Lack of 'Faces' in WWE

SlickRic

I thought of this today again, and I would like people's perspective on it. It's probably been discussed before, but it seems to be really really obvious at the moment...

There are NO faces that I want to get behind right now in WWE.

Ricky Steamboat was the ONLY good guy last night that I really wanted to win last night. I have no problem with John Cena; he's a solid worker now, who should have the respect of most wrestling fans by now, but he still gets a big 'meh' from me. I never feel the urge to get behind him. And this is the same with them all at the moment; Rey, Punk, Christian, Batista...I can't even think of any others off the top of my head. Jeff's about the only face I even kind of care about winning. I don't know if I'm on my own? I might just be a big Scrooge I don't know...

The heels are incredible. Jericho, Orton, Edge are far and away the best performers in the company right now. Orton is getting face pops all the time. People want to see him. Edge is basically heel perfection. You want to hate him. Jericho is so smooth, you also can't help but want to hate his smugness. I mean I wholeheartedly wanted Orton and Edge to win last night; and probably the only reason I didn't want Jericho to win was because it was Ricky Steamboat...

What can be done? Getting rid of the PG rating is obvious; make faces edgy again, but what else?

flahavaj

Push Evan Bourne to the moon. He's an incredibly sympathetic underdog figure if booked properly.

SlickRic

flahavaj wrote: »

Push Evan Bourne to the moon. He's an incredibly sympathetic underdog figure if booked properly.

good call.

love him, and I didn't think of him in my initial reckoning. He would be an extremely fresh breath of air if pushed properly.

DM_7

SlickRic wrote: »

.

What can be done? Getting rid of the PG rating is obvious; make faces edgy again, but what else?

Question is this an ideal world thread? If so then fair enough get rid of pg.

But if this thread is based on reality the PG rating is going nowhere. Kids love the guys you have mentioned. The question should be how do you promote faces within a pg environment so adults like them too. Not sure that can be done. Adults are the reason the WWE print and sell Edge, Jericho and Orton shirts. No matter how despicable they are, older fans are going to end up taking a liking to them above the faces.

amacachi

flahavaj wrote: »

Push Evan Bourne to the moon. He's an incredibly sympathetic underdog figure if booked properly.

It would be Rey all over again, and I don't want to end up disliking Bourne.

SlickRic

amacachi wrote: »

It would be Rey all over again, and I don't want to end up disliking Bourne.

not if done properly (i.e. don't do anything similar to selling Eddie's soul to push him).

flahavaj

amacachi wrote: »

It would be Rey all over again, and I don't want to end up disliking Bourne.

Rey was the best reason to watch WWE TV for years there before he got stale, though. And as SlickRic said, do it properly, not the balls they made of Rey.

SlickRic

DM-ICE wrote: »

Adults are the reason the WWE print and sell Edge, Jericho and Orton shirts. No matter how despicable they are, older fans are going to end up taking a liking to them above the faces.

this is a point i honestly hadn't thought of, and another reason why we won't be seeing an Orton face-turn anytime soon; not that anyone would want that again obviously.

ugh, i just had flashbacks...

DM_7

SlickRic wrote: »

this is a point i honestly hadn't thought of, and another reason why we won't be seeing an Orton face-turn anytime soon; not that anyone would want that again obviously.

ugh, i just had flashbacks...

Maybe they should use the world titles better.

No reason not to have the heels fighting each other for one title. Let the fans cheer for who they want. Let them be dispicable to one another. For every orton v edge title match they can still have cena or HHH involved in the other world title match/feud against a heel to keep the kiddies happy. Both sets of fans win.

Just keeping sex out of storylines and blood out of matches can keep it "PG" without adult fans losing interest.

Mr.Nice Guy

See to me this is an issue reflecting the current times.

One of the main problems the way I see it, and some may disagree with me here, but I feel that in essence wrestling is a follower of trends rather than a trend-setter. One of the reasons why WWE embraced the era of Attitude is that the culture of the time called for it. I'm not so sure that's the case today.

For example there's an OTR interview up on Youtube with Paul Heyman from 2002, which some of you may have seen, from when Heyman still worked at WWE as the lead writer, and in it Heyman is asked if he encourages Vince to push the envelope and he replies No because and I quote "I don't know if pushing the envelope is the answer right now". I still think that this is the case seven years on.

The WWE has to follow the current climate. When I was growing up in the late nineties me and my mates got excited by watching something like Scream, by listening to rock music, by supporting edgy wrestlers like Stone Cold and The Rock. Nowadays teens are watching and listening to Miley f*cking Cyrus while the edgiest wrestlers are the likes of John Cena and Batista.

Face it, the current culture sucks balls. The nineties was a memorable decade where the envelope was pushed and where we saw a more risque view of the world. Sex, violence, blood and gore. You name it, you saw it. These days if something pushes the envelope to any sizeable degree then you've got a load of idiots emailing Ofcom to complain about it.

I will look back on the 'noughties' as it's called as being a decade more notable for dirge like reality TV shows, manufactured pop crap and for an era of overall cultural stagnation in which the media grew more powerful and influential.

Society it seems to me is duller and less innovative than it was ten years ago. I watched the Baftas last night and it struck me how uninspired television has become. There were few shows I was actually a fan of that were getting acknowledged. To me, wrestling on television is another victim of this cultural morass. That's not to say that the current writers should be excused for their work. After all I no longer watch the current product as I think it's a lazy, stale product relying on old guys with no real opportunities for new talent. However, I do think that WWE must follow cultural trends as it has always done and that this is the main problem.

The sad fact of the matter is that the world (and by that I mean mainstream society) is not ready for a Stone Cold-like figure who will flip the middle finger, use risque language and generally raise hell. If the WWE were to go down this route mainstream society would reject it because in my opinion mainstream society has moved past that (or moved backwards depending on your point of view).

The bottom line is things will stay the same. What Heyman spoke of in 2002 is true today in 2009 and will probably be true again in another 7 years in 2016 - unless the culture of society has another 90's style shift. So get used to WWE doing things the way it does now because the company must respond to the needs of its audience, and sadly the mainstream audience has settled for cutesy babyfaces, cartoonish midgets and promos so bad they make me want to puke.

D.Q

In response to your point on the "edgy character"

I dont think that Austin style would be that controversial in these times. Its been done, and really comes across as a bit tame.

Realistically, theres isnt much they CAN do to push the envelope anymore.
Its been pushed too far like. what more is there out there to break boundaries?

SlickRic

DieselQueen wrote: »

In response to your point on the "edgy character"

I dont think that Austin style would be that controversial in these times. Its been done, and really comes across as a bit tame.

Realistically, theres isnt much they CAN do to push the envelope anymore.
Its been pushed too far like. what more is there out there to break boundaries?

it's not even a case of breaking new boundaries really, although if that were possible that would be welcome. Just characters I give a cr*p about.

MNG has it really. Great post. It's not what society is about right now. WWE keeps Orton, Edge and Jericho the way they are to keep some adults in the loop, but overall it's not what is going to be embraced by the PC world we live, so the whole product is not going to go that direction any time soon.

Looks like I'll just root for Orton so

DM_7

DieselQueen wrote: »

In response to your point on the "edgy character"

I dont think that Austin style would be that controversial in these times. Its been done, and really comes across as a bit tame.

Realistically, theres isnt much they CAN do to push the envelope anymore.
Its been pushed too far like. what more is there out there to break boundaries?

When you think about it we live in an internet era. The internet can satisfy more edgy needs. TV no longer caters for these needs as it can't compete with the net. TV ratings are less than they used to be. As WWEs product is on tv and have failed to embrace the net they have no choice but to go pg.

But that still leaves us with no faces to get behind as per the original thread idea, i don't think the purpose was to decide why there are no faces but find ideas to see how we could be made route for them.

The final line of OP What can be done?

D.Q

DM-ICE wrote: »

.

The final line of OP What can be done?

Better writing. More thought and time into faces. A good face is ALOT harder to write than a good heel. Its easier to piss people off.

However this kind of works into the writers hands. If they keep creating great heels and really get people hating them. Then playing faces off the heels would help cement the faces status.

CM punk could really benefit from this I think.

Other than tha, they should try and get us interested in the CHARACTERS...As SlickRic says it best a post or two previous.

SlickRic wrote: »

it's not even a case of breaking new boundaries really, although if that were possible that would be welcome. Just characters I give a cr*p about.

MikeHoncho

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

See to me this is an issue reflecting the current times.

One of the main problems the way I see it, and some may disagree with me here, but I feel that in essence wrestling is a follower of trends rather than a trend-setter. One of the reasons why WWE embraced the era of Attitude is that the culture of the time called for it. I'm not so sure that's the case today.

For example there's an OTR interview up on Youtube with Paul Heyman from 2002, which some of you may have seen, from when Heyman still worked at WWE as the lead writer, and in it Heyman is asked if he encourages Vince to push the envelope and he replies No because and I quote "I don't know if pushing the envelope is the answer right now". I still think that this is the case seven years on.

The WWE has to follow the current climate. When I was growing up in the late nineties me and my mates got excited by watching something like Scream, by listening to rock music, by supporting edgy wrestlers like Stone Cold and The Rock. Nowadays teens are watching and listening to Miley f*cking Cyrus while the edgiest wrestlers are the likes of John Cena and Batista.

Face it, the current culture sucks balls. The nineties was a memorable decade where the envelope was pushed and where we saw a more risque view of the world. Sex, violence, blood and gore. You name it, you saw it. These days if something pushes the envelope to any sizeable degree then you've got a load of idiots emailing Ofcom to complain about it.

I will look back on the 'noughties' as it's called as being a decade more notable for dirge like reality TV shows, manufactured pop crap and for an era of overall cultural stagnation in which the media grew more powerful and influential.

Society it seems to me is duller and less innovative than it was ten years ago. I watched the Baftas last night and it struck me how uninspired television has become. There were few shows I was actually a fan of that were getting acknowledged. To me, wrestling on television is another victim of this cultural morass. That's not to say that the current writers should be excused for their work. After all I no longer watch the current product as I think it's a lazy, stale product relying on old guys with no real opportunities for new talent. However, I do think that WWE must follow cultural trends as it has always done and that this is the main problem.

The sad fact of the matter is that the world (and by that I mean mainstream society) is not ready for a Stone Cold-like figure who will flip the middle finger, use risque language and generally raise hell. If the WWE were to go down this route mainstream society would reject it because in my opinion mainstream society has moved past that (or moved backwards depending on your point of view).

The bottom line is things will stay the same. What Heyman spoke of in 2002 is true today in 2009 and will probably be true again in another 7 years in 2016 - unless the culture of society has another 90's style shift. So get used to WWE doing things the way it does now because the company must respond to the needs of its audience, and sadly the mainstream audience has settled for cutesy babyfaces, cartoonish midgets and promos so bad they make me want to puke.

While I agree with most of your post TV over the last few years is better than ever before. The reality bubble is bursting and we have seen some amazing stuff in the last few years. I would go as far to say that the last 8 or 9 years will be considered a Golden Age in U.S television with stuff like:

The Sopranos
The Wire
Mad Men
Battlestar Galactica
True Blood
Oz
Breaking Bad
Curb Your Enthusiasm
30 Rock
Lost
Arrested Development

Everything else you said is pretty much spot on though.

On the toic of making new faces though. Just listen to the fans and dont shove people down their throats.

Evilsbane

To the OP: if you don't want to get behind the faces, then get behind the heels by all means. I love to see Edge win, and because his usual opponent (Cena) is made out by the writers to be some kinda superman, it's a David V Goliath story where you can root for the underdog. I was very happy with their Backlash match since Edge was shown to take huge amounts of punishment from one of WWE's biggest names and still keep getting up - usually only faces get to do that. .

You could tell that Cena was actively trying to make Edge look good since every time Edge got up nearing the end of the match, you could see Cena doing a kind of 'you gotta be kidding me - what does it take?' face. And although Edge's victory was tainted by interference, it was interference he clearly hadn't asked for which makes him look as good as you could ask for in a heel victory.

After all the heels who can only win when they cheat, it's nice to see a heel who IS a hateful cheater BUT is also a formidable opponent even without cheating. Having such an opponent even makes Cena more popular, as we get to see him in an actual match instead of a push. The chemistry between these two is the best that either one's had in a very long time and hopefully the writers will notice.

So basically if you want to support an edgy character, support a heel.

Mr.Nice Guy

MikeHoncho wrote: »

While I agree with most of your post TV over the last few years is better than ever before. The reality bubble is bursting and we have seen some amazing stuff in the last few years. I would go as far to say that the last 8 or 9 years will be considered a Golden Age in U.S television with stuff like:

The Sopranos
The Wire
Mad Men
Battlestar Galactica
True Blood
Oz
Breaking Bad
Curb Your Enthusiasm
30 Rock
Lost
Arrested Development

Everything else you said is pretty much spot on though.

I agree those shows are terrific but do those shows you name really get the recognition they deserve? Curb Your Enthusiasm for me is the outstanding American comedy of the last decade and yet I often meet people who've never heard of it, let alone given it a chance. By the same token you can't help but meet people who still watch rubbish like the endless repeats of Friends and new episodes of the Simpsons which is now atrocious. Shows like The Wire and Mad Men are shown at terrible times and yet a Simon Cowell vehicle like Britain's Got Talent is prime-time and gets millions of viewers, making a star out of someone on the net. On the other hand a brilliant show like Charlie Brooker's Newswipe (look out for it on Youtube) is known by maybe 1% of the population.

I just think as a society we have dumbed ourselves down to a large extent and that wrestling has gone the same way. They're getting enough viewers and making enough money to justify their current product. Similarly TV companies make enough money out of the manufactured pap they churn out to justify that. I disagree the reality bubble is bursting. I bet the ratings winners on TV this year will be the likes of BGT, Hell's Kitchen, I'm a Celebrity, SCD etc. and shows like the ones you name will remain on the periphery.

Similarly the likes of Botchtista, Triple H, Cena, Undertaker will remain the guys getting the most reactions. Is it because they are the top guys or is it because fans have been conditioned to accept them? Much like the masses who accept the manufactured tripe?

In my cynical view of things there is little originality in wrestling, and few babyfaces worth rooting for, simply because the masses have come to accept things as they are.

Bounty Hunter

tbh there have always been more top heels than faces looking back through the years and all the really best faces were usually also great heels whilst the cant always be said the other way around

currythis

I think its more a lack of quality writing and booking in wwe right now as opposed to a lack of faces.
There are plenty of faces-MVP,Christian,Punk,Hardy,Cena,Batista,Taker etc,but the writing isnt there to make you care about them.
The majority of people who are writing for wwe these days really have no business being there.
I dont accept that its a society thing at all,thats just a easy excuse.
Its the writers job to create unique characters that people will identify with and care about and will watch tv and order ppvs to see.
The writers right now seem to be more interested in ridiculously stupid 'comedy' segments like the awful Khali/Marella segment at backlash which has basically buried the womens division and making the bosses out of shape and annoying son look like a main eventer,rather then creating intersting characters and compelling television.
Until people who actually understand wrestling are hired to write a wrestling show then I cant see the situation changing unfortunately.

ShawnRaven

MNG, and i say this with all due respect, but post #10 has to be the most sensible thing you have ever typed out in the guts of two years. I couldn't agree more.

flahavaj

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

See to me this is an issue reflecting the current times.

One of the main problems the way I see it, and some may disagree with me here, but I feel that in essence wrestling is a follower of trends rather than a trend-setter. One of the reasons why WWE embraced the era of Attitude is that the culture of the time called for it. I'm not so sure that's the case today.

For example there's an OTR interview up on Youtube with Paul Heyman from 2002, which some of you may have seen, from when Heyman still worked at WWE as the lead writer, and in it Heyman is asked if he encourages Vince to push the envelope and he replies No because and I quote "I don't know if pushing the envelope is the answer right now". I still think that this is the case seven years on.

The WWE has to follow the current climate. When I was growing up in the late nineties me and my mates got excited by watching something like Scream, by listening to rock music, by supporting edgy wrestlers like Stone Cold and The Rock. Nowadays teens are watching and listening to Miley f*cking Cyrus while the edgiest wrestlers are the likes of John Cena and Batista.

Face it, the current culture sucks balls. The nineties was a memorable decade where the envelope was pushed and where we saw a more risque view of the world. Sex, violence, blood and gore. You name it, you saw it. These days if something pushes the envelope to any sizeable degree then you've got a load of idiots emailing Ofcom to complain about it.

I will look back on the 'noughties' as it's called as being a decade more notable for dirge like reality TV shows, manufactured pop crap and for an era of overall cultural stagnation in which the media grew more powerful and influential.

Society it seems to me is duller and less innovative than it was ten years ago. I watched the Baftas last night and it struck me how uninspired television has become. There were few shows I was actually a fan of that were getting acknowledged. To me, wrestling on television is another victim of this cultural morass. That's not to say that the current writers should be excused for their work. After all I no longer watch the current product as I think it's a lazy, stale product relying on old guys with no real opportunities for new talent. However, I do think that WWE must follow cultural trends as it has always done and that this is the main problem.

The sad fact of the matter is that the world (and by that I mean mainstream society) is not ready for a Stone Cold-like figure who will flip the middle finger, use risque language and generally raise hell. If the WWE were to go down this route mainstream society would reject it because in my opinion mainstream society has moved past that (or moved backwards depending on your point of view).

The bottom line is things will stay the same. What Heyman spoke of in 2002 is true today in 2009 and will probably be true again in another 7 years in 2016 - unless the culture of society has another 90's style shift. So get used to WWE doing things the way it does now because the company must respond to the needs of its audience, and sadly the mainstream audience has settled for cutesy babyfaces, cartoonish midgets and promos so bad they make me want to puke.

Outstanding analysis.

dsmythy

It looks as though either the whole concept of faces and heels is becoming redundant or adults will abandon the WWE to the kids. The latter doesn't mean the end forever as remember, those kids will get older and demand something different from today.

D.Q

WHAT if... when those kids get older, they just target another generation of kids.

Pw will keep filling up with more and more bitter fans...

SlickRic

DieselQueen wrote: »

WHAT if... when those kids get older, they just target another generation of kids.

Pw will keep filling up with more and more bitter fans...

this is my fear...:pac:

p.s. i think MVP has a chance if he's given the ball, and a bit of freedom that some top superstars are given. he's comfortable on the mic, and knows how to work a crowd without making me cringe.

flahavaj

SlickRic wrote: »

this is my fear...:pac:

p.s. i think MVP has a chance if he's given the ball, and a bit of freedom that some top superstars are given. he's comfortable on the mic, and knows how to work a crowd without making me cringe.

Plus hes a self-confessed Kawada mark which makes him pretty awesome in my book.

Rjd2

Its hard for the new generation to get over if they do not have promo time. Punk has not cut a promo since he won MITB for **** sake. Kofi does not have any type of character, either, the guys will never be in the main event if they do not get a chance to display their character and form a bond with the crowd. You have to give a reason for fans to care and sadly the WWE seem stuck on the old guard when it comes to faces.

DM_7

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its hard for the new generation to get over if they do not have promo time. Punk has not cut a promo since he won MITB for **** sake. Kofi does not have any type of character, either, the guys will never be in the main event if they do not get a chance to display their character and form a bond with the crowd. You have to give a reason for fans to care and sadly the WWE seem stuck on the old guard when it comes to faces.

Have to agree with that. I can't remember seeing punk walk out and cut his own promo since ecw. Of charachters trying to get over, its usually only the heels that get the promo time required to get themselves or a new persona over. In recent events, Show, Miz, Matt, Dolph, Santino etc

mehfesto2

ShawnRaven wrote: »

MNG, and i say this with all due respect, but post #10 has to be the most sensible thing you have ever typed out in the guts of two years. I couldn't agree more.

While Im not the most versed in WWE at the moment has nobody mentioned nostalgia yet? For the most-part it seems people here grew up with the WWF in the 90s and I suspect a fair bit of views have come from behind rose tinted glasses - perhaps WWE has gone a bit soft but to say society at large has gone cutesy-wootsy since then is a but much.

Music has gotten no worse - there's still edgy metal/hard rock bands out there, but they are no longer as en vogue as they once were - (I personally blame Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park for this!); and I doubt many WWE fans are listening to Miley Cyrus either - about as many that were listening to the Backstreet Boys during the Attitude era, I'd imagine.

Television and cinema are getting no worse - they're merely changing to new territories. (except channels like Dave which are stuck in 1999)

Its easy to blame failures on new society - nobody is the line of fire; but if we're gonna be realistic here, it's not society - it's us.

You have to seperate the the amazing emotions you felt when you first watched the WWF all those years ago when everything was new to you, when you didnt know a heel from your arse and when the logistics of what was happening weren't as apparent because you were absorbed in the action - to now when 10 years down the line there's very few things that you havn't seen. When you can see a botched spot a mile off and when you can predict certain things from experience . It's like what Derren Brown says in his book - you remember what you want to remember. You omit things that do not view as important or do not fit into the image you want to believe is true.

Society always changes - people don't always. People like what they know - what they can associate with great times and fond memories of when everything seemed that little but more special (their youth)- and if nothing else proves it the rise (and recently the subsequent death) of 80's Nights surely does. Nobody REALLY though 'I should be so lucky' was anything but pure ****e, but it was safe and warm and pulled you back to comfy times. I believe that some of us look back at WWF stars in the same way.

I believe the WWE is less likely to produce a guy who'll flip the middle finger now because they are selling to the younger viewer perhaps now more than ever. They are aware of the power of selling to children - people who can make your life hell for an overpriced Rey mask - and who once the mask is purchased, dont really care about quality. A middle finger wont sell to children not because children dont want it, but becuase the parent parting with cash dont want it. It's easy cash. It doesnt represent a change in society, but merely a change in marketing.

I dont think theres a lack of decent faces. I just think there's a lack of originaity (moreso for the older viewer) on behalf of the writing team. But lets be honest - how do you write a script making heels evil and faces truely good within the confines of a PG rating?...

...Unless Orton was to kill HHH's father by startling wildebeast and causing him to die in the ensuing stampede...

Just my 2c

DM_7

^ The counter argument. Another good post within the thread.

We did have a nostalgia sticky. The nostalgia point was also mentioned in other threads.

mehfesto2

DM-ICE wrote: »

^ The counter argument. Another good post within the thread.

We did have a nostalgia sticky. The nostalgia point was also mentioned in other threads.

Ah. Sorry bout that - Im a lurker here mostly!

JP Liz

Jeff Hardy is probably the biggest face in WWE at present but with the correct storylines and feuds MVP, Christian and Morrison have also the potential to be top faces.

ShawnRaven

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Ah. Sorry bout that - Im a lurker here mostly!

Damn good point you made in your previous post. However we have essentially two nostalgia threads, one for general discussion and the Last Event/Match you watched threads tends to be one because all I do is watch the older stuff. If i didn't, i probably wouldn't be here now and would spend my free time playing video games instead and ditched wrestling long ago.

I do tend to agree with a lot of what you wrote, however (and i've had this argument with flahavaj on a few occasions), what grinds the gears of a lot of people, especially older fans and the ones who grew up in the attitude era watching it, is that what we're being served up lately is cheese on toast bollocks catered for 9 year olds. Which is fair enough, when I started watching it in 1986 it was exactly that. And it worked then, just like it's working now.

It was also still that way in 1996, which is why they nearly went under due to the competition. Had Bischoff & Turner not started a takeover war, there's a pretty good chance that Vince would have kept it up catering to the kiddies. Now that there's no competition, Vince can do whatever he wants. So he dropped the 15s rating and went back to PG, and while it works for a business standpoint, the kiddie market will always win due to gullable parents who can't say no.

At this point, i've just come to accept it, because i know i'll never like it. But at the same time, i keep watching because of gems like this years No Way Out. Because if i don't keep up some way, i won't see whatever good (if any) comes out of it.

But it's not a lack of faces, as you say, it's a lack of originality. Music has gone the same way, and i know you disagree, but so have movies, we've had so many sh*tty remakes over the last few years that it's embarrassing. How many more movies based on comics are we gonna have rammed down our throats? And don't even get me started on Rob Zombie's Halloween remake.

Because if it's already been done, you either have to remake it, or let it die.
That's the long and short of it, nostalgia isn't even an issue in that case.