|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Aug 16, 2007 14:29:17 GMT -5
I love making Russo jokes as much as anyone (what can I say, they are fun to make...), but I have been hearing more and more accounts of Dutch Mantell being more responsible for the current TNA product than Russo is. I guess Russo's the easy target given his history, but I really don't think he deserves a lot of the blame he gets for TNA.
|
|
erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on Aug 16, 2007 14:30:40 GMT -5
Not one thing he said was surprising. Seriously, I don't think TNA will exist by this time next year. people have been saying that every year since year 1. |
|
|
|
Post by jcdenton on Aug 16, 2007 14:32:14 GMT -5
I love making Russo jokes as much as anyone (what can I say, they are fun to make...), but I have been hearing more and more accounts of Dutch Mantell being more responsible for the current TNA product than Russo is. I guess Russo's the easy target given his history, but I really don't think he deserves a lot of the blame he gets for TNA. makes me wonder if they brought russo in just to take flak from the horrible booking |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2007 14:34:25 GMT -5
Not one thing he said was surprising. Seriously, I don't think TNA will exist by this time next year. people have been saying that every year since year 1. It's now more than ever, in my opinion. They are making an endless amount of stupid decisions and can't even get more viewers. |
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Aug 16, 2007 14:39:20 GMT -5
I think the single biggest thing I agree with Bentley on is that even with all the big names they are bringing in, it's not really changing much. Kurt Angle is one of the biggest names in wrestling today, short of someone like Steve Austin or The Rock. The fact that they not only signed Angle -- but gave him a HUGE part of their show -- and the ratings STILL barely moved... that tells me that bringing in big names is not the sole solution. Sure it helps to have marquee names, but they need to do so much more than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Portable Stove on Aug 16, 2007 14:40:25 GMT -5
Dutch Mantel is pretty awful, and I think Russo is just a scapegoat.
After all, if Russo leaves, then if it doesn't improve, who do we blame then? Dixie?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrjerkybigbucks on Aug 16, 2007 14:42:19 GMT -5
people have been saying that every year since year 1. It's now more than ever, in my opinion. They are making an endless amount of stupid decisions and can't even get more viewers. The thing is they are slowly getting more viewers 2 weeks ago they were breaking records. I mean comeon does everyone just remember what they want? |
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Aug 16, 2007 14:42:55 GMT -5
well when they weren't burying their stars with wwe talent and didn't do goofy angles people still didn't watch then. so who can blame them for trying to try tactics similar to the most popular wrestling company in the country. it seems like a logical conclusion. i am just hoping before to long they realize that this isn't improving ratings either and try something else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2007 14:54:53 GMT -5
It's now more than ever, in my opinion. They are making an endless amount of stupid decisions and can't even get more viewers. The thing is they are slowly getting more viewers 2 weeks ago they were breaking records. I mean comeon does everyone just remember what they want? The thing is, the television ratings aren't going anywhere, and they have never gone anywhere. It's always around the same number, which is 1.0 or so. From a business expansion standpoint, this is simply not very good. TNA likes to think of themselves as a competitor with WWE, even though this is not the case. They couldn't even touch WWE at the moment. Remember how badly they did when they went up against Raw (preempted until the Thursday)? They were obliterated. Yet, the spend so much time trying to 'get one over' on WWE. Hell, with the New Age Outlaws, they dedicated a whole damn angle to it. But why? It makes no sense. So, because they can't compete with WWE, they bring in more former WWE rejects and push them to the moon, leaving their own talent (like Samoa Joe and others) who could be used to present a product that is different from WWE's. Instead, what they're presenting at the moment is the exact same thing as WWE does, but the only difference is, TNA is doing it badly. Yeah, they have their 1.0 of viewers who'll tune in all the time because they're hardcore fans. That's fine. WWE has them too. But at the same time, they need to try and expand their business and getting the casual fans watching, which is hard. But, with the talent they have in TNA, they have the opportunity to present an alternative to disgruntled wrestling fans, like WCW did in the mid-90's. But, no. Which means that the talent that could be put to good use are being driven away, and the cost of hiring former WWE stars and celebrities increases. It shows how bad TNA is when they got rid of Jerry Lynn and Matt Bentley to hire Karen Angle. |
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ike: Thread Killer on Aug 16, 2007 15:17:23 GMT -5
Damn, things must really be sucking in TNA.
I actually hope to see him In WWE soon. He could form a group with Londrick as HBK's understudties, and have him play the prick/slacker/Teddy Hart of the group saying that he is better than the other two since he is actually related to shawn and then Turn him heel.
|
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Aug 16, 2007 15:39:20 GMT -5
all this does is prove that if you're in TNA and a veteran takes you under his wing and promises to help you out that you'll wind up never winning a match. how long before Johnny Devine gets the boot too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Girth Brooks on Aug 16, 2007 17:55:25 GMT -5
Funny interview
Bentley has a pretty good sense of humor
|
|
|
|
Post by stevierichardsfan on Aug 16, 2007 18:18:07 GMT -5
you'd think if they were trying to compete with wwe and bring wwe stars in that they'd kinda idk...BE NICE TO FAMILY MEMBERS OF SHAWN MICHAELS. lollipop and bentley are first cousins of him and they blew it with both. lollipop and hbk are cousins |
|
|
|
Post by mrjerkybigbucks on Aug 16, 2007 19:19:41 GMT -5
The thing is they are slowly getting more viewers 2 weeks ago they were breaking records. I mean comeon does everyone just remember what they want? The thing is, the television ratings aren't going anywhere, and they have never gone anywhere. It's always around the same number, which is 1.0 or so. From a business expansion standpoint, this is simply not very good. TNA likes to think of themselves as a competitor with WWE, even though this is not the case. They couldn't even touch WWE at the moment. Remember how badly they did when they went up against Raw (preempted until the Thursday)? They were obliterated. Yet, the spend so much time trying to 'get one over' on WWE. Hell, with the New Age Outlaws, they dedicated a whole damn angle to it. But why? It makes no sense. So, because they can't compete with WWE, they bring in more former WWE rejects and push them to the moon, leaving their own talent (like Samoa Joe and others) who could be used to present a product that is different from WWE's. Instead, what they're presenting at the moment is the exact same thing as WWE does, but the only difference is, TNA is doing it badly. Yeah, they have their 1.0 of viewers who'll tune in all the time because they're hardcore fans. That's fine. WWE has them too. But at the same time, they need to try and expand their business and getting the casual fans watching, which is hard. But, with the talent they have in TNA, they have the opportunity to present an alternative to disgruntled wrestling fans, like WCW did in the mid-90's. But, no. Which means that the talent that could be put to good use are being driven away, and the cost of hiring former WWE stars and celebrities increases. It shows how bad TNA is when they got rid of Jerry Lynn and Matt Bentley to hire Karen Angle. From going 1 hour friday on fsn to going 2 hours on spike is a huge improvement. Do you think they would have gotten this far if they just kept the Roh people and didn't add other faces? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2007 19:23:57 GMT -5
The thing is, the television ratings aren't going anywhere, and they have never gone anywhere. It's always around the same number, which is 1.0 or so. From a business expansion standpoint, this is simply not very good. TNA likes to think of themselves as a competitor with WWE, even though this is not the case. They couldn't even touch WWE at the moment. Remember how badly they did when they went up against Raw (preempted until the Thursday)? They were obliterated. Yet, the spend so much time trying to 'get one over' on WWE. Hell, with the New Age Outlaws, they dedicated a whole damn angle to it. But why? It makes no sense. So, because they can't compete with WWE, they bring in more former WWE rejects and push them to the moon, leaving their own talent (like Samoa Joe and others) who could be used to present a product that is different from WWE's. Instead, what they're presenting at the moment is the exact same thing as WWE does, but the only difference is, TNA is doing it badly. Yeah, they have their 1.0 of viewers who'll tune in all the time because they're hardcore fans. That's fine. WWE has them too. But at the same time, they need to try and expand their business and getting the casual fans watching, which is hard. But, with the talent they have in TNA, they have the opportunity to present an alternative to disgruntled wrestling fans, like WCW did in the mid-90's. But, no. Which means that the talent that could be put to good use are being driven away, and the cost of hiring former WWE stars and celebrities increases. It shows how bad TNA is when they got rid of Jerry Lynn and Matt Bentley to hire Karen Angle. From going 1 hour friday on fsn to going 2 hours on spike is a huge improvement. Do you think they would have gotten this far if they just kept the Roh people and didn't add other faces? No, not at all. The main event should be full of talent that people recognize, it's good from a business standpoint. But, they're wasting the talent that could be used to build for the future. Basically, they're not doing anything to get people to watch.  |
|
|
|
Post by mrjerkybigbucks on Aug 16, 2007 19:46:28 GMT -5
From going 1 hour friday on fsn to going 2 hours on spike is a huge improvement. Do you think they would have gotten this far if they just kept the Roh people and didn't add other faces? No, not at all. The main event should be full of talent that people recognize, it's good from a business standpoint. But, they're wasting the talent that could be used to build for the future. Basically, they're not doing anything to get people to watch. Who knows? More people are watching now, than were watching last year. I think everyone thinks that ratings have to reach really high over night and the truth is they dont. The real problem with tna is that they are a wrestling program. Wrestling for the most part is not as popular as some might want to believe. It's not the booking that really makes ratings rise. I mean look at ECW. The shows are getting better by leaps and bounds, but the ratings suck.. They just need to find an "it" thing. Something that makes people want to see more. Matt Bentley does not have "it" at all. I don't really care for his inring work, or his personallity. He was a bad hbk knock off at best. I think however tna is kinda tapping into the mainstream by small things like TNA today, kurt angles new online ad, hot topic clothing, the myspacelike site they have, and the pacman signing. Tna needs to find ways of exploiting things that are popular or hot at the time and using them to thier full extent. |
|
|
|
Post by OGBoardPoster2005 on Aug 16, 2007 22:59:19 GMT -5
But HBK isn't DEAD. No disrespect to Davey Boy, Whatever-God-Is-Up-There rest his soul. Yeah but I mean, he can do a reduced role of wrestling. Maybe do some tags with Shane Michaels (the new name I am dubbing him) but mostly be in a mentor role. Thats what I did in EWR, I started a Corporate Elite stable with HBK, Maverick Matt(who I also called Shane Michaels), Kevin Nash, HHH, and Vinnie Mac. The storyline was that Austin was tired of McMahon's Corporation. So Vince in response sent The Clique(HBK, Bentley, and Nash) after Austin. It was supposed to reach its peak at Wrestlemania with Austin beating Michaels and sending him out of commission and Austin would be granted a shot at the WWF Championship at any time(Vengeance was supposed to be headlined by Edge vs HHH vs Austin and Bentley would cost Austin the match). Austin and Bentley would face off at Summerslam with Bentley going over. The storyline would then call for Bentley to beat Edge for the belt at Survivor Series. Well from there Bentley would take an ego "trip" taking out HHH, Kevin Nash, and Lesnar along the way eventually HBK would return(Yes over a year later) and Summerslam 2009 would be headlined with Shawn Michaels vs Shane Michaels in a "Passing the Torch" moment. Sadly, it never came to be, as I was fired(Public Image kept going down because I mishandled the mid-card and let Benoit, Regal, and others go). Its ashame too because I guarentee you WM would've saved my job but I was cut loose after I canceled a show due to lack of ability to think that night  . |
|
|
|
Post by radicalbuttercup on Aug 16, 2007 23:06:21 GMT -5
GRRRRRR forever at Dutch Mantell for never giving Serotonin a chance. FOREVER.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 16, 2007 23:51:54 GMT -5
Who knows? More people are watching now, than were watching last year. I think everyone thinks that ratings have to reach really high over night and the truth is they dont. Not really. www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/nwa/impactrat.htmImpact ratings have hovered in the 1.0 range quite often. Summer last year, they were hitting 1.1's as well. Now? They're in that exact same range, with a plus or minus of .1 or so ratings points on any given week. Average ratings last year was a .9 with the average rating this year up to what they have recorded (which is May) as a .95. That doesn't spell leaps and bounds, that spells consistency. |
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Aug 17, 2007 0:02:48 GMT -5
While I'll admit, a 20% fluctuation in your ratings is a sizable chunk, (between 1.0 and 1.2) does it speak well for their philosophy that they have trouble sustaining those viewers from week to week? Yes, recently they scored their highest rating ever, which was 0.1 higher than their previous record (or approximately 166,300 viewers). Problem there is, what happened the next week? They dropped back down to their norm.
We can crow all we want about the ifs. IF they get a second hour, IF they get a better network deal, IF they sign the big name that will garauntee people tune in and keep tuning in, rather than spike a rating one week.
The fact is, I see Bentley's complaints, and I see bigger problems than booking. I see a hiring philosophy that says "we trust no one we have here to draw, so we will bring in anyone that doesn't pan out for Vince, or who leaves and is willing to come here and trash them on television".
Once they decided to put Joe on the back burner, it seems that no one that hasn't worked for WWE (or in Sting's case was a major player in WCW) can get even a sniff of a sustained main event title push. Does it strike anyone else as sad that Tomko has approximately the same number of title matches as Samoa Joe? Tomko for God's sake.
|
|
.
