PeterHilton
-
Posts
4,281 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by PeterHilton
-
-
Pretty sure we need a WCW thread since the TNA thread turns into one every 10 pages
Not our fault. Similar roster. Similar problems. The biggest players are involved in both. Kinda hard not to make the comparison
It would be like reviewing Ocean's Twelve and not mentioning Ocean's Eleven.
-
Not to stray too far off TNA, but shawn michaels 82 has a point
They were in line to lose over a hundred million dollars that last year. No way Turner keeps the business going if that continues.
I supposed the "continues" part is debatable...
-
Jesus Christ, don't interpretate all so damn literally. The rest of the post was the most important and no one talked about that! XD Of course i know they won't be closing the doors tomorrow or next year,etc etc...that was an ironic matter of speaking...but the rest of the post is correct! Turner would keep feeding WCW...but eventually he would have to pull the plug unless he wanted to ask for a morgadge on his house. LOL. So even if the merger did not happen, WCW would be out of business nowadays and some guys who entirely blamed the merger back then, will have no excusses for failing now, wheter that failure includes goign out of business or simply not overcoming WWE . That's my point!
Actually a very good point. F'n sick of hearing EriC Bischoff respond to every question about WCW with "corporate maneuvering radarada Time Warner radarada never lost the war radarada grmmblemmble "
-
I think the most important here is that when TNA is out of business (that will not take long)
From a strictly business standpoint they should've been out of business years ago. So I really don't think you can assume they'll be going out of business anytime soon.
They were bleeding money for years before Dixie stepped in and convinced her dad to finance the whole thing.
So as long as daddy supports Dixie's pet project (which might be a while; wouldn''t make sense to cut her off now that TNA is actually profitable ) and Spike is giving them a outlet for their shows ( again...might be a while; Spike is dying to compete with USA and they see TNA as a major piece in that battle) they won't go "out of business"
It might take a catastrophic loss of viewers for that to even be considered.
-
Am I the only one who is enjoying the Nasty/Dudley feud? Good god it's the like one of the last dream feuds left. The only other Dudley match I'd want to see is impossible (vs Road Warriors)
Yes. For the most part. And you must've been a huge Nastys fan back in the day because I've never considered them on the level of any team where I would consider anything they do ever to be a 'dream match.'
The rating? Un-****ing-surprising. WWE is heading towards the biggest show IN THE INDUSTRY and they had STEVE AUSTIN. Also bare in mind, people were paying attention to the 1st show because well it was the 1st one. And it was taped... Ect. Largest reason has nothing to do with anything y'all are bitching about, because the defacto reason is TNA has no brand name recognition. Dixie Carter is right, it's going to take time and commitment. So long as TNA has that, it doesn't matter what rating TNA gets for the moment because eventually it'll improve.This might make more sense if it weren't for the fac that TNA's ratings are actually dropping from their own ratings at the Thursday position.
And for years - come hell of high water - that number was pretty steady. TNA is losing its own fanbase. And that fanbase was pretty loyal. Which means it probably shouldn't be as affected by counterprogramming.
-
Totally agree.
TNA is the guy who spends weeks and weeks working up the courage to ask out the hottest girl in class, and then walks up to her, gets nervous, and pukes all over her new sweater.
-
Yeah its always hard analyzing ratings as you actually need minute by minutes or at least segment per segment to see what people tuned out to and what made people to keep watching.
How about this for analysis?
More ratings notes:
* Monday's Impact rating of .84 is the lowest rating for Impact since November of 2006. Back then, Impact was airing in a late-night Thursday timeslot, not in prime-time.
* Not a single quarter hour segment of Impact reached the 1.0 mark. The highest rated segment was the fourth quarter hour (9:45PM ET-10PM ET) which featured the Beautiful People, Hulk Hogan calling out Sting, and RVD appearing. The segment drew a .96. It's probably worth noting that the Beautiful People were also in one of the highest rated segments of Impact last week.
* After the .96 in the fourth quarter hour, every segment dropped in the ratings all the way up to AJ Styles vs. Jeff Hardy doing a show-low .72. The overrun saw a slight increase up to a .74.
* TNA lost 15% of the audience they opened with, going from a .87 opening quarter hour to a .74 for the overrun.
I know..it's piling on.
-
Damn what is with the ME scoring so low. People seriously preferred to see a contract signing over AJ vs Hardy? Bad rating but kinda expected with Stone Cold around still also seems the TNA faithful so to speak are turning their backs.
Hyde..that's a bad assumption. it's not that viewers CHOSE Hart/McMahon over AJ/Hardy it's that that segments leading into the main event didn't give them any reason to stay tuned.
And going back..was there any reason to believe that match would be given proper time, or end without some kind of intereference? The one thing WCW proved is that bad booking eventually does drive viewers away.
So that even when good stuff happens, no one is willing to have faith and stay tuned.
-
UPDATED: WWE Raw and TNA Impact Ratings
Posted by Larry Csonka on 03.16.2010
Lots of new ratings details in including how AJ Styles vs. Jeff Hardy did...
UPDATED: RAW did a 3.71 rating last night off hours of 3.68 and 3.73 and averaged 5.60 million viewers, an overall increase of 10% in viewership from last week. RAW's first hour (which drew 5.57 million viewers) was the most viewed first hour since August 4th, 2009, while hour two (5.63 million viewers) was the most viewed second hour since the January 4th RAW.
Impact did a .84 rating off hours of .88 and .80 and averaged 1.1 million viewers, an overall decrease of 21.4% in viewership from last week. Impact opened with a .84. In a very troubling sign for TNA, the AJ Styles vs. Jeff Hardy main event was the lowest rated segment of the entire show with a .72 with the overrun doing a .74.
Credit: PWTorch
i said this the last time I made a post about their ratings: NO ONE IS GETTING OVER
Not the old guys. Not the young guys. No one.
And that -more than anything - is the sign of terrible writing and terrible booking.
You can sit here and debate how the Nasty Boys are 'big names' that fans can recognize or how the 'young guys are being featured' or how 'EB is a genius and knows more about wrestling that you internet fans' or how 'AJ is a great heel now' all you want...
TNA is losing their viewers. Period.
What they're doing isn't working. Period.
And as a someone who has tuned in semi-regularly for the last few years, I have zero faith in this creative team that they are going to figure out that 'less is more' anytime soon.
Man for man, I truly believe TNA has the more talented roster, but most weeks Impact is a dumpster fire.
I don't care if it's not original. I don't care if people are tired of hearing it. You don't even have to compare TNA to the WWE. They are not doing well, even if you are comparing them to their own ratings from a few months back.
TNA is losing their viewers. Period.
What they're doing isn't working. Period.
-
Is Kozlov a face or a heel?
At end of ECW he was a face I think but last week on Raw he beat up Cena, and didnt show any hesitation like Mark Henry did. Or is Kozlov a tweener?
I think they're betting on the fact that no one watched ECW and ignoring continuity.
big angry russian = heel
-
Pretty Good RAW but no stunner?
My thoughts exactly.
-
Sorry, but you can't ask people to be reasonable and then say stuff like "TNA is 10000000X more entertaining than wwe"
Both shows have issues. But while the WWE's problems seem to involve being way too conservative, TNA goes in the total opposite direction.
So the E comes off as predictable and boring.
But TNA comes off as a hot mess that just slaps random **** together half-assedly, turns characters for no reason, drops storylines w/o explanation and (in general) is trying to do way too much.
It's a train wreck. With brief glimpses of brilliance.
-
Woah, ECW 2.0, what was that rant all about?
Take a look at his post history. He's one of those "RAWR TNA can do no wrong" guys that call anyone who disagrees with him a WWEtardlolzz!!!! and makes actual TNA "fans" look goofy.
It's fine.
-
lol some of you act like u really know wrestling its really funny to read things that people who have only watched wrestling and play tew say tna needs to do im sure eb knows what hes doing and trust me TNA is 10000000X more entertaining than wwe but really all of you smarks get a life i mean try getting friends or get out a little bit theres more to life than what you watch on wrestling and im glad eb dont listen to any of you nerds about "what he needs to do"
-
lolwut?
This Abyss push is comically bad. I just...it's wrestlecrap worthy.
-
Love the Gorgeous George induction. Love hearing Bert Sugar talk about him.
-
the promo was meh and the follow up was Nasty Boys match where they teamed with Jimmy Hart.
Done with TNA for the night.
-
Yeah I get that but when Bisch uses expletives to make that point, plus the fact he has been pretty straight so far on his facebook and Meltzer's general bias against TNA I ain't buying it. Plus other equally reliable sources reported the morale to still be good although they where slightly disappointed at the rating. A well not that it matters. If it ain't on PWI I don't buy it even if it is true lol and even PWI isn't infallible.To be fair though, company reps are never going to say they are 'devastated' by the ratings their show got the first night of it's permanent move to oppose the opposition....
There's no way they were happy with that rating.
Sorry...what brash said still applies. There's absolutely no way anyone involved with the company wasn't disappointed by the rating.
That doesn't mean you throw in the towel or anything, but it had to hurt. And to be honest...TNA hasn't put on a show that deserves to be getting ratings.
All the things they did that turned off fans before: the hotshot booking, ignroring the younger guys for retreads, not having enough actual wrestling, the segments where 17 things are happening at once...
It's not getting better. The stories are the same, the faces are just more familiar.
-
The Lesnar situation is abnormal, as it wasn't WWE releasing Lesnar, it was Lesnar asking for his release. This meant that WWE could (in their minds) ask for any additional clauses (i.e. 10 year no Wrestling / MMA compete clause) that they wanted.
And man were they wrong.
-
I thought the 90 day clause only applied to companies with exposure? I believe London, Colt, and Chris Harris all made appearances with other companies soon after their releases, without complication due to the lack of tv exposure ... I could be wrong on the circumstance, though.
No I think you're right. I've read here and there that it only applies to companies with national TV or DVD distribution in the states.
When the Lesnar case was in the courts there was some extensive reporting done since a lot of the WWE contracts were entered as evidence.
-
So is there a 90 day no compete if the worker's contract expires?
IIRC Christian allowed his WWE deal to expire and walked away and still had to wait the 90 days to sign with TNA. So I'd yea..it's just a standard clause the performer has to abide by.
-
I'm not sure if anyone here would actually know this or not since it has to do with WWE contracts but its been discussed before.
When someone is released they have a 90 day no compete clause. People don't realize just how many companies out there have a similar thing.
My question is they do get paid their downside for those 90 days right? Their not being forced to sit at home without income coming in for 90 days right?
They probably are, in most cases.
I'm going based on the fact that these contracts are usually bought out. Which means the WWE owes a lump sum to the performer to end the contract early. That sum fulfills the E's olbigation and the 90 day is just a clasue in the contracts that's enforced like any other part of the contract the worker agreed to upon signing.
I'm not explaining it correctly, but I guess my point is this: if the performer agrees to the no-compete, then they have to abide it as long as the WWE fulfills their end of the deal (even while cutting them loose early) .
-
Anyone mention the Impact replay rating scored a 1.0 as well? That's impressive.
It could also be another sign that TNA has a hardcore faithful group of fans...and that's it.
-
Also does anyone think we might see Paul Heyman in TNA alongside RVD ? He'd be great in a creative consultant role. Who better for the creative team than to pick Paul Heyman's mind ?
No. Doubt it. He dislikes Russo, hate Eric's guts, and has shown zero interest in the business since he lef tthe WWE.
The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread
in The Dog Pound
Posted
I used to think that too. Now, not so much. And definitely not in terms of the current TNA product.
In a wrestling based fed that highlighted the X Division? He's an absolute stud who can work good matches with wrestlers that have a variety of styles and comes off as a legit bad-ass
In TNA's sports entertainment fed of today? He's a tubby guy of average height with limited marketability and just so-so mic skills.
They'd be better off pushing Morgan, Wolfe, and The Pope.
Haha...what? No fan anywhere is obligated to do a f***ing thing for TNA
They have a major cable TV slot and a billion dollar energy company bankrolling them: they need to market themselves better and put out a more appealing product.
See? You say this, and yet...the numbers don't bear that out.
TNA's own fanbase is pulling away since the Hogan/Bischoff re-launch.
And I hate to say this: but just because the Net fans of the world dump on the WWE, does not mean that it's a 'bad product.'
It just appeals to a different - much larger, and much more reliable - audience.
It's like with movies: who cares if critics say the plot is bad when the movie is shattering box office record world wide?
As far as most people go, the WWE IS synonymous with wrestling. Welcome to 2002.
You're right. It IS real to you. lol
EDIT: and re-read that last paragraph. Because everything that you're 'accusing' the E of doing is exactly what TNA wants to do.
They are NOT a wrestling company. They are an angle based sports entertainment company. Are you watching the same shows I am? They want to do the exact same thing the WWE is doing; they just don't have the same talent behind the scenes to make it work as consistently.
All the TNA fans who are hoping for a return to Total Nonstop Action, and a bunch of X Division matches should just quit now and watch ROH because TNA is not doing that any more: They have a crapload of angles, a bunch of short matches (which are actually more like angles anyway), most of their matches end in run-ins, and maybe MAYBE one decent match of the night.
All their stuff pushes to the PPV where we actually get to see wrestling.
OH yeah..nothing like the WWE. And definitely a million times more entertaining.