Should TNA Create a Dark Character?

[Raven]

i posted this in the wwe forum an im going to post it in the TNA because i would like to know how TNA would benifiet from this:

i got to thinking abou this an i hope wwe does it, characters like undertaker are very succesful, kevin thorne was,kinda succesful, mordacie was ok, and theres a few others from the past. but im talking about another character,he doesnt really need to be undertaker darkside dark, he could just be gothic wth chains and raven type facepaint, a few years ago this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWjSPWo-ZkA

hade vansen was sceduled to get a "fallen angel" type gimmick an feud with the undertaker as you can see from the video he says he 'found othere beleivers and followers" so the idea was basically supposed to be he was gonna make a stable to bring down taker. seemed like it coulda been an amazing angle. butn sadly creative nixed this idea only 2 weeks after this promo debuted.

then there this guy Physco cyrus he is in booker T's wrestling school or was can remeber when this video was from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkkNmweNowU
but he has the look hes big,but not that clumsy big like eli cottonwood, and khali. he has potential with a dark gimmick just lose the jason mask lol

this bring me to the 3rd option an frankly my favorite of all 3. 2 words: jimmy jacobs. this guy defitly looks like he could pull of a goth gimmick i mean:

hell if he gets over then they could bring in the age of the fall, but tna would have tyler black which is a main person in that stable,wwe has em now. all theyd have to do is grab up a few more people but please give your input on any of these ideas and submit you own

 

[6timehitta]

Well, I love the Tyler Black, oh excuse me, Seth Rollins (STUPID NAME) idea. If they brought Jimmy Jacobs in, it'd proably make Seth alot more calm and make him an easier worker too. To be honest they should form a Brood like group, I'd like to see Rollins and Jacobs recruit a few more guys. In Brood 2011 it should be Rollins, Jacobs, Jackson Andrews, and maybe Darren Young if he comes back. they would be a pretty good stable IMO.

 

[Carpathian Florist]

I don't think TNA need to create a dark character just yet, they have Jeff Hardy. Rather than starting from scratch and flooding the already cramped TV segments with more wrestlers, I think they should focus on Hardy more. There's a saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely", well Jeff is already a fairly dark character, so I think TNA would be better off going down the road of finding out just how dark Jeff can get now he's the jewel in the crown of Immortal. I would like to see Hardy branch out more on his own once his confidence has grown, with him becoming the master of Abyss and the real leader of Immortal whilst pushing Bischoff/Hogan into the background a bit more. Sure they can be visible, in the background, pulling the necessary strings and such, but I think Hardy should begin to evolve more into some lunatic mastermind as he begins to realise how much power he really has in his new position.

 

[Mr. Artistic guy]

I think jeff hardy is currently fulfilling that role and don't forget abyss is there as well. Jeff hardy is the ideal guy for that role right now. I want to see jeff look as if he heads the group but really distance himself from them even more than currently so it looks like he if backed by immortal but he doesnt need them for anything really, like they all serve him. He should shoot some promos in odd lonely places like in alleys or under bridges just to emphasise the loner about him. And finally dont forget sting, he could well hav another TNA run in him, and he is the original dark character.

 

[Million Dollar Dream]

What do you call Abyss, Black Reign, Rellik, James Mitchell,

Raven getting Scalped?

I love dark characters but TNA does not have the creative genius to create a dark character and make the wrestler succeed, the IWC are all sick of Abyss at this point, and everyone else I named isn't even with TNA any longer..

TNA rather recreate ECW, and NWO storylines and make them into one big "InVasion" storyline.

I actually watch all wrestling promotions and I know i'm being critical but TNA really doesn't have the Creative writers to pull off a dark character, but if it was done successfully i'd love it.

 

[johnbragg]

I forget what I was watching, but they were showing a woman who, as some wierd form of self-expression, was getting two hooks pierced through her back and hung from a prison ceiling for some number of hours.

That made me think of how to handle hardcore ultraviolent wrestling.

Segregate it out from your main roster. Kayfabe a Church of Pain, based on the idea that this Fallen World can only be redeemed through suffering. Therefore, blessed are they who suffer--and blessed are they who cause suffering. For they shall redeem the world. Research groups like religious hermits in early Christianity, the Shiite Muslims who flay themselves on some martyr's feast day, scholars of mythology and anthropology on human sacrifice. Raven would pop a weeklong boner writing this shit.

Kayfabe them a "compound" somewhere nebulous. First Amendment lawyers keep police, health authorities and state athletic commissions away from regulating the sadistic, depraved, batshit crazy stuff they do. It's all done with consent of adults, and the compound is a ways out of town.

Find people into BDSM and body modification and have them act out "scenes" as vignettes to establish just how batshit crazy these guys are. Hang a lady from a ceiling through hooks in her flesh. Show a guy getting horns put into the skin covering his skull. Show a "submissive" getting all kinds of abused by his/her dominant and whoever else is involved. Meanwhile voiceover the religious mumbo-jumbo about how the "sacrifice" is taking on the suffering of the world, and thus hastening the day of the end of suffering.

And, as the highest sacrament of their church, hardcore, ultraviolent wrestling matches ^H^H^H^H fights. Winner leaves/joins TNA/the Church of Pain, or winner gets to get a former friend out of the Church of PAin.

You could even run the Church of Pain as an invasion/takeover angle, with Abyss as the Church's main guy, taking on Hogan and Immortal to redeem TNA from their sins of deception, theft, and greed. The faces would be in a interesting position, a little like being saved from Nazis by cannibals.

 

[hatehabsforever]

I think in the modern day era of professional wrestling, whether it be the PG era of WWE, or the supposedly edgier TNA (according to the marks anyway), it would be very difficult to pull off a successful dark character. I guess depending upon how you define such a dark character.

The Undertaker has been an extremely successful character/gimmick, a sure-fire Hall of Famer, owner of arguably the greatest streak in professional wrestling history. But I would respectfully suggest that had this character not been developed nearly two decades ago, and had someone attempted to pull it off today, it would be a very tough sell to the wrestling fan of today. The OP suggests there have been successful dark characters. I think it is a pretty loose definition of successful if we are calling Kevin Thorn, Mordecai success stories. There was the Brood, again another dated concept that probably wouldn't fly today. If they were going to try a character of this nature, I don't see it going anywhere.

Plus, I cannot imagine TNA trying to copy a concept put out there by WWE. They wouldn't blatantly follow in the footsteps of WWE, trying to exploit past successes of the gimmicks of others to try to force it towork in TNA, now would they?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I've always been a huge mark for "dark" characters, so I'd be fully behind the concept of developing another one in TNA as they haven't really had one since the conversion of Abyss to Chris Parks via Sting a few years ago.

Hardy is teetering on it as the "Antichrist" character, but there's still a lot of humanism in his character so he's not quite there – at least not in terms of being that "super human" type of character a la Sting, Undertaker, etc.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Well the question I would like to ask is do TNA need a dark character?

TNA has a great storyline going for them in the form of this Immortal angle. The two babyfaces that are currently opposing the Immortals are The Pope and Mr Anderson along with the likes of Morgan, Samoa Joe, RVD and Angle. Among them Anderson, Pope, Morgan and Angle have good charisma and the fans would have no problem relating with them. So why exactly do you need a dark character?

That being said I would like to see a dark character. A dark babyface to be more exact. I would like to see TNA get " a hero that they don't deserve but a hero that they certainly need" to save them from the Immortals.

 

[Ferbian]

You mean like those they already have? Abyss and partially Jeff Hardy? Those are more than enough for TNA to focus on when it comes to dark characters. TNA doesn't need to start filling their roster with more, especially considering it's kills off the very fact that they "stick out".

The gothic character, or any dark character in general wouldn't stand out in TNA. Nor would I believe it would be directly appealing. A goth isn't really anything directly interesting, nor is the majority of dark characters when it's been done before. TNA has interesting dark characters, because they're unique. And dark unique characters is certainly something that is running out in the product of professional wrestling. So why try repeating the cycle?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

You mean like those they already have? Abyss and partially Jeff Hardy? Those are more than enough for TNA to focus on when it comes to dark characters. TNA doesn't need to start filling their roster with more, especially considering it's kills off the very fact that they "stick out".

The gothic character, or any dark character in general wouldn't stand out in TNA. Nor would I believe it would be directly appealing. A goth isn't really anything directly interesting, nor is the majority of dark characters when it's been done before. TNA has interesting dark characters, because they're unique. And dark unique characters is certainly something that is running out in the product of professional wrestling. So why try repeating the cycle?

Because it works.

If it didn't, guys like Sting would never have been the rousing successes they were when guys like Papa Shango preceded them.

Kevin Sullivan and The Army of Darkness were after Dusty Rhodes' soul well before Shango went after Warrior, too.

Hell, even Jake Roberts would be considered a dark character, especially if you read between the lines with his snake (that he tormented his opponents with) being named Damien and all. Damien of course being the mythological name of a demon child (see The Omen).

Trust me, Ferbs, it's worth trying to repeat. Dark characters catch on like wildfire more often than they simply burn out. Hell, even guys like the Boogeyman had their 15 minutes (or more).

 

[Ferbian]

Because it works.

If it didn't, guys like Sting would never have been the rousing successes they were when guys like Papa Shango preceded them.

Kevin Sullivan and The Army of Darkness were after Dusty Rhodes' soul well before Shango went after Warrior, too.

Hell, even Jake Roberts would be considered a dark character, especially if you read between the lines with his snake (that he tormented his opponents with) being named Damien and all. Damien of course being the mythological name of a demon child (see The Omen).

Trust me, Ferbs, it's worth trying to repeat. Dark characters catch on like wildfire more often than they simply burn out. Hell, even guys like the Boogeyman had their 15 minutes (or more).

Yet we're in an era where unrealistic gimmicks is obviously on the run. The amount of dark, or unrealistic characters could be counted on 1, maybe 2 hands. Compared to the amount of realistic gimmicks in the wrestling business now, as well as for the past 10 years it's hardly thinkable that it will be brought back.

The product of TNA might make it work as opposed to WWE in terms of the PG thing. Yet I still doubt that it would be anything that would garner any interest from the fans. The days of "great gimmicks" is dead and replaced with the every-day character that we meet on the street-corner, the mall, the bus stop etc.

It worked in the past, all of the people you list are from the past. Like I mentioned in the thread he created in the WWE section, Kane and Undertaker still works, because they've been around for so long that it's ludicrous to try and rebuild them as realistic characters now of all times. Especially when they're popular as ever. Something which can't be said about any of the other dark gimmicks that would arise if we encouraged it. Because, people don't buy it anymore. I really don't think they do.

 

[TUFFY54]

Im going to have to say no to this for one simple reason. In my opinion, it takes a special kind of wrestler to play a dark character, and TNA doesnt seem to have it right now. For an evil character to work, they have to be huge. Kane and Undertaker are the two greatest evil characters of all time. What they have in common is the fact that they look like demons right out of a Hollywood movie. A seven foot tall 300 pound guy with muscles is something your never going to see walking around Wal Mart on a Saturday. Its a true spectical. These demon like characters actually look like they are unstoppable, which adds to how terriffiying they are. They same could be said for Abyss to a less extent. He looks like someone that could go on a rage and kill ten men. Lets no forget, Jake Roberts, while not super jacked, was 6'7'' and one of the tallest men in the locker room. Not the mention the fact he had a huge snake. For me, the problem with most evil characters is that they just look like a douche whos ass you could kick. In my whole life Ive never seen anyone like the Undertaker or Kane in person. An "evil" guy like Jeff Hardy? Well go to any skate park or too the dumpsters behind a high school gym and you will see 10 dudes that could be Jeff Hardy's twin brother standing around smoking talking about the new My Chemical Romance album. Same reason Kevin Sullivan was a total joke. He was supposed to be a demon from hell and he was 5'7'' with a pot belly and the build of any 8th grade football coach trying to feud with the giagantic Hulk Hogan.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Yet we're in an era where unrealistic gimmicks is obviously on the run. The amount of dark, or unrealistic characters could be counted on 1, maybe 2 hands. Compared to the amount of realistic gimmicks in the wrestling business now, as well as for the past 10 years it's hardly thinkable that it will be brought back.

The product of TNA might make it work as opposed to WWE in terms of the PG thing. Yet I still doubt that it would be anything that would garner any interest from the fans. The days of "great gimmicks" is dead and replaced with the every-day character that we meet on the street-corner, the mall, the bus stop etc.

It worked in the past, all of the people you list are from the past. Like I mentioned in the thread he created in the WWE section, Kane and Undertaker still works, because they've been around for so long that it's ludicrous to try and rebuild them as realistic characters now of all times. Especially when they're popular as ever. Something which can't be said about any of the other dark gimmicks that would arise if we encouraged it. Because, people don't buy it anymore. I really don't think they do.

But that's just it — "unrealistic" v. "realistic" are relative terms. If you mean the less kitschy of the gimmicks are less prevalent now than they were prior, I'd agree, but that's not necessarily indicative of there being less gimmicks in general, as a gimmick can evolve (and does). The Undertaker, for example, was a biker badass for a short period of time in his career, but his gimmick was not not dark as a result, just not as dark as the mortician version.

Hardy is a prime example of the evolution of "dark" characters in wrestling. He still points to the same Satanic and anti-Christian roots his predecessors did, but in his case he lost a lot of the things they required — the spikes, the blood in the chalice, the all-black attire, the ominous chants, etc. And it works, still.

The days of cartoonish gimmicks might be dead, but the days of great gimmicks are far from dead (or even death) as great is relative and simply indicative of the best possibility at any given moment in time. While Hardy may not be able to hold a candle to a Dusty Rhodes, a Hogan or a Flair, he is the greatest at this moment in time (in TNA), and that by definition makes him great. Same goes for Angle, Orton, Cena and a number of others who are on top of their respective games as simply who they are, albeit with a slight cartoonish twist.

 

[Ferbian]

But that's just it — "unrealistic" v. "realistic" are relative terms. If you mean the less kitschy of the gimmicks are less prevalent now than they were prior, I'd agree, but that's not necessarily indicative of there being less gimmicks in general, as a gimmick can evolve (and does). The Undertaker, for example, was a biker badass for a short period of time in his career, but his gimmick was not not dark as a result, just not as dark as the mortician version.

Sure, but that's what I'm saying. Undertaker works because he was around when gimmicks mattered, and stuck around. He remained popular throughout all the years because he initially got places when gimmicks mattered. How do you expect anybody to get anywhere in terms of popularity in an era where the gimmicks doesn't matter?

Hardy is a prime example of the evolution of "dark" characters in wrestling. He still points to the same Satanic and anti-Christian roots his predecessors did, but in his case he lost a lot of the things they required — the spikes, the blood in the chalice, the all-black attire, the ominous chants, etc. And it works, still.

Yet Hardy has initially always been a normal guy. He got over through all of that, and he still shines as somewhat of an ordinary guy if you will. He gets a bit of dark twist, yet it doesn't revolve around him as his whole gimmick. This is a suggestion on whether we should get a dark character, one which would therefore revolve around being a dark character. One which wouldn't truly matter anymore because, nobody will care.

The days of cartoonish gimmicks might be dead, but the days of great gimmicks are far from dead (or even death) as great is relative and simply indicative of the best possibility at any given moment in time. While Hardy may not be able to hold a candle to a Dusty Rhodes, a Hogan or a Flair, he is the greatest at this moment in time (in TNA), and that by definition makes him great. Same goes for Angle, Orton, Cena and a number of others who are on top of their respective games as simply who they are, albeit with a slight cartoonish twist.

Yet the unrealistic gimmicks are those which usually shine through as great gimmicks is it not? Undertaker and Kane, Ted DiBiase Sr (Sure not too unrealistic, but do you believe in a millionaire that will be wrestling?) Road Warriors, Demolition etc.

All of them, great gimmicks. Yet completely unbelievable and unrealistic. And while there's certainly some great "gimmicks" in guys like Austin, Hogan, Rock, Triple H, Cena, Orton, Angle etc. They all have one thing in common. They're very very realistic everyday "characters" who are all slightly enhancements of their realistic self.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Sure, but that's what I'm saying. Undertaker works because he was around when gimmicks mattered, and stuck around. He remained popular throughout all the years because he initially got places when gimmicks mattered. How do you expect anybody to get anywhere in terms of popularity in an era where the gimmicks doesn't matter?

So then how do you explain the successes of characters like Vampiro, Raven, La Parka and Sting? Or if you still consider those part of that same era when that type of thing was acceptable, explain James Mitchell, Abyss, Christopher Daniels, and the Boogeyman (albeit momentary)? Better yet, explain Jeff Hardy.

All experienced or are experiencing various levels of success, and none were outright failures, so if your statement is the rule, why are there exceptions to it?

If the time period shift is the reason for the nonacceptance of these types of gimmicks, why do they still get employed?

Yet Hardy has initially always been a normal guy. He got over through all of that, and he still shines as somewhat of an ordinary guy if you will. He gets a bit of dark twist, yet it doesn't revolve around him as his whole gimmick. This is a suggestion on whether we should get a dark character, one which would therefore revolve around being a dark character. One which wouldn't truly matter anymore because, nobody will care.

A bit of a dark twist? He's calling himself the Antichrist (of professional wrestling). I'd say that's a little more than "a bit".

Hardy is exactly what I was referencing earlier with regard to the evolution of a gimmick. Yes, we live in a day and age where the cartoonish aspects are fore the most part dead and gone and name-and-rank types are the norm, but along with the time shift came the evolution of the historical penchants that refuse to die – dark gimmicks being one of them.

An "Undertaker" may not get over again in todays day and age, but a "Sting" certainly could. The key is retaining the humanism or some kind of humanistic element.

 

[Ferbian]

So then how do you explain the successes of characters like Vampiro, Raven, La Parka and Sting? Or if you still consider those part of that same era when that type of thing was acceptable, explain James Mitchell, Abyss, Christopher Daniels, and the Boogeyman (albeit momentary)? Better yet, explain Jeff Hardy.

Vampiro, Raven, La Parka and Sting are all gimmicks that thrived during a time where gimmicks thrived. Quite simple right?

James Mitchell and Abyss are certainly a rare case, seeing as while they got somewhat over I guess you couldn't say they got truly over to the point where they would be credited as truly "successful" (" " due to the fact that sure they're successful, but could be much more).

Christopher Daniels doesn't strike me as much of a gimmick rather than just the regular guy.

Boogeyman? A success? Not at all dude.

Jeff Hardy rides the momentum of his normal character. The very very popular guy that, is just being himself. There's no gimmick there, he's not playing some wooptido scary dude or over the top personality in any way.

All experienced or are experiencing various levels of success, and none were outright failures, so if your statement is the rule, why are there exceptions to it?

Like mentioned above, Abyss is really the only rare case, but even to him there's a bit of a sort of realism to it compared to Undertaker and Kane don't you agree? Abyss is portrayed more of a deranged personality ala Mick Foley, a guy who got messed up due to being treated like shit and realized he could take insane amounts of pain. Something which could easily be found on the common insane asylum I'm sure. Yet you don't find any "deadman" or many burned survivors that walks around with a mask and what seems to be 2 different eye colors. You don't find a guy like Doink The Clown wrestling, you don't find a guy like The Road Warriors.. Anywhere.

If the time period shift is the reason for the nonacceptance of these types of gimmicks, why do they still get employed?

Loyalty as well as the very fact that they're riding the momentum of their previous popularity. Undertaker and Kane are universally respected of some sort. They get paid respect to even if it's so damn obvious they're just gimmicks and nowhere near realistic, with exception to maybe the small kids believing what they see.

A bit of a dark twist? He's calling himself the Antichrist (of professional wrestling). I'd say that's a little more than "a bit".

A moniker. Is Triple H the king of kings? No, he's not even royal. Was Randy Orton the legend killer? No, he never killed anybody. Is Randy Orton a viper? No, he's a human being. It's all a moniker put on a person for the sake of getting them over in some manner. He's obviously not a dark twisted persona in terms of being the self-proclaimed Antichrist.

Hardy is exactly what I was referencing earlier with regard to the evolution of a gimmick. Yes, we live in a day and age where the cartoonish aspects are fore the most part dead and gone and name-and-rank types are the norm, but along with the time shift came the evolution of the historical penchants that refuse to die – dark gimmicks being one of them.

Yet even if they did refuse to die, they're HIGHLY underutilized to the point where they're nearly extinct. There's a reason for it. Because they're nowhere near the popular part of wrestling anymore. Realism is all the way sadly.

An "Undertaker" may not get over again in todays day and age, but a "Sting" certainly could. The key is retaining the humanism or some kind of humanistic element.

Which is exactly my point. A dark character is hard to make work properly without a big of realism at all. That's why the primary produced characters of today are realistic and human ones. Not dark characteristics.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Having a Dark character could be interesting, but the problem is that if TNA went this route then they would probably rip off Undertaker somehow. I suppose Jeff Hardy could be used in this type of role if they developed his character to be a little more dark, he's already on his way there if you ask me. It could be good for TNA to have a character like that because it would be something different and the fans would probably like it. The only issue I'd have with it would be if they ripped off Undertaker somehow, which is likely.

 

[TUFFY54]

I forget what I was watching, but they were showing a woman who, as some wierd form of self-expression, was getting two hooks pierced through her back and hung from a prison ceiling for some number of hours.

That made me think of how to handle hardcore ultraviolent wrestling.

Segregate it out from your main roster. Kayfabe a Church of Pain, based on the idea that this Fallen World can only be redeemed through suffering. Therefore, blessed are they who suffer--and blessed are they who cause suffering. For they shall redeem the world. Research groups like religious hermits in early Christianity, the Shiite Muslims who flay themselves on some martyr's feast day, scholars of mythology and anthropology on human sacrifice. Raven would pop a weeklong boner writing this shit.

Kayfabe them a "compound" somewhere nebulous. First Amendment lawyers keep police, health authorities and state athletic commissions away from regulating the sadistic, depraved, batshit crazy stuff they do. It's all done with consent of adults, and the compound is a ways out of town.

Find people into BDSM and body modification and have them act out "scenes" as vignettes to establish just how batshit crazy these guys are. Hang a lady from a ceiling through hooks in her flesh. Show a guy getting horns put into the skin covering his skull. Show a "submissive" getting all kinds of abused by his/her dominant and whoever else is involved. Meanwhile voiceover the religious mumbo-jumbo about how the "sacrifice" is taking on the suffering of the world, and thus hastening the day of the end of suffering.

And, as the highest sacrament of their church, hardcore, ultraviolent wrestling matches ^H^H^H^H fights. Winner leaves/joins TNA/the Church of Pain, or winner gets to get a former friend out of the Church of PAin.

You could even run the Church of Pain as an invasion/takeover angle, with Abyss as the Church's main guy, taking on Hogan and Immortal to redeem TNA from their sins of deception, theft, and greed. The faces would be in a interesting position, a little like being saved from Nazis by cannibals.

There's no way in hell this would work. I've studied the shit your talking about in sociology class and it would never fly on network TV. This wouldn't work as a "dark character" angle because the people that do this stuff aren't characters. They are fucked up people who are really into self mutilation and torture. No matter how crazy it gets, wrestling still comes down to two guys battling it out in the ring. Everything that happens is a build to that. Its more than a little off kilter to have story lines taking place in a compound where people are being tortured. You want to use doms and subs? How exactly do you think the Spike TV reps would react when they say that Impact aired a segment where a guy in a gimp mask was pouring hot wax on a chick that was tied to a cross. Hell, why not just show a snuff film with the beautiful people, or have Abyss just attack and rape a woman in a audiance while your at it. Dark characters in wrestling are great. Unfortunatly, this has nothing to do with wrestling or wrestling characters.

 

[McGillicutty]

TNAs best assetts aren't characters , they are pure athletes who are just being themselves like AJ & Doug Williams etc etc

I don't think TNAs creative writers can really do well trying to write for kooky characters and stories

Besides , whats Abyss , chopped liver?

 

[Kitten Cutter]

Being a huge Undertaker mark, I love this thread.

First off, there are still gimmicks around still. Not as many as the 90's but they exist. Alberto Del Rio is a prime example, seeing as Dos Caras, Jr. isn't a millionaire in real life, and he reminds me of the Million Dollar Man more than Dibiase Jr. does. Goldust is still around as usual and over still, and there are hints of gimmick in John Morrison, Cody Rhodes, Jack Swagger, and for TNA, guys like Jeff Jarrett, Abyss, Jeff Hardy, Robbie E. and The Pope. They're more the exception than the rule though in this era.

I think one thing that only a few have harkened to is the athlete portraying the character. Remember that Mark Calloway was super-athletic for his size at the time. Sure, he had the usual power game for a 300 pound guy and he was a giant that towered over everyone (notice he never had too many run-ins with Andre the Giant while he was still around), but his ring gear was very unusual for the time (the hat, coat, plain black shirt, plain black tights, and gloves as opposed to the usual trunks at the time), he could walk the top rope (which no one did in the WWF at the time), he flew across the ring with his clotheslines and could throw dropkicks, and seemed virtually painless. That made him literally a phenom that people cheered more than most and made him a face after only a year and 4 months of being the top heel, and he was the only rookie that beat Hogan for the WWF Title. Kane didn't have his athletism but the sheer power and scariness got him over as well.

Dark characters like the Boogeyman were very over. I've heard the cheers for the guy, and despite the disgusting worm-eating, he was very popular, but Marty Wright just couldn't stay healthy to be consistent. Abyss has been too watered down to be a dark character, no matter how much damage control they've done. It's crazy because Kane got watered down and jobbed out like crazy and he STILL is considered a monster because of the creative staff. They're trying to fix Abyss but between too many losses and too many character changes he just doesn't have the same effect anymore. Think about it: Abyss is the closest to the dark character for TNA but who really FEARS him? Abyss being Hogan's willing servant doesn't help. Most dark characters have a manager\leader that fits the gimmick as well. James Mitchell is like Abyss, while Hogan is nothing like him. If Abyss followed Hardy exclusively and they were separate from the Immortals, it'd work a lot better. Having Hardy and Abyss hanging with the establishment just kills the mystique.

I'm surprised no one mentioned the Brood, which didn't work out for Gangrel but certainly propelled Edge (and to a lesser extent Christian) to stardom. I thinnk going vampire would be tough unless the athlete were used to playing one like Kevin Thorn, and I doubt there will ever be another Undertaker character (the perfect blend of size, athletism, power, and acting the gimmick). I think if TNA were to adapt a "dark character," it could work, but they'd have to go all the way with it and damn the creative holes that it would create. He'd have to be virtually painless, never submit to anything, not show any emotion of ANY kind, rarely talk, ellicit fear in his opponent and play the psychological mind games, and either go on a very strong winning streak or only lose when he goes too far in beating the opponent.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

We have a great example of how to bring in a darker edge over in Entertainment land - the SES. All that would be required is a charismatic head figure ala Punk - as a new and pretty much buried character, a revamped Nigel Maguinness (name change withstanding) would be a good charismatic lead AND he can back it up in the ring too. Abyss could become his monster muscle at enforcing his theology.

 

[TSG]

The best dark character TNA, or any company, for that matter, could create is one that has a sense to realism to it. The best example of this in history has been Raven and Sting. Both characters had a sense of realistic being to them, for example, you could believe that these people could plausibly exist in real life, where no one could ebliev people like Undertaker, Kane, Boogeyman, etc.. could.

With that being said, does TNA need a dark character? Not at the moment. They have Abyss, who though not the most realistic, works, and are working on another with Jeff Hardy. If they felt the need to bring in a couple more, it probably wouldn't hurt, and they could even form a stable like I've seen suggested in another thread. But the most important thing is that if they do create one, it has a sense of realism.

 

[wrestlingfan]

Abyss and Jeff Hardy could bring a new breed of dark characters. If Daniels returns to TNA "The Fallen Angel" could be taken further than what he did with the bear and face paint in essential making him a dark character. He could be a good mix with Abyss and Hardy.

 

[Dean Winchester]

Yeah if your gonna try and create a dark character make sure their be realism to them like the sign guy said. Raven and Sting had same problems normal people had, depression, crazyness, anger, upset, sad, ect.