|
Post by GaTechGrad on Jul 14, 2008 0:38:04 GMT -5
Well, it has people talking, which is what I think TNA was trying to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jul 14, 2008 0:42:55 GMT -5
So, smart guy, whats more important? Increasing a fanbase by hooking people into your TV show in the hopes that you can establish a base that the small percentage that can afford to buy PPVs will, or continue to cater to the 30,000 people who buy them and don't make the PPVs significant to profit at all? Again, I ask that you calm down and stop with the pseudo-flaming. There is no need for it. Now, I end with this as this just seems to be getting nowhere. How do you build iMPACT! by running an angle on a PPV that only the people currently tuning into iMPACT! want to see? If the people who watch iMPACT! cared about Booker/Joe than the ratings wouldn't be as up and down as they are. Telling the end on the website, then asking "Is Booker the new champ?" does nothing but, make it seem like you think your fans are stupid or have never watched wrestling, IMO. Nowhere did I say that ratings aren't important. Does WWE sometimes insult fans intelligence? Yes but, I have never seen it done in such an obvious manner.
|
|
|
Post by Gillberg: 0-175 on Jul 14, 2008 0:52:16 GMT -5
So, smart guy, whats more important? Increasing a fanbase by hooking people into your TV show in the hopes that you can establish a base that the small percentage that can afford to buy PPVs will, or continue to cater to the 30,000 people who buy them and don't make the PPVs significant to profit at all? Again, I ask that you calm down and stop with the pseudo-flaming. There is no need for it. Now, I end with this as this just seems to be getting nowhere. How do you build iMPACT! by running an angle on a PPV that only the people currently tuning into iMPACT! want to see? If the people who watch iMPACT! cared about Booker/Joe than the ratings wouldn't be as up and down as they are. Telling the end on the website, then asking "Is Booker the new champ?" does nothing but, make it seem like you think your fans are stupid or have never watched wrestling, IMO. Nowhere did I say that ratings aren't important. Does WWE sometimes insult fans intelligence? Yes but, I have never seen it done in such an obvious manner. You must not have paid much attention. They pull this stuff all the time. I really think you just have a prejudice against TNA. You have every right too, they are a really stupid company, but don't try to turn everything they do into something that is a bad business move. You know how many times Vince McMahon has counted against Austin and held the title up? In 1998 alone? Sure, it's not entirely the same, but truth be told, titles get held up for things like this. And the camera clearly has the proof that Booker won (then again, it has proof for a DQ, which they can investigate into). Booker has a case to claim he's the champ. And he has the title. And we all know that means the most in pro-wrestling. I wish you wouldn't stop arguing this. I'm bringing my a-game for this. And a lot of this just stems from a lot of frustration from Wrestlecrap in general. I feel a lot of people (especially ones who bitch about TNA) are blind IWC sheep. Wanna know how I can tell? At least 87% of the forum here uses that horrible Jim Cornette line when they explain why guy's don't get as over today as they did back then ("You turn the volume way up"). God I see that line and that's the kicker. That's how I know that there isn't a thinker in the crowd. Yeah, it's a good line, but it's repeated ad infinium, without ever being paraphrased and integrated into one's personal philosophy here. It's just quoted. Over and over. Then you get a topic like this going against TNA when they did nothing wrong and something any other company would do (and have done, and will continue to do), yet it's "the most retarde main event ever"
|
|
Jeff
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,074
|
Post by Jeff on Jul 14, 2008 0:59:09 GMT -5
Again, I ask that you calm down and stop with the pseudo-flaming. There is no need for it. Now, I end with this as this just seems to be getting nowhere. How do you build iMPACT! by running an angle on a PPV that only the people currently tuning into iMPACT! want to see? If the people who watch iMPACT! cared about Booker/Joe than the ratings wouldn't be as up and down as they are. Telling the end on the website, then asking "Is Booker the new champ?" does nothing but, make it seem like you think your fans are stupid or have never watched wrestling, IMO. Nowhere did I say that ratings aren't important. Does WWE sometimes insult fans intelligence? Yes but, I have never seen it done in such an obvious manner. You must not have paid much attention. They pull this stuff all the time. I really think you just have a prejudice against TNA. You have every right too, they are a really stupid company, but don't try to turn everything they do into something that is a bad business move. You know how many times Vince McMahon has counted against Austin and held the title up? In 1998 alone? Sure, it's not entirely the same, but truth be told, titles get held up for things like this. And the camera clearly has the proof that Booker won (then again, it has proof for a DQ, which they can investigate into). Booker has a case to claim he's the champ. And he has the title. And we all know that means the most in pro-wrestling. I wish you wouldn't stop arguing this. I'm bringing my a-game for this. And a lot of this just stems from a lot of frustration from Wrestlecrap in general. I feel a lot of people (especially ones who bitch about TNA) are blind IWC sheep. Wanna know how I can tell? At least 87% of the forum here uses that horrible Jim Cornette line when they explain why guy's don't get as over today as they did back then ("You turn the volume way up"). God I see that line and that's the kicker. That's how I know that there isn't a thinker in the crowd. Yeah, it's a good line, but it's repeated ad infinium, without ever being paraphrased and integrated into one's personal philosophy here. It's just quoted. Over and over. Then you get a topic like this going against TNA when they did nothing wrong and something any other company would do (and have done, and will continue to do), yet it's "the most retarde main event ever" You obviously didn't see the PPV
|
|
EJS
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,857
|
Post by EJS on Jul 14, 2008 1:05:31 GMT -5
The MOST retarded, not by a long shot, WCW has probably a dozen+ worse than this.
It was pretty stupid though.
Mostly because Joe didn't "snap" until long after everyone around him and the announcers were already acting like he did, no ref ever called for a bell in the process, Sting just stood there while Booker/Sharmell did the pin/title theft thing, Tenay was going on about Sting possibly having some sort of authority? It really just made no damn sense.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jul 14, 2008 1:20:59 GMT -5
Again, I ask that you calm down and stop with the pseudo-flaming. There is no need for it. Now, I end with this as this just seems to be getting nowhere. How do you build iMPACT! by running an angle on a PPV that only the people currently tuning into iMPACT! want to see? If the people who watch iMPACT! cared about Booker/Joe than the ratings wouldn't be as up and down as they are. Telling the end on the website, then asking "Is Booker the new champ?" does nothing but, make it seem like you think your fans are stupid or have never watched wrestling, IMO. Nowhere did I say that ratings aren't important. Does WWE sometimes insult fans intelligence? Yes but, I have never seen it done in such an obvious manner. You must not have paid much attention. They pull this stuff all the time. I really think you just have a prejudice against TNA. You have every right too, they are a really stupid company, but don't try to turn everything they do into something that is a bad business move. You know how many times Vince McMahon has counted against Austin and held the title up? In 1998 alone? Sure, it's not entirely the same, but truth be told, titles get held up for things like this. And the camera clearly has the proof that Booker won (then again, it has proof for a DQ, which they can investigate into). Booker has a case to claim he's the champ. And he has the title. And we all know that means the most in pro-wrestling. I wish you wouldn't stop arguing this. I'm bringing my a-game for this. And a lot of this just stems from a lot of frustration from Wrestlecrap in general. I feel a lot of people (especially ones who bitch about TNA) are blind IWC sheep. Wanna know how I can tell? At least 87% of the forum here uses that horrible Jim Cornette line when they explain why guy's don't get as over today as they did back then ("You turn the volume way up"). God I see that line and that's the kicker. That's how I know that there isn't a thinker in the crowd. Yeah, it's a good line, but it's repeated ad infinium, without ever being paraphrased and integrated into one's personal philosophy here. It's just quoted. Over and over. Then you get a topic like this going against TNA when they did nothing wrong and something any other company would do (and have done, and will continue to do), yet it's "the most retarde main event ever" Since you were nice and I am bored. I don't hate TNA, I think they have a lot of talent and some great ideas (WXC for example) and I don't think this is near the most retarded thing ever or even bad for business. Hell, I don't even have a real problem with the main event, my problem was with their website asking if Booker was champ when there was no evidence of it in the PPV recap (unless the are going to use the DQ title change rule, which opens up a whole other can of worms). With the McMahon/Austin stuff you had the owner and CEO of the company fighting to get rid of someone who he felt was ruining his company and he had the power to do something about it. This was someone's wife interfering like she has some power in the company and the website buying into it. If they use this to hold up the belt that's fine and makes perfect sense but, the website legit asking if Booker was champ after running through the match just seems insulting to me. I honestly don't remember the last time I thought WWE insulted my intelligence like that (Rumble 07 when Cena had "a ruptured spleen" maybe). The rest of you point I really I have no answer for as I somewhat agree but, its way late too really get into.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jul 14, 2008 6:59:17 GMT -5
Again, I ask that you calm down and stop with the pseudo-flaming. There is no need for it. Now, I end with this as this just seems to be getting nowhere. How do you build iMPACT! by running an angle on a PPV that only the people currently tuning into iMPACT! want to see? If the people who watch iMPACT! cared about Booker/Joe than the ratings wouldn't be as up and down as they are. Telling the end on the website, then asking "Is Booker the new champ?" does nothing but, make it seem like you think your fans are stupid or have never watched wrestling, IMO. Nowhere did I say that ratings aren't important. Does WWE sometimes insult fans intelligence? Yes but, I have never seen it done in such an obvious manner. You must not have paid much attention. They pull this stuff all the time. I really think you just have a prejudice against TNA. You have every right too, they are a really stupid company, but don't try to turn everything they do into something that is a bad business move. You know how many times Vince McMahon has counted against Austin and held the title up? In 1998 alone? Sure, it's not entirely the same, but truth be told, titles get held up for things like this. And the camera clearly has the proof that Booker won (then again, it has proof for a DQ, which they can investigate into). Booker has a case to claim he's the champ. And he has the title. And we all know that means the most in pro-wrestling. I wish you wouldn't stop arguing this. I'm bringing my a-game for this. And a lot of this just stems from a lot of frustration from Wrestlecrap in general. I feel a lot of people (especially ones who bitch about TNA) are blind IWC sheep. Wanna know how I can tell? At least 87% of the forum here uses that horrible Jim Cornette line when they explain why guy's don't get as over today as they did back then ("You turn the volume way up"). God I see that line and that's the kicker. That's how I know that there isn't a thinker in the crowd. Yeah, it's a good line, but it's repeated ad infinium, without ever being paraphrased and integrated into one's personal philosophy here. It's just quoted. Over and over. Then you get a topic like this going against TNA when they did nothing wrong and something any other company would do (and have done, and will continue to do), yet it's "the most retarde main event ever" I didn't see the main event, but I think the point here is that the WWE, for all their posing questions to generate interest, would never do something as ridiculous as this. Vince can make a 3 count in some roundabout way because he is the owner of the company. He could appoint himself as a ref in the middle of the match if he wanted to. Paul Heyman counted for RVD at ONS. You can buy that they have some sort of authority on their brand and that the count would mean something. I think the point is that asking the question 'Is Booker the World Champion?' is the insulting thing, because he clearly isn't. Sharmell has no authority. She can't appoint herself to do anything, therefore it's damn obvious that Booker isn't the world champ. I don't think WWE would in their current state actually do a finish that sounds as ridiculous as this one does, but even if they did, they would say 'How is Joe going to get his belt back?', 'What is the situation surrounding the title?' or some such thing. They wouldn't act as if Sharmell has the power to count for her husband in a world championship match. That's the killer. Sure, wrestling by definition will do some stupid things. You expect stupid things. If they didn't do stupid things it would just be boring. However there is a limit. This seems to push it. You can suspend your disbelief that Kane may freak out, but can you really suspnd your disbelief that Sharmell has the power to make a 3 count like the website is asking you to?
|
|
|
Post by Stab Sword on Jul 14, 2008 7:31:04 GMT -5
Well with the World X Cup over, I have no reason to watch TNA again after this bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Jul 14, 2008 8:51:47 GMT -5
OK I didn't see any of the PPV, so I can't comment on it. However it seems that after reading several people's accounts here who did see it, the overall consensus seems to be that it was a great PPV, marred by a confusing and poorly executed ending. Which seems to support the theory that even on a show where 2 and a half hours were amazing and 10 minutes were awful, more people will spend their time and energy ridiculing those 10 minutes than they will praising the 2 and a half hours that were great. I'm not singling anyone out here, this is just the general thing that I noticed.
As for TNA's website not knowing who the champion is, it's a kayfabed article. The guys who write the website are supposed to be nothing more than journalists, and not TNA management. So to me, it actually makes total sense that the website writers would not know.
|
|
ddt
Don Corleone
The King of Strings
Posts: 2,015
|
Post by ddt on Jul 14, 2008 10:15:22 GMT -5
I didn't see the PPV, but I've read a detailed account of the event. All I can really say is the booking of the main event sounds absolutely ridiculous, particularly for bookers/writers who are being paid well and have worked in the industry for so many years. It's an insult to the fans, it's an insult to the wrestlers who had to be a part of the inane script.
I know it's 'just wrestling' (although it isn't 'wrestling' -- it's now the horrid junk called 'sports entertainment'), and that no one is supposed to take it seriously, but booking like this isn't worthy of even the worst indy fed.
One other problem I have with the booking is what has become the trend ever since the big wrestling organizations have been putting on an ungodly amount of PPVs a year. Nothing is settled in the end! PPVs used to be the climax and conclusion of well-built feuds that grew for weeks and months at a time. Now, the feds charge $35.00 or $40.00 (or whatever it is) for another edition of their weekly two-hour show, where you have to 'tune in next week' to get the answer you just shelled out what could have been grocery money to watch.
Crap booking like this can be directly linked to the influx of PPVs, which bookers creatively cannot handle. If the number of yearly PPVs were reduced to four or five, the writers would have time to develop storylines, feuds and characters, and come up with better endings and overall better PPVs. Instead, we get what we're getting now.
Someone mentioned earlier that TNA's goal, perhaps, was to get people talking, and that's what's happening. Unfortunately for TNA, all of the talk is negative so far.
(P.S. -- Am I the only one who's getting tired of seeing ref bumps in nearly every freakin' championship bout?)
|
|
|
Post by stevierichardsfan on Jul 14, 2008 10:59:01 GMT -5
so where was nash to help joe and is sting heel
|
|
|
Post by GaTechGrad on Jul 14, 2008 11:00:45 GMT -5
I do like last night's ending better than having Booker T win cleanly over Joe. There would have been a hundred posts complaining about another former WWE guy winning the title. However, I'm sure Booker has it in his TNA contract to become champion, so I guess it will happen sooner or later. People were already complaining about Joe as champ, so I guess people were going to be upset with the main event no matter how it turned out.
|
|
|
Post by GaTechGrad on Jul 14, 2008 11:03:19 GMT -5
so where was nash to help joe and is sting heel In a pre-match interview, Joe told Nash that he trusts him, but he wanted Nash to stay in the back no matter what happened during the match. As far as I could tell, Sting is still face, and Joe is heel. Sting tried to come off as the voice of reason during the whole ordeal.
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Jul 14, 2008 11:08:10 GMT -5
OK I didn't see any of the PPV, so I can't comment on it. However it seems that after reading several people's accounts here who did see it, the overall consensus seems to be that it was a great PPV, marred by a confusing and poorly executed ending. Which seems to support the theory that even on a show where 2 and a half hours were amazing and 10 minutes were awful, more people will spend their time and energy ridiculing those 10 minutes than they will praising the 2 and a half hours that were great. I'm not singling anyone out here, this is just the general thing that I noticed. The reason people will spend their time and energy ridiculing those 10 minutes is because it was in the main event, i.e. what should be the most memorable moment of any PPV. And unfortunately it looks like this one's going to be remembered for the wrong reasons, i.e. taking a storyline or two from the SvR videogames and smashing them together.
|
|
Johnny B. Decent
Patti Mayonnaise
Had one once
Everybody's Favorite Arizonian.
Posts: 31,080
|
Post by Johnny B. Decent on Jul 14, 2008 11:10:44 GMT -5
Am I the only person who wanted Samoa Joe to choke Sting out?
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 14, 2008 11:14:02 GMT -5
OK I didn't see any of the PPV, so I can't comment on it. However it seems that after reading several people's accounts here who did see it, the overall consensus seems to be that it was a great PPV, marred by a confusing and poorly executed ending. Which seems to support the theory that even on a show where 2 and a half hours were amazing and 10 minutes were awful, more people will spend their time and energy ridiculing those 10 minutes than they will praising the 2 and a half hours that were great. I'm not singling anyone out here, this is just the general thing that I noticed. The reason people will spend their time and energy ridiculing those 10 minutes is because it was in the main event, i.e. what should be the most memorable moment of any PPV. And unfortunately it looks like this one's going to be remembered for the wrong reasons, i.e. taking a storyline or two from the SvR videogames and smashing them together. Granted, but it's pretty unfair to ignore what was really a very good card before it. I said it in another thread: the ending had the potential to be really good, it honestly did. But they let things get more confusing than they had to. Joe should've "snapped" the second Sharmell hit him. As it was, it just looked like Joe was responding to being provoked. Joe could've hit her "security", then basically made sure she could see him annihilate Booker, play up that he's enjoying letting her watch her husband get pummeled. But all they had to do to make it all make sense was have the original ref wake up, then announce a non-finish, or Joe being DQ'd. Even if they did that AFTER Booker stole the belt. Regardless, it was a cool idea (get Joe back to being "dangerous", build up Sting's involvement, have Booker start a new storyline) that was just thrown together too willy-nilly. I think what will come AFTER that will be cool, but, for those few minutes on the actual PPV, it didn't work.
|
|
ddt
Don Corleone
The King of Strings
Posts: 2,015
|
Post by ddt on Jul 14, 2008 11:41:28 GMT -5
Am I the only person who wanted Samoa Joe to choke Sting out? I'd rather see him choke Russo out. (Russo Hate Post #5,364,889)
|
|
|
Post by Impact Zone's #1 DUMMY...YEAH on Jul 14, 2008 11:52:19 GMT -5
I didn't order the show, just read the results.
Sounds like Victory Road was one heck of a show until the main event.
I love this idea of the World X Cup; it's a great idea to showcase non-TNA wrestlers in non- (obvious) jobbing situations.
|
|
|
Post by stevierichardsfan on Jul 14, 2008 11:56:36 GMT -5
so where was nash to help joe and is sting heel In a pre-match interview, Joe told Nash that he trusts him, but he wanted Nash to stay in the back no matter what happened during the match. As far as I could tell, Sting is still face, and Joe is heel. Sting tried to come off as the voice of reason during the whole ordeal. is booker heel still though
|
|
|
Post by Impact Zone's #1 DUMMY...YEAH on Jul 14, 2008 11:57:51 GMT -5
In a pre-match interview, Joe told Nash that he trusts him, but he wanted Nash to stay in the back no matter what happened during the match. As far as I could tell, Sting is still face, and Joe is heel. Sting tried to come off as the voice of reason during the whole ordeal. is booker heel still though I think he was played off as a face because they were in Houston, his hometown, but my guess is, he's still heel.
|
|