|
Post by Nuke The Whales on Jul 23, 2010 0:39:18 GMT -5
They need The Zombie.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 23, 2010 0:42:33 GMT -5
It would be hella funny if Spike did to TNA what it did to the real ECW. And why the hell is Dixie Carter trying to get over as some kind of badass? Hearing her go on and on about "extreme" was so wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Nuke The Whales on Jul 23, 2010 0:44:29 GMT -5
I don't think she was trying to seem badass. If she was, though, then HOO LAWD.
|
|
|
Post by golding on Jul 23, 2010 1:18:27 GMT -5
My favorite line was when Dixie Carter said "what Hulk Hogan was to wrestling in the 80s, ECW was to the 90s." So TNA is obviously just digging up relics of wrestlings past, I can see why Heyman doesn't want involvement. Besides ECW already had their last chance, actually three times, but mainly with the "One Night Stand" PPVs, and later the tv show, which for a short period of time looked like the original. Now they are doing the same thing without the ECW licensing, great. I guess you could take it as a "digging up relics" sort of thing. Realistically, I think that it goes along more with what Dreamer said about how said "relics" get to put the newer generation over, like how Terry Funk helped put him over. I think you also sort of missed the point of what Dreamer was saying, illustrated by suggesting that ECW had its last chance 3 times plus the WWECW show. One Night Stand was the "closure", and the redefinition of the ECW "brand" (as it was crapped on in any aspect possible, from firing the original roster, to getting the short-straw in drafts, to the inferior status of the champion) was the WWE taking that closure away. The brand matters less than the people and the product they produce. Heyman more likely doesn't want involvement because there's no reason for him to abandon what he has now. He's banking on Brock Lesnar's rising fame, and only has a reputation to lose if he were to fall short of the "savior of TNA" status people keep trying to bestow upon him.
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Jul 23, 2010 1:44:08 GMT -5
I don't buy that TNA who wants Heyman so badly would actually go through with an angle that Heyman would be so oppose to (Especially if he made it clear to them that he hated the angle). All in all I think that this is a bit of Newz. I can buy Heyman doesn't like the angle unless its treated like a one-off thing (Which it kinda is being treated) but to tell them he hates the angle and them to do it anyway doesn't add up.
If Heyman hated the possibility of this angle and told them then TNA wouldn't do it (If they wanted him as bad as the dirt sheets say).
|
|
|
Post by donners on Jul 23, 2010 3:52:53 GMT -5
They may simply have written off Heyman as a potential signing, especially if there was any truth behind his ostensible wage demnds.
I think it is so sad that a company that has had so many opportunities and resources and has been around for eight years has to borrow the identity of a company which forged it from far less.
|
|
|
Post by The Blue Blazer on Jul 23, 2010 4:02:22 GMT -5
But the venue they are in is the only reason they survived long enough to still be running shows and expand at the rate they have. It is expensive to run live tv shows from new venues every week and unless you are an established brand like wcw wwf ecw awa nwa ect. you will just be spending yourself into a death spiral. The Impact zone looks minor league but it is cheap and they get a helluva lot of miles outta that place. One day they can do road shows but not now and not this year I'm split on how I feel about the Impact zone. It's not really that bad for the weekly shows, but it's really lame that they do so many PPV's there. My only problem with the Impact Zone is that it's the same mouth-breathers and knuckle-draggers in there every freaking week. I'm honestly tired of listening to them trying to get themselves over.
|
|
|
Post by slickster on Jul 23, 2010 8:35:35 GMT -5
Guys, this isn't NEWZ, especially considering that PAUL HEYMAN HIMSELF CONFIRMED IT TO BE TRUE.
Also, the ECW alumni were on TNA programming starting at Slammiversary in June. They were sitting together in the crowd, remember? Obviously TNA had SOME plan for them to be used in their product; Tommy Dreamer suggested a different booking plan for TNA using the same ECW alumni they were already going to use.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jul 23, 2010 9:44:12 GMT -5
Again, isn't everyone overreacting to a one shot PPV? There's no indication that this ECW stuff will last beyond the Aug. PPV, so why would Heyman refuse to come in based on this? It's likely it's more of a "Eh, I'm not thrilled with this but get it out of the way" situation.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jul 23, 2010 10:03:55 GMT -5
....when Heyman flew to Nashville to meet with Carter at her home, that Heyman told her he was against the angle..... Just
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jul 23, 2010 11:07:19 GMT -5
The irony of the ECW angle and Paul Heyman is that sources close to both Dixie Carter and Heyman, as well as Heyman himself, all confirm that on 7/8, when Heyman flew to Nashville to meet with Carter at her home, that Heyman told her he was against the angle. What is interesting is those close to Carter were well aware there was no deal after the meeting, yet she and Jeff Jarrett still hinted about their secret meeting with an unknown person and how changes were coming, teasing a surprise on the PPV. There were key people in the TNA organization fully aware Heyman wasn’t coming and there was no surprise past some sort of ECW angle coming that everyone had known about for weeks. That's from Meltzer...talk about being shady. Oh and also Jason Powell claims that Dixie just recently saw the Heyman interview with Dave and Bryan (the one from right after the Lesnar fight, I guess). And she's since been in a foul mood. Jarret never claimed it was a ppv surprise :-\. I still think he's signed on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2010 11:19:41 GMT -5
Again, isn't everyone overreacting to a one shot PPV? There's no indication that this ECW stuff will last beyond the Aug. PPV, so why would Heyman refuse to come in based on this? It's likely it's more of a "Eh, I'm not thrilled with this but get it out of the way" situation. There's no indication that it WON'T continue after the PPV either. They haven't said one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 23, 2010 11:23:50 GMT -5
Again, isn't everyone overreacting to a one shot PPV? There's no indication that this ECW stuff will last beyond the Aug. PPV, so why would Heyman refuse to come in based on this? It's likely it's more of a "Eh, I'm not thrilled with this but get it out of the way" situation. There's no indication that it WON'T continue after the PPV either. They haven't said one way or another. Cause the term "LAST Stand" doesn't insinuate anything....
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jul 23, 2010 11:24:24 GMT -5
Again, isn't everyone overreacting to a one shot PPV? There's no indication that this ECW stuff will last beyond the Aug. PPV, so why would Heyman refuse to come in based on this? It's likely it's more of a "Eh, I'm not thrilled with this but get it out of the way" situation. There's no indication that it WON'T continue after the PPV either. They haven't said one way or another. Well, wouldn't it not be a big deal if he's supposed to be head booker? If he didn't like the direction he could just change it :-\.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2010 11:34:17 GMT -5
There's no indication that it WON'T continue after the PPV either. They haven't said one way or another. Cause the term "LAST Stand" doesn't insinuate anything.... Yeah - it insinuates that they're ripping off ECW and WWE at the same time. If we want to read into PPV names - what the heck are we supposed to make of Turning Point? Has it always been a Turning Point in the company? Nope. Has Genesis ever been the beginning of anything? Nope. Do people surrender at "No Surrender"? Yep. Is Destination X an actual place? Nope.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 23, 2010 11:47:14 GMT -5
Cause the term "LAST Stand" doesn't insinuate anything.... Yeah - it insinuates that they're ripping off ECW and WWE at the same time. If we want to read into PPV names - what the heck are we supposed to make of Turning Point? Has it always been a Turning Point in the company? Nope. Has Genesis ever been the beginning of anything? Nope. Do people surrender at "No Surrender"? Yep. Is Destination X an actual place? Nope. Even funnier is that Slammiversary (which sounds like should be TNA's "Wrestlemania"), isn't their biggest PPV. TNA nomenclature doesn't make much sense.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Jul 23, 2010 11:49:03 GMT -5
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way about Slammiversary. Bound For Glory sounds like it should be the beginning of the Road To Slammiversary, so to speak.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 23, 2010 12:03:52 GMT -5
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way about Slammiversary. Bound For Glory sounds like it should be the beginning of the Road To Slammiversary, so to speak. Yeah, it kinda does. Bound For Glory sounds like a name connected to another, bigger PPV. The other TNA PPV name I really like is Lethal Lockdown, since it has alliteration and a unique, menacing sound.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2010 12:19:34 GMT -5
They have it already, it's called ECW* *for legal purposes it's not called ECW
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 23, 2010 12:20:50 GMT -5
They have it already, it's called ECW* *for legal purposes it's not called ECWWHAT IS WCE DOING IN THE IMPACT ZONE!
|
|