DS Forums

 
 

TNA Wrestling on Challenge TV (Part 2)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-02-2015, 17:30
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
it was a brilliant finish i will have you know!

i understand what ags is saying though, next can be very basic. but they do it right.

tna only do things right once ina while and they cant maintain unfortunetly

examples of good tna being

joe/daniels/aj x fued
angle/joe fued
amw vs xxx fued
aces and eights at start
crazy joker sting
MEM at start
jay lethal vs sonjay dutt fued
abyss vs sting
rvd as champ
going back to normal ring
moving to monday night(should have had balls to stay there!)
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-02-2015, 17:50
ags_rule
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,403
Austin vs. McMahon is the height of simplistic story telling so for that matter was that other big 90s angle the nWo (at least at the outset).

There's absolutely nothing sophisticated or complex about the way WWE told the Austin/McMahon story and in fact when you break it down its actually one of the most repetitive angles in wrestling history. They had a formula that worked and they just repeated it endlessly with ever so slightly different window dressing. The use of The Rock for example isn't sophisticated story telling. Vince McMahon can't fight Steve Austin every month on Pay-Per-View and so he needs a representative. That representative should be the polar opposite of Steve Austin because that makes their conflict straight forward and easily defines them in the eyes of the audience. And this use of The Rock is effectively the same basic model they used with Mankind before The Rock. Indeed its the moments of the Austin/McMahon saga where WWE attempted to be more sophisticated and complex that don't work – The Higher Power being the obvious example.
You're ignoring the point I was making so I too will ignore this unnecessarily long history lesson.

Only this isn't a remotely accurate representation of the NXT booking.

Kevin Owens vs. Sami Zayn has been one of the most effectively booked angles on any wrestling show in a long time that's not only brilliantly defining two central characters on the show but filled with compelling story. Prior to that the Zayn vs. Neville angle was an infinitely better example of a face vs. face conflict than what we're currently seeing on WWE television with Bryan and Reigns in that not only was it interesting it also did something to help establish and further the characters and pushes of both men (particularly Zayn). They've had Hideo come in as a much hyped foreign star who's subsequently been targeted by members of the roster jealous and angry about the level of hype he's been given. That's simple incredibly straight forward booking but it works to get everyone involved over.
No, I'm the audience, so I'll tell you if it's compelling or not. I cannot abide this "I'm the smark so I'm right attitude" you are espousing. We are all wrestling fans. If I don't like the product and my view is in the minority, that doesn't make me wrong. I am simply stating that the NXT booking is so simplistic that I get nothing from it. Great matches, no doubt, but it's an indie show. The stories aren't there. Everything is so "by the book" - wrestling needs to go forwards, not backwards. The book needs rewritten. NXT is not doing that.

I'd also point out that there's absolutely nothing wrong with treating your titles with meaning and having members of the roster actually want to be and remain a champion. In fact that's exactly what any wrestling promotion should be doing. And as the booking of the women in NXT has demonstrated it doesn't have to be anywhere near as flat and lifeless as you seem to be suggesting.
Of course this is true, but generally speaking, all the greatest feuds have been about more than titles.

The point I was making is that TNA's many failures are not (as has been suggested) one of failure of opportunity or disadvantage. They've had a decade on a network available in the same number of homes as USA and effectively failed to move the needle in that time. At no point was the suggestion that TNA should have been equalling WWE's audience but rather that they should have been able to show signs of life and actually grow an audience in this period because they had every opportunity to. However rather than discuss TNA's failings you've chosen to try and spin the debate off into pointless analogies.
TNA didn't make any huge jumps but a quick look at the ratings does show that they peaked in 2011 with a 1.17 average rating compared to a 0.89 average in 2006. By contrast, RAW's average in 2006 was 3.90. In 2011 it was 3.21. That doesn't even take into consideration the huge leaps TNA made in the international market in this time. Now, of course, TNA lost that momentum over 2013 and 2014, dropping to a 0.94 average by the time they left Spike, but this is no different than WWE, whose 2014 ratings averaged at 2.95. It is ridiculous for you to claim victory for WWE during the last ten years whenever they have lost such a huge share of their audience. The fact is that wrestling has had to take a backseat to TV shows with a movie budget and investable characters/storylines. RAW didn't have the likes of Better Call Saul or The Walking Dead to contend with during The Attitude Era.

With that said let me also just point out at this juncture that Channel 5 is in fact completely capable of outing rating BBC1 (and has done so in the past) and that BBC2 is also completely capable of doing the same (and indeed has done so in the past).
BBC One and BBC Two are two sides of the same coin so of course it is capable of doing it. Channel 5 in 2011 had a 4.4% audience share; BBC One had a 20.7% audience share. I was unable to find the 2014 numbers but they're unlikely to have changed much. I would love you to show me an example of a primetime Channel 5 show beating a primetime BBC One show in ratings.

WCW didn't reverse the slump by buying in top stars alone. It reversed the slump by offering a better product and growing an audience. I'd also point out that TNA signed Jeff Hardy and Kurt Angle. Two men who were hardly nobodies before departing WWE.
Hardy's issues were well-documented. Angle was the only top star at the peak of his game TNA ever signed.


So you're going to ignore that this industry slump has had two promotions widely available on major cable networks? Also that WWE have promoted a whole string of incredibly successful shows during this period and shifted a monumental amount of merchandise? In truth the slump (in so much as it exists) has really only kicked in during the last few years and TNA should have been well established by then.
WWE shifted more merchandise in 1999 than anybody other than South Park. This is an established fact.

Where do you think they are in world merchandise sales in 2015?
ags_rule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2015, 18:29
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,709
Angle was the only top star at the peak of his game TNA ever signed.

That's debatable. He was fired from WWE because they were worried he was gonna die on their watch. Wasn't he freely admitting he had to take oxycodone just to get out of bed at the time?
JCR is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2015, 21:53
AlexiR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,683
You're ignoring the point I was making so I too will ignore this unnecessarily long history lesson.
No I'm disagreeing with your point.

You've attempted to argue that Austin vs. McMahon isn't an example of simplistic story telling whereas my point is that it is in fact the height of simplistic story telling. There's absolutely nothing sophisticated or complicated about that story. The beer truck is an example of more complicated or sophisticated story telling its maybe an example of flashy story telling or an example of more resources and bigger budget but its not complicated story telling.

No, I'm the audience, so I'll tell you if it's compelling or not.
So I'm not part of the audience?

I cannot abide this "I'm the smark so I'm right attitude" you are espousing.
Which is ironic given that its the exact attitude you are espousing. Apparently not only am I not a member of the audience but only your opinion of NXT is the correct one.

The book needs rewritten. NXT is not doing that.
And where has anyone suggested that's what it is doing? But then I suppose its much easier to refute a claim like this that I'm not making than deal with anything I actually have said.

Of course this is true, but generally speaking, all the greatest feuds have been about more than titles.
Which is wonderful but not every feud is going to be the greatest feud of all time.

It is ridiculous for you to claim victory for WWE during the last ten years
Again I suppose its easier to refute a claim that isn't being made than actually deal with the issue at hand. Please do show me where I've "claimed victory for WWE". This is what continues to endlessly annoy me about discussing TNA it just becomes a loop of "well WWE is no better" as if by criticising TNA I'm somehow endorsing WWE as super spangled awesome.

I would love you to show me an example of a primetime Channel 5 show beating a primetime BBC One show in ratings.
August 18 2011 at 9PM

BBC1: Torchwood: Miracle Day - 3.4 million
Channel 5: Celebrity Big Brother - 5.1 million

Link

Hardy's issues were well-documented.
Documented issues or not he was still a hugely popular star who left WWE at the peak of his popularity and resurfaced in TNA.

WWE shifted more merchandise in 1999 than anybody other than South Park. This is an established fact.

Where do you think they are in world merchandise sales in 2015?
So the argument here is they aren't shifting the merchandise they were at their absolute peak so they aren't selling huge amounts?
AlexiR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2015, 22:18
batdude_uk1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,147
Samoa Joe has put a tweet out to say that he has parted ways with TNA, that is a bit of a shock, he seemed to be almost part of the furniture there.

I wonder where he will end up next??
Japan I would imagine, seeing as that is a place where business is good at the moment.
batdude_uk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-02-2015, 22:32
AlexiR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,683
I'd assume Japan (if he's sticking with wrestling). And hope that a stint there might relight some of the fire he's lost over the last few years (its done wonders for Styles). He's a shadow of his former self at this point.
AlexiR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 00:07
batdude_uk1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,147
I would love to see him get back to his former all conquering, suplexing, "Joe's gunner kill you!" self.

Perhaps we could see him do a few shows over here, that would be good to see, as business is good, and there are a fair few good matches for him to be in.
batdude_uk1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 01:23
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 16,709
Samoa Joe has put a tweet out to say that he has parted ways with TNA, that is a bit of a shock, he seemed to be almost part of the furniture there.

I wonder where he will end up next??
Japan I would imagine, seeing as that is a place where business is good at the moment.
He was one of the high earners, on six figures plus expenses, was always likely he wasn't going to get a new contract.
JCR is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 09:32
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
samoa joe stagnated in TNA big time. shame.
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 10:01
AlexiR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,683
He was one of the high earners, on six figures plus expenses, was always likely he wasn't going to get a new contract.
Well I'm sure they would have given him a new contract it just would have involved a massive pay cut. And in TNA's defence even if business were doing amazingly well I don't think Joe is currently worth the deal he apparently had with TNA.
AlexiR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 10:05
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
hes been phoning it in for a while.
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 12:19
seibu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
This is what continues to endlessly annoy me about discussing TNA it just becomes a loop of "well WWE is no better" as if by criticising TNA I'm somehow endorsing WWE as super spangled awesome.
The problem is, wherever one discusses TNA on the internet, a few posters always pop up and take cheap shots. TNA sections everywhere inevitably descend into tetchy arguments about TNA's validity because there's a type of poster who simply can't talk about TNA without dropping in a reference to how bad they think it is every other paragraph.
seibu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 12:26
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
wwe are forgiven alot more than tna by internet fans. that cannot be disputed.
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 12:34
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
And some people can't accept criticism of TNA, even from those people that watch it, without the person giving the criticism being called anti-TNA. For some reason, TNA are above criticism for some people.
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 12:37
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
cant speak for others hollie. just my experience

tna has world champ lose clean -PATHETIC BOOKING
wwe has world champ lose clean - AMAZING BOOKING

its just the way it is, no different to how fifa gets good reviews for nothing but its rivals get marked down for innovation etc.

benefits of being top dog i guess.
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 12:42
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
To be fair whedon, I was responding more to Seibu but I agree there is a difference and I'm just speaking from my experience too You can't just have an opinion on TNA with some people if it's in anyway a criticism.

And I'm talking on the Internet as a whole rather than here specifically to be clear.
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 12:50
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
To be fair whedon, I was responding more to Seibu but I agree there is a difference and I'm just speaking from my experience too You can't just have an opinion on TNA with some people if it's in anyway a criticism.

And I'm talking on the Internet as a whole rather than here specifically to be clear.
i think there are staunch TNA fans who were born out of the ridiculous hate TNA got for its first 5 years of existence simply because it did not want to be ring of honour(im using the u!)

fact is its gone backwards under dixie and is in a right state now.
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 12:58
AlexiR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,683
The problem is, wherever one discusses TNA on the internet, a few posters always pop up and take cheap shots. TNA sections everywhere inevitably descend into tetchy arguments about TNA's validity because there's a type of poster who simply can't talk about TNA without dropping in a reference to how bad they think it is every other paragraph.
But once again this is saying that criticism of TNA and praise of WWE are the exact same thing and they're not.
AlexiR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 13:08
seibu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
And some people can't accept criticism of TNA, even from those people that watch it, without the person giving the criticism being called anti-TNA. For some reason, TNA are above criticism for some people.
It's the tone, and the intent, of the criticism.

Personally, I criticise TNA all the time. It's hard not to! * checks * just a few pages ago I said Lockdown was a terrible Impact, and a terrible PPV concept. Just last page I said I found the current main event scene boring, and the revolution the worst heel stable of all time.

The difference is that those criticisms were part of a genuine attempt to evaluate and enjoy the show. The kind of "criticism" which hijacks TNA threads the world over is the type which makes no attempt to actually engage with the show or be constructive. It tends to focus exclusively on past mistakes, or dirtsheet rumour, or insinuating or wishing the company's demise. Another popular strain is borderline-hysterical personal attacks on the owner. It's clearly only intended to belittle the company and wind up its fans. And it really is the scourge of TNA forums.
seibu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 13:14
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
would agree with all that
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 13:18
seibu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966


The problem is, wherever one discusses TNA on the internet, a few posters always pop up and take cheap shots. TNA sections everywhere inevitably descend into tetchy arguments about TNA's validity because there's a type of poster who simply can't talk about TNA without dropping in a reference to how bad they think it is every other paragraph.

But once again this is saying that criticism of TNA and praise of WWE are the exact same thing and they're not.
Erm, is it? How? My post doesn't even mention WWE.

Look, if I came over to the WWE thread and posted:

"None of this matters anyway. WWE is awful and will be out of business soon anyway, which I can't wait for, personally."

You would rightly be annoyed. I would be making no attempt to engage with the product or criticise it intelligently. I'd be, frankly, baiting.

You wouldn't put up with it, so why should the TNA thread?
seibu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 13:31
AlexiR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,683
Erm, is it? How? My post doesn't even mention WWE.
Because what you posted was an attempt to excuse the TNA criticism = WWE praise equivalence.

Look, if I came over to the WWE thread and posted:

"None of this matters anyway. WWE is awful and will be out of business soon anyway, which I can't wait for, personally."

You would rightly be annoyed. I would be making no attempt to engage with the product or criticise it intelligently. I'd be, frankly, baiting.

You wouldn't put up with it, so why should the TNA thread?
Lovely but this isn't what has been said.

I'd also just add that if you were to go into the WWE thread and say that the response you get wouldn't get an argument that because you criticised WWE you're obviously praising TNA and declaring it the best thing ever.
AlexiR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 13:31
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
It's the tone, and the intent, of the criticism.

Personally, I criticise TNA all the time. It's hard not to! * checks * just a few pages ago I said Lockdown was a terrible Impact, and a terrible PPV concept. Just last page I said I found the current main event scene boring, and the revolution the worst heel stable of all time.

The difference is that those criticisms were part of a genuine attempt to evaluate and enjoy the show. The kind of "criticism" which hijacks TNA threads the world over is the type which makes no attempt to actually engage with the show or be constructive. It tends to focus exclusively on past mistakes, or dirtsheet rumour, or insinuating or wishing the company's demise. Another popular strain is borderline-hysterical personal attacks on the owner. It's clearly only intended to belittle the company and wind up its fans. And it really is the scourge of TNA forums.
Sorry but a huge % of what wrestling fans talk about is dirt sheet rumours, it's not TNA exclusive. The WWE thread is always talking about WWE/Vince's past mistakes and I don't think there has been a day in the past six months I haven't read the words "Vince McMahon is out of touch". That's just the nature of forums.

A common example. The first DA ratings were posted and the response was along the lines of why are you discussing TNA's ratings like for some reason when they are low, it's hush hush but when they are high, you can't stop people talking about them.

I've said before TNA were great. Unique with great roster, solid tag and diva divisions that were head and shoulders above WWE were producing and somewhere along the way, i.e when Hogan and Bischoff joined, everything unique was dragged away kicking and screaming.

They can be great but they, very much like WWE need to do right now, need to pull their heads out of their arses and put some effort in.
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 13:37
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
hogan and bischoff had right idea imo

4 sided ring
move to mondays
tough it out and fans will start channel hopping.

shame they didnt see it through.
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-02-2015, 13:37
AJ Wheels
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,713
Joe had become useless in TNA. A very talented but lazy fat wrestler. Correct decision.
AJ Wheels is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:36.