Jump to content

Character development in wrestling


Slapnut

Recommended Posts

Already posted in Comments that don't warrant a thread, but it could actually create a nice little topic.

 

I'm in the middle of doing an essay for uni on character development so naturally I chose wrestling. I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the following:

 

1) What do you think makes a good wrestler?

 

2) What do you think makes a good wrestling character? More emphasis on the character, less emphasis on the wrestling skills.

 

3) Do you think WWE (and TNA I guess) should give members of their roster character development classes and/or acting classes as part of their developmental training? If so, how would you go about doing this?

 

4) How far would you agree with the statement that character development has not been as important in wrestling in recent years?

EDIT: Let me rephrase this one: How far would you agree with the statement that character development has not seemed to be a big priority in recent years?

 

Also, if anybody here wrestles or promotes, if they have 5 minutes of free time it would be great if I could interview you so let me know, cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of along with your point but I wish new wrestlers coming in were given far more help on developing themselves and learning how to talk etc by managers etc, there are so many decent verterans out there who would make a great Heenan or Heyman style manager for green talent. These days it seems somebody is brought in and its very difficult for them to seperate themselves, especially with the quick rate talent is now debuted. Imagine how over 2 or 3 guys could get if they came in with somebody like Heyman or even somebody like Foley to be their mouthpiece and get them over, clearly define their look and character and then after 6 months or so let them go on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) What do you think makes a good wrestler?

 

A performer with enough co-ordination and athleticism to safely and convincingly take and deliver moves, who has clearly defined character traits which are quickly recognisable even to new viewers unfamiliar with the show and its stars, and give the audience a reason to hate or support him. This character should be maintained not only in skits and promos but more importantly throughout the duration of matches - informing the wrestler's body language, facial expressions, moveset, and the structure of their matches. A good wrestler will then use this character, and that of his opponent, to tell a story which psychologically and emotionally involves the audience, and fits logically into the wider narratives of a) their ongoing storyline/feud b) the wrestler's individual character arc, and c) that particular night's show.

 

2) What do you think makes a good wrestling character?

 

* Quick to recognise and understand. Apart from the main-eventers, most individual wrestlers are on TV for about 10 minutes a week. You need to know who they are immediately, from the way they dress, the way they look, the way they act, the way they speak. This is why so many wrestling gimmicks are based on stereotypes, and why a lot of those stereotype gimmicks actually work. You also usually need to know straight away whether they are heel or face - if you don't know who to support and why, you aren't going to get into the match. A heel needs to be instantly dislikable, and distanced from the fans. A babyface needs to be either instantly likeable and sympathetic (eg. Ricky Steamboat) or cool and appealling (eg. The Rock) and fans should either be able to identify with them or aspire to be like them.

 

* A good wrestling character should suggest and create obvious conflicts and storylines with other characters - reasons to have a match or a feud. CM Punk's "Straight Edge" gimmick is a good example of this. It immediately throws up possible conflicts and fantasy booking scenarios - Jeff Hardy, Steve Austin etc. By contrast a wrestler could have a similar character trait based on a moral lifestyle choice which would be entirely ineffectual as a wrestling gimmick because it offers very few interesting conflicts or dynamics - a wrestler being vegetarian, say, isn't exactly marketable. Which is why Daniel Bryan and John Morrison's dietary choices are only mentioned in passing - there's no antagonist or foil for that character trait in WWE...they're hardly going to have a lengthy feud with Mark Henry because he ate a big steak in front of them.

 

* A good wrestling character will very often have some basis in reality. Wrestlers are not (for the most part) trained actors. They are not Robert De Niro. Expecting them to give a convincing performance as a character which is the complete opposite of themselves in real life is probably not the best idea. Most major stars seem to say that their ring persona was themselves, or an aspect of themselves "with the volume turned up" - (Bret Hart, Steve Austin, Mick Foley, The Rock, Ric Flair...) Also, regardless of how dead kayfabe might be, wrestling is still a weird blend of fantasy and reality, and fans often get into storylines more when we aren't quite sure if we are being worked. As great a performer as Edge is, it took nailing his mate's girlfriend in real life to turn his character into one which could draw major money. Real life situations being played out in the ring allow fans to invest more emotionally, because they can suspend their disbelief more easily. (Hence the years of anticipation for things like WCW vs. WWF, Vince vs. Bret etc.)

 

There are exceptions to this - The Undertaker and Million Dollar Man characters, for example, were pretty much just handed out to wrestlers who had little in common with the roles, and they worked out great. But I think its safe to say there are far more examples of wrestlers finding their own money-making persona than there are of some creative genius handing out to them a character to inhabit and it working well.

 

3) Do you think WWE (and TNA I guess) should give members of their roster character development classes and/or acting classes as part of their developmental training?

 

WWE probably should, but only because they are quite often going down the road of coming up with a character first, then finding a wrestler to fit it. In that case, traditional acting skills would be extremely useful.

 

In an ideal world though, I think that wrestling should be an almost entirely separate art to acting - in the same way a stand-up comedian might inhabit a role for their performance (their "clown" as Stewart Lee might put it), but would not be considered to be "acting" in the traditional sense. As I've said, I feel most wrestling characters should be an extension of self, so there shouldn't be all that much "acting", in terms of inhabiting the role of someone else, involved. What truly gets a wrestler over in the long term is how they convey their character in the big promos but also *in the ring*, and although acting classes may help with that, it could be much better taught by veterans of the wrestling business itself. I certainly think character development should be a big part of the developmental program though, and companies should be looking to teach their performers to express themselves and develop a character - which they would then ideally bring with them onto the main roster. Creative should more often be looking to work with the characters and wrestlers they have in developmental, rather than wrestlers having to work with the characters creative gives them. It could do with being more of a collaborative process, I think, but there are difficulties involved with that - the main one being that Vince has to sign off on eveything, and Vince doesn't have time to be bothering with Curt Hawkins quibbling over creative.

 

4) How far would you agree with the statement that character development has not seemed to be a big priority in recent years?

 

I'm not sure that it hasn't been a priority, I just don't think its been done very well! As I've said, I think wrestlers used to do a lot more of this stuff for themselves, with guidance from promoters - now WWE in particular is so micro-managed that guys either don't have the freedom or don't have the confidence to go out there and experiment and find themselves. They also for the most part don't have the experience that the previous generation did, of working in different territories, in front of different audiences around the world.

 

There is also just a general lack of clear, well defined characters. With most stars of the '80s, you could sum them up in three or four adjectives, and anyone who read that list would know immediately what to expect from that character, and whether they were a good guy or a bad guy. There might be other aspects of their personality which would be played up if they turned. Try doing that with most WWE midcarders today and you'll struggle to get much further than "Happy" (Evan Bourne) or "Smug" (Dolph Ziggler).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

1) What do you think makes a good wrestler?

Someone who looks the part. When your flicking through the channels or looking at a poster or magazine, in ring skill doesnt come into it. But, you need to know how to work obviously. People said Dusty, Hogan, Warrior, Superstar Graham, Sammartino, Goldberg, Batista and Cena couldnt work, but you'll notice those all have something in common. The other week I was watching the WWF's Main Event special from 1988 (the one that drew 33 million viewers) and its quite special. The show starts with an mini-interviews with Honky Tonk, Savage, Hogan and Andre with DiBiase, followed by an intro featuring each wrestler with them performing a wrestling move with a big logo next to their name. Each wrestler was clearly divided up into the heel and face camp as well. So in 120 seconds this new television audience on NBC found out Andre wanted to win the belt to sell it off to Dibase, Hulk Hogan stood for good and didnt want to sell out to "the man" ("the man" was the root of all evil in the late 80s), Randy Savage got twatted by an Elvis impersonator with a guitar and now wants to shag his lass, and to top it all off we now know all their names and finishing moves because of the colourful intros and logos. Then it cut to Vince and Ventura who couldnt have hyped the event anymore than they did. They were just brilliant. The in ring action for the two most heavily promoted and featured matches on the card were abysmal. Andre couldnt move, Hogan wasnt doing much, half the moves werent even connecting. Honky Tonk Man was as shit as ever as far as wrestling ability went, and Savage was selling for most of the match. Both of these matches werent much to watch with the sound off. Both matches ended with major angles which made you desperate to watch the next WWF event. Hogan lost the belt, Savage failed to win the IC belt. Its one of the best shows WWF have ever put on, in my opinion. What I'm getting at is, the whole event was about the attraction of these superstar wrestlers. They were superheros. I remember when I was a kid, I thought Earthquake would legit walk around and sit on anyone no matter where he was. I thought he'd be in Sainsbury's and if there was a queue, he'd go mental and Earthquake splash the checkout lad. For me I want to see someone who can wrestle to a standard and draw my attention with the rest of what he brings, because I'm not going to watch their match on PPV if they dont sell it to be on television through their character. Sting for example drew more money in the 18 months he never wrestled than at anytime in his entire career. He was never better during this period.

 

2) What do you think makes a good wrestling character?

Someone who can connect with the audience, through his outfit, interviews, his mannerisms, ring presence and whatever moves of his are over. The People's Elbow is pretty ridiculous, and the Socko claw is even worse. But we were all doing those at school back in the late 90s. Some dirty bastards even whipped the sock off the foot when we were fucking about on the field. I've always prefered a character based match over a exibition. If someone showed me Mountie vs The Boss Man and I didnt know who either were, I'd think it was shite. But at the time, I knew both wrestlers characters, I knew what the stipulation was, and I was chuffed to bits when the 'Only Law and Order in the World Wrestling Federation' got sent for a night in the cells. Crowd reaction and a story makes medicore matches good and good matches great. Probably why I thought Kobashi and Samoa Joe was shit. I didnt at the time really give a fuck about either of them, so all I saw was two fat blokes looking like various stages of the life of Elvis slapping each other in the chest and taking headbumps in a building where a basketball net was visible.

 

3) Do you think WWE (and TNA I guess) should give members of their roster character development classes and/or acting classes as part of their developmental training?

WWE already do, dont they? You cant have all the acting classes and character development you want, but if they want CM Punk to start being a taxi driver or Randy Orton to play a Bin Laden sympathiser, its not going to come across like he's feeling it. I'm all for doing like they did it years ago, where they would take a risk on someone, and if it failed then just throw the thing away. They have as many failures these days with the current scripting and lack of input from the performer anyway. Mick Foley even said, the highest rated segment in Raw history (the This is Your Life thing) was called terrible and both Rock and Foley got bollocked for it because they kept going off script and dragged it out for about half-an-hour of the show. They wouldnt have gotten that bit of gold, had they not started being themselves and cracked jokes and allowed the crowd to extend their cheers. Sometimes its best to just take a risk.

 

4) How far would you agree with the statement that character development has not seemed to be a big priority in recent years?

They are aiming at a different audience at the minute. They might feel that by letting a character hang out there without change for so long, when change finally comes the impact of it will be ten times of that than if they had pulled the trigger right away. There was talk in an old Power Slam of WWF turning Shawn Michaels heel in 1996, even though he'd only been face about 12 months. But they hung on and hung on and when they eventually turned him, it was a success. And there's only so much you can do with the current restrictions. You cant turn Cena heel, because he's the only safe bet the company has, as far as money goes. You cant turn him into a sweary babyface because of the current target audience. And you cant change his outfit or put him in wrestling tights, because you dont want to go messing about with your stars look to much. The biggest problem for me isnt character development. Its that there doesnt seem to be any characters at all. Dolf Ziggler now looks like shit, even though he stood out amongst the pack the way he used to look. Jack Swagger is so far behind Michael Cole as the star of that team, you'd find it hard to believe he's a former world champion. There's exceptions, but there's nobody really worth a fuck other than the top stars. There's no Rick Martel or Rick Rude or D'Lo Brown or X-Pac or Ted Dibase. Well there's a Ted Dibase, but he's fucking shite. There's no over midcarders who you want to buy the t-shirts of, like the Road Dogg was. There needs to be more of a cast of characters. Not so much character development, but actually characters to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...