The Total Package Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 After Punk/Cena, I totally agree. Impact's been really good, and I'm disappointed that's not really been reflected by growing ratings. Â Well that is what happens when you piss on your product for years and years, the TNA brand has been through shit and back, even though its been good for awhile, it will take atleast a year of good programing imo for people to actually trust the product again. Â Right now or I should say last couple of years WWE have been doing the same to their brand name, the pissing on it I mean, when the Nexus thing happened it was in the back of my mind that "meh this wont last 3months, Cena will over come the odds" and sure enough thats what happened, I bet many of you thought the same. Â Its like what Magnum is always saying, whenever WWE start something, they might as well put a disclaimer on it saying "this may fall apart in 3 months we accept no responsibility whatsoever " so people have no trust in what WWE do, which is why their ratings are probably so low. Â Bringing The Rock back is cool, and Im looking forward to him at SS, but that is not really a model that is going to last, it reminds me when they kept bringing Austin back a few years ago, it was cool, but it did lose its sparkle for me after awhile, the difference I feel in wanting to watch BFG and Vengeance couldn't be bigger, infact I dont even want to bother with Vengeance. Â I suppose it might not be fair to compare the two because Vengeance is a B PPV and BFG is certainly one of TNA's biggest, but still even if I compare it to summer slam I want to see BFG more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted October 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2011 Plus TNA have the greatest man who ever lived as a champion. Their depth is what is being exploited excellently at the minute, less Abyss and RVD on TV, more A Double and Beer Money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2011 Hopefully we leave Bound for Glory with Roode, Aries and Ink Inc. holding the belts. I want Ink Inc. to win the belts because Jesse Neal deserves it. He's come on leaps and bounds and it'd be nice to see him with some gold around his waste. Aries cant lose the belt. He's got Shelley and Kash to have feuds with in the coming months. The X Division is class at the minute (once Kendrick fucks off back to Xplosion). Shelley, Kash and Aries are awesome wrestlers. Hopefully they'll be tearing it up in the coming months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JohnnyChimpo Posted October 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2011 I know Butch is big enough (and ugly enough har har) to speak for himself, but he hasn't been twisting any facts. The PPV bombed. WWE feel the PPV bombed. All reports coming from within WWE say of how disappointed they are with the buy rate, and that there is a huge contingent of Vinces trusted personnel who are doing the whole "I told you so" routine. Its almost universally accepted by everyone, including WWE, that the angle was a commercial bomb. Thats not me, Butch, Ian or anyone else twisted facts, thats us saying it like it is. If they seriously think they can do something interesting for 3 weeks, stick it on a 1 match PPV card and expect commercial success, then they are fucking stupid. The whole business model at the moment is ridiculous. It's short term shit, no long term plan and no consistency. They are desperately trying to luck into something that will spark some interest. Judging everything on a three week time frame between PPV's will mean numbers will continue to fall. Â Having a chuckle at Punk is fine, enjoy. It's missing the point though. The problem isn't CM Punk, the problem isn't MITB. The problem is that the people running the TV are blinkered morons. I'm not having a chuckle at Punk per se, more at the people who were acting at the time like 3 weeks was in fact long enough to build up a commercial success, but are now saying "its impossible to someone up to a credible level in 3 weeks" as a defence, because their hero was unable to reach their unrealistic expectations. Â I quoted guts316 earlier saying that Punk v Cena was one of the most eagerly anticipated matches of all time. Read that again. There were loads of people like guts316 back during the initial run, making all kinds of similar claims. This right there shows that these people clearly thought 3 weeks was ample time to build up the most eagerly anticipated match of all time. Â Do you not remember the threads at the time rick? Do you not recall how Punk had become a megastar over night. How facebook was full of Punk related status updates. How all the lapsed fans were coming back. How the casuals had all caught on. How there was non-wrestling fan people at work the Tuesday morning after THAT promo talking about wrestling? No wrestling fans rick. How they managed to hear about what happened on Raw at 4am so quickly despite not being a wrestling fan to begin with isn't important. Whats important is Punk had ushered in a new boom according to many. All the while, others, like myself, Ian, Butch etc were all saying; "Its a good promo, but lets not get carried away here", and people were responding with; "Fuck that, its the greatest promo of all time~". Â Its mainly those people I'm laughing at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 12, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2011 WWE matches are much better  I have to disagree. The actual matches are one of the things that I find most boring about WWE - everyone has the same style, wrestles at the same pace, puts their matches together in the same way. The main events tend to be good but by heavens the undercards are dull.  TNA has much better variety - tag, womens and X Div both superior in their styles to what the WWE can put together. And the heavyweight matches have been pretty good recently too, from the BFG series to Roode's matches with his comrades. They're faster-paced than WWE, more athletic - a good balance between the insanity of the indies and the lethargic action of the WWE. I still don't think there's quite enough selling of moves and their guys tend to telegraph stuff a bit much, but generally the roster is much stronger. I totally see your point and I agree about a lot of the WWE matches plodding but I think that on the whole, they just produce much better wrestling. The main event matches are so much better than in TNA. I'd like to see more variety around the mid-card but I definitely prefer WWE's plodding to TNA's ADHD approach. I've said this before but I think that if there was a middle ground between the two, in almost every area, it'd be perfect.  and the production obviously wipes the floor with Impacts dark, tired and utterly shit look at the moment. Otherwise, TNA are telling better stories, producing better interviews and generally just making more of what they have.  They have, have, have to get out of the Impact zone. When TNA's on the road it looks good - the recent live event Impact looked cracking and the large ImpactTron (madeup name) was impressive. I was disappointed with last weeks, thought it looked a bit small time. The ring was awfully small, you could see the back of the building, which is a bit indy and the tron and ramp scream low-budget WWE. I'd like them to present an old school ring entrance way, something that really differentiates them. Something with curtains and a narrow entrance ramp but lots of screens or a modern video wall. Something that says "new school take on old school wrestling". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JohnnyChimpo Posted October 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2011 Also, as far as WWE using 3 weeks build to a 1 match show, and expecting a commercial success being stupid, I disagree to an extent. Sure, its not ideal, but they weren't expecting a huge buyrate to eclipse Wrestlemania or anything. But they were expecting more than what they got. They wanted it, and rightly expected it to do significantly more than the likes of Capitol Punishment and Over the Limit, and it didn't. They expected it to be a relative commercial success, and it bombed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 12, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2011 Also, as far as WWE using 3 weeks build to a 1 match show, and expecting a commercial success being stupid, I disagree to an extent. Sure, its not ideal, but they weren't expecting a huge buyrate to eclipse Wrestlemania or anything. But they were expecting more than what they got. They wanted it, and rightly expected it to do significantly more than the likes of Capitol Punishment and Over the Limit, and it didn't. They expected it to be a relative commercial success, and it bombed. It was up 20% on last year, around 230,000 buys, I read. SummerSlam got around 300,000. I'd say that is a reasonable success in the current climate. I'm not sure what else they expect? There is no evidence of the B-level PPV's drawing massive numbers for a few years. If they wanted success, they needed to put more effort into the card top to bottom and present something people haven't seen a hundred times before. The current product only draws to a certain level. It has for the past few years. Apart from 2 or 3 nostalgia acts getting in the ring, there isn't anything short term that is going to draw massively. Anything needs to be a long term project to get the best out of it. Â This current storyline still looks like it could come to a decent conclusion at Survivor Series. They've pissed about so much that it won't be as cool as a WWE-group vs. a Renegade band would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 All the while, others, like myself, Ian, Butch etc were all saying; "Its a good promo, but lets not get carried away here", and people were responding with; "Fuck that, its the greatest promo of all time~". Â Its mainly those people I'm laughing at. Â Well done! You are the man! I'd rather feel good about wrestling for that short time than be cautious about the whole thing the whole way through. Get off your pedastal you bell end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted October 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2011 The CM Punk thing was a weird one, because it was both a success and a failure at the same time. Â By most general standards, he's been successful. They put him in the main event and PPV buys increased on the previous year. Compare him to pretty much anyone else on the roster in that position, and that's an achievement. Him vs HHH looks like it should have done pretty well too. He's become a solid addition, and they've got to be pleased with that overall. Â However, it still feels flat, and I don't think it's just fanboy fapping that built it up. He was rushed back, and it honestly felt like a longer wait would have been better in terms of trying to build some viral attention. Meanwhile, him vs HHH was a lot of fun, but a two week build? Â Both of the builds to the feuds (Punk vs Cena and Punk vs HHH) felt more like the first chapters of a story that could have gone much, much longer, and then rushed to the end. Each one felt like the beginning of something slow-burn that just skipped to the end. Â With that in mind, as short build feuds go, Punk's been doing pretty damn well. I just wish he'd have the opportunity of a real slow-burn feud. If Punk has been given short term feuds, and these were always the plan, then I'd say they've been successful. If they've been panicking and cutting them short, then they really could be losing out. Â I remember an interview with HHH from years back, where he pointed out that he was almost bumped down the card when he first won the title as The Game, as the audience were seeming turned off by it, and they were getting negative feedback. He pushed for them to hold the course, as he felt it was the right kind of heat - and he was proved very right. Seems relevant in terms of them staying the course and not rushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1SinN6 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 What was Punk going on about 'having dealth with HHH' Punk wanted what the whole roster wanted last week.. he doenst pin HHH at NOC, HHH keeps his job... Punk says he dealt with HHH..  FFS  what he means is, unlike the rest of the roster, he faced triple h like a man, face to face in the middle of the ring. he didn't go whining to ace or saught legal advice from otunga, he done it like a wrestler does, in a match and on the stick   I understand, but his goal was so close.. getting rid of HHH,. that it is strange that he just forgot everything he has been working for and sides with HHH on one show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Dammer Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 The worst thing about Raw was Punk's horrid acting and faux excitement when Trips told him he was on commentary. The spazzy look on his face. It was like watching Eugene get told he was teaming with the Rock. Absolutely cringeworthy. Â Yeah I hated that too, the whole first segment in fact was incredibly bad. CM Punk should never be portraying that kind of character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I remember an interview with HHH from years back, where he pointed out that he was almost bumped down the card when he first won the title as The Game, as the audience were seeming turned off by it, and they were getting negative feedback. He pushed for them to hold the course, as he felt it was the right kind of heat - and he was proved very right. Seems relevant in terms of them staying the course and not rushing. Relevant to Del Rio, perhaps, because he's an unproven top heel like Triple H was. Fans aren't meant to like him. It's not relevant to CM Punk, the voice of the Internet voiceless, the man of the Internet people, reclaiming wrestling for the "real" fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 What was Punk going on about 'having dealth with HHH' Punk wanted what the whole roster wanted last week.. he doenst pin HHH at NOC, HHH keeps his job... Punk says he dealt with HHH..  FFS  what he means is, unlike the rest of the roster, he faced triple h like a man, face to face in the middle of the ring. he didn't go whining to ace or saught legal advice from otunga, he done it like a wrestler does, in a match and on the stick   I understand, but his goal was so close.. getting rid of HHH,. that it is strange that he just forgot everything he has been working for and sides with HHH on one show.  I agree. Does seem like a massive logical hole.  The guy wants to get rid of HHH as he feels that, like Vince, he is more harmful to the look term aspect of wrestling. He attempts to do it like a man, but fails in doing so.  Then a load of wrestlers get the job done without him and he bitches about how "they didn't do it right." Excuse me? They effectively unionized and force Triple H down, bringing big change with it.  To me CM Punk is sounding hypocritical. And I don't get his philosophy. Why was HIS approach better than THEIR approach? He attempted to force change through blackmail and violence, whilst all his colleagues did it through a political process.  Whats his current motivation? To take on the guys who succeeded where he didn't? Where is Punk's beef with now and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I agree. Does seem like a massive logical hole. The guy wants to get rid of HHH as he feels that, like Vince, he is more harmful to the look term aspect of wrestling. He attempts to do it like a man, but fails in doing so.  Then a load of wrestlers get the job done without him and he bitches about how "they didn't do it right." Excuse me? They effectively unionized and force Triple H down, bringing big change with it.  To me CM Punk is sounding hypocritical. And I don't get his philosophy. Why was HIS approach better than THEIR approach? He attempted to force change through blackmail and violence, whilst all his colleagues did it through a political process.  Whats his current motivation? To take on the guys who succeeded where he didn't? Where is Punk's beef with now and why?  Did you not watch wrestling between August and now? Punk and Triple H essentially buried the hatchet the day after their match, when Punk noted there is a conspiracy against both of them and that HHH isn't the real problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted October 12, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2011 I remember an interview with HHH from years back, where he pointed out that he was almost bumped down the card when he first won the title as The Game, as the audience were seeming turned off by it, and they were getting negative feedback. He pushed for them to hold the course, as he felt it was the right kind of heat - and he was proved very right. Seems relevant in terms of them staying the course and not rushing. Relevant to Del Rio, perhaps, because he's an unproven top heel like Triple H was. Fans aren't meant to like him. It's not relevant to CM Punk, the voice of the Internet voiceless, the man of the Internet people, reclaiming wrestling for the "real" fans. Â Fair enough, if you think that the CM Punk story was done as well as it could have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.