Good vs. Evil

[McShamrock]

In wrestling ... is good really boring? Is evil really that interesting? Should we consume all things in moderation? Nowdays is it just the face on the proverbial cereal box that gets a crowd worked up or do you have to have something more? First and foremost ... what gets you behind a guy or gal? His workrate? His mic skills? A good storyline? Humor? His status as a bad-arse? I'm just curious as to the mindset of the modern fan ... since, I'm weird and all, and can't relate to some of this stuff that gets over now ...

[FINisher]

I define wrestlers on their movesets and appearance. I've always like those really stiff power move -badasses (Taker, Kane, Triple H, Kobashi and lots of others, i.e anyone who has different kinds of deadly suplexes, -breakers, -bombs, -slams or -drivers, especially Piledrivers) or those who have a unique arsenal of moves (RVD, AJ Styles, and a lot of guys from Japan whose name I can't remember right now). And yes, I root for the bad guys usually. Especially the heel Kane and Brock Lesnar when he was in WWE. I never really liked Ric Flair, Hogan, The Rock, Owen/Bret Hart, Sting etc.. those kind of popular guys. I can do a long list of wrestlers now working in WWE/TNA that I really don't like watching at all :D Maybe Stone Cold Steve Austin and Triple H are the only ones that I have loved both face and heel. :)

[The Shape]

I don't polarise things in my own mind; be they "good" or "bad," my interest is in depth of character; an actual [I]reason [/I]why someone's doing what they're doing. That's why Batista was at his best during his feud with HBK; that's why Lance Cade's an infinitely better bodyguard/accomplice of sorts than Big Zeek or Bam Neely. It's why CM Punk's title reign is infinitely easier to get behind than Triple H's; why Chris Jericho and Edge are the most interesting heels in a long, long time. Of course that needn't always be the case. I am perfectly ready to accept that some guys are just monsters who enjoy beating the crap out of people; some guys are just arrogant and some are just full of heart and will do anything to win. So long as there's a balance it's ok. But when you have TWO guys fighting for the title because it's the title, with no personal heat whatsoever, or have a show OVERLOADED with big guys giving beatings, the effect is really watered down. Same goes for underdogs and even guys like Matt Hardy being portrayed as all guts, no skill when clearly that's not the case. And of course, there's the Santino Marella's of this world. Pure and utter entertainment. Combine the elements and you've got an enjoyable show...

[mad5226]

Obviously I have to say first and fore most it's the story that I get behinf more so than the wrestler. The Undertaker is a perfect example. I've loved Taker since the early 90's because of his dead man gimmick it was just easy for me to get behind. With that being said I'm also a sucker for great mic skills. I was always a huge Rock fan, even when he was in the nation. Because he could get on a stick and keep me intrested for hours. I loved Jericho when he first debuted because of his fantastic mic skills. Kurt Angle was my hero back in the days he was preaching about the 3 I's and talking about how he's better than everyone else. I haven't watched wrestling in years and whenever I do I always find myself being unintrested because 1) the stories suck, and 2) no one can cut a promo like they used to.

[Self]

First off, the fans on here aren't average. We're too smart to the business to be put in that category. We think about things like workrate and selling, while wrestling's target audience are those that are able to treat the show at least partly as though it's real. A typical fan of Lost, is someone who talks about it to his friends, saying "OMG I can't believe what Jack did last night. He totally crossed the line." I however, have a degree in Media production, specialising in screenwriting and single camera drama. I think more along the lines of "Did you see that camera shot when Charlie fell off the cliff? They must have overcranked the camera something fierce to get that." or "Nice bit of dialogue in Act 3". I am not an average fan of Lost. Similarly, we are not average fans of wrestling. Not a shot against you, I just have those thoughts inside me for some time. I've been thinking a lot about why I like the guys I like. [B]Jeff Hardy -[/B] I like Jeff because he's unique. He looks different than the typical WWE guy. He's also smaller than most (or at least was) and as a smaller individual myself, I can relate to that. Another, perhaps stronger reason for my Hardy-love is that around the first time I started watching wrestling religiously, The Hardy Boys made their debuts on Heat/Metal/Jakked/Whatever the B show was at the time. They lost. From there, I watched them improve, winning matches, titles, glory and developing personalities. I grew up with the Hardy Boys, I've supported them (almost) every step of the way, and that's the reason I'll always love them. [B]Matt Hardy -[/B] I've already mentioned why I love the Hardyz, but this is why I love Matt. [I]Jeff is better than him[/I]. He's more colourful. More exciting. People like him more. As a 'lesser' sibling, I can relate to always being in second place. I can relate to not having any real ill-will towards my more popular brother, but at the same time resenting that I'm being pushed into the background. I recognised this in the early days of the Hardyz, and as I grew up watching them, I latched onto Matt more than Jeff. Also the V1 thing ruled, although I think that was more me liking it because of Matt, than liking Matt because of it. [B]Alex Shelley[/B] - He was in one of the first X-Division matches I ever saw. He used the Downward Spiral (my CAW finish at the time) and he cheated while still doing cool moves. The fact he's in a tag team now helps bundles. I'm a sucker for tag teams. [B]John Morrison[/B] - Similar to Shelley, he's a heel who has some awesome flying moves. I'm not sure why I like heels. I think I can just relate to that feeling of not being wanted. It sounds very emo, but I've never been that popular of a guy. I've always thought that if I were to start a barfight, everyone would prefer the other guy to win. Back to Morrison, the Dirt Sheet put him over the top for me. His ultra-dry delivery cracks me up. [B]Lance Storm[/B] - Lance is a weird one. I typically don't go for guys based on workrate. I've come to appreciate his skills now, but I can't fathom why I latched onto him in the first place. Perhaps because he was the heel in some of the first awesome ECW matches I ever saw (against Lynn and Van Dam) Perhaps the tag team thing with Justin helped. I just remember supporting him when he turned up in WCW, and giggling with glee when he kept winning belts. [B]Owen Hart - [/B]This is a similar situation to why I like Matt. Owen was always in the shadow of his 'golden boy' brother. I could relate. I was a fan of his before he turned on Bret, but that's what made him my favorite. He was lashing out in ways I never could. I lived vicariously through his actions, and cheered him all of the way. I was so happy when he beat Bret at Wrestlemania 10. So proud. So inspired. It's one of my fondest childhood memories. His death was the first time anyone I knew had died. When my Grandfather died years later, people were shocked that I wasn't going through what my brothers were. The hopelessness. The lack of comprehension. The desperation to change things. I'd already gone through it with Owen. He was a major figure in my life. Long post, and I can see patterns emerging. I consider myself pretty smart to the business, but I'm never happier watching wrestling than when I click into 'Mark Mode'. I tend to [I]like[/I] guys if they're good workers, but I don't [I]love[/I] them unless I see something in their characters. Something I can relate to.

[McShamrock]

[quote=Self;484152]First off, the fans on here aren't average ...Not a shot against you, I just have those thoughts inside me for some time. [/quote] Gotcha ... just a poor choice of words on my part, I knew better ... great post and great answer.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=McShamrock;484118]In wrestling ... is good really boring? Is evil really that interesting? Should we consume all things in moderation? Nowdays is it just the face on the proverbial cereal box that gets a crowd worked up or do you have to have something more? First and foremost ... what gets you behind a guy or gal? His workrate? His mic skills? A good storyline? Humor? His status as a bad-arse? I'm just curious as to the mindset of the average modern fan ... since, I'm weird and all, and can't relate to some of this stuff that gets over now ...[/QUOTE] Character. If the character is like-able, weather or not he is good or bad, I can dig him. If he's Unlike-able, and non-believable (Like The Brian Kendricks for me right now), I will totally change up on them. I like Santino, Angle, Sting, Styles, Noble, Punk, Jericho, HBK, HHH, etc... all because I like how they have been presented. I used to really dig Kendricks, up till this new gimmick change. No way I can get behind something that looks so forced and unnatural on him... I don't care if he has done the same gimmick a thousand times (as people have mentioned him doing this before)... It only makes it that much worse for me. "You mean he's practiced this gimmick, and still sucks at it?"

[cappyboy]

[QUOTE=McShamrock;484118]In wrestling ... is good really boring? Is evil really that interesting? Should we consume all things in moderation?[/QUOTE] Well, to start with I find the premises behind these questions rather limiting. I know I've often heard actors say it's more fun to play the villian than the good guy because of all the stuff you get to get away with. But with wrestling I would think the more popular way to play would be face. You get merchandised better, you get more personal appearances while you're relevant. Therefore greater income. But from a creative standpoint, I think either side is only as interesting as the light its shown in. [QUOTE=McShamrock;484118]Nowdays is it just the face on the proverbial cereal box that gets a crowd worked up or do you have to have something more? First and foremost ... what gets you behind a guy or gal? His workrate? His mic skills? A good storyline? Humor? His status as a bad-arse? I'm just curious as to the mindset of the average modern fan ... since, I'm weird and all, and can't relate to some of this stuff that gets over now ... [/QUOTE] Well, I'm hardly the average fan. So what gets me isnt necessary the issue here. Because there isn't any one answer. Sometimes (Lance Storm) it is the in-ring skill. Other times (Ernest Miller) it is mic work. Or could be other less-appreciated personality skills like the conviction of an Arn Anderson or the intensity of a Chris Benoit. Might be a great storyline like Self and I and how we rallied behind Owen Hart for battling realistic youngest child "in the shadow" demons on-screen. Often for me it is mixture of things coming together. So the things that appeal specifically to me may not necessarily translate. But I'll tell you what does. Character definition. How does the character work and how is that carried over. Look at the people that I mentioned in the recent Things Everyone Liked that you hated. In every case the problem I had the reason of the world didn't was how the character was defined. Take Stone Cold for example. To most of the world, he worked because he was a brash, outspoken voice of their frustration. He embodied the blue collar frustrations they felt, took his rage for being put on out on the boss and lived to fight for his due another day. I looked at the same character and saw an immature, whiny, loudmouth jerk who couldn't deal with being told what should have been the obvious. The difference wasn't any skill or talent or turn of phrase. It was the filter of the viewer. The world saw a volatile bad ass doing what they wished they could. I saw a walking cliche who thought he was a rebel even though he conformed to his order as much as McMahon wanted him to conform to his. It was only when Stone Cold broke out of that confined order and did something bizarre like the Zamboni bit that I really cared about him. Or Tommy Dreamer. Sure I looked at the guy and saw him as little better than the man he was fighting. But to ECW's core audience, he was a guy who was able to be edgy and hardcore despite suffering the slings and arrows of the typical betrayed face. And after that happened, he was able to throw off the restraints of conventional behavior in ways again they only wished they could. He let loose primal actions and emotions the fans could never safely do. On the other hand, look at the stuff that's come up here on Brian Kendrick's new character. Folks are saying how he stinks at it and it feels unnatural. How there was no natural build-up to the turn. You know why all this is? It's because the gimmick is poorly constructed. Look at his character work in early Ring of Honor where he was all Ridgemont High like in his laid-back arrogance. Or the Japanese character he did that's been brought up? Those arrogant gimmicks worked. The reason this one isn't is most likely because he doesn't know what kind of arrogant he's supposed to be playing. Should he go all 2002 and do the Spicolli stuff again? Should he break out his HBK impressions from the Texas Wrestling Academy days? Should he be all snarky and annoying? His struggles are coming from trying to establish groundwork on the fly he should have had guidelines for and probably doesn't.

[lazorbeak]

Cappy makes some great points here. Like others, it's character that makes a difference. If I'm entertained by a character, stuff like workrate is a bonus. I'm not the type of guy that can just watch great technical displays unless there's a compelling story being told. One of my favorite things in wrestling is when a worker can play either a face or a heel with basically the same gimmick. Look at Mankind and the Rock (two of my favorites from the Attitude era). Mankind started off as a heel, and it was because he was an outcast and a heel that he tried to make friends with Mr. McMahon, who couldn't stand the guy. After pretending to be his friend in order to manipulate Mankind into doing what he wanted, McMahon sold out Mankind to a guy with a more traditional star look, and Mankind instantly became one of the top babyfaces on the roster. But he didn't have to suddenly start kissing babies and high fiving local sports heroes- he did it by being the same outcast guy, but overachieving, getting back at the people that screwed him over. Or take the Rock; his character was always an egomaniacal *******, the only difference is, he started being a huge ******* to the heels on the roster, and the fans loved it.

[shamelessposer]

The problem I have with most modern era faces is that they seem to all be playing the same character. Heels can usually have a little bit more variety in their characters and motivations.

[James Casey]

But poser, there's a million ways to cheat - only one way to play it straight and true ;) In all seriousness, I like workers for different reasons. I loved Dean Malenko because he made mat wrestling and chain wrestling seem so fluid, and because he used the Texas Cloverleaf - which to this day I always give any CAW I make in any game. I loved Hurricane because he was goofy - and Jamie Noble for the same reason. When the two of them had their feud over the Cruiser belt, I was marking like crazy. I love CM Punk because he seems like the same person in-ring and out of the ring - it's not a gimmick, it's just him. On the other hand, I love Chris Jericho because he's a man who made his gimmick his life - kinda. Abdullah the Butcher? Love the crazy old fool. Tommy Dreamer, too - anyone willing to suffer and strive to improve themselves gets my vote. I love Morrison and Miz, perfect post-modern characters. I love Kane, because even at 6'8 and 330lbs, he still goes to the top rope - and his flying clothesline is another move I always give a CAW. As for good and evill... I do think that it's important that most guys in any fed are clearly on one side of the line or the other (unless the fed is just about matches). Fans expect this, regardless of how good the matches are. You might have a guy like Stone Cold who's willing to go to any lengths to win, but his opponents dictated that he was a face. The occasional grey is fine - Chris Jericho right now is doing sterling work as a tweener, because the fans [I]know[/I] he's right, and hate that fact. Okay, of late he's been more heelish, but by all accounts Jericho was intended to 'tell the truth' about John Cena, which would have had two guys in the ring being booed and cheered equally. I don't think you could sustain that kind of reaction long-term. It's interesting to have the odd grey in there, but for the most part, you want people to cheer, and people to boo. You want to know that, deep down, one guy is decent, and one a cheat - even if it's a match between a face Undertaker and a heel Kurt Angle, where the normal backgrounds of the characters would make it the other way around...

[shamelessposer]

[QUOTE=James Casey;485266]The occasional grey is fine - Chris Jericho right now is doing sterling work as a tweener, because the fans [I]know[/I] he's right, and hate that fact. Okay, of late he's been more heelish, but by all accounts Jericho was intended to 'tell the truth' about John Cena, which would have had two guys in the ring being booed and cheered equally.[/QUOTE] Chris Jericho circa 2000 is my favorite character in wrestling. He pulled off the "heel who acts heelish to other heels, and therefore is a face... kinda" role better than Steve Austin ever did. His stricken-from-the-record heavyweight title win over Triple H is one of the best storylines I've ever seen in that everyone watching, everyone in the audience, and even Triple H [i]knew[/i] that Jericho was the rightful champion, and it provided the perfect fodder to continue his character up through the "Jericho & Benoit vs. The WWF" storyline in 2001.

[cappyboy]

[QUOTE=James Casey;485266]But poser, there's a million ways to cheat - only one way to play it straight and true ;)[/QUOTE] Except not every face cares about that. Sure your classic old-school faces are all about fair play and doing things the right way. But that Von Erich code isn't anywhere near as universal as it used to be. In the faces or in the fans that support them. I think that's one reason smarmy heels work so well these days. Because they are essentially satirizing that old Von Erich code. [QUOTE=James Casey;485266]As for good and evill... I do think that it's important that most guys in any fed are clearly on one side of the line or the other (unless the fed is just about matches). Fans expect this, regardless of how good the matches are. You might have a guy like Stone Cold who's willing to go to any lengths to win, but his opponents dictated that he was a face. [/QUOTE] You're about half right here I'd say. I agree that the dividing line between face and heel is important. It's just human nature that we're going to be more invested in events when we have a rooting interest in them. And while Austin is a good example of a face who couldn't have cared less about the rules, I don't know it was so much who the opponents were that made Austin face. It was his circumstances and how they chose to oppose him that rallied people to his side. If Stone Cold had been treated like just another opponent who have to be beaten to get to the top, I doubt he'd have gotten the same reaction. What made him is that Vince and the others weren't merely trying to defeat him. They were trying to constrain him. Box him in. Hold him back. And Stone Cold was striking back fighting for what, at least in character, was his due. He was fighting for the same chances other guys got naturally. That was what made him face.

[lazorbeak]

Nah, he turned face far before the McMahon feud, when he was essentially doing everything a heel was supposed to do, but the fans loved him for it. Part of it was certainly that Austin just seemed to be himself out there, and the fans ate it up.

[Sonic Reducer]

Let me point out to look no further than to the greatest feud of 1992, the [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL7Os2BcyTc"]Big Boss Man vs. Nailz[/URL]. That is the measuring stick for Good vs. Evil. When I was a kid I was usually drawn to the darker, weirder characters like The Undertaker and Raven; though my favorite wrestler was Bret Hart. I remember in 1997 when Kane debuted and I thought he was instantly the greatest. Now I'm interested more in the athleticism, workrate and good, thoughtful promos. A solid, long-term angle every now and then is a bonus, a recent example being Michaels/Jericho.

[McShamrock]

[quote=Sonic Reducer;486030]A solid, long-term angle every now and then is a bonus, a recent example being Michaels/Jericho.[/quote] Huge fan of this angle ... every wrestler and storyline writer worth his salt should be taking notes on this one.

[James Casey]

Interesting that Jericho reacntly admitted to it being a chance thing - the reaction to his segments with Michaels after the first Michaels/Batista match meaning that the creative team ran with it.

[djthefunkchris]

[QUOTE=James Casey;486154]Interesting that Jericho reacntly admitted to it being a chance thing - the reaction to his segments with Michaels after the first Michaels/Batista match meaning that the creative team ran with it.[/QUOTE] That's nice to know, and very interesting. Obviously the same team wasn't on the ball with Holly in ECW, or Joey Mercury on Smackdown... Which kind of sucks.