you didn't have to turn Cena heel for him to get a reaction.

Same as HBK Vs Undertaker, Undertaker Vs HHH, didn't need a heel/face dynamic.

You are right that matches like that prove that a heel/face dynamic isn't needed, but those are also examples of wrestlers who are so established prestige wise, that they can get away with that kind of thing when working together. Those kinds of matches also existed over the last few years with the concept of respect being involved. (Cena and Rock's first match excluded but there was also more drama in that feud than this year's version.) That doesn't mean that less established wrestlers can't do it, and we know that they have at times (you gave an example), but if that was the standard that all wrestlers were intended to have, then the same kind of results would be unlikely.

I do see what you are getting at, but I guess that my whole thing is that just because certain things don't need to happen (c, doesn't mean that it is bad that they do, but I know that is perception based. Edit: Certain people will probably get booed no matter what and then act accordingly to try to justify those boos. They'd end up being considered heels anyway. I agree with those (and you) who say that the issue may be more about how WWE portrays certain scenarios, than the concept of faces and heels being a problem.

 

[MrMojoRisin]

Just quoting this part, because I wanted to make a point on it. That wouldn't be story telling, which is part of what I'm saying. But I'm going to try and use that and build a story around it, so here it goes, I'm going to try use those guys in their current storylines:

1. feuding with John Cena one week, I'd guess he would be wanting to get his title back still, pretty easy to set-up. He doesn't have to try and annoy the crowd he just needs to start cutting promos with Cena. He doesn't like Cena, doesn't mean he has to be a face or heel. He hates Cena and wants his title back.

2. but then runs down to the ring to help ADR fight Swagger, Ok so he's feuding with Cena, he isn't on Smackdown generally, but with some good storytelling, i'd say he attacks Swagger to send a message to the smackdown roster that he wants a title shot, and he is going to get one if he has to beat down all the contenders for the World Heavyweight Championship. So he takes out Swagger to set-up a no1 contender fight for ADR to take on Ziggler.

3. then next week beats up Sheamus Sheamus also wants a shot at the WHC naturally, Punk sees him as a threat and takes him out. Or perhaps Sheamus has interfered with the #1 contender match because he doesn't think Punk deserves one for the WHC, so then Punk gets revenge on him.

There are many possible ways to do that storyline and make it natural without having to have heels/faces.

The problem with how you worked that scenario... is that CM Punk is coming across as pretty heelish to me. You have him as a guy that will stop at nothing, and ruthlessly put down anyone in his way to get what he wants (in this case a title shot).

Put that into a real life context. Two guys in an office both want a promotion. One puts in long hours, works hard and hopes that his bosses recognize him for it. The other undermines the hard worker, takes credit for others work, and is simply ruthless in his pursuit of said promotion.

Which guy is more likeable? Which guy is less likeable?

*spoiler* the hard worker is the face in this scenario, and the backstabber is the heel

 

[shitsngiggles]

Someone like Show who flip flops constantly is a perfect advert for doing away with face and heel divides, but he's probably the only guy who can get away with doing it so often because he's in essence a giant... sometimes they are friendly but if you upset them, they're gonna stomp you, something that runs through much of kid's literature...

You're right about Big Show! It just works, but that has been part of his character for ages, he is either enjoying himself being a "face" or in a bad mood being a "heel". It's natural for him.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The Shield can attack faces because "Justice" as a concept is not always good, fair or open. In a revenge situation for example it is clearly bad or when a government give out cruel and unusual punishments for minor crimes. Who decides what justice is, what is fair, just and right? normally it's individuals in power and the Shield tend to attack faces with power/stroke.

It is very effective for them as they are opening that curtain a little bit... in their view it might be an injustice that Ziggler didn't get his chance for so long, that Riley is still on the shitlist cos of Cena, that Punk lost to Taker or that Orton still has a job despite so many chances blown... while they don't say that sort of stuff in their promos anyone with half a brain can see that they are being used as a metaphor for that when attacking faces the way they do.

 

[shitsngiggles]

The problem with how you worked that scenario... is that CM Punk is coming across as pretty heelish to me. You have him as a guy that will stop at nothing, and ruthlessly put down anyone in his way to get what he wants (in this case a title shot).

Put that into a real life context. Two guys in an office both want a promotion. One puts in long hours, works hard and hopes that his bosses recognize him for it. The other undermines the hard worker, takes credit for others work, and is simply ruthless in his pursuit of said promotion.

Which guy is more likeable? Which guy is less likeable?

*spoiler* the hard worker is the face in this scenario, and the backstabber is the heel

True, but is it "heel"? I don't know, saving someone and expecting a reward (#1 contender match) might be. Saving someone - good Vs Doing it for another motive - bad. I don't think the context is heel, because you get similar scenarios with "faces" who go through certain tests before they get the shot at a title. It's just probably done a little different.

Well, I've read everyone's comments, and I agree with all the points mentioned above. I thought maybe you could do away with it, but nope, it doesn't look like you could. Maybe I just get tired with certain parts of the product .

I do think, however, that they need to sort out how they go about some of the heel and face stuff though. Especially the cheap/forced heat, and turns that don't make sense and/or feel rushed.

Anyone else agree with that?

 

[Olly]

Smark fans mean the distinction has become blurred but the vast majority of people who watch wrestling aren't smarks. They cheer for the faces and they boo the heels. That's all "face" and "heel" really means.

 

[Olly]

I do think, however, that they need to sort out how they go about some of the heel and face stuff though. Especially the cheap/forced heat, and turns that don't make sense and/or feel rushed.

Anyone else agree with that?

I think they generally do a decent job of this. Giving every wrestler a strong story to go along with their heel/face alignment just isn't possible with the constraints of putting out TV shows and PPVs that the average fan can enjoy. It's annoying when (for example) Alicia Fox goes from face to heel on a weekly basis without any explanation, but from the point of view of putting on a show, it's necessary to have performers like this who can face off against both heels and faces without having to give them a filled-out story.

 

[Shalashaska]

The hero fighting the villain has been the basis of all drama, prose and theater since people were drawing on walls. The ancient Egyptians depicted the Sun God Ra battling Seth the prince of darkness and it pretty much went from there. Right up until the Vince Russo shoot interview you clearly just watched.

 

[HamSwissman]

I've thought this for years. "Heels" and "faces" bore me to tears. I'm thinking "fan favorite" versus "hated guy" is a more entertaining way to go about it. Let the fans decide who to cheer and who to boo, and book accordingly. This cookie-cutter good-guy bad-guy stuff has gone on for far too long. Fans love anti-heroes. Let them exist, for Christ's sake! Actually, you can still have the whole heel-face dynamic to an extent, just don't base every single match and feud on it. People are so afraid of change. What are you scared of? Losing the "great" product we currently have?

 

[Dysturbed]

Let the fans decide who to cheer and who to boo, and book accordingly. This cookie-cutter good-guy bad-guy stuff has gone on for far too long.

I know what you are getting at, but booking accordingly means even less long term planning if it is being done on a widespread basis that effects the entire roster. As it stands a lot of people feel like the perceived lack of long term planning and Vince's alleged constant changing of his mind leads to bad direction. Your idea, while in theory leading to great things, would also possibly lead to the same complaints that already exist, since bookers would have to keep changing things based on what could be crowd reaction changes on a month to month basis.

Fans love anti-heroes. Let them exist, for Christ's sake!

Some do. Some love faces more than antiheroes. Some like heels more than anti heroes. Some like all three because of variety. You understandably don't like cookie cutter face and heel concept but if everyone is essentially put in tweener mode then tweener becomes the new cookie cutter concept because less defined characters becomes the norm across the entire roster. I mentioned how things could possibly change for a wrestler on a month to month or feud to feud basis if they don't have a more defined character but the opposite could also happen where instead of more or less switching back and forth between good and bad guy they end up keeping one specific role, which brings us back to where they began. IMO more anti hero/tweener types to go along with the faces and heels makes more sense than trying to let fans decide basically everything (if that is what you are getting at), have wrestlers adjust accordingly, and those adjustments to their characters and speeches basically making them faces and heels anyway if they play the characters strongly enough moreso than just fan favorite hated guy on a temporary basis.

from the point of view of putting on a show, it's necessary to have performers like this who can face off against both heels and faces without having to give them a filled-out story.

I agree that it is necessary to have some performers like that, especially the lower card ones who are looking for a niche but disagree with those who pretty much want the entire roster to be like that.

 

[flyinbukta]

Let me put it this way...

Did you celebrate when the military got Bin Laden?

Was America the good guy, and Bin Laden the bad guy? I think you probably see it as that way (even if you disagree with some things about America, and think they have ulterior motives for being the good guy - in fact, surely that thought must hold some kind of "gimmick" in it).

Even with the example someone quoted above, where Batman is as screwed up as the Joker, it is correct that Batman is as screwed up as the Joker, but Batman doesn't kill anyone, Batman only fights those who wrong others, and the Joker basically just kills people in a dastardly way. It's obvious who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. Even if they have similar backstories and similar traumas to take them to the point they're at, Batman chooses to do the "right thing" and the Joker chooses to do the wrong thing.

Even with Anakin becoming Darth Vader, there must be something that causes it to happen, which is the point! (I don't personally know, I've seen Star Wars Episode 1, and Star Wars: A New Hope [Episode 4?] and both bored me - I know, heathenish.)

There is nothing wrong with the Heel vs. Face thing, as long as the 'E remembers that they are emulating a sport, which means they can get away with having people fight others of the same alignment, to move up the card, but feuds generally need to be Good vs. Bad. Otherwise you'd have nothing for people to feud over. People would literally be feuding just to move up the rankings - you mean just like they do in real sports, except that all of the results are pre-determined?

Or, well, the basis of a feud would be "I don't like you", which is even less useful, because when you don't like someone in real life, you don't beat the crap out of them!

The good vs. bad dynamic is the only thing making pro wrestling different to just a fake version of real sports, so it's completely needed.

 

[snoopy]

Are you freaking kidding ? The Pro Wrestling fan of today heads would explode! No Heels and No Faces has been tried by TNA and the only thing to come out of it was fans calling everything stupid.

It will not work wrestling fans today for the most part (Not All) are stupid! They would complain and talk about how their heads hurt and they would just stop watching. The majority of the fans can't follow storylines or remember what happen week to week and you expect them to be able to follow storylines with no Heels and Faces as well?You're kidding yourself. Again like I said, THEIR HEADS WOULD EXPLODE!

 

[Raptor93]

Ultimately a guy will be bad or good, they can still be consistent in their motivation but their actions can change. For example take Merl from walking dead, generally he's a bad character unnecessarily violent towards others, but while hes always violent he can be on the bad guys side like when he was with the governor killing or hurting who ever he was told, but then he gets kicked out meets up with his brother and goes to help the good guys fight the bad guys. He hasn't changed really, he's still bad but hes on the good guys side because thats what makes sense, not unlike what they did with big show fighting the shield. Heels shouldn't be heels and same with faces for the sake of being heels they should do what their character would do logically, I agree shield should attack heels their characters the way their built shouldn't discriminate. What they should do is have heels vs heels and faces vs faces, it makes more sense I mean you take gangs in real life who are thought of as bad guys arent going to not fight each other because they're both bad. So they still will have faces and heels whatever you try and do their action will be considered good or bad, but what they really need to do is not limit themselves by saying heels always have to be with heels against faces and vice versa.

 

[EastCoastFan]

Supposedly, Paul Heyman wanted to do away with faces and heels when he was running ECW in the 1990's.

Fans are going to cheer for who they like no matter what, even if it's not what the company wants. Case in point, when the Rock first came up to the WWF as Rocky Maivia, he was depicted as a clean-cut All-American boy - and fans HATED him to the point where they would chant "ROCKY MUST DIE!" at him. When he turned heel and evolved into the Rock, an obnoxious trash-talking jerk, people LOVED him, partially because his promos had so much style to them you couldn't help but love him. No wonder Trish Stratus has said she patterned her on-screen persona after him.

 

[shitsngiggles]

Ultimately a guy will be bad or good, they can still be consistent in their motivation but their actions can change. For example take Merl from walking dead, generally he's a bad character unnecessarily violent towards others, but while hes always violent he can be on the bad guys side like when he was with the governor killing or hurting who ever he was told, but then he gets kicked out meets up with his brother and goes to help the good guys fight the bad guys. He hasn't changed really, he's still bad but hes on the good guys side because thats what makes sense, not unlike what they did with big show fighting the shield. Heels shouldn't be heels and same with faces for the sake of being heels they should do what their character would do logically, I agree shield should attack heels their characters the way their built shouldn't discriminate. What they should do is have heels vs heels and faces vs faces, it makes more sense I mean you take gangs in real life who are thought of as bad guys arent going to not fight each other because they're both bad. So they still will have faces and heels whatever you try and do their action will be considered good or bad, but what they really need to do is not limit themselves by saying heels always have to be with heels against faces and vice versa.

I love your post! I think you've probably explained to me, part of what I was feeling but couldn't explain myself.

That is why Big Show has always worked in my eyes, he's just himself. The reason people are getting fed up with Cena, I think is not because he is a "face" they want to turn "heel" it is because his character feels pushed or false.

That is why people like or admire CM Punk, it is who he is, he's natural, he can do the same thing week in week out and be a heel or face at any point he wanted to be. The respect bit was a bit forced in my mind, but the Undertaker build was pretty natural. Having a real life storyline involved helped. But it was similar to the summer of Punk in a way, because it felt natural.

I seem to keep bringing that word natural up a lot.

It's kind of like a comedian who tries to get a laugh, rather than someone who you just laugh at without really noticing why. The latter (to me) is the better comedian.

Jericho is a good example of bad and good heels (in the context of them being bad at being bad, or good at being bad) Before he left pre dancing with the stars etc. He was annoying and not entertaining, and nobody cared that much, he'd come out and do the old, really old, heel move of trying to mock the crowd to get lame heat, he'd try and just generally be annoying to get a reaction.

There have been times when he's been a good bad guy. One of the most noted to me, was recently, when he came back and promised the end of the world as we know it. All of that build was brilliant stuff, I don't think we got to see a payoff but it was still good bad guy stuff. It was interesting.

The Shield, like you said are built to attack anyone and anything, they could be such a great tool, but they've ruined it already. Need a "heel" turn? send in the Shield, need a face turn? send in the Shield. I shouldn't have to explain that to anyone, i hope.

I also like the heel vs heel and face vs face option you mentioned, makes a lot of sense to me.

Maybe there is no getting away from heel/face but we need more of a fluid less robotic and forced kind of approach?

 

[willross]

Basically what you are suggesting is losing the whole "putting down the audience" aspect of characters.

At the end of the day, the crowd will cheer who they want to win, and boo who they want to lose. Whoever gets the most cheers is by default "the babyface". So why not take the guy who is cheered more than the other and try to in turn convert the minority of the audience to join the majority, thus creating more of a reaction and more people wanting the same people to win and lose.

If the audience doesn't have someone they want to win and lose in a match, then the match has no purpose and shouldn't exist to begin with. The basic goal is to take a character and make the audience either 100% love him or hate him. The concept applies to all (why do you think every John Cena vignette involves his charity work, etc.)

No matter what there will always be a babyface and a heel, but if no effort is put in to establish which is which and try and direct the fans to cheer on the babyface then you run the risk of people not caring, thus not reacting, thus the feud/match SUCKING.

Sucking = no money

 

[A11oftheLights]

1. feuding with John Cena one week, I'd guess he would be wanting to get his title back still, pretty easy to set-up. He doesn't have to try and annoy the crowd he just needs to start cutting promos with Cena. He doesn't like Cena, doesn't mean he has to be a face or heel. He hates Cena and wants his title back.

2. but then runs down to the ring to help ADR fight Swagger, Ok so he's feuding with Cena, he isn't on Smackdown generally, but with some good storytelling, i'd say he attacks Swagger to send a message to the smackdown roster that he wants a title shot, and he is going to get one if he has to beat down all the contenders for the World Heavyweight Championship. So he takes out Swagger to set-up a no1 contender fight for ADR to take on Ziggler.

3. then next week beats up Sheamus Sheamus also wants a shot at the WHC naturally, Punk sees him as a threat and takes him out. Or perhaps Sheamus has interfered with the #1 contender match because he doesn't think Punk deserves one for the WHC, so then Punk gets revenge on him.

There are many possible ways to do that storyline and make it natural without having to have heels/faces.

1. You can be a "tweener" to do so but parts 2 & 3 are massive heel acts he's not charging in to save ADR he's charging in to be up everyone so that only he can get a title shot thats an action usually performed by a Heel