Are gimmicks good for the WWE?

[WrestlingDeacon 0]

I don't come into this folder much, but I have a question for the hardcore WWE fans. Now don't bash me, I don't like Bradshaw and thinks he sucks in the ring, but I love the gimmick. The way he's dressed, is presented, his motivations, his theme music is totally different from anyone else they have and it's a breath of fresh air. In the past couple of years every worker seems to be the exact same guy with the same style, pushed the same way with the same generic rock theme. There's something very old school about an evil stockbroker cowboy, he's almost like JR Ewing. And I've noticed a few other guys have been given more specific gimmick, like Eugene Dinsmore and Rene Dupree. It's almost like they're taking a step back from the characters that worked in the attitude era and going back to the type of characters you would see in the '80's, maybe just a bit more believable and fleshed out. So my question is, do you guys like this idea and think that this direction, more gimmick oriented, is a good way to go for the WWE at this time?

[Downhome 0]

I love gimmicks, I want more gimmicks, and I love Eugene and Bradshaw.

 

Bring em on!

 

I'd rather gimmicks be around WWE over random guys who are known just by their name, with nothing at all different about one from the other.

 

Gimmicks are usually not in the main event of a huge PPV or the world champion, and when they are in the main event it's usually just a filler feud in which they lose and no harm is done.

[Zack Malibu 0]

I'm all for gimmicks, because otherwise there is nothing that differentiates the Jindraks from the Morgans from the Cades and so on. I don't like stupid gimmicks (see Eugene for reference), but a good, fleshed out character that people can either get behind or love to hate is definitely something I like to see.

 

I do NOT want to see something like Goon or TL Hopper rehashes. Let's keep the idiocy to a minimum.

[notJames 0]

Gimmicks sell one-liners. Characters sell tickets and brand loyalty.

 

If I can't invest in a character on some emotional level, I don't watch. Seriously, is "Eugene" gonna be a wrestler anyone cares about five months from now, let alone five years, after the gimmick has aged past its two-week freshness date? And what does that do for the wrestlers themselves? Are they compensated for the obvious damage stupid gimmicks like this do to their careers?

 

You would think the higher-ups would have learned from the mistakes of the early- to mid-90s.

[Highland 0]

Gimmicks sell one-liners. Characters sell tickets and brand loyalty.

 

If I can't invest in a character on some emotional level, I don't watch. Seriously, is "Eugene" gonna be a wrestler anyone cares about five months from now, let alone five years, after the gimmick has aged past its two-week freshness date? And what does that do for the wrestlers themselves? Are they compensated for the obvious damage stupid gimmicks like this do to their careers?

 

You would think the higher-ups would have learned from the mistakes of the early- to mid-90s.

I mostly agree, but I think certain gimmicks are a good thing, and is desperately needed for some characters, like Bradshaw. There are very few that would be hindered by a gimmick, an example being Benoit.

Mark Calloway probably had one of the most successful gimmicks in wwe history, does anyone think he'd be as popular as he is/was without the Undertaker gimmick? I doubt it.

[notJames 0]

But that's the exception, not the rule. How many Goons, Red Roosters and Mantaurs can you go through before you find an Undertaker? I can't really think of five over-the-top gimmicks that went on to successful careers with that same gimmick.

 

And just to clarify, when I say "gimmick" I mean over-the-top, stupidly-stereotypical or insult-the-intelligence-of-your-fanbase gimmick. Characterization and motivation are one thing, but to stick a guy in an anachronistic costume or make him some left-of-center caricature without some purpose that's wrestling related smacks of laziness and ignorance. Farrooq's first appearance springs to mind. I mean, what the fuck was Ron Simmons supposed to be? A Trojan warrior? A human bullet? A condom ad? Stupid shit like that makes me turn off my TV and hide the remote.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

But that's the exception, not the rule. How many Goons, Red Roosters and Mantaurs can you go through before you find an Undertaker? I can't really think of five over-the-top gimmicks that went on to successful careers with that same gimmick.

 

And just to clarify, when I say "gimmick" I mean over-the-top, stupidly-stereotypical or insult-the-intelligence-of-your-fanbase gimmick. Something like Farrooq's first appearance springs to mind. I mean, what the fuck was Ron Simmons supposed to be? Stupid shit like that makes me turn off my TV and hide the remote.

Actually you're wrong. Every major star of the 80's and Early/Mid 90's had an outlandish gimmick. That's a lot of good stuff to make up for the WrestleCrap.

[notJames 0]

If people enjoyed the antics of one-dimensional cartoons like Kamala, the Honky-Tonk Man and Brutus the Barber Beefcake, that's their cross to bear. I just don't enjoy having to watch outlandish cartoons, any more than I have to put up with today's crop of carbon-copy frat boy no-names.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

If people enjoyed the antics of one-dimensional cartoons like Kamala, the Honky-Tonk Man and Brutus the Barber Beefcake, that's their cross to bear. I just don't enjoy having to watch outlandish cartoons, any more than I have to put up with today's crop of carbon-copy frat boy no-names.

So basically it's all about what YOU want, not what draws or what the majority wants to see?

 

Typical.

[razazteca 0]

Comdey gimmicks = me likey

Evil forgeinors = me dislikey

Plumblers, garbagemen, barbers = boring

[Guest I Got Banned for Sucking]

The less gimmicks now have actually made way for more athleticism, which is great.

 

But without gimmicks, the casual fans can lost interest quickly. Instead of being like a circus, like the WWF was in the mid-90s, I'd say to use gimmicks when necessary, and they can be over-the-top, where and on who they should be used, but do it wisely - don't just slap a gimmick on someone to get over when you haven't even seen their work.

 

That's why we have Heat and Velocity.

 

Seriusly, if the casual fans are calling it "stupid" because of the abundance of gimmicks, then you know that something's wrong.

 

WWE are doing quite well in that department at the moment.

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

It depends on what you're doing. A person need something to make them more than a guy in a pair of tights, but to what extent you do nit must be very carefully considered. The Hurricane works for Shane Helms, but could Rob Van Dam pull off something at a similar level? Doubtful. Of course, I also hate all nationality gimmicks. From Akeem The African Dream(from what I've read about the character) to La Resistance, they just come off as very, very stupid. Instead, you make Rene Dupree into the most arrogant guy every, but lose the poodle and the flag, for example.

[deancoles 0]

The Head Cheese thing was a good gimmick, It got Steve Blackman over after over 2 years of trying and failing.

[JoeDirt 0]

The Head Cheese thing was a good gimmick, It got Steve Blackman over after over 2 years of trying and failing.

Let's be honest here, Steve Blackman _never_ got over...

 

It really _does_ seem like the WWE is going old school again. More power to the referees, longer slower matches, gimmicks, babyfaces all getting along with each other...it's like reverse-Attitude era.

[Mole 0]

Gimmicks sell, but it seems the better wrestlers have names.

 

Bret Hart

Ric Flair

Shawn Michaels

Chris Benoit

etc

[nl5xsk1 0]

And just to clarify, when I say "gimmick" I mean over-the-top, stupidly-stereotypical or insult-the-intelligence-of-your-fanbase gimmick.

Couldn't much of what the Undertaker did be considered over the top and insulting to our intelligence?

 

The whole 'undead zombie' era, for example. Or the power of the urn. Or being buried alive. Once he went past being an actual undertaker to "the Dead Man" he became over the top stupid and unbelievable. Yet he's the one that you reference as Ok.

[notJames 0]

I never said UT was "ok". I only said he was one of a handful to be successful with it. That doesn't change the fact of the gimmick's outlandishness.

[Guest Goodear]

Gimmicks are good because they give wrestlers reason. Now sometimes a person's natural personality amped up to a high degree is enough to drive a character forward. Guys like Benoit, Guerrero and more recently Shelton Benjamin don't really require a great deal of development because they're naturally compelling just by being intense, happily sleazy, or cocky. But some people require more of a hook that allows them that same personality that doesn't always come across if they're just using tights and such. For instance, hardly anyone thought Cena was going to be anything until he fell into the rapper gimick that caught on so well in the last year. Its simply a case of finding what works the best for which person. Making everyone an outrageous gimmick and costume is just as bad as putting everyone in tights and hoping for the best.

[Guest BillyTheStud]

Instead, you make Rene Dupree into the most arrogant guy every, but lose the poodle and the flag, for example.

Fuck you

[Guest Anglesault]

Their major problem is they're not tthinking long term at all.

 

Eugene is a character that will get old in two weeks and wil probably kill Dinsmore's career.

 

But look at those two weeks of d-level "hilarity!"

 

Is it worth it?

[Guest Goodear]

If it gets him over, then yes. You're working under the impression that if he didn't have a gimmick he would be in better shape. I would then point you to The Bashams who might as well have no gimmick but no one cares about.

[Guest Anglesault]

I'm saying that fans in 2004 probably won't care about a retarded hillbilly character for very long, nor will they have enough interest in the guy to want to see him move up the card.

 

You've locked the man in a lower midcard comedy gimmick that probably doesn't even have a long shelf life.

[Guest Goodear]

And I'm saying that first off, you're underestimating the drawing factor of stupidity in media. Homer Simpson, George Castansa and 50 Cent all prove that people love to watch stupid people do stupid things. Card position at this point doesn't mean a thing to a guy that they're obviously not all that high on as a major player or he would have been called up much sooner than he was. Dinsmore simply has a far better chance of latching on as the next Rikishi than the next Chris Benoit which isn't such bad work if you can get it.

[King Cucaracha 0]

I agree with you AS, but from the WWE point of view...would Mr Wrestling have got the same kind of dumb pop Eugene did on Raw? And how would you get a 'Mr Wrestling' persona over on a show where midcard matches last a maximum of 5 minutes?

 

What I don't agree with is the 'insulting our intelligence' claims. If I see a guy acting like a retard on Raw, I don't think 'wow, this is insulting my intelligence...let's turn over'. It's a lower-midcard gimmick designed to get cheap pops, and to give Vinnie Mac and his creative buddies some d-grade humour. It's the fact we're intelligent that makes it less insulting, because we know it's a gimmick. If you feel your intelligence is being insulted by that, then...well, what can I say?

 

A dumb, comedy gimmick now and then in the midcard doesn't hurt anyone really.

[Guest Anglesault]

Oh, Mr. Wrestling is quite stupid as well. That's just an idea designed to fail.

 

But there HAS to be something better than Eugene.

[razazteca 0]

Eugene can be "cured" in the same manner Buh Buh Dudley was.........just beat it out of him!

[King Cucaracha 0]

Oh, Mr. Wrestling is quite stupid as well. That's just an idea designed to fail.

 

But there HAS to be something better than Eugene.

Oh, certainly. But then again, most of thos wouldn't get the attention Eugene will.

 

The sad fact is, Eugene probably got more mentions on Raw than Benoit. And the sadder fact is a gimmick like this will probably be higher on Vince's priority list than them too.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

Eugene can be "cured" in the same manner Buh Buh Dudley was.........just beat it out of him!

They couldn't do that as Vince has reached his quota for "Ideas I stole from Paul".........or "Ideas that Paul stole and then I stole them"

[Guest Your Olympic Hero]

Mark Calloway probably had one of the most successful gimmicks in wwe history, does anyone think he'd be as popular as he is/was without the Undertaker gimmick? I doubt it.

See 1990 NWA/WCW. Mean Mark Callous.

 

He was not going to go anywhere with that, except jobbing to a fucking clothesline from Lex Luger on PPV.

 

The gimmick made his career.

[SamoaRowe 0]

Oh, I love gimmicks.

 

However, I like GOOD gimmicks! The new Bradshaw character is an example of a good gimmick. The new Nick Dinsmore gimmick is an example of WrestleCrap. Learn the difference!

 

My money says Dinsmore drops the gimmick by Summer.