This is of course just all my opinion and I don't mean to speak for anyone else or put words in the IWC's mouth. This is all just based off general observations.
Also, this is my first thread and I'm not sure if this is in the right place or not, so please move it if I've made a mistake.
So, if you haven't already rioted from the title, you can tell what this is going to be about. I'm going to try to not make this thread as egregiously long as it is in my head and be direct to the point. Sorry if I ramble, like I am doing now.
I've been posting on Wrestlezone Forums for a little bit, now, and I've noticed some major complaints about today's product, mostly the WWE's product: John Cena, the PG rating, meaningless titles, etc. All of these are points that people bring up that they feel should be changed in order to make today's product better. Well, I've got one major complaint about today's product that I think would fix a lot of the problems, for the viewers:
Today's product is just boring. The characters are boring, the stories are boring, just the whole production has gotten boring.
Of course, you can probably piece together how I think it would be more entertaining: We need gimmicks to come back. Period.
Now, "gimmicks," is one of those, "zed words," on the IWC. We immediately think of Doink the Clown and all the dumb gimmicks of the early 90s. But, try to realize that everyone, EVERYONE, has a gimmick.
Gimmicks are simply just the name we give to the reason you'd pay to see someone. An example for the IWC would be CM Punk: we pay to see him because he has a loose cannon gimmick and he's going to do things we might not expect; I think that's how he's like Austin.
Even the masters of the, "non-gimmick," like Bret Hart, Kurt Angle, even Ric Flair all just had really great gimmicks: Bret was The Hitman, meaning his character was sharp, dangerous, and cunning. It might not be a flamboyant gimmick, but it's still a gimmick. Kurt, of course, was the Olympian, meaning he was just a damn great wrestler...so good you'd pay money just to see that.
Flair was just Ric Flair, with the coats, the underhanded style...he was just a great heel and that was his whole gimmick.
Now, look at what a bad gimmick can do to someone: John Cena.
I think the reason the IWC hates Cena so much is because his gimmick is just so bad. The jean shorts, the attitude of his character, his lack of variety in his wrestling style, his relentless title swapping...it's all just his gimmick. John Cena is not a bad entertainer, people. He's not even a bad wrestler, either. John Cena's gimmick is just so lame that you can't help but hate it. Of course, tons of people love Cena, and that's fine. I'm speaking to the people who can't stand him. His gimmick is just bad, to me, and I think it holds him back, in the public eye.
However, look at all the legends who had stupid gimmicks but ran with it: Kane, The Ultimate Warrior, "King" Booker, Honky Tonk Man, Goldust, IRS Man, Psycho Syd, Million Dollar Man...you can go on for forever. These men made it work because they were so very talented and such great entertainers that you bought it.
The king of the dumb gimmick that translated into a legendary career is of course, The Undertaker. If you had given just about anyone else that gimmick, how well do you think it would have gone over? A morbidly obese, pasty white guy with a hilariously shrill voice walks a, "dead man," to the ring who is powered by a mystical urn...um, what? But, Mark Calaway was just so good at it that you couldn't help but get sucked into it. It's like Paul Heyman says: you have to accentuate the positives in a performer. Mark Calaway had so much upside as a performer that the dumb gimmick actually made him stand out so you could see him as a great performer. While Cena's gimmick drags him down, Undertaker's made him better. Orton is like an anti-Cena, to me. He's a fine performer who got his gimmick over with the audience. Cena never really did get his gimmick over with the whole audience, and he built a career out of being the guy who finally came along and shut JBL up.
FINALLY (again, I'm sorry for the length, here,), look at today's roster: Why would anyone pay to see or even care about Jack Swagger? Nothing about his gimmick is something that you would jump at. Okay, so he's an All-American amateur wrestler with a dumb lisp and he did a thing with a guy in an eagle costume...his gimmick is starting to bring him down, too. If you want a guy like Swagger to get over, he needs to be like Kurt Angle; he needs to just prove to us he's a great amateur wrestler, and he needs to be unstoppable on the mat.
Same for Dolph Ziggler: he's a very talented wrestler, but other than that...what can you say about him? He's been riding on Vickie's cheap heat for what feels like forever, now.
Look at John Morrison: he's on his way out the door because his gimmick had no flavor to it, among many other reasons. Sure, he's a parkour wiz, and when he showed that off, like at the Royal Rumble, he was awesome and people loved him. But, on an average day, he's just a pretty boy with an awkward wrestling style that was one cool attribute away from making you love him, and I firmly believe that.
I'm going to have to cut this off now, because it's gone on for forever, but I think you get the point. Stupid gimmicks only suck as much as the performer does. Zack Ryder is getting over now with his gimmick, and if they don't translate his positives over to television, he'll never get that big push. Wrestling is so easy: find a performer with entertaining attributes and accentuate those so people will pay to see him. It worked for Hogan, it worked for Austin, and it's both carried Cena and held him back.
TL;DR
I think WWE needs to worry about gimmick development more than they do their talent roster in general, because they have good performers with no reason to actually care about them.
If they'd actually develop these people into someone we'd want to see, then we'd tune in and pay to see them, more.
Also, this is my first thread and I'm not sure if this is in the right place or not, so please move it if I've made a mistake.
So, if you haven't already rioted from the title, you can tell what this is going to be about. I'm going to try to not make this thread as egregiously long as it is in my head and be direct to the point. Sorry if I ramble, like I am doing now.
I've been posting on Wrestlezone Forums for a little bit, now, and I've noticed some major complaints about today's product, mostly the WWE's product: John Cena, the PG rating, meaningless titles, etc. All of these are points that people bring up that they feel should be changed in order to make today's product better. Well, I've got one major complaint about today's product that I think would fix a lot of the problems, for the viewers:
Today's product is just boring. The characters are boring, the stories are boring, just the whole production has gotten boring.
Of course, you can probably piece together how I think it would be more entertaining: We need gimmicks to come back. Period.
Now, "gimmicks," is one of those, "zed words," on the IWC. We immediately think of Doink the Clown and all the dumb gimmicks of the early 90s. But, try to realize that everyone, EVERYONE, has a gimmick.
Gimmicks are simply just the name we give to the reason you'd pay to see someone. An example for the IWC would be CM Punk: we pay to see him because he has a loose cannon gimmick and he's going to do things we might not expect; I think that's how he's like Austin.
Even the masters of the, "non-gimmick," like Bret Hart, Kurt Angle, even Ric Flair all just had really great gimmicks: Bret was The Hitman, meaning his character was sharp, dangerous, and cunning. It might not be a flamboyant gimmick, but it's still a gimmick. Kurt, of course, was the Olympian, meaning he was just a damn great wrestler...so good you'd pay money just to see that.
Flair was just Ric Flair, with the coats, the underhanded style...he was just a great heel and that was his whole gimmick.
Now, look at what a bad gimmick can do to someone: John Cena.
I think the reason the IWC hates Cena so much is because his gimmick is just so bad. The jean shorts, the attitude of his character, his lack of variety in his wrestling style, his relentless title swapping...it's all just his gimmick. John Cena is not a bad entertainer, people. He's not even a bad wrestler, either. John Cena's gimmick is just so lame that you can't help but hate it. Of course, tons of people love Cena, and that's fine. I'm speaking to the people who can't stand him. His gimmick is just bad, to me, and I think it holds him back, in the public eye.
However, look at all the legends who had stupid gimmicks but ran with it: Kane, The Ultimate Warrior, "King" Booker, Honky Tonk Man, Goldust, IRS Man, Psycho Syd, Million Dollar Man...you can go on for forever. These men made it work because they were so very talented and such great entertainers that you bought it.
The king of the dumb gimmick that translated into a legendary career is of course, The Undertaker. If you had given just about anyone else that gimmick, how well do you think it would have gone over? A morbidly obese, pasty white guy with a hilariously shrill voice walks a, "dead man," to the ring who is powered by a mystical urn...um, what? But, Mark Calaway was just so good at it that you couldn't help but get sucked into it. It's like Paul Heyman says: you have to accentuate the positives in a performer. Mark Calaway had so much upside as a performer that the dumb gimmick actually made him stand out so you could see him as a great performer. While Cena's gimmick drags him down, Undertaker's made him better. Orton is like an anti-Cena, to me. He's a fine performer who got his gimmick over with the audience. Cena never really did get his gimmick over with the whole audience, and he built a career out of being the guy who finally came along and shut JBL up.
FINALLY (again, I'm sorry for the length, here,), look at today's roster: Why would anyone pay to see or even care about Jack Swagger? Nothing about his gimmick is something that you would jump at. Okay, so he's an All-American amateur wrestler with a dumb lisp and he did a thing with a guy in an eagle costume...his gimmick is starting to bring him down, too. If you want a guy like Swagger to get over, he needs to be like Kurt Angle; he needs to just prove to us he's a great amateur wrestler, and he needs to be unstoppable on the mat.
Same for Dolph Ziggler: he's a very talented wrestler, but other than that...what can you say about him? He's been riding on Vickie's cheap heat for what feels like forever, now.
Look at John Morrison: he's on his way out the door because his gimmick had no flavor to it, among many other reasons. Sure, he's a parkour wiz, and when he showed that off, like at the Royal Rumble, he was awesome and people loved him. But, on an average day, he's just a pretty boy with an awkward wrestling style that was one cool attribute away from making you love him, and I firmly believe that.
I'm going to have to cut this off now, because it's gone on for forever, but I think you get the point. Stupid gimmicks only suck as much as the performer does. Zack Ryder is getting over now with his gimmick, and if they don't translate his positives over to television, he'll never get that big push. Wrestling is so easy: find a performer with entertaining attributes and accentuate those so people will pay to see him. It worked for Hogan, it worked for Austin, and it's both carried Cena and held him back.
TL;DR
I think WWE needs to worry about gimmick development more than they do their talent roster in general, because they have good performers with no reason to actually care about them.
If they'd actually develop these people into someone we'd want to see, then we'd tune in and pay to see them, more.
