WWE characters and their development

[CyberPunk]

I've been thinking about discussing this for some time, and here I am finally doing it.

Since Rumble, we've talking a lot about Reigns and whether his push is deserved. Also, we've been talking about Bryan and Ziggler and Ambrose and why they should/shouldn't have won the Rumble. Amidst all that, I've been thinking the reasons that have caused people to discuss these factors at such length. And somewhere, it seems that it all has to do with their characters.

WWE has always had gimmicks and characters. Some work, some don't, but for the most part, these characters become the identity of that talent. And for some reasons, in last few years, WWE has almost neglected developing a character or its story. I'll try and explain this with few examples.

I have a few exhibits. Exhibit A. Whether you want to admit or not, there has been no character more popular or over in last 2-3 years than Daniel Bryan's. So what made it popular? Was it all his wrestling abilities? Or was it just his 'Yes/No' chants that caught fire? No. It was his character that connected with the fans. When he entered WWE, he was as bland and vanilla as someone can get. He always had great wrestling techniques and abilities, but people took notice when he first turned heel. He started developing as someone who'd annoy you while putting on great matches. Then he turned into a comic character tagging with Kane. People started noticing his personality and what he brought to the table. Finally, he evolved into one of the simplest gimmick i.e. a hard working pro-wrestler who knows only one thing and knows it better than anyone else (the notion that machine wants to hold him back added fuel to fire). People saw the growth of Daniel Bryan as a character and immediately got behind him. While Daniel Bryan is not great on mic, his promos were believable and people could see his points. What happened after is for everyone to see.

Exhibit B, Reigns. Fantastic look, believable badass and that all he was during his Shield days. Even as a heel, people could see what he was meant to do, i.e. a silent person who let his actions do the talking. Never spoke much, but whatever he spoke meant something. It fit his personality and people got behind that. Then the shield broke and all the character development went to hell. Instead of going after Rollins or Triple H (two people who were responsible of stabbing him in the back), he was feuding with Orton. After returning from injury, he was then told to do something he's not very good at, i.e. cut Cenasque promos. The character had no development. He was still wearing Shield gear (for god knows why), came down to Shield music, and started doing everything that was unlike Shield. And that too without rhyme or reason. His promos got more corny and for someone who was a complete badass, his references to looney tunes and cartoons were unbearable. And again, instead of going after Rollins or Triple H, he went after Big Show. So, instead of speaking less and kicking ass, he spoke more and got his ass handed to him. That feud did more damage than anything else. He lost quite a bit of fan support as well. At least at this point, it seems they are trying to fix that.

Exhibit C, Rollins. The architect of the Shield. He was the workhorse, who'll do bulk of the work for the faction in matches. He was good. His job in the Shield was also to hold the group together. Then he progressed. He stabbed his brothers in the back for a very plausible reason: to secure his future. His ring work was always more than decent, he kept getting better on the mic, the most important thing, his character developed in the right direction. He became that slimy heel who would do anything to make his life better. He had the feud of the year with Ambrose, which in turn benefited Ambrose as well and made both of them look like stars. He showed what he was capable of inside the ring and on the mic. In process, he became that heel that people loved to hate.

Now, I won't call any of them successful or unsuccessful characters, but just what got them into their current roles. 2 characters who had a proper path and defined motivations were embraced by fans. One other who had a great start but without the right build, got thrust into a position where his character has no motivation other than that he's there. Let's talk about some other characters. Bad News Barrett. What is he doing as a character? Why is he not cutting a promo about being one of the most important people on the roster because he is the current IC champion? Ryback cut a promo about his struggles and what got him where he is. Where is the development from that point? Luke Harper. First he listened to Bray Wyatt, now he does what the Authority asks. So what is his character again? The New Day are all about positivity and good energy. So what have they done to spread that message? Bray Wyatt. He has sent message after message after message, but what has been the payoff so far? Why Fandango, a ball room dancer, wrestles? What's his motivation? 3 hours of Raw and 2 hours of Smackdown with one hour of Main Event is hell lot of programming. So why are they not used to advance and develop some characters? Business, stock holders, advertisers are all good, but if you're in show biz, your characters matter.

My question is, why doesn't WWE try and develop characters instead of simply pushing/derailing someone? Is it all Vince or do you see some other reason as well?

Which characters would you take up and try to build? Whichever you pick, would you completely change the character/gimmick or tweak it into something else?

Hopefully, we can discuss.

 

[GeminiGarlord]

Amen

WWE right now sadly lacks in medium scale storytelling, which is annoying because when I want to see people wrestle without caring about a larger plot I just watch NJPW.

Totally agree on reigns, in his three months as a single guy non of his feuds made any keyfabe sense.

 

[TheICChampion]

I wouldn't say it's ALL Vince, because he doesn't do everything on his own, but everything goes through him and he has the final say on all of it. Good ideas, bad ideas, Vince has to approve all of it before it makes it to TV. Then there's his ADHD booking decisions and the very high probability that most of the RAW shows go to air after having just been rewritten (whether it be the whole show or quite a few of the segments) maybe an hour before the cameras start rolling.

The thing with characters is sometimes if they don't get the reaction that Vince wants RIGHT AWAY, he changes it or drops it entirely. Sometimes it's the complete opposite, where fans are tired of a character and desperate for a change and they never get it. Or when they do they don't care anymore. It's really tough finding that perfect balance.

As for who I would try to build up, it would likely be....Dean Ambrose. They keep calling him the Lunatic Fringe. First of all, get rid of the "Fringe" from that moniker. Just call him "The Lunatic". Or drop the nickname entirely and just refer to him as a lunatic. Either way, WWE NEEDS to play this up. Other than some comedy segments and a few kooky expressions here and there, we haven't seen that side of him all that much in the ring or how he wrestles. I'm not saying go overboard and have him go completely bonkers and start whacking everyone with chairs, but just have him go nuts and maybe get DQ'ed a few times by not letting up on his opponent, like he doesn't legitimately care if he wins or loses. If someone doesn't care if he wins or loses, why would he ever bother going for a pinfall? Maybe give him a submission he can use to inflict harm on his opponent and not let go when the match is over, kind of like Shamrock used to do. Have him "snap" a few times, then play that up as well, like they're never really sure if he's going to flip out.

 

[MartialHorror]

As said, creative just can't seem to figure out exactly how to develop the characters.

One thing that bothers me is how transparent the writing has become. For example, the Big Show never feels like he's developing as much as he's just playing two roles. Either he's a nice guy who stands up for what is right or he's a jerk who gloats and bullies. There's no real development there.

Or what about Rowan stating how he disliked bullies...when not long ago, he was being just that. To their credit, it does seem like they're trying to flesh out his character, but it all seems very irrelevant and wasteful. They were doing a good job with Rusev, but eventually dropped the ball. When did Goldust and Stardust turn face? Why is their team falling apart? WWE isn't interested in 'why', they just want it to happen.

The writing has stagnated. WWE seems uncomfortable with putting people over. I'm not even sure who the most relevant superstar is right now. You'd think it would be Reigns, except they aren't having him main event the various Raw's or Smackdown's.

 

[Mustang Sally]

My question is, why doesn't WWE try and develop characters instead of simply pushing/derailing someone?

You make valid points and since none of us know the inner workings of WWE, it's hard to come up with definitive answers.

However, there are a few points to ponder: Looking through pro wrestling rumor mills, a consistently addressed subject is how little wrestling actually takes place on a wrestling program, as in: "There were only 18 minutes of actual wrestling in the last two-hour episode of Raw!" I read that and think the thrust of the message is that they want less talk and more wrestling, right? Well, building characters is going to take more out-of-ring time, and it has to be decided whether that's what to give WWE fans....or not.

For that matter, the "talk" segments that occur at the start of every Raw.....good character-building opportunities depending on who's in the ring, no? Yet, look at the audience seated in view of your TV screen. How many of them are looking everywhere but the ring? It would seem they want the wrestling, not talking, yes? (Of course, many of the same fans aren't looking at the ring during matches, either, making me wonder why in hell they paid money to go to the arena......but that's a whole different subject).

Lastly, WWE is star-driven. The top people get the most attention and there's only so much time to go around. Does that detract from the non-headlining performers? Hell yeah, it does. But, given that this is the method of operation WWE (and other wrestling companies) have chosen, it means there's only so much time for character development.

Guys like Daniel Bryan, John Cena, Roman Reigns and Seth Rollins? As you say, we know them well....ample time is being spent on them. Perhaps that's all WWE feels the average wrestling fan has the patience to accept and absorb.

Perhaps they're right. Personally, I'd like to see more personal development but watching how poorly many of the talking segments are received, I might be in the minority. When Stephanie McMahon is featured in a backstage segment, trying to develop a storyline while the fans (off-camera) are chanting: "Yes!" rather than listening to her, I often wonder how much the people in attendance care about character development and storylines.

 

[CyberPunk]

You make valid points and since none of us know the inner workings of WWE, it's hard to come up with definitive answers.

However, there are a few points to ponder: Looking through pro wrestling rumor mills, a consistently addressed subject is how little wrestling actually takes place on a wrestling program, as in: "There were only 18 minutes of actual wrestling in the last two-hour episode of Raw!" I read that and think the thrust of the message is that they want less talk and more wrestling, right? Well, building characters is going to take more out-of-ring time, and it has to be decided whether that's what to give WWE fans....or not.

For that matter, the "talk" segments that occur at the start of every Raw.....good character-building opportunities depending on who's in the ring, no? Yet, look at the audience seated in view of your TV screen. How many of them are looking everywhere but the ring? It would seem they want the wrestling, not talking, yes? (Of course, many of the same fans aren't looking at the ring during matches, either, making me wonder why in hell they paid money to go to the arena......but that's a whole different subject).

Lastly, WWE is star-driven. The top people get the most attention and there's only so much time to go around. Does that detract from the non-headlining performers? Hell yeah, it does. But, given that this is the method of operation WWE (and other wrestling companies) have chosen, it means there's only so much time for character development.

Guys like Daniel Bryan, John Cena, Roman Reigns and Seth Rollins? As you say, we know them well....ample time is being spent on them. Perhaps that's all WWE feels the average wrestling fan has the patience to accept and absorb.

Perhaps they're right. Personally, I'd like to see more personal development but watching how poorly many of the talking segments are received, I might be in the minority. When Stephanie McMahon is featured in a backstage segment, trying to develop a storyline while the fans (off-camera) are chanting: "Yes!" rather than listening to her, I often wonder how much the people in attendance care about character development and storylines.

Yeah my first question is actually a bit frustrated one, I don't think anyone, including me, can find or give an answer to that.

As far as people in the audience are concerned, I feel sometimes there are so zoned out because of the kind of segments that have been played out in front of them before a meaningful segment starts. Point in case, Rowan's whole character development segments have not been received that well by live crowd. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try some. The matches are either random pairings with no real reason, or rematch of something already seen, which means people may not care what's in front of them. How many Reigns vs Show matches can you take afterall in a week?

I still remember the Team Hell no segments and people in the attendance actually enjoying them. Or Mizdow segments which are well received. That means if something interesting is happening, people will pay attention. Where's that reason?

You make a very good point in this industry being star driven. But what made them a star is something WWE seems to have been ignoring.

 

[chuckmdubya]

Just kind of a guess here but I think its really more up to the performer than the company to develop a character. Now I understand that there is not as much creative freedom as there used to be for superstars, but historically it has been the superstar that either made a gimmick work or not, and to adjust the character is it progresses through time. The perfect example would be the Undertaker. Noone has ever kept the same basic gimmick and made it work as long as he did. He went from the silent deadman, to doing his own talking when bearer left, to the demented leader of the Ministry, to the American bad ass, and then back to the original gimmick with much more theatrics. I cannot think of a true gimmick wrestler that has been as successful.

As far as why they don't develop more, I've got no clue. I don't think that a so called superman punch, greasy hair do, and tactical gear qualify Reigns to be the WrestleMania main event winner. They should have spent another year or two developing him because he will never get over enough as a face champ. He has nothing but a few years spent as part of a faction, a so-so rivalry with his former mate, and an extremely tainted Royal Rumble win. The fans need more to get behind. His arrogant demeanor does not work for someone so new to the business particularly with such below par mic skills. I wish they would have spent more time developing him instead of throwing him in the deep end and hoping that the Rock would help him swim.

 

[Navi]

My question is, why doesn't WWE try and develop characters instead of simply pushing/derailing someone? Is it all Vince or do you see some other reason as well?

I think to a certain extent they do try to develop the characters, the issue is what happens to them once they are developed.

Let's take the current situation of Bryan/Reigns since it is in the forefront.

Daniel Bryan isn't a wrestler that most would have thought of as being a fan favourite when you see him at first glance. He's not that much to look at, and he doesn't fit the regular superstar type that we're used to seeing. Not very tall, muscular, nothing really outstanding about him. He has a quiet, nonthreatening manner that appeals to a lot of people. That is until he gets into the ring. He's one hell of a wrestler. Very good technical skills and you can tell he has a passion for the business, he's a hardworker and never backs down from what's thrown at him. The Authority came right out and said, he's a "B" player and will never amount to much and threw the kitchen sink at him.

What did Daniel Bryan do, he overcame every obstacle put in front of him, and because he looks like the guy next door, the fans rallied behind him. The YES movement started and hasn't stopped. The WWE booked him as the ultimate underdog and fans went with it. And I think the WWE, Vince in particular underestimated the extent that fans were behind him. Now they find themselves in a conundrum. More about that later.

Then you take Roman Reigns. Guy has a fantastic linage, look, charisma and intensity. Unfortunately that's all he really has. When he came up with the Shield, he had two partners in Rollins and Ambrose who did most of the work, both in the ring and on the mic. He only did 1/3 of what was required. Rollins and Ambrose would beat the others down, give the hot tag to Reigns and he would come in and close out the match. He looked spectacular. He was the juggernaut, the powerhouse of the Shield. What we didn't know was that he couldn't talk very well on the mic, and he's not very good in the ring. The WWE knew that however, and used the other two to cover it up.

When they split up the Shield, Reigns shortcomings became very apparent and that's were the character development as let him down. When we see him now he still wears the same gear, uses the same music, and has the same entrance. It's like the ghosts of Rollins and Ambrose enter with him, exceptt they've gone to do bigger and better things. Reigns hasn't progressed out of the Shield persona and even though he has the look that most would die for, there is nothing behind it. Instead of giving him the time to develop, Vince wants him to go straight to the top, and the fans have said NO, enough is enough. They want Daniel Bryan.

And this is were you have your conundrum. The WWE can develop characters until the cows come home, but who are they developing those characters for, the fans. The fans pick and choose in great numbers who they want, and they've picked the winner here. The problem is the WWE doesn't want who the fans picked, they want their hand picked guy.

There is no issue in pushing two guys at the same time, but when the fans clearly pick the winner, you have to go with it. Vince doesn't want to do that because it doesn't fit in with his grand scheme of things. So we have two wrestlers right now, one is great, an the other is learning. What the WWE is going is holding back the one the fans want and pushing the new guy that they don't. So the answer to your question is they do try to create and push new characters, they just don't sometimes like the fact that the fans might pick in the WWE's mind the wrong guy.