Heel=star

[Brothervis]

If you look thru the times you would see heel=star. HBK,Austin,HHH, The Rock, John Cena, Undertaker,Edge,Christian,Mankind, also Bradshaw and Farooq. You don't have to begin as a heel but eventually you need to be a heel to be a star. It is a way for you to make a name. Does anyone agree?

 

[TempestH]

You don't need to be a heel to be a star. It's just that WWE for one reason or another, finds it easier to push a heel.

It seems like WWE will bring a wrestler up as a heel, give them an interesting gimmick, and then wait until the heel is over enough to turn face.

What I don't like is that WWE tends to make their heels too awesome for their own good to the point where they can't get booed, and they neglect working on their face wrestlers' character development. The current WWE roster has a plethora of credible heels in the main event and upper midcard, but they don't have any true midcard faces. They have their upper level faces like Cena, Orton, Del Rio, Sheamus, Team Hell No, and Miz, while all their other faces are just enhancement talents.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

You don't necessarily have to be a heel to be a star. However, it can often be easier to be made into a star if you're a heel.

Generally speaking, it's easier to play a villain than a hero. Villains are people without the "moral standards" and upright sense of character that heroes are. As a result, a villain can do or say things that simply aren't in a hero's "nature". When Denzel Washington won the Oscar for his role in the movie Training Day, he said it was the easiest & most liberating role he'd ever played. It was really the first time he'd really portrayed a bad guy and he was able let out a side of himself that you never really saw in his previous roles. Villains can also sometimes be more interesting than heroes. For instance, in the Batman movies in which The Joker has appeared, the vastly charismatic & edgy Joker character very much outshined the more stark, brooding Batman character.

Ric Flair will always be thought of primarily as a heel. In my opinion, Flair did his best work when he was a heel. His "Nature Boy" character fit smoothly into the role of a heel. The character is an arrogant, womanizing playboy that tosses money around like it's going out of style, sleeps with a different woman every night and loves to rub all that wealth & success in the faces of everyone who doesn't have what he has. Of course, that's just the kind of person your average smark is going to cheer for, but your average fan is generally going to "dislike" and rally against.

So no, you don't have to be a bad guy to be a star, but it certainly can help get you established as a major player.

 

[Raptor93]

The heels are usually the ones pushing the story line which means their character is really put in the spot light and developed making them much more interesting. A protagonist can be just as good its just there not often the focus, theirs a good series of books called inheritance very standard fantasy evil tyranny king with huge power overthrown by unlikely hero. What makes the protagonist so good however is across the four books a large focus is on his character development both in his abilities where he starts as a novice and by then end is the most skilled fighter in the land, he overcomes a debilitating back injury, having to kill some many people, loving someone who dosen't want him ect. I know its not wrestling related but the intricate and constant character development is what makes the book so good and something wwe faces generally lack they dont get a great deal of time to develop as characters its generally just they do the "right thing" so you dont need to be a heel you need a good character development.

 

[Miko]

Its just a part of wrestling, you are playing a role is all, wrestling is something these days which lacks character consistency so in order to get really over you have to be able to play the part of snivelling dirtbag heel, plucky face etc. The reason why good heels like Austin succeed isn't just because they are good heels, they are just good.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Generally speaking, it's easier to play a villain than a hero.

Definitely true. It's hard to get people to cheer you; fans have to be so impressed with what you're doing (and whom you're doing it to.....and under what circumstances) that they can't help but get behind you. That's hard.

Far easier is to perform some dastardly deed on someone that everyone likes. After all, however much professional wrestling has changed over the years, the one staple that will always be part of the festivities is to boo the bad guys. As fans, we're not particularly selective about it: we even find reasons to boo the best "good guy" in the business.....one Mr. Cena.

When we on this forum discuss whether we'd like to see specific performers as heels or faces, we almost unanimously pick heel. Think about it.

When wrestlers discuss which type of character they'd like to play, they invariably choose heel. Ask Randy Orton.

As to the question asked by the OP..... no, you don't necessarily have to be a heel to make a name for yourself, but it's often easier to do so. Face it, over the course of a career, everyone gets a turn at trying both sides. You can name on one hand the Bruno-types who stayed on one side their whole lives.

Given how hard it is to establish (and maintain) a face persona, I can appreciate John Cena even more.....and I believe all the hate he gets is illogical and short-sighted. But hey! We're wrestling fans and we can call 'em however we want to.

 

[Headman]

If you look thru the times you would see heel=star. HBK,Austin,HHH, The Rock, John Cena, Undertaker,Edge,Christian,Mankind, also Bradshaw and Farooq. You don't have to begin as a heel but eventually you need to be a heel to be a star. It is a way for you to make a name. Does anyone agree?

No, I don't think this matters. It's more about being put in a role that best fits the performer and the situation. Some of the best heels are guys who bombed as faces and the other way around, but I don't think they have to play the other role before becoming a face.

 

[~Heup©~]

I feel like the heel is always the focus and the hero is always getting the beat down. Obviously its to make the hero look that much more triumphant when his/her inevitable victory comes. What if the hero beat up the villian/s at the end of every raw?

What would happen is the hero would eventually become viewed as the pro dominate antihero correct? Which in the eyes of some is still a heel, a la cmpunk, or Austin. So to me it seems pretty difficult to play the roll of an interesting hero/face. That's probably why wwe hasnt turned cena heel yet. As much as I hate to say it fans find Dena interesting as a face, be it love or hate him, they are still interested.

All in all I agree that giving the push to a heel is much easier over with the fans, be it smark or straight fan, its easier to watch the villain beat on the face every night because we all know the face will win it all in the end.

So push push the heel, hell that's what I wanna see when I turn on USA or sci-fi.

 

[Warhood]

I'd actually argue to the opposite. To be a star you have to establish it yourself as a face.

I am sure SOMEONE is about to prove me wrong with this next statement. But has there really ANY established big star heel who has ONLY been heel (excluding debuting people such as Shield cause I don't consider them established enough to be stars)?

As it as been stated at least one, it is harder to make yourself a star as a face, because it is harder to get yourself cheered than boo'd. It is so much easier to just go out there and beat up the good guy, cheat, and make fun of wherever there to get cheap boos.

I will give you this though Brothervis, I do believe must stars are established after their first heel run after their face turn (So from Face to heel and then back to face). I feel this because it gives the fans a chance to realize how much they LIKE to cheer for them, and how much better they like to cheer them instead of booing them. ​

 

[Septumus]

I am sure SOMEONE is about to prove me wrong with this next statement. But has there really ANY established big star heel who has ONLY been heel (excluding debuting people such as Shield cause I don't consider them established enough to be stars)?​

Excluding him as a Legend, Ted DiBiase Sr. as a heel his whole career, unless I am horrible mistaken, which is possible.

Onto the question. Being a heel is much easier, they say, than being a face. And a lot of wrestlers say they prefer to be a heel, point in case Orton, thus they may prefer to put more effort into being a heel and thus people react to it. But it's not only being a heel to be a star, look at Rey Mysterio. Face his whole career and people loved him for his skill in the ring. He may be a shell of his former self and getting close to Khali knees, but he was great when he was healthy. So no, you don't HAVE to be heel to be a star, but it can certainly help.

 

[aljstyles]

You don't necessarily have to be a heel to become a 'Star', but it really can help. Some of the best stars have gotten over, purely because they showed us the potential they have by playing the heel role. I for one didn't get into CM Punk until his feud with Jeff Hardy in 2009, as well as Edge until he turned heel back in 2004. Two of the greatest heels in the last 10 years.

 

[Judah's Lion]

really interesting question and i've enjoyed the responses so far.

as for the question posed by the OP, i disagree that a talent must be a heel in order to be a star. two names immediately spring to mind: Ricky "the Dragon" Steamboat and Rey Mysterio. both were faces for their entire careers. at least, i always considered Rey a face, even during his "filthy animal" stage. some may argue and say he was a heel or at least supposed to be one.

Warhood asked if there were any talents that became stars without ever being a face, suggesting that one had to be a face in order to be a star. again, two names spring to mind: "Million Dollar Man" Ted DiBiase and "Ravishing" Rick Rude. both were heels their entire careers and major stars.

he didn't last long, but Ultimate Warrior was a face his entire career too.

so no, i don't think a superstar has to be just a heel or just a face, primarily one over the other, or switch from one to the other in order to be a star. they just have to be great at what they do and shine in whatever role they have within the business.

great, great thread.

 

[ADLegend21]

Heel=star? No. SUPERstar yes. Take the Hardy's. The WWE fans LOVED The Hardy's because they did all those high flying moves. Ladder matches, Table matches, TLC matches. Matt became a heel when the draft happened and he and Jeff got split up and it didn't pan out so well, he got to be a face again and was US champ in a great Feud with MVP and turned that into a tag team with him then reunited with Jeff when he came back from TNA. Jeff remained a face for his entire WWE career and got 3 World Title reigns out of it and helped springboard CM Punk into the top run when he was the heel to Jeff's face. Jeff was the bigger star compared to Matt and it showed. Well developed faces and be stars, as other's have said, but some are just BETTER as heels. CM Punk is great as a face, but outstanding as a heel. Even John Cena who is the top face, got his boost from his Thuganomics heel persona, though he turned it face to go against JBL. It depends on the performer.