Heel or Face

[DaNewGuy]

Is the idea of a character being a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy' outdated?

It's difficult to name the last true heel on a mainstream wrestling show. Bryan was a perhaps a heel put has now moved closer to a generally interesting character. The same could be said of the new Punk heel character (if it's a heel character), Roode's run in TNA. Heels now seem to exist in a middle ground. No matter how villainous their actions there's more of a 'shades of gray' impression than in, say, the 80s or 90s. This can be partly attributed to 'smart' fans appreciating the quality of the work, regardless of disposition, but the prevailing idea seems to be that if a character is interesting the audience will invest in them.
Likewise, archetypal good guys aren't true faces anymore. Cena is the obvious case, but all good guys have their detractors. Orton's seen as boring, etc.. Good guys don't get a consistent strong positive reaction anymore.

So, have the concepts of heel and face faded out of relevance?

 

[ABMorales787]

Ummm.... Does the name Bobby Roode ring any bells to you? How about Bully Ray? James Storm? Jeff Hardy? Sting? Those guys could not be any more clear cut on their roles as heels and babyfaces respectively. The roles of good guys and bad guy is something that can never go out of style. It is the basis of any conflict. Just because some good guys have bad traits and some bad guys have good traits, it does not disclose the importance of that whole Yin Yang crap.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

If winners and losers were not pre-determined and we could gamble on pro wrestling you may have a point. Sure there are aspects and circumstances where the heel/face dynamic is overshadowed (star power, the title, storyline, hometown guys) but none of that will matter if the fan can not get emotionally attached to the success or failure of the wrestler. The easiest way to do this is to have a clear distinction between the competitors by making them heel and face characters.

It helps that WWE and TNA are written for kids or at least stupid adults.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The concept of "good guy" and "bad guy" will never fade from relevance in pro wrestling; it's what the sport was built on. It's just that things are more realistic today.

Years ago, good guys were so good they squeaked. They had no flaws presented to the wrestling audience and you got the feeling (facetiously, of course) they spent their off-ring time helping little old ladies across the street. Bad guys were just the opposite; they probably beat up the little old ladies. Today's wrestler is depicted in more realistic fashion; they might be good guys, but they have character weaknesses that WWE and TNA aren't afraid to show the public.....it makes things that much more interesting for a production with a continuing storyline.

You mention John Cena, and he's a great example. He's a full-fledged good guy, right? Yet, he has his faults and intentionally presents himself as a man who'll own up to them. I still remember him turning tail and running from seven members of Nexus who were storming the ring in pursuit of him. In the old days, if Hulk Hogan was facing this threat, he'd fight all 7 of 'em. Yes, he might get beaten down, but he'd fight......against all logic. Now, Cena uses the "discretion is the better part of valor" philosophy and vaults the barrier into the crowd, living to fight Nexus on another day.

I loved the whole thing; it was far more realistic than the way pro wrestling used to show it. Any fan foolish enough to think Cena a coward for that behavior is certainly a person who clamors for the old days, when "good guy" meant flawlessly good and "bad guy" was the polar opposite. I prefer today's definition.

A 'tweener is an entirely different animal than a good guy. A 'tweener will fight the bad guys, then unexpectedly turn on a good guy. Cena doesn't do that. Kane and Undertaker will; they are 'tweeners by the nature of their characters.

Many of you claim to have "known all along" what certain characters are going to do. Well, you're ahead of me, because I'm constantly predicting things incorrectly. That the companies mix things up so successfully is the best thing about modern pro wrestling.

Gotta have good guys and bad guys...... it's why we watch.

 

[DirtyD79]

The concept of "good guy" and "bad guy" will never fade from relevance in pro wrestling; it's what the sport was built on. It's just that things are more realistic today.

Years ago, good guys were so good they squeaked. They had no flaws presented to the wrestling audience and you got the feeling (facetiously, of course) they spent their off-ring time helping little old ladies across the street. Bad guys were just the opposite; they probably beat up the little old ladies. Today's wrestler is depicted in more realistic fashion; they might be good guys, but they have character weaknesses that WWE and TNA aren't afraid to show the public.....it makes things that much more interesting for a production with a continuing storyline.

You mention John Cena, and he's a great example. He's a full-fledged good guy, right? Yet, he has his faults and intentionally presents himself as a man who'll own up to them. I still remember him turning tail and running from seven members of Nexus who were storming the ring in pursuit of him. In the old days, if Hulk Hogan was facing this threat, he'd fight all 7 of 'em. Yes, he might get beaten down, but he'd fight......against all logic. Now, Cena uses the "discretion is the better part of valor" philosophy and vaults the barrier into the crowd, living to fight Nexus on another day.

I loved the whole thing; it was far more realistic than the way pro wrestling used to show it. Any fan foolish enough to think Cena a coward for that behavior is certainly a person who clamors for the old days, when "good guy" meant flawlessly good and "bad guy" was the polar opposite. I prefer today's definition.

A 'tweener is an entirely different animal than a good guy. A 'tweener will fight the bad guys, then unexpectedly turn on a good guy. Cena doesn't do that. Kane and Undertaker will; they are 'tweeners by the nature of their characters.

Many of you claim to have "known all along" what certain characters are going to do. Well, you're ahead of me, because I'm constantly predicting things incorrectly. That the companies mix things up so successfully is the best thing about modern pro wrestling.

Gotta have good guys and bad guys...... it's why we watch.

And on the flipside of the coin, quite often the heels do have a point or they're just too damn funny or cool to really boo. Today's heels aren't just Snively Whiplash style saturday morning cartoon villains doing evil simply for the sake of being evil. They have more realistic motivations than just "USA hawwk `tooey" or derailing Hulkamania.

During his days of being the Straight Edge Savior CM Punk actually did have a valid point about drugs and alcohol being bad. What made him a bad guy was the holier than thou attitude he had and how he would come out and pompously lecture the audience. I also see shades of that with Damien Sandow. While being smart isn't bad in and of itself, he comes across as boorish and pedantic then he goes and beats up beloved babyfaces like Brodus Clay.

It's like when you watch a horror movie it's easy to shrug off something like a Michael Myers or Leatherface. But then you have a villain like Jigsaw who makes you think. He's not just some nearly invincible spectre running around slashing up people simply because it's a certain day of the year in Texas, he is a terminally ill man who had a lot of bad stuff happen to him. He not only wants to punish those responsible for his problems but to teach a lesson to others about appreciating their lives.

 

[asiatic7]

I think the line between good and bad has been blurred the last 17 or so years is because people like to cheer the "bad ass". People like the idea of a rebel who marches to the beat of his own drum. I say it all the time on these forums, the Attitude Era spoiled so many of us. When we were little kids, we enjoyed the hokey-ness of the good guy. I myself was a huge Hulkamaniac (still today). He represented all good in the world. But when I got into my teens (the rebellious years), I tend to identify more with the things of a rebellious nature (DX, Austin, NWO). That, I belive is what makes us look at heels as cool and why so many people bash Cena. Cena represents everything pure to a young virgin mind. That's why he's loved by children (wait till they get to their High School years and see how cool Cena is to them...)

WWE is trying their damnest to turn Punk heel, they went as far as having him beat on the beloved Jerry Lawler to get heat (I think using JR would have done the trick). People don't want to boo Punk, they view him as "Cool". He's a rebel, a voice that people live vicariously through, so they cheer his heelish antics.

I don't think we'll ever see a true "good guy" who is beloved by everyone again. He will have to have an edge or slight dark side to get over with everyone.

I hate that WWE takes it's cool bad guys and make them full fledge glad handers like they did with Sheamus, Punk and Orton. People start to lose interest in these guys after a while.

I like the idea of good and bad guys... I actually miss over the top bad guys like Piper, Brusier Brody, Bad News Brown and the like... All the heels now are sarcastic smart asses with no real character.

 

[Final Form Snyper.]

The terms 'face' and 'heel' will never truly be outdated. In Professional Wrestling, the strongest aspect is the ability to draw emotion from the fans. As wrestlers they need to be able to connect, they need the audience to be emotionally invested. Heels will always need to be hated and make the faces look better in the views of fans and faces will always need to have to fight for what's right against the heels.

 

[HBsam31]

Good guys and bad guy in wrestling will never be outdated, but like Sally said it is more realistic now. Punk is a great example of how they are trying to get us to boo him, and it just isn't working because he is so "cool". Randy Orton is an example that come to mind for me. When he was a heel/tweener he was doing thing that were getting himself a lot of cheers, even if he was using heel tactics. They turned him pretty much full facce after that, and I think that hurt his character a lot. He is no where near the squeaky clean guy that makes an old time face. I think they should have left him as he was. I do like how things have changed now as it makes wrestling just a little more believable.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

It still exists, its just that heels are no longer these dastardly evil guys with no human qualities and faces are no longer these all powerful perfect human beings. It is a lot more realistic.

Also a lot of people blur the lines or simply ignore them. There are people who purposely boo every face and cheer every heel just to try to be cool. If you don't like a particular face or two, thats fine, and if there is heel you enjoy watching because he is good on the mic or in the ring, there is nothing wrong with that either, but when you go out and purposely cheer the bad guys and boo the good guys every time it doesn't make you cool, it makes you an asshole.

 

[SethKaelin]

At the end of the day, as the saying goes "everyone loves a bad guy". That is easier to show in the wrestling industry, crowds booing the good guy (cena) and cheering the bad guy (punk)... Stone Cold was meant to be a bad guy, but everyone loved him.

Saying that it is still there, no one seems to like Alberto Del Taco.

 

[ヒュー　G.　レックション]

Is the idea of a character being a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy' outdated?

It's difficult to name the last true heel on a mainstream wrestling show. Bryan was a perhaps a heel put has now moved closer to a generally interesting character. The same could be said of the new Punk heel character (if it's a heel character), Roode's run in TNA.

No I do not think it's outdated, not at all. How is Roode not a clear cut heel? Go to 5:08 in this video.

[YOUTUBE]?v=Dnt0ZZTTy6Q&feature=g-u-u[/YOUTUBE]