metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 27, 2007 1:22:57 GMT -5
The whole thing gets screwed up because there is this already embedded idea that TNA sucks. No matter what happens, no matter what goes on, bad or good, there's always this thing in people's heads going "TNA SUCKS! TNA SUCKS! TNA SUCKS!". Anything bad they do makes it go louder and anything good they go gets drowned out with remembrance of the bad things they do. Bryan is yelling about this because he already has that view, he has that idea already in place and he can't let it go. You're not gonna enjoy jack if all your doing is looking at it and go "They suck! They suck! They suck! ooh! look at this! It's normal, but it's crap cause TNA sucks! They suck! They suck! They suck!". and the worst part: It's not gonna change. TNA isn't gonna be this pro wrestling show that people want it to be or thought it was gonna be(Even though they have the tagline "We Are Wrestling", whichthey got cause they have Kurt Angle on the roster and wanted to advertise it and that's smurfing it!) and people are not going to accept it. Dude, are you okay? I see you're mad about his comments... but it looks like a nervous breakdown or something. I don't think Alvarez one day decided to hate TNA because it was the cool thing to do. Obviously it's something about the product that makes him think that way. If anything, it's TNA fans that hurt the company. Thye discount most everyone's opinions as anti-TNA, so they must not mean a thing. TNA is just doing their thing... WWE does their thing. The numbers translate differently for a wide variety of reasons. There's advertising. There's wrestling styles, along with the way they present storylines. If TNA was perfect, then WWE wouldn't be the better brand of wrestling according to the numbers. I hate bringing up numbers, but it's the one form of evidence pointing out that TNA isn't as great as the Bill and Dougs make it. Their 1.1 from May is still the 1.1 they have in December. Their 20,000 buys from January are the same a year later almost. Something obviously is working... but just enough to keep interest in those that come. Remember, if they keep that fanbase with their 'crappy' product, then with advertising, the viewership to their crap will be more. It's just a fact. TNA fans remind me of Uncle Leo on Seinfeld, because he thinks everyone against him is a anti-semite. By the same token, TNA fans think that anyone who isn't wearing Abyss underwear and eating the Kazarian cereal must hate the brand or something. -metylerca
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 27, 2007 1:29:58 GMT -5
I have noticed a small trend going on with TNA fans, myself included, versus those who have a problem it week in and week out. Many TNA viewers were WCW fans, while the people who think it's horrid are either WWE loyalists or indy purists. A lot of WCW fans left the wrestling community after the company died and the invasion fizzled. Our brand of wrestling was dead. McMahon's product, save for the Attitude era, never interested me, and I just can't get off on the stuff Alvarez or Lance Storm do. I myself left for a few years until the initial ECW revival piqued my interest, then I discovered TNA. TNA is striking a chord with me. It doesn't annoy me like McMahon's and it doesn't bore me like "pure wrestling" does. It's a return to the style of show I grew up with and thought I'd never see again. No, it's not perfect, but this is professional wrestling. It's inherently stupid to begin with. I choose to enjoy it despite... nay, because of that stupidity. TNA's brand of stupid is MY brand of stupid. Unfortunately, I feel that a lot of the people that would be attracted to this product have already left wrestling behind. TNA needs to find a way to reach an audience that isn't paying attention. They need a shocking, ground-breaking story to make waves, like the nWo did for WCW. No, they don't need to listen to Alvarez or the countless Internet critics, because this product isn't for them. Sorry, but the world doesn't work like EWR. There is no set smark recipe for success in a wrestling promotion. Yes, TNA is different from the WWE. It doesn't have to be a bland, white-bread "pure" fake fighting show to accomplish that, no matter how much Alvarez or Storm want to delude themselves into thinking that's the case. Well, that says pretty much everything that could possibly be said on the matter. And I'm an example of a former WCW fan who stopped watching until they discovered TNA as well. I definitely can sense the WWE loyalty in people who constantly scream "TNA IS LIKE WCW!!!" They've been conditioned to believe WCW and anything similar is automatically bad. I think that because the IWC is made up of those WWE and Indy fans, we'll never get a reasonable assessment of either WCW or TNA. I was primarily a huge WCW fan and I remember the sharp turn downward in 1999. That sharp turn downward looked a whole lot TNA in the past year. WCW look like complete idiots trying to copy what the WWF did. The casual wrestling fan went to WWF and the die hards vanished.
|
|
|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Dec 27, 2007 1:35:38 GMT -5
Sorry this is long, but...
TNA is never going to be what its internet critics want it to be as long as Jeff Jarrett's in charge, and I don't see how or why he'd ever step aside, it's his baby. TNA is always gonna be Memphis-style 'rasslin segments, with a touch of the outdated, late-1990s Monday Night Wars approach, and exciting enough in-ring action to look like a semi-alternative to WWE.
TNA will never stray from that formula, and there will never be as much wrestling on Impact as there was during the weekly PPV days of 2002-2004, because those were commercial free, two-hour shows that you had to pay to see. Taking out commercials, Impact has 84 minutes a week to devote to wrestling, pushing DVDs, and selling PPVs, and I think they've done a pretty good job adding wrestling with the extra hour. Maybe I'm crazy to think there's more wrestling, but I've seen some pretty long, good matches on their free TV lately.
And it's debatable that TNA was "so much better" as a wrestling product back in the early days, because I watched it back then, and they had as much or more stupid crap on the shows as they do now, and the non-wrestling stuff was actually goofier and worse than anything I've seen lately that everyone's so up in arms about. Remember Goldielocks? At least some of the backstage stuff now is funny. Not funny like my favorite comedy shows, but funny for a wrestling show. Maybe I have terrible taste. And if I hate something I see in a backstage segment or think something's lame, I'm like, "well at least the wrestling's pretty decent, and I don't have to see Mark Henry or Batista-types" (at least until McMahon fires them).
They've raised the bar high enough for themselves with two-hours of primetime national TV, if they go to an ROH-style pure wrestling product, they run the risk of alienating the viewers they DO have now that never even heard of their product or cared back when Amazing Red and Low Ki were flipping around with AJ in really exciting matches.
Would I like them to be a little more like an ROH-style product? Sure. That'd be cool. I've come to accept the fact that they're never going to be a PURE wrestling show, and with that, I enjoy it more. Again, maybe I have terrible taste, but I think the wrestling's pretty darn good, and I'm not bored with the backstage stuff even if I think some of it might be a little misguided.
And if they are trying to beat WWE at their own game (which I agree with McMahon's point of view on this), at least they're doing okay IMO, because I still watch their show, and I could care less about any of WWE's shows and haven't for a couple years.
It's alot easier to enjoy when you're not getting frustrated with them, because sooner or later, you have to accept that TNA is what it is, and it's never going to change with Jarrett in charge. Bischoff's not coming to fix it, Heyman's not coming to fix it, and Jarrett and Mantell are never leaving. And they're NEVER changing the six-sided ring, or their name, they'll never get rid of Tenay and West on commentary, Tomko's probably never gonna be world champ, Raven will never be on the creative team, and Matt Morgan's never going to wrestle.
But if you hate the TV show because there's no wrestling, avoid the show altogether, and buy the PPVs every once in a while, because there's usually really good action. What I don't get about the 98% of TNA Impact viewers that don't buy the PPVs is, how could they possibly only watch the TV show? If I only watched Impact, and didn't know they put on pretty good PPVs, I would've stopped watching their crap two years ago. The PPVs are so much better, IMO, and I only buy the freaking things because everytime I miss one, it somehow doesn't wind up on DailyMotion.
So I guess what I could've said in probably 100,000 less words is: Meltzer, Alvarez, the Torch staff, and Lance Storm can complain all they want about it (and it's good that they do even if I disagree with some of their points), but TNA is never going to listen to them. If they did, they wouldn't be doing the exact same style of shows in 2007 as they did in 2002, no matter whether or not you think it's better or worse now. It's the only way Jarrett knows how to do a wrestling show, it's what he learned in Memphis, and while being in WWF/WCW in the 1990s. He's just lucky that Vince doesn't hire too many short, flippy guys, or non-WWF cookie cutter guys like Joe, and that helps make much of the actual wrestling tolerable to good.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 27, 2007 1:37:02 GMT -5
The whole thing gets screwed up because there is this already embedded idea that TNA sucks. No matter what happens, no matter what goes on, bad or good, there's always this thing in people's heads going "TNA SUCKS! TNA SUCKS! TNA SUCKS!". Anything bad they do makes it go louder and anything good they go gets drowned out with remembrance of the bad things they do. Bryan is yelling about this because he already has that view, he has that idea already in place and he can't let it go. You're not gonna enjoy jack if all your doing is looking at it and go "They suck! They suck! They suck! ooh! look at this! It's normal, but it's crap cause TNA sucks! They suck! They suck! They suck!". and the worst part: It's not gonna change. TNA isn't gonna be this pro wrestling show that people want it to be or thought it was gonna be(Even though they have the tagline "We Are Wrestling", whichthey got cause they have Kurt Angle on the roster and wanted to advertise it and that's smurfing it!) and people are not going to accept it. Dude, are you okay? I see you're mad about his comments... but it looks like a nervous breakdown or something. I don't think Alvarez one day decided to hate TNA because it was the cool thing to do. Obviously it's something about the product that makes him think that way. If anything, it's TNA fans that hurt the company. Thye discount most everyone's opinions as anti-TNA, so they must not mean a thing. TNA is just doing their thing... WWE does their thing. The numbers translate differently for a wide variety of reasons. There's advertising. There's wrestling styles, along with the way they present storylines. If TNA was perfect, then WWE wouldn't be the better brand of wrestling according to the numbers. I hate bringing up numbers, but it's the one form of evidence pointing out that TNA isn't as great as the Bill and Dougs make it. Their 1.1 from May is still the 1.1 they have in December. Their 20,000 buys from January are the same a year later almost. Something obviously is working... but just enough to keep interest in those that come. Remember, if they keep that fanbase with their 'crappy' product, then with advertising, the viewership to their crap will be more. It's just a fact. TNA fans remind me of Uncle Leo on Seinfeld, because he thinks everyone against him is a anti-semite. By the same token, TNA fans think that anyone who isn't wearing Abyss underwear and eating the Kazarian cereal must hate the brand or something. -metylerca I'm not saying that TNA has to be everything in your life. The problem is people doing anything and everything to give crap about TNA, even when it makes no damn sense. TNA fans aren't the problem. The people that complain mostly shouldn't be listened to cause they seem to hate EVERYTHING! Apparently, no one should be getting pushed except the guys who spent some time in ROH, no one of the favorites is allowed to lose, get beat up, or in general look human, Don or Mike mention the Rellik thing once a show, and all of a sudden it's ungodly repetition, and on and on and on. Why should anyone listen when your opinions change every 10 minutes, depending on what news story you hear or what third hand info you get? A lot of the stuff that people complain about aren't there, so they need to stop. Stop thinking that TNA wants to bury everyone who's young and want to push 60 year old wrestlers to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 27, 2007 1:39:50 GMT -5
sounds like they want ROH on TV or something TNA /= ROH I find it a fun 2 hours with some silly skits and bumpers and good wrestling action. Not sure why people are expecting Oscar-worthy material Yeah, really. I love ROH, but I enjoy the silly stuff TNA offers me. Here's the thing; there's no such thing as what wrestling "has to be". A company is what it is, and you can accept it or find a different one that better suits your tastes. Frankly, there's plenty I wish TNA would change, but I'm entertained when I watch Impact, and I'm usually pretty entertained by the PPV's I get to order. I don't ask for much more than that. That said, I DO wish TNA would do more to hype up prospective main events and more serious blood feuds...they all have their place in wrestling. But, again, if TNA doesn't offer me that, I'll enjoy what they do give me that I like (again, I typically enjoy most of what I watch each week, so no need for me to quit watching), and find what I want from another company.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Dec 27, 2007 1:46:18 GMT -5
TNA didn't have a giant wrestle a midget(unless you count that Nash vs. Mr. X match a year or two ago, but that doesn't really count for this PPV) But Scott Steiner wrestled Petey Williams like a week later
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 27, 2007 1:48:55 GMT -5
Dude, are you okay? I see you're mad about his comments... but it looks like a nervous breakdown or something. I don't think Alvarez one day decided to hate TNA because it was the cool thing to do. Obviously it's something about the product that makes him think that way. If anything, it's TNA fans that hurt the company. Thye discount most everyone's opinions as anti-TNA, so they must not mean a thing. TNA is just doing their thing... WWE does their thing. The numbers translate differently for a wide variety of reasons. There's advertising. There's wrestling styles, along with the way they present storylines. If TNA was perfect, then WWE wouldn't be the better brand of wrestling according to the numbers. I hate bringing up numbers, but it's the one form of evidence pointing out that TNA isn't as great as the Bill and Dougs make it. Their 1.1 from May is still the 1.1 they have in December. Their 20,000 buys from January are the same a year later almost. Something obviously is working... but just enough to keep interest in those that come. Remember, if they keep that fanbase with their 'crappy' product, then with advertising, the viewership to their crap will be more. It's just a fact. TNA fans remind me of Uncle Leo on Seinfeld, because he thinks everyone against him is a anti-semite. By the same token, TNA fans think that anyone who isn't wearing Abyss underwear and eating the Kazarian cereal must hate the brand or something. -metylerca I'm not saying that TNA has to be everything in your life. The problem is people doing anything and everything to give crap about TNA, even when it makes no damn sense. TNA fans aren't the problem. The people that complain mostly shouldn't be listened to cause they seem to hate EVERYTHING! Apparently, no one should be getting pushed except the guys who spent some time in ROH, no one of the favorites is allowed to lose, get beat up, or in general look human, Don or Mike mention the Rellik thing once a show, and all of a sudden it's ungodly repetition, and on and on and on. Why should anyone listen when your opinions change every 10 minutes, depending on what news story you hear or what third hand info you get? A lot of the stuff that people complain about aren't there, so they need to stop. Stop thinking that TNA wants to bury everyone who's young and want to push 60 year old wrestlers to the moon. There you go again... just because someone has something to say that isn't "TNA kills!!",.. it immediately must mean they hate TNA. They did put Bob Backlund over the MCMG's earlier in the year... As someone who isn't a ROHbot... I can say that TNA puts out 50/50 on the crap scale. 50% is still a failure... when one hour makes me happy to be a wrestling fan, but the other half makes me have flashbacks of 1998... something is obviously wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Jared Has Been Enlightened :) on Dec 27, 2007 1:49:09 GMT -5
If you open a restaurant across the street from mcdonalds, would you have a different menu and offer different items to try and grab a market share...or would you serve cheaper,nastier versions of the same food? But they're not in direct competition with the WWE, thus the analogy doesn't work. When they move iMPACT! from 9-11 Monday nights or 8-10 Friday nights, sure, but not right now. Right now it's more like their opening a restaurant 5 miles down the road, in which case a burger joint would likely be the best option since it's what the majority of the public wants. In other words, copying the WWE's "sports entertainment" style is the best option because it's proven to be the biggest money maker by far. Straight-laced, no frills wrestling isn't a big draw which is why TNA has a cable TV deal while ROH and such are stuck selling DVD's online.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 27, 2007 1:52:42 GMT -5
I'm not saying that TNA has to be everything in your life. The problem is people doing anything and everything to give crap about TNA, even when it makes no damn sense. TNA fans aren't the problem. The people that complain mostly shouldn't be listened to cause they seem to hate EVERYTHING! Apparently, no one should be getting pushed except the guys who spent some time in ROH, no one of the favorites is allowed to lose, get beat up, or in general look human, Don or Mike mention the Rellik thing once a show, and all of a sudden it's ungodly repetition, and on and on and on. Why should anyone listen when your opinions change every 10 minutes, depending on what news story you hear or what third hand info you get? A lot of the stuff that people complain about aren't there, so they need to stop. Stop thinking that TNA wants to bury everyone who's young and want to push 60 year old wrestlers to the moon. There you go again... just because someone has something to say that isn't "TNA kills!!",.. it immediately must mean they hate TNA. They did put Bob Backlund over the MCMG's earlier in the year... As someone who isn't a ROHbot... I can say that TNA puts out 50/50 on the crap scale. 50% is still a failure... when one hour makes me happy to be a wrestling fan, but the other half makes me have flashbacks of 1998... something is obviously wrong. and just cause I don't agree with good reason with the people who complain, I'm obviously the problem. I say a lot of the stuff TNA does isn't crap. Yes, there's crap, but there's also stuff that doesn't deserve it.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 27, 2007 1:54:51 GMT -5
There you go again... just because someone has something to say that isn't "TNA kills!!",.. it immediately must mean they hate TNA. They did put Bob Backlund over the MCMG's earlier in the year... As someone who isn't a ROHbot... I can say that TNA puts out 50/50 on the crap scale. 50% is still a failure... when one hour makes me happy to be a wrestling fan, but the other half makes me have flashbacks of 1998... something is obviously wrong. and just cause I don't agree with good reason with the people who complain, I'm obviously the problem. I say a lot of the stuff TNA does isn't crap. Yes, there's crap, but there's also stuff that doesn't deserve it. Not "the" problem... but not much of a help to the solution. The day TNA hits 1.5 with their existing product is the day I see TNA how you see it. Mark my words.
|
|
|
Post by Jared Has Been Enlightened :) on Dec 27, 2007 2:01:55 GMT -5
What TNA needs is that one big money angle. I recall quite a few months back the idea of bringing in a Paul Heyman-led ECW stable to feud with TNA guys. I liked the idea a lot and thought it could've been what put TNA "over the hump" but it never went anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 27, 2007 2:12:18 GMT -5
If you open a restaurant across the street from mcdonalds, would you have a different menu and offer different items to try and grab a market share...or would you serve cheaper,nastier versions of the same food? But they're not in direct competition with the WWE, thus the analogy doesn't work. When they move iMPACT! from 9-11 Monday nights or 8-10 Friday nights, sure, but not right now. Right now it's more like their opening a restaurant 5 miles down the road, in which case a burger joint would likely be the best option since it's what the majority of the public wants. In other words, copying the WWE's "sports entertainment" style is the best option because it's proven to be the biggest money maker by far. Straight-laced, no frills wrestling isn't a big draw which is why TNA has a cable TV deal while ROH and such are stuck selling DVD's online. TNA is in direct competition with WWE. You bringing up time slots just tells me that TNA Impact isnt competing with Raw or Smackdown. As companies, however, they are now, and always have been, going after the exact same fanbase. WWE has a 100% stranglehold on the sports entertainment field. You have to be an absolute dolt to jump into that doing the same thing. Straight, no frills wrestling has sold and made money for years as well. ROH does not have a cable deal BY CHOICE. They view going the DVD and now PPV route along with the live events is a better business model.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 27, 2007 2:15:54 GMT -5
What TNA needs is that one big money angle. I recall quite a few months back the idea of bringing in a Paul Heyman-led ECW stable to feud with TNA guys. I liked the idea a lot and thought it could've been what put TNA "over the hump" but it never went anywhere.[/quote WWE's ECW has killed off whatever ECW nostalgia there is remaining.
|
|
|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Dec 27, 2007 2:16:53 GMT -5
ROH does not have a cable deal BY CHOICE. So recently, ROH took the time to go into the Versus network offices in NYC just to say, "No thank you. We would NOT like a cable deal. We're happy with our business model."
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Dec 27, 2007 2:21:53 GMT -5
ROH does not have a cable deal BY CHOICE. So recently, ROH took the time to go into the Versus network offices in NYC just to say, "No thank you. We would NOT like a cable deal. We're happy with our business model." Versus approached ROH because they are trying to create a niche for themselves with Hockey,MMA, and Extreme sports. ROH is listening and maybe they would alter their business model but I was giving the reason why they do not have a cable deal to this point.
|
|
|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Dec 27, 2007 2:27:07 GMT -5
Okay, I thought I read Alvarez reporting that the ROH/Versus talks happened, but are dead. I could be mistaken, so if they're still on-going, good for them. I like ROH.
|
|
|
Post by chibidiablo on Dec 27, 2007 7:27:26 GMT -5
Plus, some of us don't have cash to spend on PPVs every month with other stuff. I couldn't get the last two PPVs for that same reason. Then they aren't doing their jobs properly. A company that's doing a great job promoting should make you feel like a fool for missing their show. It should feel like YOU have to see it. I HAD to see Hogan vs. Andre and Hogan vs. Warrior. I even HAD to see Bret vs. HBK. To me, if a promotion is making things captivating, I'm going to feel, and have felt, compelled to find someway, somehow to buy that smurfing show, because I don't want to be left out and miss it. I want to live in that moment and mark out. I think that's the real issue here with Alvarez's critique. Nowhere does it say that he thinks it should be like ROH or booked towards smarks. The fact of the matter is IT ALREADY IS BOOKED TOWARDS SMARKS, and that's why it's status quo forever with zero growth. The criticism here isn't that TNA should be eliminated or that "WWE rules!" it's that they're not learning from their mistakes and are doing things incompetently. TNA is like a classroom full of brilliant students with TONS of potential… who just happen to have the world's worst and most retarded teacher. They all get dragged down by the terrible curve. I don't understand how people are taking anything from that paragraph other than "TNA is making stupid decisions that are failing". Don't let blind loyalty to something you love cloud your better sense. TNA has so much potential but it's being neglected. To me, what Bryan is saying is simple. 1) TNA overcomplicates things by creating terrible, tedious word for word scripting. His example of WWE's RAW XV script in comparison was perfect. TNA is not leaving any room for anyone on the roster to have any unique discernable identity or character. If everyone is cookie-cutter and talks the exact same way, no one stands out. Imagine a movie where every single character delivered the same badly written lines in the same badly directed way. TNA writing is like George Lucas' writing. 2) Whether people want to realize it or not, the purpose of promos are to sell pay-per-views (or house shows). That's it. Wrestling TV is basically by design one big 2 hour Movie trailer meant to get our asses out to the theater and pay for the "movie" or PPV in this case. TNA is not doing this well, if TNA's own fanbase admittedly doesn't even order the shows. If you're not paying TNA your money in some shape or form, sorry to say, but you're worthless as a fan. A real fan buys the product. 3) There are no stars. No one stands out as a top talent because everyone is seemingly interchangeable. I love Christian, but this is at least the 2nd time in a year and a half that he's been plugged into this same exact role after flip-flopping a bunch of times. TNA's booking is designed in such a way that nothing on top is memorable, and anyone can be instantly plugged in like a manufacturing line into a main event slot. They had a chance with Samoa Joe, but they procrastinated too much, and now it seems like they'll be turning him heel. Seriously. There's certain times when you HAVE to pull a trigger on someone. Joe unlike Warrior in '90, Goldberg in '98, and Cena in 2005 didn't get that luxury. They just pussyfooted around so much where one month he's wrestling for the World Title, the next he's feuding with Robert Roode (?!) then the next he's right back in the main event nonsensically teaming with Kevin Nash. This show is Bi-Polar. In my opinion, it's being held together by two (maybe three if you count some occasional funny moments with Nash) things: The very solid Wrestling that is different than WWE's. And the blind loyalty of a certain percentage of their paying fanbase. TNA fans for some reason, like to identify themselves as part of the company as if they're right in there "stickin' it to WWE". It's noble, and it's no different than ECW’s original fans. But even they weren't enough to save ECW. And when you take into consideration that TNA's booking is like latter day WCW, it doesn't bode well. In closing, critiquing TNA and not accepting a terrible status quo doesn't make you a traitor to your TNA fandom. It just makes you passionate about them hopefully pulling out of their funk. Articles like that try and point out the fact that this style of booking is a dead end. Just remember, in 2000, there were a lot of WCW fans like many in this thread saying “Well, we better get used to it. This is just the way things are!” Bullcrap. If enough people make a stink, maybe they’ll get the picture. Nothing ever changed in this world through apathy and just accepting the status quo. Only quitters and apologists turn a blind eye to things that are broken. Can I hug you?
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 27, 2007 10:15:22 GMT -5
Damn. Alvarez sounds mad?
(I'm late to this)
|
|
|
Post by thestinger on Dec 27, 2007 11:59:22 GMT -5
They did put Bob Backlund over the MCMG's earlier in the year... That's actually not true. Yes, Shelley lost a one-on-one match with Backlund that I wasn't thrilled about, but the blow off for the match was the MCMG against Backlund and Jerry Lynn which the guns won. As for this guy, I didn't bother reading his comments this time, so I'm not responding to them. I don't know if he makes as many factual mistakes this time, but I'm not going to waste my time find out. Instead my general response to this thread is the same as my responses in the "TNA is teh suck!" thread we have every week. 1) Anyone who says matches on impact are three minutes long, and haven't gotten any longer since the switch to two hours is full of crap. 2) Anyone who says there are 'constant' face/heel turns is wrong. 3) I seriously question the intelligence of anyone who finds ANY wrestling show 'confusing.' 4) Russo sucks, and storylines like the shooting of Abyss' father have no place in company where the in-ring product is the focus. 5) TNA impacts can sometimes blow but the PPVS are almost always feature great matches
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 27, 2007 12:19:36 GMT -5
I was starting to wonder where stinger was. Glad you're still with us! 3) I seriously question the intelligence of anyone who finds ANY wrestling show 'confusing.' It's easy for a wrestling show to be confusing. Remember WCW 2000? With all the heel/fact turns at the time, and all the endless "shoots," and everything else, it was near impossible to know what the hell was going on. That's not to saw TNA is in the same boat. Impact rarely confuses me. It just causes me to roll my eyes and change the channel within 5 minutes. And it occasionaly prompts me to say, "That was stupid" or something similar. What? No way! It's great and captivating! And...okay, yea, I can't keep a straight face with it... You're right. I and everyone else in my section who attended LockDown in St. Louis would disagree with that statement.
|
|