Return of the gimmick

Good Ol' JP

Im sorry if someone has already made this topic. I had a quick scan down but I couldnt find anything similar.
Anyway, we seem to have an influx of old school gimmicks at the moment, a retard, a cult kinda person, old taker, booker the shaman, japanise warrior, vanilla ice. I was just wondering what people thought of this? Do you think that bringing back gimmicks is the way to freshen the product? Or did you like the more 'true to life' wrestlers?
Also, how do you think the combination of true to life and gimmick wrestlers will click? Can you see the rock wrestling with a demon, or a clown? Thoughts?

Rhyno's #1 mark just layed the smackdown!

If I am no one, and no one is perfect, then I am perfect.

Mity1

I am a firm believer in the 'gimmicks'. Although there are and should be limitations. It's been mentioned here countless times about the boring run of the mill people passing through the WWE recently and something needed to be done. BUT on the flip side, these gimmick/angles are not for everyone. If they can manage to keep a nice little mix happening and keep it relevant to the characters being portraied then I am all for it because gimmicks and gimmick characters are unpredictable and it's that unpredictability that will help keep the WWE fresh for a bit.

Gimmicks are not for eveyone because not all the people can be over the top because even if it's a good thing, too much of anything is overkill. For example, once Booker is done with UT he can either use his 'new found abilities' against others or just return as Booker T that did what he had to to beat Taker. I view the whole thing as 3 types of characters: 1. is the full blown gimmick (UT, Ultimate Warrior, George the Animal, Kamala, etc..) where they have to constantly be in character. 2. is for the likes of people such as Booker T's new 'angle' and how he can step out of it, Jake the Snake, Ric Flair, Macho Man... where the gimmick is part of the character, not the whole thing. 3. is the left overs. That doesn't mean they aren't good or great, they are just lacking the pizzaz (on average). Some of the greats are just themselves only a little more out going. EX: Cena, Jimmy Snuka, Bret Hart (I know he was known as Hitman, but that was more of a nickname than gimmick) and alot of the classic wrestlers.

Anyway, this is turning into a ramble, so... I am a fan of the gimmicks, when used in moderation.

Steveo

Gimmicks are very picky. If I see Mordecai for example I think god this is retarted. Bradshaw's gimmick is very stupid because anyone who has watched wrestling in the past 5 years knows who he is and what he was doing right before this current JR Ewing thing. Undertaker works for nastolgic reasons and its cool to new viewers. If they turned Booker into a Papa Shango type thing he would lose a lot of credibility. Gimmicks work best when you're not changing a character that people knew before into something. They have to be fresh new faces.