|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jun 29, 2010 22:26:18 GMT -5
Alright Tna did something right for once. Sarita rightfully won the match, this feud is over. Please Tna, don't keep this feud going. This feud is over, Sarita won, and now she should get pushed as top heel. Do not let Taylor win this feud like she did with Daffney. I can get behind Sarita feuding with the new BP. Thing is the BP's whole act depends on them being heel or it doesn't work. See Angelina since she came back. So therefore, heel Sarita has no-one to feud with. I still wish they'd do something, anything, with Daffney. If you're gonna keep those damn tag belts then get her a partner. Bring in MsChif. I don't care. It's unfortiunate that she has the crux where she makes her opponent look good so that becomes all she does. It's the fate that belied Paul Burchill, Jamie Noble and many others.
|
|
|
Post by renzino on Jun 29, 2010 22:30:13 GMT -5
No their real. The Jeremy Buck / Okada match is probably going to be a dark match or a webmatch. That was Max and I guessed that. I was referring to Jeremy over Williams Your right my bad.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jun 29, 2010 22:35:19 GMT -5
Actually, I'd say they mean more in wrestling. I mean the whole goal is to get people to pay to watch something and if I can see it for free the first time (and it ends clean) why pay to see it a second time? Cause it's good. Plus, rematches, in some cases, don't really suffer from it, since if the first one was good, you still have interest to get a second one. The first Orton/Cena was on a RAW, Eddie's RAW and was never really referenced or mentioned afterwards and had no impact on their eventual feud. I know that was a special show but it's an instance of how, unless they pull the Joe/RVD trigger immediately, this one match won't affect anything except an entertaining match for us to enjoy.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Jun 29, 2010 22:54:04 GMT -5
Cause it's good. Plus, rematches, in some cases, don't really suffer from it, since if the first one was good, you still have interest to get a second one. The first Orton/Cena was on a RAW, Eddie's RAW and was never really referenced or mentioned afterwards and had no impact on their eventual feud. I know that was a special show but it's an instance of how, unless they pull the Joe/RVD trigger immediately, this one match won't affect anything except an entertaining match for us to enjoy. And giving away Orton/Cena then (had it not been a special RAW) and giving away Joe/RVD now are both short sighted decisions. Rob Van Dam vs. Samoa Joe could be another dream match that TNA could make some really good money off of, especially if they hold off on giving fans the match until an epic PPV encounter. Take the Joe/Angle match to a lesser extent. They didn't give away their first match on Impact, they at least waited until the next available PPV to have the match and it brought them their biggest buyrate to that point. Simple logic and it paid off. Now take this for example, RVD and Joe may not be feuding together, so maybe a match on PPV further down the line could have a little bit of backstory to drive interest, this is true. However, throwing away their first match to have a 'good match on Impact' is just that, throwing away something that could have been perceived as special if TNA promoted it right, which is something they aren't good at doing at these types of things. I mean, look at the same show, there's a ladder match on free TV with no buildup. No buys. They could have just as easily put RVD up against someone like Brian Kendrick or Max Buck and the match would have torn the house down, but those matches also wouldn't exactly be considered dream matches by any stretch. Remember, even TNA has issues with their booking, there's no use in taking offense to people pointing it out.
|
|
|
Post by The Genesis of KoOS on Jun 29, 2010 22:57:58 GMT -5
Alright Tna did something right for once. Sarita rightfully won the match, this feud is over. Please Tna, don't keep this feud going. This feud is over, Sarita won, and now she should get pushed as top heel. Do not let Taylor win this feud like she did with Daffney. And I'm not sure if I'm happier about Sarita winning or sadder about Wilde losing I'm sadder that they turned Sarita heel for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Jun 29, 2010 23:02:16 GMT -5
Way to go TNA. Giving away the last real Dream match in the company current with RVD and Joe on free TV. They should have been on PPV because fans would PAY to see it. I don't care how good it was and good for it being that for Impact. But stuff like this is the reason why they can't make money or draw well at PPVs. Had this been on PPV with a good build for there first match. TNA would had one of the best results for PPV buys they have had in a very long time. Outside the impact zone like BFG would help sell tickets.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jun 29, 2010 23:04:27 GMT -5
The first Orton/Cena was on a RAW, Eddie's RAW and was never really referenced or mentioned afterwards and had no impact on their eventual feud. I know that was a special show but it's an instance of how, unless they pull the Joe/RVD trigger immediately, this one match won't affect anything except an entertaining match for us to enjoy. And giving away Orton/Cena then (had it not been a special RAW) and giving away Joe/RVD now are both short sighted decisions. Rob Van Dam vs. Samoa Joe could be another dream match that TNA could make some really good money off of, especially if they hold off on giving fans the match until an epic PPV encounter. Take the Joe/Angle match to a lesser extent. They didn't give away their first match on Impact, they at least waited until the next available PPV to have the match and it brought them their biggest buyrate to that point. Simple logic and it paid off. Now take this for example, RVD and Joe may not be feuding together, so maybe a match on PPV further down the line could have a little bit of backstory to drive interest, this is true. However, throwing away their first match to have a 'good match on Impact' is just that, throwing away something that could have been perceived as special if TNA promoted it right, which is something they aren't good at doing at these types of things. I mean, look at the same show, there's a ladder match on free TV with no buildup. No buys. They could have just as easily put RVD up against someone like Brian Kendrick or Max Buck and the match would have torn the house down, but those matches also wouldn't exactly be considered dream matches by any stretch. Remember, even TNA has issues with their booking, there's no use in taking offense to people pointing it out. The thing about the Joe/Angle match was that this was pretty much demanded since Angle came in. With Joe/RVD, I don't think as many people were jumping head over heels to see that. I liken it to the Sting/Angle match, which they had on TV, had people saying no one would ever see it again since they gave it away for free, even though their other matches after, at BFG and during the MEM thing, are more memorable and were still demanded.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jun 29, 2010 23:08:59 GMT -5
I'm torn on this. On one hand like everyone else here I'm excited about seeing RVD vs. Joe. However, I thought this could be a BFG or Lockdown main event if promoted right. Or at the very least Joe would be fighting Angle once those guys are in the 2-3 spots on the top 10.
The thing that drove me nuts more than giving this away was the fact that RVD came out during the main event melee and nailed Abyss with the Van Terminator. What have I been saying in nearly every TNA thread? Basically that they should keep Abyss strong for a big RVD/Abyss hardcore match at either the August or September PPV, and that is when RVD has to bust out the crazy moves like a Van Terminator to put this psycho away.
Instead they not only gave away RVD/Joe on free TV but also the big spot of RVD hitting the Van Terminator on Abyss, which should have been the feud ending spot about 2 months from now.
|
|
|
Post by primetime110 on Jun 29, 2010 23:11:14 GMT -5
And giving away Orton/Cena then (had it not been a special RAW) and giving away Joe/RVD now are both short sighted decisions. Rob Van Dam vs. Samoa Joe could be another dream match that TNA could make some really good money off of, especially if they hold off on giving fans the match until an epic PPV encounter. Take the Joe/Angle match to a lesser extent. They didn't give away their first match on Impact, they at least waited until the next available PPV to have the match and it brought them their biggest buyrate to that point. Simple logic and it paid off. Now take this for example, RVD and Joe may not be feuding together, so maybe a match on PPV further down the line could have a little bit of backstory to drive interest, this is true. However, throwing away their first match to have a 'good match on Impact' is just that, throwing away something that could have been perceived as special if TNA promoted it right, which is something they aren't good at doing at these types of things. I mean, look at the same show, there's a ladder match on free TV with no buildup. No buys. They could have just as easily put RVD up against someone like Brian Kendrick or Max Buck and the match would have torn the house down, but those matches also wouldn't exactly be considered dream matches by any stretch. Remember, even TNA has issues with their booking, there's no use in taking offense to people pointing it out. The thing about the Joe/Angle match was that this was pretty much demanded since Angle came in. With Joe/RVD, I don't think as many people were jumping head over heels to see that. I liken it to the Sting/Angle match, which they had on TV, had people saying no one would ever see it again since they gave it away for free, even though their other matches after, at BFG and during the MEM thing, are more memorable and were still demanded. Bingo. Most people who say they would pay to see that match, More than likely will pay to see the rematch on ppv. RVD won the 1st one, Now people will pay to see how Joe will get his revenge if there is a rematch on ppv. A little over reaction IMO.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Jun 29, 2010 23:13:51 GMT -5
And giving away Orton/Cena then (had it not been a special RAW) and giving away Joe/RVD now are both short sighted decisions. Rob Van Dam vs. Samoa Joe could be another dream match that TNA could make some really good money off of, especially if they hold off on giving fans the match until an epic PPV encounter. Take the Joe/Angle match to a lesser extent. They didn't give away their first match on Impact, they at least waited until the next available PPV to have the match and it brought them their biggest buyrate to that point. Simple logic and it paid off. Now take this for example, RVD and Joe may not be feuding together, so maybe a match on PPV further down the line could have a little bit of backstory to drive interest, this is true. However, throwing away their first match to have a 'good match on Impact' is just that, throwing away something that could have been perceived as special if TNA promoted it right, which is something they aren't good at doing at these types of things. I mean, look at the same show, there's a ladder match on free TV with no buildup. No buys. They could have just as easily put RVD up against someone like Brian Kendrick or Max Buck and the match would have torn the house down, but those matches also wouldn't exactly be considered dream matches by any stretch. Remember, even TNA has issues with their booking, there's no use in taking offense to people pointing it out. The thing about the Joe/Angle match was that this was pretty much demanded since Angle came in. With Joe/RVD, I don't think as many people were jumping head over heels to see that. I liken it to the Sting/Angle match, which they had on TV, had people saying no one would ever see it again since they gave it away for free, even though their other matches after, at BFG and during the MEM thing, are more memorable and were still demanded. I get you and I agree with you on that, Angle/Sting was better with buildup at BFG than on Impact prior. But just because they can give away big matches on free TV for the first times doesn't mean that they should. RVD in TNA is an awesome situation because it gives the fans chances to speculate on all the matches RVD can have with all the TNA mainstays. What's the point of throwing out all their possible dream matches in short order when they can space them out over a year or so, making each match seem like a big deal. TNA already knows that no matter what they'll do the rating will stay the same. My only guess as to why they'd throw out this match on free television was to hopefully get a jump in the ratings. The only thing is, nothing they're doing is getting a jump in the ratings, and when they do get a small rise for a certain segment or two, time has shown that within a week or so the rating will be back to a 1.0/1.1. Having RVD vs. Brutus Magnus in a half decent match and RVD/Joe in a classic will draw exactly the same numbers with the only difference being that people will probably pay to see RVD/Joe on PPV as opposed to RVD/Magnus.
|
|
|
Post by FailedGimmick on Jun 29, 2010 23:14:28 GMT -5
Why was there a ladder match for a giant red X?
Did I miss something last week?
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Jun 29, 2010 23:16:52 GMT -5
The thing about the Joe/Angle match was that this was pretty much demanded since Angle came in. With Joe/RVD, I don't think as many people were jumping head over heels to see that. I liken it to the Sting/Angle match, which they had on TV, had people saying no one would ever see it again since they gave it away for free, even though their other matches after, at BFG and during the MEM thing, are more memorable and were still demanded. Bingo. Most people who say they would pay to see that match, More than likely will pay to see the rematch on ppv. RVD won the 1st one, Now people will pay to see how Joe will get his revenge if there is a rematch on ppv. A little over reaction IMO. It's been proven time and time again throughout wrestling history that the rematch almost NEVER draws as well as the initial bout. Not to mention that it also takes away some of the specialness from the match because you've already seen it for free on television. It's pretty much impossible to replicate that special feeling when you've already seen it previously.
|
|
|
Post by FailedGimmick on Jun 29, 2010 23:16:39 GMT -5
Actually, I'd say they mean more in wrestling. I mean the whole goal is to get people to pay to watch something and if I can see it for free the first time (and it ends clean) why pay to see it a second time? Cause it's good. Plus, rematches, in some cases, don't really suffer from it, since if the first one was good, you still have interest to get a second one. Undertaker Vs. Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania aside, I can't recall any hyped up second encounter that came even close to matching the first.
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Jun 29, 2010 23:19:49 GMT -5
The thing about the Joe/Angle match was that this was pretty much demanded since Angle came in. With Joe/RVD, I don't think as many people were jumping head over heels to see that. I liken it to the Sting/Angle match, which they had on TV, had people saying no one would ever see it again since they gave it away for free, even though their other matches after, at BFG and during the MEM thing, are more memorable and were still demanded. Bingo. Most people who say they would pay to see that match, More than likely will pay to see the rematch on ppv. RVD won the 1st one, Now people will pay to see how Joe will get his revenge if there is a rematch on ppv. A little over reaction IMO. Yeah I would. But the point is is how much more they would gotten if there was a reason for it and a built. The rematch will happen don't the line. But how this match came about. There is no story. Honestly the only advertising will likely be less then a week front page on the website. Like all impacts. The impact matches like these and like Angle vs. Joe was. Is something a successful company does. TNA does need ratings but they need money more. Which is why they should done this the same way they did Angle vs. Joe. To get where fans are paying. That the issue. The rematch will draw but there still that % that won't buy it because they saw it for free already. Also sell tickets wouldn't be as high for a rematch then it would a first time ever on a non Impact zone PPV.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jun 29, 2010 23:20:02 GMT -5
How strangely has RVD been booked in TNA? It's like he alternates between doing nothing at all for weeks and then has some out of nowhere awesome show like where he went through Jeff and AJ in the same night for the belt, or this July 8 show beating Joe and hitting the Van Terminator on Abyss.
The hilarious thing about that X Division match is that in another thread someone joked that Desmond Wolfe wouldn't be truly buried until he started jobbing to either of the Young Bucks....and on this taping X Division champion Douglas Williams actually does lose to one of the Bucks!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jun 29, 2010 23:21:30 GMT -5
The thing about the Joe/Angle match was that this was pretty much demanded since Angle came in. With Joe/RVD, I don't think as many people were jumping head over heels to see that. I liken it to the Sting/Angle match, which they had on TV, had people saying no one would ever see it again since they gave it away for free, even though their other matches after, at BFG and during the MEM thing, are more memorable and were still demanded. I get you and I agree with you on that, Angle/Sting was better with buildup at BFG than on Impact prior. But just because they can give away big matches on free TV for the first times doesn't mean that they should. RVD in TNA is an awesome situation because it gives the fans chances to speculate on all the matches RVD can have with all the TNA mainstays. What's the point of throwing out all their possible dream matches in short order when they can space them out over a year or so, making each match seem like a big deal. TNA already knows that no matter what they'll do the rating will stay the same. My only guess as to why they'd throw out this match on free television was to hopefully get a jump in the ratings. The only thing is, nothing they're doing is getting a jump in the ratings, and when they do get a small rise for a certain segment or two, time has shown that within a week or so the rating will be back to a 1.0/1.1. Having RVD vs. Brutus Magnus in a half decent match and RVD/Joe in a classic will draw exactly the same numbers with the only difference being that people will probably pay to see RVD/Joe on PPV as opposed to RVD/Magnus. Except that some matches, like when AJ and Angle faced off on the January 4th show, along with some others when AJ was champ, generated more interest than having just one of them faced a throw away opponent.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jun 29, 2010 23:28:07 GMT -5
Bingo. Most people who say they would pay to see that match, More than likely will pay to see the rematch on ppv. RVD won the 1st one, Now people will pay to see how Joe will get his revenge if there is a rematch on ppv. A little over reaction IMO. Yeah I would. But the point is is how much more they would gotten if there was a reason for it and a built. The rematch will happen don't the line. But how this match came about. There is no story. Honestly the only advertising will likely be less then a week front page on the website. Like all impacts. The impact matches like these and like Angle vs. Joe was. Is something a successful company does. TNA does need ratings but they need money more. Which is why they should done this the same way they did Angle vs. Joe. To get where fans are paying. That the issue. The rematch will draw but there still that % that won't buy it because they saw it for free already. Also sell tickets wouldn't be as high for a rematch then it would a first time ever on a non Impact zone PPV. Really, it's a bit of a jump to compare Angle and RVD. Angle came in right after his WWE run, while RVD was chilling out at home for a year or so. Plus, the hype for that was present right away when Angle was there, not really in the case of RVD.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Jun 29, 2010 23:28:40 GMT -5
I get you and I agree with you on that, Angle/Sting was better with buildup at BFG than on Impact prior. But just because they can give away big matches on free TV for the first times doesn't mean that they should. RVD in TNA is an awesome situation because it gives the fans chances to speculate on all the matches RVD can have with all the TNA mainstays. What's the point of throwing out all their possible dream matches in short order when they can space them out over a year or so, making each match seem like a big deal. TNA already knows that no matter what they'll do the rating will stay the same. My only guess as to why they'd throw out this match on free television was to hopefully get a jump in the ratings. The only thing is, nothing they're doing is getting a jump in the ratings, and when they do get a small rise for a certain segment or two, time has shown that within a week or so the rating will be back to a 1.0/1.1. Having RVD vs. Brutus Magnus in a half decent match and RVD/Joe in a classic will draw exactly the same numbers with the only difference being that people will probably pay to see RVD/Joe on PPV as opposed to RVD/Magnus. Except that some matches, like when AJ and Angle faced off on the January 4th show, along with some others when AJ was champ, generated more interest than having just one of them faced a throw away opponent. January 4th's Impact was the culmination of weeks of advertising the hell out of the episode. Angle/AJ on that show was just icing on the cake. For proof, the ratings went right back down after all the initial interest wore off and TNA failed to capitalize. What they should concentrate on is PPV buyrates as that's where the money is at. They don't have to give away PPV quality matches to build up to a PPV, they just need to present compelling storylines that people would pay to see conclude at the PPV. TNA has got this backwards, as they throw out all their big moments on Impact for anyone to see (and anyone is still the usual 1.1 or so who will watch regardless), rather than making PPV's seem special because they can just watch Impact to see something more important occur. Case in point, the RVD title change.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Jun 29, 2010 23:32:27 GMT -5
Yeah I would. But the point is is how much more they would gotten if there was a reason for it and a built. The rematch will happen don't the line. But how this match came about. There is no story. Honestly the only advertising will likely be less then a week front page on the website. Like all impacts. The impact matches like these and like Angle vs. Joe was. Is something a successful company does. TNA does need ratings but they need money more. Which is why they should done this the same way they did Angle vs. Joe. To get where fans are paying. That the issue. The rematch will draw but there still that % that won't buy it because they saw it for free already. Also sell tickets wouldn't be as high for a rematch then it would a first time ever on a non Impact zone PPV. Really, it's a bit of a jump to compare Angle and RVD. Angle came in right after his WWE run, while RVD was chilling out at home for a year or so. Plus, the hype for that was present right away when Angle was there, not really in the case of RVD. That doesn't mean that TNA shouldn't treat RVD/Joe as a big deal. It's their job to make you want to see a match, so what's the point of them throwing away the match with no buildup or for no reason, when they could have made something special of it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jun 29, 2010 23:33:51 GMT -5
Except that some matches, like when AJ and Angle faced off on the January 4th show, along with some others when AJ was champ, generated more interest than having just one of them faced a throw away opponent. January 4th's Impact was the culmination of weeks of advertising the hell out of the episode. Angle/AJ on that show was just icing on the cake. For proof, the ratings went right back down after all the initial interest wore off and TNA failed to capitalize. What they should concentrate on is PPV buyrates as that's where the money is at. They don't have to give away PPV quality matches to build up to a PPV, they just need to present compelling storylines that people would pay to see conclude at the PPV. TNA has got this backwards, as they throw out all their big moments on Impact for anyone to see (and anyone is still the usual 1.1 or so who will watch regardless), rather than making PPV's seem special because they can just watch Impact to see something more important occur. Case in point, the RVD title change. Really, say how TNA needs to focus on PPV all you want, and point to AJ/Joe as the proof, but you need to remember that it only affected that one PPV. It didn't really affect the next one, or the one after. The Lockdown one did better, but it cuts the whole issue of first time matches down, since it was their 5th time wrestling each other.
|
|