Characters or "reality"?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Stopspot, Mar 28, 2013.

  1. WWE Forums is giving away a copy of WWE 2K18 for any platform! More info: WWE 2K18 Giveaway (PS4, Xbox One, Steam)
  1. [​IMG]
    You get some odd pictures when you google "wrestling gimmick".

    Wrestling is in some ways related to theater and other forms of show entertainment, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. One of these ways is the portrayal of characters, roles that are played by the athletes in the ring. We have the dastardly heels and the heroic babyfaces. But then we get either gimmicks or just characters.

    Which are the best? The guys who work a character just based on characteristics and personality traits. Guys like Cena, Daniel Bryan or Kurt Angle. Or the guys with full out gimmicks, that live their characters. The Undertakers, Kane, Fandango, Hulk Hogan etc. Both types of characters bring different things to the table. The "realistic" guys anchor us in reality and one could argue are more relateable. But the more out there characters brings us a more big time feel to the show as a whole.

    Which do you prefer? Do you prefer the simple name, realistic character or full on gimmicks? Or perhaps you have some way of enjoying both?
  2. It depends on how well the person portrays their character.
  3. It really depends on the person. But most of the time I enjoy characters that are plausible. Sometimes though, characters like John Cena are good.
  4. I don't look at it as a way of separating them. If a character/personality is interesting and compelling, I like them. If they aren't, then I don't. Some guys just can't get by on just being charismatic or whatever, and so I put a lot more emphasis on their ring work as a way of liking them. Chris Benoit, for example.

    Some gimmicks I think are stupid, even on paper. But then some guys actually make them work. And then some gimmicks sound great or promising on paper, but the wrong guy gets saddled with it and doesn't do well enough with it. Bray Wyatt's gimmick is a pretty interesting one on paper, but whereas he makes it work and look pretty compelling, Waylon Mercy (who was based on the same character from the movie Cape Fear) back in 1995 or so did not. On the opposite side of it, the Mr. Perfect character sounds kinda generic, but Curt Henning really made it work (he and Terry Taylor were actually gonna be in opposite roles with the Mr. Perfect and Red Rooster gimmicks, thank fuck they switched them.)
  5. I prefer realistic gimmicks that being said the Undertakers gimmick is one of the best ever.
  6. It really depends on the person. Back it in the day it was much easyer to make made up gimmick characters for newer wrestler. But with the soiocl media/ online be to check diry sheet, It harder now for newer wrestler to get over with made up characters.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. I think a good company has a mix of both. Realistic and INTERESTING characters on one side (no "oily man in trunks" gimmick, it's an example of a realistic boring gimmick) and a few outrageous ones that actually work on the other. I enjoy both (when done well ofc).
  8. Holy fucking shit. An actual.... POST :mad2:
    • Like Like x 1
    • Like Like x 1
Draft saved Draft deleted