Gimmicks.... What about backstory?

[giblet55]

So, I've noticed something that Triple H said not too long ago popping up in a lot of people's posts. Triple H commented that he doesn't want any developmental talent being brought up from NXT or anywhere else unless creative has fleshed out long term plans for them. Now I, for one, absolutely love that his mindset is long term with these young talents.

I remember reading someone's post, forgive me for forgetting who, about a supposed three strike rule where it's three chances with characters or gimmicks, and if you fail...future endeavored.

Where am I going with this?

Let's say that a young talent is brought up from NXT, given a gimmick, a storyline is written, and he appears on television. Fan's end up hating the gimmick. He's taken off of television, image revamped, given a gimmick, a storyline is written, and he appears on television a few months later. Fan's end up hating the gimmick. Finally this happens a third time and the guy is gone, not because he's a bad wrestler, but he keeps getting saddled with poor gimmicks that have no thought put into them.

Here's my fix. When I was in college for graphic design we were given mock assignments. Design a fictional magazine cover. Design a fictional band cd. Design a fictional website. Do you know what the key to my success was? Backstory... Every time I would design something, I created a backstory that would breathe more life into what I was doing. When more thought is put into something, it has greater meaning and is bound to be more successful.

The point? What if creative spent more time developing a backstory when creating the character? I mean, when an author writes a book, he or she spends a lot of time writing backstories for their characters so that each one is unique and each one has specific responses to situations, decisions, or challenges put before them.

Maybe I'm wrong, but when a gimmick or character is born, I feel it's important to establish a backstory so that character can feel more complete and real. Thoughts?

And it's my opinion that this isn't currently done. They might create a character, but that character just shows up one day with no history or story. The closest I've seen with this generation is Wade Barret's fighter gimmick.

 

[killerd105]

It worked for Kane, but others not so much. They gave Antonio Cesaro a back story but it never really mattered. Giving a back story may help for sure but its pretty much up to the wrestler to get the ball rolling. Look at Brodus Clay and Tensai, it wasn't their gimmick that got them somewhat over, but it wasnt until you saw that they were having fun with it, that it started to take off. Or in the case of better gimmicks like The Undertaker, it depends on how that person portrays it. If your not having fun with it, the audience can sense it and kill the whole gimmick

 

[Airehk]

giblet55, from one graphic designer to another, I commend your rationale.

You can have a photo of virtually anyone or anything. Clothes, facial expression, lighting and typography and it will all tie in to a somewhat vage personality trait. However, with key words or phrases tossed in here or there via commentary, vignettes or backstage interviews; these things will paint the perfect picture of who we are looking at. An example of what didn't use this formula? Fandango.

Fandango was this cocky dancer who everyone just came up with expectations of who he should be through historical knowledge of the WWE. He shouldn't even have to dance, he should just showcase the skills of dancing through his wrestling as John Morrison used Parkour in his. To blatantly display "ball room dancer" in bold text for everyone to get it leaves poor Fandango as a one note guy. Furthermore, his fame only derives from a chant in New Jersey which WWE forced too far out of the crowds.

Background story is a great thing to have.

 

[jrush1978]

To me it all goes back to creative. I mean if its a crappy backstory then its just going to be a crappy backstory. I get what you're saying. Thinking of a backstory helped you create better work. But im not sure that theory would carry over here. I think most likely if the same writers with the same mindset were forced to include backstories then we'd most likely deal with crappy backstories to go with crappy gimmicks.

 

[d_henderson1810]

So, I've noticed something that Triple H said not too long ago popping up in a lot of people's posts. Triple H commented that he doesn't want any developmental talent being brought up from NXT or anywhere else unless creative has fleshed out long term plans for them. Now I, for one, absolutely love that his mindset is long term with these young talents.

I remember reading someone's post, forgive me for forgetting who, about a supposed three strike rule where it's three chances with characters or gimmicks, and if you fail...future endeavored.

Where am I going with this?

Let's say that a young talent is brought up from NXT, given a gimmick, a storyline is written, and he appears on television. Fan's end up hating the gimmick. He's taken off of television, image revamped, given a gimmick, a storyline is written, and he appears on television a few months later. Fan's end up hating the gimmick. Finally this happens a third time and the guy is gone, not because he's a bad wrestler, but he keeps getting saddled with poor gimmicks that have no thought put into them.

Here's my fix. When I was in college for graphic design we were given mock assignments. Design a fictional magazine cover. Design a fictional band cd. Design a fictional website. Do you know what the key to my success was? Backstory... Every time I would design something, I created a backstory that would breathe more life into what I was doing. When more thought is put into something, it has greater meaning and is bound to be more successful.

The point? What if creative spent more time developing a backstory when creating the character? I mean, when an author writes a book, he or she spends a lot of time writing backstories for their characters so that each one is unique and each one has specific responses to situations, decisions, or challenges put before them.

Maybe I'm wrong, but when a gimmick or character is born, I feel it's important to establish a backstory so that character can feel more complete and real. Thoughts?

And it's my opinion that this isn't currently done. They might create a character, but that character just shows up one day with no history or story. The closest I've seen with this generation is Wade Barret's fighter gimmick.

There is no better example of this than Kane.

Glen Jacobs got saddled with being Isaac Yankem DDS (which had moderate success, due to Lawler's stickwork and Bret Hart's ringwork) and Fake Diesel, which was a disaster.

However, he then struck gold with Kane.

Also, backstory. Part of Kane's success was backstory. He was the Undertaker's supposedly-dead brother, who accussed the Undertaker of setting their house on fire when they were children, and killing their parents. Kane wanted revenge on Taker for the fire, his scars and for blaming him for the fire and putting him into a mental home. This worked great, and Kane ,is an enduring character 15 years later, despite his backstory being ruined by the Katie Vick debacle.

 

[thebowtiekiller]

There is no better example of this than Kane.

Glen Jacobs got saddled with being Isaac Yankem DDS (which had moderate success, due to Lawler's stickwork and Bret Hart's ringwork) and Fake Diesel, which was a disaster.

However, he then struck gold with Kane.

Also, backstory. Part of Kane's success was backstory. He was the Undertaker's supposedly-dead brother, who accussed the Undertaker of setting their house on fire when they were children, and killing their parents. Kane wanted revenge on Taker for the fire, his scars and for blaming him for the fire and putting him into a mental home. This worked great, and Kane ,is an enduring character 15 years later, despite his backstory being ruined by the Katie Vick debacle.

i was gonna mention the kane character you beat me to it lol but yeah i remember deciding kane was my new favourite before he even appeared.storylines are everybit as important as good ring work ect and a decent backstory can really help a guy take off.the wwe roster seems to be full of generic looking guys using there real names or somthing similar if i wanted that id watch mma im sure a lot of them can put on an awesome match but that doesnt mean much if most people have never heard of them and dont have much reason to care either

 

[Dyscord]

It worked for Kane, but others not so much. They gave Antonio Cesaro a back story but it never really mattered. Giving a back story may help for sure but its pretty much up to the wrestler to get the ball rolling. Look at Brodus Clay and Tensai, it wasn't their gimmick that got them somewhat over, but it wasnt until you saw that they were having fun with it, that it started to take off. Or in the case of better gimmicks like The Undertaker, it depends on how that person portrays it. If your not having fun with it, the audience can sense it and kill the whole gimmick

This makes perfect sense. The backstory CAN help, but if they totally hate the gimmick they're saddled with, it shows.

Could be why people thought wrestling was better back in the day. The wrestlers actually cared about their gimmicks and storylines.

 

[dotty_84]

What I would do would meet a wrestler half way, fobbing some guy with a gimmick is unfair especially if he fails, if you can compromise or listen to a guys idea of what he wants to do and give him some creative control, not in his booking sense but how he cuts a promo, none of this scripted crap. Give them bullet points and lets wrestler flesh themselves out and create a character.

Also give guys time, even having simple grudge match type feuds, it's great for character building for the actual wrestler, how many times do guys get a nice title push then if they fall flat they are at the back of the queue?

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

It certainly worked well for Kane. In fact it gave a new lease of life to many other performers as well - such as Paul Bearer, Undertaker, Vader, Mankind and Stone Cold Steve Austin.

Kane was pushed on the basis of his back story - and he was an unstoppable monster.

This is what is missing these days!

 

[giblet55]

What I would do would meet a wrestler half way, fobbing some guy with a gimmick is unfair especially if he fails, if you can compromise or listen to a guys idea of what he wants to do and give him some creative control, not in his booking sense but how he cuts a promo, none of this scripted crap. Give them bullet points and lets wrestler flesh themselves out and create a character.

Agreed. The birth of a great character should come from a collaboration between creative and the performer. If the backstory and gimmick aren't believable, then the character won't feel real. If the performer can't embrace the character, we as the fans will notice...

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I love the backstory idea, and they've used it sparingly in the past with Undertaker and Kane.

However, I think it would be a great tool to develop the younger guys, as you mentioned. Plus, with a backstory, you can set the stage for a feud without making it seem random. Have a new guy feud with someone on the roster, and it seems random but as they are doing promos, more and more is revealed about the backstory and why they are feuding (a kayfabe story that happened outside of the WWE). This would definitely make the characters and feuds more intriguing.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Fandango followed Clay to WWE in seek of revenge on Brodus and the Funkadactyls because he failed to gain entry in to Mama Clay's International School of Dinosaur Hip Hop. It destroyed him as a child (we can see home footage of Fandango's try out and the other kids laughing at him), leading him to seek out ballroom dance which accepted him graciously because they needed boys. When he failed to make it big time on the tanned barren chest ballroom dance circuit he completely flipped and decided he needed to punish the child of Mama Clay leading him to professional wrestling. Fandango can repeatedly beat down Clay and ask him to say his name for weeks and weeks until during one beating Clay finally realizing that Fandango is the child from years ago that they called Little Orphan Fanny (oh yeah I forgot to mention Fandango was also an orphan that had a big ass) aka little Johnny. Now revenge will his because Clay was not familiar with the Be A Star program as a youth and his mom saw no Dinosaur Hip Hop abilities in young Johnnie.

I love backstory, I just hate breaking kayfabe. I'm all for more backstory, especially with 159 hours of weekly WWE television to fill. There's just a fine line WWE has to walk with it. I don't envy the dilemna they have trying to satisy their wrestling audience while trying to bring in new viewers who are more in to traditional televised storytelling. As long as it works I say go for it.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The 3 strike rule is always gonna be subjective - some talents will always get more chances that others. Johnny Curtis is a great example in that he has had a couple of prior runs that haven't done anything, but more than 3 gimmicks. Mason Ryan is also another example as he clearly has a look and skillset they want, but needed a lot more seasoning and from JR's tweets, he is now getting to the required level. Even Ryback spent nearly 7 years in developmental in total before his current run - that is a phenomenal amount of time for one athlete yet when Ryback debuted he had no real backstory.

Backstory's work for some workers but they have to have an element of truth to them, you can't take someone and create a whole fake history in the Wikipedia age but you can elaborate on certain traits. Bray Wyatt is a great example in his NXT vignettes, he makes reference to "his daddy being a boat captain" when his dad did wrestle as "Captain Mike" a seafaring gimmick. Sure they didn't scream, his dad is IRS/Mike Rotundo but they took one small part and made it into an interesting idea.

Cesaro's "rugby player" story was a good attempt, but he clearly didn't look like a rugby player - if anything they'd have been far better using that one on Mason Ryan, who as a Welshman (a massive Rugby nation) could have made that work far better.

The best example recently has been Wade Barrett, the guy did have some bare knuckle experience so working that in was an excellent idea. They could have gone more "Tyler Durden" with him in my eyes, especially as he has led The Nexus - he clearly has those qualities of "leadership".

The problem you have a lot of the time is just suspending disbelief enough to get over the fact you KNOW it's just a gimmick. Bo Dallas had no real backstory, even if they ret-conned it now or changed his name he'd still be Rotunda's other kid.

As for making sure new guys have a programme, that is spot on and should be the same for everyone but a backstory shouldn't need to be part of that. Someone like Adrian Neville shouldn't need one - he's clearly the new "phenom" and no other gimmick is really needed. Someone like Leo Kruger doesn't need an elaborate backstory, just an interesting gimmick.

 

[akathelaw]

First, 3 chances is a lot. Most wrestlers really get one actual shot at getting over. Consider this: If Tensai aka Sweet T were to drastically change his persona again, fans would lose all interest in the guy. Gimmick swaps really drive home the point that wrestling is predetermined entertainment, it kills the "sport" atmosphere which ultimately kills the drama. Just like when you can see a stage performer standing offstage out of character, it takes you out of the story.

I think natural progression works great in WWE, and honestly that goes against backstory as a rule. John Cena debuted with no backstory. His persona in WWE developed gradually through his in-ring conflicts and promos. Can we just admit that there's a serious defecit of talent? I really don't think WWE's problem right now is not giving Justin Gabriel a better backstory for his "Cape Town Werewolf" gimmick. Gabriel's never going to be any more interesting until HE develops his performing chops. I'll never understand how a wrestler can do high risk moves but is afraid to talk.

For the more "fantastic" WWE performers, backstory is a must to understand them. It's not a requirement for all, though.

 

[Broski_of_the_week]

Don't get me wrong here, I think overall more back-stories for debuting wrestlers would help, but the main problem is that the main and best is example (Kane) is a very specific, one time kind of thing. For instance, you couldnt just call up Adrian Neville now and be like 'oh heres Kofi Kingstons old dentist come to get revenge for Kofi finding a better dental practitioner'. Most debuting guys have had at least some exposure in NXT so these kind of ideas wouldnt make sense to a lot of fans, and the current roster lack in character depth to build off them. Kane was only made possible because of the Undertaker, and to a lesser extent Paul Bearer.

As for those with newer backstories (Cesaro, Fandango)... does anyone buy into them or care about them at all? Cesaros 5 languages and 'being banned from rugby' have held him back if anything, and Fandango is over due to his gimmick but does anyone really believe that hes come from the world of ball room dance to wow the WWE universe? These back-story are barely used either, just as part of commentary when Michael Cole doesnt have anything to call 'VINTAGE!' so he just makes comments like 'Wade Barrett was once a bare knuckle boxer dont you know?' Which we all do know cause hes told us a million times but we've never seen any storylines or feuds being affected in any way by his back-story.

I guess the overall point im trying to make is that yes they should have more back-stories but WWE creative isnt clever enough to create them in a meaningful manner. Ideally we would have a roster of individuals that you knew like an old friend like in most TV shows, instead we get a host of one dimensional characters with one liners and shit dancing.

Sighhh... and I normally try to only speak positively about WWE

 

[Jdulemba1001]

It really depends on the gimmick. Kane without a backstory is nothing. Just a big red angry man. The story really makes him work. Now take someone like Fandango. Hes a dancer. Thats all we need to understand his gimmick. Theres no reason for him to be the great grandson of a ballroom dancing cagefighter (or whatever stupid story you can come up with, that one hit me because im typing this half asleep) The point is that some gimmicks need it, and some dont.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

There is a lot to be said that "backstory" is created onscreen rather than prior to debut, as someone said for Cena but at the same time you get someone like Tensai who has so much history that it has hurt him. He debuted to Albert chants and only recently has gotten to the point where people accept that character is long gone, the only thing that was missing was the "shave your back" chant's because of course he had...

I agree with NXT restricting but there is still no problem in adding or tweaking their backstory for the main roster as not everyone watches NXT.

In someone like Neville's case the best thing they can do is put him with Regal as his manager as his "discovery". The obvious thing would have been a tenuous/fake family connection to Phil and Gary Neville, two British footballers who the character is named after... as their father has recently been arrested on sex offenses that now of course won't happen.

They do of course have his old gimmick that would work more than adequately "The Man Gravity Forgot" but it seems he may end up playing an edgy heel so I could easily see he and Regal stirring trouble with Rey and Sin Cara and 3MB, perhaps with Mason Ryan and Oliver Grey in a "Brit Pack" stable .

 

[Judah's Lion]

I can only think of a handful of successful wrestlers that came into their respective companies with backstory already in place. and by backstory, I do mean something different than just history. for example...

Rocky Maivia had history. he was a 3rd generation wrestler and the 1st one ever to compete in the WWE. he was a college football national champion. all of that was true and was part of his history. but he didn't come in with a backstory about why he was in the WWE, seeking revenge or glory or some other such deal.

Kane had history that was entirely ignored as it has never acknowledged that he was Isaac Yankem or Diesel and then became Kane. so the history was a non-factor but the backstory with Taker and Paul Bearer and their parents, etc, was all in place prior to Kane's debut.

so yeah, some guys come in with history and some with backstory and both can be very effective if done correctly.

then there are other times when storylines, not characters, are given backstory. Tommy Dreamer/Raven come to mind. it wasn't that these two guys walked into ECW, at least that i can remember, with the backstory that they grew up together and used to be friends and now were turned bitter rivals. but when they began to feud, their feud was given the backstory. so that's been done with great success at times in professional wrestling as well.

as with most things wrestling, i think the answer is "depends". if the backstory, whether for a character, gimmick or storyline, is logical, believable enough for the fans to suspend disbelief, culminates in enjoyable feuds and matches and is done in moderation, then i'm a fan.

it wasn't exactly suggested in the OP, but if i had to choose between which i'd prefer a wrestler have -- gimmick or backstory -- my answer would again be depends. i like gimmicks to be logical, believable, enjoyable to watch and done in moderation too.

really great thread by the OP. i had lots of fun reading all the responses.