Gimmicks in wrestling...

[MikeRaw]

Well, wrestling and gimmicks have gone through a long history, and alot of "eras" of gimmicks, if you will. Now before I get to the question, let me breifly refresh everyones memory...
Firstly, you would have the pre Hogan era, with pretty well no gimmicks, and just straight 'rasslin...
Then, during the late 70's, 80's and early 90's, you would have a lot of over the top, family oriented, almost larger than life like gimmicks. Guys like Hogan, Macho Man, Flair, Dusty Rhodes, Bob Orton, and many, many more.
But then in the attitude era, it got a little more complex. 3 quarters of the "gimmicks" were just normal guys, with big personalities, and nothing "fictional" These guys are the guys like Austin, Rock, HHH, Bret Hart, Benoit, the list goes on and on, there were so many wrestlers that were more realistic gimmicks, and more "normal" guys. But you also still had a few of the Underakers, the Stings, and Kanes of the world, with still over thwe top gimmicks.

So basically, what Im saying is, in one way or another, up until half through the attitude era, wrestling was very focused on gimmicks, big or small.
But now, it seems WWe is drifting away from "gimmicks" alot more. I mean, obviously wrestling will always have the necessary gimmicks of faces and heels, cocky and sadstic and unbeatable and legends and fighting champions and all that, but really, they seem to not have the big gimmicks any more.

So my questions are these:

-Do you think wwe and wrestling in general is better off with or without the big gimmicks?
-Would you say WWE is more simple gimmicks, or big gimmicks nowadays?

And also, for fun:
-What is your favorite "larger than life" gimmick (kane, taker, sting, hogan, macho man, lex luger, etc)
-What is your favorite "down to earth" gimmick (HHH, Austin, Rock, Matt Hardy, etc, just normal guys with a persona, but not unrealistic)

Now, instead of just posting random shit, actually answer the questions, and if you want, leave other thoughts you have as well...

 

[Headfirst For Hardcore]

Nice topic man, I can see lots of discussion on this.

-Do you think wwe and wrestling in general is better off with or without the big gimmicks?
--I think an unrealistic gimmick is good if used correctly, with only a couple of guys using it. Those type of gimmicks give the WWE the uniqueness, and big time feel to a show. For example, It won't be Wrestler A against Wrestler B. It'll be "The Deadman" The Undertaker, vs his brother "The Big Red Machine" Kane. It gets more of a reaction from the fans than a flashy move.

-Would you say WWE is more simple gimmicks, or big gimmicks nowadays?

--I think that WWE's gimmicks now are more aimed towards a real life person, but with a wrestling twist, having at least some part of the character seem bigger than life. Like Chris Jericho, he's basically an egomaniac that you can't really hate. But with that, you have the Save Us/Y2H shtick, which gives Jericho a reason to be cocky.

-What is your favorite "larger than life" gimmick (kane, taker, sting, hogan, macho man, lex luger, etc)
--I've always been a fan of Kane. His story seems so interesting, being the unwanted, burned brother. Even though it isn't used as much lately, it's something that's nice to see about when watching old episodes of Raw. I really wouldn't call Hogan a "larger than life" gimmick, it was just a simple gimmick that Hogan marketed to perfection.

-What is your favorite "down to earth" gimmick (HHH, Austin, Rock, Matt Hardy, etc, just normal guys with a persona, but not unrealistic)

--I know that it's pretty predictable for me, but it's CM Punk. "This is real. This is straight edge." He lives his gimmick, and there's really no big personality that comes with it. Fans can relate to it and see him as a real person, not just a wrestler. It probably is why Punk's push has gone to shit.

WWE's gimmicks and storylines are basically real life scenarios with a bigger than life feel, which wrestling is supposed to be, IMO. Vince McMahon's on-screen character is the perfect example of it.

 

[Dave]

-Do you think wwe and wrestling in general is better off with or without the big gimmicks?

There are some Gimmicks that certain people enjoy more than others. for example, Kids prefer Cena than Hardcore Holly. however, as a guy who isnt 10 years of age, i prefer the older style of wrestling and i grew up with the liks of Hogan, Savage and the larger than life gimmicks, so as a kid yes. as an adult they can be entertaining but sometimes annoying.

-Would you say WWE is more simple gimmicks, or big gimmicks nowadays?

to be honest i think there are some still left, like HHH, Undertaker, but the small one's still out weigh the big one's.

-What is your favorite "larger than life" gimmick (kane, taker, sting, hogan, macho man, lex luger, etc)

Personally growing up Hogan was my favourite.

-What is your favorite "down to earth" gimmick (HHH, Austin, Rock, Matt Hardy, etc, just normal guys with a persona, but not unrealistic)

If by that you mean who's normal i would definately go with Rock and Matt Hardy. you can not say Austin because who really goes around like that in the real world? Hardy is acts like a simple guy.

 

[rosewt01]

-Do you think wwe and wrestling in general is better off with or without the big gimmicks?

-- I like big gimmicks with Undertaker, Sting, Kane but I like normal people like Batista, JBL, Orton. I thikn a mixture of both large unrealistic gimmicks and realistic gimmicks is a fantastic idea.

-Would you say WWE is more simple gimmicks, or big gimmicks nowadays?

--Both, you have the big gimmicks, Undertaker, MVP (kinda), Umaga and you have the normal ones like Orton, Y2J and Batista. I like it like this but I think it would be a better idea to mix it a bit better.

-What is your favorite "larger than life" gimmick (kane, taker, sting, hogan, macho man, lex luger, etc)

Undertaker, I love the pyro, the scary gimmick, the "always need to have a gimmick match to end of feuds" kinda thing. He is always in a big feud and booked amazingly.

-What is your favorite "down to earth" gimmick (HHH, Austin, Rock, Matt Hardy, etc, just normal guys with a persona, but not unrealistic)

-- The Rock, simply because his mic skills are better than every body elses, his gimmick gets better and better. His skills are amazing which makes his gimmick better.

 

[Airfixx]

Always found the term 'Gimmick' both in terms of matches and wrestlers kinda unflattering and off-putting.... Always prefered the idea of a wrestler simply playing a character, but anyway, here we go...

Do you think wwe and wrestling in general is better off with or without the big gimmicks?

I'm not particularly for or against 'big gimmicks'. I also started watching wrestling during the gimmick-heavy days of the late 80's/early 90's and I think it all comes down to the specific gimmick itself and who assumes the character. (Said it before but Undertaker - being THE example of a succesful 'big gimmick' - could have just easily ended up on the wrestlecrap scrapheap if it wan't for the perfomer behind the character.)

When it works it's gold cos you have this unique character that you can use to create more far-out scenearios and storylines, but it when it doesn't it's pretty rough sitting back and watching a gimmick fail before your eyes over a number of PPVs (Sott Steiner in WWE perhaps? Oh, pardon me, that wasn't gimmick failure he was just an over-roided who could no longer wrestle... My bad! ;o] ).



Would you say WWE is more simple gimmicks, or big gimmicks nowadays?

Well we still have the Undertaker ME-ing, we've recently seen Boogieman, Kevin Thorn's Vampire biz, Kane's still a player (Ironially looking at Kane as an example, streamlinging his gimmick - i.e. since the mask came off - has really done him no favours and was much more over as Taker's 'face-less', psycho brother.)... So, I don't think Vince has entirely ditched the idea of the 'big gimmick'. Considering their biggest successes since Hogan ('Taker aside) has come from people with very simple gimmicks (SCSA, Rock, non-rapping Cena... Even HHH and before that HBK & Bret - Characters that have a personality that fans can relate to) and given the market that WWE are aiming at atm (young fans who will hopefully form the core of their audience over the next 10-15 years), if they were gonna increase the amount of big gimmicks they'd have done it by now.

What is your favorite "larger than life" gimmick (kane, taker, sting, hogan, macho man, lex luger, etc)

I don't really see the likes of Hogan, Luger and to a lesser extent Macho to be larger than life "gimmicks"... Larger than life personalities maybe, but that means something different me.

Not the biggest of fans, but Taker has to be nearing the top of any table... Otherwise, I was a big fan of old-skool Kane tho'... Or, going even further back, when Savage was Macho King (Kingdom of the madness and all that crazy stuff with Sherrie).


What is your favorite "down to earth" gimmick (HHH, Austin, Rock, Matt Hardy, etc, just normal guys with a persona, but not unrealistic)

HHH, Bret, HBK, Mr Perfect, Eddie G, Kurt Angle... Loads of the guys that can REALLY rock the squared circle.... Coincidence?

 

[The Anigma]

First, I think this is a great topic, Mike. Good job!


Do you think WWE and wrestling in general is better off with or without the big gimmicks?

- I think the “big” gimmicks are fine if used properly and not every single person is playing that role. Those kinds of gimmicks give the WWE or any wrestling company for that matter, exceptionality. They give the matches that large than life feeling and the atmosphere just seems so great when you have someone like “The Phenom” The Undertaker going against “The Big Red Machine” Kane as HFH pointed out instead of just having this guy against that guy. Like if you were walking down the street and seen two wrestling posters for two separate companies and one of them said “Peter Jones vs. Bradley Wright” you wouldn’t think anything of it but if you were walking past a poster that said, “The Deadman, The Undertaker vs. The Big Red Machine Kane” you would be like, “Wow, that sounds great! I have to see that one!” I think the “big” gimmicks bring the fans more into the action and gets them more excited to see the superstars go against one another.

Would you say WWE is more simple gimmicks, or big gimmicks nowadays?

- I would say the WWE has more simple gimmicks nowadays because the amoung of Orton's, Triple H's, Jerihco's, Batista's, Matt Hardy's and John Cena's outweigh the amount of Undertaker's, Kane's and Umaga's in the WWE.

What is your favorite "larger than life" gimmick (kane, taker, sting, hogan, macho man, lex luger, etc)

- My favorite "larger than life" gimmick would have to be The Undertaker. His character seems somewhat dull to me right now but it's still an awesome character. His entire entrance especially at WrestleMania's are mesmerizing and the whole "playing mind games with his opponents" thing is cool, too. Undertaker is not only my favorite but without a doubt in my mind one of if not the greatest "larger than life" gimmicks ever.

What is your favorite "down to earth" gimmick (HHH, Austin, Rock, Matt Hardy, etc, just normal guys with a persona, but not unrealistic)

- My favorite "down to earth" gimmick would have to be Triple H because he seems like a normal person to me when he speaks. Each emotion that he displays you can actually feel. Most people would probably say The Rock but I don't consider The Rock to be a "down to earth" character because he's always flashy and I generally can't relate to his character at all because my definition of a "down to earth" gimmick is someone who you can relate to and feel what they're saying. I can't say that about The Rock.

 

[Airfixx]

I get what your saying about the Rock but I'd still class him 'simple' rather than 'big' gimmick wise... You don't thave to share the kind of feelings or traits being expressed to relate to them... Rock just thought he was the best thing in the world ever... Pretty sure we've all met someone like that (even if they didn't have 101 catchphrases to help ram it down ya throat).

 

[The Anigma]

You do have a point, Airfixx and if being "down to earth" is determined on knowing someone that's like them then I guess I would have to classify The Rock underthe "simple" category.

 

[chessarmy]

Do you think wwe and wrestling in general is better off with or without the big gimmicks?

Well, it depends. Obviously it can't be to over the top, gimmicks like Umaga, Taker, and Kane are fine and I think Wrestling is better off with those type of big gimmicks. Guys like Black Reign and Rellik...hell, lets add Kevin Thorn to that list, just don't belong in wrestling anymore.

-Would you say WWE is more simple gimmicks, or big gimmicks nowadays?

Its mixed. You have the default CAW in Cody Rhodes, and you have Umaga/Taker/Khali/Kane. So its mixed


-What is your favorite "larger than life" gimmick (kane, taker, sting, hogan, macho man, lex luger, etc)

Well, I would have picked Macho Man but since he isn't wrestling anymore then I'll go with Undertaker. People may argue that if Taker debut in 2008 he wouldnt be over, but I disagree. His character is great and has a really long shelf life.

-What is your favorite "down to earth" gimmick (HHH, Austin, Rock, Matt Hardy, etc, just normal guys with a persona, but not unrealistic)

Samoa Joe He was good as a heel but when he is a face he is able to really play that character that respects the fans and the best part is it isn't lame. He is also still the same badass who kicks ass and doesnt take shit from anyone.

 

[1chiban]

-Do you think wwe and wrestling in general is better off with or without the big gimmicks?

Gothic gimmicks like kevin Thorn hardly ever work, so I don't miss them, but as said above Taker is legendary. Old Kane gimmick = much better than the current one which is v. boring now. A legitimately unrealistic storyline like Kane-Taker is good when built up properly - wrestling = soap opera = dispelling disbelief when done well. I miss the big storylines, which often go along with gimmicks.

-Would you say WWE is more simple gimmicks, or big gimmicks nowadays?

More simple atm and for the past few years - mostly straight-laced guys, albeit with charisma, who simply want to kick ass. There are signs of bigger gimmicks with Taker staying around, Umaga etc. Seeing that the WWE are seemingly going more for the younger audience now with a Kids magazine, less blood etc, I can see big gimmicks coming back with a greater frequency over the coming months/years



-What is your favorite "larger than life" gimmick (kane, taker, sting, hogan, macho man, lex luger, etc)

Ultimate Warrior - amazing in his time and would love to see him back in the WWE someday. I loved Savage though too...

-What is your favorite "down to earth" gimmick (HHH, Austin, Rock, Matt Hardy, etc, just normal guys with a persona, but not unrealistic

Stone Cold - for the pure fact that he is synontmous with possibly the last real "boom" period the business will have