Who's heel/face turn frequency is better?

[Tastycles]

In the WWE, wrestlers turn heel or face once every few years, if that as a rule, Edge being the recent exception. This often leads to characters getting unbelievably stale, as evidenced by preturn Batista and has been shown by many others recently.

Over on TNA, the turns come thick and fast. Kevin Nash, Mr. Anderson, Matt Morgan, The Dudleys and probably more have changed at least twice in the last 12 months. This is pretty much the epitome of Vince Russo's booking

The disadvantage of the WWE method is that you end up with stale and boring characters that have done all they can. The disadvantage with the TNA method is that you never really establish a connection between the wrestler and the audience, which is why they get hardly any reaction.

So, which do you think is better?

 

[Ferbian]

I'm not really sure if there's any of those two methods that I would, or in overall should be considered the better way, I would say a mixture of it would be the most fitting.

But then again, while you said WWE's face / heel turns are stale because of the length, that is not always the case, at least not from my point of view, due to the fact that there's certainly some that has gone by for a longer period of time with one specific alignment, and has remained popular and stable rather than stale, I believe Shawn went through the majority of the 00's as somewhat of a face character (with exceptions of smaller feuds where he was against the guy that simply, was an even bigger face, John Cena, Hulk Hogan, Undertaker (partially, his streak made him the superior face, any other given time it may have been different).

As I said, a mixture of it could be the most fitting, because while there's certainly some that could go by for a longer period of time with the same alignment, and still remain interesting in some kind of way (all depending on how the person is booked, if the booking is the same, the product get stale yes, but if the booking variates, the product stays at a level of freshness, no matter the alignment if you ask me) and there's some that has a need for changes, and rapid changes at times.

But even with rapid changes, you grow to have another boring product at times, due to the fact that you never grow to completely love him, or completely hate him, you end up in a circle of confusion, to say the least for the younger viewers that case could very well be it.

So I'm gonna stick with a mixture, keep the people that can remain fresh, and interesting, in one specific alignment, while the others, should very well be considered for a turn, or if a drastic need for change is, a gimmick change.

 

[The Doctor]

Between WWE and TNA, I'd easily pick WWE. Neither company's turn-rate is perfect, but TNA's constant turning is one of the biggest problems with the company today. I would rather characters risk becoming "stale" than to not know whether I should cheer or boo someone. There's a difference between being a tweener and having no consistent direction with the character.

The "stale" thing is a poor argument anyway. Someone can easily remain a face and freshen their character up. Turning isn't always necessary. Look at MVP; people swore that he was a "stale" face and needed to turn. Then he comes out on Smackdown and cuts a great promo against Punk that the crowd ate up with a spoon.

I'd much rather have someone staying a face and freshening their character up in a new way that isn't turning heel. And Vince Russo's fake tweeners can hang themselves.