|
Post by jfpierce on Jul 7, 2010 22:24:10 GMT -5
I think its funny how people always defend TNA's low ratings with the "We'll never have another boom!" excuse. Hell, the fact that TNA continues to exist (and block the expansion of other wrestling leagues that might get over better in its slot) is one of the BIGGEST reasons why we haven't had a boom. Who wants to be part of a fanbase that accepts mediocrity as a way of life for a product? That seems to be what TNA fans defend. Do you actually believe this? TNA isn't blocking anything, and the two boom periods of wrestling had plenty of rehashes and just plain bad tv.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Jul 7, 2010 22:31:01 GMT -5
I think its funny how people always defend TNA's low ratings with the "We'll never have another boom!" excuse. Hell, the fact that TNA continues to exist (and block the expansion of other wrestling leagues that might get over better in its slot) is one of the BIGGEST reasons why we haven't had a boom. Who wants to be part of a fanbase that accepts mediocrity as a way of life for a product? That seems to be what TNA fans defend. Do you actually believe this? TNA isn't blocking anything, and the two boom periods of wrestling had plenty of rehashes and just plain bad tv. And the booms created a time where it was considered "cool" to like wrestling (specifically during the Attitude Era, where everybody loved wrestling). Fast forward to 2010, and the current cool thing to like is... Not that there's anything wrong with MMA, but it is in the same position wrestling was in in 1998. It is my opinion that there will never be another wrestling boom period, although I would love to be wrong
|
|
|
Post by lookout on Jul 7, 2010 23:56:31 GMT -5
I think its funny how people always defend TNA's low ratings with the "We'll never have another boom!" excuse. Hell, the fact that TNA continues to exist (and block the expansion of other wrestling leagues that might get over better in its slot) is one of the BIGGEST reasons why we haven't had a boom. Who wants to be part of a fanbase that accepts mediocrity as a way of life for a product? That seems to be what TNA fans defend. Do you actually believe this? TNA isn't blocking anything, and the two boom periods of wrestling had plenty of rehashes and just plain bad tv. I think I see his point. All the alternative/well known talent is locked up in tna and if someone wanted to start another promotion with goals of being on national tv, they probably would be hard pressed to do if all the names and talen that mean anything are either in the wwe or tna. Honestly, I wouldn't be that sad if tna goes. I find their product terrible most of the time and it just seems so 3rd rate with them taping in front of the same tiny audience all the time, their cheesy special effects, and really annoying and boring announcers.Not to mention how I feel about how they treat the women. If they did go under, maybe...just maybe..someone or somebody could get the appropriate backing and take the best of who is in tna right now and actually put on a decent product to the point that it would sell. But that is far easier said than done. Trying to get a promotion started up, running shows, getting tv time, etc is a HUGE undertaking and expense. Short of another billionaire personally invested real time and money in it, it might not ever happen. I think though at this point, the tna product or it's business model and philosophy is a proven failure if they are in this bad of shape after all this time. If they haven't turned it around by now, will or could they ever? H
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Jul 8, 2010 2:01:42 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if it does get really bad and Dixie and Co has to sell, what are the odds on Bischoff getting the group back together that tried to buy WCW to make a bid? I mean, unless Spike cancels Impact, they have the one thing they wanted from WCW but couldn't get...TV time.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,228
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jul 8, 2010 2:53:32 GMT -5
Do you actually believe this? TNA isn't blocking anything, and the two boom periods of wrestling had plenty of rehashes and just plain bad tv. And the booms created a time where it was considered "cool" to like wrestling (specifically during the Attitude Era, where everybody loved wrestling). Fast forward to 2010, and the current cool thing to like is... Not that there's anything wrong with MMA, but it is in the same position wrestling was in in 1998. It is my opinion that there will never be another wrestling boom period, although I would love to be wrong I actually think you are wrong just because people said the same thing after the huge Hulkamania boom in the 80s. How will another boom period happen? Easy. Turn Cena heel. He is the biggest white meat babyface WWE has had since Hogan and Bret Hart. If they did it right(such as how Hart was turned heel in WWF in 97 and how Hogan was turned heel in 96 in WCW) it could set off a wrestling boom just like that. Also you have to remember that WWE is bigger than ever and they are still growing. Once they launch their TV Network I think that will be a huge game changer for pro wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jul 8, 2010 8:12:54 GMT -5
I think I see his point. All the alternative/well known talent is locked up in tna and if someone wanted to start another promotion with goals of being on national tv, they probably would be hard pressed to do if all the names and talen that mean anything are either in the wwe or tna. There's plenty of talent out there that isn't under a TNA contract, WCW and ECW Alumni who can still go, the WWE releases dozens of guys a year who've had exposure on national TV who deserve a second chance, as well as hot prospects from developmental who've been screwed over in some way so if someone wanted to build a roster, there's more than enough talent to do so, heck, Hogan managed it with his Australia tour. TNA doesn't grab everyone who's ROH or WWE contracts expire and there are hundreds of workers on the indy scene who want to make a name for themselves. With the right funding, anything is possible but that's unlikely to happen, not because of TNA's continued existence, but because of ECW, WCW, Smoky Mountain, the WWA and countless other feds that were supposedly run by better wrestling or business minds that went under.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jul 8, 2010 8:17:19 GMT -5
Honestly, I wouldn't be that sad if tna goes. I find their product terrible most of the time and it just seems so 3rd rate with them taping in front of the same tiny audience all the time, their cheesy special effects, and really annoying and boring announcers.Not to mention how I feel about how they treat the women.
This isn't the RAW thread dude
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jul 8, 2010 8:25:13 GMT -5
And the booms created a time where it was considered "cool" to like wrestling (specifically during the Attitude Era, where everybody loved wrestling). Fast forward to 2010, and the current cool thing to like is... Not that there's anything wrong with MMA, but it is in the same position wrestling was in in 1998. It is my opinion that there will never be another wrestling boom period, although I would love to be wrong I actually think you are wrong just because people said the same thing after the huge Hulkamania boom in the 80s. How will another boom period happen? Easy. Turn Cena heel. He is the biggest white meat babyface WWE has had since Hogan and Bret Hart. If they did it right(such as how Hart was turned heel in WWF in 97 and how Hogan was turned heel in 96 in WCW) it could set off a wrestling boom just like that. Also you have to remember that WWE is bigger than ever and they are still growing. Once they launch their TV Network I think that will be a huge game changer for pro wrestling. The difference Hogan was THE name. People outside of wrestling knew him and his turn got people who had stopped watching back into the product. If Cena turns who outside the current fanbase will care? Will it entice those who've abandoned wrestling for MMA? I doubt it.
|
|
Mesousa
Unicron
It slips off, slips off~
Posts: 3,498
|
Post by Mesousa on Jul 8, 2010 8:25:26 GMT -5
FAAAAKE.
They just got Dreamer, so it should be a big help, actually.
|
|
|
Post by N E O G E O B O Y S on Jul 8, 2010 10:53:44 GMT -5
Honestly, I wouldn't be that sad if tna goes. I find their product terrible most of the time and it just seems so 3rd rate with them taping in front of the same tiny audience all the time, their cheesy special effects, and really annoying and boring announcers.Not to mention how I feel about how they treat the women.
This isn't the RAW thread dude Yeah, those tiny audiences in raw will send them to hell
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 23,402
|
Post by Legion on Jul 8, 2010 11:40:55 GMT -5
There was alot of stuff about them being in financial trouble recently and Dixie refusing to fire people anyway, because she's nice like that.
I cant imagine Spike were all that happy with the failed new MNW and ratings have never really recovered from that.
It may be an exaggeration, but frankly, I can believe they are in trouble and, while they may not die, will likely need to take massive cost cutting measures before the year is out.
|
|
Marvelously Mediocre
Fry's dog Seymour
Beggin' for a little SWAGGAH!
Haha. What a story Mark.
Posts: 21,224
|
Post by Marvelously Mediocre on Jul 8, 2010 11:44:55 GMT -5
Honestly, I wouldn't be that sad if tna goes. I find their product terrible most of the time and it just seems so 3rd rate with them taping in front of the same tiny audience all the time, their cheesy special effects, and really annoying and boring announcers.Not to mention how I feel about how they treat the women.
This isn't the RAW thread dude Yes because Raw is well known for it's cheesy effects and taping 3 shows in the same arena every week. I get that you're saying Raw's bad but to compare its actual production to TNA is a laughable argument.
|
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,480
|
Post by dpg on Jul 8, 2010 15:09:19 GMT -5
The problem with the 'TNA is about to go under' theories is that their usually the same old stuff re-hashed froom the last claim. This one contains no details about the financial situation, in fact it contains no details at all. Plus, ROH will not get TNA's time slot. If TNA went under do you really think Spike would get burnt on a wrestling company again? ROH draws fewer fans and is even less mainstream than TNA. what incentive do they have to sign them up?
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 8, 2010 15:21:21 GMT -5
I think I see his point. All the alternative/well known talent is locked up in tna and if someone wanted to start another promotion with goals of being on national tv, they probably would be hard pressed to do if all the names and talen that mean anything are either in the wwe or tna. Honestly, I wouldn't be that sad if tna goes. I find their product terrible most of the time and it just seems so 3rd rate with them taping in front of the same tiny audience all the time, their cheesy special effects, and really annoying and boring announcers.Not to mention how I feel about how they treat the women. If they did go under, maybe...just maybe..someone or somebody could get the appropriate backing and take the best of who is in tna right now and actually put on a decent product to the point that it would sell. But that is far easier said than done. Trying to get a promotion started up, running shows, getting tv time, etc is a HUGE undertaking and expense. Short of another billionaire personally invested real time and money in it, it might not ever happen. I think though at this point, the tna product or it's business model and philosophy is a proven failure if they are in this bad of shape after all this time. If they haven't turned it around by now, will or could they ever? H EXACTLY. TNA is doomed regardless, the company sucks, but its actual ROSTER is quite good (I'd take it's pure roster, minus Hogan/Flair, over WWF 1996 as a survivable company any day). In the hands of a good promoter, they could POSSIBLY go places and become a strong company. But there's no hope for a company that manages to turn Jeff Hardy from the #2 draw in pro wrestling to "just another guy". TNA is like a dead tree preventing promising saplings from growing into strong trees. As long as the undead company survives, it will drag down US wrestling with it. Even TV Tropes once said they were "#2 by default".
|
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,480
|
Post by dpg on Jul 8, 2010 15:25:00 GMT -5
I think I see his point. All the alternative/well known talent is locked up in tna and if someone wanted to start another promotion with goals of being on national tv, they probably would be hard pressed to do if all the names and talen that mean anything are either in the wwe or tna. Honestly, I wouldn't be that sad if tna goes. I find their product terrible most of the time and it just seems so 3rd rate with them taping in front of the same tiny audience all the time, their cheesy special effects, and really annoying and boring announcers.Not to mention how I feel about how they treat the women. If they did go under, maybe...just maybe..someone or somebody could get the appropriate backing and take the best of who is in tna right now and actually put on a decent product to the point that it would sell. But that is far easier said than done. Trying to get a promotion started up, running shows, getting tv time, etc is a HUGE undertaking and expense. Short of another billionaire personally invested real time and money in it, it might not ever happen. I think though at this point, the tna product or it's business model and philosophy is a proven failure if they are in this bad of shape after all this time. If they haven't turned it around by now, will or could they ever? H EXACTLY. TNA is doomed regardless, the company sucks, but its actual ROSTER is quite good (I'd take it's pure roster, minus Hogan/Flair, over WWF 1996 as a survivable company any day). In the hands of a good promoter, they could POSSIBLY go places and become a strong company. But there's no hope for a company that manages to turn Jeff Hardy from the #2 draw in pro wrestling to "just another guy". TNA is like a dead tree preventing promising saplings from growing into strong trees. As long as the undead company survives, it will drag down US wrestling with it. Even TV Tropes once said they were "#2 by default". Really? And how would this company push through exactly? TNA has only survived through having Panda energy backing it up for years. Even these small companies would have to have a backer, ECW proved natural growth still results in big losses and it wa son during a boom period, something wrestling is not in. So how would they get a backer? How would they get on TV? You remind me of a sports fan who's club isn't doing too well so they want a new owner with huge money, so campaign against the current owner in the vague hope a new one will appear with bags full of money to bestow on the team.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jul 8, 2010 16:16:01 GMT -5
But there's no hope for a company that manages to turn Jeff Hardy from the #2 draw in pro wrestling to "just another guy". TNA is like a dead tree preventing promising saplings from growing into strong trees. As long as the undead company survives, it will drag down US wrestling with it. Even TV Tropes once said they were "#2 by default". Yeah, TNA are such losers for not pushing the not entirely passionate about wrestling Jeff Hardy to the moon, they're mad for not making him the centrepiece of their promotion, it's not like he's there mainly to spite the other promotion and help keep one of his best friends in a job, nope, nor does he have a drug trial hanging over his head. Seriously, you look for a stick to beat TNA with and you chose not pushing Jeff Hardy? Hiring Jeff Hardy at all is a bigger issue. RoH and Chikara were both founded in the same year as TNA, OVW, HWA and CZW are even older, none of them have anyone to blame for their lack of expansion but themselves. They've had plenty of time to grow, the death of TNA will not magically catapult them to the big time, all it will do is make it even harder for them to find a backer to help them get to the next level.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 8, 2010 16:51:28 GMT -5
Considering that the main successful American wrestling league doesn't have a backer and the ones that did are either dead (WCW) or undead (TNA), maybe it would be better if they didn't have a backer. Remember, Dixie could've vetoed the Monday night invasion and alot of TNA's stupid ideas if she wanted to.
People will take notice if you make a product that's good. With TNA alot of people know it exists but don't watch because they flat out don't like it. But its crappiness still distracts people from some of the better wrestling out there.
If you were a person trying to get into wrestling and you started watching TNA during the Monday night invasion, what would you think of TNA or the wrestling industry as a whole?
|
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,480
|
Post by dpg on Jul 8, 2010 17:01:54 GMT -5
The main wrestling league in America is WWE and it was set up decades ago, before you needed big bucks. Now it has big bucks, after how many years of slow growth and investment? No league set up since the modern era has succeeded without a backer, WCW only just survived with one, ECW did without but never made a profit.
By your theory a wrestling company could get a major backer by the second biggest company in north america going under that HAS big backer.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 8, 2010 17:07:05 GMT -5
The main wrestling league in America is WWE and it was set up decades ago, before you needed big bucks. Now it has big bucks, after how many years of slow growth and investment? No league set up since the modern era has succeeded without a backer, WCW only just survived with one, ECW did without but never made a profit. By your theory a wrestling company could get a major backer by the second biggest company in north america going under that HAS big backer. Honestly, if TNA didn't have Panda's backing, it would've died years ago. And it still may well do so if Panda decides they're not worth it. I'm not saying another company would pass TNA while it has Panda's backing, BUT the flexibility of not having to answer to a boss like Dixie might actually help a company grow better in the long run. Because TNA hit its zenith (in terms of overall fanbase/viewership) with early MEM and it will never exceed that and will certainly never pose a threat to WWE.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Jul 8, 2010 17:17:32 GMT -5
Meltzer was asked directly about this on WOL. He said it wasn't so much that he expected them to go out of business very soon, just that they're losing a lot of money again, and people, presumably Panda Energy, are losing patience.
|
|