The Great Muta Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 As WWE is the global leader in the wrestling industry they heavily influence what an audience expects from a wrestling show. Since the WWE has gone the PG route the product is now mostly aimed at kids. This leads me to assume that kids in the UK go to British promotions expecting the same type of wrestling they see on TV albeit on a smaller scale. Â Wrestling first started getting popular and mainstream in the 80s with kid friendly Hulkamania, went more risqu
Ravenhill Promotions Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 I think it all depends on the show and what target audience the show is being marketed towards. Â Welsh Wrestling is very much character based, but that doesn't mean there's not good wresting taking place. All the guys used have a place on the roster, and they know that the crowd I target (6yr olds to 12yr olds) want simple good guys and bad guys to boo and cheer.
Loki Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 WWE wrestlers just don't have "gimmicks" any more, apart from rare guys like Boogeyman or Abyss. With the huge increase in tv time, there's a lot more opportunity to get people's characters over, you don't just have to be a Cowboy, or a Porn Star, or a Vampire or whatever. Â In my opinion, if you're on the indy circuit, a decent gimmick would be a huge bonus. American Dragon, Fallen Angel, Straight-Edge, Delirious - these are characters that stand out in a crowd of dead-serious rassler and high-flyer.
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted June 15, 2011 Paid Members Posted June 15, 2011 For me gimmicks and characters are a necessarily. That is what sells the product. You watch the show for a cast of characters interacting with each other. Thats what does my head in about current wrestling. There's to many people who look the same or act the same. Thats why R-Truth is so class at the minute. I know his gimmick, I know the type of personality he is and what he's likely to get up to if things aren't to his liking and he's looks and acts how he speaks. Everything clicks about him. Or CM Punk. He's gimmick, interview style, outfit, ring style and general attitude all click as well. Gimmicks are a license to print money as well, because if a gimmick is over, people want to buy their shit. I personally think wrestling without gimmicks and characters is pointless. Its just an exhibition or pure boredom otherwise. Every successful era has a cast of characters. What would Sandman, Raven or Taz be without their gimmicks? How successful would Hogan, Hall and Nash be in the late 90s with that nWo gimmick? Or the Attitude era? Most of the wrestlers were shite, carried along by innovative or hilarious gimmicks. Its what wrestling is about.
dangerously420 Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Yes. If there were no gimmicks then the events would just be a bore to watch.
terrornation Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Take a look at El Ligero's upcoming bookings, Not to beef on the guy but i cant see him having a stacked calender just as himself, Without a gimmick. So yes they are important
Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted June 15, 2011 Paid Members Posted June 15, 2011 I think they're of paramount importance... Everyone that has any real, tangible success has a gimmick, whether it's Benoit, Austin, 'Taker, or a wrestling pork scratching. The closest I can think of to gimmickless is basic Dean Malenko or Lance Storm, and great wrestlers they may have been, they wouldn't entice me to walk to the end of street just to watch them wrestle. Malenko was only interesting as vanillaman once he started to feud with Jericho, who MADE him interesting, and Lance Storm never made me care unless he was attached to or feuding with more gimmicky workers.
The Great Muta Posted June 15, 2011 Author Posted June 15, 2011 Take a look at El Ligero's upcoming bookings, Not to beef on the guy but i cant see him having a stacked calender just as himself, Without a gimmick. So yes they are important   This is true, it also leads me to another point. I think to truly make an audience believe in a gimmick you have to commit to the character 100%. I'm a friend of El Ligeros and I can tell you that his dedication to his character and it's presentation is tremendous. It's clear from his success that you get out of a character what you put into it
Paid Members Your Fight Site Posted June 15, 2011 Paid Members Posted June 15, 2011 Wrestling itself is an act, so to step into a wrestling ring without some sort of character is just stupid and nigh on impossible. Attempting not to have a gimmick just totally goes against what professional wrestling is. Â If you want to watch wrestling with no gimmickry then watch freestyle or Greco Roman wrestling.
Paid Members Carbomb Posted June 15, 2011 Paid Members Posted June 15, 2011 Depends if, by "gimmick", you're differentiating it from a "character". For me, the word gimmick has always implied a specific "hook", like Jake Roberts coming out with a snake or Triple H behaving like a snob. I don't think Benoit's was so much a gimmick as a character, same with Bret Hart to a certain degree. Â I would say in the UK, it's important to have a lot of gimmicks, because you're largely drawing a family crowd. But, by the same token, I think it's necessary to "break-up" the gimmicks with the odd subtle character or characterless guy, so that you don't give them too much to have to remember; similar to the principle of structuring shows so that each match performs a specific purpose as a part of the overall event.
aosist Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 I wouldn't say 'necessary' but I do think a colorful gimmick can certainly be useful in order to stand out to the crowd be memorable. Naturally it depends on the gimmick and the execution, but I'm all for a little zaniness in my indy wrestling.
Paid Members JNLister Posted June 15, 2011 Paid Members Posted June 15, 2011 Depends if, by "gimmick", you're differentiating it from a "character". For me, the word gimmick has always implied a specific "hook", like Jake Roberts coming out with a snake or Triple H behaving like a snob. I don't think Benoit's was so much a gimmick as a character, same with Bret Hart to a certain degree. Â I'd guess one difference would be that you could transfer a character to a different dramatic setting, but not a gimmick. So, for example, being the Red Rooster or Tugboat wouldn't work in Coronation Street. However, a well-defined character could walk on to the show and you'd have expectations about how they'd behave: Would they help somebody in need at the expense of their own success? Do they react angrily if things don't go their way, or do they rebound? Do they ally with others because it's the right thing to do, or because it serves their needs? Would they intervene to protest against an injustice that didn't directly affect them?
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted June 15, 2011 Paid Members Posted June 15, 2011 I think the Red Rooster would be perfect for Corrie. I could just see him smashing Liz McDonalds pasty behind the Rovers Return.
psyclown Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 I think its all down to the person portraying the Gimmick, if they guy cant pull it off well then definite no no. but if the gimmick is executed well then sure it can be a massive boost to any show
silvera2006 Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 I believe gimmicks / characters are vital in the british scene. Let me ask you this question, with no disrespect intended to the wrestlers mentioned: Â You are at an All Star show, in Butlins or suchlike. The audience is 98% kids and their parents. Who will the crowd remember at the end of the night - Martin Kirby, or Flatliner?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.