Why does WWE insist upon deciding who we have to love or hate?

[Wrath]

Wrestling has always been about the battle between good vs evil. It's been booked in this way because this formula have always worked. Faces are the people who we love,support and pay them to win heels on the other hand are the people who we wanted them get their ass kicked, and pay to money to see them lose. This formula has been working for many decades but the problem is why WWE is choosing who we want to love and who we want to hate. Why John Cena should always be right and we always have to support him why can't we decide who to cheer or boo. Why someone is choosing it for us ?

My point is the whole heel/face seperation is not necessary. Why WWE just don't throw characters put them in storylines and give us a chance to cheer or boo who we want. What I'm trying to say is why wrestling is seperated between pure evil and pure good. Just put these wrestlers in storylines and give us the chance to decide who is right. For example in Orton vs Triple H storyline in 2009 I actually thought Orton was right. Triple H has always made his life and career miserable when Orton was young and Orton wanted to take revenge. I really wanted to be on Orton's side but WWE forced us to love Triple H because have booked Orton psyhopath and evil.

It would just make wrestling more realistic and exciting because we'll have a chance to choose who we want to support. In real life nobody is pure evil or good. Why in wrestling can't it be ? This formula worked with The Rock and Stone Cold. They were not %100 good people but we wanted to support them. I think it would make wrestling more entertaining and exciting.

 

[Supernova]

i agree with this somewhat, HHH vs Orton could have been about HHH derailing Orton's career but it's kayfabe - HHH in kayfabe has every right to want to win the world title, he doesn't have a duty to "put over" young guys in kayfabe so it makes no sense. Plus seeing Orton kick the shut out of the McMahon's is more entertaining than watching him merely complain about being held back, having won several world titles since it happened anyway.

 

[Poseidon]

I don’t think it’s a case of our being told who to cheer for, rather it’s the wrestling bookers sticking to a tried and tested formula that has worked for decades. As long as wrestling has been a work, it has always centred on good vs. evil, and overcoming obstacles. Cena vs. Big Show, Hogan vs. Andre, Rey Mysterio vs. almost anyone are all underdog stories, people love to root for the underdog because that is how the common person feels so much of the time. The reason that people root for the faces is because they are standing up for themselves and those weaker than them, and doing so in a way that most wrestling fans never will. Austin vs. McMahon was such a huge success because Austin was standing up to his maniacal boss, something that almost everyone has wished but not dared to do at one point in their lives.

The basis for most great wrestling feuds has been someone in a situation where they are trying to do the right thing or stand up for themselves, so it is only natural that they are going to be cheered for. As you said no one is pure evil, but some peoples actions are, and these actions of mindless hate and violence are often visible in wrestling. In the case of Orton and Triple H’s feud in 2009 Orton was completely right in resenting Triple H, as Triple H had made his live miserable in the past, doing everything he could to hurt and ruin Orton. The manner in which Orton sought his revenge however, by attacking Triple H’s wife and family, was inevitably going to do away with most of the sympathy that the crowd had for Orton.

The idea of good and evil is also deeply rooted in the style of wrestling that we see in modern matches. If there is no clear cut person to cheer for in a match then that upsets the whole dynamic and structure that the match would usually follow. People have always loved Shawn Michaels because of his ability to get tossed around for most of a match yet still get a victory in the end from his refusal to bow down. If he was against someone with a similar style then this may turn out a disaster, as they depend very much on being dominated by their opponent. Also the brawling style of someone like JBL or Steve Austin would be much less effective if the fans did not believe that they really had a beef with their opponent. If we got rid of the idea of real dispute between the characters then this would make it much more difficult to engage the fans and make them care.

The personal aspect to many storylines these days also means that there is almost a clear cut villain, the person who is in the wrong and who the crowd wishes to see pay for their actions. If there was no villain then this would get rid of much of the aggression that a heel would typically use in their matches, and this would take away from the match as a whole. This is not to say that there would be no intensity, but aggression is different, in that it shows us through body language that the person exhibiting it is out to hurt their opponent and do whatever it takes to win. While some face vs. face matches have been successes in the past – Undertaker vs. Batista, HBK vs. Cena etc. for this to become the status quo would require changing something that is the foundation of wrestling today.

Some feuds have been the success that they were because they got so deeply personal, and made the fans really care about their outcomes. Examples of these are Jericho vs. HBK where Jericho hit Shawn’s wife, Matt Hardy vs. Edge when Edge had an affair with Lita, and John Cena and Randy Orton’s feud where Orton slapped Cena’s father. These feuds were successful due to their deeply personal content, and they engaged the audience in the same way that a film or a TV show would do, drawing them in for more than the promise of blood and violence.

The audience will always choose who to cheer for themselves, as evidenced by the continued cheers received by Orton and Jericho, irrespective of their actions. The storylines used in modern wrestling however, call for a hero because that is what the escapism factor of wrestling is based on. This could be changed with feuds begun for the sake of competition and finding out who is better, something that has been successful in the past. The feuds that people will always remember however, are those with a compelling story and characters. Yes no one is 100% evil in real life, but this is wrestling, somewhere that we go to forget real life and get swept away by characters that are unrealistic but larger than life. People can still cheer for who they wish, but wrestling will always be more successful if it forces the audience to empathise with the wrestler’s characters and plights.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I'll be happy to explain why.

Because Vince McMahon is absolutely obsessed with power and control. And he has been that way for pretty much eternity for reasons one can speculate, if they know anything about his childhood. The problem is that he has become even more erratic with age and that is making this obsession of his that much worse.

WWE is clearly the most guilty of this more so than any organization in the history of wrestling.

They take it to unbelievable levels in telling their fans what to think, such as:

- Confiscating signs outside that don't support their top faces or heels, despite preaching "Freedom of Speech" during the Attitude Era and freedom to cheer who you want to cheer and boo who you want to boo during that time.

There are constantly reports of Anti Cena signs being rejected by security at the gates or being confiscated once inside the building.

- They frequently edit out cheers or boos if the audience is not acting how they want them to act towards certain wrestlers. I tell you, people don't like censorship and it's only going to bite them in the ass, as the years go by and people get fed up with it.

- They also refuse to bend to the will of the people. The audience could be booing Cena out of the building in 3/4 of the markets across the country. But if he makes merchandise from the kids, then the WWE will absolutely not listen to the fans and will continue doing what Vince McMahon wants.

Vince McMahon has always prided himself on having the ability to control his audience. But as the years went by and the Internet became more established, and people became being more opinionated with how they view what is good and what isn't in wrestling .... McMahon has not reacted kindly, and instead, has become more bold then ever before in trying to maintain that control over his audience.

He thinks what he did two decades ago should still work today with controlling his audience and will not tolerate any deviance to what he wants. Clearly, a sign of a man obsessed with control.

 

[neildittmar]

I agree with the premise of the OP too, but for slightly different reasons. Longer-time fans will recall Steve Austins first gimmick in WWF as The Ringmaster, a heel managed by Ted Dibiase. The fans hated him... not because he was a heel, but because they couldn't care less about him.

Before "The Rock" came along, the WWF had Rocky Maivia, who was told by management that he couldn't smile enough. He was a face and the fans hated him no matter how hard they tried to get him over. If he was turned under the same formula as prior heels, the idea of him working high school gymnasiums instead of starring in Disney movies is a distinct possibility.

Not to take anything away from the performers themselves, but it was the fans who decided ultimately who Rock and Steve Austin were going to be. One of the best initial heel promos that Rocky cut was in direct reference to the "die Rocky die" chants being heard in arenas all over the world. If that's not direct fan involvement, I don't know what is. As for Austin, the fans ultimately decided that they wanted a gruff, loud, cursing, beer drinking redneck to cheer for. The story goes that Creative had given up completely on Austin. Thankfully, Steve and the fans did not. As Jim Ross has said in prior interviews on the subject, the fans were ultimately right.

The big deal here is that talent was allowed to be themselves with, as Jim Cornette has said, the volume turned way up. At that point, it's the fans who ultimately decide who to cheer and who to boo, who they like and who they don't and for what reasons. Don't get me wrong, this line of thinking isn't the end of kayfabe or the epic good vs. evil clash. Steve Austin was still "good" and Mr. McMahon was still "evil" in their storyline, but the fans decided who those talents would be and who in turn would be cheered and booed. Rock vs. Hogan at Wrestlemania is another classic example, you still had good vs. evil, just not the way Vinnie Mac and company wanted it to go down.

Talent in the WWE, with very little exception, hasn't been allowed to be themselves in a long, long time. Blame the PG rating, or blame Vince for being a control freak who is ultimately out of touch with pop-culture and current trends, it kind of doesn't matter in the long run. The creative braintrust is smarter than all of us and ultimately knows what we want to see, even if we don't know that we want to see it. I'll concede that this is true sometimes, and arguably true most of the time, but certainly isn't true all the time.

I think talent needs to ultimately "be themselves with the volume turned way up" and rise and fall on that premise. Then, the fans can decide how they feel about it, polarizing one way or the other. Truthfully, the fans haven't "gotten it right" in quite a few years. Reason is, they haven't been allowed to.

 

[JJYanks121]

I'll be happy to explain why.

Because Vince McMahon is absolutely obsessed with power and control. And he has been that way for pretty much eternity for reasons one can speculate, if they know anything about his childhood. The problem is that he has become even more erratic with age and that is making this obsession of his that much worse.

WWE is clearly the most guilty of this more so than any organization in the history of wrestling.

They take it to unbelievable levels in telling their fans what to think, such as:

- Confiscating signs outside that don't support their top faces or heels, despite preaching "Freedom of Speech" during the Attitude Era and freedom to cheer who you want to cheer and boo who you want to boo during that time.

There are constantly reports of Anti Cena signs being rejected by security at the gates or being confiscated once inside the building.

- They frequently edit out cheers or boos if the audience is not acting how they want them to act towards certain wrestlers. I tell you, people don't like censorship and it's only going to bite them in the ass, as the years go by and people get fed up with it.

- They also refuse to bend to the will of the people. The audience could be booing Cena out of the building in 3/4 of the markets across the country. But if he makes merchandise from the kids, then the WWE will absolutely not listen to the fans and will continue doing what Vince McMahon wants.

Vince McMahon has always prided himself on having the ability to control his audience. But as the years went by and the Internet became more established, and people became being more opinionated with how they view what is good and what isn't in wrestling .... McMahon has not reacted kindly, and instead, has become more bold then ever before in trying to maintain that control over his audience.

He thinks what he did two decades ago should still work today with controlling his audience and will not tolerate any deviance to what he wants. Clearly, a sign of a man obsessed with control.

Yea, this is right up your alley. Vince McMahon is the root of all evil. Everything he has ever done is wrong and it will inevitably be his downfall........except that only in the mind of a few weird smarks that bitch on websites does that even come close to resembling the truth.

Yes, it is true that all wrestlers are defined by being a face or a heel, but how quickly we forget that crowd reaction often DOES determiine face and heel turns. For every "Cena gets booed so he might as well be heel" complaint, there was the bringing in Hogan as a heel but getting cheered out of the building so he was turned face against his NWO buddies. The same could be said of John Cena circa 2004 and The Rock circa 1998. In both cases, these men had heel tendencies, but because of natural charisma and ability on the mic, the crowd began to enjoy their insults and thus, those insults went from being aimed at faces to being aimed at heels. With that said, it is a lot easier to make that transition into face in hopes that the popularity that wasn't planned would result in dollars than it is to turn a popular star heel.

However, I believe it is important to have the distinction between face and heel. We have had threads started on how the live crowd reactions play a part in the quality of the product. This was an issue brought up in regards to TNA in that their fans don't really know who to cheer and who to boo (to the point where they don't boo anyone!). It is important that the characters on screen have a personality that clearly hits a chord with the fans in a positive or negative manner. If you are a face, your job is to get the fans to rally behind you. If you are a heel, your job is to get the fans to dislike you, and as a result, use your dislike to persuade the fans to cheer the face that is fighting you even more because not only should they like the face because he has likeable characteristics, but you root for him even more as you cannot stand to see the heel win. Anything less than those desired reactions will generally cause a dead crowd or a confused crowd, which in terms comes off on tv as a lack of energy for the match which bores the tv crowd and causes people to lose interest.

Believe it or not, other than John Cena, who is a victim of smarkiness to the extreme, most everyone else gets the desired crowd reaction, sans Randy Orton. Some get better reactions than others, and as a result, get bigger pushes. You see, it is actually the fans that decide who they love and who they hate based on a character presented. Sometimes similar characters get different reactions. Young Rocky Maivia got booed out of the building for being "too happy" and thus had to turn heel, whereas Kofi Kingston and Yoshi Tatsu present similar characters but get the desired cheers. In this case, the characters started out on the same path, but the fans chose to send each wrestler in different directions. The only arguments I've heard to dispute this are John Cena and the Triple H/Orton fued so let's examine those:

John Cena's "mixed reaction" I believe can be traced back to ECW One Night Stand. Due to ECW fans being "so smart" and "ahead of their time", they supported one of their own in RVD against Cena and booed him out of the building. Before that, Cena was pretty well liked and already the top face in the company. When the smarky internet fans who worship the old ECW or at very least miss it saw this event, they thought "hmmm, ECW fans are the smartest wrestling fans and they are booing Cena, they must be on to something" and thus, as time went on, Cena's reaction became more and more mixed. Due to weekly shows and his appearances in movies and in the public eye, fans with short attention spans began to feel that John Cena was too overexposed and to some, it backfired. However, despite the vocal 20 somethings at many shows booing Cena because they think it's the "cool thing to do", Cena's merchandise sales are still tops and when he's healthy and appearing on shows, the company profits. That's no coincidence. While I will not claim that Cena is the most consistent performer in terms of hitting on every promo he ever performs and I certainly won't claim that every match he has is 5 star worthy, it seems that he maintains a popularity with at least a good part of the audience. It's clear that it's not the 20 something "smarks" still hanging on to hope that the attitude era will resurrect, but he does sell. Is it possible that Cena will eventually turn heel? Only if a young guy is ready to take John's spot as top face. See, WWE will not make the mistake of turning a top face and never truly establishing a new one like WCW did with Hogan. While Hogan was hot as a heel for a little while, since no one truly stepped up to be the new face of the company, this was eventually the formula for failure.

As for Triple H/Orton, the argument being made here is that some felt Randy was right to feel like Triple H held him down (in the storyline) and was justified in his actions. Um, Randy should feel that way as he is a HEEL, but the fan should feel that despite Randy's belief in what he is doing, his actions are over the top and unnecessary. I'm sorry, but if you think that a man knocking out a 64 year old, his son and daughter and kissing the unconscious daughter is justifiable behavior, I suggest therapy, because if you believe those actions are ok, you are likely to engage in them yourself, and in real life, that's 3 cases of assault and one of sexual assault which will land you in prison. Listen, the job of a heel is to have twisted logic to justify horrible actions, but obviously, that heel has to believe that what they are doing is right. It is then the face's job to withstand all the atrocities and rise above it to defeat the heel and prove what he did was wrong. In this case, the only reason it would be thought that it's justified to cheer Orton is 1) he's not a good enough heel to make you buy how evil he is and 2) the "smarks" are at it again and are trying to support a guy because they are under the influence of stupidity saying they should never cheer a man because he married wrestling royalty. In this case, you must do what I do. Remember that these people are performers; are actors. What they do offscreen is irrelevant unless it is brought onscreen (ie: the Edge/Matt Hardy story). Other than that, it is no different than watching two and a half men and finding Charlie Sheen funny despite him beating his women off screen.

The final point is that this "community" we have online is a minority or wrestling fans. It is important to remember this fact and not come to your conclusions in absolutes based on what a few on here say. I am trying to be a rational middle man in presenting these arguments, but the point is that these performers are given a role to play and if they play it correctly, they will get the desired crowd reaction which is important in selling a story. If the reaction isn't there, it must be decided by management whether it is because the performer is getting enough of the opposite reaction to change their character, or that the character just isn't very good. In that case changes might be made, but that is determined by the fans, just as it always has been.

 

[Tyler44]

I just feel for me WWE has lost it's touch. I used to enjoy watching every show weekly every single time I could get to it. But now, I might turn on RAW to see the opening segment, but once a diva comes out I know RAW is falling to shit. I can't stand how Vince just cannot do what the fans want. Seriously, Vince obviously realizes Cena is booed every week more than he is cheered, so why not do something about it. Cena has stayed the same forever and Vince just can't seem to capitalize on changing it. It really looks bad for your show when you have Cena giving a dramatic speech for all the fans who "SHOULD" be cheering and agreeing, but they react by booing him to death. All the fans want him to change somehow, but they won't do it.

If you say its because of the money, well WWE is a business and should find another way to make money with more stars (something else fans want). Every generation has top stars, and this generation's top star has failed to gain support from all ages. So what WWE should do it be creative and productive again and listen to the real judges of the show: the fans that know what they are talking about. It just sucks that little kids look up to him as a role model because that in my opinion is the whole goal. WWE is trying to re-create another Hulk Hogan for the young fans who never watched him, but this time it failed because the older fans don't want to see it again. We are sick and tired of the stale episodes each week, and we can't do anything about it except boo the main star....and that hasn't worked either. I feel WWE knows what we want, but they refuse to listen.

 

[axl626]

I don't understand it either. Orton should most definitely have been the face at 'Mania. It was almost like they took an old Stone Cold storyline and just flipped all of the reactions. Orton was essentially fighting all that the WWE could throw at him: the boss, his daughter, his son, his son-in-law, his son-in-laws friend and he kept coming out on top. I remember the crowd popping when Orton planted Stephanie and then they exploded when he kissed her. But I guess Vince doesn't want his granddaughter thinking her gramps is an evil man.

Of course, if Randy did turn he would have to come out with a huge grin, hug some kids, and skip down to the ring while wheeling out some grandmas. There's very little in-between unless you're a "veteran," as in Triple H, HBK, and Undertaker. And no, Cena pulling a Warrior promo doesn't count as a tweener.

If they just listened to who the fans cheer and DON'T change the persons character, they're set. If Orton beat people to a bloody pulp and then kind of freaked out at what he'd done, it would be great. Orton could go from a psychotic, cowardly heel to a psychotic, strategic face and get mega pops. We could have people start asking who the next Orton would be as opposed to The Rock/Stone Cold. And I've never enjoyed MVP but others did, but most only when he was a cocky heel. He could be the same guy but be a cocky face. It's like what happened with Christian before he went to TNA. He was a cocky heel who was getting huge pops because the fans loved him, so WWE backed off of him. If they had ran with it we could have had another big main eventer, but Vince didn't plan it so it would not come to pass.

When the fans get pushed too far is when we get things like One Night Stand 2006(and F the guy a couple up who insulted those fans). I would watch wrestling every single time it came on if it was like that with those levels of crowds. Just watch the Angle-Orton match or RVD-Cena. And then there was a few years back during the "Rosie vs Donald Trump" "match" where fans chanted 'TNA.' The look on Vince's face was priceless and if things like that happened more often, we wanted have threads like this.

 

[InterestingDrug]

I disagree with this whole thread. WWE is a company and the company makes the decisions, not the consumers. If WWE wants you to cheer someone and forces them down your throat as a face, it's their decision to do so. If it doesnt work out, they go in a different direction. Fans can cheer for whoever they want. They can boo Cena or cheer Jericho if they want. But the company can decide which direction the character is going. If there were no good guys or bad guys, then there would be too much ambiguity, too much grey area. Merchandise sales would be stagnant. Character development would go no where. Advertised main events would be uninteresting to people buying tickets. A Cena heel turn would be great, but WWE cant do that because they would risk losing too much money as a result. Therefore the company is right in cramming him down our throats until the well runs dry.

I can bitch and moan to NBC that Conan is better than Jay, but would they listen? No. They will force Jay down our throat for 20 more years. Will people watch the crappy new Leno show? Yup, like sheep.

WWE has the right to protect it's product. Why would any company allow their product be damaged by people holding up signs decimating that product?

The other night between the football games on NBC, Charles Barkley said the fans know nothing, the analysts know everything. And I believe it's true. I dont care how much you get into these sites or these forums or how many sites you run about wrestling, in the end, we are just fans. If we knew what we were talking about, a company would have hired us already.

 

[johnnyblaze3:16]

im with the guy above intrestingdrug im on this sight all the time, and you guys cry more about wwe then anything else i have watched it since i was a little guy and cant belive you guys watch and hate the product if i go to a movie and hate it, then i leave i dont HAVE to watch it so sid go watch tna or some fcw and stop watching im sick of hearing you complain! and yes they have the right to run the show its there show. if you owned wwe would you do whats worked forever or follow the internet and people that dont know a wristlock from an asshole

 

[justinept]

Yet another thread by some 20-year old kid who can't come to terms with the simple fact that the WWE hasn't lost their touch - they haven't gotten lazy - they have simply changed directions.

I agree. The idea of good vs. evil is a very 1980's approach to the business. We saw it back in the day when Hogan would take down anyone who challenged doing things the "right" way. The approach worked for a while, but was obviously ineffective during the mid-90s when WCW offered fans something different.

So Vince shifted gears to keep his company alive. It worked. Fans flocked to arenas. Buy rates were through the roof. Merchandise flew off shelves.

But the approach had its draw backs. Vince and the WWE were constantly in defense mode, fighting lawsuits and lobbyists who wanted to see WWE out of business. These people blamed WWE for everything bad in the world.

So after a decade of pushing the envelope and garnering unchartered media scrutiny, Vince McMahon finally had enough of trying to plead his case that professional wrestling / sports entertainment isn't the cause of all things evil. So the guy has finally taken a more kid friendly approach to the business.

Why not? It isn't like any company is truly competing with him. TNA has the names, but they're nothing more than old WCW talent without the blank checkbook and built-in television deal that made WCW successful.

These days Vince positions his company to appeal to kids. Young kids want heroes and villains. They don't want those blurred lines. They don't want their heroes to have shades of grey. So the WWE is giving them black and white characters that just don't appeal to the older generation of fans.

The fans who bring anti-Cena signs to the arena ... the fans who boo Cena and cheer Orton ... the WWE sees you guys as trying to sabotage their product. It is within their right to take your signs and drown you out on television.

 

[Tyler44]

I disagree with this whole thread. WWE is a company and the company makes the decisions, not the consumers. If WWE wants you to cheer someone and forces them down your throat as a face, it's their decision to do so. If it doesnt work out, they go in a different direction. Fans can cheer for whoever they want. They can boo Cena or cheer Jericho if they want. But the company can decide which direction the character is going. If there were no good guys or bad guys, then there would be too much ambiguity, too much grey area. Merchandise sales would be stagnant. Character development would go no where. Advertised main events would be uninteresting to people buying tickets. A Cena heel turn would be great, but WWE cant do that because they would risk losing too much money as a result. Therefore the company is right in cramming him down our throats until the well runs dry.

I can bitch and moan to NBC that Conan is better than Jay, but would they listen? No. They will force Jay down our throat for 20 more years. Will people watch the crappy new Leno show? Yup, like sheep.

WWE has the right to protect it's product. Why would any company allow their product be damaged by people holding up signs decimating that product?

The other night between the football games on NBC, Charles Barkley said the fans know nothing, the analysts know everything. And I believe it's true. I dont care how much you get into these sites or these forums or how many sites you run about wrestling, in the end, we are just fans. If we knew what we were talking about, a company would have hired us already.

Yes us fans have no clue to what is going on backstage. We don't know if there are rivalries backstage which stop certain feuds, we don't know if there is future plans for years to come with certain guys, we don't know anything like that. But what we do know is if we enjoy what we watch on our televisions every week and if we enjoy going to live events and cheering on our favorite superstars. You see, night time shows are for discussion of the main topics on the news and to poke fun at people and events. The point of this company WWE is to entertain an audience through cheering and booing entertainers that we are suppose to love or hate through feuds and fighting in matches. Yes the company makes the decisions, but it turns out the company's idea of who should be cheered is not what the audience agrees with. These days fans are more opinionated for what they believe, and it seems like we don't enjoy being forced to cheer someone we have been cheering for years now with no change.

There is also a HUGE difference between fans watching a sports team and fans watching WWE. In football, the audience is not the main target for the upper management, winning the game and building a franchise while signing contracts and dealing with positions and smart moves is the main focus. In WWE, the main focus is entertaining an audience with faces and heels. The original maker of the thread most likely did not mean every single person should be turned to whatever the crowd wants, just the ones shoved down our throats (prime example is John Cena) ridiculously. What we all want is to be less bored with WWE, and we all feel since we our fans of the show that making Cena heel would not makes us complain and bitch about him every second. And to your point of the WWE losing money in merchandise sells, don't you think if the Cena heel turn failed miserably and they couldn't produce enough money to keep up with what they want, then they would just change him back to face? We want a change and a chance to see how Cena would do as a heel, but WWE will not make that risk and give it up because they want complete control of the business. But when a business's idea of a keeping control is not what the fans want in this type of company, something is going wrong.

And for all you saying that if you don't like the product then stop bitching and shut up, then you guys should not be on a forum because forums are for discussions about the product and what we feel about it. Turns out some people actually don't like it. What a surprise to you. If you enjoy it so much and find nothing wrong with it, then don't come here and tell people to stop complaining because when you come to a forum the majority of topics are going to be complaining. You told us if we don't like it then to stop watching it, well if you don't like reading us complain, just stop reading it.

 

[gully side adidja]

i agree with the thread starter, it would be interesting, good example is orton/triple h 09, back in 04 at summerslam, orton won the world title and was on top of the mountain, then the next day he had a special celebration made for him by triple h, only for hhh to attack him, beat and bloody him kick him out of evolution and finally take his world title, not to mention injuring him at one night stand 08, orton was right. Another was cm punk jeff hardy last year, cm punk did a smart move and cashed in the mitb at extreme rules against a tired jeff hardy, it was opportunist but smart, the fans then give punk heat for it, only for punk to remind them when he did it to edge in the past, everybody got behind him, show's you hypocrisy for you.Yes i believe wwe do force you to like people they want you to , especially people who you don't care for(cena, shelton, hornwoggle,),

i always believed you should cheer for who you like, that way wwe know who the fans like and don't like, therefore changing either there character, gimmick, or a face/heel/tweener turn.

 

[InterestingDrug]

The original maker of the thread most likely did not mean every single person should be turned to whatever the crowd wants, just the ones shoved down our throats (prime example is John Cena) ridiculously. What we all want is to be less bored with WWE, and we all feel since we our fans of the show that making Cena heel would not makes us complain and bitch about him every second. And to your point of the WWE losing money in merchandise sells, don't you think if the Cena heel turn failed miserably and they couldn't produce enough money to keep up with what they want, then they would just change him back to face? We want a change and a chance to see how Cena would do as a heel, but WWE will not make that risk and give it up because they want complete control of the business. But when a business's idea of a keeping control is not what the fans want in this type of company, something is going wrong.

I disagree that WWE could turn him heel, then bring him back successfully. Why would they even do that when he's the main draw and sells the most merch? It's not good business for them to do that. It could potentially tank PPV sales, merch, house shows, etc. If they did heel Cena and it didnt work out, who says they could face him successfully again? A huge risk, not worth trying. It might have worked with The Rock, but it might not be successful with Cena. This doesnt just go for Cena, it goes for Taker, DX and Mysterio as well. Why risk such a move? It's bad for business.

Now I do agree the product is quite boring. A big Cena hell turn would be great to spice things up, but I'm not holding my breath. I've said this before in these forums.. once his draw starts to go south, they'll heel him. Having Shawn Michaels and Taker retire would be good for building new young talent as well, but as long as they are decent draws and get good pops, it's not going to happen.

One last thing.. WWE is a corporation. Their job is to make money for their shareholders. Period. So dont pin this on Vince McMahon. That's a bogus argument. He does have overall creative control, but his job is to make the corporation money and drive up the price of the stock for his shareholders. So taking signs and doing all the "anti-fan" stuff that WWE does to protect it's product is fair.

 

[mdc2575]

JJYanks is totally right. I think he hit it dead on. Also Johnnyblaze is right. If everyone hates what WWE puts out why do you watch it? They dont force it down our throats. They go based on what is selling (for faces anyway).

And to be honest if Cena is hated so much, why is it on EVERY RAW and PPV (except a small few exceptions) when his music is played the crowd goes bonkers. And dont tell me they dub it... Raw and PPV;s are live. The last show I went to, the crowd went nuts. The only reason you can hear some boos is because the 20 somethings are louder than anyone else.
Kids love him, women love him. And to be totally honest he really isnt that bad.

 

[Wrath]

I disagree with this whole thread. WWE is a company and the company makes the decisions, not the consumers. If WWE wants you to cheer someone and forces them down your throat as a face, it's their decision to do so. If it doesnt work out, they go in a different direction. Fans can cheer for whoever they want. They can boo Cena or cheer Jericho if they want. But the company can decide which direction the character is going. If there were no good guys or bad guys, then there would be too much ambiguity, too much grey area. Merchandise sales would be stagnant. Character development would go no where. Advertised main events would be uninteresting to people buying tickets. A Cena heel turn would be great, but WWE cant do that because they would risk losing too much money as a result. Therefore the company is right in cramming him down our throats until the well runs dry.

I can bitch and moan to NBC that Conan is better than Jay, but would they listen? No. They will force Jay down our throat for 20 more years. Will people watch the crappy new Leno show? Yup, like sheep.

WWE has the right to protect it's product. Why would any company allow their product be damaged by people holding up signs decimating that product?

The other night between the football games on NBC, Charles Barkley said the fans know nothing, the analysts know everything. And I believe it's true. I dont care how much you get into these sites or these forums or how many sites you run about wrestling, in the end, we are just fans. If we knew what we were talking about, a company would have hired us already.

You actually couldn't understand my point. My point is WWE always chooses who the bad and good guys should be and book them pure evil or good. There shouldn't be %100 good or %100 bad characters for us to cheer or boo we should choose who we want to cheer or boo. I gave Orton vs Triple H feud as an example. For me Orton has every right to want to take revenge from Triple H but WWE told us to boo Orton. I'm not talking about turning Cena heel or Orton face what I'm talking about we should choose who is the bad guy and who is the good guy in the story but WWE don't allow this they want us to boo Orton even though we find him %100 right. My whole thread is actually about there is no pure evil or good so we should choose which wrestler to support in feuds and storylines.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

While to a degree you are right Wrath, there is something that you're not taking into consideration. No, people are not 100% good or 100% bad. Life as we know, is not that black and white. However, kids do see the world in black and white. They haven't aged or experienced enough to understand that there are grey areas to life, so Vince McMahon has molded WWE to be the same; black and white, with no grey areas. Kids don't think like that, so Vince won't write/produce his television like that.

We watched wrestling in an age where the loudest, most violent, arrogant, asshole with a catchy slogan was everyone's hero, and anyone who pooped up trying to be friendly or helpful would be branded a heel immediately and be boo'ed constantly. But we are also the fans who understand that good people sometimes have to do bad things etc, whereas kids probably wouldn't understand. WWE are no longer trying to create a cool guy for us to fall in love with, they're just lumping them in 2 separate categories, and pushing the ones who sell the most t-shirts/glow sticks.

WWE aren't being subtle about it either. They used to say 'Hey, it's cool if you want to boo Cena, that's your choice,' but now they say 'He envokes the most powerful emotional response from the fans' to suggest it's good that a large percentage of audiences hate his guts.

I'm not going to complain about WWE programming etc, i actually did stop watching many many months ago, and tune in infrequently. I keep up with what's going on in the angles, and watch the PPVs and that's about it. What i will say though is this. Taking signs off of people is bullshit. Fans who've paid their hard earned money to boo and cheer for their favourites shouldn't have their signs taken from them. If they're sat in the floor seats in front of the hard camera, then fine, but to do it to everyone, even the people who'll never appear on TV, is just stupid. Editing out chants, turning away from rowdy fans is acceptable, but they can't seriously believe that 4 or 5 signs cropping up on screen inconsistently is actually affecting the way younger audiences view the talent, do they? Blur it out and say it had offensive language on it, but don't stop fans from enjoying themselves at your shows, because a fair few of them will just stop coming.

Edit out the chants, put in canned pops when the live audience doesn't care, push the shit face gimmicks to the moon and hold back the cool heel ones, but don't start ruining the experience for the people in the live audience.

 

[Tastycles]

Well, in order for feuds to progress, there has to be someone the crowd want to win. At the high level, it doesn't matter which they cheer or boo, but at the lower level there has to be someone that you distinctly want to lose, otherwise nobody would care about lower card feuds. That is why lower card feuds almost always center on the heel.

As for them deciding who to push as the face at a higher level, I suppose it is probably unnecessary. It is clear that WWE edits crowd reactions on not live programming, which is a little pathetic. I think the important thing is that there is a reaction. You can book someone as a face and a heel within the storyline, and it'll still be a successful storyline, even if they boo the wrong man. Personally, I think paying money specifically to boo Cena is ******ed beyond belief, for reasons that should be obvious to you, but I don't think there's any real reason that the WWE needs to control the crowd's reaction, it doesn't really affect the onscreen product to hear people cheer the wrong guys.

 

[Razor]

Wrestling has always been about the battle between good vs evil. It's been booked in this way because this formula have always worked. Faces are the people who we love,support and pay them to win heels on the other hand are the people who we wanted them get their ass kicked, and pay to money to see them lose. This formula has been working for many decades but the problem is why WWE is choosing who we want to love and who we want to hate. Why John Cena should always be right and we always have to support him why can't we decide who to cheer or boo. Why someone is choosing it for us ?

He's always right because he's the face. You cheer the Heel because you're being stuck up and think it's cool to do. The story wouldn't make sense if the face were the one kicking people's heads in. Just ask everyone who watches Smackdown and sees Punk being pushed as a Heel. Confusing.

My point is the whole heel/face seperation is not necessary. Why WWE just don't throw characters put them in storylines and give us a chance to cheer or boo who we want. What I'm trying to say is why wrestling is seperated between pure evil and pure good. Just put these wrestlers in storylines and give us the chance to decide who is right. For example in Orton vs Triple H storyline in 2009 I actually thought Orton was right. Triple H has always made his life and career miserable when Orton was young and Orton wanted to take revenge. I really wanted to be on Orton's side but WWE forced us to love Triple H because have booked Orton psyhopath and evil.

Why would they get rid of the characters? That doesn't make any sense. If you don't give the crowd a clear face or a clear heel to react to, they'll get confused. Either that, or they'll spark the one ever double turn in Hart/Austin.

On the off chance, why do you think that Orton is right? He was going around assaulting the McMahon family because Triple H beat Orton for teh title years ago. That makes no sense at all.

It would just make wrestling more realistic and exciting because we'll have a chance to choose who we want to support. In real life nobody is pure evil or good. Why in wrestling can't it be ? This formula worked with The Rock and Stone Cold. They were not %100 good people but we wanted to support them. I think it would make wrestling more entertaining and exciting.

For every Rock or Stone Cold you also have the current Jeff Jarrett in TNA or the abomination that was Punk before he got cemented in his Heel role. Not everyone can pull off a Tweener role, and the two you mentioned were glorious exceptions.

The answer to what you may consider a stale product is not in everyone adopting a Tweener role. You won't know what anyone is going to do, and so every show will leave you confused and bewildered. There will be heel tactics for the sake of heel tactics, and that won't make anyone entertained.

Also, the WWE has always been a world of extremes. In the soap opera of the WWE, people are 100% good or evil, with a few straddling that fence. The WWE isn't meant to represent you or me, it's meant to represent the very real battle between Good and Evil.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Well the thing is, the traditional format was that the federation decides who is a face and who is a heel. The business is different now though. There are tweeners everywhere, whether it be through kayfabe or through fan reactions. Now that JBL is gone, I can't think of any "true" heels left in WWE because many of the top heels have a lot of fans. Edge, Jericho, and Orton all have a LOT of fans, despite their characters being villains. Then you got the top faces. Cena, HHH, HBK, and even Taker, all have some fans who just don't like them, even if these guys are booked to be the big heroes. WWE can try all they want to tell us who to cheer and who to boo, but the fans will end up cheering for who they like and boo for who they don't like. I like Orton, so I cheer for him even if he's a top heel. I boo Batista, not because he's heel, but because I don't like him much. Face/heel status does not matter the way that it used to. The fans get to decide who they want to root for, and although he would probably never admit it, Vince knows that. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[Davi323]

I wasn't aware that wrestling fans were forced to do anything. Are you suggesting you gave up the right to your opinion on who to cheer for because Vince pushes someone as a face or heel? That only means you are weak minded. If you want to cheer for Orton, go right ahead. You won't be the only one. Stop blaming Vince McMahon because you aren't strong willed enough to cheer against the grain for a wrestler you like. You aren't being forced to do anything.

 

[airvar]

Nobody is being forced to like anybody. They are protecting there image, and the majority of their consumers, Small children.

The fact is the young male demographic that used to like wrestling was pretty much Decimated when UFC got big. You can't combat real cage fighting with fake wrestling no matter how hard you try.

They are going to protect Cena, and faces from being boo'ed out of the building by the 20 year old males who still watch (like myself) by taking sign's, using canned cheers ect. because the fact is little kids, there current target audience, would be upset if he was booed out of the buliding every time he came on. little kid's don't realize its FAKE, they he is there hero, and its pretty easy to upset a small child. If everyone boo's there Hero, kids get upset.

Thats the simple fact, they are protecting there moneymakers, right now they are a family/Kid Oreinted product, Mostly because it's too hard to compete with UFC For the young adult male demographic.

I don't blame them one bit. Hearing people cheer for someone I think is corny, can't wrestle , Ect. Upsets me much less then a 6 or 7 year old kid hearing people Boo, Degrade, and attack there Hero who upholds everything that is good in the world. They figured we would all be gorwn up enough to realize they are protecting the little kids feelings.

 

[Wrath]

He's always right because he's the face. You cheer the Heel because you're being stuck up and think it's cool to do. The story wouldn't make sense if the face were the one kicking people's heads in. Just ask everyone who watches Smackdown and sees Punk being pushed as a Heel. Confusing.

My whole thread is about this. Why there should always be specific people for us to cheer and boo. I mean we should choose who the right one is. One of the things I can't understand in this forum is why is everyone thinking people are cheering heels to look cool. What's wrong with loving an evil character. There have been lots of evil characters that people loved and were fan of but when it comes to wrestling "OH LOOK AT THESE DUMBASSES THEY TRY TO LOOK COOL BECAUSE THEY LOVE ORTON" It's just a stupid theory.

Why would they get rid of the characters? That doesn't make any sense. If you don't give the crowd a clear face or a clear heel to react to, they'll get confused. Either that, or they'll spark the one ever double turn in Hart/Austin.

By this logic it means that all the crowd and other people are sheep that are directed by Vince McMahon and they don't have their own ideas about who to love and hate. It doesn't make any sense. If you want to cheer someone why would you need someone to choose who to cheer for you.

On the off chance, why do you think that Orton is right? He was going around assaulting the McMahon family because Triple H beat Orton for teh title years ago. That makes no sense at all.

WHAT ? Are you joking right you see a person as your mentor,your friend,your brother you do every dirty thing for him to keep his title and if he betrays you "Would you just say that was years ago and he was right everthing in wrestling is about title fuck friendship" I don't know which show were you watching but Orton vs Triple H storyline was something more than just for title.

For every Rock or Stone Cold you also have the current Jeff Jarrett in TNA or the abomination that was Punk before he got cemented in his Heel role. Not everyone can pull off a Tweener role, and the two you mentioned were glorious exceptions.

If you can pull off a good heel and face character you can easily pull of a tweener.

The answer to what you may consider a stale product is not in everyone adopting a Tweener role. You won't know what anyone is going to do, and so every show will leave you confused and bewildered. There will be heel tactics for the sake of heel tactics, and that won't make anyone entertained.

I think you probably couldn't understand my point in this thread. I'm not saying getting rid of evil or good characters. Without these characters there would be nothing to fight for in wrestling. What I don't agree is why should people have to be %100 good or evil. I want greyness in their characters. Because in some storylines you may find the other side right. For example a father can find Cm Punk %100 right. Because Jeff Hardy is a wrong role model to kids, he may not want his child's hero to be drug addict but WWE books Punk %100 evil so it becomes nearly impossible to be on Punk's side.

Also, the WWE has always been a world of extremes. In the soap opera of the WWE, people are 100% good or evil, with a few straddling that fence. The WWE isn't meant to represent you or me, it's meant to represent the very real battle between Good and Evil.

I understand you. There should be goods and evils but these characters should not be booked %100 good or evil sometimes we should have sympathy for evil characters to. This would make wrestling much more interesting and entertaining.

 

[Davi323]

It only becomes difficult to cheer for CM Punk if you aren't strong enough to go against the flow. If you are more concerned with going along in order to get along, you will find it hard to cheer for Punk, even though you think he is right, and you will find it hard not to cheer for Jeff Hardy, even though he is a drug addict. You complain about how it is almost impossible to be on Punk's side...no, actually it isn't. You just have to have the ability to refuse to go along with the flow. You just have to change your mindset. Who cares if 95% of the crowd hates CM Punk? What difference does that possibly make in your life? There is nothing wrong with refusing to be a sheep.

By this logic it means that all the crowd and other people are sheep that are directed by Vince McMahon and they don't have their own ideas about who to love and hate. It doesn't make any sense. If you want to cheer someone why would you need someone to choose who to cheer for you.

The problem is, you don't actually believe this, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to create this thread. You just mentioned how hard it is to cheer Punk, even though you think he is right, because the overwhelming majority of the crowd boos him. You are letting the crowd choose who to cheer for you. You negated your entire argument right there.

 

[Southwind]

Look I don't feel forced or obliged to do anything. I love heels more because, well they just wrestle and perform better and ultimately make wrestling it's money by setting up the faces.

I love Randy Orton and Chris Jericho there characters and skill are top notch in my opinion but to say the WWE doesn't force us to do anything is asinine they do.

They take signs from PAYING customers at the entrance gates and in the arenas that are anti-cena or pro Orton (or any other heel). That's unfair and unconstitutional to be honest it deprives freedom of speech/expression.

The WWE encourages us to root for faces. if we don't want to we shouldn't have to but to say that they aren't trying to force us into that mindset is wrong.