Roman Reigns as a darker character

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Red Rain, Feb 21, 2015.

  1. I've been debating this a few days.
    There seems to be a growing trend of not-so-wholesome characters on popular TV today.
    Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Mad Men, etc. Could WWE go in this direction, too?

    Let's suppose Roman Reigns character drove off being a darker character like The Undertaker.
    Undertaker drew #2 in terms of money in both 1997 and 1998.
    Taker drew #6 in 1999 (injured). He also drew #7 in 2000 (injuries). He drew #5 in 2001.

    From ABA Taker, to Big Evil and to Dead Man, Calaway maintained his distance.
    Reigns seems to be of the same mold.

    Being childish worked for John Cena, but does society want a post 9/11 hero anymore?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Crow Reigns
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. If Cena turned heel (ala Hogan) claiming to be he kid's hero of the wrestling business, rejecting Roman Reigns (and others in the process) that would be interesting.
    Cena could claim his accolades, emphasize how he saved the wresting business after the AE and run amok until Reigns shows up again.

    I'm not in favor of a 'Crow' Reigns, because Reigns and Undertaker seem more similar.
    I do believe society is growing darker in terms of their taste, but not in terms of being distasteful.
    Reigns couldn't completely bite Sting or Undertaker's style but he could uniform himself into a very similar mold.
     
  4. I think it could work. But I've been saying an anti hero type has been needed for a while. Reigns has that sort of look about him and I think it can translate, although I can't say for sure what that character would be like.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Exactly. I simply chose the Undertaker as a template. The long hair, the tattoos and the lack of extroversion makes Taker a likely comparison.
    Of all the Taker incarnations, each of them seem viable (even the Biker gimmick) but it would take a significant writing process to make a him a 'dead man'.

    Undertaker was primarily a babyface, hence the comparison. Laziness won't make Reigns a profitable babyface. However, if he's just a career heel, then my bet is off on the dark character altogether
     
  6. It's an interesting concept, I can see it working out not sure how exactly I would do it, Undertaker is a decent mold but I think there's a better way to do a "darker" version of the Roman Reigns character and have it work.
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  7. I can easily picture Reigns as a dark, Satanic-like figure. Imagine Reigns sporting an all black vest and pants (eh, not much different from what he does now), the tattoo of a small pentagram on his forehead (and/or a pentagram necklace around his neck) and his dark hair pulled back into a ponytail. That would have been a perfect fit for the Ministry of Darkness back in the day. He might run the risk of being too similar to Bray Wyatt today depending on how they handled the presentation of it though, but then they successfully made Kane stand out enough on his own back in the day in spite of his similarities to Taker.

    However, I think Reigns being a new Diesel/Big Sexy type of character would be a lot more natural for him and there's direct comparisons to be made between them as well - good looks, long black hair, the whole laid-back "don't give a fuck, I know I'm cool" factor, size (Nash was quite a bit taller, but Reigns still has an imposing look to him), etc.
     

  8. This would work out a whole lot better if I had to decide between the two character styles.
     
  9. Give the man a new theme song and attire that's dark then we'll see how it goes. Keep the crowd entrance.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. I agree with u
     
  11. WWE alluded to Reigns and Wyatt being natural rivals dating back to the Shield/Wyatts feud.
    Diesel was boring. People don't want boring, they want ingenuity. Besides, the Diesel gimmick failed whereas the Taker gimmick(s) thrived.

    However, if Reigns went forward with the Diesel gimmick supplementing with a womanizer type of role would be fitting. Have him be a guy who 'just can't keep his hand out of the cooker jar', so to speak.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Diesel was over like rover until they softened him up and made him a vanilla face after he won the championship. Same thing they're still guilty of doing with people to this day. Plus 1995 was a very dry and disastrous year in terms of creative, so the failure of that isn't all on him. He was one of the most over stars in WCW in 1998 as Big Sexy when he was allowed to be himself.

    The Undertaker gimmick has thrived, but it's also one of the most unique gimmicks in history and a lot harder to pull off successfully than the charming, suave, bad-ass type of character, the latter of which, again, I feel would be more natural for Reigns. It's pretty much a huge part of his genuine personality from what I've seen.

    If Reigns did "cross over to the dark side" though, it'd be interesting if Bray Wyatt was the one who pushed him to that point. For all his talking, Wyatt has yet to actually corrupt anyone's mind successfully, and since actions speak louder than words, it's be a compelling road to travel by having him be the one to turn Reigns into someone of his ilk. It'd be fitting too, considering their history dating back to The Shield/Wyatt Family rivalry, the first match between the two groups which was won by Bray after he pinned Reigns, which I believe marked the first time in history Roman Reigns had ever been pinned since coming to the main roster.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Its 2015 and people are still hating on Kevin Nash? People seriously need to get over it.
     
  14. Being over doesn't equal money, brother. Diesel never made WWE a dime.
    If I were making this argument to Vince I would be using dollars and cents, not being over. The Taker character is complex but was well worth the investment, just like Reigns is.
    Kevin Nash and Joe Anoa'i (Reigns) seem nothing alike to me. Anoa'i personality is way more quiet and reserved the way Mark Calaway is.
    WWE originally wanted Orton to be the next Rock. It didn't work because Orton and Dwayne Johnson are nothing alike despite both being blue chippers.
    Watch Nash, Anoa'i (Reigns) and Calaway (Taker) being interviewed, you'll see clearly that Nash is far more outspoken than the other two.

    I see similarities between Diesel and Reigns but Reigns isn't nearly as 'persuasive' as Kevin Nash is. Diesel failed because it didn't fit Nash. Nash was above it. The Diesel gimmick was and is garbage.
     
  15. Being over is a big indicator that someone has the potential to draw money since it means the audience likes you. It doesn't mean you will, of course, but a person's overness with the crowd is a tangible factor worth mentioning.

    I've already pointed out reasons why Diesel failing to draw as champion doesn't completely rest on him. By comparison, how much money did the Undertaker draw? He's a legend and what I'd consider on a personal level to be one of the greatest of all-time, but he isn't some great draw by himself either. The stats you posted on him in the OP are garbage. Drawing money when you're working with mega-stars like Austin or Rock or when the whole promotion and, hell, the whole industry is on fire is hardly proof that you yourself are putting asses in the seats. This is kind of a nonsensical point to argue anyway since Reigns/Nash wouldn't be 100% alike and what the audience was drawn to in 1995 and what they're drawn to two decades later (along with all the other elements and components that determine why something or someone draws or not, i.e. 1995 being a disastrous year creatively, whereas modern-day WWE having a brand name that's almost as strong as it's ever been) don't compute.

    Two people don't have to be carbon copies of one another for a fair comparison to be made. Nash was just the closest equivalent to make with him. Nash was more outgoing, but he still had that swagger and look about him that projected an image of coolness even when he wasn't speaking. Twas my point. To quote myself from earlier, I think Reigns being a "charming, suave, bad-ass type of character" would be best for him.

    Check out his short excerpt from this promo:





    His line at 3:04 in the second video was awesome.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. I'm aware of every one of your points on a purely philosophical basis. Your arguments are valid.
    However, I doubt when some people 'see' numbers they automatically draw the immediate conclusion that they are worth their own merit.
    For example, when the Rock (or Samuel L Jackson as a better example) draw huge in the box office, they receive credit and its usually the minority that consider the other factors (other draws like Natalie Portman in the cast etc.)

    I've never blamed Nash's WWE failure on Nash himself. Diesel was a trucker who thought he was hot sh*t. Boring. Sorry. It failed. Why put that gimmick on a rising star because you think it might work.
    Reigns can be a womanizer. He has that going for him. He just too dull. His delivery on the mic is horrid, but he has basic tools. If you're going to invest, do that. Stop being lazy through empty regurgitation.

    The Undertaker constantly evolved but kept the same basic tools he always had. WWE invested and the reaped the rewards. Diesel lacked investment. He failed.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted