Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 0:29:49 GMT -5
And it's making fun of a brainless decision by TNA. So it's entirely deserved. I didn't say if it was deserved or not, I was just pointing out that there was that comment on this very section & not by someone who was trying to make it seem like other people blindly hate TNA, which he said was the only time he ever sees that comment, which isn't the case, it comes from both sides of the coin. Didn't say it was the only time. FYI, just hardly ever.
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Crow T. Robot
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 40,195
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Apr 17, 2014 0:40:06 GMT -5
Dude, there's an "LOLTNA" comment on the first page of this very section, & not by someone trying to make it seem like other people blindly hate TNA. and that person even says they don't like it, which means they probably don't use it other than that one time. I didn't say NEVER EVER, just that I see it more from people trying to defend TNA (who, by the way seem to talk more about people ridiculing TNA than actually what they like about it) rather than those pointing out issues they have with TNA. I know you weren't saying that it never happens, I was just pointing that out because you said that the only time you ever see it is when someone is trying to make it seem like other people blindly hate TNA. I usually see more from the people bashing it than people blindly defending it, but I do agree that it comes from both sides of the argument. I wasn't trying to start anything(or keep this topic going, which, I don't know why, it still is), just pointing out that both sides tend to get angry, whether it's those that defend it or those that go after every little thing TNA does.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Apr 17, 2014 0:46:22 GMT -5
I definitely think TNA deserves more than its fair share of crap that people give it, but I'm not comfortable with the revisionist history of people giving TNA its due when it's on a good streak. I've been on this board since 2004, and TNA, no matter the era, has been a perpetual whipping boy, summer of 2005 being the possible exception. Obviously different individuals have different eras within the company they prefer to others, but by and large it's been "LOLTNA" for eons now. Again, not that it isn't justified a number of times, but it's been pretty consistently negative over the years whoever's been in charge. While there are always gonna be people who go "LOLTNA" no matter what TNA does, and don't get me wrong, I think that's bullshit and those people are in the wrong, it's also beyond frustrating to come on this board and have someone go "YOU GUYS JUST HATE TNA NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO." It happens all the time and most of the time, the people saying it know goddamn well that they can't actually offer any valid points to defend against the criticisms, they just want to play the victim. Frankly, this board has been a bit of a mess for a while because of that. There are people who shit on TNA despite admitting they haven't seen a show in years and people who will defend it till they are blue in the face no matter what criticism comes TNA's way. It makes it very hard for rational discusions to survive because at least one person from one of the sides has to come in, act like a complete turd, and screw it up. Honestly, I think this board comes across as anti-TNA vs. pro-TNA because the viewpoints seem to be so strong on both sides; I've been reading these boards since 2006, and it doesn't really seem like there is much of a middle ground when it comes to this company. Not arguing for or against, but that's what I've seen the entire time I've been here. While it's absolutely true you get the guys that can't take TNA criticism and think the company can do no wrong, and I fell into this category which is why I took time away so I could fix that, you, also get the guys that seem to be very overwhelmingly anti-TNA who will say they want to see the company succeed but do seem to find more enjoyment in being cynical towards the product; and when one side calls the other out, both sides go straight for the jugular and don't let up. People feel very strongly about this product on both sides of the spectrum, and because the opinions are so strong they don't mix very well. I think if everybody, both optimistic and cynical or whatever terms you might want to use, brought it down a notch and did their best to not get pissy with each other at every possible turn this section would be much, much more enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Apr 18, 2014 19:33:46 GMT -5
The forums aren't exactly nice when it comes to WWE either. I guess there's more positivity on the WWE board because more people watch it and post there compared to TNA, but there's a lot of negativity. In fact I think a lot of the TNA backlash comes from frustrated fans who desperately want them to offer a good alternative to a WWE they stopped watching years ago only to get a worse WWE knockoff.
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Apr 18, 2014 19:41:53 GMT -5
As no one refuted my suggestion of hemorrhoids it must be the truth. Silence is consent. Motion passed.
Well... as much as possible, considering it might feel like a diamond encrusted howler monkey.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Apr 18, 2014 20:29:24 GMT -5
The forums aren't exactly nice when it comes to WWE either. I guess there's more positivity on the WWE board because more people watch it and post there compared to TNA, but there's a lot of negativity. In fact I think a lot of the TNA backlash comes from frustrated fans who desperately want them to offer a good alternative to a WWE they stopped watching years ago only to get a worse WWE knockoff. For sure; ideally, it'd be great to see both sections become a bit more positive, but this one needs it the most, in my opinion. Frustration over the product is merited, but as I said if both sides, both the fans and the frustrated backed off just a bit and didn't take any and every opportunity to jump the other side, this section would be much more inviting.
|
|
|
Post by Bram wants to 'urt you on Apr 19, 2014 11:22:18 GMT -5
I've always felt the anger thrown TNA's way comes a lot from projection. To wit, everyone here is a wrestling fan, and most if not all of TNA's fans, myself included, watch the show because for whatever reason, we're not keen on WWE's programming. The projection comes from us watching a show, and largely agreeing with other fans, as to what we feel the company is doing wrong, and what they should be doing to put it right. Since TNA's creative team have their own vision for the direction of the show, and since we often disagree with their vision, AND since this board provides us with plenty of opportunity to interact with other people who a) agree that the show isn't quite "what it should be" and b) often share our own views about how to improve matters, we can get protective and irritated in equal measure. And just like somebody saying "cheer up it may never happen" when you're having the worst day of your life, we get angry when someone dares to come in who doesn't take our views as seriously as we do (because opinions are SO important, doncha know ) The internet, while a marvelous tool in some respects, also gives everyone free reign to vent their spleen. Unfortunately by its very nature, and more over by HUMAN nature, everyone feels their own opinion is of equal importance to anyone elses, and probably more so if the other person's opinion happens to disagree with their own.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Apr 19, 2014 12:40:44 GMT -5
So I feel the topic has gone into a different territory. I think I can justify some criticism of the product over the years.
2002-2003 there were some issues with bad gimmicks, rumours of shut down and Jarrett being all over the place.
2003-2004 Russo came in and all the problems he brings to the table.
2005 till Spike launch seemed to have some positive stuff as it was still the little engine that could, and Jarrett's reign of terror.
2005 to 2006 had ring work critics like Earthquake on this message board. Plus, TNA started having problems with using WWE as their top heel.
2006 also got the return of Russo and Samoa Joe losing some shine. The same critiques could go through till 2010.
2010-2011 had the old boys club come in and the KO division losing emphasis, as well as more Russo bullshit.
2012 may've been their last peak point during the BFG series and the Austin Aries title run. Sadly, Aces and 8s would start up and that brought shit in till 2013, and was then replaced by Dixie Carter and their current creative lull.
I feel the big reason there's more criticism for praise is the hardcore TNA fans have been lost in all the bullshit. TNA was so bad that a lot of the fans were turned off by it, and the little engine that could is now a train that crashed, exploded and killed hundreds of people.
|
|
|
Post by "Gentleman" AJ Powell on Apr 20, 2014 17:57:08 GMT -5
On one hand, I like EY, and I'm happy he gets his chance.
On the other, Why the hell would you just throw it out there for him to win with no hype on a free show? Just so you can play second fiddle to WWE by imitating them? I mean, you could chalk it up to coincidence, but it's incredibly unlikely that they just so happened to follow it so closely.
I've all but given up watching at this juncture, in hope they'll bring it back around again, but it seems more and more unlikely by the week.
Also, just out of curiosity, what year did you start watching TNA king?
|
|
|
Post by king1836 on Apr 20, 2014 18:01:26 GMT -5
On one hand, I like EY, and I'm happy he gets his chance. On the other, Why the hell would you just throw it out there for him to win with no hype on a free show? Just so you can play second fiddle to WWE by imitating them? I mean, you could chalk it up to coincidence, but it's incredibly unlikely that they just so happened to follow it so closely. I've all but given up watching at this juncture, in hope they'll bring it back around again, but it seems more and more unlikely by the week. Also, just out of curiosity, what year did you start watching TNA king?
November 2006
|
|
|
Post by "Gentleman" AJ Powell on Apr 20, 2014 18:41:04 GMT -5
On one hand, I like EY, and I'm happy he gets his chance. On the other, Why the hell would you just throw it out there for him to win with no hype on a free show? Just so you can play second fiddle to WWE by imitating them? I mean, you could chalk it up to coincidence, but it's incredibly unlikely that they just so happened to follow it so closely. I've all but given up watching at this juncture, in hope they'll bring it back around again, but it seems more and more unlikely by the week. Also, just out of curiosity, what year did you start watching TNA king?
November 2006
So you've been around for some of the good stuff then. This then begs the question, how in the hell can you honestly say that this is any good when you've seen what TNA is capable of in the past? It'd if you've been given Nutella and store brand chocolate spread for years, then someone starts giving you dog shit instead of Nutella and you happily accept it and act as though it's great rather than going to the person who's giving the store brand stuff, which now has a new and improved flavour.
|
|
|
Post by king1836 on Apr 20, 2014 18:43:57 GMT -5
So you've been around for some of the good stuff then. This then begs the question, how in the hell can you honestly say that this is any good when you've seen what TNA is capable of in the past? It'd if you've been given Nutella and store brand chocolate spread for years, then someone starts giving you dog shit instead of Nutella and you happily accept it and act as though it's great rather than going to the person who's giving the store brand stuff, which now has a new and improved flavour.
I will admit that 2013 was pure agony, but I enjoyed Lockdown 2014. Every Impact afterwards has entertained me (with the exception of Dixie returning)
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Apr 21, 2014 5:50:18 GMT -5
The forums aren't exactly nice when it comes to WWE either. I guess there's more positivity on the WWE board because more people watch it and post there compared to TNA, but there's a lot of negativity. In fact I think a lot of the TNA backlash comes from frustrated fans who desperately want them to offer a good alternative to a WWE they stopped watching years ago only to get a worse WWE knockoff. Well, I never really stopped watching WWE, but you are for the most part, right. I don't think there's anyone in the business, especially the fans, that benefit from WWE having such a stranglehold on the wrestling industry and the better that TNA does, the better off wrestling in general is. Yet, it so maddening to watch TNA completely squander two hours of prime-time Thursday night television on Spike TV every single week. To say nothing of the talent pool they once had, with crazy talented people like AJ Styles, Bad Influence, the Motor City Machine Guns, Beer Money, Awesome Kong, Gail Kim, Hamada, Sarita, etc. The reason I get so passionate about TNA becoming such a failure is because I really, really would love for them to succeed and shake up this business, so people don't have to resort to hijacking WWE shows for something compelling like Daniel Bryan: WWE Champion to happen. It would especially be awesome if TNA could be capable of doing something compelling on their own, but they aren't going to do it by reducing the X-Division to three guys and stripping the Tag Team Divison to two teams. They aren't going to change the business for the better by putting Corporate Kane's suit on Abyss or by ripping off the Wrestlemania build-up in one night. The way I see it, the TNA section is a direct reflection of how good of a job TNA is doing. If you want to see the TNA section become more positive, the simple way that will happen is if TNA starts putting on good programming. Anything else would be nothing more than a mere facade.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 21, 2014 12:57:29 GMT -5
There's actually a fascinating conversation to be had concerning how WWE and TNA respectively garner criticism and reactions, both on this board and in general, due to the very different natures of both companies.
I think a big difference between the two is that while there's been plenty of WWE bashing done, there's still that sense of "see you next Monday" when somebody rants against it, and even some of the bigger criticisms I see of them are coupled with comments like "I still have Raw on so I can see </insert particular wrestlers here>", etc. There's a very reasonable explanation here; WWE has enormous cultural cache. For anybody on this board around the ages 35 and lower, odds are high it was the company you were raised on, old school NWA fans excluded. With WCW's folding, it became "the standard"; even if it's in a phase you feel is awful, you're still likely to at least check it out now and then, maybe because you know more people will be talking about it, or because, well, WWE basically IS wrestling in the United States. Any "@#$% THIS COMPANY!" critiques are unlikely to stick considering that, barring a major disaster, WWE isn't going anywhere any time soon, and no company is coming down the pike that could potentially challenge it. This doesn't mean people excuse it or don't complain when bad things happen; just look at all the reactions to this year's Rumble for proof to the contrary. End of the day, though, most fans will stick around, even if just barely, due to the fact that, again, between the US and Canada, WWE *is* wrestling.
TNA doesn't have that cache, nowhere near. The company has done plenty to earn ire over the years from fans, but criticisms about talent signings, angles, matches, etc. seem to take on a different, angrier flavor than we often see when poor stuff goes on in WWE. Put it this way; I don't often see poor angles in TNA responded to here with, let's say, Photoshop threads or something the way you might see it in the WWE section.
This isn't necessarily a way of saying "people are being unfair!", either; again, cultural cache matters. WWE could be abysmal at a given time, but plenty of people will be able to look back and say "This company has made me feel great multiple times in the past; today may suck, but tomorrow may well improve." Likewise, WWE could be mediocre at a given moment, but since it's the "default" wrestling company, people will often gravitate toward its style, presentation, etc. And then you have moments like now, where more people feel things are going well.
TNA isn't going to get that level of slack, just by din of who they are (the much younger, less established company), along with the fact that they've often blown chances to garner greater good will in the past (e.g. blowing Samoa Joe's hot streak, never fully pulling the trigger with their "younger" talent until it was arguably too late, overbooked main event angles being way too constant, constant changes in creative leadership, etc.). Is that right and proper? I'd argue "right" or "wrong" are totally besides the point: it's simply reality.
|
|
|
Post by Just call me D.j.m. on Apr 21, 2014 13:05:34 GMT -5
There's actually a fascinating conversation to be had concerning how WWE and TNA respectively garner criticism and reactions, both on this board and in general, due to the very different natures of both companies. I think a big difference between the two is that while there's been plenty of WWE bashing done, there's still that sense of "see you next Monday" when somebody rants against it, and even some of the bigger criticisms I see of them are coupled with comments like "I still have Raw on so I can see </insert particular wrestlers here>", etc. There's a very reasonable explanation here; WWE has enormous cultural cache. For anybody on this board around the ages 35 and lower, odds are high it was the company you were raised on, old school NWA fans excluded. With WCW's folding, it became "the standard"; even if it's in a phase you feel is awful, you're still likely to at least check it out now and then, maybe because you know more people will be talking about it, or because, well, WWE basically IS wrestling in the United States. Any "@#$% THIS COMPANY!" critiques are unlikely to stick considering that, barring a major disaster, WWE isn't going anywhere any time soon, and no company is coming down the pike that could potentially challenge it. This doesn't mean people excuse it or don't complain when bad things happen; just look at all the reactions to this year's Rumble for proof to the contrary. End of the day, though, most fans will stick around, even if just barely, due to the fact that, again, between the US and Canada, WWE *is* wrestling. TNA doesn't have that cache, nowhere near. The company has done plenty to earn ire over the years from fans, but criticisms about talent signings, angles, matches, etc. seem to take on a different, angrier flavor than we often see when poor stuff goes on in WWE. Put it this way; I don't often see poor angles in TNA responded to here with, let's say, Photoshop threads or something the way you might see it in the WWE section. This isn't necessarily a way of saying "people are being unfair!", either; again, cultural cache matters. WWE could be abysmal at a given time, but plenty of people will be able to look back and say "This company has made me feel great multiple times in the past; today may suck, but tomorrow may well improve." Likewise, WWE could be mediocre at a given moment, but since it's the "default" wrestling company, people will often gravitate toward its style, presentation, etc. And then you have moments like now, where more people feel things are going well. TNA isn't going to get that level of slack, just by din of who they are (the much younger, less established company), along with the fact that they've often blown chances to garner greater good will in the past (e.g. blowing Samoa Joe's hot streak, never fully pulling the trigger with their "younger" talent until it was arguably too late, overbooked main event angles being way too constant, constant changes in creative leadership, etc.). Is that right and proper? I'd argue "right" or "wrong" are totally besides the point: it's simply reality. And this post is a great part of why TNA should just stop trying to be huge and just be comfortable in its own skin as the company with the eternal 1.1 rating. Creative, TNA should do the things that people liked about them and what set them apart instead of constantly trying to be "the next big brand", because it will never, ever, ever, ever happen. WWE has had well over a decade's worth of time to condition the public at-large into believe that outside of WWE, wrestling doesn't exist, and if it does, it doesn't matter unless they say it matters. All TNA has going for it is its audience that is telling them what they're looking for, and the few things that have made them unique in their history.
|
|
Glitch
King Koopa
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,716
|
Post by Glitch on Apr 21, 2014 15:07:20 GMT -5
It's because they live in garbage cans. That's why they're mad.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Apr 21, 2014 17:10:44 GMT -5
There's actually a fascinating conversation to be had concerning how WWE and TNA respectively garner criticism and reactions, both on this board and in general, due to the very different natures of both companies. I think a big difference between the two is that while there's been plenty of WWE bashing done, there's still that sense of "see you next Monday" when somebody rants against it, and even some of the bigger criticisms I see of them are coupled with comments like "I still have Raw on so I can see </insert particular wrestlers here>", etc. There's a very reasonable explanation here; WWE has enormous cultural cache. For anybody on this board around the ages 35 and lower, odds are high it was the company you were raised on, old school NWA fans excluded. With WCW's folding, it became "the standard"; even if it's in a phase you feel is awful, you're still likely to at least check it out now and then, maybe because you know more people will be talking about it, or because, well, WWE basically IS wrestling in the United States. Any "@#$% THIS COMPANY!" critiques are unlikely to stick considering that, barring a major disaster, WWE isn't going anywhere any time soon, and no company is coming down the pike that could potentially challenge it. This doesn't mean people excuse it or don't complain when bad things happen; just look at all the reactions to this year's Rumble for proof to the contrary. End of the day, though, most fans will stick around, even if just barely, due to the fact that, again, between the US and Canada, WWE *is* wrestling. TNA doesn't have that cache, nowhere near. The company has done plenty to earn ire over the years from fans, but criticisms about talent signings, angles, matches, etc. seem to take on a different, angrier flavor than we often see when poor stuff goes on in WWE. Put it this way; I don't often see poor angles in TNA responded to here with, let's say, Photoshop threads or something the way you might see it in the WWE section. This isn't necessarily a way of saying "people are being unfair!", either; again, cultural cache matters. WWE could be abysmal at a given time, but plenty of people will be able to look back and say "This company has made me feel great multiple times in the past; today may suck, but tomorrow may well improve." Likewise, WWE could be mediocre at a given moment, but since it's the "default" wrestling company, people will often gravitate toward its style, presentation, etc. And then you have moments like now, where more people feel things are going well. TNA isn't going to get that level of slack, just by din of who they are (the much younger, less established company), along with the fact that they've often blown chances to garner greater good will in the past (e.g. blowing Samoa Joe's hot streak, never fully pulling the trigger with their "younger" talent until it was arguably too late, overbooked main event angles being way too constant, constant changes in creative leadership, etc.). Is that right and proper? I'd argue "right" or "wrong" are totally besides the point: it's simply reality. And this post is a great part of why TNA should just stop trying to be huge and just be comfortable in its own skin as the company with the eternal 1.1 rating. Creative, TNA should do the things that people liked about them and what set them apart instead of constantly trying to be "the next big brand", because it will never, ever, ever, ever happen. WWE has had well over a decade's worth of time to condition the public at-large into believe that outside of WWE, wrestling doesn't exist, and if it does, it doesn't matter unless they say it matters. All TNA has going for it is its audience that is telling them what they're looking for, and the few things that have made them unique in their history. I get what you mean, but businesses can't afford to get complacent, and the businesses that are content at where they are are doomed to fail because there's no desire to grow past point A. Why try if you're okay with where you are? TNA's going about trying to get big the wrong way, but there's no fault in them wanting to grow past where they are right now.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 21, 2014 18:12:51 GMT -5
There's growth, and then there's tilting at windmills though. TNA's goalposts for growth should be a lot more realistic, as they aren't ever gonna come close to WWE. There was never a time when they were really, but if there ever was, it's long past.
And cultivating a core audience by being your own thing is nothing to sneeze at. RC Cola has been around for decades. They'll never be Coke and Pepsi, but they're still around.
That's what TNA is, RC Cola.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Apr 21, 2014 18:39:38 GMT -5
There's growth, and then there's tilting at windmills though. TNA's goalposts for growth should be a lot more realistic, as they aren't ever gonna come close to WWE. There was never a time when they were really, but if there ever was, it's long past. And cultivating a core audience by being your own thing is nothing to sneeze at. RC Cola has been around for decades. They'll never be Coke and Pepsi, but they're still around. That's what TNA is, RC Cola. For sure; nothing's ever going to be as big as WWE when it comes to wrestling, but that doesn't mean that TNA shouldn't keep trying to grow. Flibbity said that they should just be happy with where they are and it's that I disagree with. As I said, TNA's going about trying to grow the wrong way, but suggesting they should stay put seems silly when you consider a business needs to grow to stay alive.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 21, 2014 20:05:39 GMT -5
There's growth, and then there's tilting at windmills though. TNA's goalposts for growth should be a lot more realistic, as they aren't ever gonna come close to WWE. There was never a time when they were really, but if there ever was, it's long past. And cultivating a core audience by being your own thing is nothing to sneeze at. RC Cola has been around for decades. They'll never be Coke and Pepsi, but they're still around. That's what TNA is, RC Cola. For sure; nothing's ever going to be as big as WWE when it comes to wrestling, but that doesn't mean that TNA shouldn't keep trying to grow. Flibbity said that they should just be happy with where they are and it's that I disagree with. As I said, TNA's going about trying to grow the wrong way, but suggesting they should stay put seems silly when you consider a business needs to grow to stay alive. I don't think it's a matter of totally "staying put", really; the idea is more not to force the issue, because given the landscape of modern US pro wrestling and given TNA's track record, going for the huge score simply hasn't worked out, and even major coups rarely have a lasting positive effect for them. The idea is more to be content with drawing around a 1.1, but the focusing on how to ensure they remain profitable as a company drawing a 1.1 rating, then how they can grow within the framework (e.g. selling more live event tickets, making sure company expenditures go to the right places, developing younger talent to carry them into tomorrow, etc.). If they go along that way and do a decent job of things, then they stand to grow, but in a slower, more steady pace. That's really all you can ask for. Obviously it doesn't guarantee success, since no matter what you still need to put on good shows that people want to watch. However, the old method has cost them tons of money and hasn't gotten them beyond a certain level; embracing who they are and letting things happen more "organically", for like of a better word, is probably a better proposition for them.
|
|