DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
TNA Fan World
HTML https://tnafans.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: WWE Chat
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10489--------------------------------------------------
Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without their
gimmicks?
By: 01332tnafan Date: March 9, 2013, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In WWE we have sew some good and bad gimmicks , some that work
and some what don't, two names that come to Mind are The
Undertaker and Kane. they have both had good gimmicks and 2 of
the most famous gimmicks in WWE history.
The Undertaker made his debut in the 1990 and then we sew Kane
make his in 1997. But, my question is, did their gimmicks make
them better and is that the reason why they have been they were
successful.
Another question that could be asked is would they have been
successful without Paul Bearer?
So what are people's thoughts on this matter?
#Post#: 11402--------------------------------------------------
Re: Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without th
eir gimmicks?
By: SheriffLonestar Date: April 21, 2013, 4:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Mark Calloway was always that good and Glen Jacobs had a
number of shots before getting a marketable gimmick. They where
both successful elsewhere before there WWE runs so it was just a
matter of matching the right gimmick to the right guys. They
would have gotten themselves over if they hadn't had the
characters.
#Post#: 11404--------------------------------------------------
Re: Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without th
eir gimmicks?
By: Robert Date: April 21, 2013, 10:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I had read that the orginal Gobblety Gooker was Mark Callas when
he first entered WWE. Mark had a good run in NWA/WCW as part of
the Twin Towers but it was the Undertaker gimmick that actually
put him on the map. WCW/NWA weren't as good at promoting their
wresters as WWE/WWF ever have been. I give WWE/WWF credit on how
well they promoted their wrestlers but still enjoyed WCW/NWA
much more because WWE became to much of a love cartoon, with the
likes of Hogan, Savage, Ultimate Warrior, and Undertaker.
WCW/NWA was like the AWA and WCCW the promoted wrestling nog
gimmicks back then.
#Post#: 11405--------------------------------------------------
Re: Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without th
eir gimmicks?
By: SheriffLonestar Date: April 22, 2013, 12:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to correct you Robert, but the Gobbeldy Gooker was an
example of how bad they could get things wrong at the same time
as getting things so right. The theme of that Survivor Series
was surprises. The Undertaker was the zenith of how far they
could take their gimmicks. The Gobbeldy Gooker was one of those
things that made Vince laugh which was going to die a death. The
Gobbeldy Gooker plan went as intended from the start, that was
supposed to be Hector Guerrero running around in a Turkey suit.
And Mean Mark was in the Skyscrapers, replacing an injury prone
Sic Viscous. The Twin Towers where Akeem (The One Man Gang) and
The Big Bossman in WWF around the same time.
#Post#: 11412--------------------------------------------------
Re: Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without th
eir gimmicks?
By: Robert Date: April 22, 2013, 10:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the correction on The Skyskrapers and Twin Towers.
Reason I mentioned Mark Callous was Gobilty "Gooker was because
that is what I heard on a WWF/WWE video about a year ago. WCW
was bad at promoting their wrestlers all through their history.
The only three that they succeded in promoting were Ric Flair,
Bill Goldberg and Four Horsemen. I will admit that if it wasn't
for WWE and how they promoted that pro wrestling would not be as
big of a market as it is today.
#Post#: 11414--------------------------------------------------
Re: Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without th
eir gimmicks?
By: SheriffLonestar Date: April 23, 2013, 1:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would disagree that WCW had that problem in some respects.
It's predecessor, Jim Crockett Promotions did have a proven
track record of promotion, the issue became when it was bought
out by Turner and wrestling people stopped running the show. I
would also say a lot of its ideas worked well, Sting and the NWO
both made a ton of money as we see with Aces and 8s are still in
circulation today, even if the idea was originally a concept
from All Japan Pro Wrestling. But then there is nothing new
under the sun :).
#Post#: 11422--------------------------------------------------
Re: Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without th
eir gimmicks?
By: Robert Date: April 23, 2013, 4:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sting actually came over from I believe either WCCW or Bill
Watt's promotion. It was WCW that made him a superstar. If you
look back at WCW popularity it didn't become big until the WWE
stars came over to form NWO. So they used already established
stars and they weren't pushing their own home grown wrestlers
kind of like what TNA is doing at the moment. TNA is starting
to get better by pushing ROODE and STYLES. When I first started
reading about TNA I thought they were copying stars from other
alliances like Abyss, (Mankind), Bobby Roode (Rici Rude), and
the guy that imitated Randy Savage. His name slipped my mind at
the moment. For about a year - two years I couldn't find any TNA
on tv then I found them on SPIKE and been watching since. ROH is
hard to keep up with because of no tv shows. I would like to
watch ROH but the matches I find on you tube are so far behind
that it's not interesting to watch because of being so far
behind. Example last match I saw on youtube was when Robbie T
won the championship. Since then he's been in TNA for a while.
#Post#: 11423--------------------------------------------------
Re: Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without th
eir gimmicks?
By: SheriffLonestar Date: April 23, 2013, 5:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sting worked for both WCCW and Mid South/UWF (Bill Watts
promotion) he was bought along with the rest of the UWF roster
which was supposed to become as a big an invasion angle as the
NWO but ten years early. WCW being what it was at the time this
did not come off though. To be fair to JCP/WCW JCP was a
national powerhouse in the territorial days and made Ric Flair,
Roddy Piper, Greg Valentine and countless other stars, was the
first to go into closed circuit TV for Starcade (the forerunner
of PPV) and developed a long term national strategy at the same
time as Vince but didn't have the money or TV access to make it
work, hence the Turner buyout. The guy your thinking of is Jay
Lethal, and he actually was given the gimmick in TNA by the
Macho Man himself, Jay also had a clean pin on Kurt Angle for
the X Division title and was on hsi way to being pushed to the
moon. Sadly didn't come off for him but he seems to be doing
okay in ROH which suites hi style. I don't watch ROH regularly
either, but I like matches not story lines and for my personal
taste ROH has a stronger roster than TNA. Each to their own
though.
#Post#: 11424--------------------------------------------------
Re: Would The Undertaker and Kane been as successful without th
eir gimmicks?
By: SheriffLonestar Date: April 23, 2013, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Now I read your message again I think your thinking of OVW as
Robbie T has never been on the ROH roster.
*****************************************************