Why there are no good heels (and why is that a good thing)

[Dwayne_Jason]

So the IWC always complain:

"HEELS ARE NOT INTERESTING ENOUGH! WE NEED CHARACTER!! EVERYONE IS A CLONE!!!"

You're right. But let me tell you why that's a good thing.

Below are two villains from movies that are intended for adults and children alike.




[YOUTUBE]2NUmJmt75VA[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]mBIMQxsJb_s[/YOUTUBE]


What do you see here? What I see is the difference between IWC and children. Their mindset, atleast.


The American Gangster clip I showed: Who was the heel there? Frank Lucas, a guy who worked his way to the top, or a cop/lawyer who caught him through mafia contacts?

Who was the heel in The Incredibles? If you can't figure that out, you're an idiot.


The point I'm making is this. We all know that WWE is PG. No question about it anymore. Sure, Austin sweared a little, Rock sweared a little but the point is that the children are the priority not the adults. And that's why heels are all the same.

For a child a bad guy is someone who doesn't follow the rules. We all know thats not true, but the simple fact is that the idea between good and bad is the simple in a child's mind but not in an adult's. An example:

To me, Christian is a face. He's a great face. Why? Because he stood up to a silver spoon fed third generation destined super star. So is the Miz. Its because I'm an adult. I know what it feels like to be screwed out of a promotion because the boss' son wants that position, or being taken for a joke at first and then proving yourself and then being a total prick and loving every second of it (I'm a total prick at work if you haven't figured it out already). But that's me. Not children. They have no idea about this kinds of things. For them good is Cena and bad is people who beat Cena up/ People who cheat/ people who insult them/ people who aren't nice.

That's why so many heels today are the exact same as the next guy. Will any child understand the idea of a tweener? Of course not, they aren't ADULTS.

I know what you're gonna say "THE 80'S HAD SO MANY DIFFERENT HEELS!!" I know. Lets look at the heels they had:

Million Dollar Man
Papa Shango
Rowdy Roddy Piper
Andre The Giant

Would any characters work in a world that is so sophisticated than it was in the 80's? In the 80's NO ONE knew wrestling was fake. Very little people knew that. Today, if you think its real, you're a complete moron.


[YOUTUBE]BvTNyKIGXiI[/YOUTUBE]


...okay, okay. God.


But back to the topic: If today, someone was to dress like Papa Shango or brag about how rich they are and started using "I'm rich" puns in all of their promos, the children wouldn't believe them for a second. In today's world the arrogant, cocky, bully is the heel. And its duplicated BECAUSE it works! Tommorow if McMahon had an epiphany and suddenly decided to spice things up, or the IWC started to run things, the fans would be utterly confused: Who do we cheer for?

That's why there are no "good" heels, meaning, heels are all the same. And its a good thing. Because it works.


So, do you think that all heels being the same is good or bad?
Why?
Why not?
Additional Comments

 

[Harthan]

So the IWC always complain:

"HEELS ARE NOT INTERESTING ENOUGH! WE NEED CHARACTER!! EVERYONE IS A CLONE!!!"

You're right.

Well, no, not really, they aren't. Here is a list of some of the big heels in the WWE:

Alberto del Rio, Christian, CM Punk, Cody Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, Drew McIntyre, Jack Swagger, Mark Henry, R-Truth, Sheamus, the Miz, and Wade Barrett.

I mean, pick any two names of that list, and you'll see that they're anything but clones. Certainly, every heel shares some basic qualities, but this is a necessary facet of wrestling. Every heel breaks rules, every heel is a dick, etc, etc. But all of these guys have different gimmicks. Is del Rio the same as Sheamus? Is CM Punk the same as the Miz? Is Cody Rhodes the same as Wade Barrett? Certainly not. A Mexican aristocrat gimmick is very different than a Celtic warrior. They cut different promos, wrestle different styles, have different feuds. The same goes for a straight-edge cult leader versus a cocky hotshot, or a disfigured psycopath versus an English brute. They've all got different gimmicks with unique characters and nuances.

But let me tell you why that's a good thing.

Well, if it were true, it wouldn't be, but it isn't, so let's carry on.

Below are two villains from movies that are intended for adults and children alike.


What do you see here? What I see is the difference between IWC and children. Their mindset, atleast.


The American Gangster clip I showed: Who was the heel there? Frank Lucas, a guy who worked his way to the top, or a cop/lawyer who caught him through mafia contacts?

Who was the heel in The Incredibles? If you can't figure that out, you're an idiot.


The point I'm making is this. We all know that WWE is PG. No question about it anymore. Sure, Austin sweared a little, Rock sweared a little but the point is that the children are the priority not the adults. And that's why heels are all the same.

For a child a bad guy is someone who doesn't follow the rules. We all know thats not true, but the simple fact is that the idea between good and bad is the simple in a child's mind but not in an adult's. An example:

To me, Christian is a face. He's a great face. Why? Because he stood up to a silver spoon fed third generation destined super star. So is the Miz. Its because I'm an adult. I know what it feels like to be screwed out of a promotion because the boss' son wants that position, or being taken for a joke at first and then proving yourself and then being a total prick and loving every second of it (I'm a total prick at work if you haven't figured it out already). But that's me. Not children. They have no idea about this kinds of things. For them good is Cena and bad is people who beat Cena up/ People who cheat/ people who insult them/ people who aren't nice.

That's why so many heels today are the exact same as the next guy. Will any child understand the idea of a tweener? Of course not, they aren't ADULTS.

I'm not sure how well acquainted you are with logic. Your argument goes that the villain in children's movies is easily identifiable, and everyone (including adults) will identify the same villain. But you then demonstrate that modern heels can be interpreted differently by different people...showing that they are in fact more than simple cartoon villains. You have done the opposite of prove your point here.

I know what you're gonna say "THE 80'S HAD SO MANY DIFFERENT HEELS!!" I know. Lets look at the heels they had:

Million Dollar Man
Papa Shango
Rowdy Roddy Piper
Andre The Giant

All of whom have modern analogues, except Papa Shango, but I'm really
not sure anyone considers Papa Shango one of the landmark heels of the '80s. For the rest, simply substitute Alberto del Rio, the Miz, and Henry/Show/Kane for any portions of time they are heels. You've got basically the same types of characters today. I mean, if anything, characters are more nuanced today than they were in the '80s. You never had contingents of fans cheering Ted DiBiase in his heyday, but you can find a number of people who will go to arenas and cheer for heels today. This is probably just as much the result of a change in the attitude of wrestling fans and the rise of the Internet than it is a change in the sorts of characters you get. But I think by and large you'll see that there were many more cartoony heels in the 80s than there are today, where we find that villains tend to be more serious and nuanced. '80s heels were generally over the top and one sided.

Would any characters work in a world that is so sophisticated than it was in the 80's?

What. You're arguing that wrestling was more complex in the 80s?

But back to the topic: If today, someone was to dress like Papa Shango or brag about how rich they are and started using "I'm rich" puns in all of their promos, the children wouldn't believe them for a second.

In today's world the arrogant, cocky, bully is the heel. And its duplicated BECAUSE it works!

This is just as true now as it was then. Heels have pretty much always been cocky and arrogant, unless they were creepy or monstrous. Just because they share a common facet doesn't stop their characters from having unique gimmicks.

Tommorow if McMahon had an epiphany and suddenly decided to spice things up, or the IWC started to run things, the fans would be utterly confused: Who do we cheer for?

Your view of our collective intelligence is refreshingly positive.

That's why there are no "good" heels, meaning, heels are all the same. And its a good thing. Because it works.


So, do you think that all heels being the same is good or bad?
Why?
Why not?
Additional Comments

I think I've demonstrated pretty well why your basic thesis here is false, so these questions are basically invalid.

 

[Dwayne_Jason]

Well, no, not really, they aren't. Here is a list of some of the big heels in the WWE:

Alberto del Rio

Does he use "I'm Rich" puns like Million Dollar man? He uses threats, cowardice, cockiness and general smugness.

Christian

His heel turn has lasted less than a month I can't judge his character until the writers have come up with something

CM Punk

Sure, he was a straight-edge messiah before. What is he now? Let me get you a promo from last raw:

[YOUTUBE]KKcsOJE0ERc[/YOUTUBE] That doesn't sound Charles Mason like OR Jesus like to me. At all. Sounds like an arrogant prick. Just like...

Dolph Ziggler

Arrogant Prick

Jack Swagger

Arrogant Prick

the Miz

Arrogant Prick

Wade Barrett.

Arrogant Prick


All of them share the same core characteristics: All of them are arrogant pricks. CM Punk, before, had a "Mighter Than Thou" core trait. Swagger has the "All American, American jock" trait, Miz has "I'm better than you cause" prick trait. Barrett has "I'm better than you cause I'm english" trait.

There is NO difference in core characteristically between these characters. In a literary sense, one sentence defines them all.

Certainly, every heel shares some basic qualities,

Which is what I'm getting at

but this is a necessary facet of wrestling.

No it is not. Good guy vs Bad Guy is the necessary facet of wrestling. Its also the necessary facet in every other fictional tale every written ever. The only difference is how good and how evil are you?

Every heel breaks rules, every heel is a dick, etc, etc.

Not necessarily, no. "Heel" means, in wrestling terms, you're supposed to be boo'd out of the building. Now say we have this character. He's happy go-lucky all the damn time. He's boo'd out the building. Is he a face or a heel?

Classic example: The Rock. As a goody two shoes guy, people hated him. He was a face. He then turned heel. The amount of popularity automatically turned him face. When was he a heel and when was he a face? Of course in the classic style of thinking, he was a face when he was goody two shoes. But he was a heel at WM 15. Yet the crowd reaction was vicer versa. Why was that? That is what I'm getting at.

But all of these guys have different gimmicks.

Do they all work?

Is del Rio the same as Sheamus?

Is Sheamus getting as much heat as Del Rio?

Is CM Punk the same as the Miz?

In recent weeks, yes he is

A Mexican aristocrat gimmick is very different than a Celtic warrior.

Which one is more effective at garnering heat?

They cut different promos, wrestle different styles, have different feuds.

Who is on Raw?

The same goes for a straight-edge cult leader versus a cocky hotshot

Punk is now just a heel. Just as Miz is just a heel. That cult leader thing fizzled out with the Nexus.

o

r a disfigured psycopath versus an English brute.

Is Barrett actually being an English brute? Or is he being a cowardly "I MADE YOU!!" Heel

T

hey've all got different gimmicks with unique characters and nuances.

My point is, one is better than the other and therefore one is more duplicated than the other, and therefore why the uniqueness of heels have died down.

I'm not sure how well acquainted you are with logic.

[YOUTUBE]FcXyK-yAIFo[/YOUTUBE]

you then demonstrate that modern heels can be interpreted differently by different people.

I'm showing how an adult would interpret Miz and Christian. Not a child.

..showing that they are in fact more than simple cartoon villains.

No, I'm saying that as an adult, I can relate more to a heel than a child. A child will hate the heel for being an asshole. I'll love him because he just beat the crap out of a champion I'm sick and tired of watching.

Alberto del Rio

JBL. Not Million Dollar Man. Del Rio does not have clips showing how rich he is. Del Rio's just a rich asshole. Like JBL.

the Miz

Recycled from the early days of almost every single cocky hotshot heel including Cena, Rock and Austin.

Henry

Big Show
Khali
Andre

Show

See above

Kane

Taker.

But kane is one of a kind.

You've got basically the same types of characters today.

We have simpler, dumbed down, and slightly sophisticated characters today. Who work. Which is a good thing. Thus, my thread.

You never had contingents of fans cheering Ted DiBiase in his heyday, but you can find a number of people who will go to arenas and cheer for heels today.

A child?

This is probably just as much the result of a change in the attitude of wrestling fans and the rise of the Internet than it is a change in the sorts of characters you get.

Which was what I was getting at...

But I think by and large you'll see that there were many more cartoony heels in the 80s than there are today

Right. In the 80's wrestling was 100% kayfabe. Today the heels are much more "modern" but have the same character inside of them. Which work. Which is good. Thus my thread.

This is just as true now as it was then. Heels have pretty much always been cocky and arrogant

Not ALWAYS. In the 80's heels were rather cartoonish. In the 90's they were sick and twisted.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Papa Shango was not even around until 1992. Why the hell is he in that list anyway? And as far as today being more sophisticated than the 80s. Yeah fucking right. Today we are in a culture that lives, eats and breathes the Jersey Shore and Keeping Up With The Kardashians. If anything we are regressing rather than progressing when it boils down to our entertainment options. And let me tell you I think professional wrestling is more genuine than some of that Reality TV bullshit, I'll tell you that. Seriously.

It's as simple as this, even though the 80s was full of flamboyant and over the top heels that is not such a bad thing to be honest. And to some extent characters like The Miz and Alberto Del Rio show an appreciation for previous eras while still realizing that this is the 2010s. CM Punk is another great example of a great heel and while he, ADR and Miz share characteristics that are similar they are different enough in my opinion to not be considered too similar. Anyone who wants to over simplify and discredit these individuals as being too similar is up their own ass if you want my opinion.

Bottom line is this, wrestling as a whole is not attracting viewers like they did in the 80s and 90s, the business is doing well but right now it's just coasting right now. But still there are positives to the product and there are still some compelling characters, I don't have the same affinity towards today's WWE compared to the Federation and Attitude eras of the WWF.

But just the same there are still some good heels running around and doing a good job of being the dastardly villains they are intended to be.

 

[Derf]

Saying every heal is an "arrogent prick" is like saying every face is a "kiss ass to the fans". Every face on the roster goes out, thanks the fans, never backs down from a fight, and is always making fun of the arogent pricks. It's booking 101. Make the fans hate the bad guys. People hate arogent pricks, and just about anyone will like you if you keep saying "I wrestle to entertain you fans". I don't think people are clones simply because they are either face or heal, because when you think about it, that's what your argument boils down to, and really, besides face and heal, what else is there?

 

[HBKStreakbuster]

Here is the problem....back in the day, the heels were VERY GOOD on the mic...and if they weren't they had MANAGERS that were very good. Piper, HBK, Undertaker, Hogan, DiBiase, Jake the Snake, Macho, hell...even the Iron Shiek would spit and get people riled up...they all brought out emotion and a sense of realism....and the ones that couldn't speak like Kamala, Orndorff, Orton, or Nicoli Volkov had managers like Mr. Fuji, Bobby Heenan, Mouth of the South or Classy Freddie Blassie, or Captain Lou do it for them

Nowadays there are no managers...and none of these guys can talk on the mic at all!!!!...and everything is so damn obvious and repititive....How many times in a row has the Miz came out and said "Really" 5 times...it's soooooo lame.

Also don't forget a good heel announcer means everything. Jesse The Body was AWESOME...and now compare that to Michael Cole....case closed.

an you imagine if Piper's whole schtick was saying...Really.....I mean cmon..

WWE is wayyyy too predictable, so there are no Heels that bring the emotion out of us.
xWWE needs to bring back MANAGERS!!

 

[MaxPlastic]

If being booed out of the building is a heel qualification, John Cena is the biggest heel or 'tweener WWE has ever had.
The mere fact that you broke down the previous response with different responses shows that heels today, while some may be recycled, are just as varied and interesting as they were then. I do agree that managers can definitely help a wrestler who can't talk, or who isn't getting over, so that would be cool to see. Jinder Mahal is helping Khali pretty nicely (Or vice versa?).
As for the clips you showed... I don't understand the relevance. The bad guys are pretty clear cut. And obviously today's WWE is geared towards kids. The bad guys are gonna be more clear cut instead of the anti-heroes we had in the late 90s early 2000s.
So yeah, all the heels are 'pricks,' but they're all different characters. You're basically saying that they aren't varied enough because they are all 'just pricks.' What do you want them to do? Burn down houses? Kill unborn babies?
Also, in my opinion, when you make a thread about heels mentioning classic and well-loved heels and never mention Chris Jericho, I really question the overall validity...

 

[sislater69]

I'm not sure suggesting today's children could not identify between a "heel" and a "tweener" is particularly accurate and almost medieval in it's generalization.

My son is only 7. He is a wrestling fan, yet is more likely to cheer for a CM Punk character than a John Cena. He can see that Punk represents good through not drinking, smoking etc.

He is the child who wants to see Darth Vader beat Luke Skywalker because he realises the guy had a difficult upbringing. He wants (even in your example) Syndrome to beat Mr. Incredible because he understands that Mr. Incredible ignoring his biggest fan is heelish.

Maybe it's my son that's odd, but I'm not so sure kids are as gullible and see the world as black and white as you are portraying.

 

[Foshinzo]

All I'm going to add are a couple of comments: Papa Shango wasn't a big deal, outside of those few appearances he made and making the Ultimate Warrior throw up, and making green stuff pour from the Warrior's head. You're right about Shango in that only morons would buy it...and that's why nobody bought how stupid Shango was. But, you mention guys like Piper and Andre when I have to ask, "What was there to buy?" Piper didn't really have a gimmick, other than he was an angry, possibly racist Scotsman who'd beat you up for no reason, and Andre didn't have a gimmick at all, other than he was really big and you couldn't body slam him. It was easy to believe their characters because they weren't so outrageous. Jake Roberts had the snake, but his character was mostly just a psycho who loved to torture people, good or bad. Ted DiBiase wasn't really that rich, everyone knew that, but when he, say, kicked that basketball out of the little kid's hand while he was dribbling? That was messed up and fans rallied against that guy.

My whole argument with everyone in the WWE needing character is that nobody ever really does anything. They come out, talk trash about each other, have a scrap, and then a match is announced. It's become so routine in the WWE. Remember how everyone couldn't shut up about the Nexus' debut, last summer? That's because something actually happened. Even when Jake Roberts was going through the motions, the snake was still exciting and you'd look forward to it. I think the problem with wrestling is that they are trying to make it too much like theater and less of a circus, when it takes a great blend of both to make it work. We remember Stone Cold less for his matches and more for the beer baths. That's why I resent the Miz; he hasn't really done anything to make his character memorable. You know exactly what he'll do when he comes out, and whether you like it or not, he's not the Rock and all of his promos are the exact same performance and almost the same dialogue. At least with R-Truth, right now, he's doing the things where he picks on little kids and dresses up like Confederate colonels, but those too aren't exciting or memorable, and the latter was only funny because of how absurd it was. WWE just isn't edgy anymore; it feels like they're not even trying, and it shows. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking their writers because I'm sure PG killed some of the edge and it's a tough job, to begin with, but no matter how you rationalize it, characters blending in together is never a good thing.

 

[S.J. Maximus]

I think you need to define good in the title of this thread because the responses to this topic have varied in content and purpose. It appears as if the OP is saying that all the heels of today are all the same arrogant asshole and that is good for the business because the product is PG. If that's what he's saying, than I agree and disagree. I do agree that all heels of today are generally the same but a major difference between heels of today vs heels of any other time period (but especially the 80's because it was PG back then too) is their kayfabe abilities in the ring.

My best example is Christian, who just last month was perceived as the hardworking never back down challenger who would give it his all on every given night. Now that he's a heel, his entire persona changes and now he's a coward? What about Kane who was face and wreaking havoc on all these people - if he were too turn heel he wouldn't be able to win clean against a midcard guy unless he cheated to win! This did not happen nearly as much in any generation of wrestling as it does now. Before, yes the heel would cheat a lot and bend the rules but if they were forced to play by the rules and truly test themselves against the main event face they always held their own without looking weak (see Hart Brothers match at WMX). Nowadays, the only way someone like CM Punk can win against a star like Cena is with interference by R-Truth or the New Nexus, and I don't think that's a good thing at all.

My issue with the heels today is not that they're all the same arrogant pricks because they actually do a good job of trying to be unique, my issue is that no heel is booked to ever look strong against a face of the same caliber. That was never an issue during the Attitude Era (HHH) but was a small issue during the Golden Age (Roddy Piper).

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

First of all, brilliant. Major props for understanding why WWE does what it does with its heels in a mainly PG demographic.

Second, I think the WWE has a decent collection of heels. You look at TNA, and most of their heels are the same. Especially when Jeff Hardy was around full time, all of their heels were "I don't care about anybody but me, I'm going to do what I want, and I'm a part of Immortal so suck it." WWE does a lot of their main demographic, and that's why we have obvious heels like the Miz. There's nothing too special about the Miz, but he is cut-and-paste heel formula that beats up on John Cena and is over huge as a heel. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. But on the other hand we have CM Punk. There are very few kids who understand the evil that is CM Punk. He's cocky and "better than you", but how many kids really understand the "Straight edge means I'm better than you" line? How many of them really get the "faith through pain" mentality? He's a crazy person, but he's a master manipulator. CM Punk is the IWC's heel... I also think Randy Orton does a brilliant job as a heel, and a mediocre job as face. His work with Triple H a few years ago was killer (legend killer...). The heels in the WWE all have their own unique persona if their given enough time to build it.

Now the faces on the other hand... The faces are all modeled after John Cena, but none of them are given the time to actually rise to that level. You have 10 guys that could be unique, but are instead cutting the same promos, pulling off the same type of moves, and jobbing 80% of the match to set up the quick fan-favorite finish. Guys like Kofi Kingston who COULD be a high flying visionary, and Rey Mysterio who WAS a high flying pioneer, are limited to doing their high spots in a contained environment, because the audience needs to be well-acquainted with their limited move-set. It's not the heels that are cookie-cutter and boring, it's the faces. And that should speak to the level of faith Vince has in his own talent, because it's 10x easier to build a heel than a face.

 

[maxparrott]

Saying every heal is an "arrogent prick" is like saying every face is a "kiss ass to the fans". Every face on the roster goes out, thanks the fans, never backs down from a fight, and is always making fun of the arogent pricks. It's booking 101. Make the fans hate the bad guys. People hate arogent pricks, and just about anyone will like you if you keep saying "I wrestle to entertain you fans". I don't think people are clones simply because they are either face or heal, because when you think about it, that's what your argument boils down to, and really, besides face and heal, what else is there?

Hey all. Long time reader, first time poster. I agree with the above. I've always loved pro-wrestling because it does one thing better than any other form of entertainment... it finds the lowest common denominator.

Heels are the most basic cartoon villains. They have no redeemable qualities. They're arrogant, they cheat, they run away from a fight. It's always been the same qualities. The OP is saying that all the heels are arrogant pricks. Of course they are. That's the lowest common denominator. Nobody likes an arrogant prick. Based solely on kayfabe, none of us would like the heels. Kids only see kayfabe.

I wonder what the OP sees as the alternative. Humble friendly heels? I agree that WWE could do better with their characters. They could be more over the top. I also agree that there are too many generic superstars. I just don't think CM Punk, Miz, and Alberto del Rio are the problem.

At the root heels have the same basic qualities: arrogance, dishonesty, a sense of entitlement, a me-first attitude, etc... I think these qualities are the definition of the wrestling heel.