If WWE Was Being Honest About Heels And Babyfaces
Attempts to blur the lines foil even the most genius practitioners of the art. Somewhat fittingly, the recent Bullet Club storyline and side plots, when scrutinised, are riddled with holes. To prolong the tension of the leadership coup, the Young Bucks had to question their loyalties, even though Cody was unquestionably—to the point of gloriously unabashed d*ckhead comedy on his part—the heel in this scenario. Omega overcame the hellish personal fallout by using the newfound power of babyface “love” to capture Kazuchika Okada’s IWGP Heavyweight Title. Omega wanted to “change the world”; at the G1 Climax, he played Tomohiro Ishii’s head like a bongo, reverting to arrogant type. It was a scorching match in a vacuum, but one that betrayed the character he established just two months prior.
The ambition was admirable, the execution uneven. When the formula is stretched, most often, so is suspension of disbelief.
Recently, WWE has, depending on your perspective, attempted to either blur these lines also - or pretend that the lines only exist in our imagination.
It doesn’t matter if you boo Roman Reigns; if you react to him, it means he is a star!
The crowd at the RAW after WrestleMania is bizarro. They boo who they normally cheer, and cheer who they normally boo!
This is WWE’s attempt to have it both ways. We’ve seen quite a bit of this of late.
Braun Strowman is—or was— a singular case. As a heel, he f*cked his competition up with no remorse. As a babyface, he f*cked his competition up with no remorse. As an opponent for Roman Reigns, he raised the hands of fellow heels because he now is one. Where WWE once blurred the line, they have now made the distinction clear: Braun is the heel, Roman is your babyface hero Universal Champion. To get to Monday’s main event segment, WWE very suspiciously reformed The Shield and presented them as a band of brothers looking out for their own. This followed a months-long storyline in which Seth Rollins raged against Drew McIntyre and Dolph Ziggler’s numbers game advantage (!).
Nuanced, bespoke - or contradictory?
CONT'D...(3 of 5)