PeterHilton
-
Posts
4,281 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by PeterHilton
-
-
Here's the worst part: The show peaked with the first quarter-hour with a 1.31. the show dropped consistently throughout the remainder of the show with the final quarter-hour drawing a show-low .93 rating.
For those who don't remember, the final quarter hour featured a world title match between four of TNA's 'hottest young stars' (AJ/Pope/Wolfe/Abyss) and a bloody brawl with Hogan and Flair.
So no one is getting over. Not the names. Not the young guys.
Try reading the recaps sometime to get an idea of how much of the show is dedicated to skits and angles: they are just giant blocks of text with a two minute match to break things up every once in a while.
The booking is bad.
I fully expect for the Monday night move to produce a nice bump for the ratings, but it won't match the 're-launch' from a few months back. And if they can't keep the momentum in the following weeks- no matter how many RVDs and Jeff Hardys they add - it won't matter.
-
Haven't seen it mentioned here. But it looks like the final Thursday Impact did a 1.1 rating. So they're basically back down to pre-Hogan ratings. Moving to Monday's better give them a bit of a boost, or they've essentially killed all the momentum they had to start the year.
Yeah...that's horrible news for TNA. I saw that.
But honestly, nothing much has changed even with all the changes.
TNA has ALWAYS had talent. But the storylines have also ALWAYS been painful to follow.
They brought in a crapload of 'names' but haven't really done anything to tak advantage of them.
The Flair/AJ partnership and the Anderson/Kurt feud are the only thing that has been presented in a clear and understandable manner. Everything else? Same hot mess as before.
-
I;m just excited for tomorrow, I'm hoping they really cut out silly/trying to be cool or smart and just put on a great show using the talent and storylines in place.
BWAHAHAHA...wut??
It's TNA. It's going to be a hit or miss clusterf--- of overbooking, with several turns, a few big name appearances, and at least one match so good that it will make you wish the WWE would let their own workers go w/o all the restrictions of working a "WWE style."
I mean ..don't be surprised if you see a match that net fans will call a free tv MOTY candidate, but the show ends with Hogan turning on Abyss and forming a 'new nWo' with Nash, AJ, Flair, Foley, and OJ.
-
I agree with Lazor, but this is becoming a rebook wcw thread guys so lets not go there.
Well this wouldn't keep happening if TNA didn't have such a WCW in its dying days feel.
-
I believe he's saying that no matter what Fred Savage does, he's 'Kevin Arnold.'
No matter what Bill does...he's going to be 'Who's next Goldberg.'
I see the connection. I think one of the main reasons Goldberg can't bring more to the table is that he never wanted to. I saw a ton of interviews with him at his height of popularity and later whn he started appear in movies and you could just tell he didn't have the passion for the business that others have.
The very definition of a guy who went into wrestling because his 'real career' fell a little short.
-
To me he could easily have been Brock Lesnar. You know he's hella strong, but he can give you some minutes and work a decent match. Nothing outstanding, but you can vary the inputs and outputs.
I think you're giving Bill too much credit or Brock not enough. Goldberg could be carried to a watchable match...but he's nowhere near Brock in the ring.
Great look, great persona, decent amount of charisma...the gimmick was great but that monster push wouldn't have worked if Goldberg didn't play it so well.
I agree with Hyde though; Bill Goldberg really isn't bringing anything to the table if he goes to TNA. Of course...that didn't stop them from signing some of those other 'names' on the roster.
-
Yes....which was my point. He said that they gave Goldberg a push in WWE to show that they (WWE) didn't have bad blood with WCW.
My point: Why would the WWE care if anyone thought they had bad blood with WCW? They'd bought, burried and killed the company by the time they'd brought Goldberg in. So why would they push Goldberg to prove that there was no bad blood? That was my point.
Ah..I misread.
-
Why would they care? They'd bought WCW by that point right, so why would it matter if they had bad blood with WCW?
Wow. Either you know nothing about Vince McMahon or you didn't watch the E during the InVasion.
Pretty apparent they went out of their way to prove the the WWE wrestlers were better than the WCW "stars" they brought in.
-
I have a new favorite youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/scotthalltv
Scott Hall is a mess, but at least he owns it.
-
You're such a TNA fanboy at times you can't even admit that Batista gave a good promo. I hate Batista with a passion but it was a better promo then anything from a TNA ring that I have seen in quite some time. Angle started to give a nice promo the other week about the chain and then Mr. Anderson ruined it by making a complete mockery of the seriousness of tags. Back to the subject, Batista has an excellent promo for Batista and for anyone else cutting itNot so much to do with my TNA fanboyism more personal taste. It was good, was it great? Nope. Have TNA had promos of that level on average? With a few exceptions nope.
Batista gave a really really good promo that probably came off so well because there was a lot of truth there at it's heart (not that Dave is jealous but he's clearly been in Cena's shadow and as a competitive professional, that would bother him at some level)
Also..I personaly REALLY really liked the Angle/Anderson stuff. Very effective Face/Heel interaction imo
-
Love the show logos.
Any chance you're going to use your special effects trickery on some of the bigger CVerse companies?
-
English well ok Mickie was over before the McCool crap
Yeah...no. I'd have to agree with lazorbeak on this: Mickie James was in a total rut, was boring as hell, and her character had been reduced to 'generic good guy who gives the fans high fives.'
The McCool storyline is the single most interesting thing she's done since she was Trish's stalker.
-
So I tuned in to SD last week and I'm baffled why the James/McCool feud is even still going on - what was the point of the seconds-long squash match and the whole "face divas all come down to humiliate the heels with cake" thing, if that wasn't the blowoff?
More annoying is that the crowds wre practically BEGGING Beth Phoenix to jump in and take both Mickie and Michelle out and then the writers completely wasted that heat by having her join McCool.
Beth could be the most over female on both shows and would even be entertaining as a 'unified' champion...not sure why they haven't pulled the trigger on that yet.
-
I just truly hope they don't main event 'Mania. I mean, it was bad enough last year when the best match of the night wasn't the main event but having those two close would be disastrous, I think. If Taker-Michaels II doesn't main event then the WHC match should.
I'm like a billion percent certain it's going to close.
Cena vs Batista for the title with McMahon and Bret at ringside? those two are going to have to dig waaaaay deep to put on anything close to what HBK/Taker and Edge/Jericho should deliver but I fully expect the last real image of this year's Mania to be Hart with Vince in a Sharpshooter while Cena celebrates with the fans.
-
Good episode of Raw right here
Batista/Cena exchange is solid. I would've lost it if Cena said, "Dave, maybe you'd be a bigger star if you stayed healthy longer than 3 months"
-
From what I understand, it's an hour long episode of Epics centered around the X Division (like an episode of Forensic Files probably) followed by Impacy.
-
WCW reached the absolute high that it did thanks largely to EB, but the downfall was largely down to him and his arrogance as well as WWE's much improved product - the bullet that killed WCW though from a creative standpoint was the departure of EB and the hiring of Vince Russo as head booker as that's when ratings really began to tank and talent really got wasted. Really when you think about it the only good to come out of WCW was their rise to the top, but once they got there from the position they were in at around 1997-1999 they just pissed it all away through poor booking essentially, starting with the nWo mismanagement. Though I imagine it's difficult to book a product when your top stars have total creative control over their character, and some have crazy ever rising contracts which they didn't deserve.
Mostly agree with you. I just think the downward momentum was so bad that I'm not sure Russo did anything more than hasten the descent.
He was awful...but really even if the booking was great they were so upside down financially that good booking may only have extended the life of the company a year or so.
Don't know..it's an interesting what if.
-
One thing The Death of WCW got right was the assertion that Jamie Kellner ultimately is what killed WCW. This is the man that also canceled Animaniacs and Freakazoid, he is made of evil.
Bischoff didn't do it, Russo didn't do it, the booking did not cause WCW to go out of business.
I'm sorry but that is completely wrong imo. And the ending of that book is a total cop-out.
Bischoff did do it. Russo did do it. The booking did actually cause WCW to go out of business.
You can't blame a TV executive for making a sound business decision. It wouldn't have mattered who was in that position; the fact that WCW had lost more than half their viewing audience, was losing more than a million dollars a week, and had buy rates that were dipping below a 1 means that any TV executive in their right mind would've taken heat for NOT cancelling the show.
The people running WCW were responsible for giving TBS and AOL/TW all the reason in the world to kill the company.
If WCW was still turning a profit, still getting good ratings, and still doing good PPV numbers then no one at Turner would've been able to justify cancelling the show, bias towards wrestling or not.
-
I'll say what I say every time somebody gets released: stop sucking, Charlie. It's that simple. Be more entertaining, make people want to watch you, and they'll put you on TV. Obviously Charlie didn't convince creative that people wanted to see him, and so he's gone.
You have to remember that you don't represent the entire WWE universe. You represent you. You were entertained by Charlie Haas? Great...so was I, actually. Obviously not enough people agreed with us. WWE management has access to a lot of information (ratings, merchandise sales, viewer feedback, etc.) that we don't. Trust me, they have a much better idea what people want to see than you or I do. If people want to see somebody, they're going to use them.
That's way too onesided. In general you make a great point about the marketing and research side of things, and the fact that the WWE has access to a ton of feedback that we, as your basic internet wrestling nerd, wouldn't but let's face it....they have not beeen infallible.
The WWE has made mistakes before on who to push and who is over. Wrestlers have had their pushes derailed by backstage politics, which wouldn't happen if it was as simple as "if people want to see somebody, they're going to use them." (and the opposite is true too: wrestlers with good relationships in the company had jobs loooong after anyone cared whether or not they were on the roster)
It's just too easy and the writing team has proven themselve to be far too inconsistent to say something like: well Charlies Hass was released which therefore means he must not have been worth putting on TV.
Hell, from a traditional wrestling perspective it's not a good idea just because having a seasoned hand like Charlie around to work house shows and dark matches with the younger guys would be as valuable as having Finlay or Regal on the main shows; maybe moreso becaus Charlie is closer in age.
-
Love Monty too. Another guy who got shafter because Jarrett wouldn't give up his spot.
-
And yeah EB does tend to put too much blame on others, but the whole Time Warner and after that AOL merger really did hurt them in a lot of ways.
How? I mean..yes there were corporate considerations that may have changed the product, but I find it hard to believe that AOL/TW had anything to do with driving the nWo into the ground, botching Sting/Hogan at Starcade, wasting Bret, wasting Goldberg, burying the midcard talent, burying Flair and the Horsemen, incomprehensible booking, etc.
All those things had more to do with WCW's failure than anything Time Warner did.
-
You're right about this particular misquote, but Eric in general comes off as a self satisfied prick who refuses to admit a single mistake any time he talks about the WCW/nWo era.
I mean..when he's asked about 'losing' the Monday Night Wars he inevitably comes back with some variation of 'Turner/Time Warner lost the war' or 'if it hadn't been for corporate policy' or 'there were decision made that were out of my hands' yada yada yada
So I've completely stopped caring about his perspective on things from that time period.
He had a big hand in taking the hottest, most popular, most talent laden wrestling company in the history of the industry and running it straight to sh*t. So he loses all crediblity by blaming that failure on AOL?Time Warner.
-
I also find it interesting that Bischoff would take John Cena, Randy Orton, and Chris Jericho from WWE if he had the chance. Even though he claims Jericho can't Main Event.
To be fair though, it's not as if the WWE has ever treated Jericho as a bonafide, franchise level, let him run with the ball, main eventer either.
He's treated FAR better than he ever was in WCW, but his character is more of a storytelling device for the top faces to play off of and a transitional champion.
Never quite gotten that Triple H/Rock/Cena treatment though..
-
I do wonder how much of an effect that really had. I mean, he headed back to the WWE where he was clearly not going to be a top star. If even the WWE told him in negotiations that he was going to headline the ECW brand for them, how much does that really mean? To me, it could've been moreso that being the no10 star in the WWE meant more than being no3 in TNA.
Beyond that, I don't see how Christian could've been completely happy with his run in TNA. He was another victim of Jarrett's propensity to focus the shows on himself regardless of what fans actually wanted to watch.
Christian won the title, had a mini-feud with Monty Brown (on his way out of the company) then spent two months in a feud with Abyss that was definitely portrayed on TV as being 'less important' than the JJ/Sting mega-feud.
So Christian was RED HOT when he signed with TNA, even HOTTER when he won the belt a few months later, and then nothing more than a subplot a few months after that when JJ wins the title back (because he was never really booked as THE man in TNA) and then he really is nothing more than a footnote a few months later when he turned and helped JJ beat Sting for the belt.
At least if you're a jobber to the stars in the E, you're making more money and jobbing to bigger stars than Jeff frickin Jarrett.
The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread
in The Dog Pound
Posted
Here's the thing (and I hate that I'm starting to sound overly negative because I'd love to see TNA succeed) : you made a lot of great points, but everything you've said that's a problem FOR YEAAAARRRRRRSSSS.
It's not like this stuff all just cropped up because of the new regime.
Too many angles and too many convoluted and pointless plot twists? See almost every episode since Impact went to two hours.
What's the point of The Band vs Nash and Young? See What's the point of The Maffia vs The Frontline.
Pointless Jarret story that no one cares about? See Pretty Much TNA's Entire Existence
Even the good stuff...like 'the Hernandez/Morgan break up' has been repeated ad nauseam. TNA has it's tag teams break up and feud constantly and BOTH guys were already in a position to main event LAST YEAR.
(you pushed them down the card to move them up the card???wtf??)
It's so frustrating. So incredibly frustrating.